A homeowner who retained our services to investigate his mortgage loan just recently scored a major victory in US District Court in Oregon in Barnes v. Chase Home Finance.

Our investigation revealed that the borrower, Timothy Barnes, had the extended right to rescind his loan under TILA/Regulation Z due to material disclosure violation by the original lender. We assisted Mr. Barnes in drafting the appropriate notices to rescind his loan and he subsequently elected to send the notices and rescind.

At the time the first notices were sent, Chase Home Finance was the servicer. Chase failed to respond appropriately to the rescission notice. Chase subsequently decided to transfer servicing to IBM Lender Business Process Services. Notice of Chase’s failure to rescind and/or respond according to the requirements under TILA/Reg. Z was provided to IBM. IBM also failed to respond according to the regulations and refused to rescind.

Mr. Barnes subsequently drafted and filed a Pro Se complaint in federal court. Chase and IBM have been playing games in this case and they filed a Motion to Dismiss (predictable). The federal magistrate assigned to the case seems to have a real bias for the banks and handed down a terribly misguided decision dismissing Mr. Barnes’ claims. He objected to the magistrate’s jurisdiction and essentially appealed the woefully wrong conclusions.

Judge Anna Brown analyzed the issues, pleadings, etc. and handed down a near complete reversal of the magistrate’s decision. Her brief has since been published on WestLaw and multiple legal databases since it so complete. She goes into great detail on the actual law which we stand on in this case.

CLICK HERE to get the slip copy of her brief published in WestLaw. It goes through the entire history of this case in great detail along with her reasoning and findings.

This is a major score for the homeowners in Oregon especially but really all over the US. I have been saying for years and years that TILA Rescission is a complete defense to foreclosure and provides the most comprehensive remedy to a homeowner when PROPERLY applied.

The key issue is that most attorneys do not truly understand TILA Rescission and really don’t know how to apply it and argue the elements. That’s ok if they have an expert like myself helping them but it’s so important for homeowners to understand that TILA Rescission is an excellent tool to fight with when you have the statutory right to rescind.

The other problem I have seen though is that most of these “forensic auditors” out there who are not experts, many, if not most are actually scammers, and the few who aren’t an outright scam have no clue how to properly apply the elements of TILA rescission and analyze the issues to elicit if the homeowner has the right to rescind. In fact, I have seen many many cases where the homeowner thinks they can rescind but really don’t have the right under TILA to do so.

Yes, there are instances where fraudulent inducement or fraudulent concealment or mortgage fraud may provide for a claim of common law rescission but that is completely different from TILA rescission. It’s important to have an expert truly analyze your loan.

For Tim Barnes, way to go. Great victory and anxious to see how this case progresses now that we have a real judge involved who cares about the law. Way to go Judge Brown. It’s refreshing to see a judge who takes the time to understand the issues and truly cares about applying this consumer protection statute properly, without bias.

Here are some reports and excerpts from other sources regarding Congressional Insider Trading:

Forbes

You want strict ethics rules? Start at the top — with the shining example of the noble knights of the House of Representatives, which bans all gifts from lobbyists and imposes a $50 limit on gifts from anyone else. And no, you can’t give an infinite number of $49 gifts to Larry Lawmaker. Sayeth the holy rulebook.

Okay, so maybe you can give an infinite number of $9.99 gifts, and meals are specifically designated as such. Feel free to make your case to Rep. Portentous over a daily lunch at Arby’s. But still: pretty tight rules, eh?

Except that one thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.

Doesn’t that give you a cozy feeling, knowing that nonpublic securities info is helping make your friendly local politician more secure as he daydreams new ways to prevent, limit, or appropriate for his own reelection purposes – sorry, the needs of the Republic!– your financial success?

Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—Chris Miller nearly doubled his $3,500 stock investment in a renewable-energy firm in 2008. It was a perfectly legal bet, but he’s no ordinary investor.

Mr. Miller is the top energy-policy adviser to Nevada Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who helped pass legislation that wound up benefiting the firm.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid’s office, initially defended Mr. Miller’s purchase of shares in the company, Energy Conversion Devices Inc. He said the aide had no influence over tax incentives for renewable-energy firms, and that other factors boosted the stock.

Mr. Miller isn’t the only Congressional staffer making such stock bets. At least 72 aides on both sides of the aisle traded shares of companies that their bosses help oversee, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of more than 3,000 disclosure forms covering trading activity by Capitol Hill staffers for 2008 and 2009.

The Journal analysis showed that an aide to a Republican member of the Senate Banking Committee bought Bank of America Corp. stock before results of last year’s government stress tests eased investor concerns about the health of the banking industry. A top aide to the House Speaker profited by trading shares of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in a brokerage account with her husband two days before the government authorized emergency funding for the companies. Another aide to Republican lawmakers interested in energy issues, among other things, profited by trading in several renewable-energy firms.

An analysis of financial-disclosure forms for 2008 and 2009 compiled by the website LegiStorm shows that several hundred congressional aides bought or sold stocks. At least 72 traded the stocks of companies their bosses write laws for.

A number of aides invested in financial stocks. Karen Brown, an aide to Sen. Mike Crapo (R., Idaho), a Senate Banking Committee member, traded Bank of America stock on seven occasions in 2009, according to filings. She bought a total of between $3,003 and $45,000 of the bank’s shares in three trades on April 17 and April 27 and sold between $51,002 and $115,000 in September. Her minimum gain during that period would have been 43%.

At the time of the purchases, Bank of America was discussing with the government the findings of “stress tests” used to gauge the safety of U.S. banks. On May 7, 2009, BofA shares surged when the stress-test results were made public, easing investor fears.

After it was contacted by the Journal, Mr. Crapo’s office said the trades were made by Mrs. Brown’s husband, “independent of any direction from Mrs. Brown.” The office said Mrs. Brown has since filed an amended financial-disclosure form.

Terri McCullough, a 41-year-old aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had several successful trades in 2008 in a Charles Schwab brokerage account with her husband, Howard Wolfson, a former spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Mr. Wolfson says he bought about $2,000 worth of Freddie Mac and $2,700 worth of Fannie Mae on July 11, 2008, just two days before the Fed authorized emergency funding to Freddie and Fannie. Mr. Wolfson says he bought the stock after reading a news story on the possibility of the U.S. taking over one or both mortgage-finance companies.

As the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi was briefed by the administration and Treasury Department officials about the steps they were taking in the financial crisis. Ms. McCullough served as Ms. Pelosi’s chief of staff, though she focuses on social issues and matters concerning Ms. Pelosi’s San Francisco-area district.

In one day Mr. Wolfson bought and sold Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae shares as the stocks jumped about 40%, for a profit of about $2,000, he said. The couple made a total of $20,000 on trading in 2008, he said. Mr. Wolfson says that he made the trades on his own, without telling his wife or getting any information from her.

Ms. McCullough said: “I was not involved in discussions regarding Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, and I was unaware of the Bush Administration’s or Congress’s plans regarding them. I do not make trades and had no knowledge of the trades my husband made in 2008 until after they were made.”

READ MORE

 The Atlantic

When Congress isn’t sending billions in taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street firms, some of its legislators appear to be using information unavailable to the general public to personally profit on stock trades.

So says a study just published in Business and Politics. A portfolio that imitates the stock purchases of House members outperforms the market by more than 6 percent in the course of a year, its authors found. “A previous study of the stock returns of U.S. Senators in a leading finance journal indicates that their portfolios show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” they wrote. “Until now, there has been no similar study of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Now we know that from 1985 to 2001, the specific interval used to generate the data, senators do the best, House members follow, and the average American investor brings up the rear.

I like his writing style… this article is a fun read, while somewhat tragic, when you understand what is and has been happening in our country. It is also highly instructive and articulates well many of the pertinent issues in this foreclosure scam around our country – which is nothing more than the seizure of homes and wealth in a massive transfer of money and property to the 1%.

While I don’t agree with everything going on in the Occupy Wall Street protests, I do identify with the 1% vs. the 99% concept. It is a reality nonetheless in this country. While Obama and his cronies are trying to use the protests as political currency to create some illusion that they support these people, their policies, when laid bare, simply enforce, support and exacerbate the 1% vs. the 99% issue which is nothing more than “someone” deciding that they can transfer anyone’s money or property to “someone” else. This is wrong  - whether it’s accomplished through fraud or through governmental policy – tax policy or otherwise.

Government’s role is and should be to protect all players in our system from fraud and should be focused on ensuring the system is free from manipulation, fraud, misrepresentation and such. Then, true capitalism and the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit of Americans can thrive and do what “we” do best. Some will get rich and deservedly so. Some will become poorer because they want to be lazy or maybe because they have no such aspirations to innovate, thrive or ‘get rich’. Either way, the freedoms our country was founded on will create a dynamic, thriving place for all of us to live in where opportunity to create wealth and decide your own future will, once again, rule the day.

Enjoy this fantastic article. Thanks Gregory!

Dividing the Mortgage Loan and Affirming the Consequent
by Gregory M. Lemelson 

Background: A post Ibanez world

In January the Massachusetts supreme judicial court held in US Bank National Association vs. Antonio Ibanez that a note holder may not foreclose on a property in order to redeem a debt, if they are not also the holder of a valid mortgage (that is to say also with a valid assignment). We outlined the details of this case and its implications in our article “Ibanez – Denying the Antecedent, Suppressing the Evidence and one big fat Red Herring” on January 11th, 2011.

The issue before the SJC in Henrietta Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association and Green Tree Servicing, LLC is whether the assignee of a mortgage security alone (fraudulent assignments aside), without any direct or indirect interest in or claim to the underlying debt, can seek to recover the debt through foreclosure.

Oral arguments in the case were heard on Oct. 3rd, 2011.

It is important to note that in Ibanez, the SJC was not willing to overturn long standing legal principles simply because of recent “innovation” in the way banks chose to record their security interest in real property (e.g. MERS), or because of the extraordinary liability such a ruling would have on what basically amounted to four years of mostly illegal foreclosure activity in the Commonwealth.

The Ibanez article published last January predated Eaton by some ten months, and since the SJC reviewed Eaton “sua sponte”, there was no way to know at the time, that Eaton would make it all the way to the SJC, so the following comments taken from the article are perhaps prescient:

” It is possible that from the banks perspective an invalid assignment of the note is the more serious concern for the following reasons:

1. Without first having proper ownership of the debt, the bank can not initiate any collection activity, let alone foreclosure.

2. Notes (ownership of the debt asset), may be subject to further contention in bankruptcy proceedings where many creditors have a vested interest in the assets of a defunct mortgage lender, particularly since these notes are often sold in bankruptcy for a fraction of their face value.

3. The trusts that are supposed to contain the validly conveyed notes will in fact, not actually contain them (because they are not bearer paper), thus violating the representations and warranties made to investors who purchase these securities. Therefore, it is unsecured debt, and potentially, no debt at all upon which to collect payments.

6. Even if the notes obtain a valid conveyance, or confirmation of conveyance at a later date, it is still may be impossible to place them into the MBS’s:

a. It will have been longer than 90 days (the typical expiry period to transfer assets into the trust)

b. If it is a foreclosure matter, the loan is in default (the PSA’s do not allow for the addition of defaulted loans)

c. Any effort on the part of the trust to insert old or defaulted loans would jeopardize the trusts favorable REMIC status – thus further harming already impaired returns.”

As pointed out in the Ibanez article, clear title to the property is important. If the assignment of the mortgage is invalid, then there is a “cloud on title”. The banks recognizing this, brought Ibanez before the land court of their own volition in order to clear this “cloud on title”. One of the key mistakes counsel for Eaton made, perhaps in their effort to establish the more serious problem of legitimate possession of the note, was overlooking the validity of the Mortgage assignment, (still incredibly important) which, as with most securitized loans, was so clearly fraudulent (see Amicus brief of Marie McDonnell). Incidentally, this was of particular interest to the court during oral arguments, however, because the issue was never raised by Eaton’s counsel in its complaint, it could not be addressed by the court. Thus the opportunity to cite the authority of Crowley v. Adams 22 Mass. 582 (1917) which concerned the fraudulent conveyance of a mortgage without a note, was lost. Within the context of discussing the assignees knowledge of the fraud, the court held:

“[the assignee] should be held to have known as to each transaction, the possession of the note was essential to an enforceable mortgage, without which neither mortgage could be effectively foreclosed.” Id. at 585.

This was a error on the part of counsel, and eliminated a potential fifth source of authority in Eaton, as we wrote in January:

“1.If there must be a perfected interest in the mortgage (according to MA law) at the time of foreclosure, then how many foreclosures have taken place in Massachusetts with the same profile as Ibanez, and are thus invalid?

2. Clear title is important – In the statement of the case, the banks actually brought the complaint before the land court as independent actions in order to “remove a cloud on the title” – thus the banks recognize that such defects are a problem for future conveyance. All MA homeowners should be worried about the same (discussed further below).

3. To foreclose on a mortgage securing property in the commonwealth, one must be the holder of the mortgage. To be the holder of the mortgage, the bank must:

a. Be the original mortgagee

b. Be an assignee under a valid assignment of the mortgage

c. It is not sufficient to possess the mortgagor’s promissory note (bearer paper). Apparently most if not all securitized mortgages were endorsed in “blank”, in other words to the bearer.

4. The notice requirements set forth in G.L.c. 244, ss 14 unequivocally requires that the foreclosure notice must identify the present holder of the mortgage. This likely was not the case in past foreclosures in MA. For future foreclosure actions the question is can the real mortgage holder be found and will they cooperate in assigning the security interest?

5. Assignees of a mortgage must hold a written statement conveying the mortgage that satisfied the statute of Frauds or even the most basic elements of contractual requirements.

AG Coakley acknowledges that “the securitization regime was required to conform to state law prior to foreclosing, to ensure simply that legal ownership ‘caught up’ in order that the creditor foreclose legally in MA. The lenders, trustees and servicers could have done this, but apparently elected not to, perhaps on a ‘Massive Scale’ ” Saying that they “could have done this” within the context of MA law is one thing, within the context of IRS tax code, or NY trust law, is another.”

Further the article points out that a holder of the mortgage without the note, really only holds the security instrument in trust for the debt holder (thus anticipating Eaton), as pointed out in the following taken from the Ibanez article:

4. The holder of the mortgage holds the mortgage in trust for the purchaser of the note, who has an equitable right to obtain an assignment of the mortgage, which may be accomplished by filing an action in court and obtaining an equitable order of assignment. If the average MBS has 5,000 notes for example, then we have to assume 5000 separate actions would have to be filed in court to ensure they are truly “Mortgage Backed Securities”, and that is only if the REMIC status isn’t jeopardized by such a revelation or action.”

However, the impasse for banks is the fact, that even if the court recognizes the authority of MERS to assign the mortgage to the foreclosing entity (usually the servicer), the following conditions still must be met:

a) The assignment must still be a valid assignment (most are not)

b) There must also be a valid assignment of the note to establish who exactly owns the debt.

The vast majority of these loans were sold into securitization trusts and are merely endorsed “in blank” (if they can even be found in the trust at all). Most schedules attached to the trust documents include little or no information on the details of the particular loans (as was the case in Ibanez), or sometimes include the address of particular properties, but no information on the barrowers, or curiously the loan amounts. Other failures include post-dated or otherwise invalid notarizations, and fraudulent signatures etc., which are all suggestive of fraud.

Given this, to speak of Eaton merely as a question over the validity of MERS and its assignments is incorrect. Even if Eaton is not affirmed by the SJC, the issue of validly conveyed notes, remains of vital importance.

That having been said, we believe the Appellants chances of prevailing are precisely zero, or maybe less. Taken together with Ibanez, this means serious problems for the bond holders in these securitization trusts and their bank administrators. With all the nuance of every day speak we could muster, we think it is put best by saying just; some of the debt-servants might escape. That isn’t to say that all measures won’t be taken to try to prevent this outcome.

On contemporary Pheronic thinking and the Pyramids that debt-servants build

We believe that this situation lends itself to the possibility of violence, as tragic an outcome as that is and would be. On June 3rd, 2011 we published our follow up to the Ibanez article entitled simply “On the ethics of mortgage loan default”. Four days later, the Essex county registrar of deeds John O’Brian, who we quote in the article, stopped recording fraudulent mortgage assignments (which many if not most are). It seems logical that this would be a “wake-up” call to the average homeowner, particularly since other registrars are prepared to follow suit. With the registrar’s decision, it has become a fact that title may no longer be recordable and ownership is in question. As it turns out, the homeowner who faithfully sends in monthly mortgage payments for years or decades (in an effort to “do the right thing”), may have no more clear ownership rights in the related property than a perfect stranger.

As the article “On the ethics of mortgage loan default” spread throughout the Internet with countless links and references, we were surprised to find comments that included (not unlike the allegory of the cave) the desire that the author “be shot”. We were equally surprised when the Hacktivist group “Anonymous” (which was not our target audience either) featured the article prominently in several of their sites.

It has been said “the rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender”. Perhaps in our Naiveté, we did not understand the sensitivity around the suggestion that a servant might want to be free one day. Nor did we recognize that the powerful human inclination to denial might elicit more than just a passive reaction. Like the prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all – later puts their life in danger from those who remain in the cave. Yet, the source of the light is truth and intelligence and those who would act prudently must see it.

These implications give rise to powerful questions in the current context. One such question regards the difference between a debt and a moral obligation? Why do we confuse the two so often in our society? Such that those who seek forgiveness of debt, are made to feel as if they are violating a moral code, or a cultural taboo? Perhaps the explanation lies in a more clear definition of the two. A moral obligation is something that can be forgiven with some flexibility, there is hardly exactness involved.

A monetary debt on the other hand can be calculated with the accuracy and immutability of math and the related science of accounting, and grown with the power of compounded interest, and therefore, in proper monetary debt, exist the possibility of subjugation in perpetuity, or at least for the entire natural life of the debtor.

Oddly, our society adds insult to injury in this failing of human civilization, and as if this dreadful revelation were not enough, adds on top of these accurately calculated and compounded financial obligations, the fallacy of a moral obligation, and in so doing the debt-servant is made to feel guilt regarding his moral character as well as his failure to pay.

When this sleight of hand is wedded to exhaustion (a pre-existing condition of many debt-servants), the odds of one actually fighting back against such a system, corrupt though it may be, are only minute. It must have been a genius who figured out that slavery with chains is inefficient. If a human could be conditioned to believe he is a free man, when he is not, and that already disillusioned he might be convinced that he is also a rich man, when he is not, then chains and their related complications are wholly unnecessary. All that is necessary then is to lower his idea of freedom and wealth substantially, and provide him with cut-rate imitations.

Under these circumstances, the average man would in fact work extraordinary hours, even if his paycheck was essentially diminished to less than zero by his existing debts (thus requiring him to take on new ones), and if by chance he was able to save, those funds too would be safely transferred to the hands of strangers (through “innovations” such as 401K’s, which could be convenient deducted from his paycheck electronically and instantly). These strangers are there to help the debt-servant loose what meager savings might be possible through sub-par investments (like internet stocks) which he never understood, but which is broker was always paid for trading.

Notably, this shell game can never be revealed to a debt-servant, because then he would understand that he is not really a free man, even though the real law is “…not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts”, and yet this inclination of the heart is often resisted, even with violence. Nonetheless, In this law of the heart lies “a desire” which is so great that it over powers all other human constructs, including offensive debts.

In this respect, surely a few folks in Europe must have believed that the entire trade in chained slaves made the United States look like an economically and operationally primitive bunch – for the cost of that variety of servant is actually much higher, and had a far smaller pool of candidates, namely those with a particular tint to their skin. Yet, telling someone that they are inferior based merely on the color of their skin is a hard sell year after year. Conversely, telling someone they are free, when they have never tasted real freedom because they were born into debt, is easier to maintain, because it deals with more subtle issues, and the likelihood of confusion with moral obligation, and exploits the power of human denial.

The earliest evidence regarding market places and trade indicate that if you have something to sell that is of far lesser value than you are indicating, than it is wise to have the greatest physical distance possible between yourself and your counterpart – for in such a trade lies the inherent possibility of a violent reaction to the discovery on the part of the unsuspecting buyer, particularly when accurate accounts of credit and debt are kept and ruthlessly enforced. Some of the oldest recorded documents in history are of this variety; they are surprisingly, accounts of credit and debt. Perhaps human history is really a history of subjugation then. Cultural anthropologists are quite familiar with this idea of credit and debt in (even ancient) market places. It’s an old story. However, Americans are bread as consumers, not as economic or cultural anthropologist, because in that knowledge rests power, and power, by definition must belong to a coterie. For the greater the number of those subdued, the greater the power of the few who would subdue, just as with money, power deals only in transfers.

That is why the average American home owner is not allowed to have the true owner of their mortgage debts revealed – they are the counter party to an impolite deal. In these trades great profits were made, and in the pricing of the assets, great misrepresentations regarding intrinsic value. Wealth destruction therefore is a misleading expression in describing what happened; the accurate term is wealth transfer. During the housing “Pyramid” (this term is far more accurate than “bubble”, because it accurately describes an order) one of the greatest logical errors of all time was sold; that the intrinsic value of a home, which had within it the possibility of calculating (accurately) fair price was tied instead to a hyper speculative measure, that which is inherently impossible to price with any degree of accuracy, and which is immaterial; our notion of an ideal. As one might imagine, no price is too high to live an “ideal” – think of it as a seller’s paradise. After, a difficult stock market collapse, and an even more difficult terrorist attack, why would anyone be interested in mere stocks or bonds? After all the very place where these electronic slips are traded was very nearly destroyed. This new investment was allegedly concrete, and also patriotic. Americans were led to believe they had “…discovered a pearl of great value”, the only security whose price could never go down – it was like a “Dream”, like an “American Dream”.

However, when loan documents were to be signed a new broker suddenly appeared. Without any forewarning, with a name that was not before heard, or with anyone who had actually seen him, or understood how he operated, he made a subtle but powerful arrival on the scene. His name is Mr. MERS, and he instituted even greater secrecy than stock brokers and fund managers. Few have seen his physical appearance, or pulled back the curtain, it’s uninteresting anyways, because Mr. MERS is nothing more than a relational database, which only a very small fraction of the world’s population have access to (even democratically elected bodies, such as county recorders have no such access). He brokers the movements of trillions of dollars in capital. He is a construct of your trading partner, and because of his existence, you can never have a “level playing field”, or hope of a fair trade. In this brave new world, the requisite distance that precedes a bad trade, is no longer a measure of geography, it is a piece of software.

With this surreptitious matrix of relational database fields safely in place, how are all those houses, like so many stone blocks cut by ancient hands, turned into a pyramid? The answer seems self-evident; through a pyramid scheme naturally.

How would a contemporary mass exodus from such bondage look? Just as Fannie Mae and Green Tree divided the essential components of their security, It might look like ordinary debt-servants parting and dividing a sea of concrete, and traversing the depth of high rise buildings in New York, just as “by faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land”.

The people in New York are criticized for their lack of direction, the fact that they appear to be lost in a veritable desert – but they are free, and in their hearts live an almost child-like innocence that we should desire to have. After all, their predecessors spent a good deal more time lost, and through it discovered a greater revelation, one that would lay the foundation to ultimate answers.

The popular accounts promulgated by Adam Smith and the contemporary science of modern economics as we were made to understand them, rely on more than one myth regarding the engineering of debt, and its related instrument – money. These underlying misrepresentations give rise to the possibility of great abuses, for the very nature of trade, and all else which rests upon it is thus misunderstood.

There are many reasons to despair over the future of our fragile state in the US today. However, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is not one of those reasons. By upholding the rule of law, and observing the incredibly important, and notably democratic foundations of land recording practice in the commonwealth they serve as a beacon for the rest of the country to follow and impart hope. This comes at a time when such hope is in scarce supply. If it is God’s will, than the light of wisdom handed down from prior ages on this point will shine through the darkness that has been created by corrupt forces. We can only hope.

A Road Map for Homeowners: Four Authoritative Guidelines

In Massachusetts law there exists four authoritative guidelines by which property may be foreclosed upon in order to redeem a debt (Five if Crowley v. Adams is included from above). Incidentally division is not a problem for these four authorities, for they stand equally well alone as they do in combination as requirements to validly exercise the power of sale of real property. Both the spirit and the letter of these sources are echoed in laws of other states, and as such can be taken as fundamentally universal. They are as follows:

The Common Law and the problem of Division

In Summary Eaton dealt with the following three realities of long standing Massachusetts law:

1. The assignee of a mortgage with no claim to the underlying debt cannot foreclose.

2. A mortgage separated from the debt it secures has no value in and of itself; it can only be held in trust for the note holder (naked title)

3. The trust relationship implied for the benefit of the note holder does not empower a mortgage assignee to foreclose as a “fiduciary” at any time.

It should be offensive even to the casual observer that in the case of Eaton, as would be the case for most home owners today, a valid promissory note memorializing the debt was and is missing. Who held it at the time of the foreclosure, how they obtained it, and what relationship they had if any to the appellants was and is still unknown.

Although a photo copy of the note was produced with the typical “endorsement in blank” markings, the appellants provided no document or other information indicating when the note was endorsed or who held it either then or now. The required assignments between intermediaries were never produced. Interestingly neither of the defending entities offered any testimony or other evidence in either court action to resolve these all important questions or otherwise identify the holder of the note. However, they did concede, that it was not the foreclosing entity Green Tree, LLC.

Conceivably this is because they do not know, and they do not want to know, and maybe they would even like to forget. Perhaps the note it is evidence.

Not surprisingly counsel for the appellants, despite this revelation, argued that the whereabouts and history of the promissory note was “irrelevant” and that they were entitled to foreclose nonetheless.

After a careful review of the full history of the mortgage foreclosure law in Massachusetts, as well as the related statutes and appellate decisions, The Superior court didn’t exactly see it that way – determining that no decision had ever overturned the established common law rule that a mortgage assignee must hold the note in order to enforce it through foreclosure.

Needless to say, this is of great concern to the banks, as predicted in the Ibanez article (cited above). Given the audacity of their claims, we believe it is reasonable to assume these folks would, if given the opportunity “send an orphan into slavery or sell a friend”. It has been difficult and time consuming to discover that notes were sold multiple times into multiple trust, thus creating a out-and-out pyramid of securities, upon which even more derivatives could be sold. However, something even more simple and obvious has been taking place in broad daylight, something peculiar that has been overlooked – the awkward problem of entire houses being stolen, by folks who have categorically no financial interest or otherwise is the properties.

Since this is the direct opposite of “The American Dream”, possibly the moniker “the American Nightmare” is appropriate.

Taking a step back, it is awful to consider that GreenTree, LLC had no interest in the debt, no interest in holding the property pre or post foreclosure, and had no material interest in the entire affair whatsoever, and yet they were the entity which sought to foreclose (or steal). Does it not appear as Les Trois Perdants with GreenTree, LLC acting as a shill?

For centuries promissory notes and the mortgages securing their repayment were held or assigned together. The separation of these two instruments, until recently was an anomaly and exception. Albeit no longer an anomaly, but rather the general business practice of approximately the last ten years, the SJC reaffirmed in Ibanez, that a trust implied by operation of law gave the note holder the right to sue to obtain an equitable assignment of the mortgage (U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011) – which implies surprising possibilities (e.g. every note allegedly held in every securitized pool, would have an individual and related suit to perfect it’s claim). Implications aside, the court’s ruling established nonetheless a method by which the note holder (the person to whom the debt is owed) could be empowered to collect payment.

Incidentally, long before the bifurcation of the notes and mortgages was ubiquitous, this operation of law was periodically challenged by mortgage assignees who believed that they, as “mortgagees” could simply foreclose in their own names. However, since the 19th century, and as pointed out above, the SJC has ruled otherwise. In a series of decisions it articulated the rule that a mortgagee who has no interest in the debt underlying the note cannot conduct a foreclosure, insisting instead that that right is reserved for a holder of a valid note along with a valid mortgage.

Green Tree, LLC and their Government handlers suggest that the parts of the whole, when taken independently have the properties of the whole. That is to say in this case, that since the mortgage contains the power to foreclose, the mortgage must have with it all the powers of the note – this proposition is patently wrong, and is the fallacy of Division. The instruments may function properly together, but have incomplete authority independently – and that is exactly what long standing statute (as outlined below) has upheld.

In Summary, Ibanez brought to light that banks holding only notes have only an unsecured debt – that is to say one that could be negotiated like any other. Eaton, on the other hand brings to our attention something of far greater importance; namely that a holder of a mortgage alone (even if validly assigned), without proper ownership of the underlying debt, has in fact nothing.

Call us speculators, but if SJC affirms the lower court’s decision we have a funny feeling more than one banks share price might be adversely affected.

In the end, suggesting independent authority of the mortgage, regardless of any concern for the note or the debt is just a bad argument – it’s not only “Division” it is also a great candidate for the “Non Sequitur” argument of the year award.

GreenTree, LLC – Affirming the Consequent

A thorough discussion of Massachusetts foreclosure law can be found in Howe v. Wilder, 77 Mass. 267 (1858). which resolved a foreclosure dispute by holding that a mortgagee, without the note, could not foreclose on the mortgage.

The court goes on to elaborate that because the party who would otherwise seek to foreclose was owed no debt, he cannot recover possession:

“For in pursuing such a suit [the party] has only the rights of a mortgagee, and is limited by the restriction imposed upon him…if nothing is found due to the plaintiff, it follows by necessary implication, from the provisions of the statute, that he can recover no judgment at all; none to have possession at common law, because that is expressly prohibited; and none under the statute, because where there is no condition to be performed, there can be no failure of performance, and no consequences can follow a contingency which in nature of things can never occur.”

Suggesting that by being an assignee of the mortgage, encompasses the right to foreclose is simply “Affirming the Consequent” and is just another logical fallacy.

MGL 244 § 14 and the Straw Man

Bifurcating the note and the mortgage was an extraordinary circumstance when the legislature decided the subject laws. At the time these laws were ameliorated there was no reason to explicitly delineate between the debt and the mortgage instrument securing it. To argue, as Green Tree has, that the term “Mortgagee” as used in MGL 244 § 14 means also “naked mortgagee”, (a mortgage holder not having any interest in the underlying debt) is a “Straw Man”. This suggestion overlooks the historical context in which the law was authored, the rise of the mortgage securitization industry, its related practices and the compulsory changes to recording which has taken place over the last decade. It is to overlook the privatization of land records that (as far as we know), no elected official or law maker had blessed beforehand.

If Green Tree’s argument were accurate, they would not assign the mortgages to third party servicers at all, and rather continue to foreclose in MERS name (more efficient) as had been the practice until several states supreme courts ruled against it, citing the fact that MERS had no economic interest in the mortgage, which is “but an incident to the note” or “a mere technical interest” (Wolcott v. Winchester) – this of course reaffirms the spirit of the law which Henrietta Eaton asserts in her complaint.

In particular the court stated that the assignee of a “naked Mortgage”:

“…must have known that the possession of the debt was essential to an effective mortgage, and that without it he could not maintain an action to foreclose the mortgage.” Wolcott v. Winchester, 81 Mass. 462 (1860)

Despite all of this, the bright idea of the securitization industry was to simply transfer the mortgage instrument to the servicer – a related party, sort of.

If Eaton is not affirmed by the SJC, we might as well make Three Card Monte our national pastime and get rid of baseball altogether. In such a scenario handicapping the future of the US economy and the ability to affectively and profitably speculate in the CDS market will be “duck soup”.

The authority of the UCC codified at G.L.c. 106

Because the common law involves a great deal of common sense, it just so happens to be mirrored in the Uniform Commercial Code. In particular G.L.c. 106. Article 3 of the UCC governs the negotiation and enforcement of negotiable instruments, including promissory notes secured by mortgages. Section 3-301, like the common law, provides that one must hold a (valid) note in order to validly enforce it. This rule serves the purpose of protecting consumers and barrowers against the very real possibility of double liability created when a debt is enforced. As in the current matter, Green Tree, LLC or any other mere mortgagee (even if they could get a valid assignment), would have no power or authority to discharge the actual debt. Thus if the operation of law were in any other capacity than it currently is, the mortgagee could foreclose on a property, while the debtor would still be left with a valid debt outstanding to an entirely unrelated party.

This lends itself to the requirement for transparency. During the oral arguments before the SJC, one justice asked why it mattered if the homeowner knew to whom they owed their debt. The answer is that homeowners have an important role to play in the outcome of the final settlement and discharge of their debt, and are above all the most interested party in ensuring that their payments are in fact reducing the outstanding principle balance as they are made. Otherwise, they may as well be directed to make their payments to any random stranger. It is absurd to suggest that a debtor be required to simply make payments to anybody who asks for it. That is to suggest that he is not only a debtor-servant, but also a mindless sheep – then again, perhaps that is the desired outcome.

In fact the entire matter may only be possible in a non-judicial foreclosure state, for if it were a civil complaint for the collection of an amount due, than would the debt instrument itself not be scrutinized as a first priority in the proceedings? Perhaps small unimportant questions like who actually owns the debt and is bringing the action would be relevant under such circumstances.

The authority of loan contracts

In the end, the entire action by Fannie Mae and Green Tree, violates the very contract which is being disputed. Even if no other statues or laws had operated or ever existed, Eaton’s argument would survive on this one point alone – and Eaton is not unaccompanied – she stands with some 60 million other homeowners in the US with virtually identical contracts.

In the case of Eaton standard mortgage loan documents were used, and they essentially all look alike. The terms of Eaton’s mortgage contract, as with virtually all others, authorizes only the note holder to exercise the power of sale. The one concession Green Tree, LLC made was that they are not the note holder and have neither argued, nor provided evidentiary support for the claim, that a foreclosure by anyone other than the note holder was necessary (not that it would be possible).

A bitter Fruit: Double Liability

It has been said, “By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?”. No, because “every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit” . Is Green Tree’s lawyer actually advocating that homeowners should just rely on the banks and servicers to be “nice guys” and not go after the debtors twice? It is already known that certain elements in the industry were willing to sell the same note multiple times into multiple pools which given Burnett v. Pratt, 39 Mass. 556 (1839), presents interesting problems for RMBS investors, who were essentially their business partners. If the architects of these systems can sell the same note twice, to their own business partners and customers, why would they not try to also collect twice from their debt-servants, who rank many orders below business partners and real customers?

If the severity of compound interest is not enough, the result may be plan “B” – “doubling up” where needed.

If the fact that being named on a valid mortgage is not sufficient to authorize a foreclosure, than automatically the question becomes who holds the note? The answer to the latter question is a bit more serious, for in the answer lies a good deal more than the banks would like to reveal.

Does greed have rational limits? It does not and it cannot because greed is not rational to begin with. Since nobody knows how the foreclosing mortgagee would actually go about paying the note holder, are homeowners to rely on a system of document management (which usually involves an Iron Mountain truck, and a whole lot of paper shredding) to ensure that debt-servants are set free if they ever pay off their “debts”?

Did barrowers really sign up for that when they signed their mortgage and note? If not, when and where are the limits?

It’s only a matter of time

Homeowners must examine the assignments on their mortgages and notes. If a foreclosure is imminent, a preliminary injunction should be sought in order to have an opportunity to examine the documents thoroughly and also to give time to the SJC to issue its ruling – Jurisprudence matters. When the final Eaton ruling is taken together with Ibanez, there will be a sea change – it’s only a matter of time.

It seems reasonable that in a world where bandwidth intensive videos can be encoded and uploaded over a high speed 4G network from the New York Stock Exchange and on the Internet in 30 sec. using a smartphone with 64 gigs of memory (that can fit on a SanDisk card the size of your fingernail), and join billions of other files that have highly accurate GPS data embedded in their metadata, that finding a note for multiple six or seven figures debt and bringing it to court with you would really be no big deal – but apparently it is.

Foreclosures that took place before Ibanez, likely involve an assignment of the mortgage which is invalid because it would have been assigned post foreclosure (as was the common practice at the time), thus invalidating a huge number of existing foreclosures.

For foreclosures or those facing foreclosure in the post Ibanez era, than it is highly likely that the assignment of the mortgage is both invalid and fraudulent, as Mrs. McDonnell so accurately points out is endemic in most registry of deeds. If it’s the note than that servicers intend to rely on, they may need to dream up a new strategy, because those are all “missing” as we see in Eaton. New strategies it seems are now in short supply.

A few more questions and thoughts

The “pump and dump” is as old as “market places” are. Whether it’s a street vendor in morocco extolling the virtues of his wares he wants to sell, or a the salesmen of shares in Netflix and Linkedin at impossiblele valuations – this “pump and dump” technique often is done with considerable misrepresentations, which result in artificially high prices for a time, and makes true price discovery impossible for buyers.

If you’re on the wrong side of the transfer, as a buyer of such stocks or bonds, you would have claims against the salesman – it’s called securities fraud. Now this ‘old time’ operation has been executed in the real estate market as well, and real estate, although most people don’t think of it this way, is also a security just like any other (it’s really not the American Dream, as has been sold – because as pointed out above, when something goes beyond the parameters of a mere security, to that of a “dream”, no price is too high). Just like stocks, these securities were pumped, and then dumped (but only after the related CDS’s were purchased by the architects).

What’s being described is an activity based on fraudulent misrepresentations, like most other such schemes. The “Pump” part involved a lot of paper shuffling, so that when the “dump” took place, the profiteers could not be easily identified. The same is true today. That is why debt-servants are not allowed to know their lender-masters – because it is the beginning of the paper trail, and as any certified fraud examiner will indicate, it all starts with the paper trail.

By focusing the attention of the court and the people on the intricacies of the letter of the law – even though they are wrong at that as well, the banks are taking attention away from the more obvious question, which is why? Why fight to interpret the law that way? That is the real question: Why. Why not produce the note. Why not reunite the note with the Mortgage?

Why would notes go missing? These are not credit card bills, they are documents outlining typically multi-six figure sums, or seven figure sums in some cases. Isn’t it logical that these documents would be kept in a safe place? And tracked? How could so many notes just disappear?

Why would the SJC and the American people at large not be alarmed by entities who foreclose on a property and yet have no idea who actually holds the debt?

The securitization process, in which so many notes were resold is subtle, but complex and riddled with a taxonomy that makes it as understandable as a foreign language to the casual observer. Yet, more careful scrutiny reveals that there is nothing even vaguely sophisticated about it’s operation.

The business of taking homes without any debt being owed is so obvious and simple so as to lend itself to denial. For example, one member of the SJC panel actually asked the attorney for Eaton why the barrower needed to know who owned the debt that they were paying? We thought maybe it was a joke – sadly it may not have been.

Yet, we know that notes have been sold multiple times into multiple pools and trusts, thus creating multiple creditors.

Any consumer should want to know if there debt is actually going to be discharged, and in order to know this, they would have to know who the actual debt holder is.

These debts are not secured. They are negotiable. This week alone, there was talk of bankruptcy proceedings for Eastman Kodak and American Airlines, Friendly’s, after more than 80 years in business, including operating during the last depression, actually did file. As commercial entities, they will be allowed before, during and after bankruptcy to work with their creditors in a completely transparent way.

Why is the average American expressly forbidden this simple aspect of business dealing? Though they entered into such obligations at far greater disadvantage than their corporate cousins?

It is clear that by introducing multiple parties that there are conflicting incentives and interests. It was surprising that the SJC brought up inadvertently during the oral arguments that the lender may have contractually sold their rights to have any say whatsoever in negotiations with the debt holder.

It is now well established that the servicers have the greatest financial incentives to foreclose, and apparently answer to no one, perhaps not even the lender, who nobody appears to be able to find.

The following question regarding Green Tree, MERS and the Eaton case are worth asking:

- Why would they go to such great lengths to keep the “lender” or holder of the debt in “secret”? What is there to gain? Would it not be much more expeditious to just reunite the note with the mortgage and then foreclose?

- Foreclosing with just a mortgage used to be an anomaly? But now it is the rule – what changed? Why would lenders take such an extraordinary risk with trillions of dollars?

- Does the claim that the notes are “lost”, or “missing” seem credible in light of the extraordinary technological world we live in?

- Is the imbalance in power between the home buyer (as signer) and the lawyer (as author) of the contract important? 99% of home buyers had no clue what they were signing – their attorney’s didn’t understand the assignee aspect of MERS or how it functioned either.

- Why would the servicer hide the debt holder? Why go through all of this trouble? Is it because it is really the US government by proxy of Fannie and Freddie?

- Were the notes used in a pyramid scheme? Were they sold multiple times intentionally in order to accommodate increasing degrees of leverage that the derivatives market required to sustain itself?

- What is the size of the global derivatives market which rest (at least in part) upon RMBS securities?

- Are RMBS pools really “Dark Liquidity” or simply “Dark Pools” and is that why MERS is necessary?

A final note on reverse transfers

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts servicers in possession of mortgages only (which is basically all of those who represent securitized notes) are barred by common law rule, by statute, by the Uniform Commercial Code, and by the terms of the mortgages themselves from conducting foreclosures. If they have already done so, those foreclosures are void. We believe these principles do and will extend beyond the commonwealth eventually to all of the US.

The reason the banks are fighting this is because there exists a very real fear that homeowners stuck with inflated debts, which are the equivalent to indentured servents, might actually gain some negotiating power to settle these debts, at prices which not only reflect the prudent risk management which should have taken place in prior years, but also the related and more realistic asset prices which should have prevailed at the time of the original transactions.

From a purely business point of view, the asset prices were inflated, and the average home buyer with a home loan vintage 2002-2007 had little or no choice in the setting of those prices. However, there is another group who did, and they were writing “loans” and selling them as fast as the CPU and the RAMM on MERS’ servers would allow them (thankfully cloud computing, with its superior ability to process data, and elastic memory and bandwidth wasn’t yet widely used).

Yet the securitization industry and their very elite and very wealthy captains are not having any of that – because it is a reverse transfer. To be a debt-servant is to be the servant of another man by force. Humans are not designed or built for that – that is a construct of an unfortunate human condition, which we should want to change.

How a mortgage payment can be made with fidelity every month into a authentic black hole, and the attendant psychology which enables this behavior is beyond the scope of this article. The Common Law, the MGL and UCC and even the contracts themselves make it clear though, if a mortgagor expects a discharge of the debt, they need to know who exactly they are paying.

Taking a step forward requires some courage, but less than those who have taken to the streets in NY, Boston or other cities – they are doing really hard and courageous work. Not paying a mortgage in light of the a priori evidence cannot even qualify as an act of civil disobedience. The average homeowner and mortgagor is not called to such a high calling in this instance – they are merely called to follow the mundane laws of the land which have been set down for over 150 years. It is just simple prudence. It is the lack of denial, and a willingness to recognize the truth, no matter how unpleasant. Participation in the system as it is, while concurrently declining to examine the issues intelligently is not defensible.

Paradoxically the hand of the strong which moved to Divide (the notes) and Affirm (title interest) – when taken in God’s hands, has destroyed (the notes) and preserved (the legitimate ownership).

So I get a personal check from another person today. Her check was written from Regions Bank where she banks. So Regions Bank is close to me and I drive there to cash the check… of course, I park and walk inside to do my deed because I know I’ll get ugly stares from the teller at the drive thru if I try to cash the check being a non-Regions Bank account holder along with being told to come inside anyways. For the record, I used to have my accounts at Regions Bank but they nickel and dimed me to death and I swear every employee of theirs goes through “How to Piss Off Customers” training while riding those stupid green bikes.

So anyway, I walk in to cash the check and walk up to the counter, give the teller my drivers license and signed check. He comes back to me in about a minute and says, “sir, are you no longer a Regions account holder?” I say yes, that’s correct I left your shitty, thievin bank two years ago. No, I didn’t really say that… I just nodded and said yes, no longer an account holder. He says, “sir, you’re gonna have to go see that lady over there at the desk so she can fingerprint you before you can cash this check.” No foolin, he really said it just like that. I guess I had that look of criminality but I was clean shaven and I think I smelled alright.

So I go see this fingerprinting bank policewoman. Her name is Rosaria. I say, “hi, the teller said I need to come see you to get my fingerprints to cash this check.” She says, “sir, I’m busy I’ll be right with you.” So much for that nice, warm fuzzy feeling…So I sit down in the chair at her desk area. She looks at me like I’m invading her space and then says “sir, you need to remove your hat inside the bank.” (I was wearing my Tampa Bay Lightning hockey hat with pride). I said, “what?” with, I’m pretty sure, a look of WTF did this lady just say to me? Not a question… no, it was a demand.

She says in a more stern peed off tone, “sir you need to take that hat off inside the bank.” I said, “are you kidding me? I have have NEVER been inside a bank where I’ve been told to remove my hat.” She says, “sir, you need to take the hat off now for your security and mine!” What? Do you think my hat is going to assault you, you crazy woman?

I said “this is freakin ridiculous I cannot believe you’re actually serious.” I take my hat off in compliance and protest while trying to rub out the hat head I know I have. She must be feeling really good about herself now, embarrassing a potential customer.

So now, as if this isn’t enough, she now says, “I’m gonna have to call the account holder to see if she has authorized this check.” I said, “what? are you kidding me? I’ve cashed checks at banks for decades where I’m not an account holder and I have never been told to remove my hat and then you gotta call the account holder to see if this is legitimate. I’m giving you my stinking license, I’ve removed my hat as if I’m some criminal so you’re bank cameras can get a good shot at my hat head and now you want to call the account holder? What if she doesn’t answer the phone?”

She says, “sir, if you’d just be patient, let me make the call..” So she makes the call, gets voice mail, leaves a message. Then she calls her colleague in crime in the next office over on the phone and wants colleague to see if there are any other phone numbers on file for the account holder. Nope, only that one phone number. So she looks at me with disdain and says, “sir, I’m sorry but I need to talk to the account holder before I can cash this check, if you’d like to wait out there…”

I interrupted her mid sentence and by now I’m sure my face looked criminal and I about leapt over the desk to grab the check and my license and stormed out saying “forget it lady, I’ll go to my friendly community bank where I have an account and cash it there…”

True story. Could NOT believe it. Still don’t. Leave Regions if you bank with them, PLEASE! They completely suck ass. Bank of America too… Wells Fargo and Chase too now that I think about it.

Seriously, go to a local credit  union or community bank. Just pull YOUR money out of these suck ass institutions, let these shitty employees get laid off when they start to go under and give your business to a bank and employees who actually care and don’t treat you like a criminal. Un-flippin-believable.

No, believable now that I think of it. I’m going to go into that suck-ass branch once a week with the biggest damn hat I can find and just walk around for a few minutes and tell Rosaria how much she needs to get a life – and a new job.

Want to know what I’m talking about? CLICK HERE. (by the way, don’t put in your email address… just click the link below the email address field to go to the main site. Obama would love to have your email address…)

Can you believe this site is “Paid for by Obama for America” – get a life (and a new job BHO). Paid for by American taxpayers is what it should say because this is the truth… We’ll make sure you get a pink slip in November 2012 and can’t use taxpayer money in attempts to silence (the taxpayers).

These idiots really think they can push American Patriots around! What is exciting for me is that this bonehead is really (and finally) galvanizing Democrats and Republicans alike! He’s bringing centrist, moderate Americans together again! Amen! Keep it coming BHO. You just keep being yourself with your cronies. You think Jimmy Hoffa Jr. intimidates me? Think again… You think Eric Holder, George Soros, Lisa Jackson, John Podesta, Tim Geithner, Chuck Schumer or anybody else like these socialists mean anything to a hard working American Patriot? Think again.

You’ve declared war on regular Americans. You’ve abandoned the core of this country and we are going to deliver a stunning blow to your machine in November 2012. You will not silence me and you will not silence a patriot in any state, of any color or of any particular belief. We bleed red white and blue and we will bleed to protect our country and our freedom of speech.

Thank you for waking us from our slumber BHO and your band of socialist liberals. Thank you. America will be great again because of you, in spite of you. Peace out.

Here’s the link for you to take (literally) ONE MINUTE of your day to do YOUR PART: http://signon.org/sign/do-not-support-the-florida?source=c.url&r_by=533269

Folks, if we aren’t willing to take a minute here, a minute there to voice our collective dismay and outrage over these types of practices, then we are truly lost as a country and you might as well get used to being a servant and a pee-on. Seriously. We either stand together or we will all lose separately and in our own ways. The money-hungry, greedy elite are making their moves now and in serious ways. Get it now or forever lose your voice.

http://signon.org/sign/do-not-support-the-florida?source=c.url&r_by=533269

Just click the link, voice your outrage in a couple sentences and hit submit. If you can’t do that then go read the bill word for word.

This story just flat pisses me off and makes my blood boil… the damn federal government wastes BILLIONS every year and one could make the argument that we waste BILLIONS every day fighting other people’s wars, allowing fraud and corruption to run amuck throughout every level, nook and cranny of the massive bureaucracy in our federal government; yet, these snakes at HUD don’t even have the decency to figure out how to keep a 101 year old woman in her home who got a reverse mortgage? Incomprehensible… and I still want to know how they foreclosed and booted her to the sidewalk on a reverse mortgage! Reverse mortgages are supposed to be due and payable upon the senior’s death… Texana is still living!

I would like to encourage every reader of this story to send HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan a scathing email! Let him have it with every bit of emotion that this story builds within you! Seriously folks, don’t hold back and while you’re at it, let the communist OBAMA have it via a carbon copy of that email. I won’t even give Obama the respect of calling him President anymore, he’s just an idiot occupying space for 14 more months.

Here are the two email addresses for you:

HUD Secretary: Secretary.Donovan@hud.gov
Barack Obama:  Oh yeah, I forgot, BHO is too exalted to give us servants his email address, CLICK HERE to submit a form with your message.

All of you in government need to go. You let stuff like this happen on your watch and you deserve to be thrown out in the street. Why does this happen? Because you have let the bank executives get away with crime after crime after crime. As a regular citizen, I would have gone to jail years ago for the same crimes the banks and politicians have committed over and over and over. Shame on all of you. I’m disgusted and I can’t wait to see you thrown on your backsides in November 2012!

Watch in horror:

If the bank or servicer or trustee commit fraud in the process of trying to foreclose, they deserve every sanction they get for that which could and maybe should include the extinguishment of the deed of trust or mortgage. That’s for the court and jury to decide, case by case.

But this soap box argument that dismissing a foreclosure case or finding in favor of the homeowner or against the servicer is NOT the same as giving the homeowner a free and clear house. Let’s just be clear and be able to articulate this point when in court and this issue comes about because it is this exact sentiment that I believe causes judges to skew their rulings because they truly think their ruling will amount to a “free and clear” house.

CLICK HERE to shop the store! Please give us your feedback…

News flash: it was never about the American taxpayer or homeowner. The lies are so bold-faced these days it’s shocking. They literally couch the entire TARP bailout and HAMP program as protecting Americans and our “way of life” and then in the same breath implement programs that do the exact opposite and protect the antithesis of the “American citizen.”

Watch and be shocked (or maybe not so much…)!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Journalist Maxwell wrote:
Bondi wasn’t even in the state.
She was in Kona, Hawaii.
Bondi was attending a meeting of the Conference of Western Attorneys General, an organization comprised of “the chief legal officers of 15 Western states and three Pacific territories.” (Someone needs a new map.)
Bondi’s staff said taxpayers paid only the conference’s $625 registration fee.
Before Bondi makes another trip to Hawaii, she needs to provide better answers about what’s happening in her office here in Florida — and make things right.
And the state needs to stop the revolving door that taxpayers not only fund, but which often ends up smacking them in the face.
smaxwell@tribune.com or 407-420-6141
(read more here…)
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-07-30/news/os-scott-maxwell-revolving-door-0731120110730_1_special-counsel-bondi-claims-investigators

CWAG Hawaii Event Website (July 10 – 13, 2011)
http://www.cwagweb.org/hawaii/index.html
(The website introduction states:) The Conference of Western Attorneys General, CWAG Chair New Mexico Attorney General Gary King and Hawaii Attorney General David Louie invite you to the 2011 CWAG Annual Meeting in Kona, Hawaii. Join your colleagues as CWAG explores the most pertinent legal issues during the days and the evenings enjoying the tropical paradise of Hawaii at our social events.
The information in the website includes travel tips and hotel information to facilitate early air and hotel arrangements.
We hope to see you in Hawaii!

ONE OF THE MANY IMPORTANT EVENTS OF THE CWAG HAWAII CONFERENCE THAT PAM BONDI FELT COMPELLED TO ATTEND…
http://www.cwagweb.org/hawaii/CWAG11_Agenda.pdf
Sunday, July 10
8:00 am – 1:30 pm Attorneys General and Family Catamaran Snorkel Sail
(AG’s and AG Families Only — Closed to Public)

Some of the other very important events include cooking training, photography training, henna tattoos, fitness training…
http://www.cwagweb.org/hawaii/CWAG11_Social_Agenda.pdf

Some of the noteworthy speakers/topics: (Hint: not one word about fraudulent foreclosures/ fraudulent docs in land and court records/ investigating crooked mill attorneys, etc…or did I miss something..?)
Alliance Partnership Briefing
(AG Staff only — Closed to Public)
Alliance Partnership staff will provide an overview
of the Alliance Partnership Program and details on the
international component which has 31 State Attorneys
General Offices in the United States, Mexico’s Federal
Attorneys General Office (PGR) and all the State Attorneys
General Offices in Mexico collaborating in the training of
Investigators, Forensic Scientists, Prosecutors and Judges
across Mexico.

The Future of Agriculture — Can the World’s Food
Needs Be Met?
• Scott S. Partridge, Vice President for Global Strategy,
Monsanto Company

Futuristic Uses of Wireless Technologies
• Tammi Terrell, Vice President and General Manager —
San Diego/Nevada/Hawaii, AT&T

Enhancing State Revenues and Increasing Efficiency
Detecting Fraudulent Tax Returns
• Andy Bucholz, Director of Market Planning, LexisNexis
Risk Data Solutions

Improving the Contracting Process —
A Business Viewpoint
• Steve Calkins, Senior Vice President,
Business Solutions Division, Office Depot, Inc.

Commerce and Taxes in New and E Marketplaces:
Current State Tax Issues from New Business Models
• Rick Salzman, Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, TracFone
• Laurie Smalling, Director Business Strategy, Public
Affairs and Government Relations, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
• April Ammeter Sakane, Vice President and Associate
General Counsel, DIRECTV
• Mark Schichtel, Senior Vice President
and Chief Tax Officer, Time Warner Cable
• Braden Cox, Director, State Public Policy, Amazon

Protecting Intellectual Property
Moderator: Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna
• Brad Smith, Senior Vice President and General
Counsel, Microsoft

Debt Collection Initiatives
Moderator: Massachusetts Attorney General
Martha Coakley
• Fred Blitt, President, National Association
of Retail Collection Attorneys
• Richard Munroe, President, Debt Buyers Association
• Gary Portney, President, Convoke Systems, Inc.

Golfers with handicaps:

• below 10 will have their green fees increased by 35%.
• between 11 and 18 will see no increase in green fees.
• above 18 will get a $20 check each time they play.

The term”gimmie” will be changed to”entitlement”and will be used as follows:

• handicaps below 10, no entitlements.
• handicaps from 11 to 17, entitlements for putter length putts.
• handicaps above 18, if your ball is on green, no need to putt, just pick it up.

These entitlements are intended to bring about fairness and, most importantly, equality in scoring. In addition, a Player will be limited to a maximum of one birdie or six pars in any given 18-hole round. Any excess must be given to those fellow players who have not yet scored a birdie or par. Only after all players have received a birdie or par from the player actually making the birdie or par, can that player begin to count his pars and birdies again. The current USGA handicap system will be used for the above purposes, but the term “net score” will be available only for scoring those players with handicaps of 18 and above.

This is intended to “re-distribute” the success of winning by making sure that in every competition, the above 18 handicap players will post only “net score” against every other player’s gross score. These new Rules are intended to CHANGE the game of golf and bring HOPE to millions of underserved working stiff (albeit shitty) golfers across the country.

Golf must be about Fairness. It should have nothing to do with ability, hard work, practice, and responsibility. This is the “Right thing to do.”

Now, I literally bit my fist after I heard this and looked at my wife with combo of shock and horror at what I had just heard. Some 4 days later, we are still talking about this and still cannot believe it!

Just watch the video below and pay close attention at the 15 second mark… at the 20 second mark POTUS just completely jabs the middle of this country with his words and definitely his “world-view” of who are the rank and file in this country, who have bled, are bleeding or will bleed if necessary to defend her.

VIDEO PROOF

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtjIPF274Uo

I think the President of the United States deserves to send me and my wife an apology because I truly take offense at this statement especially in light of the fact that we are working our arses off to keep up with federal debt-induced inflation and the fact that his spending money we don’t have means the dollar in my pocket everyday is worth LESS! I take offense at his world view and his jet-setting, golf club hopping lifestyle while Michelle does her More of Me World Tour.

Working stiff…. kiss my stiff arse nobama. I work hard enough to be afforded good success in this country and maybe I make a bunch a money (like more than $250k per year) and then you want to come shove your sticky fingers in my face and take more of what I worked stiff for to give more of it to some illegal alien who doesn’t pay taxes and gets food stamps and to ensure that all your waste and pork in DC gets covered on my dime. Not only do I think you’re a jerk for acting this way, I think you’re clueless. Worst part is, you just keep blaming other people instead of having an “Ah Ha” moment and being humble enough to admit that your policy and world-view will simply tank the greatest country on earth in one presidential term. Get a clue!

Why not the Luminate a LivingFib Combo Title & Securitization Audit? Because it’s none of what I just described.

1. It’s almost 100% boiler plate language; (by the way, the Title Report is worth $150, $25-75 for hard costs and $75 for 100% profit for the attorney who’s doin that title report for you, wink wink)
2. It’s does NOT contain the specificity and particularity required to state a real claim (based on every report I have seen thus far);
3. It guesses almost 100% of the time on which trust you’re loan is in (based on every report I have seen thus far and if they’re guessin on your report you’ll be left guessin why the judge dismissed your claim);
4. It is highly software-driven (based on the fact that every report sent to me was highly identical to all others and I even saw one with a different law firm and attorney’s name on it, guess old LivignFibbs is “licensing his software” you think?);
5. It cannot produce what it’s proponents claim (ie. specific knowledge of what trust your loan is in)

So, I’ll go look for some of these reports in my email history and will try to post a few here so any of you getting to this post BEFORE you waste $1500 can avoid such calamity. Call me if you have any questions.

And, while I’m at it, be SUPER-CAUTIOUS before hiring anyone who is trying to sell you a “Forensic Audit” or any such variation of that name. Anyone who calls what their doing a “forensic audit” is highly likely to be a scam artist like them there folks over at livvingfibbs.com. Seriously. There are legitimate services out there that can help a homeowner investigate their mortgage loan for predatory lending, fraud and forgery claims along with analyzing the loan for federal disclosure violations or any possible rights of rescission under common law theory or the TILA but be wise, marketing gimmicks and fibbers abound using the term “Forensic Audit” and you’d be best to just keep moving there Sally.

To see a customized mortgage loan investigation report, contact me and I’ll help you understand the real difference. It’s not hard once you can compare and see what the scammers and fibbers are trying to sell.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law on July 21, 2010. The Act modifies the timelines for qualified written requests (QWRs), outlaws various servicing practices, greatly increases the liability for specific RESPA violations, and makes several TILA adjustments.

Shorter QWR Timelines are NOW IN EFFECT
Servicers now have less time to acknowledge receipt of a QWR along with less time to properly respond to QWRs. The Act changes the receipt acknowledgment deadline from 15 days to only 5 days for a proper QWR (Qualified Written Request). The Act also modifies the substantive response deadline from 60 days to just 30 days while permitting a one-time 15-day extension, if the borrower is notified with the extension and also the reasons for the delay; but even using the extension, the time frames are nonetheless short so servicers are going to be challenged to act quickly. Procedures for promptly responding to QWRS are now even more imperative however don’t be surprised if servicers pay sloppy attention to these issues.

Important thing to WATCH OUT FOR: The Designated Address Tactic

Many servicers may already have designated an address for QWRs, but don’t or won’t publicize this address (others put it in the fine print of your mortgage statement). A servicer may well set up a particular and exclusive address for QWRs by sending notice towards the borrower in a notice of transfer, or a separate mailing. 24 C.F.R. § 3500.21(e)(1). Such an address should assist servicers process these requests in a timely fashion but don’t be surprised if many try to use the address as a potential safeguard to protect them from liability, if the borrower sends the QWR towards the wrong address they might make the claim that they weren’t properly notified.

So here’s a borrower practice tip: Call your Servicer before you send a QWR and specifically ask for the address to send a Qualified Written Request to. Verify who you spoke with, what date and time and make them repeat the address twice to make sure you have it right.

Common Prohibitions & Requirements

Servicers ought to also be aware of the new general RESPA prohibitions regarding force-placed insurance, as well as charging fees for responses to QWRs and common responses. The Act imposes new requirements for escrow accounts. For example, after receiving a full payoff, any escrow balance must be returned within 20 days. The Act also implements a 10-business day deadline to respond to a request for the identity and address with the owner, or assignee, with the loan.

Damages

The Act raises the available damages for failing to respond to RESPA requests as required. The available damages for each violation under 12 U.S.C. § 2605 changed as follows:

(1) Individuals: actual damages plus $1,000 increased to actual damages plus $2,000; and

(2) Class Actions: the cap for class action lawsuits increased from the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent with the servicer’s net worth to the lesser of $1,000,000 or 1 percent.

TILA
In addition, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act adjustments several sections with the Truth in Lending Act. Escrow accounts are now mandatory for many first mortgages, including all loans guaranteed by a state or federal government. The Act requires servicers to credit payments as with the date of receipt, unless a delay will not result in a charge or negative credit report. Also, payoff statements should be sent within a reasonable time, but no extra than seven days after a written request.

Conclusion

The most crucial points are that servicers ought to speed up internal actions to meet these new deadlines, and that the damages available for RESPA violations have doubled. Servicers must take note that they can limit liability for potential QWR violations by requiring that particular requests be sent to a particular and exclusive address. If the borrower sends a QWR towards the wrong address, the servicer may well be able to avoid liability altogether. So watch out for these tricky, deceptive servicing tactics. It’s shameful that any of these companies does this.

It’s really quite simple. Be honest with your customers. Don’t tack on usurious fees and don’t try to get one over on them. What surprises me the most is that the average consumer doesn’t realize that the major servicers are all subsidiaries of the major banks. Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, etc.

Servicing is where so much of the damage is being done to our housing market yet NO ONE boycotts the big banks. I for one will never have a checking account or get a loan from any of the big banks. They can forget it… you should send a clear voice as well.

Hey Obama… kiss my arse. You need to take the pill of all pills. Reality pills!

As a patriot, I’m disgusted that the American President has this ideology in his flippin brain to begin with. Unreal. Get a life.

FRAUD ON THE COURT… IT’S SO EASY A CAVEMAN COULD DO IT

For all of those blow-hard pontificators out there who think everyone in foreclosure deserves to be evicted, I have this to say, “Fuck you!” And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

I rarely waste my time on these people because their comprehension level doesn’t permit any thought that conflicts with their preconceived notions. There is a name for people like that, morons.

It comes down to this, unless you have been in a coma for the last ten years, we now know for absolute certain that the American mortgage loan was the lynchpin of a massive international Ponzi scheme.

If you have been in a coma, welcome back, you will not fucking believe what happened while you were out.

A third of American men don’t have jobs. Really! You can look it up. You remember Google, right?

Remember that budget surplus? It is now a massive $15 trillion dollar hole or nearly a hundred percent of GDP.

For anyone interested in the facts about where we are financially, the site below is fantastic. Please go there. You don’t need to be an accountant but all of the important numbers are right there. I keep saying that there will be no way out of our financial calamity, look at those numbers and see what you think.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

29% of mortgages exceed the value of the home, our governments are all broke, and one by one going bankrupt.

Austerity will probably turn out to win the contest for word of the year.

The plan to solve all this? Well there isn’t one.

As a matter of fact, this is how they want it. The idea is that we should all embrace a period of “shared sacrifice.”

Every day they dig the hole a little deeper, secure in the knowledge that they will be exempt from actually sacrificing anything.

A whopping total of 91 people now own almost everything on the planet. And all over the country a crackdown on free speech is well underway.

They say it’s for our own good. If we really knew what was going on we would know too much and presumably they’d have to kill us. They need to keep almost everything secret from us because these are strange and dangerous times that our forefathers could never imagine when they crafted our Constitution, they say.

Note how many of our problems they suggest they could solve by just tweaking the Bill of Rights. Why not? We don’t use most of them anyway.

The police now routinely arrest people for videotaping them and the Supreme Court recently made warrantless searches the law of the land. Police are public officials performing duties in public and if they feel threatened by being observed and monitored they should seek other employment.

Besides, where can you go today on not be on camera. Everywhere we go we are on camera. It still startles me to see a life size image of me floating above the toilet paper in the supermarket. Remember when we thought that Nineteen Eighty-Four was fiction?

As for the Fourth Amendment,  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The Supreme Court nullified that Amendment on May 16, 2011.

The lone dissenter was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who wrote the following. Remember, this isn’t me saying this; it is a Supreme Court Judge who sees it my way.

“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

“How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and … forcibly enter?”

Again, that’s not me but the only Supreme Court Judge not bought and paid for by the global elite.

And just like Orwell’s Nineteen Eight-Four we have had ten years of endless wars and constantly shifting enemies, and the middle class has just about been wiped out.

We’ve been conned. We were the most productive workers on the planet, driving quarter after quarter of increasing GDP and then we were robbed of our livelihoods, our homes, our retirement funds, our social security and our Medicare. All through fraud; massive pernicious, pervasive fraud.

There was fraud in the design of debt backed securities, fraud in the design of the loans, fraud in the creation of the paperwork for the phony loan pools, fraud on the investors, fraud on borrowers, fraud on non-borrowers, fraud on county records and now routine fraud on the court in attempt to try to fix the broken title by unlawfully foreclosing on the property.

And talk about easy pick’ens. Ninety-six percent of all foreclosures go uncontested. In non-judicial states like California it is probably higher.

Anyone can file a Notice of Default.

Nationwide, robo-signed documents are prohibited in only a few counties. Any robo-signed document is a bald forgery created by a party with no legal claim. One way or another most are filed anonymously. So because anyone can, some do. Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, you know too big to fail folks, bailout babies, stealing homes that they have no right to.

Time and time again they get away with it and when they are held accountable there is no penalty. In one recent settlement the offender was fined 2% of their illegal gain but they get to keep 98% of what they stole.

But the only ways they can steal our homes is if we or the courts let them. The only way they can do it is with fraudulent paperwork. In the past, when forgeries and perjured testimony were discovered, courts extracted harsh penalties.

Lawyers, whomever they represent are considered to be officers of the court. They are also expected to conduct themselves ethically.

No lying, no fabricated evidence, no made up witnesses, no bribing the other lawyer, no bribing the judge, arcane and naïve notions now it appears.

Most courts don’t seem to mind and dismiss the obvious forgeries as irrelevant in light of the fact that the borrower is in default.

Never mind that the borrower may have been steered to default after applying for a HAMP modification or through a now well documented series of servicing gimmicks.

It is important to be mindful of the real purpose of the loan and how it was used. Its real purpose was to back a bond issue of an aggregate amount and then default.

If the idea was for the pool to default, it didn’t really matter if there were loans enough to cover all the bonds, just make it look like there were enough loans.

This activity impacts a broad area of law extending from real property to complicated financial theory and includes taxation, trust law, commercial code and title law and homeowner’s lawyers are just now starting to grasp the complexity of the issues. This cocktail is further complicated by virtue of the level of deceit that permeates every attempt to mine down to the truth.

There is an old saying in the law; if you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law, and if you have neither, pound the table.

For several years I have been dissecting these cases from all over the country and what has been going on in many of our courtrooms is that bank lawyers have been getting away with pounding the table with stacks of phony documents bought and paid for right of the menu at Lender Processing Services subsidiary DOCX.

The DOCX menu offers these and other products; NA01 Create Note Allonge, $12.95 plus shipping and handling.

Missing all those pesky intervening assignments? No problem for just $35 a-pop you can have as many IA03s as it takes to fool a judge.

But wait, there’s more!

If the whole damn file is missing they have a limited time offer to recreate an entire phony file, the CF01 goes for just $95 exclusive of third party costs. See how easy it is?

I’m a smart guy. Why didn’t I think of setting up a print shop that specializes in forgeries of legal documents? Lawyers would love it. They would never lose a case. I guess somehow, I just thought that would be wrong if not illegal.

There are various evidentiary standards for the variety of matters that come before the courts. These are called burdens of proof and you may have heard terms such as “beyond a reasonable doubt” or the lower burden of “a preponderance of the evidence”.

In foreclosure cases, in many courtrooms, there is no burden whatsoever and no amount of evidence favoring the homeowner is persuasive.

The evidence submitted by the banks themselves is generally sufficient to prove conclusively that they are not the creditor, if one even exists.

The only reason that an assignment would need to be made by the servicer out of an often bankrupt entity to a closed pool, two years after the fact is because the rules of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement were never met. The deeds, mortgages, notes, all with a proper chain of indorsements, were never delivered to the custodian for the trust.

In fact the trusts could not receive the notes at any time because they cannot own any property, just receive the pass through payments of tranches of either interest or principal payments.

The documents didn’t go to the custodian for the trust or they would have them. That is what is so funny. There are no actual loans in the loan pools, just references to loans. The trust holds nothing and for all the talk about loan securitization, it really didn’t happen.

Indeed, the loans were not originated for the purpose of financing property transactions they were originated to be references in multiple loan pools. Bank of America admitted as much recently in a Florida case.

“Indeed, it appears that many loans and other mortgage-related assets have been double- and even triple-pledged to various constituencies.”

There you have it. Exactly what I have been saying for years. But it does beg the question, why stop there? After two or three do they start to feel guilty? Hell no!

Every time they do make an admission it turns out to be a gross understatement.

Remember, that the investors actually buy bonds, not pieces of mortgages. The loan pools allowed Wall Street to create the illusion that there was actually something of value underlying those bonds.

They funded the bond buyers revenue shortfall each month with the investors own money, just like every Ponzi scheme, the new money coming in keeps the victims clueless until the thing collapses under its own weight. Think of Bernie Madoff on Steroids.

It’s so obvious a caveman could see it. Judges have yet to check their own titles and it’s almost as though they just don’t want to believe what is going on.

When you strip away the hateful rhetoric that attempts to shift the blame for America’s collapse onto the middle class, you discover that the issues go to the very heart of who we are and what our judicial system stands for.

Judges side with crooked bankstas to avoid the “moral hazard” of giving away “free houses”. But what of the far greater “moral hazard” of justice only for the rich and well connected?

If there is a class of people who can do whatever they want with impunity, why do we even need judges or an expensive court system? In the last few years, many average Americans have felt the brutal sting of a court stacked against them. As more and more people, having lost faith in a system of justice controlled by corrupt entities, unavoidably seek other methods of balancing the scale, restoring the dignity of the courts will be nearly impossible.

And then what would America stand for? This is more than a fight for our homes; it is a fight for our legal system and democracy. How far do we want to lower the bar?

George W. Mantor
The Real Estate Professor
Founder, American Foreclosure Resistance Movement
http://www.realtown.com/gwmantor/blog
http://www.gwmantor.hersid.com/

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”  –  Mahatma Gandhi

Let me say this from the outset… there is a wide range of people and companies out there (including even some attorneys) who are selling “Forensic Audits.” They vary from outright scam artists to slick salespeople performing some [overly simplistic] level of some sort of a mortgage loan transaction audit but who charge exorbitant prices for the services and, ultimately, the work product they produce rises to the level of a scam as well because their fee and what they produce are universes apart – so I deem that a scam as well – that’s just my humble opinion of course.

There is one fairly high profile retired attorney out there operating a very popular blog selling extremely high-priced garbage [in my opinion]; unfortunately, many of his victims, I mean clients, have purchased this “audit” are left with many pages of virtual nothing-ness that they will never be able to use in a court of law. Quite ironic that it’s coming from an “attorney” or “counselor at law” – so to speak.

But, I don’t think any of you reading this right now are actually surprised of the story of another attorney or ex-banker taking advantage of people because they have a license, degree or bar number and using that “credential” to sell people on a scam. There are many prisons with such people calling those places home for these types of crimes.

So, now that I’ve spent a minute on the soap box, let me get to work to explain the difference between a “Forensic Audit” and a “Mortgage Loan Compliance Analysis” because there is a difference – like night and day. I think it’s a good place to start to say that I come from the mortgage banking industry and I have over a decade in actual experience in the inner workings of this industry and I have had to demonstrate continued competence in the actual compliance with the very laws we are looking into to see if these loans complied with these laws. I challenge you to find a “forensic mortgage loan auditor” out there in or even around the mortgage banking or finance industry. You won’t. You will find compliance officers. You will find fraud investigators. You will find compliance analysts and underwriters and risk managers. The closest thing might be the field of Forensic Accounting. But you will never find a legitimate forensic mortgage loan compliance officer using the term “forensic audit” or “forensic auditor” or even “forensic loan audit.” This is simply some deceptive marketing term invented by slick scammers who could probably sell a lot of people a box of coal and pass it off as a box of diamonds.

“Forensic” literally means “suitable for use in a court of law.” So the layman’s translation means that whatever report or whatever you might get from a “forensic auditor” must, and I mean MUST, withstand the legal scrutiny of a judge, jury and opposing counsel.

So, I’ll just dive right in here and make a point: you can use the word “forensic” if – and only if – your work product is deemed suitable for use in a court of law. So that’s the lens that any and all investigation by YOU as a homeowner MUST use in conducting your due diligence if you’re in the position of needing help to defend yourself from foreclosure or the potential illicit collection of mortgage loan debt.

I will say this… if you see ANYONE pitching a “Forensic Audit,” I would just turn and run. Even the simple use of that title – forensic audit – should set of alarm bells. What is it a forensic audit of? What does that even mean? Really, it doesn’t even tell you anything – other than it’s a slick marketer using a buzz term to sell you something. The question really is or should be – “will it be suitable in a cour of law?”

Conversely, a Mortgage Loan Compliance Analysis is EXACTLY what it’s name implies plus a bit more. What do we do? We analyze the mortgage loan documents for actual compliance with Federal Lending Laws. Did the original lender provide the borrower with the mandated loan disclosures from the date the borrower applied for the loan through to the closing or ratification of the mortgage loan transaction and were the material Truth in Lending Disclosures such as the APR, Amount Financed, Finance Charge, Amount of Payments and Payment Schedule were properly and accurately computed – this is a mathematical process that requires a very comprehensive understanding of Regulation Z, Section 226.4 along with the Official Staff Commentary for that section. It’s also an investigation and analysis of the transaction to see if the original lender [and any mortgage broker involved] that may have been involved complied properly with underwriting guidelines and a look into any possible mortgage fraud or predatory lending violations such as bait and switch tactics or even forgery of the borrower’s initials or signature on loan disclosures or loan closing documents. Finally, it’s also an investigation into whether the lender and/or broker was properly licensed. All of these issues are examined, documents analyzed, TILA disclosures re-computed for accuracy and comparison and then all of this is [or should be] rendered in a report or affidavit format along with any and all supporting exhibits such as the loan documents and other components of the investigation.

Now, here’s the clincher… a “Forensic Audit” is almost always going to be a collection of boiler plate fluff with a few specifics strewn throughout the template to pass this garbage off as legitimate. However, any real scrutiny of these documents by someone who knows what to look for – or worse, a judge or creditors rights attorney – will easily reveal the  fact that 99% of these “forensic audits” aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on [ie. utter worthlessness]; which is real shame seeing that the homeowners who get suckered into these scams have precious few economic resources. They deserve a real service and a real work product that will actually stand up in a court of law.

A real mortgage loan compliance analysis and investigation will be highly CASE SPECIFIC. For it to be considered “forensic” in any sense of the word, it MUST be specific to YOUR CASE, not boiler plate. And judges HATE boiler plate, non-specific pleadings and if you try to throw a boiler-plate, template of a “forensic audit” at a judge in your case, you are asking for his/her wrath not to mention being completely discredited which never has a happy ending. I always tell people who are inquiring to hire me that there is no shortcut to these analyses and investigations. A mortgage loan transaction and any corresponding foreclosure case is like a fingerprint… no two of them are the same. Yes, you have a set of laws and guidelines that apply to all transactions but no two transactions are the same, period. Any and all work product must reflect that level of specificity if it is to be considered “forensic” in any way and has any chance of actually helping you make valid claims in a court of law.

So here’s my tip to help any homeowners facing foreclosure reading this: ASK for attorney references even IF they are an attorney. Ask to see their credentials. Ask for actual samples. Ask to see actual court cases their work product has been filed in and/or used in. Ask for customer references. Two words: DUE DILIGENCE… plus four words: DON”T BELIEVE THEY HYPE.  Because your money can either be completely wasted or put to very good use depending on WHO you hire and what they produce. Finally, call or email me… I’ll send you a couple samples with borrower info redacted so you have something to compare the garbage to. Hopefully this helps a bit… Good luck and happy hunting.

Below is the actual Google Map picture of the compound and this directly matches with the CIA’s map and sketch of the compound which has been released to the media. If you want to view the actual view of Osama Bin Laden’s compound on Google Maps, Google Earth or Satellite, CLICK HERE.

Click on any of the pictures below for a large view of them.

A zoomed in photo…

What the CIA released…

The full Petition can be downloaded HERE.
My Affidavit can be downloaded HERE.
The full Appendix to the Petition can be downloaded HERE.

Below is the full press release from the ACLU’s website.

ACLU Charges High-Speed Florida Foreclosure Courts Deprive Homeowners of Chance to Defend Homes

PETITION FILED IN STATE APPELLATE COURT SAYS ‘MASS FORECLOSURE DOCKET’ IN LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IGNORES PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN RUSH TO CLEAR CASES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 7, 2011

CONTACT:
Derek Newton, ACLU of Florida, (786) 363-2737; media@aclufl.org
Will Matthews, ACLU national, (212) 549-2582 or 2666; media@aclu.org

CAPE CORAL, FL – The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a petition in a Florida appellate court charging that the foreclosure court system in Lee County systematically denies homeowners a fair opportunity to defend their homes against foreclosure.

The special “mass foreclosure docket” established in December 2008 operates under rules that differ substantially from those that govern the rest of Lee County’s civil cases and was designed to speed through as many foreclosure cases as possible without providing homeowners facing foreclosure a meaningful opportunity to develop their cases or present defenses, according to the petition.

“Operating against the backdrop of well-documented disarray and fraud in mortgage documentation, the shortcuts taken in Lee County courts mean that homeowners may never have a meaningful opportunity to refute faulty evidence supposedly supporting foreclosure,” said Larry Schwartztol, staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program. “By elevating speed over accuracy, Lee County subjects homeowners to foreclosure proceedings that violate the due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”

The petitioner in the ACLU’s case, Georgi Merrigan of Cape Coral, FL, is facing foreclosure after leaving her job as a flight and ground paramedic to care full time for her husband, who suffered massive injuries in a catastrophic car accident. Merrigan has every intention of vigorously contesting her foreclosure case. But because Merrigan’s case is assigned to the “mass foreclosure docket,” the ACLU charges that she cannot get a fair shot at defending her home. The ACLU’s petition asks that Merrigan’s case be re-assigned to the general civil division so that she will be afforded due process under the Florida and U.S. Constitutions.

“No one should ever have to go to court with the deck already stacked against them,” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida. “Nowhere does it say someone is entitled only to the justice we have time for. We can’t allow the basic protections of due process to be the victim of judicial shortcuts.”

The ACLU’s petition is the culmination of a months-long investigation into foreclosure court systems throughout the state of Florida, where media reports have long suggested that the constitutionally-protected due process rights of homeowners have been ignored in a rush to push foreclosure cases through the courts. With one in every 288 housing units in foreclosure, Lee County has the highest percentage of foreclosures in the state of Florida, arguably the epicenter of the nation’s foreclosure crisis.

According to the ACLU’s petition, officials in Lee County seek to clear the foreclosure court docket as quickly as possible, at the expense of complying with basic procedural rules. Despite explicit instructions from the chief justice of the state supreme court that reducing the backlog of foreclosure cases should not “interfere with a judge’s ability to adjudicate each case fairly on its merits,” judges move through cases at lightning speed, sometimes seeing as many as 200 cases a day, according to the petition.

“Despite the extremely high stakes for homeowners, procedural violations in the ‘mass foreclosure docket’ are rampant,” said Rachel Goodman, an attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program. “Homeowners face systemic handicaps, and banks get a pass in proving their cases because the courts have effectively suspended the rules that give homeowners a chance to review the evidence against them.”

About 25 percent of Lee County’s population is black or Latino, and government data show that the foreclosure crisis across the country has disproportionately impacted communities of color. According to a recent report by the Center for Responsible Lending, nearly 8 percent of both African Americans and Latinos have lost their homes to foreclosures, as compared to 4.5 percent of whites. Additionally, the indirect losses in wealth that result from foreclosures as a result of depreciation to nearby properties will also disproportionately impact communities of color. The Center for Responsible Lending report estimates that by the end of 2012, the African American and Latino communities will be drained of $194 and $177 billion, respectively, in these indirect “spillover” losses alone.

# # #

A copy of the ACLU’s petition is available online at: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/2011-04-MerriganPetition.pdf

Georgi Merrigan, Howard Simon and ACLU of Florida Associate Legal Director Maria Kayanan will be available today in front of the Merrigan home at:

Thursday, April 7, 2011
1:30pm
2723 SW 17 PL
Cape Coral, FL 33914

The lower court granted summary judgment anyway, presumably because the Judge felt that well-established case law in Florida didn’t matter that the exhibits attached to a complaint are controlling when the allegations conflict. Just one more example… well, you know that already!

Here you go…

36 Fla. L. Weekly D738a

Mortgage foreclosure — Standing — Error to enter final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff where, although unverified amended complaint alleged plaintiff was holder of note and mortgage, this allegation was contradicted by copy of note attached to amended complaint — When exhibits are attached to complaint, contents of exhibits control over allegations of complaint

SHAKIL KHAN AND DINA KHAN, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D10-3288. Opinion filed April 8, 2011. Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Emerson R. Thompson, Jr., Senior Judge. Counsel: Craig R. Lynd, Matthew D. Valdes and Jonathon C. Blevins, of Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC, Orlando, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee.

(ORFINGER, J.) Shakil and Dina Khan appeal a final summary judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of Bank of America, N.A. We reverse.

In its amended complaint to foreclose a mortgage on the Khans’ home, Bank of America alleged that it was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage. However, the copy of the note attached to the amended complaint bears an endorsement from Bank of America to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as trustee for the holders of Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-B. The Khans correctly raised the issue of Bank of America’s standing to prosecute the foreclosure based on the assignment of the note to Wells Fargo Bank.

The proper party with standing to foreclose a note and mortgage is the holder of the note and mortgage or the holder’s representative. See Taylor v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust. Co., 44 So. 3d 618, 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); BAC Funding Consortium Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). While Bank of America alleged in its unverified complaint that it was the holder of the note and mortgage, the copy of the note attached to the amended complaint contradicts that allegation. When exhibits are attached to a complaint, the contents of the exhibits control over the allegations of the complaint. See Hunt Ridge at Tall Pines, Inc. v. Hall, 766 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Because the exhibit to Bank of America’s amended complaint conflicts with its allegations concerning standing, Bank of America did not establish that it had standing to foreclose the mortgage as a matter of law. As a result, the trial court acted prematurely in entering the final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of Bank of America. We, therefore, reverse the final summary judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. (PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.)

To put it simply: The vast majority of Florida Judges are applying completely different rules of evidence, procedure and ethics to Foreclosure Cases as opposed to any and all other types of cases. Combined with the obvious facts that systemic fraud is running amok in the system and the fact that the Florida Attorney General’s office and the FBI are investigating the firms that handle the large majority of foreclosure cases statewide, there should be an immediate reversal in what is clearly an unspoken mandate by the Administrative Judges in every FL Judicial Circuit – which, obviously, is to cram these foreclosure cases through as fast as their rubber stamp and gavel can be applied.

I suggest they start paying attention to the bullhorn in their ears… enjoy the case below (if you’re a homeowner or advocate thereof).

35 Fla. L. Weekly D2106b

WASHINGTON L. SANCHEZ, Appellant, vs. LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ETC., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D09-2095. L.T. Case No. 09-4074. Opinion filed September 22, 2010. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark King Leban, Judge. Counsel: John H. Ruiz and Hector A. PeÑa, for appellant. Butler & Hosch, Beth A. Norrow, and Thomasina Moore, for appellee.

(Before GERSTEN, SHEPHERD, and LAGOA, JJ.)

(PER CURIAM.) Washington Sanchez (“Sanchez”) appeals from a summary final judgment for foreclosure in favor of LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee for Merrill Lynch First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust (“LaSalle”). We reverse.

Sanchez defaulted under the terms of his mortgage, and LaSalle filed suit for mortgage foreclosure. In response, Sanchez filed an answer and affirmative defenses. Among other things, Sanchez alleged that LaSalle did not comply with the federal Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.

Thereafter, LaSalle responded to the affirmative defenses, and moved for summary judgment. Shortly before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Sanchez moved to add additional affirmative defenses. The trial court granted Sanchez’ motion, but then sua sponte struck all of Sanchez’ affirmative defenses. The trial court also granted LaSalle’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, Sanchez asserts that the trial court erred in striking his affirmative defenses and entering summary judgment. LaSalle contends the trial court properly struck the affirmative defenses because they were not specific or supported. We agree with Sanchez.

Generally, the striking of pleadings is not favored. See, e.g., Menke v. Southland Specialties Corp., 637 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Costa Bell Dev. Corp. v. Costa Dev. Corp., 445 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Florida Rules of Civil Procedure authorize a trial court sua sponte to strike a pleading which is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous,” and, upon a party’s motion, a pleading which is sham. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(f), 1.150. A trial court, however, should not strike a pleading sua sponte on the ground that it is legally insufficient, or because the party subsequently may not be able to prove his or her allegations. Bay Colony Office Bldg. Joint Venture v. Wachovia Mortgage Co., 342 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

Here, the trial court, on its own motion, struck Sanchez’ affirmative defenses without finding them redundant, immaterial, impertinent, scandalous or a sham. Apparently, the trial court deemed the defenses to be lacking in specificity and support. Neither of these grounds warrants the sua sponte dismissal of Sanchez’ affirmative defenses.

Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment, and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Folks, we’re still scratching the surface of this massive iceberg we call the foreclosure system in this country. There is so much fraud, misrepresentation and outright thievery taking place that it is really beyond the comprehension of the normal, honest working man and woman in this country. The foreclosure machine in this country (collectively the financial institutions, Wall Street, document outsourcing firms and the foreclosure attorneys working for God knows who) will ultimately make Bernie Madoff look like an angel in comparsion. Really.

So as this news begins to incubate in the hearts and minds of the state judges around the country (or are most of them too jaded and prejudiced to care?) along with state Attorney General’s (are you listening and reading?), just sit back and enjoy the way this plays out because I promise you, we are just getting started with Act I of the Foreclosure Machine Meltdown.

Enjoy…

Ally Says GMAC Mortgage Mishandled Affidavits on Foreclosures

By Dakin Campbell and Lorraine Woellert – Sep 21, 2010

Ally Financial Inc., whose GMAC Mortgage unit halted evictions in 23 states amid allegations of mishandled affidavits, said its filings contained no false claims about home loans.

The “defect” in affidavits used to support evictions was “technical” and was discovered by the company, Gina Proia, an Ally spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement. Employees submitted affidavits containing information they didn’t personally know was true and sometimes signed without a notary present, according to the statement. Most cases will be resolved in the next few weeks and those that can’t be fixed will “require court intervention,” Proia said.

“The entire situation is unfortunate and regrettable and GMAC Mortgage is diligently working to resolve the situation,” Proia said. “There was never any intent on the part of GMAC Mortgage to bypass court rules or procedures. Nor do these failures reflect any disrespect for our courts or the judicial processes.”

State officials are investigating allegations of fraudulent foreclosures at the nation’s largest home lenders and loan servicers. Lawyers defending mortgage borrowers have accused GMAC and other lenders of foreclosing on homeowners without verifying that they own the loans. In foreclosure cases, companies commonly file affidavits to start court proceedings.

“All the banks are the same, GMAC is the only one who’s gotten caught,” said Patricia Parker, an attorney at Jacksonville, Florida-based law firm, Parker & DuFresne. “This could be huge.”

No Misstatements

Aside from signing the affidavits without knowledge or a notary, “the sum and substance of the affidavits and all content were factually accurate,” Proia wrote in the e-mail. “Our internal review has revealed no evidence of any factual misstatements or inaccuracies concerning the details typically contained in these affidavits such as the loan balance, its delinquency, and the accuracy of the note and mortgage on the underlying transaction.”

Affidavits are statements written and sworn to in the presence of someone authorized to administer an oath, such as a notary public.

GMAC told brokers and agents to halt evictions tied to foreclosures on homeowners in 23 states including Florida, Connecticut and New York and said it may have to take “corrective action” on other foreclosures, according to a Sept. 17 memo. Foreclosures won’t be suspended and will continue with “no interruption,” Proia said in a statement yesterday.

10,000 a Week

In December 2009, a GMAC Mortgage employee said in a deposition that his team of 13 people signed “a round number of 10,000” affidavits and other foreclosure documents a month without verifying their accuracy. The employee said he relied on law firms sending him the affidavits to verify their accuracy instead of checking them with GMAC’s records as required. The affidavits were then used to complete the process of repossessing homes and evicting residents.

Florida Attorney General William McCollum is investigating three law firms that represent loan servicers in foreclosures, and are alleged to have submitted fraudulent documents to the courts, according to an Aug. 10 statement. The firms handled about 80 percent of foreclosure cases in the state, according to a letter from Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat.

“It appears that the actions we have taken and the attention we’ve paid to this issue could have had some impact on the actions that GMAC took today, but we can’t take full credit,” Ryan Wiggins, a spokeswoman for McCollum, said yesterday in a telephone interview.

‘Committed Fraud’

In August, Florida Circuit Court Judge Jean Johnson blocked a Jacksonville foreclosure brought by Washington Mutual Bank N.A. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, which had purchased the failed bank’s assets, and Shapiro & Fishman, the companies’ law firm. Documents eventually showed that the mortgage on the house was in fact owned by Washington-based Fannie Mae.

WaMu and the law firm “committed fraud on this court,” Johnson wrote. JPMorgan had presented a document prepared by Shapiro showing the mortgage was sold directly to WaMu in April 2008.

Tom Ice, founding partner of Ice Legal PA in Royal Palm Beach, Florida, said a fourth law firm representing GMAC in recent weeks has begun withdrawing affidavits signed by the GMAC employee.

“The banks are sitting up and taking notice that they can’t use falsified documents in the courtroom,” Ice said. “There may be others doing the same thing. They’re going to come back and say, ‘We’d better withdraw these,’” Ice said in a telephone interview.

Alejandra Arroyave, a lawyer with Lapin & Leichtling, a law firm in Coral Gables, Florida, who represented the employee at his December 2009 deposition, didn’t respond to a request for comment. A phone call to the employee wasn’t returned.

Mortgage Market

GMAC ranked fourth among U.S. home-loan originators in the first six months of this year, with $26 billion of mortgages, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, an industry newsletter. Wells Fargo & Co. ranked first, with $160 billion, and Citigroup Inc. was fifth, with $25 billion.

Iowa Assistant Attorney General Patrick Madigan said the implications of Ally’s internal review and the GMAC employee’s deposition could be “enormous.”

“It would call into question whether other servicers have engaged in similar practices,” Madigan said in a telephone interview. “It would be a major disruption to the foreclosure pipeline.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Dakin Campbell in San Francisco at dcampbell27@bloomberg.net; Lorraine Woellert in Washington at lwoellert@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Alec McCabe at amccabe@bloomberg.net; Lawrence Roberts at lroberts13@bloomberg.net.

®2010 BLOOMBERG L.P. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Even though this is 18 months late, it’s a positive sign that the Florida Attorney General is finally getting it, or, more likely  just making a political move to try and win some votes for November. Of course, this “investigation” will last well past November so voters will have to consider whether this is just political feint or if the stalwart AG McCollum actually posesses the balls to actually put someone in jail for all the fraud that’s been committed to date using the Florida judciary as pawns in the chess game called Wall Street and Banking. Mr. McCollum, ball’s in your court… pun intended. – mdn

Attorney General Bill McCollum News Release

August 10, 2010
Media Contact: Sandi Copes
Phone: (850) 245-0150

TALLAHASSEE, FL – Attorney General Bill McCollum today announced his office has launched three new investigations into allegations of unfair and deceptive actions by Florida law firms handling foreclosure cases. The Attorney General’s Economic Crimes Division is investigating whether improper documentation may have been created and filed with Florida courts to speed up foreclosure processes, potentially without the knowledge or consent of the homeowners involved. – (gee ya think?)

The new investigations name The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.; Shapiro & Fishman, LLP; and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. The law firms were hired by loan servicers to begin foreclosure proceedings when consumers were in arrears on their mortgages.

Because many mortgages have been bought and sold by different institutions multiple times, key paperwork involved in the process to obtain foreclosure judgments is often missing. On numerous occasions, allegedly fabricated documents have been presented to the courts in foreclosure actions to obtain final judgments against homeowners. Thousands of final judgments of foreclosure against Florida homeowners may have been the result of the allegedly improper actions of the law firms under investigation.

The Attorney General’s Office is also investigating whether the law firms have created affiliated companies outside the United States where the allegedly false documents are being prepared and then submitted to the law firms for use.

Subpoenas have been served on each of the law firms listed above, and the investigations are ongoing.

When I first introduced the REST Report, I did so with total confidence that it would be the best thing to happen to loan modifications since… well, since forever, I believe was how I phrased it.

In retrospect, however, I found my words kind of… shall we say… overly enthusiastic.  It’s not that I didn’t mean every word of what I said, it’s just that later, when I read what I’d written, I felt like I should have been more sensitive to the fact that there’s so much hype and… well, crap out there being pushed at homeowners, and I certainly could have been a little more reserved in my presentation.

The simple truth was and is that I was excited about the prospect of making the REST Report available to homeowners.  I’d worked for ten months to make it available, and it was ten months with a front row seat to the ongoing tragic scene that has become the foreclosure crisis.  (And look… it’s working even better than I thought it would, so what would you do in my position, sit quietly?)

If you haven’t already read my article on Why and How to Use the REST Report When Applying for a Loan Modification, you really should click HERE and read more.  It’s proven itself to be a real game changer for many, and the results to-date have certainly been impressive by any standard.

I’ve received dozens of letters that describe successes using the report, but I’ve been hesitant to publish them.  The reality is that negotiating with your servicer or lender is an independent experience, unique to the specifics of each borrower’s situation.  Just because a group of nine borrowers had a positive outcome means nothing to predictions of how things will go for number ten.

But today, I received the email message shown below, and frankly, this isn’t just how a single homeowner succeeded using the REST Report, it’s about how the courts in New York viewed the REST Report in a real life foreclosure situation.

And although, perhaps no one could say for sure what would have happened had the report not been introduced in the proceedings, I think you’ll agree that the fact that it was presented to the judge in this matter, unquestionably made a significant impact.  And one more homeowner was spared the tragic indignity of losing their home to foreclosure… unnecessarily.

Dear Mandelman,

I have had a great result with the REST Report that I wanted to tell you about.  I work for an Attorney in New York, today the Attorney had to go to a Foreclosure summons meeting at the courts with the Attorney for Wells Fargo.

The courts were so impressed with the REST Report that the judge actually told the Attorney for Wells Fargo that there is no reason why the loan modification could not be completed in 30 days, as the REST Report has clearly shown that there are several scenarios in which it is better to modify the loan then to foreclose on the property.

Thank you for giving me access to the REST Report.

Sam

(Last name withheld here, but she may be willing to speak with others about her use of the report off-line.)

No, thank you Sam… for using the REST Report, by taking the time to learn to use the system and by offering it to your client as an important and potentially valuable tool.

It’s a weird position to be in.  We’ve run roughly 360 reports to-date, but I would have thought that number to be more than ten times that amount by now.  I guess it’s all about advertising and promotion, something I’m very careful about here…

I never want to be seen as a site whose primary purpose is profit and promotion, under the guise of education and compassion.  But, it’s a double edged sword, you realize.  How much good can you do when you can’t spend a dime to let more people know of something that might actually matter a great deal?  And how, in a world gone mad, literally jam packed with scams and hucksters, do you stand and say… trust me?

So, I can only do what I can do and say what I feel comfortable saying.  The REST Report may very well make a crucial difference in the outcome of your negotiations with your lender or servicer.  It’s not expensive, and it’s not a magic bullet, by any means.  But, I truly cannot imagine a situation in which it is not better to have than not have.  (Wow, that sentence made even me dizzy.)

Look, it’s a very good thing.  I wouldn’t be talking about it if it weren’t, even though as I’ve disclosed from day one, I do receive a small percentage of the revenue generated by people running REST Reports.  And I do mean a small percentage… if you’re curious how much, email me and I’ll tell you… info@thepatriotswar.com  I just think it would be tacky to put a dollar amount here.

I assure you that it is nowhere close to the amount that would be required to get me to recommend something I didn’t investigate personally, believe in 100%, and without question, use myself.  I don’t what that amount would be that would get me to do that, by the way.

By the way… you don’t need to be applying for a loan modification to use the REST Report, the report can help in any type of negotiation with a lender or servicer related to a change in the previously agreed to terms of a loan.  And that means you should consider running the REST Report when looking to arrange short sales, and other alternatives to foreclosure.

Call MBS Analytics now if you want help getting the REST Report and HAMP NPV Analsysis.

800-985-4685

The problem has been that the NPV calculation is a closely guarded secret of the major financial institutions and servicers. If they can keep this calculation a secret, then they can tell homeowners (and even judges) that the homeowner did not qualify for the HAMP modification and no one is the wiser or can prove them wrong; AND that is exactly what they have done for over a year. Here’s the bottom line: Servicers do NOT want to modify because it is simply not as profitable for them as default servicing is. Period. It has NOTHING to do with the homeowner qualifying or not qualifying for HAMP. The problem is enforcement of the HAMP rules and regulations and unless you can prove them wrong with documentation, you’re basically screwed by the secret information (NPV test) that only they possess… until now.

The Department of Treasury is the government entity responsible for determining the formula and the dataset for calculating the NPV on any given mortgage loan asset. The NPV Model formula has been revised several times since the initial launch of the HAMP program and all participants are now currently using NPV Model 3.1 (version) in their calculations.

Here’s a direct quote from the HAMP website from the Treasury, ” A participating servicer in the Home Affordable Modification Program must modify any loan that meets the program’s eligibility criteria if the modification tests “positive” for NPV.” – notice the word “MUST” in that sentence. Here’s a link to that entire report on the HAMP site.

Folks, this is an absolute requirement if a mortgage loan meets the eligibility requirements and the NPV analysis results in a “POSITIVE” then the loan MUST be modified under HAMP. If the Servicer fails to approve the modification under this scenario, they are in BREACH of their Servicer Participation Agreement and this is actionable on the part of the homeowner; meaning you can go on the offense once you have proof that you do qualify and the Servicer has wrongfully and willfully denied you of the HAMP modification.

MBS Analytics HAS ACCESS TO AN NPV MODEL PORTALTO RUN AN ACTUAL NPV LOAN DISPOSITION ANALYSIS FOR ANY HOMEOWNER. Basically they reproduce exactly what the servicer is supposed to do and then hit ‘em between the eyes with, well, let’s just call it a very compelling package and argument to “modify this loan under HAMP or face the consequences.”

Yes, you read that right. So here’s what MBS Analytics does…

1. collect ALL of the required information and documentation to ascertain the data and information that needs to be inputted
2. calculate the borrower’s actual monthly income and expenses
3. calculate the proper monthly amounts for taxes and insurance
4. run an AVM (short for automated appraisal) just like the servicer does to determine a FMV (Fair Market Value) for the property
5. run a COMPLETE NPV ANALYSIS which tests for HAMP eligibility, NPV Positive or Negative, New Monthly Payment under HAMP and eligibility for Foreclosure Alternatives such as Short Sale, Deed in Lieu and non-HAMP modification alternatives
6. compile the complete package in a very specific order and format
7. draft a cover letter with a summary of the NPV findings and the Loan Disposition Analysis and which also states their legal position on the Homeowner’s qualification for a HAMP modification
8. attach documenation to support the position and documentation which details the Servicer’s OBLIGATION to comply
9. cover letter makes a demand to comply and to modify according to the HAMP program and in line with the calculations for the new monthly payment under HAMP
10. send all of this certified mail to the servicer

Call MBS Analytics today if you are interested or have any questions or want to get started.

MBS Analytics at 1-800-985-4685

Huh? You read that correctly. Because Speaker Pelosi cannot find enough votes to pass the deeply unpopular ObamaCare bill in a constitutional way, she is hoping you and other Americans won’t notice, or won’t care, whether she passes ObamaCare in an unconstitutional and blatantly corrupt way.

Her latest plan is called the “Slaughter Rule”, which would allow the House to vote on a different bill and “deem” the Senate’s ObamaCare bill as being “passed” at the same time as the other bill is passed, without having an actual up and down vote on the ObamaCare bill.

Said Pelosi in an interview: “It’s more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know….but I like it, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”

Pelosi may like “deeming” laws passed, but passing laws without voting on them is blatantly unconstitutional. As former federal judge Michael McConnell wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “It may be clever, but it is not constitutional. To become law…the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.”

Speaker Pelosi and President Obama are counting on you, your friends, and your family not to notice or care that they are doing this. That’s why together, we must get the truth out and tell everyone that we know about what they are trying to do.

This is just one more example of the bribery and corruption that has been used to try and pass ObamaCare, like the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. If they are willing to corrupt our constitutional system right before our eyes to pass Obamacare, why should we have any confidence that they won’t corrupt your healthcare when nobody is paying attention?