Category Archives: Mortgage Fraud

Principal Reductions – Some Are Waking Up To What Could Be A Win Win Situation

Mortgage debt

Image via Wikipedia

This is a must read story published in the NY Times by Joe Nocera of a breakfast meeting he had with Laurie Goodman, a senior managing director of Amherst Securities.

Enter Laurie Goodman. One of the country’s foremost authorities on mortgage-backed securities, she is also one of the most data-driven people I’ve ever met; at breakfast, she was constantly pointing me to one chart or another that backed up her claims. “She’s not into politics,” says my friend, and her client, Daniel Alpert of Westwood Capital. “She is using data to tell us the truth.”

It always seemed to me that in order to correct his crisis, writing down everyone’s principal would be the only solution.  For those that do not have mortgages on their homes and own them free and clear some sort of tax break would be in order to compensate them for the decline in the value of their home.

Values declined not because of the market, they declined because those very same banks who oppose these write downs created this mess by providing mortgages to almost anyone creating a housing boom that was destined to crash.  Yes, they know what they were doing but greed took control of corporate governance and patriotic spirit.  The attitude of  let’s rake in as much cash as we can then when it all fails we can take back all those homes and rake in even more cash for homes we have no investment in.

The housing crash was created by the banks unlike what New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg says.  He says blame it on Congress (and Fannie Mae who he says makes loans – wrong!).  Yes, while I believe it was a direct mandate from the White House beginning with Bill Clinton, the banks could have and should have used their better judgment and declined the push from above.  But GREED is a very dangerous intoxicant.   Given the green light by those high up in our political circles – the ones in charge – they quickly did what they believed was their patriotic duty to comply and fill their own pockets

The idea of helping struggling homeowners by writing down some principal on their mortgages — as opposed to reducing the interest or reconfiguring the terms to lower the monthly payments — is much in the air right now. Banks loathe the idea of principal reduction; they fear that people who are current on their mortgages will start defaulting just to get their principal reduced. They also don’t want the hit to their balance sheets.

Yes, of course banks would “loathe” the idea of reducing principal.  For one, the reduction of principal to real value would lower their net worth and show that many of them are actually insolvent.  Their solvency is basically falsified books whereby they keep real estate owned on their books at its value when they first financed it.  We all know that most of us will never see housing values come back to these artificially high values.

Second, the fact that most of the banks REO’s – real estate owned – is also a falsified book entry.  This is where my gripe continues with the greed and dishonesty of this entire industry.

The “bank” made a loan.  The “bank” SOLD the loan to a Wall Street firm who in turn packaged that loan with thousands of others into a security which they sold to investors around the world.  NOTE:  It is the security owned by thousands of investors who actually own the note – NOT THE BANK.

In addition, the bank taking all the action is NOT REALLY A BANK!  You see, the entity taking the foreclosure action is actually a servicing company – a collection agency if you will – that is owned by “the bank” but is not in itself a bank under any situation or charter be it federal, state or local.

The servicing company often uses the same name as “the bank” and lead everyone to believe that it IS “the bank”.  They have everyone convinced including the courts – judges and Clerks of the Courts as well.

When a servicing company like  – listen now – Bank of America Home Loans (not “the bank”) gets the court to award the foreclosure, the court just hands them the title because they are falsley led to belive that they are the bank, they own the mortgage note and therefore can claim the property without paying.

Once they take – no – STEAL the property, the non bank servicing company everyone thinks is the bank – which in the illustration above would be Bank of Amercia – then takes the property and gives it to “the bank” (illustratively Bank of America) who now owns the property free and clear on their books valued at an inflated artificial value.

Not only are the banks using these artificial values to bolster their books (fraudulently inflate their net worth) they are using stolen property to do so as well.

Of course they do not want to write down mortgages.  Actually they CAN’T.  Neither the bank nor the banks servicing company has the authority to do so.  Only the investors who own a share of the bond issue that the mortgage note resides in have the authority to do so.  In fact, only these same bondholders (and it would take 100% of them to do so) can initiate a court action to foreclose.  They are the true owners who along with the rest of American have been swindled – a milder term the screwed – out of their money by “the banks”.

But the states’ attorneys general who sued over the robo-signing scandal have made principal reduction the central plank of the settlement they are close to completing. The settlement will force the big banks to begin a sustained program of principal reduction, and will heavily penalize banks that don’t comply. From what I hear, the goal of the states is to prove to the banks that principal reduction will not cause the sky to fall — and is, ultimately, less damaging to bank profits than foreclosures.

In spite of all I say above, I feel forcing the write downs is a positive.  Not only will it stop the bleeding of continued declining values due to continued massive foreclosures, it will right the wrongs to many of the investors worldwide.  By writing down the mortgages thus allowing homeowners to continue living in their homes and making payments – albeit lower payments – it is a win – win situation for everyone.

The homeowner wins for obvious reasons.  The neighborhood wins as there will no longer be vacant and unattended deteriorating homes.  The investors win as they will get some return of their investment which is better then the zero they are getting now.  The economy wins as it will begin to turn the entire housing market around.  America wins as we can then begin to move forward again and make the American Dream of homeownership possible once again.  And we all know if the housing market is moving the economy moves.

Read Joe Nocera’s entire article To Fix Housing, See the DataPublished: November 4, 2011…click here

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bank Fraud Continued Cover Up From The White House

Logo of the United States White House, especia...

Image via Wikipedia

Some call it a settlement, the effort by The White House and its’ resident Obama, to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices.

Attorney General of N.Y. Is Said to Face Pressure on Bank Foreclosure Deal
By
Published: August 21, 2011

Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal.

In recent weeks, Shaun Donovan, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and high-level Justice Department officials have been waging an intensifying campaign to try to persuade the attorney general to support the settlement, said the people briefed on the talks.

Mr. Schneiderman and top prosecutors in some other states have objected to the proposed settlement with major banks, saying it would restrict their ability to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing in a variety of areas, including the bundling of loans in mortgage securities.

Basically, the banks want a “get out of jail free” card.  They do not want any investigations into any of their wrong doings causing our economic collapse while they profited personally and corporate wise.  They want immunity from prosecution.

Fortunately, there are some defenders of the public interest like Schneiderman of New York that will not go along with this.

Mr. Schneiderman began objecting a few months ago to the proposed releases barring future litigation, declining to participate as long as they were included.

“The attorney general remains concerned by any attempt at a global settlement that would shut down ongoing investigations of wrongdoing related to the mortgage crisis,” said Danny Kanner, the spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman. His office has opened several inquiries into mortgage practices during the credit boom.

Read all of Gretchen’s article in The New York Times…click here

In a related editorial in The New York Times,

It’s a Flawed Settlement – Published: August 22, 2011

The Obama administration has turned up the heat on Eric Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, to go along with a proposed settlement with the nation’s largest banks over dubious foreclosure practices. Mr. Schneiderman should stand his ground in not supporting the deal. The administration says that a settlement would quickly deliver much needed relief to hard-pressed borrowers, but it’s doubtful it would provide redress on a par with the banks’ wrongdoing or borrowers’ needs.

The deal has been in the works for nearly a year, after the state attorneys general announced an investigation into a robo-signing scandal in which banks were found to have filed false foreclosure papers in state courts. It was widely believed that the scandal would lead to a broad inquiry into how banks inflated the housing bubble, profiting as it expanded.
Here again, with definite evidence of “wrong doing” or more correctly – illegal activity – nothing is being done.  In fact, our government is attempting to sweep it all under the rug – a cover up – leading us to believe it is in our best interest to do s0.
What is in our best interest is to prosecute those responsible for committing crimes.  The evidence is there, has been there and has been made public.  The banking industry is an organized criminal activity looking to use their economic hold over us to avoid prosecution and be allowed to continue their criminal activities for their own personal gain.

Shaun Donovan, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, however, says that a settlement on the narrow issue of robo-signing would not preclude other investigations by individual attorneys general. But, clearly, once the robo-signing issue is off the table, investigators would lose leverage to pursue remedies for other possible illegalities in the packaging, marketing and transferring of mortgage securities.

But some AG’s like New York’s Schneiderman are not going along with it even though there may be some very real personal consequences for them.

Read the entire Editorial in the The New York Times…click here

It is important for all of us to wake up and realize that we are being duped at every junction in the road.  We are being lied to, deceived and set up for even greater misfortune while protecting and enriching those who have brought this misery upon us.

We must not only fight foreclosure but we must stand up for what is right and just.  We need justice.  We need to see this new breed of criminal do the time for their crimes.

While those in the White House may be following their predecessors in covering up and looking the other way, there are those in Congress not willing to let go and continue to push on to expose these criminals.

It is up to us to support those in Congress who – like us – would see justice done.  After all, the will of the people is greater then the greed of a few, be they Presidents of countries, bureaucrats, politicians or greedy, immoral corporate executives.

The fight for justice goes beyond the foreclosure court.  We must see those guilty punished.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Attorney Answers … Who is holder of a note

Half million dollar house in Salinas, Californ...

Image via Wikipedia

One of our readers – who  appears to be an Ohio attorney  well versed in foreclosure defense – offered a comment to which I replied and to which he again replied giving a more detailed explanation of  who is considered to be the holder of a promissory note therefore having the Standing to foreclose.

I feel this information is important enough to reprint these comments.  The information is important to all those who are facing and/or currently fighting foreclosure.

As this attorney states, it is always recommended that you seek the counsel of a qualified  – I stress qualified – foreclosure defense attorney.  While I understand that many of you facing foreclosure believe you cannot afford an attorney, I assure you that there are some out there whose fees are reasonable and affordable.

You will not often hear me say this, but if you are in foreclosure then you are not making mortgage payments or paying rent.  If you are evicted from your current home you will have to pay rent somewhere so use your diverted funds to fight for your rights and defend your foreclosure.

And to the many who have been so wiped out that eviction would mean absolute homelessness I encourage you to also look for an attorney who can help.  There are some out there that are willing to work Pro Bono (without fees). At the very least  represent yourself  Pro Se.  Learn what you can from blogs like this and the several others that are credible and offer sound advice and information.  Just answering your summons (in a judicial state) will buy you more time and time is what everyone needs.

Here now the comment conversation from the post Financial Turmoil Evokes Comparison to 2008 Crisis – NYTimes.com as posted on August 11, 2011:

On August 17, 2011 at 10:34 AM Ohio lawyer said: 

I disagree about ownership of the note being the only issue. Under the UCC, to be entitled to enforce the note, a person MUST be in possession of it (except when they can claim the note was lost, destroyed, etc.). In fact, a person in possession of a note endorsed in blank, even if they stole it, may enforce the note. Ownership is not necessary. Likewise, a person who “owns” the note may not enforce it unless they are also in possession of it. I was not sold on the “show-me-the-note” defense for a long time. But after briefing the issue several times in Ohio, I accepted its importance. Without actual possession of the note, a lender cannot prevail. I agree that standing is a major issue, but “ownership” is not the proper way of thinking about it.

  • On August 21, 2011 at 3:31 PM Larry Rubinoff said: |Edit This

    Thank you for your take on this very important subject. Since standing is a major issue and “”ownership” is not the proper way of thinking about it”, then what is the way to think about it.

    Possessing the note, as you say, endorsed in blank, gives the holder the right to foreclose. I was always under the impression that a mortgage note endorsed in blank is not like a bearer bond where anyone in possession of it can execute it. In other words, mortgage notes are not bearer bonds. What is your take on this?

    Of course, if a mortgage note is held by someone but has never been endorsed in blank then it is your argument that now the bearer does not have standing. If this is what you are saying, I must agree.

    On the issue of lost, stolen or destroyed, banks often use this as an argument and basically are using a “trust me your honor, I did have it at one time but it was lost, stolen or destroyed, therefore I should have the right to proceed with the foreclosure action”.

    Too many judges simply accept this from a bank because they are “the bank” and of course, banks don’t lie. Only one judge questioned this in the past asking the plaintiff which occurred.

    Was the note lost, stolen or destroyed? It could not have been all three and if you don’t know which it was then you probably did not have it. I believe it was now Supreme Court Judge Schack in New York who questioned and disallowed this argument.

    DISCLAIMER: i am not an attorney and my comments do not reflect legal advice in any way. My comments come purley from my research and experience in these matters.

    I do, very much, welcome comments from attorneys like the one I am responding to for their legal opinions. More dialogue like this can be of great assistance to our readers and the millions facing foreclosure.

    If you are an attorney and would like to publish your views and opinions here at TheForeclosureDetonator please contact me at lrubinoff@theforeclosuredetonator.org.

    • On August 21, 2011 at 10:50 PM Ohio Lawyer said: |Edit This

      The question is whether someone is a “person entitled to enforce” the note. This status is defined by the Uniform Commercial Code. Below are the relevant provisions of the U.C.C. as adopted in Ohio:
      UCC 3-301
      (A) “Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means any of the following persons:
      (1) The holder of the instrument;
      (2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder;
      (3) A person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to section 1303.38 or division (D) of section 1303.58 of the Revised Code.
      (B) A person may be a “person entitled to enforce” the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.
      A “holder” is defined in U.C.C. 3-301
      (T)(1) “Holder” with respect to a negotiable instrument means either of the following:
      (a) If the instrument is payable to bearer, a person who is in possession of the instrument;
      (b) If the instrument is payable to an identified person, the identified person when in possession of the instrument.

      These two provisions have to be read together to get the complete picture. Let’s go through each type of person listed in U.C.C. 3-301.

      1. Holder – is someone in possession of an instrument which is either payable to that person (i.e. initially made payable to that person, or payable to that person via a special endorsement) or payable to bearer (e.g. endorsed in blank). This person need not be be the “owner” of the instrument, and may be in wrongful possession of it. Under this provision a thief could be a person entitled to enforce the note. All he needs is possession of a note endorsed in blank.

      2. Non-holder with rights of a holder – To qualify under this provision a person must: (1) be in possession of the note, but it need not be order or bearer paper; and (2) the person must have been given the rights of a holder. How does someone get the rights of a holder without being a holder? A holder transfers possession to the person and also grants to that person rights through a separate document, but doesn’t get around to negotiating the note. For example, Bank A sells a group of notes to Bank B. The notes are physically transferred to Bank B, but are not endorsed. Bank A also executes a bill of sale acknowledging that it sold the notes to Bank B. Think of it as possession plus ownership without endorsement.

      3. Someone not in possession under certain circumstances: There are two possibilities here. The first in the “lost, stolen, or destroyed” note. We see that often in foreclosure cases. The bank has to submit evidence to the Court to prove it can enforce the lost note. The other circumstance is almost never seen so I won’t go into it.

      That’s it. Only three classes of people can sue on a promissory note. Aside from “lost note” cases, possession is required. After that you need either negotiation (payable to order or an endorsement in blank) or some other evidence that you are intended by the last holder to be the person to enforce the note.

      This framework addresses commercial paper in general. That said, there may be other restrictions on transfers of certain types of mortgage notes. For instance, an FHA note cannot be sold to just anybody. They can only be transferred to other FHA-approved lenders. Some have suggested that such FHA or VA regulations renders notes issued under their programs to be something other than negotiable instruments. I do not know much about those arguments, but want to caution people that generalities are just that – general. Every situation is different and must be evaluated on its own facts.

      I can’t emphasize that last point enough. It’s all well and good for people to know the law, but too many borrowers try to go it alone. Law is not viewed in a vacuum; it is applied to fact. Most of the time the fact is harder to come by than the law. I urge borrowers to find counsel to help them. Doing it yourself almost never turns out well.

      I agree, Judge Schack drew attention to these issues by asking the simple questions and demanding some proof. Now, judges everywhere are more likely to listen to a borrower who challenges broad assertions of standing. Currently, this issue is pending before the Ohio Supreme Court and will likely be decided late this year. You can see the briefing on the issues on the Court’s website. The case name is U.S. Bank v. Antoine Duvall, Case No. 2011-0218.

Thank you Ohio Lawyer for taking your valuable time to offer these comments and help educate our readers.

To all attorneys:  Feel free to send your information for publication to me at lurubinoff@TheForeclosureDetonator.org.  You can remain Anonymous, use a screen name or if you wish have your name, address and phone number published.  If you choose to use only your name or screen name, please let us know what state you are in or what state(s) you practice in.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Robo Signers List

Wow.  Why have I not seen this before.  My better half just found it as is published on Scribd on April 1, 2011.  It is a long piece as it details a lot of information of individual Robo signers and Robo signing in general.  For example:

What is a robo-signer?
Robo-signers are mortgage lending company employees who prepared and signed off on foreclosures without reviewing them, as the law requires. Jeffrey Stephan, the GMAC employee who was the first identified as a robo-signer, has acknowledged in sworn deposition that he prepared 400 such foreclosures a day.The discovery of robo-signers could simply bethe tip of the iceberg. If so, more revelations could only increase the pressure on large banks.Their potential exposure to losses could skyrocket….

What·s the significance?
 The “robo-signing of affidavits and Assignments of Mortgage and all other mortgage foreclosure documents served to cover up the fact that loan servicers cannot demonstrate the facts required to conduct a lawful foreclosure.  If it turns out that robo-signers did indeed sign off on loans without review, they committed fraud by claiming knowledge of a financial matter of which they had no personal knowledge. It could also mean that some people are wrongly being evicted from their houses….
This excerpt warrants attention so I am creating the “bold” emphasis.
Briefly, Robo Signers are illegal because fraud cannot be the basis of clear title, trustee’s deeds following Robo Signed sales are void as a matter of law, notarization is a recording requirement for many of the documents, which we also know was often botched, and most importantly because robo signed falsifications ARE meant for use in court, including unlawful detainers and bankruptcy matters….

Clear Title May Not Derive From A Fraud(including a bona fide purchaser for value).  In the case of a fraudulent transaction the law is well settled.
This is a MUST HAVE document.

If you are an attorney and have not seen this it is a must have reference source.  It has links and information that can be vital to your defenses.

If you are an individual facing or in foreclosure, this document is a “must save” reference guide as it will give you information to help you find the fraud in your loan, assignments and foreclosure filings as well as other valuable information links, depositions etc., such as:
CONGRESSIONAL WRITTEN REPORT REGARDING
SECURITIZATION AND FRAUDCLOSURE OF NOVEMBER 18, 2010
click on title for link
It also provides a very long list of named Robo Signers giving who they worked for, who they signed for and what titles they used.
Here is just one example of what you will find:
Allen, Greg –
Greg ALLEN is an employee of Lender Processing Services
in Mendota Heights,Dakota County, MN.  He signs Mortgage Assignments as an officer of MERS, servicing companies, and lenders.  Allen often signs these Assignments to trusts years after the closing date of the trusts.  Allen frequently signs Assignments for mortgage companies that filed forbankruptcy years before the effective date of the Assignment. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is one of the banks that frequently uses Assignments signed by Greg Allen to foreclose.   Greg Allen has signed Mortgage Assignments using the following titles:
Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.;
Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as nominee for Bayrock Mortgage Corp.;
Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as nominee for CTXMortgage Co., LLC;
Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as nominee for EMC Mortgage Corp.;
Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as nominee for EQ Financial,Inc.;
Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as nominee for FirstGuaranty Mortgage Corp.;
Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as nominee for FranklinFinancial;
Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as nominee for MaitlandMortgage Lending Company;
Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as nominee for MortgageNetwork, Inc.;
Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as nominee for PMC Lending; and
Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as nominee for ValleyBank.
SEE full deposition -stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/12/18/full-deposition-transcript-of-lps-greg-allenmers-is-live/

They list these Robo Signers alphabetically so it is easy for you to begin to verify some of the signatures in your documents.

THIS IS ONE POST YOU MUST PASS ON TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.  It is without a doubt the most valuable post I have ever posted here on TheForeclosureDetonator.

Here now the link to the valuable reference guide courtesy of Scribd…click here

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Begins: The Foreclosure Fight Tide Is Turning In Our Favor

Yes, for all these years, those of us who have been blogging to expose the wrongs and injustices placed upon us by the banks are finally seeing some daylight.  In the beginning no one really believed that banks could be so ruthless or so criminal.  In the beginning no one could believe that the attorneys representing these criminal enterprises would be capable of violating the very laws they are sworn to uphold by performing criminal acts themselves.

In the beginning no one could believe that judges would disregard the laws so blatantly that they are sworn to uphold – but they did and they are.  In the beginning no one could believe that our legislatures – county, state and federal – could be complicit of an entire legal system gone wild by supporting these criminal activities.

Now their Rocket Dockets are in jeopardy and hopefully will be shut down altogether.  Those retired judges brought back to dispense “injustice” under a mandate of clearing dockets will hopefully be sent back into retirement where they belong.

Now that this fraud at the end of the process has come to light, I am hopeful that all of the other frauds committed by the banks, lenders, Wall Street securitizers and all of their respective attorneys will also finally be prosecuted.

A lot must be said for those few in the legal profession – lawyers and judges alike who have over the past three years stood up for our rights,  for the law of the land and for justice.  They are too numerous to mention and I really don’t know who they all are.  Allow me to recognize just a few who are representative of the many across this nation who have fought back the giants and have not been afraid to speak the truth when representing their clients in our courts.

Bruce Harlan, Esq.

Mathew Weidner, Esq

Jeffrey Barnes, Esq

April Charney, Esq  0 The Dean of Foreclosure Defense

Neil Garfield, Esq 0 The Dean of Legal Reference on the topic of Foreclosure Defense in his LivingLies Blog

Federal Judge Boyco of Ohio

Superior Court Judge Shack of New York

Again I recognize that there are many more but these are the ones I am personally familiar with and they do represent a true blue slate of legal professionals around the country who still believe that this is still America and our Constitution still governs us.

Now how the State of Ohio is taking a proactive stand and fighting back.  They, I believe, are just the first of what I hope will be 49 more states along with our Federal Government who will begin to take real and meaningful action against the criminals who have functioned all to long under a protective cloud of criminal exception.  To these banksters I say;  “Your time has come.  Anything you say Will be used against you in a court of law.  Your “Get Out Of Jail Free Card” has expired.  You will be held accountable for all the misery and havoc you rained over the entire planet.

Here now the latest story from the Huffington Post

Ohio Attorney General Sues Ally financial Over Alleged Foreclsoure Fraud, First In A Possible Wave Of Lawsuits

WASHINGTON — Ohio’s attorney general is suing Ally Financial Inc. and its GMAC Mortgage division, alleging the company violated state fraud laws in handling foreclosure cases.

The action could be the first in a wave of lawsuits by state regulators over what appear to be widespread problems in documents used by the nation’s largest mortgage lenders.

Attorney General Richard Cordray said Wednesday the alleged fraud could involve hundreds of foreclosures in the state. The lawsuit claims the company’s employees signed and filed false affidavits to mislead courts. Cordray called the alleged fraud the “tip of an iceberg of industrywide abuse of the foreclosure process.”

A message left at Ally was not immediately returned.

Read the complete story…click here

Editor’s Note:

For those of you who know of other attorneys or judges that should be recognized for their efforts in the fight for justice against the banks by defending the nations people from wrongful and illegal foreclosure leave their name and location (city, state) in the comment section or email the info to me at:

lrubinoff@TheForeclosureDetonator.org.

I will start a page here on this site listing them all.  They deserve the recognition.

Also, other foreclosure defense blogs that have worked so tirelessly the past few years attempting to alert people to the fraud and injustice need also be recognized.  If you have a favorite foreclosure defense blog, send me their name and URL.  I will publish all of them on our side bar.

This is the beginning and all of our efforts are going to begin to pay off.  But most important, stopping this terrible tsunami of foreclosures, helping people stay in their homes is the most rewarding benefit of all this.

My one other hope is that this same awareness of foreclosure fraud will take hold in all of the Non Judicial states.  The same illegal activity exists there and the same injustice needs to be stopped.  This criminal enterprise by the banks MUST BE STOPPED.

I know I will stay with this effort until it is.  I will join forces with others as the opportunities arise.  There is strength in numbers.  We have all been duped, stripped of our wealth and our homes.  It is time we took back what was taken from us.

One Final Thought:

Stopping foreclosures and ending evictions – keeping people in their “homes” will begin to stabilized our housing markets and  our economy.  Working with people will win back the hearts and minds of our population.  An effort we seem to want to export in the Middle East but don’t want to practice here at home.

An occupied house is a well maintained house.  It creates a well maintained and more stable neighborhood which in turn stabilizes prices which begins to take us on a road to recovery which all the trillions of dollars of bailouts and stimulus programs did not and cannot accomplish and never will.

Our work has just begun.

Look at all the main stream media  (below) who have now begun to report on this .  Many of them have avoided the topic up until now.  The tide has begun to turn.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Loan Modifications…Just Window Dressing

I have long maintained that Loan Modifications offered by “the” banks are no more then ‘window dressing’.  Propaganda by our “too big to fail” financial institutions who have profited and continue to profit through foreclosures.  They have no real interest – or intent – on helping the public out of the crisis they created.

There should be more main stream media coverage and exposure like the one in the tricityherald.com.

In a recent story published in tricityherald.com, the “voice of the Mid-Columbia/kennewick, Pasco and Richland, Washington”, they tell real stories of real people who have suffered this deceit.  Herein lies the truth of loan modifications.  Stories that are all to familiar.

Homeowners tell how banks failed to modify mortgages
by Kevin G. Hall.

Nearly three years into the deepest U.S. housing slump in generations, lenders are modifying only a small number of problem mortgages, and rising foreclosures are restraining the economy’s recovery.

The administration thinks that about 2.7 million U.S. homeowners are at least two months behind on their mortgage payments, roughly equal to the population of Kansas. Yet only 9 percent of eligible borrowers had been offered trial loan modifications through June. (emphasis added)

Through emails and calls received by McClatchy’s Washington Bureau and other interviews they evidently conducted there emerged a common theme;

Virtually all say they were encouraged, directly or indirectly, by their lenders to fall behind on their mortgage payments in order to qualify for loan modifications. Then the modifications never came.(emphasis added)

Continue reading

Proving Ownership of the Note

TheForeclosureDetonator was originally founded to alert and inform people facing foreclosure that there is a way to “fight” back and that they should fight back.

The tangled web of financial companies that we are currently giving billions upon billions of dollars to are still working their tangled web of corporate entities to defraud the very same people they sold their version of the American Dream to.  This tangled web of cheaters, liars and illegal enterprises continue to destroy the people of this country while the good peole of this country fighting for their very survival are funding them to do so.

Is this not treason?  Purposely destroying this nation for their own personal financial gain and more important – control – of our country.

They believe – by virtue of illegallyl foreclosing – that they are not only above the law but are the law.  They can do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whom ever they want at any time they want.

As I have been writing on the issue of defending foreclosure for almost two years now, a more prominent advocate, April Charney, attorney from Jacksonville, Florida has gained national attention by actually challanging these unlawful acts and standing up to the creators of our current and what shall be a very long term crisis.

She has not only defended foreclosures but has taught over 1500 other attorneys how to do so.  April Charney’s message is worth repeating over and over again.

Don’t take my word for it but do take hers.  Those taking foreclosure action against you are most probably doing so illegally.  But unless – you – the homeowner takes the legal defense action against them they will continue to use the wrinkle in the law – that of default for lack of response – to accomplish the foreclosure.

I cannot urge all of you enough to FIGHT.

Recently this article was published in the New York Post on line by Richard Wilner,

THE LOAN RANGER

LAWYER OUTWITS BANKS IN FORECLOSURE BATTLES

By RICHARD WILNER

SLIDES = new slideshow(“SLIDES”);
SLIDES.timeout = 5000;
SLIDES.prefetch = -1;
SLIDES.repeat = true;

s = new slide();
s.src = “/seven/02222009/photos/biz033b.jpg”;
s.text = unescape(“Click image to enlarge.”);

s.link = “/seven/02222009/photos/biz033b.jpg”;
s.target = “”;
s.attr = “”;
s.filter = “”;

SLIDES.add_slide(s);

if (false) SLIDES.shuffle();

The Real Issue Behind "Show Me The Note"

Show Me The Note or Produce The Note – the concept of fighting a foreclosure action is being talked about in the media almost daily. I for one have been writing on this issue for over a year – not as an attorney, because I am not one – but as a consumer advocate who has been in the real estate, mortgage and finance industries for over 40 years – and believes in justice as well as establishing economic stability of our neighborhoods and our economy at large.

Now that it has come into the limelight people do take positions as to this legal loophole as it has been called. But is it a loophole or is it more?

The answer is it is more – much more. it embodies the essence of our legal system. As I say over and over again – two wrongs don’t make a right. What I am saying is that you can’t correct one violation by violating another.

Yes, a homeowner delinquent on their mortgage payments has violated the terms and conditions of the legal agreement they signed which agreement also gives its’ owner (the contract owner) the right to recovery by foreclosure. The key word here is the contract owner. The contract (mortgage note) does not give blanket authority for just anyone to recover by foreclosure. If it did, then you and I could go out, find a delinquent mortgage and foreclose on it.

Many states – such as Florida – have specific laws on the books that detail exactly how a foreclosure can be done and by whom. The laws in most judicial foreclosure states (states where you have to go to court and get a court order to foreclosre) are very similar. They say that you must prove you own the note and produce the original – not a photo copy, fax copy or any other facsimile – the original.

The laws also say producing the original is not always enough as having possession of the note does not mean you own the note. If you gave someone a mortgage and had them sign a note then gave me the note for safekeeping does that give me legal rights to ownership and foreclosure? No it does not.

This is the real issue at hand here. In order to pass ownership you must sell or assign the note. In Florida you must record – in the public records of the county the property is located in – the bill of sale or the assignment. You can readily see why the law requires this. Recording in public records is proof positive that the action occurred, when it occurred and what parties were party to this transaction. When recording a document in public records the document itself is stamped by the court and kept on file. This way no one can create a fraudulent copy, change dates or parties involved. The law in Florida further states that if a mortgage note is sold or assigned it must be recorded in public records prior to any foreclosure action – court filing – being made. In other words, you cannot take foreclosure action on something you don’t own – can’t prove you own – at the time you file the aciton.

The issue then is proving ownership of the note not possession of the note. PROVE YOU OWN IT not SHOW ME THE NOTE. In other words, prove you own it by what is in public records then show me the original. That is the law, period.

In the process of securitization the lenders were in such a hurry to pass the paper along – so it could be sold as a part of a security bundle – that they did not have the time to properly and officially sell or assign the note.

This is not only a legal issue for the homeowner but is very much a legal issue for the investor who purchased a share in that security. There exists no real evidence that the mortgage an investor bought a share in truly exists in the pool the investor invested in.

There is evidence that lenders sold the same mortgage note to more then one security hence the same interest in a mortgage note was sold to multiple parties. The question now arises – if I own this mortgage in Security Package One then how can you own the same mortgage in Security Package Two? One of us bought a fraudulent investment package but without the recording documents neither of us can prove who the rightful owner is. Someone was defrauded here.

Watch this CNBC aired piece featuring Attorney April Charney, a Jacksonville, Florida attorney who has been fighting foreclosures and teaching other attorneys the statutes so they can offer the same correct legal defense to their clients. After viewing please continue to read this article below the embedded piece.

To listen to this video – please turn off Bloomberg TV on the left panel by pressing the square button

Now that you have watched this you may be forming your own opinions. But here is where this gets really intersting and where I feel the real importance of this issue is.

The issue is the law. Is it universal – meaning does it applly to everyone equally – or is it selective? If it is selective then there in fact is no law. If a law is upheld based on size, stature or wealth then there is no equality under any law of the land and – if selective no law is reallly valid.

The judicial system of our country is there to protect all of us by upholding “the law” equally for all. We all have the right to our day in court and we all have the right to defend ourselves be it criminal or civil.

The rights of a defendant in any criminal arrest is protected under the Miranda Act. Law authorities must read a person their rights and giving them the right to have legal representation. If the Miranda Act is not read to a person arrested, the case against that person must be dropped. The Miranda Act was established for no other reason then to give everyone their “rights”. Should people in civil cases not have the same rights to defend and to legal representation?

Some may argue that when served a summons by a Sherrif, the summons details the rights and the responsibilities to the person or persons being served. Indeed it does – but what it does not do is tell them that they have a right to be sued for foreclosure by the proper party and not just by anyone claiming that right.

Right is Right. It is your right to sue me if you have the right to do so and it is my right to defend myself if you are not the rightful party to sue me. That – plain and simple – is the law.

If you – as the alleged mortgage note owner – sues me, it is only right that you prove to the court – and to me – that you have the legal right to do so. If you do, I lose, if you don’t, I have had my day in court, the laws have been upheld justly and we have preserved our legal system without a shadow of a doubt. It is then up to the rightful owner to either work things out with me or in the absence of my ability or willingness to do so – foreclosure on me.

The law is the law. The lender/banks/servicing companies and the attorneys that represent them in foreclosure know that they are violating the law and in fact – committing fraud upon the courts. If fraud is being committed should not the offenders be charged, tried and convicted if found guilty by a jury of their peers under the law? They should – and they should also enjoy the same fair treatment under our laws. If there is illegal activity -with knowledge and premeditated – the law should be enforced.

The issue is the preservation of each individual’s rights under the Constitution, the Constitution itself, our freedom and our liberty. Selective disposition of any law takes all of that away from us and puts us closer to being a totalitarian, fascist state. One where only the elite have rights and the rest of the population is suppressed by them. Iraq was one such example as are many other countries ruled under a dictatorship. Without equality under the law there is no true democracy. There can be no class system here be it individuals or corporations.

The basic principles of our country is at stake here – as much if not more than – the economic survival of our country. the economy will matter not if we have a two class system of judicial jurisdiction. It just is not OK to break the law no matter who or what you are.

No one is above the law and no one should have the ability to manipulate the law. Preservation of our society is at stake.

Editor’s Note:
More on what I believe to be positive effects of using this defense when fighting a fosreclosure in future articles.

Inside The Meltdown…PBS Frontline…A Must See Program

Inside the Meltdown was broadcast Tuesday, February 17th on PBS Frontline.
The occurances of September, 2008, can be called “The Economic 911”. (my tag)

Courtesy of their site I am embedding the entire program for your viewing. It is a one hour program but is a MUST SEE by every American.

See and hear for the very first time what the causes were, why the actions taken by the government and why the urgency to spend billions of our dollars. Also learn if this crisis is close to being over. Includes commentary from former Bear Stearns executives.

The stark reality is shocking. Following is dialogue directly from the Frontline web page.

As the housing bubble burst and trillions of dollars’ worth of toxic mortgages began to go bad in 2007, fear spread through the massive firms that form the heart of Wall Street. By the spring of 2008, burdened by billions of dollars of bad mortgages, the investment bank Bear Stearns was the subject of rumors that it would soon fail.

“Rumors are such that they can just plain put you out of business,” Bear Stearns’ former CEO Alan “Ace” Greenberg tells FRONTLINE.

The company’s stock had dropped from $171 to $57 a share, and it was hours from declaring bankruptcy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke acted. “It was clear that this had to be contained. There was no doubt in his mind,” says Bernanke’s colleague, economist Mark Gertler.

Bernanke, a former economics professor from Princeton, specialized in studying the Great Depression. “He more than anybody else appreciated what would happen if it got out of control,” Gertler explains.

To stabilize the markets, Bernanke engineered a shotgun marriage between Bear Sterns and the commercial bank JPMorgan, with a promise that the federal government would use $30 billion to cover Bear Stearns’ questionable assets tied to toxic mortgages. It was an unprecedented effort to stop the contagion of fear that seemed to be threatening the rest of Wall Street.

While publicly supportive of the deal, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former Wall Street executive with Goldman Sachs, was uncomfortable with government interference in the markets. That summer, he issued a warning to his former colleagues not to expect future government bailouts, saying he was concerned about a legal concept known as moral hazard.

Within months, however, Paulson would witness the virtual collapse of the giant mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and preside over their takeover by the federal government.

The episode sent shockwaves through the economy as confidence in Wall Street began to evaporate. Within days, in September 2008, another investment bank, Lehman Brothers, was on the brink of collapse. Once again, there were calls for Bernanke and Paulson to bail out the Wall Street giant. But Paulson was under intense political pressure from conservative Republicans in Washington to invoke moral hazard and let the company fail.

“You had a conservative secretary of the Treasury and conservative administration. There was right-wing criticism over Bear Stearns,” says Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Paulson pushed Lehman’s CEO Dick Fuld to find a buyer for his ailing company. But no company would buy Lehman unless the government offered a deal similar to the one Bear Stearns had received. Paulson refused, and Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy.

FRONTLINE then chronicles the disaster that followed. Within 24 hours, the stock market crashed, and credit markets around the world froze. “We’re no longer talking about mortgages,” says economist Gertler. “We’re talking about car loans, loans to small businesses, commercial paper borrowing by large banks. This is like a disease spreading.”

“I think that the secretary of the Treasury could not fully comprehend what that linkage was and the extent to which this would materialize into problems,” says former Lehman board member Henry Kaufman.

Paulson was thunderstruck. “This is the utter nightmare of an economic policy-maker,” Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman tells FRONTLINE. “You may have just made the decision that destroyed the world. Absolutely terrifying moment.”

In response, Paulson and Bernanke would propose — and Congress would eventually pass — a $700 billion bailout plan. FRONTLINE goes inside the deliberations surrounding the passage of the legislation and examines its unsuccessful implementation.

“Many Americans still don’t understand what has happened to the economy,” FRONTLINE producer/director Michael Kirk says. “How did it all go so bad so quickly? Who is responsible? How effective has the response from Washington and Wall Street been? Those are the questions at the heart of Inside the Meltdown.”

To view this program please turn off Bloomberg TV by pressing the square button on the lower left of the Bloomberg image on the left side of this screen. Thank you.


Is this crisis over or even close to being over? You be the judge.

Pro Se Defendant Prevails

In the ever increasing foreclosure crisis, the lack of willingness on the part of the servicing companies to trully modify loans to the benefit of all, one man in Miami fought back.

The full story can be seen be read here at MSNBC.com. The home you save could be your own.

In short, Luis Molina did his homework, reseached this issue of “lack of standing”, got up in front of the judge and pled his case. A novice who readily admits he was nervous. He was going up against seasoned attorneys, but attorneys that were knowingly representing a client they, in my mind, knew had not standing. I am not a lawyer but have studied this in detail for almost two years now and as one attorney put it, “this is law 101”.

As I attempt to uncover the truth, the fraud and the many misconceptions of this crisis, I find that those who were mainly responsible through fraud and deceit are continueing to profit through more fraud, deceit and illegal actions.

The law is the law for “everyone” and judges around the country are beginning to recognize the situation for what it is and denying foreclosures. Many of us are in a catch 22 situation but the continued preying on the weak for further gain and profit just cannot and should not be tolerated.

Future posts I am working on will show how the banks are even taking back properties at the sale illegally, putting them in their REO (real estate owned) departments, selling them making even more money in the process – all with no investment of cash. You see “they have already been paid in full” for the homes they are taking back.

My story in full can be read on my other site, TheForeclsoureDetonatorFORUM. A site designed to inform and encourage people to “fight” their foreclosures.

Fighting a foreclosure and defending against ones that are being done illegally – which most are – helps to preserve not only the economy but the integrity of our judicial system as well.

What is happening can be and is considered “fraud upon the courts” by many judges. One judges comments –

“I deny more foreclosures than I approve,” said Justice Arthur Schack of Kings County, N.Y., Supreme Court, in Brooklyn. “I want to see the servicing agent’s power of attorney, I want to see all the paperwork before I approve it. If the paperwork is garbage, I deny it. If you’re going to take away someone’s home, it should be done properly.”

This quote from Law.com where you can read the entire story. I urge you to take the time to do so.

He even went further with an attorney representing the wrongful plaintiff (lender).

In a blistering opinion in June, Schack, the Brooklyn judge, threatened Mary McLoughlin, an attorney at Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates of Carle Place, N.Y., with sanctions for filing a foreclosure on behalf of Wells Fargo. After doing his own research in the Automated City Register Computer System, a New York homeowner database, Schack discovered that Wells Fargo never owned the mortgage.

Schack denied the foreclosure and further set a hearing for Aug. 1 to afford her a chance to explain why she should not be sanctioned for “frivolous conduct.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Reyes, No. 5516/08 (Kings Co., N.Y., Sup. Ct.). McLoughlin did not return calls for comment.

Read my entire post with links to the story and related stories in TheForeclosureDetonatorFORUM and for more information on defending and fighting foreclosure go to TheForeclosureDetonator web site.

%d bloggers like this: