Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Class Action on Ice Resumes in the wake of the ibanez decision.

great article from Bloomberg..

Massachusetts Foreclosure Class Action to Resume Manson v GMAC

By Thom Weidlich - Jan 10, 2011 4:56 PM ET

A statewide class action in which Massachusetts homeowners accuse U.S. Bancorp and Ally Financial Inc. of faulty foreclosures will resume now that the state’s high court ruled in a similar case last week.
The litigation was on hold while the Supreme Judicial Court decided whether state law required foreclosures to be conducted by the mortgage owner. The high court ruled Jan. 7 in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez that an industry practice allowing post-foreclosure assignments violated state law.
“This is a statewide class action and it’s going to bring relief to all of the people who are dispossessed homeowners in many instances,” Kevin Costello, a lawyer for the borrowers, said in a telephone interview today. Costello today filed a motion to restart evidence gathering in the case.
Claims of wrongdoing by banks and loan servicers triggered a 50-state investigation last year into whether hundreds of thousands of foreclosures were properly documented as the housing market collapsed.
Unwinding of foreclosures may lead to loan workouts with homeowners or force originators to buy back loans that ended up in mortgage-backed securities.
Teri Charest, a U.S. Bancorp spokeswoman, didn’t have an immediate comment. The Minneapolis-based company was sued as overseer of a mortgage-backed trust.
Gina Proia, a spokeswoman for Detroit-based Ally Financial, didn’t have an immediate comment.
Halt RequestIn July, U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns in Boston granted the defendants’ request to halt the class action until the high court ruled in Ibanez. Banks and law firms had been conducting foreclosures in the state before mortgages were transferred to them under a 1995 “title standard” by the Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, a group of closing attorneys, that condoned the practice.
“It was basically created by the real-estate bar without adequate foundation,” said Costello of Roddy Klein & Ryan in Boston. “It became an enabler for people who wanted to do business the way they wanted to do business.”
The homeowners in the class-action, or group, lawsuit said their foreclosures were also brought by the wrong party, often because of the process of securitization -- bundling mortgages into trusts that issue bonds.
‘Clearly Establishes’ The Ibanez ruling “pretty clearly establishes that our theory of the case is correct,” Costello said. “The securitization machinery didn’t allow for individualized treatment of these kinds of loans and so the sort of standard industry practice was foreclose first and assign later.”
The case has two classes of borrowers, he said: those whose foreclosures were started though not completed and those with completed foreclosures.
The homeowners sued Ally unit GMAC Mortgage and U.S. Bancorp unit U.S. Bank. Other defendants include EMC Mortgage, now owned by JPMorgan Chase & Co., and two foreclosure law firms, Harmon Law Offices PC in Newton and Ablitt Scofield PC in Woburn. Lawrence Scofield of Ablitt Scofield said his firm worked on only one of the foreclosure cases involved and it didn’t concern a late mortgage assignment, as in Ibanez.“These are all naked allegations and as far as I know we followed standard, normal foreclosure practice,” he said.Tom Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan, declined to comment. Andrew Harmon of the Harmon firm didn’t immediately return a call for comment.
The case is Manson v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, 08-cv-12166, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston). To contact the reporter on this story: Thom Weidlich in Brooklyn, New York, federal court at tweidlich@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Rollins vs MERS Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems MERSCORP

Fulton Class Action Challenges Foreclosures
involving MERS
by: Sheryl Rosenblum & Matthew Cardinale
December 3 2010
Original source: Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) ATLANTA -- On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of foreclosed homeowners in Fulton County who had their mortgage title transferred to MERS, an entity that is alleged to routinely engage in the fraudulent recording of deeds, in Fulton County Superior Court.

The case is called Rollins vs Mortgage Electionic Recording Systems, Inc. also known as MERSCORP or MERS.

Dustin Rollins is an affected homeowner, who filed on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons. David Ates is the attorney representing the class.

The judge is Melvin Westmoreland.

The lawsuit argues that MERS has no legal right to foreclose on the properties, because MERS is not a lender, nor is MERS a servicing agent.

The lawsuit also states that MERS is foreclosing, without having produced the mortgage note, which would show they have a right to foreclose.

Rollins v. MERSCORP Inc. is a class action suit, which accuses MERS of wrongfully foreclosing, based on the fact that MERS had no legal right to foreclose in the first place.

Rollins v. MERSCORP Inc. hopes to reverse the previously foreclosed properties, and if the lawsuit is successful, this could be a precedent for future lawsuits.

With Georgia being a non-judicial foreclosure state, the lawsuit is important because it brings an issue before the court which would otherwise not be reviewed by the court.

The lawsuit, however, does not include households who have not foreclosed, including those currently facing foreclosure. It does not address the overall title questions impacting all the homeowners with their home titles held by MERS, including those who have not fallen behind on payments.

The Fulton County class action lawsuit is just part of an onslaught of class actions lawsuits filed around the country.

An estimated sixty percent of mortgages in the US have MERS on title.

According to author Christopher L Peterson, MERS is a shell company, with few employees, that has no legal interest in our properties.

The lawsuit claims MERS is a foreign-owned company that is not registered as a Georgia corporation with the Secretary of State's Office.

The lawsuit claims MERS is wrongfully foreclosing on millions of homes, clouding the title, while avoiding millions of dollars in county recording fees.

As previously reported by Atlanta Progressive News, MERS was created for the purpose of making the transfer and sale of loans cheap and easy. Unfortunately, as Peterson states, this is not legal, and when one separates a loan from a deed, by eliminating the need to record transfers, this clouds the title, and destroys the legal tracking system, which has caused massive legal problems.

Up until a few years ago, people used to be able to go down to the county and trace the title of a property, but today it is nearly impossible to trace the title because of MERS.

MERS shareholders, board of directors, and members are some of the very entities, that received bailouts, and contributed to the current US economic crisis. MERS shareholders include organizations such as AIG, Bank of America, Chase Home Mortgage, CitiMortgage, Fannie Mae, First American Title, Freddie Mac, GMAC, HSBC Finance Corporation, Merryll Lynch, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and Wells Fargo.

Many of these same companies made billions by packaging risky mortgages, giving them AAA ratings, selling them for a profit, and then betting that the loans would default.

The MERS system was created to avoid recording fees, while they transferred these loans over and over, causing the current economic crisis.

As previously reported by APN, banks and financial gambling institutions were literally transferring mortgages via Excel spreadsheet.

Peterson claims MERS may have robbed counties across the US of millions maybe billions of dollars in past and future recording fees.

There is an epidemic of wrongful foreclosures, mortgage fraud, and countless homeowners are being thrown out of their homes, for no good reason.

Peterson warns those who are fortunate enough to pay off their mortgage, they may not have good title. For those who are paying their mortgages, they could be paying money, only to find out the entity they are paying to is not the legal noteholder.

These lawsuits may take years to settle. The companies are quickly seeking to lobby for the passage of federal legislation, to make MERS a legal way of doing business.

Meanwhile, county attorneys do have discretion to sue for past and current recording fees, and to make sure counties start receiving fees on all transfers.

Marci Kaptur H R 1123 Show the Note

Some of you have asked about legislation filed related to the requirement of lenders as they foreclose on properties to be able to amply show that they have standing and capacity to foreclose on the property. Logic would suggest that showing the debt instrument and showing that the instrument has been properly conveyed to a party of interest would be standard operating procedure. In the wake of the advent of MERS unfortunately the Courts are duped into believing fraudulent lost note affidavits when, as many of the pleadings we are seeing show, they may have been shredded or shipped of shore. Anyways, we Love Marci Kaptur, have a look at her draft from 2009.

H.R.1123 -- Produce the Note Act of 2009 (Introduced in House - IH)
HR 1123 IH

111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 1123
To require the filing of certain information regarding a residential mortgage in any proceeding for foreclosure of the mortgage.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 23, 2009

Ms. KAPTUR (for herself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

A BILL
To require the filing of certain information regarding a residential mortgage in any proceeding for foreclosure of the mortgage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Produce the Note Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. REQUIRED INFORMATION AND NOTICE.

Notwithstanding any other provision of State or Federal law, no foreclosure, whether judicial or nonjudicial, may be commenced with respect to a covered residential mortgage unless the person commencing the foreclosure complies with all of the following requirements:

(1) SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION- The person commencing the foreclosure shall submit to the court, in the case of a judicial foreclosure, or to the office of the State or other subdivision of the State to which notice of default, foreclosure, or sale of the foreclosed property is required under State law to be submitted, in the case of a nonjudicial foreclosure, a report prepared by an independent party that includes the following information:

(A) A statement of findings as to whether the covered residential mortgage was made and serviced in compliance with the terms of, and regulations under, the following laws:

(i) The Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601) and Regulation Z of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under such Act.

(ii) The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) and Regulation B of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under such Act.

(iii) The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.).

(iv) The Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.).

(v) The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) and Regulation X of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under such Act.

(vi) The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 2002 et seq.).

(vii) The Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.).

(viii) The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.).

(ix) The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-73).

(x) Any applicable provisions of State and local law relating to real estate lending or consumer protection.

(B) Certification of any mortgage modification efforts that were employed and any offers made to the mortgagor by the person commencing the foreclosure.

(C) If any noncompliance is found pursuant to subparagraph (A), a statement as to whether the violations are such that the mortgagor should be afforded an extended right, beyond the period permitted under State law--

(i) to rescind the mortgage in defense of the foreclosure; or

(ii) to redeem the mortgage.

(D) Identification of--

(i) the actual holder of the mortgage note, the originating lender for the mortgage and all subsequent assignees, and other all parties who have an interest in the real estate that is subject to the mortgage or in the mortgage or the proceeds of the mortgage; and

(ii) any parties identified pursuant to clause (i) that received any assistance pursuant to title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5211 et seq.) and the amount of any such assistance received.

(E) A statement of whether a bona fide default on the covered mortgage has occurred.

(F) A description of any hardship circumstances regarding the economic circumstances of the mortgagor that would be relevant to a determination by the mortgagee of whether to modify the mortgage.

(G) A statement of whether the mortgage is insured under title II of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.).

(H) A statement of whether the mortgage is, or any terms of the mortgage are, unfair or constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice violating the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), and if so, a description of the unfairness or the unfair or deceptive act or practice.

(I) A statement of whether any material misrepresentations were made that fraudulently induced the mortgagor to enter into the transaction to his or her detriment, and if so, a description of such misrepresentation.

(J) Identification of any offsets to the creditor claim on the mortgage.

(K) A statement of the racial characteristics, gender, census tract, and income level of the mortgagor, as such terms are used for purposes of compliance with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.).

(2) REQUIRED NOTIFICATION- The person commencing the foreclosure shall provide notice to the mortgagor, in writing, not less than 5 days before any action is taken to commence the proceeding or action for foreclosure, and shall certify to the court, in the case of a judicial foreclosure, or to the office of the State or other subdivision of the State to which notice of default, foreclosure, or sale of the foreclosed property is required under State law to be submitted in the case of a nonjudicial foreclosure, that such notice has been provided, that includes the following information:

(A) A statement of any rights of the mortgagor under the applicable laws governing the foreclosure and consumer rights.

(B) A statement of any deadlines for filing answers, defenses, or objections to the foreclosure, including those rights of the mortgagor under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 and any applicable State laws.

(C) A statement of any penalties and other consequences for the mortgagor if the mortgagor does not respond or file answers to the foreclosure.

(D) A statement of the amounts claimed to be in arrears under the mortgage and needed to reinstate the account and all associated costs and fees, set forth in itemized and distinct categories, and current and correct contact information, including telephone numbers, electronic mail addresses, and postal addresses, at which the mortgagor can obtain further information regarding the mortgage account.

(E) A description of any additional options, such as mortgage workout, modification, mitigation, and redemption, that might be available to the mortgagor to prevent the foreclosure from proceeding and a description of how the mortgagor can obtain additional information regarding such options.

(F) A statement of the correct names, telephone numbers, electronic mail addresses, postal addresses, and any State licensing numbers of the mortgage holder, the mortgage servicer, and the person or persons authorized to take the actions described pursuant to subparagraph (E).

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) INDEPENDENT PARTY- The term `independent party' means, with respect to foreclosure on a covered residential mortgage, an individual who has no interest in, or affiliation with, any party involved in such foreclosure or with the covered residential mortgage involved in such foreclosure, including any party that owns, manages, controls, or directs such an involved party, any party that is owned, managed, controlled, or directed by such an involved party, or any party that is under common ownership, management, control, or direction with such an involved party.

(2) COVERED RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE- The term `covered residential mortgage' means a mortgage that meets the following requirements:

(A) The property securing the obligation under the mortgage shall be a one- to four-family dwelling, including a condominium or a share in a cooperative ownership housing association.

(B) The mortgagor under the mortgage shall occupy the property securing the obligation under the mortgage as his or her principal residence.

(3) MORTGAGE-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `mortgage' means a deed of trust, mortgage, deed to secure debt, security agreement, or any other form of instrument under which any property (real, personal, or mixed), or any interest in property (including leaseholds, life estates, reversionary interests, and any other estates under applicable State law), is conveyed in trust, mortgaged, encumbered, pledged, or otherwise rendered subject to a lien for the purpose of securing the payment of money or the performance of an obligation.

(B) CONDOMINIUMS AND COOPERATIVES- Such term includes a first mortgage given to secure--

(i) the unpaid purchase price of a fee interest in, or a long-term leasehold interest in, a one-family unit in a multifamily project, including a project in which the dwelling units are attached or are manufactured housing units, semi-detached, or detached, and an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities that serve the project; or

(ii) repayment of a loan made to finance the purchase of stock or membership in a cooperative housing corporation the permanent occupancy of dwelling units of which is restricted to members of such corporation, where the purchase of such stock or membership entitles the purchaser to the permanent occupancy of one of such units.

SEC. 4. RELATION TO STATE LAW.

This Act does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this Act from complying with, the laws of any State or subdivision thereof with respect to foreclosure on a residential mortgage, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this Act, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. No provision of the laws of any State or subdivision thereof may be determined to be inconsistent with any provision of this Act if such law is determined to require greater disclosure or notice than is required under this Act or to provide greater protection to the mortgagee than is required under this Act.

Monday, December 13, 2010

RICO fraud case in Georgia filed against Wells Fargo

Mortgage 'Modification' Called RICO Fraud

By LISA COSTON

     MARIETTA, Ga. (CN) - A homeowner claims Wells Fargo instructed her to stop making her monthly mortgage payments to qualify for its loan modification program, then foreclosed after she followed the bank's instructions. The class action seeks damages for RICO fraud, in Cobb County Court.
     Lisa Smoak Reid claims the bank "lulled [her] into inaction by offering to work out options to resolve her delinquency, but failed to provide any means to do so, and has failed to provide the plaintiff with the amount of the deficiency."
     Reid says a Wells Fargo representative told her on April 1 this year "to fall behind on her mortgage payments," to qualify for assistance programs. "Defendant Wells Fargo informed plaintiff that a modification was possible, but told the plaintiff that she had to be three months behind on her payments," the complaint states.
     So, Reid says, "Plaintiff, upon the advice of the defendant's representatives, fell behind three mortgage payments and was in contact with defendant Wells Fargo, who told plaintiff to look on the website for assistance programs."
     She adds: "On or about August 1, 2010, plaintiff regularly started to make payments on the property again."
     In the meantime, she says, she "filled out the requested documentation [for mortgage modification] and sent it back to Wells Fargo."
     Reid says Wells Fargo told her they had received her documentation, but never told her whether the bank accepted or rejected her request, "although they continued to draft payments from the plaintiff for differing amounts."
     But the bank never told her "of the reasons for the different amounts of the bank drafts," and they never contacted her attorney about her request for modification either, Reid says.
     Instead, the bank foreclosed, putting at risk her $50,000 in equity and the $60,000 she spent on renovations. It also "threatened to obtain a dispossessory order" unless she pays "an alleged deficiency in the mortgage note," but Reid says that bank never told her "how much she allegedly owes."
     Reid wants an emergency hearing and injunction to stop the foreclosure proceedings and set aside the foreclosure permanently. She also wants $15 million in punitive damages for RICO fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and emotional distress.
     She is represented by Frank Marquez with Belli, Weil, Grozbean & Davis of Atlanta.
     Similar complaints have been filed, and continue to be filed, against banks across the United States.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Countrywide Slammed by FTC

Countrywide Will Pay $108 Million for Overcharging Struggling Homeowners; Loan Servicer Inflated Fees, Mishandled Loans of Borrowers in Bankruptcy

Two Countrywide mortgage servicing companies will pay $108 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they collected excessive fees from cash-strapped borrowers who were struggling to keep their homes. The $108 million represents one of the largest judgments imposed in an FTC case, and the largest mortgage servicing case. It will be used to reimburse overcharged homeowners whose loans were serviced by Countrywide before it was acquired by Bank of America in July 2008.
“Life is hard enough for homeowners who are having trouble paying their mortgage. To have a major loan servicer like Countrywide piling on illegal and excessive fees is indefensible,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We’re very pleased that homeowners will be reimbursed as a result of our settlement.”
According to the complaint filed by the FTC, Countrywide’s loan-servicing operation deceived homeowners who were behind on their mortgage payments into paying inflated fees – fees that could add up to hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Many of the homeowners had taken out loans originated or funded by Countrywide’s lending arm, including subprime or “nontraditional” mortgages such as payment option adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only mortgages, and loans made with little or no income or asset documentation, the complaint states.
Mortgage servicers are responsible for the day-to-day management of homeowners’ mortgage loans, including collecting and crediting monthly loan payments. Homeowners cannot choose their mortgage servicer. In March 2008, before being acquired by Bank of America, Countrywide was ranked as the top mortgage servicer in the United States, with a balance of more than $1.4 trillion in its servicing portfolio.
When homeowners fell behind on their payments and were in default on their loans, Countrywide ordered property inspections, lawn mowing, and other services meant to protect the lender’s interest in the property, according to the FTC complaint. But rather than simply hire third-party vendors to perform the services, Countrywide created subsidiaries to hire the vendors. The subsidiaries marked up the price of the services charged by the vendors – often by 100% or more – and Countrywide then charged the homeowners the marked-up fees. The complaint alleges that the company’s strategy was to increase profits from default-related service fees in bad economic times. As a result, even as the mortgage market collapsed and more homeowners fell into delinquency, Countrywide earned substantial profits by funneling default-related services through subsidiaries that it created solely to generate revenue.
According to the FTC, under most mortgage contracts, homeowners must pay for necessary default-related services, but mortgage servicers may not mark up the cost to make a profit or charge homeowners for services that are not reasonable or appropriate to protect the mortgage holder’s interest in the property. Homeowners do not have any choice in who performs default-related services or the cost of those services, and they have no option to shop for those services.
In addition, in servicing loans for borrowers trying to save their homes in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, the complaint charges that Countrywide made false or unsupported claims to borrowers about amounts owed or the status of their loans. Countrywide also failed to tell borrowers in bankruptcy when new fees and escrow charges were being added to their loan accounts. The FTC alleges that after the bankruptcy case closed and borrowers no longer had bankruptcy court protection, Countrywide unfairly tried to collect those amounts, including in some cases via foreclosure.
Settlement Terms
The FTC’s complaint and settlement order name two mortgage servicers as defendants: Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, formerly doing business as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP. The settlement requires Countrywide to pay $108 million, which will be refunded to homeowners who Countrywide overcharged before July 2008.
In addition, the settlement order prohibits Countrywide from taking advantage of borrowers who have fallen behind on their payments. The defendants continue to service millions of mortgage loans, including tens of thousands of loans involving borrowers in bankruptcy and foreclosure. In the servicing of loans, the defendants are permanently barred from:

Making false or unsubstantiated representations about loan accounts, such as amounts owed.
Charging any fee for a service unless it is authorized by the loan instruments, by law, or by the consumer for a specific service requested by the consumer.
Charging any fee for a default-related service unless it is a reasonable fee charged by a third party for work actually performed. If the service is provided by an affiliate of a defendant, the fee must be within limits set by state law, investor guidelines, and market rates. Defendants must obtain annual, independent market reviews of their affiliates’ fees to ensure that they are not excessive.

In addition, Countrywide must advise consumers if it intends to use affiliates for default-related services and, if so, provide a fee schedule of the amounts charged by the affiliates.
The settlement also requires Countrywide to make significant changes to its bankruptcy servicing practices. For example, Countrywide must send borrowers in Chapter 13 bankruptcy a monthly notice with information about what amounts the borrower owes – including any fees assessed during the prior month. The defendants also must implement a data integrity program to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data they use to service loans in Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
This case was brought with the invaluable assistance of the United States Trustee Program, the component of the Department of Justice that oversees the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees. This action represents the FTC’s continuing work to help consumers who have been hurt by the economic downturn.
For more information about the case and the FTC’s refund program, see www.ftc.gov/countrywide.
The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint and settlement was 5-0. The complaint and settlement were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The Federal Trade Commission is a member of the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. For more information on the Task Force, visit http://www.stopfraud.gov/.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

MEDIA CONTACT:: Frank Dorman Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2674
STAFF CONTACT:: Lucy Morris or Alice Hrdy, Bureau of Consumer Protection 202-326-3224

(FTC File No. 0823205)
(Countrywide)

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Resources- Link Exchanges

One of the attorneys we trust in FL.

http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com/

Sunday, November 14, 2010

President Obama victim to robo signer?

Very interesting post from Michael Redmund at 4Closurefraud.org.

Well well well

Lookie what we have here folks
Is this why they tried to sneak through H.R. 3808? (just kidding)
Just like we have been saying all along, this is so much bigger than affidavits.
Here is another piece of the puzzle, without bringing up the REMIC issue
Now that YOU are affected personally in this, Mr. President, what are you going to do about it?
Let’s get off the whole CNN Axelrod signals White House opposition to foreclosure moratorium BS
The Obama administration opposes a moratorium on home foreclosures, but wants problems involving improper paperwork resolved as quickly as possible, senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday. Im not sure about a national moratorium,
Like my dear friend at the Hamlet puts it

It’s not the foreclosure affidavits only. Hello? It’s the whole kit-n-caboodle. it’s the fabricated assignments of mortgage, fake allonges, robo-stamped endorsements in blank, and satisfactions of mortgage, ignoring SEC and IRS regulations, disregard for the steps required by the REMIC rules. Its all the top national banks and their servicing arms. The whole of it is a sham. Dont believe the propaganda that insists otherwise.

Got it?
Now for the fireworks
First we will start with a screen shot of one of Obama’s Release of Mortgage

Marshe Craine of Chase signed off on their release of mortgage.

Now you ask, so what is wrong with that?

Nothing on it’s face, but you know how I roll

With all that is going on with the robosigning, forgeries, fabrications and LIES, we decided to dig into this to see if something was there to help educate the masses on the issues that all of us as Americans face…

Guess what we found

President Obama is a victim of the robosigning phenomenon that has taken the financial industry by storm…

How else would you explain this?

Check it out

Random search of signature for Craine

(Click to Enlarge)

Whoa, is that the same Marshe Craine , Vice President of Chase that signed off, and was notarized I might add BY THE SAME NOTARY, on the Presidents Satisfaction of Mortgage?

Let’s compare

Hmmm. I’m no handwriting expert but

Let’ clarify if the same person notarized these documents

Obama Notary

Random Satisfaction Notary

Looks the same to me on the notary, so if these signatures turn out to be different, she is LYING on one of them, but hey, no big deal, it is just a “technicality”, right?

Not convinced yet?

Okay, let’s dig deeper

Let’s see if this “Vice President” Marshe Craine is a MERS agent as well.

Yep

Oh, much better, that signature is much closer to the signature on the President’s Satisfaction of mortgage…

I feel much better now, don’t you?

Was getting a little nervous there for a second…

Didn’t MERS just come out with some statement about how they weren’t involved an any fraud or something like that?

Oh yea they did

Statement by CEO of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) “The MERS System is not fraudulent, and MERS has not committed any fraud.”

Statement by CEO of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) RESTON, Va.–(EON: Enhanced Online News)–Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) Chief Executive Officer R.K. Arnold today issued the following statement regarding the organization and clarifying certain aspects of its operations: “The MERS System is not fraudulent, and MERS has not committed any fraud.” “MERS is one important Read more

Anyway, it is a good thing it was the same notary again or we would be in big trouble…

Here is another one just for fun now as a Chase VP…

So you see, this whole Foreclosure-Gate crisis has nothing to do with the deadbeat borrowers, it never has.

It has to do with the complete lack of the respect of the law by the banking industry.

They got away with it up until now and are trying their damnedest to paper over their crimes.

It is time to say no more

They tricked all of us, even you Mr. President, and completely disregarded the basic laws of this country to make a buck.

I have been beating this drum, along with a few others, for years now and it is time to come to an end.

Mr President, now that you have had the fraud perpetrated on you personally, what are you going to do about it?

The system is broken and the foreclosures need to be stopped NOW.

It is actually worse than you can imagine…

Feel free to call or email me to discuss this further, Mr President.

All documents supporting the screen shots above are available to the media upon request.

The first national news media outlet that chooses to report this to the American Public will get an exclusive on a similar issue affecting another one of the President’s mortgages…

It is just as interesting, if not better than the above…

For more on the above concerns, see here and here…