This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Fraudclosures | Who’s Lying? Federal Regulators? MBS Trustees & Document Custodians? Florida Bankers?
Who's Lying? Federal Regulators? MBS Trustees & Document Custodians? Florida Bankers?
Federal Regulators (OCC, Federal Reserve, OTS, & FDIC) investigate & write up an Interagency Report that states:
Page 4:
third-party law firms hired by the servicers were nonetheless filing mortgage foreclosure complaints or lost-note affidavits even though proper documentation existed.
Page 9:
The review did find that, in some cases prior to 2010, the third-party law firms hired by the servicers were nonetheless filing lost-note affidavits or mortgage foreclosure complaints in which they claimed that the mortgage note had either been lost or destroyed, even though proper documentation existed.
Page 10:
During the review of servicers, examiners assessed servicers’ relationships with third-party vendor Default Management Service Providers (DMSPs), focusing primarily on DMSPs that supported the execution of foreclosure-related documents, such as affidavits of indebtedness, lost-note affidavits, and assignments of mortgages
Many trusts filed exception report documents confessing to a long list of missing loan documents including promissory notes & assignments. Many examples here
start on page 20 and continue on and on and on until page 250. Take
note that this extensive list only includes trusts where American Home
Mortgage Servicing is the servicer & Deutsche Bank is the Trustee
& Document Custodian. There are countless other REMIC trusts that
also have exception reports.
Florida Bankers Association inform the Florida Supreme Court that the notes were destroyed to prevent confusion. (pg 4 here)
The reason "many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative pleading in the complaint" is because the physical document was deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic file.
See State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790 (Fla.
4th DCA 2003). Electronic storage is almost universally acknowledged as
safer, more efficient and less expensive than maintaining the originals
in hard copy, which bears the concomitant costs of physical indexing,
archiving and maintaining security. It is a standard in the industry and
becoming the benchmark of modern efficiency across the spectrum of
commerce—including the court system.
So, which is it? Who is lying?
www.4closureFraud.org
»
- advertisements -
Can you guess whats wrong with this Note?
Funny you should post that. The NYSE does not settle trades.
"The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) through its subsidiaries provides clearance, settlement and information services for equities"
The DTCC is a privately owned corporation (owned by Wall St.) that has a bunch of very funny rules about settlement and clearance, all of which serve no purpose other than to increase the velocity and number of trades upon which their Wall St. masters can charge a commission.
One of those rules is that if at the end of the day, sellers fail to deliver shares for transfer to the buyers, they create a "security entitlement" out of thin air in order to balance their books, and then don't care if the shares are ever delivered, because, under their rules, a security entitlement is legally identical to an actual share of stock. This has happened with such regularity and frequency for decades, and is obviously so profitable and popular with crooked sellers, that there are so many counterfeit shares floating in the system that it has been suggested that the only way out is to utterly and completely crash the NYSE and the NASDAQ down to nothing, since enforcing short covering by law would create the Mother of All Short Squeezes.
The DTCC system of clearance also has the side of effect of making it impossible to trace the path of an individual stock transaction, which is mighty convenient when the defrauded buyers come looking for somebody from which to collect damages.
Sorta like MERS making it impossible to discover the ownership of an individual mortgage.
This is why your brokerage statement says you have a "long" position (if you are long). They are careful to avoid stating that you actually own shares of stock.
Excuse me, I forgot that you never actually own shares of stock. CEDE & Co. own them as your nominee. Where have I heard that "nominee" term before?
The more proper analogy is that the DTCC is the Fed of securities transactions, printing share IOUs out of thin air when it suits them.
MERS was and\ attempt to impose a DTC structure on individuals private securities aka Promissory notes. The couldn't get private securities marketable as public offerings because of the SEC so they bundled them into public bonds effectively circumventing the law.
The suck part of this deal is the issuer (men and women) don't get shit unlike a company that issues securities in the market. They sure as hell don't call it a loan that is paid back.
Then there is the original issue discount. Why aren't the individual men and woman that issued these debt instruments get the benefit of that instead of the "originator" that didn't originate squat. Instead the originator sends 1099OID's to the next inline. Because of this issue a foreclosure results in a 1099 -C against the individual with the banks claiming a 1099-A on the promissory note and/or property. The basically escheat your right to issue credit.
RE: p.4:
Whether electronic filing is more efficient or not it's either legal or illegal (in FL) to store this particular record electronically in lieu of the physical document. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
And if confusion was indeed prevented by destroying docs...why are you in court?
It would appear as though we have an epedemic of materially different notes and mortgages flying around - all purported to be either actual originals or electronic copies. Enough to make even Mother Theresa at least a little suspicious.
I quit trolling you for a while, sorry.
Now that I am back I do want to mention that unless we have a liquid market that housing will likely be cheaper, but still out of reach of the average person. Cheap housing, but impossible loan standards is not cheap housing.
Maybe a public policy of the average person being able to buy a house was wrong. That seems to be the consensus now and seems confirmed with the new criteria for conforming loans being very strict.
A market to buy and sell home loans is necessary to provide liquidity and lower the cost of finance. MERS may have been fucked up in practice, but it is a necessary concept to have an entity that can settle trades in loans just like the NYSE does for stocks.
I really disagree with this but did not junk. A bank that originates the loan should keep it till maturity. That is the only way to fix this. The less people trying to make a living off of it the better. A bank that has to keep its loans to maturity will make dam well sure it is a good loan.
agreed, there is a place for long term mortgages and reasonable amount down because you can look at other countries without mortgages and discover the alternatives...half built houses that would satisfy any occupancy permits here in US or rich own all property and everyone else renters...
nothing wrong if most people renters as long as rich aren't making super profits off of properties that no one else can afford to buy, if rents reasonable its fine...
also whether prop is appreciating or not makes all the difference, if slowly depreciating over 20 years like Japan, those not homeowning are lucky ones
do you know the answer to the question?....has anyone whistleblower told us?...really, I am curious, they used Docx etc to fabricate proof of ownership for some reason, the logical one is that they could not legally prove ownership...soooo, why not? If the notes are stored somewhere, what then is the harm of accessing them? Was it more expensicve to pull the files than fabricate them? that seems unlikely because surely they had lawyers telling them using third party fabricators was playing with fire.
So does this mean the orignal paper notes no longer exist? And what was the incentive to dissappear them?
I worked at an engineering consulting firm that got burned in a big lawsuit. In the process of the lawsuit, some analysis/calcs, (which were always kept in the file for future reference, for fuuture pahses/revisions to projects, as a reference if there were issues problems) thes calcs were used to prove the firms engineers had made a mistake. Based on this, the firm no longer retain calculations, notes etc, the project files just became a file of the final product/final recommendations.
So I wonder, did the original notes have details they would rather not have retained? Would the original notes prove they committed fraud in origination or securitixation?
Were the original notes just a hassle to store and they thought electronics would be fine?
Really, what are folks thoughts on what they did with this documentation?
They are trying to fix the mistakes made during the first great depression. If they virtualize the paperwork, then this generation's John Dillingers won't be able to burn the mortgages.
The affidavits are just an attempt to blur the lines on the legal concept of 'No ticket, no laundry'.
It really is quite simple "Everybody crook"
Simon Johnson needs to be heard:
"Let me tell you why this isn't happening.
"The bankers want to continue to be paid on a unadjusted for risk, return on equity basis. Of course they do. And the way they get nice compensation packages is by taking a great deal of leverage...
"The executives of the top 14 financial institutions took out in cash $2.6 billion between 2000 and 2008. They top 5 took out $2 billion.
"They are, in order: Sandy Weill, who built Citigroup, which then blew up, after his watch. Henry Paulson, who built Goldman Sachs, and was the point-man lobbying the government to lower leverage caps, for investment banks, which even now Larry Summers says was a great mistake. Goldman Sachs blew up. Angelo Mozilo, number 3, built Countrywide and that actually built up on his watch. Dick Fuld, number four, Lehman Brothers, and Jimmy Cayne, Bear Stearns.
"Those 5 people took out $2 billion. So that's the private gain, one measure of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GmBoJ7qHYgNew TV show "Who's Lie is it anyway" will feature casts from all of the above distinguished members of society to lie continously in front of a live audience without being detected. The winner of the contest will become the next chairman of Federal Reserve. Second place will become the next president of USA.
Who is lying?
Everyone.
No fair. I answered (D) first! Bitchezz! LOL!
Answer (E) "All of us" didn't seem apparent at the time.
whos lieing
they all are on their knees with a frontal suck off the tit of bought off judges , bought off bankers , bought off politicians , bought off fed economists , bought off treasury heads , bought off politicians, bought off network news, bought off national newspapers.
the lie extends to the mouth, to the bent knees , to the glass eyed pavlovian public .
who is john galt
This ain't Rock and Roll
This is Genocide.
Bring in the Diamond Dogs.
Metal is the stud that mounts the Gem.
You see, metal can be pounded and melted multiple times in its lifetime but gems...
What we can be sure of is that Washington and Wall Street have bailed out bankers with the blood of our children.
Notice that the S&P "downgrade" of U.S. debt was to push austerity upon the individual citizen and family AFTER $14+ Trillion of liquidity for the banksters and cronies.
Yes...they will say "We are doing god's work" or "We did it for the children."
Fucking Harpies.
Apparently the world lives entirely within a vivid hallucination.
wikerpediar:
A hallucination, in the broadest sense of the word, is a perception in the absence of a stimulus.
http://www.google.com/search?q=hallucination&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=...
What then is stimulus in the absence of perception? A description of the Federal Reserve?
That is easy- whose lips are moving?
One liar is JPM. Got my notice today from Fannie on the transfer of my loan modification
to them. But I was in no need of a mod, just took Chase up on their offer to refi.
Would post all the docs, but don't know ScribD. What a joke.
Saved more than I could with Geico, though.
You know who else were obsessed with efficiency? Hitler and Stalin. So while thankfully people aren't being exterminated by this outbreak of misplaced enthusiasm, millions of lives are potentially being severely harmed if not destroyed. The size and scope of the mortgage fraud, and the securities fraud that was built atop it, is only surpassed by the madness and abject evil of German and Soviet delusions of grandeur that led the sheep to slaughter, supposedly for the good of the homelands.
patience grasshoppers .....the fraud is slowly being exposed and cannot be hidden much longer
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2f28160-6a13-11e0-86e4-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1JwA4Xjh8
Funds accuse banks of manipulationBy Dan McCrum in New York
Published: April 19 2011 02:24 | Last updated: April 19 2011 02:24
Three investment funds have accused a group of US, European and Japanese banks of conspiring to manipulate the benchmark interest rate used to calculate the cost of billions of dollars of debt.
The 12 banks named in the suit filed in a New York Federal Court are accused of harming investors by selling derivatives based on artificial prices between 2006 and 2009.
The suit revolves around the London interbank offered rate, or Libor – the estimated cost of borrowing for banks between each other set daily by the British Bankers’ Association.FTC Capital, based in Vienna, and two FTC Futures Funds registered in Luxembourg and Gibraltar contend in the complaint that the banks “collectively agreed to artificially suppress the Libor rate”.
“During the most significant financial crisis since the Great Depression, US dollar Libor rates submitted by contributor banks did not vary markedly, nor did they increase or decrease sharply,” the complaint said.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and class action status for derivative investors harmed in a jury trial.
“We believe the suit is without merit,” Citigroup said.
The other banks named in the suit either declined to comment or spokesmen could not be reached.
They are: Bank of America, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Lloyds Bank, Norinchukin Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS and West LB.
The lawsuit comes as regulators in the US, Japan and UK are investigating whether some of the biggest banks acted in concert to manipulate the benchmark interest rate.
Libor, which measures the rate banks charge each other, is used as a reference for about $350,000bn in financial products, making it one of the world’s most closely watched indices. Very small changes can have a huge knock-on effect on products such as interest rate derivatives and loans that are pegged to the rate.
“Because different banks were experiencing different levels of severe stress, the banks should have been receiving markedly different borrowing rates. None of this was reflected in the Libor rates reported,” said the complaint.
The complaint argues that the banks had two motives for suppressing Libor, “to avoid having the market doubt their financial stability”, and “to take advantage of insider trading opportunities their inside information would provide in the Libor-based derivative market”.
The process to set dollar Libor involves 20 banks submitting their borrowing costs every day at about 11am.
The top and bottom five are discarded and the rate is then calculated from an average of the remaining 10.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2f28160-6a13-11e0-86e4-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Jr0CxEpt
The lie might work if they have scanned document copies of the original signed documents. However, they appear to not have those documents and instead have no evidence that actual original signed documents ever existed. As a result, it is simple their word that someone owes them money and they have the right to foreclose.
... and oddly enough, the courts are simply accepting their word with no proof.
... and oddly enough, the courts are simply accepting their word with no proof.
"It is a standard in the industry and becoming the benchmark of modern efficiency across the spectrum of commerce—including the court system."
Reminds me of the scene in the Untouchables when Kevin Costner tells the judge his name is coded in Capone's books. The fact is, as good as electronic wizardry's getting, (i.e. W.Banzai: exhibit A), manipulations are far easier to perform and much more difficult to detect.
"Trust"= distrust
"Deed"= misdeed
"promissory"= lie
Currently, these controllers of notes and deeds are sitting on the worlds largest piles of frns ever in existence, allowing only a trickle of the massive amount into circulation and causing otherwise prudent borrowers less and less opportunity to service the notes they promised to pay on. This, in anticipation of greater defaults so their bis numbers for real estate ownership can "improve".
Just a sick bis ploy.
HT benny, timmy and barney.
Number "D" -- All of the Above...
It piles higher by the day.
Goldman Sachs and Executive Charged With Fraud
ROMAN PINO vs. THE BANK OF NEW YORK, ETC., ET AL.
Diana vs. WAMU
Moll vs. MERS, et al
"the physical document was deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic file"
Is this stuff Ripley's believe it or not material?
Ille tell you why this is not only illegal but makes no sense. If they did that they voided every mortgage that was made electronic.
Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
from the official commentss
4. Paragraph (1) excludes wills, codicils and testamentary trusts. This exclusion is largely salutary given the unilateral context in which such records are generally created and the unlikely use of such records in a transaction as defined in this Act (i.e., actions taken by two or more persons in the context of business, commercial or governmental affairs). Paragraph (2) excludes all of the Uniform Commercial Code other than UCC Sections 1-107 and 1-206, and Articles 2 and 2A. This Act does not apply to the excluded UCC articles, whether in "current" or "revised" form. The Act does apply to UCC Articles 2 and 2A and to UCC Sections 1-107 and 1-206.
5. Articles 3, 4 and 4A of the UCC impact payment systems and have
specifically been removed from the coverage of this Act.
Article 3 covers Negotiable instruments which are promissory notes.
Electronic signature mean nothing. If that's what they did they basically confessed destroying their own property via their own negligence.
(D) All of the above.
It was pointed out that I forgot the traditional sign off...
Bitchezzz!