Thursday, November 28, 2013

Giving Thanks by Neil Garfield

The Idolatry of Money Is Replacing Our Spiritual Values

by Neil Garfield
I'm a Jew. And while there is some competition between religious institutions for the soul of mortal man, I find the Pope's statement about the idolatry of money to resonate with my core beliefs and an accurate description of the consensus of minds throughout the world. Mark Twain made the point when he wrote "The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg" and the "$30,000 Bequest." Of course Twain also said that he congratulated the human race on reaching the conclusion that there is only one true religion --- "several of them." His stories chronicle fictional characters who exhibit all too human tendencies in human character. True believers who have lived their lives teaching and living the "word" of G-d are faced with the temptation of a large sum of money and immediately throw their spiritual teaching to the winds.
There has always been resistance to my comments that money is the one true religion to which everyone subscribes throughout the world (with a few notable exceptions) and that for most people given a choice between money and spiritual or moral choices, most people will rationalize their actions in favor of money. And they do this without any thought or understanding of money. The definitions of money vary, depend upon whom you ask, but the underlying theme is that it is a faith that the prevailing currency defines one's wealth. Why?
Money is an illusory concept that has no definite correspondent relationship with any item found in our physical reality. It derives its value from faith and belief that everyone else will see it the same way you do --- that every other person in the world will accept your "money" as a medium of exchange and store of value. People accept it in exchange for goods and services and they pursue it in their attempt to pay for goods and services and to accumulate a mythological wealth that must translate into a sum of money. It appears as paper, computer entries coded in 1's and 0's, or now cash equivalent paper deriving its value from the promise to pay money.
Money is a derivative, deriving its value from this common belief in its reality without any proof. Our belief in it causes us to consent or submit to power of those who are said to have money and who have amassed large quantities of it. Indeed we consent to be governed by a Republic that issues money on its own "full faith and credit" and we acknowledge the superior qualities of those who have the most money --- even if they stole it.
Blaming Wall Street or the high priests of money in our financial system is justified because they shifted their method of operation from acting as intermediaries to becoming predators separating those who trusted in them from their money. And it turns out that this trust represents a belief system which is based in a faith that is so immutable that it serves as a rationale for accepting the behavior of bad people doing bad things to innocent victims. Investors, insurers, traders, Government guarantee agencies, borrowers, rating agencies all of whom believed blatant lies and all suffered as a result of believing those lies. And despite all evidence in the public domain of this fraud, the judiciary, lawyers and even the borrowers cannot reconcile their belief in money with the acts of theft that continue in the court system. In the end, most of them resolve the conflict in favor of the high priests of money.
But blaming the high priests of money or the government is only part of the problem. The rest of us need to take a ruthless inventory of ourselves and decide whether we will continue to let money rule our lives, whether we will continue to admire people for their wealth, and whether we might do something today, on Thanksgiving, that turns the course of our lives on a new heading. That is what the evangelical community is getting at, along with Orthodox Jews, and similar movements whose commonality is to observe the demands of spiritual and moral values.
Let's give thanks for our children, our family, and pay it forward in our acts. Let's stop our apathy to being brutally deprived of our homes and property by a system based on the accepted awe of the high priests of money. Let's insist on a moral standard of right and wrong upon which we have already agreed --- that a wrong-doer should get no presumptions or acceptance of any standard that further enables them to do wrong, and that the wrongdoer should never be allowed to retain the fruits of their wrongful endeavors.
People who have been victims of such wrongdoing should not be labeled as deadbeats or stupid money managers; but it still remains true that their own belief in money overcame their natural good judgment --- by relying on the high priests of money, borrowers gave their implicit ignorant consent to being a part of a scheme that defrauded pension funds and other investors. It is a supreme irony that the borrower's retirement funds frequently came from a pension fund that was heavily invested in mortgage backed securities. They lost both their homes and will soon lose part or all of their pension or retirement money.
Let's give thanks that we can still celebrate humane behavior based upon moral choices of right and wrong, but let's also remember that if we did not believe so much in money and the high priests of money, those who would do wrong causing untold tragedies around the world would never have had the chance to do so. The term "cold hard cash" is outdated. It should be replaced by "warm moral choices."

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

It' all a lie

It is hard to wrap your brain around the profound tragedy of greed defining a whole generation, of brilliant minds figuring out ways to take control of all the mediums of exchange. Who would have believed it? Who believes it now? But I was there. I attended meetings in the early 1970's that laid the foundation for what would be one banking crisis after another as the Wall Street titans plotted to take everything from us -- what little wealth we had, what dignity we had left, what lower we had through voting by buying the levers of power, and understanding they could control the consequences.
Yes, deny everything because from the start the mortgage meltdown was nothing more than elaborate fraud on the citizens of the world, the banking and commerce systems that were bringing us together. Now these ruthless sociopathic titans have cornered the supply of money and further seek to corner the markets in natural resources. To what end? They don't even know. They just want more.
Your note and mortgage were part of a fraudulent scheme designed to defraud investors and government agencies, sovereign wealth funds, thousands if community banks and credit unions eliminating even the illusion of a free market place where everyone had a fair opportunity to grow. Your mortgage and note were evidence of fictitious transactions, as were the initial investments of pension funds and other investors. More fictitious transactions hid the reality while ideological rants reminded us that we should pay our debts but failed to remind us that committing fraudulent acts deserve restitution not rewards.
Follow the money all the way through and you will find the monetary transactions that never match up with the mountain of fabricated, forged paper trails. Follow the money trail and the rush to foreclosure makes perfect sense --- that the lowest proceeds from foreclosure were necessary to perfect the PONZI scheme.; how a performing loan is a liability and how a foreclosure puts a lid on trillions of dollars in liability for the intermediaries that made themselves principals in transactions that were simply loans from groups of investors to the borrower.
See how the loans were paid in full at the time of origination or acquisition and how MERS was only a necessary tool to hide fictitious trades to account for the money stolen from pension funds, investors, borrowers government guarantors and of course the most vulnerable --- the buyers.
Do it through discovery and ask the right questions, demand the right documents in the money trial and compare them with the pile of worthless paper reciting transactions that never occurred. Deny the debt, deny the note, deny the mortgage, deny the assignments, deny the balance they say is necessary to bring the loan current, while investors lose trillions and the proceeds of most payments never went to investors or borrowers but to the intermediaries, the conduits of these pernicious transactions. Follow the Servicer advances and see where that takes you and compare it to the demand for funds from the borrower who owed far less, if anything, to the creditor who was being defrauded by the Wall Street titans.
Not all loans are the same, but most of them followed the same general patterns of conduct. If you are persistent I discovering the truth, it is there to be found. And any good trial lawyer will reveal that truth. Deny everything and make them prove the loan. They can't. .

Wamu, Chase and the decision that can change lives

Sadly I have said this all along.

It is obvious that documents were produced for Shack to issue these rulings. The affidavits to which he refers should be obtained in their entirety. There is lots to take away from this decision, but most important, is that Chase never acquired the loans from WAMU. The loans originated or acquired by WAMU were already sold to investors, trusts and Fannie or Freddie. The issue with Fannie and Freddie of course is that they were merely fronting for "private label" securitizations hiding behind the veil of the GSE's who were mere guarantors and not lenders. I'd like to see any agreement and transactional documents showing the alleged purchase by Fannie, but it is presumed in the Shack Order and Findings.
It is also obvious that the finding that Chase was not the owner of the debt at any time came from an admission from both a Fannie Mae representative in an affidavit from an alleged Fannie Mae representative. We should direct discovery in Chase cases to that person in Fannie Mae who says they acquired the subject debt and that Chase merely received the servicing rights in the Chase-WAMU merger.
Note that Fannie Mae is considered by Shack to have acted in bad faith, and that Fannie was less than forthcoming in its description of itself stating that they might be the owner or they might be the trustee (pursuant to the Master Trustee Agreement published in 2007) for a securitized trust. Note also that Fannie at no time was chartered as a lender. Thus it could not originate any loans and never did so. The vagueness with which Fannie Mae addresses the issue of ownership shows that the hiding and non-disclosure in bankruptcy courts and state courts continues across the country.
The admission from Fannie that they "might" be the Master trustee for allegedly securitized assets (debts arising out of fictitious transactions on paper that looked like mortgage loans) is both alarming and encouraging. The rush to foreclosure is partially explained by this chaotic pile of fraudulent paper trails.
When you take into account the non stop servicer advances, you can see what the parties are hiding --- that the real creditor on those debts, has been paid all the interest they were expecting, that the principal is being paid in settlements with pennies on the dollar, and that the default alleged in notices from servicers and informing the borrower of the right to reinstate were defective, to wit: that the amount stated as required to cure the alleged default was and remains incorrect. The amount should have been reduced by third party payments including but not limited to the servicer advances which were not loans, and thus could only be characterized as PAYMENT, which is the ultimate defense against a lawsuit or any enforcement mechanism designed to collect a debt.
The dirty little secret is that they diverted title and money from the investors and converted what could have been a secured loan into an unsecured loan. The advances and payments by third parties satisfied the debt that arose when the borrower took the loan. They in turn MIGHT have claims for contribution or unjust enrichment but they are most certainly not protected by a pledge of collateral either as mortgage or assignment of rents or anything else.
Note that it could not have acquired loans except with money from what were represented as securitized trusts with Fannie as master Trustee. Therefore there are no circumstances under which Fannie or Freddie could be owners of the the debt with rights to enforce except upon the only event in which money is paid by Fannie for the loan --- a guarantee payment AFTER FORECLOSURE) that is the only transaction permitted under its charter. This point was missed by Shack or ignored by him, because he had bigger fish to fry --- the lawyers for Chase itself with a copy of the order to be served upon Jamie Dimon, the head of Chase.
The fact is that with the WAMU bankruptcy, seizure by OTS and appointment of FDIC, there were no assignments, agreements of sale or even a permission slip under which Chase could or did acquire loans from WAMU. But that didn't stop Chase from claiming exactly that in tens of thousands of foreclosures.
In cases where Chase is allegedly at the root of title through the merger with WAMU, it would be appropriate to site to the Shack case, get the case documents, get a Title and Securitization report (see and lawyers should look into a motion for summary judgment, or a motion for involuntary dismissal with prejudice. Even where Chase might allege that it is filing the foreclosure as a representative of Fannie or Freddie, the basis for that allegation needs to be in their pleading or it is not an ULTIMATE fact upon which relief could be granted. Discovery should be aimed at getting the documents upon which Chase allegedly relies in showing that it has the authority to represent Fannie --- and don't stop there. The truth is that nearly all the so-called Fannie and Freddie loans were veils for the private label securitization in which the money was diverted from the trust, as was the title, leaving Fannie and Freddie as well as the investors and the buyers holding nothing.
In cases where the statute of limitations has already run, the dismissal of the foreclosure action, is barred in most cases from ever being brought again by anyone. But the dismissal against Chase should be with prejudice in all events because it isn't the creditor and therefore does not satisfy the statutory requirements in Florida, and I presume all other states, to submit a credit bid at auction in lieu of cash.
The Judges are beginning to understand that by applying basic contract law, they can clear their dockets. It is up to us to help them. The offer of a loan was met with acceptance by the borrower but the loan never occurred. The transfers also had offer and acceptance but again no money because the investors' money was used (outside the trust) directly to fund the origination or acquisition of the loan. This was part of a larger scheme to defraud to investors whose money was to have been deposited into the trust and then used to fund origination or acquisition of the he loans within 90 days (the cutoff).
The investment bank fraudulently induced (see complaints filed by investors, insurers, government guarantee entities etc.) the investors to give them money for an investment into a controlled trust when in fact they diverted the money for their own purposes, taking outsized fees for themselves as the toxic loans materialized to "support" the alleged investment into loans. That is the "mismanagement" part of investors' allegations --- diversion of money into a PONZI scheme.
The investment bank fraudulently diverted title to the loans to strawman entities or were --- sometimes even by name (see American Brokers Conduit) --- mere conduits for undisclosed third party lenders. The argument that the parties managed to hide this from the borrower long enough for the statute of limitations to run out on TILA claims is an affront to the court system and to the statutory scheme enacted by Congress to protect borrowers from predatory lenders and "steal" deals where huge fees were taken, rather than earned, without disclosure to the Borrower.
So the first element of fraud alleged by investors is diversion of the the money. The second is diversion of the paperwork that would have protected the investors at least to some extent. In this scheme title to the loan papers was intentionally diverted from the owners of the the debt, thus rendering the so-called mortgage documents unenforceable --- all alleged by investors, insurers and other co-obligors who have discovered to their chagrin that each of them paid the investment bank 100 cents on the the dollar on each loan multiple times.
And yet borrowers continue to seek modifications, which means they are not looking for free houses. Even knowing they are dealing with criminals the borrowers are willing to start paying these thieves if the terms can be adjusted to give them the benefit of the bargain that was intended at origination of the purchase money mortgage or refinancing or second mortgage or HELOC.
That leaves the servicers and their lawyers being the only ones who want Foreclosures because they want a free house and/or they want the foreclosure to recapture Servicer advances to the creditors --- advances that vastly reduce the amount owed and which cure the alleged borrower default. That has now become a foreclosure folly in which the servicers and their lawyers are the only parties who want it. The investors don't care because they are getting settlements for the fraud of the investment banks for creating unenforceable loan documents (that are frequently enforced anyway because of judicial ignorance) and diversion of investor money.
In the end, the "clean hands" that Shack talks about are clearly absent from both Servicer and government sponsored entities and as judge Shack states in his decision, wrongdoers should not be permitted to profitf or their wrongdoing. If that means a windfall to the borrower, so be it. It can be likened to the old usury laws and the current usury laws where the principal of the debt is wiped out and the fraudster is hit with a judgment for three times the principal, three times the interest or both.

Really? Can banks go any lower to cheat customers.

It seems the banks stop at nothing to rob people. I think its time we go back to the old ways. Get yourselves a bank safe and start saving it at home. Cash your checks at walmart for a 3.00 fee and put your money where you know its safe in a wall safe!!!!! So fed up with these crooks I could puke. Maybe its time for a bank run on the TBTF guys to put them back in order.. remember if it wasn't for you, they have nothing:. Citizens Bank already charges customers 3.00 to check your own damn bank accounts. How low is that! Think about this.. your savings will no longer be savings, the charges will out do the saving percentage so you will lose more than you gain. Priceless!

In an effort to protect their record profits, banks might soon charge you for the privilege of having a savings account.
I know what you're thinking: Banks already charge customers outrageous fees for the privilege of having bank accounts. But if the Federal Reserve dares to try and help the economy by cutting a special interest rate it pays banks, fees could get even more outrageous, the Financial Times reports (subscription only). Such a move by the Fed would lose banks some easy money, and they could take the difference out of their customers' hides.
The Fed is desperately trying to find ways to dial back on its $85 billion per month in bond purchases, an extreme stimulus program known as "quantitative easing," while still supporting the economy. One possible approach would be to stop paying banks a tiny interest rate for money they store at the Fed for safekeeping. The idea being that banks would be more inclined to put money to work with lending and other stuff that helps the economy.
But according to banks, that tiny Fed interest payment is the only thing that helps banks break even on savings accounts and other deposit services they provide. In order to protect their multi-billion-dollar bonuses and bank profits -- which have bounced to record highs since that financial crisis the banks helped create, a crisis from which the Fed and the American taxpayer bailed them out -- banks will sadly have no choice but to punish their customers.
That's not all: The banks say that, without that interest payment, they might also be pushed to take ever-crazier risks with money that was once safely parked at the Fed, the FT reports. Stop us before we kill the economy again, the banks are saying. And by "stop us," they mean, "give us all of your money."
There is hope, the FT writes: In order to dissuade banks from screwing their customers, the Fed might offer another way for banks to earn cash from Fed deposits. But that would seem to defeat the entire purpose of cutting rates on the first Fed program.
Anyway, as always, the banks are money-grubbing and horrible. But at the same time, from the Fed's perspective, it might not be the end of the world if people stopped saving so much money. The Fed wants money burning holes in people's pockets, in order to goose the economy out of its semi-permanent state of misery. Through their own greed, the banks could help with that.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Can we trust Judges or the legal systems anymore?

Tell me these Judges aren't being bought out by these banks? Tell the truth, with all the money the Government agencies are raking in from these bank fraud cases , why would they allow the actual people being harmed in these cases to win?
Mers is based on fraudulent paperwork - plain and simple
Countrywide was know and has been proven to commit fraud and robo signing.
 Deutsche Bank, now here is a surprise, king of Fraud involved. 
Robo-Signing is illegal ( remember the 50 AG who , OH that's right, got the money for the states and everyone except the homeowner was helped?)

This is bullshit plain and simple.

Two borrower-initiated lawsuits alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems role in the plaintiffs’ deeds of trust caused them injury were both dismissed by federal judges in the Western District of Washington today.

In Reid v. Countrywide Bank NA, the plaintiff claims the defendants—Countrywide as the lender, LS Title as trustee and MERS as the beneficiary—committed fraud, violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act, were negligent, breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing, placed a cloud on their title, and inflicted emotional distress.

The court immediately dismissed the cloud of title and emotional distress claims filed in the first complaint. Allegations were also rejected that the plaintiff was injured by robo-signing acts and were unaware of who was entitled to receive their mortgage payments.

A second complaint was then submitted, repeating the same allegations identified in the first amended complaint.

U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour granted MERS’ motion to dismiss this case, ruling that the plaintiff’s claims against the Reston, Va.-based company were speculative at best.

“Although plaintiffs say that they have spent time and money making calls and hiring professionals trying to determine which entity hold the note to their loan, they have not explained how the lack of that information has injured them,” the judge says in the dismissal notice.

“They have not described any disputes that they have been unable to resolve or legal protections of which they have been unable to avail themselves because they do not know who holds their note.”

“Plaintiffs do not state, for example, that they have attempted to identify who holds the note in order to negotiate a loan modification,” the court document says. “Nor have they directed the court any authority stating that the loss of opportunity to engage in such negotiation is a cognizable injury.”

A similar ruling also was handed down from Judge Marsha Pechman, Chief U.S. District Judge of Washington, where she dismissed a wrongful foreclosure complaint against MERS System members and other defendants.

In June 2006, Ryan Wear borrowed $375,200 from Sierra Pacific Mortgage Co. to buy a house in Marysville, Wash. Wear executed a written promissory note, where he agreed to “make all payments under this note in the form of cash, check or money order.”

Wear sued Sierra Pacific, Deutsche Bank, GMAC Mortgage and MERS for fraud, violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, accounting, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and seeking to avoid the contract, to quiet title, and for declaratory judgment.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants created and filed false assignments for the note and deed of trust and ultimately initiated nonjudicial foreclosure actions without having acquired any legal interest in the property. Wear also claims that the defendants collected payments to which they were not entitled, and failed to inform him of the true ownership of the loan and deed of trust.

However, the defendants argue that Wear failed to identify any unfair or deceptive act, the alleged unfair or deceptive acts had no impact on the public interest, and no injury was caused by the defendants’ alleged conduct.

Pechman agreed with the defendants, saying the plaintiff failed to show any fraudulent acts committed by MERS or injury caused by the company’s role in plaintiff’s deed of trust.

“The only injury identified by plaintiff is the pending foreclosure of his home,” the judge said in her ruling. “Plaintiff does not claim that any action by the defendants caused or induced the plaintiff to default on the loan…therefore, regardless of who the actual beneficiary was…plaintiff’s property would still face foreclosure.”

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Need to know news

How suprised are you at this??

By Evan Nemeroff
NOV 20, 2013 12:50pm ET
Jumbo Loans Present Higher Fraud Risk

The mortgage industry’s shift toward a purchase-driven market increases the risk of fraud, and that was evident in the third quarter, according to Interthinx.

Interthinx’s national Mortgage Fraud Risk Index value through the end of the third quarter is now 108, a 4% rise from the previous quarter and up 10% from a year ago. What stands out from the latest report is that jumbo loan index values are much higher across all the risk types than conventional loans.

Jumbo loan fraud risk nationwide is 164, Interthinx revealed, while non-jumbo loans have a risk of 102. The biggest difference was seen in the employment/income fraud risk index, where the value is 146 for jumbo loans versus a 69 for non-jumbo loans. Occupancy fraud risk for jumbos was also extremely high—more than 200 compared to 150 for conventional loans.

A mortgage is classified as “jumbo” when the amount of the loan exceeds the limits set by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In most states, the conforming loan limit is $417,000. But this rises to $625,000 in Hawaii, Alaska and other markets designated as high-cost.

“With the rise in popularity of jumbo loans, lenders must be aware of both the credit risk and fraud risk those loans carry,” says Ashley Woodworth, vice president of business development and corporate strategy at Interthinx. “The risk is out there, and lenders need to be aware.”

California claimed the top spot for mortgage fraud risk with a value of 151, a 16% increase from the second quarter, Interthinx revealed. California contains seven of the top ten metropolitan statistical areas for overall risk, six of the top ten MSAs for identity fraud risk, and all of the ten riskiest MSAs for employment/income fraud risk.

Washington, D.C., with a score of 146, entered the top two for potential fraud for the first time since the Agoura Hills, Calif.-based company began this report in early 2009. First-time entrants into the top 10, Delaware and Montana, were at three and four, respectively. Hawaii rounds out the top five riskiest states for fraud.

Nevada, ranked 10th in the third quarter, fell from one of the top three spots for the first time since the inception of this report.

Conversely, Mississippi and West Virginia tied for the least risky states for fraud with index values of 66.

Of the four type-specific indices Interthinx tracks, there were increases in identity (up 18%) and occupancy (17%) fraud risk. The jump in occupancy fraud risk was due to increases for both purchase and refinance transactions, while there was a decline in the market share of refinances which inherently have less occupancy fraud risk than purchases.

On a yearly basis, occupancy fraud risk is up 36%.

Meanwhile, property valuation and employment/income both fell from the second quarter, by 3% and 17%, respectively.
Risk Management

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Watch Out For Those Prepared Orders!!!

What amazes me most here, is how fast this came to the forefront. I warned you all about this new scam, the banks were doing, called RENTALS.. and here we go. Lets not forget, we once again, have the TBTF in the headers ... and worst yet, Judges again, not prepared for this new fraud.  I warned all of you and investors too, now here we go.

Watch Out For Those Prepared Orders!!!

by Neil Garfield
I was in court yesterday battling out an attempt by U.S. Bank to have all rent turned over to them from several investment properties. The Florida Statute, like many others, allows for a summary procedure and allows the Judge to grant the Motion even if the owner if the properties has defenses. I had many problems both with the statute and the facts. U.S. bank had appeared out of nowhere as successor to Bank of America. How did it become the successor? We don't know because it was done with an ex orate notice of substitution of Trustee that reminds me of the way they do that in non-judicial states. There, the "new beneficiary" of the deed of the trust pops up put of nowhere and substitutes the trustee on the deed of trust by naming its own controlled entity as the trustee. So the new mortgagee/beneficiary names itself as the mortgagee and then names itself as trustee.
Here in Florida we have much the same thing as the pretender lenders continue their shell game. In the case I was arguing, the Judge was ready to rule in favor of US Bank despite numerous defenses regarding the money, the loan, the standing of the parties, etc. until I asked how the ex lenses of running the properties would be paid. The first interesting thing is that there was no requirement of a factual affidavit, testimony or evidence. I think that is an incorrect application of the words "summary proceeding."
So the "take no prisoners " attorney in Miami whips out an order already nicely printed and the Judge tells us to go over it and if there are any disagreements to let him know. This is where the rubber meets the road, where attorneys for the banks are steam rolling over foreclosure defense attorneys and pro se litigants with orders that do not resemble anything the Judge ordered, which was net rents. In similar situations you should have the information rom a securitization report that shows how much the alleged creditors have already received in non stop non refundable advance payments of interest from the Servicer. So far in the case I am handling, those payments total more than $70,000 for each property. how many times does the creditor need to be paid.
So the provision requiring an accounting of course was acceptable, but then nearly everything else in the order amounted to a summary final judgment and the case would be effectively over upon entry of the order, including going back to 2009 for all the rent received since the original notice of default was sent. The proposed pre-printed order contained some pretty bizarre stuff. The Judge had heard the entire proceeding in 10 minutes despite the fact that even the bank had noticed it for 30 minutes and we had said at last 2 hours would be required.
The principal problem that I had and with which the judge agreed was that in a summary proceeding like this it is not the so-called lender that decides what are proper expenses, like the proposed order said, it is the Judge. "Trust me" the bank's attorney had said to me out in the hallway. I didn't and neither did the judge.
So we go back into the courtroom with the Order that I found nearly completely unacceptable because I did one thing that most people don't --- I knew I was dealing with a lawyer that would try anything. So I read every word of the proposed order and sat there processing it. This of course was wholly unacceptable to the bank lawyer who was expecting me to skip over the parts where we gave up the litigation and the bank simply won the entire case based upon a summary proceeding that had no evidence.
Upon return to the harried judge, we explained our differences and it became apparent to everyone that the bank lawyer was not really all that clear about what he was asking for and I kept asking clarifying questions, like "are you going to become the landlord?" No he said he didn't want that. In fact his own client who did not appear, told my client that they didn't want the rent --- which bring up a whole bunch of other problems. So beware of this rents gimmick.
It looks to me that the so-called new trustee doesn't want and won't take the rents, and that the whole rent turnover thing is simply a profit center for the attorneys who represent the banks. By asking for authority to represent and taking discovery as to whether the Bank wants the rents, you will probably uncover a conflict, and an opportunity to apply sanctions against the law firm representing the Bank.
In the end, the Judge who was irritated at me for arguing my client's case, turned to lean more and more against the bank. He said he was close to denying the motion. And then the bank attorney took it one step over the line with the judge and the Judge said he would not sign the order and that the hearing should be rescheduled allowing us to fight another day. The point is that without carefully going over the proposed order, whether you have won or lost, you are leaving yourself wide open to abuse.

Thursday, November 14, 2013


Well this warning didn't take long.. When are you people gonna learn. ANYTHING that has Deutsche Bank attached to it , is a loss before it starts. Call your banks and Credit Unions and tell them no deals with Black Rock  IE: Deutsche Bank!!

Investors, hear my warning, you will lose in the end. Last warning.

BlackRock with ETF push to smaller banks

  • The roughly 7K regional and community banks in the U.S. have securities portfolios totaling $1.5T, the majority of which is in MBS, putting them at a particularly high interest rate risk, and on the screens of regulators who would like to see banks diversify their holdings.
  • "This is going to be a multiple-year trend and dialogue," says BlackRock's (BLK) Jared Murphy who is overseeing the iSharesBonds ETFs campaign.
  • The funds come with an expense ratio of 0.1% and the holdings are designed to limit interest rate risk. BlackRock scored its first big sale in Q3 when a west coast regional invested $100M in one of the funds.
  • At issue are years of bank habits - when they want to reduce mortgage exposure, they typically turn to Treasurys. For more credit exposure, they habitually turn to municipal bonds. "Community bankers feel like they're going to be the last in the food chain to know if there are any problems with a corporate issuer," says a community bank consultant.


by Neil Garfield
I've talked about this before. It is why we offer a Risk Analysis Report to Community Banks and Credit Unions. The report analyzes the potential risk of holding MBS instruments in lieu of Treasury Bonds. And it provides guidance to the bank on making new loans on property where there is a history of assignments, transfers and other indicia of claims of securitization.
The risks include but are not limited to
  1. MBS Instrument issued by New York common law trust that was never funded, and has no assets or expectation of same.
  2. MBS Instrument was issued by NY common law trust on a tranche that appeared safe but was tied by CDS to the most toxic tranche.
  3. Insurance paid to investment bank instead of investors
  4. Credit default swap proceeds paid to investment banks instead of investors
  5. Guarantees paid to investment banks after they have drained all value through excessive fees charged against the investor and the borrowers on loans.
  6. Tier 2 Yield Spread Premiums of as much as 50% of the investment amount.
  7. Intentional low underwriting standards to produce high nominal interest to justify the Tier 2 yield spread premium.
  8. Funding direct from investor funds while creating notes and mortgages that named other parties than the investors or the "trust."
  9. Forcing foreclosure as the only option on people who could pay far more than the proceeds of foreclosure.
  10. Turning down modifications or settlements on the basis that the investor rejected it when in fact the investor knew nothing about it. This could result in actions against an investor that is charged with violations of federal law.
  11. Making loans on property with a history of "securitization" and realizing later that the intended mortgage lien was junior to other off record transactions in which previous satisfactions of mortgage or even foreclosure sales could be invalidated.
The problem, as these small financial institutions are just beginning to realize, is that the MBS instruments that were supposedly so safe, are not safe and may not be worth anything at all --- especially if the trust that issued them was never funded by the investment bank who did the underwriting and sales of the MBS to relatively unsophisticated community banks and credit unions. In a word, these small institutions were sitting ducks and probably, knowing Wall Street the way I do, were lured into the most toxic of the "bonds."
Unless these small banks get ahead of the curve they face intervention by the FDIC or other regulatory agencies because some part of their assets and required reserves might vanish. These small institutions, unlike the big ones that caused the problem, don't have agreements with the Federal government to prop them up regardless of whether the bonds were real or worthless.
Most of the small banks and credit unions are carrying these assets at cost, which is to say 100 cents on the dollar when in fact it is doubtful they are worth even half that amount. The question is whether the bank or credit union is at risk and what they can do about it. There are several claims mechanisms that can employed for the the bank that funds itself facing a write-off of catastrophic or damaging proportions.
The plain fact is that nearly everyone in government and law enforcement considers what happens to small banks to be "collateral damage," unworthy of any effort to assist these institutions even though the government was complicit in the fraud that has resulted in jury verdicts, settlements, fines and sanctions totaling into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
This is a ticking time bomb for many institutions that put their money into higher yielding MBS instruments believing they were about as safe as US Treasury bonds. They were wrong but because of any fault of anyone at the bank. They were lied to by experts who covered their lies with false promises of insurance, hedges and guarantees.
Those small institutions who have opted to take the bank public, may face even worse problems with the SEC and shareholders if they don't report properly on the balance sheet as it is effected by the downgrade of MBS securities. The problem is that most auditing firms are not familiar with the actual facts behind these securities and are likely a this point to disclaim any responsibility for the accounting that produces the financial statements of the bank.
I have seen this play out before. The big investment banks are going to throw the small institutions under the bus and call it unavoidable damage that isn't their problem. despite the hard-headed insistence on autonomy and devotion to customer service at each bank, considerable thought should be given to banding together into associations that are not controlled by regional banks are are part of the problem and will most likely block any solution. Traditional community bank associations and traditional credit unions might not be the best place to go if you are looking to a real solution.
Community Banks and Credit Unions MUST protect themselves and make claims as fast as possible to stay ahead of the curve. They must be proactive in getting a credible report that will stand up in court, if necessary, and make claims for the balance. Current suits by investors are producing large returns for the lawyers and poor returns to the investors. Our entire team stands ready to assist small institutions achieve parity and restitution.
BLK | Thu, Nov 14
BlackRock with ETF push to smaller banks • The roughly 7K regional and community banks in the U.S. have securities portfolios totaling $1.5T, the majority of which is in MBS, putting them at a particularly high interest rate risk, and on the screens of regulators who would like to see banks diversify their holdings. • "This is going to be a multiple-year trend and dialogue," says BlackRock's (BLK) Jared Murphy who is overseeing the iSharesBonds ETFs campaign. • The funds come with an expense ratio of 0.1% and the holdings are designed to limit interest rate risk. BlackRock scored its first big sale in Q3 when a west coast regional invested $100M in one of the funds. • At issue are years of bank habits - when they want to reduce mortgage exposure, they typically turn to Treasurys. For more credit exposure, they habitually turn to municipal bonds. "Community bankers feel like they're going to be the last in the food chain to know if there are any problems with a corporate issuer," says a community bank consultant.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Rushmore says they don't work with Mers.. HUH?

Now in court , they stated they were not involved with mers..

MERS Administrator- Residential Mortgage

Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC - Irving, TX

Posted 32 days ago

About this job

Job description

POSITION SUMMARY: Perform all MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) related functions to ensure the accuracy of the MERS system and responds to or distributes incoming inquires regarding MERS. The qualified candidate for this position will know all aspects of the way a mortgage servicer must interact with MERS. MSP experience is required.
• Performs all process functions within the MERS system.
• Maintains a responsible, courteous and professional relationship with investors and vendors.
• Establishes the acquisition and/or timelines with all parties internal and external for the MERS process.
• Performs the timely processing of all tasks related to the acquisitions and transfers process for the MERS system, including final reconciliations of loan counts boarded to LPS and MERS.
• Performs MIN level research for any MERS related issues.
• Performs quarterly MERS portfolio review.
• Ensures LPS headers are properly coded for accurate reporting to MERS.
• Reviews and maintains all reporting provided by MERS.
• Coordinates any tasks or projects related to MERS.
• Compiles all sub-servicing related data for annual compliance reporting to MERS.
• Maintains all applicable corporate requirements for eligible signors, resolutions and MERS contacts for all Rushmore businesses.
• Acts as a liaison to MERS for Rushmore, and investors.
• Distributes MERS communication and/or documents to appropriate areas within Rushmore. • Assists in the billing reconciliation to investors.
• Assists in the establishment and monitoring of department policies and procedures related to MERS.
• Provides guidance to associates related to MERS system and process. • Provides status reports as needed to manager. • Responds to all correspondence related to MERS.
• Other duties as assigned.

Desired Skills and Experience

• Customer service, team and goal oriented with a positive attitude towards work and others.
• Ability to work in a high volume and time sensitive environment.
• Excellent written and verbal communication skills are needed to interact with internal staff and external customers.
• Strong organization and follow-up skills ability to effectively multi-task and prioritize workflow in a high-volume environment ability to work well independently, as well as, part of a team to achieve department/group goals.
• Well versed with regulatory and investor guidelines and keeps current with all Federal, State, industry specific and departmental policies.
• High school diploma or equivalent.
• Minimum two (2) years of experience in mortgage loan servicing or in a related area.
• Complete understanding of the MERS system and process.
• Familiarity with the acquisition and boarding process.
• Has knowledge of commonly used terminology, concepts, practices, and procedures within the mortgage industry.
• Ability to read and understand loan documents produced at funding.
• Working knowledge of LPS Servicing System.
• Strong organizational skills and detail oriented.
• Ability to communicate and interact effectively with all levels of associates and management, as well as with the public and outside vendors.
• Intermediate working knowledge of the MSP/LPS system is required.
• Experience with Windows-based PCs, including general office software knowledge required.
Rushmore is an Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D/V

About this company

Rushmore is Hiring
Visit to learn more.

Why Rushmore
Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC is a high-touch residential loan servicer and national wholesale loan originator. Rushmore has a strong foundation with significant capital backing and is led by a talented and innovative management team. At Rushmore, we offer incredible career opportunities in a friendly and service-oriented environment. We are a company with methodical and strategic growth plans and looking to fill many key positions. Our employees come to work each day driven to create a valuable experience for our customers. If you are a person of integrity who thrives in a fast-paced, innovative and customer-focused climate, this may be the company for you. We offer our employees industry best benefits and have a competitive compensation plan.

Rushmore Culture
Rushmore maintains a positive, results-oriented culture. We believe the employees of Rushmore are the most valuable asset and hold the keys to our success. We have a positive work environment, treat each other professionally and are proud of the contributions each individual makes to the team. At Rushmore, we are committed to providing our employees with the education, training and development that helps them grow as individuals. Rushmore believes in trust and open communication, innovative attitudes and a high level of professionalism. Being a team member of Rushmore is a career-changing opportunity you will not want to pass up.
Rushmore is an equal opportunity employer M/F/D/V

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Are these investors totally stupid or just that greedy?

This gets me way down deep. First this trash bank **Deutsche Bank ** The mighty **King of foreclosures ** wipes out most of the country with robo signed papers and fraudulent paperwork, than take the homes, ( because they can't sell them the titles are junk) and turns around and RENTS them out! Nothing is done to them, nobody takes notice **HELLO US GOVERNMENT ARE YOU LISTENING?? ** NOT ONLY DID THEY MAKE MONEY OFF THE INSURANCE OF THESE HOMES FORECLOSING, BUT THEY NOW RAKE IN YET MORE PROFIT, OFF THE BACKS OF US TAXPAYERS WHO YES, DEAR CITIZENS WE BAILED OUT!

This bank screwed over how many investors?? How in God name are you stupid people  investing your money with them again? When our elected officials finally wake up, you will lose again, see they will investigate these homes and will find, they were illegal foreclosures , and DON'T  come crying again, you deserve to lose your asses.

I wonder how many pigs and bets are being placed on these?? They know they are playing on thin ice and the clock is ticking before their found out again.

NOV 12, 2013 1:47pm ET

DB Pricing Shows Appetite for REO-to-Rent Securitization

Deutsche Bank priced the inaugural single family rental transaction, the $479 million Invitation Homes 2013-SFR1 single family rental securitization transaction 5 basis points to 35 basis points tighter than initial guidance, a person familiar with the deal confirmed.
Invitation Homes, a Blackstone portfolio company, manages the nation's largest portfolio of single family homes being rented. The company has $7.5 billion of investments in the single-family home rental market.
The transaction had six sequential floating rate tranches. The classes were rated by Moody's Investors Service, Kroll Bond Ratings and Morningstar.
The Aaa/AAA/AAA, class A notes structured with a weighted average life of 4.9 years priced at 115 basis points over the one-month Libor, around 5 basis points tighter than initial price talk.
The Aa2/AA/AA, class B notes structured with a weighted average life of 5.1 years, priced at 135 basis points over the one-month Libor, at least 15 basis points tighter than price talk.
The A2/A/A, class C notes, structured with a weighted average life of 5.1 years priced at 185 basis points over the one-month Libor, also 15 basis points tighter than price talk.
Lower down the credit curve, the class D, E and F notes all priced around 35 basis points tighter than initial price talk. The Baa2/BBB/BBB+, class D note structured with a weighted average life of 5.1 years priced at 215 basis points over the one-month Libor.
The BBB-/BBB-, class E notes structured with a weighted average life of 5.1 years priced at 265 basis points over the one-month Libor.
KBRA rated the class F notes BB which were structured with a weighted average life of 5.1 years and priced at 365 basis points over the one-month Libor.

JP Morgan /Chase Bank run?

Are we looking at a new Bank run about to happen? Investors take notice, time to bail!

JPMorgan Fund Sparks Biggest High-Grade Bond Outflow Since June

Nov 01, 2013 4:02 pm ET
Nov. 1 (Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s Core Bond Fund reported a $2.3 billion withdrawal this week that spurred the biggest weekly outflow from U.S. investment-grade debt funds since June.
The fund’s net assets dropped 9.2 percent to $22.38 billion on Oct. 28, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Investment- grade funds reported a $2.67 billion outflow during the past week, with most of it coming from one fund, Bank of America Corp. credit strategists Hans Mikkelsen and Yuriy Shchuchinov said in an Oct. 31 report, citing data from EPFR Global.
The withdrawal reported “was likely a one-off event and no signal of a broader rotation out of high-grade bond funds,” the analysts wrote.
Investment-grade bonds in the U.S. gained 1.5 percent in October as speculation mounted that the Federal Reserve will maintain its $85 billion of monthly asset purchases through March. Companies have sold $991.4 billion of the debt so far this year, on pace for the most ever, from $945.4 billion during the same period last year, Bloomberg data show.
The JPMorgan Core Bond Fund was started on Dec. 31, 1983, and focuses on investment-grade notes with medium-term maturities, according to the data. It had 25 percent of its assets in corporate bonds and 55.8 percent in mortgage debt as of Aug. 31, Bloomberg data show.
Gregory Roth, a spokesman for J.P. Morgan Asset Management, declined to comment on the nature of the outflow.
--With assistance from Matthew Kelly in Princeton, New Jersey. Editors: Shannon D. Harrington, Richard Bravo

JPMorgan Chase - How low can you go?

Of all the low down dirty deals JP Morgan Chase has managed to incorporate over the years, this has to be the dirtiest. Instead of taking away from there own salaries ( I am sure Jamie could hold back on a few bonuses and a few others ) They decide to send people to the unemployment line.
I would suggest these employees, take a stand. If you know any truths about what this bank has done to screw people , especially ones who are losing there homes, step forward. They will throw you under the bus  in a heartbeat , but a homeowner will be grateful to you forever.

In a effort to support these employees ,, please boycott JP Morgan /Chase.

JPMorgan Chase to Reportedly Let 15,000-Plus Go by End of 2014

After celebrating their second-quarter earnings, JPMorgan Chase announced disappointing third-quarter stats, with losses of nearly half a billion.
“While we had strong underlying performance across the businesses, unfortunately, the quarter was marred by large legal expense. We continuously evaluate our legal reserves, but in this highly charged and unpredictable environment, with escalating demands and penalties from multiple government agencies, we thought it was prudent to significantly strengthen them,” said Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon. “While we expect our litigation costs should abate and normalize over time, they may continue to be volatile over the next several quarters.”
Now, JPMorgan Chase has decided to move ahead with laying off 15,000-plus workers by the end of 2014. Operating a full year ahead of schedule, 4,000 jobs have been eliminated already, predominantly in the consumer business. Citing the increasing use of electronic services like mobile deposits, online accounts and more, one wonders if this is more of a smokescreen for the real issue here: the recovery of funds after devastating legal discourse.
As Forbes reported last month, not long after the release of JPMorgan’s earnings report, the two percent dip in earnings is due to the heavy legal costs associated with over a dozen different cases. The company admitted to setting aside $23 billion to cover its legal fees, however; that number could balloon out of control should more legal measures be weighed against the company.
As if potentially losing one’s job wasn’t enough, global regulators are reportedly monitoring the private chat room discussions between JPMorgan Chase employees and foreign correspondents, as well as other peers. Messages are being intercepted and used as evidence in building cases regarding the manipulation of interest rates. Bloomberg, via a source, reports that JPMorgan may encourage traders to use phones and e-mails rather than chat rooms to assist clients in large currency transactions.

Friday, November 1, 2013

With a deal like who could loseyou ask, EVERYONE!

Anything that Deutsche Bank and Goldman sponsor, or are underwriters for.. ( here's a hint.. Blackstone is owned by Deutsche Bank)  only means disaster for anyone who sinks money into these two fraudsters. So, here's some advice by someone who has dealt with  Deutsche Bank, Don't invest in there messes! Also, boycott the Hilton!

Blackstone's Hilton looks to launch IPO week of December 2: sources

11:15:00 BST
An exterior shot of the Hilton Midtown in New York June 7, 2013. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly
Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:52pm GMT
(Reuters) - Hotel operator Hilton Worldwide Inc, owned by private equity firm Blackstone Group LP (BX.N), is aiming to launch its initial public offering the week of December 2, two people familiar with the matter said on Thursday.
The people cautioned that the timing of the float could change depending upon a regulatory review which is still in process. They asked not to be identified because the timing of the IPO is still confidential.
Blackstone declined to comment, while a Hilton representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Blackstone took Hilton private in 2007 in a $26.7 billion deal, which was one of the largest leveraged buyouts that preceded the 2008 global financial crisis. In September, Hilton filed for an IPO to raise $1.25 billion.
Blackstone is hoping the stock market will value Hilton at around $30 billion, sources previously told Reuters.
Founded in 1919 by Conrad Hilton, the hotel operator's brands include such high-end names as Conrad and Waldorf Astoria. Hilton has 4,041 hotels, or 665,667 rooms under its umbrella, located in 90 countries. The company itself owns or leases 157 hotels, including the Waldorf Astoria in New York and the Hilton Hawaiian Village.
The IPO comes as Blackstone looks to exit several real estate investments. This week, shopping center unit Brixmor Property Group Inc (BRX.N) raised $825 million in an IPO.
Blackstone in July filed to take another hotel chain, Extended Stay America Inc, public, and the company said on Thursday it could be valued at as much as $4.2 billion.
It is also looking to sell or take public hotel chain La Quinta, potentially valuing it at up to $4.5 billion.
Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE), Goldman Sachs (GS.N), BofA Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley (MS.N) are the lead underwriters on the Hilton offering.