Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Final Basel III Rules Have Bankers on Edge

Final Basel III Rules Have Bankers on Edge

 Also unknown is if policymakers will tackle raising a proposed leverage ratio even higher—or wait until later to address that issue.

What's certain is that the vote on a package of rules is just the start of the final stage of implementation of the agreement global regulators struck in 2010 in an effort to prevent another financial crisis.
Even once Basel III is finalized here, international regulators must still revise a global leverage ratio, currently set at 3%, while U.S. regulators must put also out proposed rules on liquidity requirements and a capital surcharge for the eight U.S. systemically important banks.
"You have to think about the whole Basel framework as a living organism these days," said Susan Krause Bell, a managing director of Promontory Financial Group and a former official at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, who also cited additional areas that global regulators are now beginning to look at, such as securitization and the trading book. "It's practically like software updates, you have to expect tweaks here and there, and revisions here and there. The fundamental Basel III framework proposed in December 2009, and finalized in 2010, was supposed to begin implementation at the beginning of this year. What still needs to be completed in Basel is the leverage ratio and the second liquidity pieces."
Even with a number of outstanding items that will be left off the table on Tuesday, observers said the final rule will still be critically important in its scope for institutions large and small.
"It will represent the most significant overhaul of U.S. bank capital standards since the U.S. adoption of Basel I almost a quarter of a century ago," said Andrew Fei, an associate at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP and a Basel expert.
It isn't just the higher capital standards, but the narrower eligibility criteria for capital instruments, he said. The rule will also fundamentally change how banks will make capital deductions for such items as unrealized gains and losses and what they can count as regulatory capital.
Broadly, observers anticipate that the final rule will closely match the proposal released last June by all three banking agencies, with some possible technical changes as well as adjustments made in how the rules are applied to community banks. Each agency is required to sign off on the package, but the Fed is taking the first step. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the OCC have yet to announce plans for actions on the rules.
U.S. regulators released three proposals as part of the package of rules. The first would establish minimum capital and liquidity requirements for all banks. A second plan, known as the standardized approach, would fundamentally change risk weightings on assets. It is considered the most controversial piece of the package because of its impact on banks' capital ratios. The third proposal, known as the advanced approach, would add requirements for the largest banks, such as a leverage ratio and countercyclical buffer.
Community bankers strongly objected to the second plan because it changed the risk weightings for residential mortgages, a bread-and-butter product for community banks. Small banks have lobbied for a wholesale exemption from Basel III, which regulators are unlikely to grant.
Instead, some observers suspect regulators might punt on finalizing how banks should calculate their capital for residential mortgages, deferring on the issue until later. Such a move would diminish any potential immediate backlash from community bankers and their allies on Capitol Hill.
"If you think about it there wasn't that much controversial in the proposal when you ripped the community bank piece out of it," said Karen Shaw Petrou, a managing partner at Federal Financial Analytics Inc. "There were major technical questions like the AOCI (accumulate other comprehensive income) but there wasn't huge amount of anything else."
Regulators could argue that other recent regulations, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's qualified mortgage rule, require them to study the issue further.
"My guess is they're going to duck both the community banks in hopes that the storm blows over and the next round of mortgage discussions and buy some time on the grounds that they didn't know anything about qualified mortgage rule when they issued the proposed rule," said Petrou.
However, other observers expect that community banks will see the relief they've been seeking when it comes to mortgage risk-weights and a provision that would require banks to account for unrealized gains and losses of available-for-sale-securities when calculating capital requirements, because it eliminates a filter for AOCI.
"I don't think they'll exempt community banks totally," said Camden Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers of America. "I'm anticipating that community banks will still be subject to Basel III guidelines, but I believe the regulators will significantly modify those guidelines favorably for community banks."
Lawmakers have been highly critical of the impact the package of rules could have on community banks, and have pressed regulators to make significant changes, if not exempt them entirely from Basel III. Rep. Shelly Moore Capito, R-W.Va., and Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., reintroduced a bill shortly after the Fed announced plans to vote on a final rule calling on regulators to undertake an impact study on community banks before proceeding.
"Congress is already signaling if the community banks don't like this rule 'We're on you,'" said Petrou.
Fine said that all three regulatory agencies have been "very open" to community bank concerns and have "listened closely," often consulting smaller-sized institutions, since the proposal was released. But while he expects "regulators will respond to our concerns," he said he knows "that at some point Congress will respond to our concerns."

 

 

SEC Charges Three with Insider Trading On Confidential Acquisition

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 22738 / July 1, 2013

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mack D. Murrell, et al., Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-12856 (E.D. Mich. July 1, 2013)

SEC Charges Three with Insider Trading On Confidential Acquisition Negotiations Between Rohm & Haas and Dow

On July 1, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it charged a former officer of The Dow Chemical Company (Dow), his long-time friend, and a broker with insider trading that generated more than $1 million in illicit profits based on confidential information ahead of Dow's acquisition of Rohm & Haas Co. (Rohm).
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, charges Mack D. Murrell, of Saginaw, Michigan, David A. Teekell, of Tomball, Texas, and Charles W. Adams, of Conroe, Texas with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint also names as a relief defendant Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (Raymond James) for the purpose of recovering illegal profits in its firm account. Teekell has agreed to settle the SEC's charges and pay approximately $1.1 million in disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty.
The SEC's complaint alleges that Murrell, who was the Vice President of Information Systems for Dow, obtained confidential details about the acquisition of Rohm from his then live-in girlfriend, now wife, who was the administrative assistant to Dow's Chief Financial Officer at the time. Murrell's girlfriend knew about and worked on the pending acquisition. The complaint alleges that the day after learning from his girlfriend of a special Board meeting at which the Rohm acquisition was discussed, Murrell tipped his long-time friend Teekell during a telephone call. Immediately following the telephone call, Teekell called Adams, his broker at Raymond James, and tipped him.
The complaint further alleges that the next business day after learning of the pending acquisition, Teekell and Adams began purchasing common stock and call options in Rohm. In addition to purchasing call options in his own account, Adams purchased stock in two discretionary customer accounts. Teekell's and Adams' purchases continued until the day before the acquisition announcement on July 10, 2008, when the price of Rohm stock jumped 64 percent. Teekell made an illicit profit of $534,526 and Adams and his discretionary customers made illicit profits of $107,043 through the insider trading. Raymond James made illicit profits of $373,497 when Teekell and Adams decided not to keep certain Rohm options that Adams had purchased in Teekell's account.
A call option is a security that derives its value from the underlying common stock of the issuer and gives the purchaser the right to buy the underlying stock at a specific price within a specified period of time. Typically, investors will purchase call options when they believe the price of the stock of the underlying securities is going up. Teekell and Adams invested so heavily in two series of Rohm call options on July 9, 2008 that their investments accounted for over 86 percent and 64 percent of the total options volume for these series on that day.
The complaint seeks a final judgment ordering disgorgement of ill-gotten gains together with prejudgment interest from the defendants and the relief defendant, and permanent injunctions and penalties against the defendants.
Teekell has consented, without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Teekell has agreed to pay $534,526 in disgorgement, $105,346 in prejudgment interest, and a penalty of $534,526. The settlement is subject to court approval.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Philadelphia Regional Office enforcement staff Kingdon Kase and Suzanne C. Abt. The SEC's litigation will be led by John V. Donnelly and G. Jeffrey Boujoukos.
The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority (ORSA).

New regulations add protections for homeowners facing foreclosure

New regulations add protections for homeowners facing foreclosure
 New regulations filed by the state Division of Banks will prevent national and state lenders from foreclosing on certain mortgage loans if a modification costs less, officials said.

The regulations, created as a result of a law signed by Gov. Deval Patrick in August 2012, will require lenders to consider all available loss-mitigation options before proceeding to foreclosure, similar to standards created in the national mortgage servicer settlement between the U.S. attorneys general with five national servicers.

Lenders must compare the cost of mortgage loan modification to the cost of foreclosing, using a net-present-value analysis prior to foreclosing on certain mortgage loans, such as those with teaser rates, interest-only payments or loans that were originated without full documentation. And the analysis must mirror models available through the Home Affordable Mortgage Program, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, MassHousing or a model approved by the state Division of Banks.

“These regulations are the strongest on the books so far and are an added tool for homeowners across the commonwealth,” Barbara Anthony, undersecretary of consumer affairs and business regulation, said in a statement. “Lenders are now required to do a net-present-value analysis before foreclosing. The absence of a requirement like this was certainly a factor in the foreclosure crisis, and we in Massachusetts have taken strong action to remedy this.”

The law also requires lenders beginning Sept. 18 to send a notice to borrowers informing them of their right to request a loan modification for certain mortgage loans.

Jon Skarin, senior vice president at the Massachusetts Bankers Association, noted that the protections contained in the regulations don’t apply to every borrower; rather, they apply to ones who took out loans the Legislature deemed more risky or prone to default.

“We’re still pushing hard for protections,” said Steve Meacham, an organizer at City Life/Vida Urbana, a grassroots housing-justice group. “This law took a step forward, but there’s still a lot to be done.”


New regulations filed by the state Division of Banks will prevent national and state lenders from foreclosing on certain mortgage loans if a modification costs less, officials said.
The regulations, created as a result of a law signed by Gov. Deval Patrick in August 2012, will require lenders to consider all available loss-mitigation options before proceeding to foreclosure, similar to standards created in the national mortgage servicer settlement between the U.S. attorneys general with five national servicers.
Lenders must compare the cost of mortgage loan modification to the cost of foreclosing, using a net-present-value analysis prior to foreclosing on certain mortgage loans, such as those with teaser rates, interest-only payments or loans that were originated without full documentation. And the analysis must mirror models available through the Home Affordable Mortgage Program, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, MassHousing or a model approved by the state Division of Banks.
“These regulations are the strongest on the books so far and are an added tool for homeowners across the commonwealth,” Barbara Anthony, undersecretary of consumer affairs and business regulation, said in a statement. “Lenders are now required to do a net-present-value analysis before foreclosing. The absence of a requirement like this was certainly a factor in the foreclosure crisis, and we in Massachusetts have taken strong action to remedy this.”
The law also requires lenders beginning Sept. 18 to send a notice to borrowers informing them of their right to request a loan modification for certain mortgage loans.
Jon Skarin, senior vice president at the Massachusetts Bankers Association, noted that the protections contained in the regulations don’t apply to every borrower; rather, they apply to ones who took out loans the Legislature deemed more risky or prone to default.
“We’re still pushing hard for protections,” said Steve Meacham, an organizer at City Life/Vida Urbana, a grassroots housing-justice group. “This law took a step forward, but there’s still a lot to be done.”
- See more at: http://bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/2013/06/new_regulations_add_protections_for_homeowners_facing_foreclosure#sthash.D4w5WcWL.dpuf
New regulations filed by the state Division of Banks will prevent national and state lenders from foreclosing on certain mortgage loans if a modification costs less, officials said.
The regulations, created as a result of a law signed by Gov. Deval Patrick in August 2012, will require lenders to consider all available loss-mitigation options before proceeding to foreclosure, similar to standards created in the national mortgage servicer settlement between the U.S. attorneys general with five national servicers.
Lenders must compare the cost of mortgage loan modification to the cost of foreclosing, using a net-present-value analysis prior to foreclosing on certain mortgage loans, such as those with teaser rates, interest-only payments or loans that were originated without full documentation. And the analysis must mirror models available through the Home Affordable Mortgage Program, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, MassHousing or a model approved by the state Division of Banks.
“These regulations are the strongest on the books so far and are an added tool for homeowners across the commonwealth,” Barbara Anthony, undersecretary of consumer affairs and business regulation, said in a statement. “Lenders are now required to do a net-present-value analysis before foreclosing. The absence of a requirement like this was certainly a factor in the foreclosure crisis, and we in Massachusetts have taken strong action to remedy this.”
The law also requires lenders beginning Sept. 18 to send a notice to borrowers informing them of their right to request a loan modification for certain mortgage loans.
Jon Skarin, senior vice president at the Massachusetts Bankers Association, noted that the protections contained in the regulations don’t apply to every borrower; rather, they apply to ones who took out loans the Legislature deemed more risky or prone to default.
“We’re still pushing hard for protections,” said Steve Meacham, an organizer at City Life/Vida Urbana, a grassroots housing-justice group. “This law took a step forward, but there’s still a lot to be done.”
- See more at: http://bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/2013/06/new_regulations_add_protections_for_homeowners_facing_foreclosure#sthash.D4w5WcWL.dpuf
New regulations filed by the state Division of Banks will prevent national and state lenders from foreclosing on certain mortgage loans if a modification costs less, officials said.
The regulations, created as a result of a law signed by Gov. Deval Patrick in August 2012, will require lenders to consider all available loss-mitigation options before proceeding to foreclosure, similar to standards created in the national mortgage servicer settlement between the U.S. attorneys general with five national servicers.
Lenders must compare the cost of mortgage loan modification to the cost of foreclosing, using a net-present-value analysis prior to foreclosing on certain mortgage loans, such as those with teaser rates, interest-only payments or loans that were originated without full documentation. And the analysis must mirror models available through the Home Affordable Mortgage Program, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, MassHousing or a model approved by the state Division of Banks.
“These regulations are the strongest on the books so far and are an added tool for homeowners across the commonwealth,” Barbara Anthony, undersecretary of consumer affairs and business regulation, said in a statement. “Lenders are now required to do a net-present-value analysis before foreclosing. The absence of a requirement like this was certainly a factor in the foreclosure crisis, and we in Massachusetts have taken strong action to remedy this.”
The law also requires lenders beginning Sept. 18 to send a notice to borrowers informing them of their right to request a loan modification for certain mortgage loans.
Jon Skarin, senior vice president at the Massachusetts Bankers Association, noted that the protections contained in the regulations don’t apply to every borrower; rather, they apply to ones who took out loans the Legislature deemed more risky or prone to default.
“We’re still pushing hard for protections,” said Steve Meacham, an organizer at City Life/Vida Urbana, a grassroots housing-justice group. “This law took a step forward, but there’s still a lot to be done.”
- See more at: http://bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/2013/06/new_regulations_add_protections_for_homeowners_facing_foreclosure#sthash.D4w5WcWL.dpuf
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
New regulations add protections for homeowners facing foreclosure - See more at: http://bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/2013/06/new_regulations_add_protections_for_homeowners_facing_foreclosure#sthash.D4w5WcWL.dpuf

THE MYTH OF FORECLOSURE SINCE 2001

THE MYTH OF FORECLOSURE SINCE 2001: "why would the banks foreclose unless they had to? The banks don't want the homes and they don't want to foreclose. The banks just want to get repaid for a legitimate loan."
There is a natural tendency to believe that the bank would not be in the courtroom seeking a foreclosure in the absence of an actual loan that was unpaid. The presumption of the judge naturally moves towards the statistical certainty that banks would not incur the expense of foreclosing on property in which they had no interest. Thus for all of the flagrant criminal and civil violations committed by the banks in the enforcement of loans, the thoughts of any reasonable judge naturally drift to the idea that our marketplace will be completely corrupted and un-trusted if we let borrowers off the hook on legitimate debts. I think that  this is the reasoning that dominates the thinking of judges and justices on the trial bench and the appellate courts. And it is not unreasonable for them to have that knee-jerk reaction after centuries of statistical evidence showing that the above presumption has been correct millions of times.
This is why lawyers are necessary and pro se litigants  probably will fare poorly most of the time. As a rule of thumb, I tell attorneys whom I am mentoring that they have approximately 30 seconds to get the judge's attention before the judge's mind wanders off into the knee-jerk land that is described above. I suggest that you will get the judge's attention through the establishment of rapport. Real rapport is established when you introduce your argument using terms and doctrines and common sense that you already know live in the mind of the judge. So you may as well say that all things being equal, you would normally rule in favor of the bank and against the borrower regardless of the hardship and regardless of the empathy that one might feel towards the borrower. You might also say that all things being equal, your empathy toward the borrower would be mitigated by their lack of judgment in taking a loan that they could not afford.
But then it is time to make your point. The reason you are there in court is not because you were paid but because you think the borrower has a case in which the borrower can and should prevail. Your primary point should be that if this was merely about fabrication of documents for an otherwise legitimate debt that was unpaid, you wouldn't be there. Your secondary point should be that there is a very good reason why the borrower can and will deny the debt, deny the note,  deny the mortgage, deny the default, and deny the existence of a creditor who would qualify under state statute to submit a credit bid at any foreclosure auction. And your third point should drive that point home, to wit: the reason is that nobody in this courtroom nor any of their predecessors or successors have any interest in this loan. Instead they are participants in a scheme to prevent the borrower and this court from knowing the identity of the creditor at the time of the loan and the identity of the creditor at this time.
You should express confidence that the facts will show that there is a complete absence of any money exchanging hands between them and the borrower and between them and any "assignee" of any any instrument. In fact, you are confident the facts will show there is a complete lack of privity between the borrower and these people and entities with whom the borrower never did business, except to make monthly payments under the mistaken belief that the servicer was the bookkeeper for the creditor. (That is why they use Limited powers of attorney and false designations of "Signing officer" --- you can do it unilaterally and you don't need to show an underlying transaction for those instruments, but you DO need consideration (canceled check or wire transfer receipt) for the origination of the loan and any assignments claiming there was a transactional sale of the loan).
The next thing I tell lawyers whom I mentor is that they have five minutes to convince the judge and  they should avoid any argument that is off-topic, to wit: don't even think that you can win the entire case in any one  hearing.  So for example you might tell the judge that the banks are not foreclosing because they have to, they are foreclosing because they want to. This would be a good time to say that things have changed dramatically since traditional foreclosures virtually ended 20 years ago.  Then you go on to state that the reason why these parties are attempting to foreclose on this property is because they have already been paid large fees sometimes in excess of the principal amount of the loan demanded; and they will owe those profits and fees back to the investment bankers that paid them to pretend to be lenders and pretend to be creditors and pretend to be parties with the right to foreclose. Sounds crazy but it is true.
And the reason that the investment bankers have paid them to do that is that the investment bankers stole part of the investor money that fueled this scheme, put it in their own pockets and then instead of using the infrastructure of the documented promises made to investors, they claimed to own the loans themselves that were fueled with what money was left after the investment banker skimmed the top. BY claiming they owned the loans they received insurance, credit default swaps, federal money and proceeds of sale to the Federal Reserve and others to the extent of receiving as much as 42 times the principal supposedly due from the borrower, which at all times was due to the investors directly without any intervening entities.
So that leaves the borrower unable to exercise his rights under HAMP and the so-called servicers are prevented from compliance with HAMP because they don't actually have a debt anymore much less a creditor or any authority to speak for a creditor. By smothering the court with fraudulent paperwork these banks are creating the illusion of a debt, the illusion of a note that can be used as evidence of the debt, the illusion of a mortgage lien that has been perfected and the illusion of a default on a loan that is not in default and which in all probability has been paid by people who have waived their right to contribution and subrogation.
The sole reason we are here, your Honor, is that the banks need this foreclosure to avoid liability to third parties from whom they collected millions of dollars --- they are not here to be repaid for a loan that isn't due to them and never was.
Someone must benefit from these criminal actions. Up till now, it has been the criminals. Now it is our turn.

Judicial Hypocrisy

The Barbara Bratton Story: Judicial Hypocrisy

by Neil Garfield
Editor's Note: There is something happening here and it is beginning to bother me more and more. A number of people have attempted to file papers in the county recorder's office  in order to preserve their ownership rights to property that is either in foreclosure or has been the subject of a foreclosure sale. As I've stated on these pages most foreclosure sales are an illusion. Credit bid is submitted by a non-creditor  on behalf of other parties who are also non-creditors.
I might add that many pundits, writers, bloggers and lawyers have actually recommended to clients that they file any legally defensible document in opposition to a change in title or possession that would result from enforcement of fraudulent bank documents that are recorded in the public records. Our view is that the very existence of MERS is proof enough of fraudulent intent by the banks, their attorneys, the trustees on deeds of trust, and the other parties involved in the foreclosure and securitization scheme. Our view, like the oath that every attorney takes before becoming licensed, is that every effort should be made to advocate for the position of someone who is in an adversarial position. This does not include making false statements or recording false documents. But the issue becomes very cloudy when one side is allowed to file false documents and the other side is not.
The banks, and the law firms that represent the banks, have used their influence with local politicians and officials to snare these homeowners into a  legal nightmare. It is true that the documents that were filed are of dubious value, but that doesn't mean that substantively they are wrong or false. The same could be said for the documents that were filed in support of the foreclosure and the foreclosure sale, except that we have ample evidence that many if not most of those documents are fabricated, probably forged, and refer to transactions that never occurred.
The hypocrisy here is beyond comprehension. We have proof and admissions by the banks that they fabricated, forged and illegally signed documents that were then recorded with the County Recorder's office. The County recorder in Maricopa, Arizona for example, admits that the title records have been corrupted by the banks but for political reasons refuses to use her administrative powers to remove or tag the offending bank documents that were filed electronically from "trusted sources" which it turns out are only on the side of the banking industry including the banks themselves, their attorneys etc.
So we have, like the Bratton case, $250,000 bond placed on a person who filed a "Corrective deed" using her own name, and perhaps fabricating the existence of a twin sister. I agree. That was wrong. Any document that recites facts that are untrue should be corrected in the county records. Any document containing false statements that are known to be false at the time of the filing shows criminal intent. That is also unavoidably true.
The hypocrisy is that for the banks that filed documents containing false statements that were known to be false when the document was recorded, there not only is no action by law enforcement, but you have statements like: (1) the Arizona Attorney General who says that it is an acceptable shortcut and (2) Attorney general Holder who admitted that he didn't prosecute because the banks were too big to fail.
I see novel defenses here (check with criminal lawyer in your jurisdiction before you use this):
  1. Estoppel and related constitutional argument of equal protection:  if law enforcement has decided not to prosecute a particular crime against a particular segment of the population then it should be stopped from enforcing that particular crime against any portion of the population. It might well be said that a homeowner could reasonably conclude that although a statute exists declaring a particular behavior to be a crime, that the state and local law enforcement agencies through a pattern of conduct have waived their right to enforce the statute. This is akin to an estoppel argument in civil litigation.  In criminal litigation the lack of prosecution by law enforcement as a matter of state policy can only be seen as a failure of due process and a violation of equal protection.
  2. Self Defense:  This might sound like a stretch and it probably is, but it is nonetheless accurate and applicable. If the banks are allowed to attempt to steal property through the use of fraudulent documents and the state policy prevents law enforcement from prosecuting those crimes, then out of necessity it may be said that a homeowner is exercising a right of self-defense by filing fraudulent documents in opposition to the fraudulent documents of the banks.
One way or the other needs issues are going to have to be addressed. If you look at each case on a strictly individual basis you will come to the conclusion that the homeowner did something wrong and should be punished. If you take a broader view, you will see that the homeowner did the only thing that was possible to stop the steamrolling banks from stealing her home. 
From Hopegirl2012 on Facebook
The powerful mortgage industry, that almost brought down the entire global economy with their casino mentality, continues to generate mountains of fraudulent documents to kick families out on the streets and steal years off of innocent citizens lives by keeping them entangled in ludicrous legal shenanigans.
Below is one of the latest stories of one woman, Barbara Bratton.
For Immediate Release
UPDATE: Barbara Bratton - Out On Bail                                                                    Defrauded Homeowner Jailed As Domestic Terrorist
Friday, June 28, 2013: San Bernardino, CA.
Homeowners’ rights advocate Barbara Bratton was released on bail early this morning after spending two weeks detained as a felon on charges of forgery, burglary and offering false documents for allegedly filing a corrective deed at the San Bernardino County Recorder’s office. Homeowners sometimes use corrective deeds as a preliminary step towards court recognition of systemic land title fraud on their home.
At a Wednesday hearing in San Bernardino Superior Court, Ms. Bratton’s attorneys argued that she showed no criminal intent, had no criminal record and posed no flight risk. Bail was reduced from $250,000 to $150,000. Terms require Ms. Bratton and her associates to stay away from her family home of 40 years as well as from the couple who wrongfully obtained the property from her.  A preliminary hearing is set for August.
Since 2008, Barbara Bratton, a native of the City of Ontario, CA. and life-long member of Mt. Zion Baptist Church in that city, has been engaged in a determined legal battle to win back her home. In an apparent attempt to intimidate her, the office of San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos accused Ms. Bratton of being a domestic terrorist associated with the “sovereign citizens” – a charge wholly without merit. She has never identified herself as a sovereign citizen, nor does she support their views.
At least six officers were assigned to assist the District Attorney’s office with the case. FBI agents were also present in court. Ms. Bratton’s arrest comes at a time of growing public dissatisfaction with domestic surveillance and other gross violations of civil and human rights since passage of the Patriot Act after 9/11.
Barbara Bratton believes in and is in full compliance with the U.S. Constitution, which is why she is fighting a strictly legal battle to win back her home. These trumped up charges appear to be a desperate attempt by county and city officials to divert public attention from the real crimes:  the powerful home mortgage industry [[1] ] that has generated mountains of fraudulent documents that continue to pollute property records in San Bernardino County - a county with some of the highest foreclosure rates in the country. Until land title fraud is weeded out from public property records, judges will continue to sanction illegal foreclosures and bankers and home loan servicers who nearly brought down the U.S. economy will go unpunished.
Look, they've tried to make this "too complicated" for most of us to understand for a reason. Let me break it down for you. But first I have to warn you. This is going to upset a lot of people, especially if you own a home, and most especially if you've recently lost it in foreclosure.
The titles to our homes are in our names and on the public record. When we “borrowed” our own money we gave a promissory note to the bank. The bank exchanged the deed and possession of the house for the promissory note. A simple exchange and an executed complete contract paid by Operation of Law. At that point you have a valid contract with consideration and exchange of valuable property.The bank then sells the promissory note, our value and property which we gave to the bank, into the open market in the form of a “security”. 70% of these securities are guaranteed or backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or FHA, all government-sponsored enterprises (GSE’s). These GSE’s are now being held, insolvent (deemed unable to pay a debt), under the Federal Housing Finance Agency which has legal control over the BAIL OUT.So in other words, the bank took our value, sold it, decided that our value was a debt that we would never be able to pay and therefore worthless, and now our value is being held by the branch of our government - our employees - that gave even more of our value back to the banks in the bail outs.
When the bank sold the promissory note as a security, they were paid. The value of our promissory note was passed from the bank to the party that bought the security. But somehow, the banks still act like they are the ones with our promissory notes, and they proceed in making us pay 20+ years of mortgage payments for a value that they were already paid for, which they then deemed worthless after they were paid, not once – from the sale of the security – but twice, from the bailouts. The only party that could have any claim against our homes are the ones that bought our promissory notes from the bank. Yet the banks foreclose on us and throw families out of their homes out onto the street? Why? Because they need to be paid with our value a third time? How does that work??????
Honestly, I'm just stumped and at a loss here. Why are we not rioting over this? Why are we not outraged? How is it that women like Barbara Bratton and so many more of my close personal FRIENDS AND FAMILY are STILL going through this nonsense in court, when it is so OBVIOUSLY AND BLATENTLY WRONG????? INHUMANE!!!
Pass and share this story please. Help me help others to see the fraud here so that hopefully we can stand up to this and do the right thing! It's time to take our value back from the casino lords!
Hope

CEO get on the phone

I think if a bank owns your loan , or you have money  invested with them , if you call and ask to speak with the bank CEO, he gets on the phone.
Good find Ms. Kennedy :)

Contact Info For Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf And Friends

Here’s some info we dug up that can help you contact some higher ups at Wells Fargo if you’ve tried regular customer service and escalating to supervisors and it’s not working out.First read this post about how to contact and conduct yourself when using executive customer service.
1) Call 866-249-3302. Ask to be transferred “to the office of Mr. Stumpf.” Once you reach the secretary or switchboard operator, say the following:
“Hello, my name is ________. I’m one of your customers, and I was hoping to speak to Mr. Stumpf because I’m really getting frustrated with getting a problem resolved, and I know that your company doesn’t want me to feel that way.”
2) You can also send some of their busy executives a well-written and cogent complaint letter (here’s how to write one):
John.G.Stumpf@wellsfargo.com, Howard.I.Atkins@wellsfargo.com, James.M.Strother@wellsfargo.com, Richard.D.Levy@wellsfargo.com, Mark.C.Oman@wellsfargo.com, David.A.Hoyt@wellsfargo.com, David.M.Carroll@wellsfargo.com, patricia.r.callahan@wellsfargo.com, kevin.a.rhein@wellsfargo.com, Carrie.L.Tolstedt@wellsfargo.com, AVID.MODJTABAI@wellsfargo.com, BoardCommunications@wellsfargo.com
If you prefer using written correspondence, particularly when sending letters by certified mail provides a trail that they actually got your letter, these addresses may come in handy:
Corporate Offices
Wells Fargo
420 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Home Mortgage
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
P.O. Box 10335
Des Moines, IA 50306-0335
Home Equity
Wells Fargo Home Equity-Internet
MAC S3837-020
2nd Floor
2222 W Rose Garden Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85027-2644
Online Customer Service
Wells Fargo Customer Service
P.O. Box 4132
Concord, CA 94524-4132
Wells Fargo Financial
Wells Fargo Financial, Inc.
Customer Service F4008-080
800 Walnut
Des Moines, IA 50309

Monday, July 1, 2013

America Lost

In America we are no longer proud. We have a government that is teaching our children that its OK to lie , cheat and steal. That integrity and honor is something only our ancestors Believed in.

Its no longer about  the proud nation we once were, its about America Lost.

 

Az Attorney General Gets It! Precisely Wrong

Nothing could have said it better than these words from the chief law enforcement officer of the state. He said it because he meant it. And he was sort of right in a twisted way. And he was expressing the frustration of all three branches of government together with nearly everyone including the borrowers. The words were "assuming no underlying injustice."
You see that everyone has become so wrapped up in the paperwork and the arguments about the paperwork nearly everyone has forgotten to ask the most basic question: WAS THERE A TRANSACTION WITH OFFER, ACCEPTANCE AND CONSIDERATION. WHERE IS THE MONEY? where is the canceled check or wire transfer receipt? He was only saying that the fabricated forged paperwork was an acceptable short-cut IF NO INJUSTICE is present. In other words, at the end of the day it is just the collection of a debt. But what if there is no debt? Then what is all that paperwork about?
So to make it clear, what I am saying is that if I loan you money, you owe it to me whether we have anything in writing or not. If I fabricate and forge your signature on it, what's the harm? You got the money, you agreed to pay it back, you still owe what I loaned you. And if the note, forged or not, conforms to the deal the borrower thought they were getting, what difference does it make whether you use the note or not?
Ok, there is a problem with the statute of frauds, and about a dozen other statutes and doctrines that arose to prevent fraud and injustice. So maybe it isn't acceptable to fabricate documents, forge signatures, lie to the courts and otherwise do things that ordinary citizens can and are put in jail for doing the exact same thing.
But so what? You owe me money, you know it and you are not going to get out of owing it just because I committed some crime. I didn't commit a crime in loaning you the money, did I? I committed a crime in collecting it --- and that is what is bothering everyone including even the borrowers.
So why do I write this blog, litigate cases against the "lenders", appear as an expert witness to give opinion evidence and explanations of the finance industry?
Well, let's see. What if I didn't loan you the money, AND I got paid more money than you received in a loan from someone else? Huh? Yes, think about it. What if I didn't loan you the money? What if the paperwork was not just fraudulent and criminally created, what if it was just plain wrong? What if there was no transaction at all between us? Should I still be allowed to collect from you, take your house, your livelihood, your reputation? Might you spot some injustice if you learned that banks, pension funds, governments, investors, the central bank (Federal Reserve), gave me ten times more money than you got on the loan?
You are assuming that because the money showed up at the closing table that the loan was real. But the money on the table was stolen. Oops that does make things a little different doesn't it? And here is the kicker ---- the thief got paid ten times over for making the loan appear real. The only injustice is to investors whose money was stolen and borrowers whose lives were stolen.
But I guess that isn't enough. It is ok to steal, it is ok to lie, It is ok to fabricate documents.it is ok to drain the money from our economy and blow up world commerce. You know, on second thought I don't agree with the Arizona Attorney General. I think he is a paid stooge and an idiot. Because I know him, met him and explained to him what the truth was, Along with his investigation team who like in Florida when they were getting close to an arrest were fired or transferred.
Injustice? Where is there not injustice in this whole thing. We have debased our currency, undermined the financial integrity of our governments, left pensioners with too little money to get the payments they were expecting, and we have taken homes away from people just because someone at the top thinks it is too inconvenient to bring the banks down, put the criminals in jail, and leave the victims without any effective remedy. I thought we were better than that and that people like the Arizona Attorney General should be investigated for corruption. But then I was always an idealist.