They call this Justice - Yeah , right

Powers of Attorney: A Potential For Fraud

Consider this. You walk in off the street and apply for a loan. The Bank confirms the loan and a closing date and place is set up --- usually at a closing agent or title agent (who is also a closing agent). But your friend shows up and wants the loan and says he is willing to sign the papers. What do you think the Bank would do? What do you think the closing agent would do? It's obvious. The closing is cancelled and the loan never happens.

But suppose your friend has a friend in the bank and that person is in charge of preparing the papers for closing. The friendly bank person switches out the name of the borrower from you to your friend. The closing agent collects the money from the bank and gives your friend the loan. When the loan goes into default the bank finds that it loaned the money to the wrong person. Having no rights against you they are limited to pursuing your friend who by now is long gone. Unless they prove you had something to do with it, they have nothing on you.

Next, assume your friend goes to the closing for you and he has a power of attorney from you, saying you are out of town or whatever excuse he can think of. The closing agent will most likely not accept the power of attorney unless told to do so by the Bank. The Bank will most likely refuse because powers of attorney are subject to cancellation by death or disability.

If your friend adds that he is your successor because you died and he is the personal representative of your estate, there are even more problems and fewer chances that the bank will accept the successor argument or the power of attorney. The assumption would be that something screwy is going on and the Bank wants no part of it. Suppose the power of attorney is a forgery? What if you are not really dead?

But in the modern era of foreclosures the very same succession and powers of attorney are accepted without question FROM the same banks who would turn it down if it were offered TO them. THIS is why you need forensic auditors to give you a report on where the weaknesses are in the chain of title and the money trail. The best way to determine if an assignment is actually valid is to look at the consideration. Who paid how much to whom? And that is the heart of aggressive discovery. The Banks don't want to get into that because they would be shown to be strangers to the transaction and that the assignment or transfer never actually occurred.

When you went to your loan closing or your client went to their loan closing, there was an assumption that was not true in most cases ---- that the payee on the note and the mortgagee on the mortgage was giving the borrower a loan of money. But they didn't. The money came from investors rather directly through the investment bank that acted as a depository for the funds until they withdrawn for their own fees or to fund mortgages like yours. The party that SHOULD have been on the documents was the actual lender --- i.e., the investor or a group of investors in a REMIC trust if indeed the trust was ever funded, which we are finding is increasingly unlikely.

Now the Banks are saying that just because they had their own reasons not to write the right parties and terms on the loan in violation of their duties to the investors, that the Bank is entitled to foreclose! AND if you look closely you see all the succession language and powers of attorney, endorsements, and mergers, all of which lack consideration for any transfer of any loan because the loan was funded from the beginning by the investors who were forced out of the room.

In Court when the judge enters a final judgment of foreclosure or allows the sale to proceed the Judge is unintentionally stripping the investors of their security rights and stripping the investors of any claim for payment against the borrower --- which was the ONLY reason they advanced money in the first place. This in turn gives the borrower nobody to talk to to find out the real balance of the account receivable, or to address issues of modification.

If the Judiciary wants to see this bulge of foreclosure cases go away, then enforce the mortgages the same you did when there was no securitization. They will vanish in a flash.

Powers of Attorney: A Potential For Fraud
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20130828-powersofattorney.htm

What would Jesus do?

I am betting on the whoop ass!

Anymore questions?

Personally I want to hear Bartiromo’s response

Personally I want to hear Bartiromo’s response, and I am sure the rest of America would as well , don't you?

Barney Frank Leaves Wall Street Defenders Speechless: Why Are Bankers ‘Paying Themselves So Much Money?’

By Alan Pyke on September 15, 2013 at 1:23 pm

As his fellow panelists sought to sidestep criticisms of the financial industry on the five-year anniversary of the bank failure that kicked the financial crisis and Great Recession into full swing, former congressman Barney Frank asked a simple question that brought Wall Street’s defenders up short. “To your question about those poor beleaguered bankers who have been forced to do so much,” Frank said, “why are they paying themselves so much money? Where did these enormous salaries come from if they were in fact in such serious trouble?”
Frank was responding to CNBC host Maria Bartiromo’s call to “get beyond the conversation of is Wall Street evil, are the bankers evil and causing pain” and instead look to economic growth as a cure-all for the vast inequality in income and wealth that has been exacerbated since the end of the recession. (Nevermind that the deregulation of the financial sector is a primary driver of inequality in the U.S.) His question produced several seconds of silence as Bartiromo and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson laughed nervously and looked to Meet The Press host David Gregory for help. As Bartiromo seemed about to respond to Frank, Gregory stepped in to change the subject.
Watch the exchange below:

BARTIROMO: We need to get beyond the conversation of is Wall Street evil? Are the bankers evil and causing pain? And toward the conversation of, how do you create sustainable economic growth? That will answer the issue of inequality. Because with growth comes jobs.
[...]
BARNEY FRANK: I do want to add one thing, though, to your question about those poor beleaguered bankers who have been forced to do so much to keep from not being able to pay their debts they can’t lend money. if they really are running businesses that are so stressed that they can’t do their basic work, why are they paying themselves so much money? Where did these enormous salaries come from if they were in fact in such serious trouble?
BARTIROMO: (laughing) Thank you for giving me that one. Okay.
GREGORY (Host): But your point is to get beyond — to get beyond some of the resentment of the bankers and get to a place where we actually have more hiring going on, more investment going on and washington plays a more constructive role beyond whether it was the bailout of the banks which changed our politics.

It would have been interesting to hear Bartiromo’s response had Gregory not intervened to prevent anyone answering Frank’s question. Wall Street executive pay seems difficult to defend five years on from the crisis. It isn’t just that banker bonuses and bank profits have returned to or even surpassed pre-crisis highs. It’s that a third of the highest-paid executives of the past 20 years have been failures or frauds. It’s that companies routinely manipulate performance-based compensation schemes to effectively guarantee executive payouts. It’s that taxpayers subsidize payments in the form of stock, which also give executives incentive to the sorts of fraud and risk-taking that created the financial crisis.
The financial reform law that Frank co-authored with then-Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) included rules meant to change executive compensation. Those changes have yet to materialize. Five years on from the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, former Lehman chief Dick Fuld is far from the only former executive to have retained hundreds of millions of dollars in pay and bonuses for their work that contributed to the crisis. Efforts to change the culture of the financial industry appear to have failed, as traders still report a high willingness to break the rules for personal gain.

End The Fed

What you don't know may shock you

Five years ago today, Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.

Instantly and inevitably, the house of cards otherwise known as Wall Street collapsed.

But after getting bailed out by the American taxpayers, Wall Street is doing just fine.

The people of Main Street? Not so much.

Here are some numbers to think about this Sunday morning.

• Amount the crash cost the U.S. economy: $22 trillion

• How much everyone would get if that $22 trillion were divided equally among the U.S. populace: $69,478.88

• Assets of the four biggest banks in America — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wachovia/Wells Fargo — when they were “too big to fail” in 2008: $6.4 trillion

• Assets of those four banks today: $7.8 trillion

• Of the 63 former Lehman Brothers employees identified by a bankruptcy examiner as being aware of an accounting scheme Lehman used to mask its true finances, number who are employed in senior financial services positions today: 47

• Number of the 25 banks responsible for the bulk of risky subprime loans leading up to the crash that are back in the mortgage business: 25

• Chances that an American voter thinks that regulating financial products and services is “important” or “very important”: 9 in 10

• Chances that an American knows the Earth orbits the sun: 8 in 10

• Amount spent in 2012 by Wall Street and other finance industry behemoths on lobbying to roll back, water down and weasel out of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: $487 million

• Number of registered financial industry lobbyists in 2012: 2,429

• Number of lawsuits filed as of April of this year by Eugene Scalia, son of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, to hold up implementation of Dodd-Frank rules on legal technicalities: 7

• Rank of finance industry among all corporate election spending by sector in 2011 and 2012: 1

• Amount the industry gave to political candidates in 2011 and 2012: $664 million

• In 2012, rate at which revenues of JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the U.S., matched Public Citizen’s operating expenses for the entire year: Every 80 minutes

Undeniably, these numbers are shocking, infuriating, damning.