Monday, February 3, 2014

Many attorneys are doing well in court without the Steinberger decision


by Neil Garfield
Mark Stopa, Esq., from the West side if Florida, points out that he and other lawyers are winning cases without the benefit of some recent trial and appellate decisions. Our own experience at Garfield, Kelley and White LLC, shows the same results. In that respect I did a disservice to myself and my partners. Many lawyers did not get their pleading dismissed and were able to proceed into discovery and trial. I think Mark is right that I might have created a misimpression that there was no progress but for the Arizona or other decisions.
The fact remains that in most cases the Bank cannot prove its case and Judges are turning that corner. The old bias is fading. When a lawyer aggressively pursues weaknesses in the foreclosure case, there are many gaps in the pleading and proof of the party seeking foreclosure. And before I leave this out, pay attention to the pleading of the party seeking foreclosure and their answers either in its answers to discovery or at trial. It is the complaint and answer that frame the issues to be presented at trial. When there is a conflict, a proper objection can stop the Forecloser dead in its tracks.
For example, BofA in one case filed a foreclosure complaint stating that they were the Servicer and that the owner of the loan was an unidentified third party. In response to discovery they assert that BofA was always the owner of the loan and denied any sale or securitization of the loan. This amounts to an admission that the allegations of the complaint are untrue, that the verification of that complaint was a sham, and that the factual basis and legal theory of their case had changed. Since they are on the eve of trial, and no motion to amend was filed, the case is at issue on facts the attorney knows in advance cannot be proven or even proffered as evidence in view of the sworn answers to interrogatories. We'll see what happens in that case.

Mortgage-Deal Spoils Divide Winners From Losers

This is priceless. These attorney generals and others make big bank off the people who were frauded by these banks. While there pockets grow , nothing has been done to help the ones who lost homes and were abused the most. pretty sad, when the people sworn to protect you  are also stealing  from you as well. The only people  deserving of this money are the people who were hurt, not the lawyers, not the AG's, not the treasury , and not the governments, yet, they are the ones prospering and the rest are left to struggle with loss, homelessness, no jobs, no food. What the hell is wrong with this country? We are on a spiral trip to nowhere.

Bloomberg News

Mortgage-Deal Spoils Divide Winners From Losers in U.S. Capitols

February 03, 2014

Hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgage-fraud settlements from JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other banks are providing a windfall to state attorneys general -- and creating a new class of political winners and losers.
In New York, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman learned in November his office was getting $613 million from JPMorgan, about triple his annual budget. He said he’d use the cash to reimburse victims and finance investigations. Governor Andrew Cuomo, a fellow Democrat, questioned Schneiderman’s hold on the money and a dispute over the cash ensued.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris, seen by some as a potential gubernatorial candidate in 2018, used her $300 million share from JPMorgan to reimburse public-pension funds for losses on mortgage investments. Lisa Madigan, her Democratic counterpart in Illinois who considered a run for governor this year, applied her $100 million share to the state’s pension systems, which face a worst-in-the-nation $100 billion shortfall. She trumpeted her move with a news release.
“Politics is all about money and power,” said Peter Henning, a former lawyer with the Securities and Exchange Commission and a professor at Wayne State University Law School who has written about the JPMorgan settlement. “AG stands for almost governor.”

Schneiderman’s Pursuit

In November 2013, the U.S. and five state attorneys general reached an agreement with the bank that it would pay $13 billion to settle claims that it sold risky mortgage securities. JPMorgan, admitting that it and companies it bought hadn’t sufficiently informed investors about risks, paid a $2 billion civil penalty. It also paid almost $6 billion to resolve lawsuits by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the National Credit Union Administration and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
New York got $613 million to settle a 2012 case Schneiderman mounted against the bank and its Bear Stearns unit. As the most active in pursuing -- and suing -- the bank, he won the biggest pot. That was enough to aggravate natural tensions with the state’s top political figure.
“When the settlement gets big enough, you have a fight,” said James Tierney, a former Maine attorney general who runs a program about the position in Columbia University’s law program. “Both bring to the table the legitimate functions of their office.”

Springboard Office

The stakes were heightened by another reality: the past two governors, Cuomo and Eliot Spitzer, were elected after taking on Wall Street institutions as attorneys general.
“It’s counterintuitive, but the chance for sparks to fly is greater when the governor and attorney general are from the same party,” said former New York Attorney General Bob Abrams, who is now a partner with Stroock LLP in New York. “There is a natural suspicion and paranoia, and there can be competing ambitions.”
Such rivalries have been going on for decades, said Tierney, a key adviser in the $246 billion settlement among the tobacco industry, the U.S. government and 46 attorneys general in 1998.
In the 15 years since, governors used the money for bridges, tax relief and other purposes not related to tobacco control or health that the attorneys general had proposed.
States have received $116 billion in payments and spent only 7.7 percent on tobacco prevention programs, said Peter Fisher, vice president for state issues at the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.

Snookered Attorneys

“A lot of public officials at the time made some grandiose promises about spending the money on tobacco prevention and health,” Fisher said. “The reality turned out to be quite different.”
In later deals, the attorneys general protected their plans. In February 2012, the U.S. and 49 attorneys general reached a $25 billion settlement with five top mortgage servicers, including Bank of America (BAC:US) Corp., whom they accused of signing foreclosure documents without verifying them.
The servicers were told to use as much as $21.5 billion to cut homeowners’ principal payments, refinance loans at lower rates and compensate 2 million people who lost their homes because of malfeasance. Money going directly to the states would protect consumers against foreclosures.

Staking Claims

Schneiderman structured New York’s share of the JPMorgan (JPM:US) agreement to give his office broad powers to determine how the funds would be spent, according to the settlement.
The original deal gave Schneiderman control of 85 percent, with 15 percent going to the state treasury. It said he could use the funds to aid those hurt by the foreclosure crisis and “otherwise promote the interests of the investing public.” He could spend money on housing counselors, mediation, and anti-blight projects, the settlement said.


Cuomo balked and argued with Schneiderman that the money is meant to relieve all taxpayers, and the attorney general isn’t allowed under state law to spend it as he sees fit, according to an administration official familiar with the discussions who requested anonymity because the dispute was private.
Schneiderman and Cuomo worked out the dispute over the first $163 million installment of the four-year payout just before the governor announced his state budget Jan. 21. The attorney general will put half into the treasury, and Cuomo and the legislature will spend it on housing. Schneiderman also agreed to go through the state contracting process and the oversight that comes with it when spending the funds.
Matt Mittenthal, a Schneiderman spokesman, said the deal was a “product of positive negotiations.”

Struggle Ahead

Three other payouts will follow, leaving Schneiderman with hundreds of millions to disburse in remaining years. Cuomo expects to fight over the division of each, said another aide who requested anonymity because the matter is private.
Tierney said the conflict between attorneys general and governors can make for good government.
“Most states want the friction between the two,” he said. “They want the AG to stand up to the governor, because it’s a check on the governor’s power.”
The case is People of the State of New York v. J.P. Morgan Securities, 451556-2012, New York State Supreme Court (Manhattan).
To contact the reporters on this story: Linda Sandler in New York at lsandler@bloomberg.net; Freeman Klopott in Albany at fklopott@bloomberg.net; Christie Smythe in Brooklyn at csmythe1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Andrew Dunn at adunn8@bloomberg.net; Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net; Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net

Friday, January 31, 2014

Joke of the day


When I read this I just had to laugh, the banks hired these companies and knew full well what they were doing, but once again, they get there fingers caught in the cookie jar and try to cry foul. I think its time to start with banks and servicers and brokers all being tested before being allowed to do anything in the housing industry.  
Alot of these homes were stripped down to the copper pipes , loss of furnaces , plumbing, and electrical  elements, and blamed the homeowners , when in fact it was the home inspectors the banks themselves hired. The banks are responsible for this as well , and money should be funded back to homeowners they have frauded in this new mess they created. 

FYI- I talked to one of these home inspectors from Bennington, VT and he informed me he just had gotten out of a 5 year jail sentence and the only job he could find. He also stated that if he takes all the houses thrown to him he can make close to 8000 plus a month. He goes all over Mass, VT, NH . All you need is a computer and camera , and they send him a list of homes , how nice .

 

Foreclosure Industry Says It'll Do A Better Job Of Screening Its Workers After Widespread Break-Ins

Posted:   |  Updated: 01/30/2014 7:59 am EST
After hundreds of lawsuits and thousands of complaints, banks are finally pushing for reform in one of the darkest corners of the housing market. Under new guidelines expected to be adopted this year by most of the industry, the workers that watch over millions of homes in default or foreclosure will be subject to heightened levels of background checks.
The measures are meant to screen out people convicted of a criminal offense, such as theft or fraud. They follow widespread allegations, first reported by The Huffington Post, that the handymen and home inspectors that banks hire to look after vacant properties are breaking into still-occupied homes, and looting them of valuables. Some of these people, who work indirectly for the banks through a web of contracting companies, have lengthy criminal records.
"The intent is to give communities a high level of confidence that the people walking around in homes are not going to cause problems," said Eric Miller, the executive director of the National Association of Mortgage Field Services, the trade association that helped design the new standards.
The new screening requirements mark the most significant effort by the mortgage industry to date to crack down on abuses that have resulted in a wave of unflattering media coverage, hundreds of consumer lawsuits and a case brought by the Illinois attorney general against Safeguard Properties, the biggest player in the industry.
HuffPost's investigation last year found that most of the break-in complaints involve homes that are in some stage of default or foreclosure, but still in legal possession of the occupants. In many instances, contractors stand accused of ignoring obvious signs of habitation, kicking down doors and crawling through basement windows in order to gain access, then changing the locks. In some cases, they are also accused of helping themselves to valuables found inside. One contractor working for Safeguard Properties in Arkansas is accused of looting a home of paintings and other valuables. A Connecticut woman claims another one of these workers stole her son's piggy bank.
It's not clear how often contractors accused of such thefts also have a criminal record, though sources within the industry say people with checkered pasts are drawn to the work, which often requires little training or special skills. While there is no data to show whether these people are more likely to commit abuses than others in the industry, background searches of individuals named in several consumer cases alleging break-ins and thefts revealed lengthy criminal pasts.
In one case, in Florida, a contractor arrested previously at least six times on felony charges is accused of taking a laptop computer and other items from a vacation home. According to a police report, the contractor, who was working indirectly for CoreLogic, a company based in Westlake, Texas, denied the allegations, even though his fingerprints were found on a can of beer left open on a counter in the home.
At the forefront of the push for new oversight is Wells Fargo, which recently began requiring its contractors to have "a satisfactory background check in place" before performing any work on its properties, according to a spokesman. Several companies that work for Wells Fargo, including Mortgage Contracting Services, based in Plano, Texas, have already alerted subcontractors and other workers that they are expected to comply with the new guidelines by the end of January.
In an email, a Wells Fargo spokesman said the change in policy came in response to "a lot of scrutiny around this issue."
The guidelines allow for different levels of scrutiny, though the companies adopting the policies haven't yet said which workers would be subject to the most intensive screenings. Miller said the aim was to prevent contractors with recent criminal convictions from stepping onto a property, a standard that would apply even to the low-paid workers who mow lawns.
Seven of the biggest foreclosure contracting companies that deal directly with banks have said they will adopt the heightened screening rules, Miller said. "We are seeking to professionalize our workforce," he said.
Bret Douglas, who owns Team Ironclad Preservation with 25 employees near Daytona Beach, Fla., said he understands the reasoning behind the heightened screening requirements, but said he is confused by the new guidelines. It isn't clear, he said, whether employees with criminal records could still perform basic maintenance work.
Douglas said he objects to the cost of the background checks -- $65 each -- and the presumption that someone who has committed a crime in the past should not be permitted an opportunity at redemption.
"If they did the crime and served the time, I say they should be given a second chance," he said. Several workers on his crew have criminal records, he said, adding that it is difficult to find adults willing to mow lawns in the hot Florida sun who don't have spotty pasts.
Also still unknown is how aggressively the mortgage companies will enforce the new standards. In the past, banks largely deferred to the contractors they hired to oversee themselves, a strategy that hasn't proved particularly effective.
That's because the contracting companies have often brushed off accusations that they are failing to supervise their workers. Safeguard Properties, which has attracted the majority of complaints, says it has required background checks for years.
At an industry conference in October, Safeguard founder Robert Klein signaled that stepped-up scrutiny wouldn't be welcome. Safeguard, he said, "has been monitoring itself for quite awhile."
"Complaints are going to happen," Klein said at the conference. "It is the habit of people, they love to complain."

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Sec sends out a risk alert

01/28/2014 11:09 AM EST

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) today issued a Risk Alert on the due diligence processes that investment advisers use when they recommend or place clients’ assets in alternative investments such as hedge funds, private equity funds, or funds of private funds.
“Money continues to flow into alternative investments.  We thought it was important to assess advisers’ due diligence processes and to promote compliance with existing legal requirements, including the duty to ensure that such investments or recommendations are consistent with client objectives,” said OCIE Director Drew Bowden.
The alert describes current industry trends and practices in advisers’ due diligence. Compared to observations from prior periods, the staff noted that advisers are:
  • Seeking more information and data directly from the managers of alternative investments
  • Using third parties to supplement and validate information provided by managers of alternative investments 
  • Performing additional quantitative analysis and risk assessment of alternative investments and their managers.
Additionally, staff observed certain deficiencies in several of the advisory firms examined, including:
  • Omitting alternative investment due diligence policies and procedures from their annual reviews, even though these investments comprised a large portion of certain advisers’ investments on behalf of clients
  • Providing potentially misleading information in marketing materials about the scope and depth of due diligence conducted
  • Having due diligence practices that differed from those described in the advisers’ disclosures to clients. 
The following OCIE staff contributed to this Risk Alert:  John Sweeney, Kenneth Clowers, Zerubbabel Johnson, and Mavis Kelly.

TO GOOD NOT TO POST

These are to good not to post :)

PRESCOTT LOVERN, SR. and R&L ASSOCIATES SUE LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, INC. FOR FAILING TO CARRY OUT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS

Featured

October 26, 2013:
R&L Associates Law has sued Lender Processing Services, Inc. for failing to clear clouded property titles they created, which fixing the titles was part of their settlement agreements with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), 46 states & the District of Columbia.
LPS’ former subsidiary DocX’s CEO went to prison for the title scam, and LPS agreed to fix all the clouded titles; however, that is simply not happening and DOJ nor any state AG is doing anything about it. The damage is still affecting consumers in the District and around the country.

 NOW THAT THE STATES AG HAVE OUR MONEY , THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE REST OBVIOUSLY.

FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD / BANKS CAUGHT AIDING & ABETTING MORTGAGE / FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Featured

September 19, 2011
The Federal Reserve Board (FRB) and Federal Reserve Banks have been caught aiding & abetting mortgage / foreclosure fraud. Wells Fargo (WF) is in violation of their Consent Order [April 13, 2011] with the FRB. WF was in violation the day they signed it, and every day since, and the FRB knows it, yet they stand silent while consumers are defrauded nationwide. R & L will take appropriate legal action.
R&L has not investigated the other Consent Orders yet, but based on the evidence in our possession now we feel there is a 95% probability that all the Consent Orders with the other banks fall into the same category. Consent Orders for:
R&L attempted top contact Ben Bernanke but he is refusing to discuss the matter.


PRESCOTT LOVERN, SR. EXPOSES NEWLY APPOINTED FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN, JANET YELLEN, IN MASSIVE BANKING INDUSTRY CIVIL / CRIMINAL FRAUD

Featured

OCTOBER 16, 2013:
Prescott Lovern, Sr. (Lovern) and R & L Associates Law have undeniable evidence that Janet Yellen, President Obama’s newly appointed choice to be the new chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, knowingly and willingly participated in a cover-up of massive civil & criminal fraud associated with MasterCard & VISA Member Issuing Banks she regulated as President of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, and, in a oversight capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
The alleged illegal conduct of Ms. Yellen et al is connected to the infamous “Interchange Fee” (IF) collected on every single MasterCard (MC) / VISA credit card solicitation, application and transaction. Ms. Yellen was warned by Lovern repeatedly about MC / VISA issuing banks who are engaged in what Lovern refers to as a ”racketeering criminal enterprise” that has cost U.S. Consumers trillions of dollars since 1970. Yellen fell right in line with Ben Bernanke and Richard Cordray’s decision to continue to cover-up the enormous IF Conspiracy / theft of U.S. Consumer money.
The IF Conspiracy litigation roll out will be worse than the 2008 financial meltdown because of the mass number of banks involved. Lovern has already proven that 100% of all MC / VISA credit card receivable “asset based securities” are fraudulent, as is every MC / VISA application & monthly billing statement. In addition, between 90% -100% of all online MC / VISA Debit card transactions have been fraudulent, damaging cardholders.
MC / VISA Cardholders can wipe out their entire MC / VISA credit card balances under current law without affecting their credit ratings because of the conduct of regulators et al.
The White House was warned, yet ignored the evidence. Lovern now has documented physical evidence from the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank, GAO, FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, VISA, Inc. (VI), MasterCard International (MI) & select public stock issuing banks, etc… to back up his claims. “The claims can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and include serious criminal violations committed by bank regulators, MI, VI, issuing banks (i.e. Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Chase, Citibank, etc..), major law firms, and the American Bankers Association,” says Lovern.
The first of what will be 1000s of lawsuits is starting, beginning with Major League Baseball and specific co-branded MC / VISA credit cards.
This criminal enterprise operated primarily under the protection of the Federal Reserve Board will bring down the FRB as we know it,” claims Lovern. “Unfortunately, it could also be the end of the U.S. Dollar as the world’s leading reserve currency, and that would be bad. The IF Conspiracy involves trillions of dollars of stolen money from consumers, and its going to have to be paid back, at least until everyone connected runs out of money.”
Lovern has asked to testify at Yellen’s confirmation hearings but he’s sure he will not be invited. “Congress doesn’t want to know the truth, Lovern stated.”
This is a hot one, stay tuned.



PRESCOTT LOVERN, SR. PREPARING TO FILE THE LARGEST LAWSUIT EVER FILED AGAINST THE IRS IN CONNECTION WITH THE IRS W-9 FORM

Featured

July 18, 2013:
Prescott Lovern, Sr. is preparing to file two lawsuits that have hundreds of billions of dollars each in statutory liability for fraud connected to the use of the IRS / W-9 Form and social security numbers. Federal defendants will be sued in federal court, and non federal defendants will be sued in D.C. Superior Court under the extraterritorial, private attorney general statute. The last two former IRS Commissioners are being named in the lawsuits along with high ranking government officials and federal agencies.
Under the current federal administration the federal government and private industry have committed over one hundred million federal felonies for illegal use of the W-9 Form, which will be exposed in the upcoming lawsuits. The U.S. Treasury, IRS and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are attempting to cover this up. This is the biggest IRS scam ever uncovered.
These lawsuits will bankrupt any corporate defendant named.
Stay tuned.


PRESCOTT LOVERN, SR.’s LAWSUIT PENDING AGAINST MERS SHOULD SHUT THEM DOWN

Featured

UPDATE: October 1, 2013
Based on new evidence received from the District of Columbia Attorney General’s Office directly related to the Defendants / D.C. residents who have been defrauded, R&L voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit filed in June referred to below and we are filing multiple lawsuits on the same legal issues, starting next week, that includes our new evidence both in the District and Nationwide.
July 18, 2013:
Prescott Lovern Sr.’s massive [multi-trillion dollar] Private Attorney General, law enforcement, pending action against Merscorp Holdings, Inc. / Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), Fannie Mae, Fidelity Title, Seterus [IBM], Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS) et al should shut down MERS forever, provided the court follows the law. The lawsuit explains in detail how the banks that control MERS systematically, and in a premeditated plan destroyed the real estate chain of title system in the United States between the years 2000 and July 2011; and, it is beyond repair. MERS and their criminal banking partners / Members have engaged in mortgage, title & foreclosure fraud nationwide beginning in 2000, and continue to do so even though the Regulators claim they are stopping it, which is nothing but disinformation.
To make matters worse, the federal government has been trying to conceal as much of this as possible in an attempt to protect their “Too Big To Fail” banks / entities. The mortgage / banking regulators are part of the problem.
The next big revelation will be the mortgage, title & foreclosure fraud associated with commercial property, all created by MERS.
Stay tuned.

GET THEM HARD~!

FOR MORE OF THESE STORIES CHECK THEM OUT HERE .
 http://rlassociateslaw.com/








World Savings Bank Loans Were Securitized Before Wachovia Merger

This is for you J
 by Neil Garfield and
Foreclosure Hamlet
World Savings Bank  was acquired by Wachovia Bank  which in turn was acquired by Wells Fargo.  We have previously reported here that we had no information regarding the actual securitization of loans had been originated by World Savings Bank.  Now we have that information.
The original opinion that I had written about was that virtually all of the loans originated by world savings bank were eventually securitized either by World Savings Bank directly,  or by Wachovia Bank after it acquired WSB, or by Wells Fargo bank after it acquired Wachovia Bank.  I am now more sure than ever that this is correct. Despite the public assurances during the mortgage meltdown WSB was in fact acting solely as an originator and not as a lender in many transactions. Many other transactions in which they were technically the lender were actually closed in anticipation of sale into the secondary market for securitization.
If you look at the link below, you will be able to see part of the information that has been sent to me. Apparently Foreclosure Hamlet has been ahead of me on this issue since some of the screenshots show that they are from that blog site. This opens the door to a whole set of cases in which Wells Fargo is insisting that it is the current creditor when in fact the loan was securitized and sold into what appeared to be a REMIC trust. of course it still remains an issue as to whether or not the money taken from investors for the purchase of mortgage bonds ever made it into the trust; so it remains an issue as to whether or not the trust is the creditor or the investors are the creditor.
Thus it remains an issue as to whether or not any of the alleged securitization participants can claim authority to act on behalf of the "trust beneficiaries" when the actual status of the entity (the trust) was ignored by those parties. It might be that they can only claim apparent authority as opposed to legal authority since the documents that were given to the investors show a structure that is very different from what was done in  the real world.

http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/world-savings-bank-remics.pdf


How did I know that that bottom feeder Deutsche Bank would also show up here :(

Washington Mutual loans and Chase

Well if anyone is interested, I know now, after a long hard struggle how at least JP Morgan /Chase does business, especially concerning the so called LOANS THEY NEVER HAD FROM WASHINGTON MUTUAL. Its quite the puzzle , but when you talk to bankers , that Chase screwed over , the puzzle unravels. For those of you who went to Chase and asked them to look for your note from WAMU and were dealing with Deutsche Bank , or Archbay at the time ( or possibly another bottom feeder ) what happens is ( in my case anyway) you have a department called home-lending Dept Of recovery, which is run by Mike Boyle, who researches  your notes. They decide on which notes were forgiven  that belonged to Washington Mutual ( first and second notes) because Chase wanted them off the books and not have to deal with them and that loss was cheaper than the court cost etc( they were learning this fast due to the claims they made with other Wamu notes , in courts across the country.). Now if you were a lucky candidate , one or both were written off, unless a bottom feeder like Deutsche Bank (or DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, Archbay, etc) WHO sold them illegally as NPLS to Hedge Funds  and had hoped to get away with it , but Deustche bank knowing they would soon be caught,( I did the research and when the Banks lawyers found out  I was digging, suddenly Chase received  phones calls from the other banks lawyer .Chase sent us a letter stating when and with who this conversation had taken place. This was also when Chase still insisted they owned BOTH my notes and would not release any information to the lawyer)  than Deutsche Bank,   than goes to Chase and pays Chase pennies on the dollar to get one of them notes and than Chase writes off the other note. I had a second Note that after Chase claiming to own BOTH my   Notes,the second Note  was suddenly written  off  as  SATISFIED and the first  Note was  sold to Deutsche, in an under handed deal, (mind ya AFTER Chase stated for months to own the first Notes as well NOW they claim they never had it and their is no proof because the note was sold and Chase destroyed the record. ). However,It doesn't end there ,than Chase writes an assignment dated years after the purchase ( mine was over 5 years later)Now, this is where it gets sticky , because if Chase NEVER had the first note now ,( 10 months later) like they claim, how could they possibly write an assignment of mortgage on a NOTE according to them they never had , so could never see? Wouldn't that be FRAUD by Chase? Than suddenly the bottom feeder claiming to own the note (who never had the paperwork in all these years ) comes forward with it , and Chase suddenly no longer has it and states it made a mistake it never owned the first loan,( because  it has now been sold and destroyed in Chase records) than congratulations , your puzzle is now solved. Chase who believes they can get away with it and has, with I am sure thousands of people, is now gonna get caught in its own web of deceit, because I plan on making this even more public , in order for  lawyers and courts and people who were abused to know how it works.

SO ,SHARE SHARE SHARE!!!

I Also posted it  here
http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/dailybriefing/RBS-Set-for-Biggest-Loss-Since-2008-1040872-1.html#comments
 Please share so others will know.