.

This should be awesome. He is also scheduled to appear on The Dylan Ratigan Show @ 4pm EDT.

.

For Immediate Release

Contact: Corinne Russell (202) 414-6921
Stefanie Johnson (202) 414-6376

October 24, 2011

.

FHFA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Announce HARP Changes to Reach More Borrowers

Washington, DC – The Federal Housing Finance Agency, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises), today announced a series of changes to the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) in an effort to attract more eligible borrowers who can benefit from refinancing their home mortgage. The program enhancements were developed at FHFA’s direction with input from lenders, mortgage insurers and other industry participants.

[...]

The new program enhancements address several other key aspects of HARP including:

• Eliminating certain risk-based fees for borrowers who refinance into shorter-term mortgages and lowering fees for other borrowers;
• Removing the current 125 percent LTV ceiling for fixed-rate mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;
• Waiving certain representations and warranties that lenders commit to in making loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;
• Eliminating the need for a new property appraisal where there is a reliable AVM (automated valuation model) estimate provided by the Enterprises; and
• Extending the end date for HARP until Dec. 31, 2013 for loans originally sold to the Enterprises on or before May 31, 2009.

Questions I would ask if I’m eligible for and accept the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP)

Scribd

1. Will the HARP process be anything like the disastrous HAMP?

2. What happens if there is fraud within my current loan documents? Will I waive any rights?

3. I don’t want my documents Robo-Signed. Will Mortgage Electronic Registration System Inc. (MERS) be named in my refi loan package?

4. If so, What will happen if I reject MERS? Will I no longer be eligable for HARP?

5. If I am forced to have MERS on my loan, will it be disclosed that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with most mortgage lenders are shareholders of MERS?

6. Will it be disclosed to me who is the Owner & Holder of my note, Including the name of the trust that it’s in, if there is any?

I am not an attorney but I highly recommend you seek the advice of an attorney who has been fighting for homeowners before signing into a refi.

Do The Math. If you’re 50-90% Underwater, is a savings of $200.00 off your mortgage really going to help you?

HARP is heading towards a failure and to cater to the wealthy only. Has anything worked for you? NO.

Excellent piece by Richard (RJ) Eskow

HuffPO-

Imagine that a group of arsonists was terrorizing your town. First they’d buy insurance on a stranger’s home, then they’d show up with a blowtorch and a tanker truck filled with gasoline and burn the place down. Imagine that they’ve burned down a thousand homes this way, ruining the lives of the homeowners — and everyone else’s, too, as real estate values plunged and the local economy collapsed.

Now let’s imagine that the Mayor, the DA, and the Chief of Police said they’ve come up with a great “settlement”: The arsonists will pay a small fine, and they’ll never be prosecuted for arson. Plus, if they’re asked very nicely, they’ll also agree to provide a little help to 27 out of the 1,000 families they made homeless — although they’d control the ‘help’ process and the town might wind up footing the bill anyway.

And one more thing: They get to keep the gasoline truck and the blowtorch.
____________________________

[HUFFINGTONPOST]

Bank Fraud

Docx, LLC
Law Offices of David Stern
Lender Processing Services
Cheryl Samons

Action Date: October 24, 2011
Location: West Palm Beach, FL

HURRICANE CHERYL DESTROYS LAND RECORDS IN PALM BEACH COUNTY

In the six month period from September 1, 2008 through February 28, 2009, 502 mortgage assignments, signed by Cheryl Samons, were filed in the official records of Palm Beach County, FL.

Samons was the office manager for the Law Offices of David J. Stern, but she signed as a MERS officer.

Mortgage-backed trusts were the primary beneficiary of these Samons Assignments.

Mortgage Assignments Signed by Cheryl Samons Filed in Palm Beach County from September, 2008, through February, 2009:

September, 2008: 75
October, 2008: 125
November: 2008: 56
December, 2008: 85
January, 2009: 101
February, 2009: 60

Multiplied by three, in the 18-month period from July 4, 2008 though January 4, 2009, Samons is likely to have signed 1,506 Assignments.

This is the same 18-month period that 1,742 Docx Assignments were being filed in Palm Beach County. These had a stated mortgage value of $560,239,797 or an average mortgage value of $321,607 per assignment.

Samons Palm Beach County assignments filed from July 4, 2008 through January 4, 2009 have an estimated value of $484,340,182, nearly half a billion dollars.

This does not include the assignments signed by other Stern employees, associate Beth Cerni or paralegal Carol Wasserman.

The combined value of mortgages, primarily transferred to mortgage-backed trusts, for one county for one 18-month period: $1,044,579,939.

While Docx Assignments were only filed for 18 months in Palm Beach County, Samons assignments appeared regularly from 2007 through 2010.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ANGELA HEREDIA-BONNET,
Appellant,

vs.

FIRST AMERICAN LOANSTAR
TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC, A
FOREIGN ENTITY AND MERS, A
FOREIGN ENTITY,
Respondents.

ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a petition
for judicial review in a foreclosure mediation action and a post-judgment
order denying an NRCP 60(b) motion for relief from the initial order.
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Patrick Flanagan, Judge.

Following an unsuccessful mediation conducted under
Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program (the Program), appellant Angela
Heredia-Bonnet (Bonnet) filed a petition for judicial review in district
court. Among other things, Bonnet contended that respondent MERS’
conduct was sanctionable because it failed to produce certain required
documents at the mediation.’ See NRS 107.086(4), (5). The district court
denied Bonnet’s petition and ordered that a foreclosure certificate be
issued. As explained below, we reverse.

Standard of review

“[W]e. . review a district court’s decision regarding the
imposition of sanctions for a party’s participation in the Foreclosure
Mediation Program under an abuse of discretion standard.” Pasillas v.
HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1281, 1286 (2011).

MERS failed to produce the required documents

To obtain a foreclosure certificate, a deed of trust beneficiary
must strictly comply with four requirements: (1) attend the mediation, (2)
participate in good faith, (3) bring the required documents, and (4) if
attending through a representative, have a person present with authority
to modify the loan or access to such a person. NRS 107.086(4), (5); Leyva
v. National Default Servicing Corp., 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1275,
1279 (2011) (concluding that strict compliance with the Program’s
requirements is necessary).

NRS 107.086(4) states that the deed of trust beneficiary or its
representative “shall bring to the mediation the original or a certified copy
of the deed of trust, the mortgage note and each assignment of the deed of
trust or mortgage note.” Moreover, the Foreclosure Mediation Rules
(FMRs) require the beneficiary or its representative to conduct an
appraisal of the homeowner’s home. FMR 11(3)(b).

Here, the record demonstrates that MERS failed to produce
the deed of trust and any assignments. 2 Moreover, it failed to conduct an
appraisal of Bonnet’s home. Because MERS failed to strictly comply with
the Program’s requirements, the district court abused its discretion in
ordering a foreclosure certificate to be issued. Leyva, 127 Nev. at , 255
P.3d at 1279; Pasillas, 127 Nev. at , 255 P.3d at 1286.

On remand, the district court must determine how MERS
should be appropriately sanctioned. Pasillas, 127 Nev. at , 255 P.3d at
1286-87 (construing NRS 107.086(5) to mean that a violation of one of the
four statutory requirements must be sanctioned and that the district court
is to consider several factors in determining what sanctions are
appropriate). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to jtttAistrict court for proceedings consistent with
this order. 3

FOOTNOTES:

1The record indicates that a non-party, Chase Home Financing,
LLC, attended the mediation. Because MERS maintains that Chase
attended the mediation on its behalf, Chase’s conduct at the mediation is
properly imputed to MERS for purposes of this appeal.

2We recognize that Bonnet’s original lender may still own her loan,
in which case no assignments would exist. However, MERS’ inability to
verify who currently owns Bonnet’s loan necessarily means that MERS
was unable to confirm that no assignments needed to be produced.

3In light of the above disposition, Bonnet’s motion for summary
remand is denied as moot. Likewise, Bonnet’s appeal from the district
court order denying her motion for NRCP 60(b) relief is dismissed as moot.
See Estate of LoMastro v. American Family Ins., 124 Nev. 1060, 1079
11.55, 195 P.3d 339, 352 n.55 (2008).

Scribd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

PATRICK MALLOY AND ORLENE
MALLOY,
Appellants,

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK,
Respondent.

ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a petition
for judicial review in a foreclosure mediation action. Second Judicial
District Court, Washoe County; Patrick Flanagan, Judge.
Following an unsuccessful mediation conducted under
Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program (the Program), appellants
Patrick and Orlene Malloy filed a petition for judicial review in district
court. The Malloys contended that respondent Wells Fargo Bank’s
conduct was sanctionable because it failed to produce certain required
documents at the mediation. See NRS 107.086(4), (5). The district court
denied the Malloys’ petition and ordered that a foreclosure certificate be
issued. As explained below, we reverse.
Standard of review

“[W]e. . review a district court’s decision regarding the
imposition of sanctions for a party’s participation in the Foreclosure
Mediation Program under an abuse of discretion standard.” Pasillas v.
HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1281, 1286 (2011).
Wells Fargo failed to produce the required documents
To obtain a foreclosure certificate, a deed of trust beneficiary
must strictly comply with four requirements: (1) attend the mediation, (2)

participate in good faith, (3) bring the required documents, and (4) if
attending through a representative, have a person present with authority
to modify the loan or access to such a person. NRS 107.086(4), (5); Leyva
v. National Default Servicing Corp., 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1275,
1279 (2011) (concluding that strict compliance with the Program’s
requirements is necessary).

NRS 107.086(4) states that the deed of trust beneficiary or its
representative “shall bring to the mediation the original or a certified copy
of the deed of trust, the mortgage note and each assignment of the deed of
trust or mortgage note.” Moreover, the Foreclosure Mediation Rules
(FMRs) require the beneficiary or its representative to provide the
homeowner with an appraisal of the homeowner’s home prior to the
mediation. FMR 11(1), (3)(b).

Here, the record on appeal demonstrates that Wells Fargo
failed to produce a certified copy of the mortgage note and that it failed to
provide the Malloys with an appraisal prior to the mediation. Because
Wells Fargo failed to strictly comply with the Program’s requirements, the
district court abused its discretion in ordering a foreclosure certificate to
be issued. Levva, 127 Nev. at , 255 P.3d at 1279; Pasillas, 127 Nev. at
, 255 P.3d at 1286.

On remand, the district court must determine how Wells
Fargo should be appropriately sanctioned. Pasillas, 127 Nev. at , 255
P.3d at 1286-87 (construing NRS 107.086(5) to mean that a violation of
one of the four statutory requirements must be sanctioned and that the
district court is to consider several factors in determining what sanctions
are appropriate). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order.

Scribd

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ – William Black

This pretty much sums this up… But go ahead and read.

Excerpt:

705. DEFENDAN T et al., al. stand-by and know, Plaintiff’s foreclosure, and others similarly situated are fraudulent in their nature, supra, but stand silent in condolence, over a system in their care custody and control under the corporate veil of MERSCORP, which either created, support financially or employ thus making DEFENDANT co-conspirator, liable as a facilitator of said Fraudulent behavior facilitator of Larceny on a grand scale.

[...]

Scribd

“MERS has jeopardized the clear title of every Texas homeowner with a mortgage and has cheated Texas counties out of millions of dollars in property recording fees,”

- County Attorney Vince Ryan

My San Antonio-

Bexar County is poised to challenge a private mortgage-tracking system that officials claim has cost it millions of dollars in filing fees.

The district attorney’s office will ask the Commissioners Court at its Nov. 1 meeting for the go-ahead to hire a law firm to sue Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., which claims to hold title to some 60 million loans around the country.

[MY SAN ANTONIO]