LPS must know by now, they are getting closer and closer to their top Executives.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Contact:  Jennifer López

702-486-3782

DATE: November 16, 2011       

Office of the Attorney general ANNOUNCES indictment in massive clark county robo-signing scheme

Defendants to be Held Criminally Accountable for Filing Tens of Thousands of Fraudulent Foreclosure Documents

Carson City, NV – The Office of the Nevada Attorney General announced today that the Clark County grand jury has returned a 606 count indictment against two title officers, Gary Trafford and Gerri Sheppard, who directed and supervised a robo-signing scheme which resulted in the filing of tens of thousands of fraudulent documents with the Clark County Recorder’s Office between 2005 and 2008. 

 According to the indictment, defendant Gary Trafford, a California resident, is charged with 102 counts of offering false instruments for recording (category C felony); false certification on certain instruments (category D felony); and notarization of the signature of a person not in the presence of a notary public (a gross misdemeanor).  The indictment charges defendant Gerri Sheppard, also a California resident, with 100 counts of offering false instruments for recording (category C felony); false certification on certain instruments (category D felony); and notarization of the signature of a person not in the presence of a notary public (a gross misdemeanor). 

 ”The grand jury found probable cause that there was a robo-signing scheme which resulted in the filing of tens of thousands of fraudulent documents with the Clark County Recorder’s Office between 2005 and 2008,”said Chief Deputy Attorney General John Kelleher.

 The indictment alleges that both defendants directed the fraudulent notarization and filing of documents which were used to initiate foreclosure on local homeowners. 

The State alleges that these documents, referred to as Notices of Default, or “NODs”, were prepared locally.  The State alleges that the defendants directed employees under their supervision, to forge their names on foreclosure documents, then notarize the signatures they just forged, thereby fraudulently attesting that the defendants actually signed the documents, which was untrue and in violation of State law.  The defendants then allegedly directed the employees under their supervision to file the fraudulent documents with the Clark County Recorder’s office, to be used to start foreclosures on homes throughout the County. 

 The indictment alleges that these crimes were done in secret in order to avoid detection. The fraudulent NODs were allegedly forged locally to allow them to be filed at the Clark County Recorder’s office on the same day they were prepared. 

 District Court Judge Jennifer Togliatti has set bail in the amount of $500,000 for Sheppard and $500,000 for Trafford.  The case has been assigned to Department 5 District Court Judge Carolyn Ellsworth who will preside over the case.                      

 Anyone who has information regarding this case is asked to contact the Attorney General’s Office at 702-486-3777 in Las Vegas or 775-684-1180 in Carson City.

Scribd

 Bobby Darin Sings Start of Something Big

Via: Max Gardner’s Boot Camp-

The report specifically indicates that “It should not be assumed that all mortgage notes are negotiable instruments” and  affirms that the requirements of  section 3-104 must be met in order for a particular mortgage note to be considered a negotiable instrument.

(If you’re not registered for the UCC seminar yet, there is space available:  get more information or register now!)

Introduction

Recent economic developments have brought to the forefront complex legal issues about the enforcement and collection of mortgage debt. Many of these issues are governed by local real property law and local rules of foreclosure procedure, but others are addressed in a uniform way throughout the United States by provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).1 Although the UCC provisions are settled law, it has become apparent that not all courts and attorneys are familiar with them. In addition, the complexity of some of the rules has proved daunting.

The Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial Code2 has prepared this Report in order to further the understanding of this statutory background by identifying and explaining several key rules in the UCC that govern the transfer and enforcement of notes secured by a mortgage3 on real property. The UCC, of course, does not resolve all issues in this field. Most particularly, as to both substance and procedure, the enforcement of real estate mortgages by foreclosure is primarily the province of a state’s real property law (although determinations made pursuant to the UCC are typically relevant under that law). Accordingly, this Report should be understood as providing guidance only as to the issues the Report addresses.4

Please click image for paper

HuffPO-

No other state has experienced the dizzying heights of the housing boom or the depths of the subsequent bust quite like California. Today, four metro areas in the Golden State have the highest foreclosure rates in the country, eclipsing — for the first time — even Las Vegas, Nevada. In last night’s look at the housing crisis that continues to cripple this country, we traveled to southern California and met Lise Johnson, a mother of four who’s been in the same home for 12 years and is desperate to stay put.

[HUFFINGTON POST]

Abigail C. Field-

Bank of America has treated Dr. Ira Neighbors with an elaborate, bureaucratic cruelty that would make Kafka proud. Neighbors’s story exposes just how blatantly BofA lies when it tells homeowners “we’re here to help”. After you read his story I dare you to think BofA is acting in good faith during the mortgage modification process.

Dr. Neighbors successfully completed a trial modification with BofA, but then it refused to make it permanent. BofA invited him to try again, and Neighbors did, successfully completing his second trial. This time Neighbors hired an attorney to help sway BofA into making the trial permanent, and his lawyer succeeded. BofA sent Neighbors a package of papers to sign.

Enter Kafka …

[REALITY CHECK]

As Always, thank you to MERS for giving this power to sign away any document for any lender at any notice to get the JOB DONE no matter how much fraud is involved!

LAS VEGAS – The nation’s largest banks stopped foreclosures last fall following allegations their employees cut corners while processing paperwork. A short time later — with promises to halt the illegal practices — foreclosures resumed.

The I-Team has learned “robo-signing” remains what some officials call an epidemic in Nevada. Robo-signing refers to a variety of practices. Among them: employees who sign foreclosure documents they haven’t read, employees who use fake signatures to process documents, or employees who fail to follow notary rules.

[8NEWS NOW]

“The Michigan Supreme Court decision on Mers is an embarrassment, to those of us who care about the property records of this state, and more importantly the citizens who are affected by these foreclosures. Mers created a shadow registry system that makes it impossible for individual citizens and their government officials to track who owns a mortgage. At the Michigan Chambers request, they now have the right to masquerade as a bank and take a citizen’s home . It is unfortunate that Justices Young, Markman, Zahra and Mary Beth Kelly decided to side with special interest groups instead of Michigan citizens.“

- Curtis Hertel Jr.

Scribd

During 2009-2010, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac lost $121.6 Billion and took $94 Billion from US taxpayers, who paid the top six executives as the government-owned mortgage giants more than $35 Million.

Mr. Edward DeMarco
Acting Director
Federal Housing Finance Agency
1700 G Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20551

Dear Acting Director DeMarco:

I am writing to request additional information about $150 million in fees that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charged mortgage servicing companies in 2010 for failing to conduct foreclosures quickly enough to meet federally imposed timelines. I am concerned that these penalties, at least some of which were ordered by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), may have contributed to widespread abuses by mortgage servicing companies and law firms attempting to meet arbitrary deadlines to expedite foreclosures.

Evidence of Abuses Prior to 2010

On February 25, 2011,1 launched a major investigation into abuses and illegal activities
by mortgage servicing companies, including wrongful foreclosures, deficient recordkeeping,
inflated fees, and fraud in lending. As part of this investigation, I wrote to the FHFA Inspector
General requesting an investigation into “widespread allegations of abuse by private attorneys
and law firms hired to process foreclosures as part of the ‘Retained Attorney Network’
established by Fannie Mae.”1

On September 30, 2011, the Inspector General issued a report in response to my request
concluding that “there were multiple indicators of foreclosure abuse risk prior to 2010 that could
have led FHFA to identify and act earlier on the issue.” According to the Inspector General,
these warnings included “consumer complaints alleging improper foreclosures; contemporaneous
media reports about foreclosure abuses by Fannie Mae’s law firms; and public court filings in
Florida and elsewhere highlighting such abuses.”2

In one instance, a review commissioned by Fannie Mae found that “foreclosure attorneys
in Florida are routinely filing false pleadings and affidavits.” Similarly, in June 2010, officials
from FHFA’s Office of Conservatorship Operations performed a two-day field visit to Florida,
after which they noted:

[Servicers, attorneys, and other supporting personnel were overloaded with the volume
of foreclosures, the average timeline for foreclosures had increased from 150 to 400 days,
documentation problems were evident, and law firms (referred to as "foreclosure mills")
were not devoting the time necessary to their cases due to Fannie Mae's flat fee structure
and volume-based processing model.3

Despite evidence of widespread problems among foreclosure law firms retained by
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Inspector General's report concluded that FHFA "did not
begin to act on foreclosure abuse issues involving Fannie Mae's RAN until mid-2010." The
Inspector General recommended that FHFA review why it failed to heed these warnings sooner,
implement comprehensive procedures to prevent these abuses in the future, and address "poor
performance" by law firms that have contractual relationships with Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac. FHFA agreed with all of these recommendations.4

Penalties for Slow Foreclosures

In addition to finding that there were multiple indicators of foreclosure abuse prior to
2010, the Inspector General reported that during this same timeframe in 2010, FHFA "directed
Fannie Mae to impose compensatory fees against the servicers for violating foreclosure timeline
limits."5

In fact, FHFA General Counsel Alfred M. Pollard disclosed in a letter to me on
November 1, 2011, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac assessed penalties totaling approximately
$150 million in 2010. He wrote:

To date, the top ten servicers account for the bulk of the fees due; the total amount for all
servicers, after approving appeals and corrections, is approximately $150 million dollars
for 2010.6

Mr. Pollard also described the methodology for calculating these penalties. He
explained:

Fees are assessed based on each Enterprise's specific allowable foreclosure timelines for
individual states as published in their Seller/Servicer Guides. Each Enterprise assesses
the servicers a per day fee—approximately $30 a day—for each day that the servicer
exceeds the established timeline.7

The size and timing of these penalties raise serious questions about whether FHFA may
be more interested in expediting foreclosures to clear its books than protecting the rights of
homeowners.

Request for Information

On October 3, 2011,1 wrote to you to inquire about the extent of penalties imposed
against mortgage servicers that failed to meet federally imposed timelines to conduct
foreclosures. Specifically, I requested that you "provide a list of all servicers that have been
assessed compensatory fees, identify the total amount of fees assessed against each servicer,
identify the reasons these fees were assessed, and identify whether the fees have been paid in
f u l l . " 8

Although the letter from Mr. Pollard disclosed that the total amount of these penalties for
2010 was $150 million, it did not provide the specific information I requested, including the
amount of fees charged to each mortgage servicing company. For these reasons, I request that
you provide the following information:

(1) a list of all servicers that have been assessed compensatory fees;
(2) the total amount of fees assessed against each servicer;
(3) the reasons these fees were assessed against each servicer;
(4) whether each servicer assessed compensatory fees has paid the assessed fees in
full; and
(5) if a servicer has not yet paid the assessed fees in full, the expected date by which
the fees will be paid in full.

I request that you provide this information by November 30, 2011. I also request that you
provide the information requested above regarding compensatory fees assessed against mortgage
servicers in 2011 when that information becomes available. Thank you for your consideration of
this request.

Sincerely,

Elihah E. Cummings

Ranking Member

cc: The Honorable Darrell E. Issa, Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Scribd

“Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Steven Baum got to go,” they chanted.

Buffalo News-

Nearly three dozen protesters from Occupy Buffalo demonstrated in front of the Amherst offices of Steven J. Baum PC, denouncing the controversial foreclosure attorney and calling on state authorities to shut down his office, take away his law license and even put him in jail.

The ragtag band of protesters, many of whom have been camping out in Niagara Square in downtown Buffalo, held up handwritten cardboard signs and chanted slogans to the beat of a bongo drum. They assembled at the corner of Northpointe Parkway and Sweet Home Road, before beginning a slow march down to Baum’s office at 220 Northpointe.

“Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Steven Baum got to go,” they chanted.

Signs called for a “moratorium on all foreclosures now,” proclaimed that “housing is a right,” and called Baum “the Grinch who stole houses.” Some protesters also wore paper crowns because “Stephen J. Baum is the foreclosure king of New York State,” said Samantha Colon, the spokeswoman for the protesters.

[BUFFALO NEWS]

In last Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate, Gingrich sought to explain his role at Freddie Mac as that of an “historian” sounding dire warnings about the company’s future. He said Freddie Mac officials told him “we are now making loans to people that have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that’s what the government wants us to do.” He said his advice was to tell them, “this is insane.”

“I said at the time, this is a bubble … this is impossible. It turned out unfortunately I was right,” Gingrich said.

AP-

URBANDALE, Iowa (AP) — Rising in national polls, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich found himself on the defensive Wednesday over huge payments he received over the past decade from the federally backed housing agency Freddie Mac.

Gingrich said he didn’t remember exactly how much he was paid, but a former Freddie Mac official said it was at least $1.5 million for consulting contracts stretching from 1999 to 2007. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter.

[ASSOCIATED PRESS]

The lies, the fraud, will never end.

Now they are complaining why no one will run Fannie or Freddie for 200K a year. Mr. Ging-RICH just made 100 times this amount for giving “insane” advice.

Wonder who else is raking this amount for the same “advice”?

Everything happened in 1999.

Bloomberg Exclusive-

Newt Gingrich made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with mortgage company Freddie Mac, according to two people familiar with the arrangement.

[...]

Gingrich’s business relationship with Freddie Mac spanned a period of eight years. When asked at the debate what he did to earn a $300,000 payment in 2006, the former speaker said he “offered them advice on precisely what they didn’t do,” and warned the company that its lending practices were “insane.” Former Freddie Mac executives who worked with Gingrich dispute that account.

Gingrich’s first contract with the mortgage lender was in 1999, five months after he resigned from Congress and as House speaker, according to a Freddie Mac press release.

[BLOOMBERG]