Excellent!

SS-Training –

Bill Butler writes: The untold story in the foreclosure crisis unfolding across America is that, following a foreclosure perpetrated by one of the October 2008 Bailout Banks (e.g. Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo) Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac suddenly appear as the record owner of Average Joe’s home. These federal government sponsored entities then go into local housing court and get a court order authorizing them to evict Joe. If Joe resists, these supposedly charitable institutions obtain a writ ordering the local sheriff to forcibly remove Joe from his home.

[SS-TRAINING]

New Bloomberg Report Estimates that Banks Reaped $13 Billion from Below-Market Rate Loans

Washington, DC (Nov. 28, 2011) – Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to Chairman Darrell Issa requesting that the Committee hold a hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and officials from the nation’s largest financial institutions that benefitted from trillions of dollars in previously undisclosed government loans provided at below-market rates.

“Many Americans are struggling to understand why banks deserve such preferential treatment while millions of homeowners are being denied assistance and are at increasing risk of foreclosure,” said Cummings.

Cummings requested the hearing in light of a report in Bloomberg Markets Magazine that revealed that the Federal Reserve secretly committed more than $7 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the nation’s top financial institutions, and that these banks “reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates.”

According to economists cited in the Bloomberg report, this “secret financing helped America’s biggest financial firms get bigger and go on to pay employees as much as they did at the height of the housing bubble.”  The Bloomberg report disclosed that total assets at the largest six banks increased by 39% and executive compensation increased by 20% over the past five years.

According to the Bloomberg report, information about these secret loans was withheld from Congress as it debated reforms ultimately included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, and banks also failed to disclose this information to their shareholders.

The full letter follows:
November 28, 2011

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing to request that the Committee hold a hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and officials from the nation’s largest financial institutions that benefitted from trillions of dollars in previously undisclosed government loans provided at below-market rates.

    In the past, the Oversight Committee has played a prominent role in investigating the actions of government entities and private sector corporations that led to the financial collapse.  On October 23, 2008, for example, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before our Committee, stating:  “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, was such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders.”

Yet, a report yesterday in Bloomberg Markets Magazine disclosed that the Federal Reserve secretly committed more than $7 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the nation’s top financial institutions.  As a result, the banks that received these loans “reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates.”  This report was based on 29,000 pages of Federal Reserve documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act after a protracted legal dispute.

    According to economists cited in the Bloomberg report, the scope of these previously undisclosed loans resulted in a financial windfall for the banks.  For example, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, stated:  “getting loans at below-market rates during a financial crisis—is quite a gift.”  Similarly, Viral Acharya, an economics professor at New York University, stated:  “Banks don’t give lines of credit to corporations for free.  Why should all these government guarantees and liquidity facilities be for free?”

    The Bloomberg report disclosed that this “secret financing helped America’s biggest financial firms get bigger and go on to pay employees as much as they did at the height of the housing bubble.”  According to Federal Reserve data cited in the report, total assets held by the six largest U.S. banks increased 39% from 2006 to 2011.  In addition, based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employees at these banks received more than $146 billion in compensation in 2010, an increase of nearly 20% from five years earlier.  According to Anil Kashyap, a former Federal Reserve economist, “The pay levels came back so fast at some of these firms that it appeared they really wanted to pretend they hadn’t been bailed out.”

The Bloomberg report explained that Congress lacked access to information about the secret Federal Reserve loans while it debated reforms ultimately included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.  For example, former Senator Judd Gregg stated:  “We didn’t know the specifics.”  Similarly, Senator Richard Shelby stated:  “I believe that the Fed should have independence in conducting highly technical monetary policy, but when they are putting taxpayer resources at risk, we need transparency and accountability.”  According to Neil Barofsky, the former Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, “The lack of transparency is not just frustrating; it really blocked accountability.”

When Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, it required the Government Accountability Office to “conduct a onetime audit of all loans and other financial assistance” from December 1, 2007, to July 21, 2010.  Although GAO issued its report in July, it analyzed assistance—including mortgage-backed securities purchased through open market operations—with peak outstanding balances of only $3.5 trillion.  Even with respect to these amounts, GAO concluded:

The context for the Federal Reserve System’s management of risk of losses on its loans differed from that for private sector institutions.  In contrast to private banks that seek to maximize profits on their lending activities, the Federal Reserve System stood ready to accept risks that the market participants were not willing to accept to help stabilize markets.

    In addition to withholding information about these loans from Congress, banks also apparently failed to disclose this information to their shareholders.  For example, Kenneth D. Lewis, the Chief Executive Officer of Bank of America, told shareholders on November 26, 2008, that the company was “one of the strongest and most stable major banks in the world.”  According to the Bloomberg report, however, he failed to disclose that “his Charlotte, North Carolina-based firm owed the central bank $86 billion that day.”

    Many Americans are struggling to understand why banks deserve such preferential treatment while millions of homeowners are being denied assistance and are at increasing risk of foreclosure.  Unfortunately, officials from many of these financial institutions declined to comment about these loans, including officials from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley. 

For all of these reasons, I respectfully request that the Committee hold a hearing with the Federal Reserve chairman and officials from each of these financial institutions to examine these issues in greater detail.  Thank you for your consideration of this request.

                        Sincerely,

                        Elijah E. Cummings
                        Ranking Member

[ipaper docId=74060982 access_key=key-qgfj6rxm5qliut1229p height=600 width=600 /]

Source: http://democrats.oversight.house.gov

Get all these cases away from the regulators reach and into the hands of the people.

One by one they all will go down.

Seek the Truth.

 AP-

A federal judge in New York has struck down a $285 million settlement that Citigroup reached with the Securities and Exchange Commission, citing a need for truth about the financial markets.

Judge Jed Rakoff rejected the settlement Monday. The deal would have imposed penalties on Citigroup even as it allowed the company to deny allegations that it misled investors on a complex mortgage investment. The SEC has accused the bank of betting against the investment in 2007 and making $160 million, while investors lost millions.

The judge wrote that there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth about the financial markets. He set a July 16 trial date for the case.

[ASSOCIATED PRESS]

After you read this, come back and read Matt Taibbi’s story: Woman Gets Jail For Food-Stamp Fraud; Wall Street Fraudsters Get Bailouts

See if any of this makes any sense?

Bloomberg-

The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing.

The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.

Saved by the bailout, bankers lobbied against government regulations, a job made easier by the Fed, which never disclosed the details of the rescue to lawmakers even as Congress doled out more money and debated new rules aimed at preventing the next collapse.

[BLOOMBERG]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

Effective immediately, servicers are authorized to transfer any Fannie Mae foreclosure or bankruptcy matters in New York from Steven J. Baum, P.C., to any other Retained Attorney Network firms in the State of New York, a listing of which is posted on eFannieMae.com.

[ipaper docId=73952804 access_key=key-29xzzyberswyxcgijtio height=600 width=600 /]

Making Margin Call: An Interview with Writer/Director J.C. Chandor

by Jake Bernstein ProPublica, Nov. 23, 2011, 6 a.m.

The genesis of Margin Call occurred in 2005 when the film’s writer and director J.C. Chandor and some friends dabbled in New York’s red-hot real estate market. To their surprise, a bank lent them $10 million, with few questions asked, to buy a building on the edge of SoHo. The plan was to renovate the property, but they quickly found themselves in over their heads. In 2006, the godfather of one of the group — a former investment banker whose unease about the market was growing — told them, forcefully, they should sell. What seemed like a defeat at the time proved to be a blessing when the market collapsed.

“That was the first nugget,” Chandor says. “That idea of the guy who is walking around and thinks he knows what is about to happen but the rest of the world is pressing the accelerator button.”

The son of a former Merrill Lynch banker and visual art consultant, Chandor grew up in banker communities in New York and London, which afforded him insights into the world at the epicenter of the crisis. With a background in commercial and documentary filmmaking, he wanted to write a movie that was cheap enough that he could convince someone to let him direct it. The budget would require it to be confined in place and time, and probably a character study.

“I came up with this conceit of locking these investment bankers in on the night when one of them thinks that he has found out that the world is coming to an end,” he says.

After carrying around the idea for the movie in his head for more than a year, the actual writing came quickly. “I wrote the thing in four days under tremendous duress, frankly,” he says. “I was doing job interviews to go to work in a totally different field.”

His goal of a small movie ended up being a boon rather than a constraint for the type of story he wanted to tell. A short shooting schedule of 17 days and the complex characters in his script attracted a stellar cast.

“What I did was essentially say, let’s just take a limited place and time where these characters are so paranoid about this piece of information getting out that there is no new information,” he says. “There is only one piece of information, and they know that they are the first people to have it, so in a weird way they don’t care what the rest of the world is doing for that 24 hours. They just care about what they are going to do.”

We caught up with Chandor for an interview last week to discuss the ideas behind the movie and the challenges of making it. What follows are edited excerpts from that conversation.

JC: The film for me was supposed to be a tragedy, not the horrible tragedy of someone dying but a tragedy of lost potential. These are the best and brightest that we have. We don’t tax our universities because they are supposed to provide society with a service, which is educated youth ready to come out and work. The abuse that I’ve seen over the last 14 to 15 years since I’ve graduated from college, the manipulation of that system, that training ground, essentially leading toward making money for money’s sake as opposed to banking that is actually serving a purpose was the heart of the movie for me.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a capitalist. Some wanted this film to be more of an indictment of these people, and that’s not where I come from, obviously. A misuse of tremendous potential is what I wanted the film to be about, in a sort of sad way.

JB: What was so striking about the movie is how there is no hero who comes and saves the day at the end.

JC: In the summer of 2009, we had a largely different, but great cast. It was one year closer to the initial disaster, but it was very difficult to raise money to go make a movie. We had a chance to go out and shoot this movie. If Zachary Quinto’s character had stood up and called in the SEC, and [Kevin] Spacey’s character had been perp-walked out of the building à la Wall Street I, [then] I had a check to go make the movie. It was a very simple change at the end of the movie. It’s often what happens with financiers that come on.

My personal belief was that what drew the actors — which was the only reason that person was offering me the money to make it — was the gray area in which the whole thing takes place. Actors love to play — and they don’t often get the chance to do it, obviously — conflicted characters who don’t always do the quote-unquote thing you think they are going do. So there was the practical part of me that was like, I don’t know if all of these actors will stick with me if I did that.

Then there really was the main reason. I strongly, strongly felt that you did not get a systemic collapse where the tip of the sword of capitalism had to be socialized — which was of course what had just happened, where the government basically had to come in and take over the banking sector — you don’t get that happening just on individual failure.

JB: What is a 17-day shooting schedule like?

JC: It is very unpleasant. It was a union shoot, so there are rules. It is a 12-hour day, which means you are actually active on a set for 12 hours. And it was a 6-day week. These are all things that make things cheaper… Your crew is actively working 12 to 13 hours a day, sometimes more pending overtime. Your average studio movie is anywhere from 45 to 90 days. And your average independent film is 35 days. Again, though, we would never have gotten the cast if I had asked them to come 35 days — two months of the summer and spring, which is the prime shooting time when they are being offered studio movies.

We were constantly rolling. The major, major upside to that — again, embracing your weakness — I had classically trained, unbelievably driven, hyper-, hyper-talented and hyper-experienced actors. The least experienced person on my movie was Penn Badgley, who has been a professional actor supporting himself and part of his family for 10 years. So everyone there was a professional. So the neat thing is I threw those people, who in their profession are very similar to the people that the movie was about: these type-A, very driven, unbelievably trained, never-supposed-to-show-anyone-that-they-are-panicking people on the worst day of their lives. Not that the shoot was the worst day of their lives, because it actually wasn’t at all, but from a challenging standpoint — to be doing 12 pages in a day is not something that Jeremy Irons is used to doing. As I was editing, you started to see moments of underlying panic in the performance at times. The performances felt very alive.

JB: Paul Bettany’s performance is fantastic. In an odd way he is the purest character.

JC: For people who have been in that world or know that world, he is the character that people from a performance standpoint are so drawn to because — sounds sort of silly to say — because the character is supposed to be on the surface a kind of jerk, but it really is most subtle. As a key trader on the floor, your life and your job are very simple. It is a very simple set of tasks. It’s not simple to be good at it, but aspects of it are very simple. He is sort of the assassin. He requires that those behind him, the generals, are making the right choices, and that is all he ever expects for himself. It’s neat because audiences are kind of drawn to him in a way that you would never think for the way that character is. If you actually read that part, it’s a despicable kind of character, some of the things he says, but the way he humanizes it — not even humanizes it but made it real — was a great performance.

JB: You really captured the tribal nature of Wall Street where the only value besides greed is loyalty.

JC: Spacey came a couple of weeks ahead of time. He is a very liberal guy, Spacey, so his original take on the character was far less empathetic than the one I ended up trying to get him to give me. For a couple of days we went to visit exactly that guy in a bunch of banks. At that point, when we went and visited them, they were in total lockdown on their salaries because of the government coming in. They were literally not there for the money. They could have been making a lot of money somewhere else. But it was that they had convinced all their guys and gals to stay, and it was that tribal element that really ended up being what hurt them the most when this whole thing went down. I think Spacey embodied that — hopefully in a way that isn’t as overt as Bettany’s character. But the whole thing with the dog is essentially a diversion for him — in my mind, it’s probably not the way Kevin actually sees it — the whole thing with the dog is supposed to be this sort of absurdist human thing that we do when you are just totally grabbing on to an abstraction to not be thinking about what is actually the problem.

JB: I’m wondering if these insights into how Wall Street operates are only available through fiction?

JC: I can’t tell you when we were trying to raise the money for this movie, how many people came and said, “Isn’t this better served in a documentary? Isn’t someone else going to tell this story?” The main question I was getting at Sundance when we introduced the film was, “Do we need another Wall Street movie?” The first question I got at the press conference when I landed in Berlin was, “Why has there not been more American arts oriented on this topic?” This is something that has affected so many people in your country and around the world. Why aren’t there like 6 movies coming out of different facets?

My belief in doing this film was that out of fiction you actually get — maybe — these guys to sit and watch the movie. The movie obviously doesn’t have a lot of ER type details in it [such as numbers and figures]. And that was for a reason. There were more details in the film. As I was editing it and showed it to a couple of people, and thinking about it myself, that sort of Greek, so to speak, meant nothing to the average audience. You didn’t need it. It just made them feel dumb, basically, and potentially they stopped paying attention because of it. And interestingly, the insider audience started running numbers. They were running my math. They were cross checking what I was saying, and that was not where they need to be either.

When there is bad news, no one ever rushes to call me to tell me that I have been passed over for a job. That is not the first call my agent is looking to make. The minute there is any good news, you’ve got six voice messages on your machine and everyone wants it coming out of their mouth. So I tried to use that human nature kind of trick. This is obviously the worst news that all of these people had ever come across in their professional life, and so there was this total reticence to take any kind of ownership for it. Quinto’s character is the only guy who actually gets bullied into laying it out there, because it’s the CEO doing it to him. It was my out in not having to have all the math, to have all the details in there. Hopefully that allows the people in that world to get lost in the movie.

That line was what I was trying to walk. The only number in the entire movie [beside a brief trading scene near the end] … is at one point Simon Baker says $8 trillion. That [number] wasn’t potentially what they had on their books, that was a more systemic representation of what was moving around the world 2013 so that is the only number in the entire movie, which is of course kind of funny because it is a movie about numbers. But if you kept the movie moving forward you never had to go there.

JB: I wish we could do that!

JC: That’s where the whole fiction thing comes in. That was an experiment. The original script does have some numbers in there. And it actually felt sort of important to the actors. The actors were all a little taken aback — not when they saw the movie, interestingly — but when I told them after what was missing. When they were delivering their performances the number lines where ones that they in their minds had sort of given tremendous depth and worth to. But when they actually saw the movie they realized that it wasn’t necessary.

Follow @Jake_Bernstein [1]

by Jake Bernstein ProPublica, Nov. 23, 2011, 6 a.m.

Spoiler alert: This article discusses key scenes from the film.

J.C. Chandor has embraced Rahm Emanuel’s dictum “never let a serious crisis go to waste.” The 37-year-old writer and director used the financial crisis as a springboard to create the most insightful Wall Street movie ever filmed. Margin Call captures a day in the life of a Lehman Brothers-like bank as it scrambles to avoid falling into the first cracks of the financial crisis. Briskly paced and marvelously acted, the movie reveals how large financial institutions operate and the motivations of the people who work within them.

Margin Call should not be confused with journalism. It is not a precise overlay of the financial crisis. You’ll never hear the words collateralized debt obligations uttered in the movie. As the reporting [1] I did with my colleague Jesse Eisinger showed, the Wall Street behavior that helped create the financial crisis was often much worse than what’s depicted in the movie. Chandor isn’t looking for villians or lengthy explanations. He’s mining deeper truths than the intricacies of credit default swaps. The societal costs of high finance, the power of self-rationalization, and the easy embrace of personal corruption is his terrain.

As reporters covering the beat know, Wall Street is a reluctant participant in introspection. Journalists investigating the Street have to pierce a code of omertà, borne of the fear of lawsuits and federal investigations. No one wants to have the reputation of being a snitch in an industry where hiring and bonuses are based on relationships as much as quarterly results. The truth is even more tightly held when it hides the origins of financial disaster, but even in the best of times, these are not, by nature, navel gazers. Traders and market makers are like sharks, always wanting to move forward, onto the next deal. There is no percentage in looking back.

All you need to know about the moral universe Margin Call inhabits is on display in the opening scene of the movie. The downturn has begun. The firing squad — represented by two women in identical business suits — arrives on the trading floor trailed by underlings carrying cardboard boxes to cart away personal effects. When they come into view, a series of swift reactions plays across the face of Will Emerson, a senior trader acted brilliantly by Paul Bettany. First fear. Then dismay. And finally, relief and dismissal. After 80 percent of the floor is axed, Emerson’s boss, Sam, a wan Kevin Spacey, gives a pep talk to the traders left standing. “They were good. You are better. Now they are gone. They are not to be thought of again.”

Among the casaulties is the risk manager for the trading group, Eric Dale, played by Stanley Tucci. On the way out the door, Dale tells his young protege, Peter Sullivan, that he has been working on something important. As the elevator closes, he hands Sullivan a zip drive and says cryptically, “Be careful.”

Sullivan, played by Zachary Quinto, who also helped produce the movie, waits until the office clears for the night and then dives into the figures. To his horror, he discovers the bank is massively overleveraged. If trends continue, projected losses are much greater than the value of the firm. Upon learning how dire the situation has become, the CEO John Tuld, portrayed by a scene-chewing Jeremy Irons, says, “So what you are telling me is that the music is about to stop and we are going to be left holding the biggest bag of oderous excrement ever assembled in the history of capitalism.”

Sullivan is the questioning heart of Margin Call. He has a doctorate in engineering with a speciality in propulsion — literally a rocket scientist. And like so many of the best and brightest of his generation, he turned to Wall Street, where Chandor clearly believes his gain is society’s loss. When one of his superiors asks Sullivan why he has foresaken engineering, he responds: “It’s all just numbers really, just changing what you are adding up, and to speak freely, the money here is considerably more attractive.”

Sullivan operates in the constricted space of the Wall Street risk manager. Risk managers and accountants are among the few who actually know what the numbers mean. They see the whole picture. It’s a running joke through the movie that Sullivan’s bosses, right up to the CEO, don’t understand the financial wizardry behind the products they make and sell. When confronted with Sullivan’s analysis, Sam says, “Oh Jesus, you know I can’t read these things. Just speak to me in English.”

The risk manager is not in sales, which is the heart and soul of the institution. He or she only offers recommendations. Throughout Margin Call there are a number of references to warnings unheeded. And indeed, in the real world, the success of investment banks at subverting their risk management rules correlated nicely with how badly they fared when the crisis hit. In the ultimate irony, when it’s time for someone to take the fall for the firm’s risk taking, it’s the head of risk management, played by Demi Moore who is pushed to the scaffold.

Sullivan and his side-kick Seth, played by Penn Badgley, are still new enough to the system to be doubtful of its utility. Seth is enamored with the money Wall Street offers and particularly impressed by his boss Will Emerson, who pulled down $2.5 million the previous year. They briefly wonder whether that’s “right,” but push the unwelcome thought away unanswered.

When Emerson tells the eager young men that “you learn to spend what is in your pocket” and that most of his money is gone, they are incredulous. He itemizes his expenses for them, including $76,520 for hookers, booze and dancers. Their adulation only increases when he admits he claimed most of that back as entertainment expenses.

Later when Seth bemoans the fact that normal people will be hurt by their actions, Emerson’s ferocious response is shocking both for its amorality and its kernels of truth.

“If you really want to do this with your life you have to believe that you’re necessary. And you are. People want to live like this in their cars and their big fucking houses that they can’t even pay for? Then you’re necessary. The only reason they all get to continue living like kings is because we’ve got our fingers on the scales in their favor. I take my hand off and the whole world gets really fucking fair really fucking quickly and nobody actually wants that. They say they do but they don’t. They want what we have to give them, but they also want to play innocent and pretend they have no idea where it came from. That’s more hypocrisy than I’m willing to swallow. Fuck them. Fuck normal people.”

Faced with the pile of excrement on the books, the archly named Tuld (Lehman Brothers CEO was Dick Fuld) decides the bank must unload it, and quickly, before customers wise up. At this point, the movie could just as easily be called, “Damage Control: When Greed Turns to Fear.”

Sam tries to talk Tuld out of his plan. “If you do this, you will kill the market for years. It’s over. And you are selling something that you know has no value,” he says.

Tuld responds with the excuse every Wall Street executive used when investigators came calling after the shit hit the investors: “We are selling to willing buyers at the current fair market price so that we may survive.”

In the real world, the buyers were not as sophisticated and the deals not as transparant as bankers claimed.

The House always wins, Emerson tells his young charges. The corollary is that everybody is for sale. Indeed, anyone who has qualms in the movie finds the right price for their acquiesence. In this world, traders earn bonuses for screwing their customers. Tucci’s character is told he can lose his health care and stock options — or keep them while sitting quietly in a room for a day at $176,476 an hour. “It didn’t seem like much of a choice,” he says.

Beyond the sheer entertainment value of the movie, Chandor’s biggest coup is his willingness to indict a system rather than simply blame the individuals within it. Ultimately, Margin Call is the story of a Wall Street that has evolved from an economic helpmate to an economic predator.

Follow @Jake_Bernstein [2]

By LOUISE STORY and GRETCHEN MORGENSON

In the whodunit of the financial crisis, Wall Street executives have pointed the blame at all kinds of parties — consumers who lied on their mortgage applications, investors who demanded access to risky mortgage bonds, and policy makers who kept interest rates low and failed to predict a housing market collapse.

But a new defense has been mounted by a bank executive: my regulator told me to do it.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2011
Opinion filed November 23, 2011.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D11-395
Lower Tribunal No. 08-59543
________________
Carlos Humberto Malagon a/k/a Carlos Malagon and Rosalba
Malagon,
Appellants,

vs.

Citimortgage, Inc. f/k/a Citifinancial Mortgage Company d/b/a
Citifinancial Mortgage Company (DE),
Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, David C. Miller, Judge.

Garry W. Johnson and Bruce K. Herman (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants.

Burr & Forman and Reid S. Manley and Christine Irwin Parrish (Orlando),
for appellee.

Before SUAREZ and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

SUAREZ, J.

Appellants, Carlos Humberto Malagon a/k/a Carlos Malagon and Rosalba
Malagon appeal the trial court’s order denying their motion to vacate final
judgment of foreclosure and to cancel and/or rescind sale. Appellee, Citimortgage,
Inc., concedes error on the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to vacate the
final judgment of foreclosure.1 Appellee consents to a reversal of the order and a
remand for further proceedings. Upon concession of error, this Court, therefore,
reverses the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to vacate the final judgment
of foreclosure and remands for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

1 This Court appreciates appellee’s candor in conceding error

[ipaper docId=73763162 access_key=key-w9kwx0lagy7rtdqki1j height=600 width=600 /]

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2011

RODGER and LINA DUKE,
Appellants,

v.

HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC,
Appellee.

No. 4D09-5183

[November 23, 2011]

POLEN, J.

Appellants, Rodger and Lina Duke (“the Dukes”), appeal the trial
court’s order granting final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of
appellee, HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. (“HSBC”). We reverse the trial
court’s order and hold that the record reflected genuine issues of
material fact, making summary judgment improper.

In May 2009, appellee, HSBC, brought an action against appellants,
the Dukes, to foreclose on a mortgage on real property in Palm Beach
County, Florida. The mortgage, as attached to the complaint, showed
that the “borrower” was the Dukes and the “lender” was First NLC
Financial Services, LLC (“First NLC”). The mortgage further showed that
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) “is a separate
corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s
successors and assigns.” HSBC’s complaint indicated that the mortgage
was assigned to it, and that it was the rightful owner and holder of the
note and mortgage. The Dukes alleged that HSBC did not attach an
assignment of mortgage to their complaint; however, a notice of
assignment was filed with the court on August 26, 2009, with a copy of
the assignment dated June 1, 2009, attached. HSBC alleged that the
original note and mortgage had been lost and were not in HSBC’s
custody or control.

On July 10, 2009, and July 17, 2009, the Dukes were served by
publication in the Palm Beach Daily Business Review. When the Dukes
failed to respond to the service by publication, HSBC moved for default.
On the same date as the motion for default, HSBC also moved for
summary judgment as to “the existence of a valid mortgage and
promissory note and [HSBC’s] right to a Judgment of Foreclosure.” On
September 11, 2009, the Dukes filed a motion for additional time to file a
response to the foreclosure complaint. Shortly thereafter, on September
30, 2009, default was entered against the Dukes. In November of 2009,
a n agreed order on motion for additional time to file response was
entered, allowing the Dukes to file their response to the foreclosure
complaint on or before November 12, 2009.

On November 18, 2009, a hearing was held on HSBC’s motion for
summary judgment. At the hearing, the original note was unable to be
located. The Dukes argued that the original note did not contain any
endorsements proving that the note and mortgage were assigned to
HSBC, thus summary judgment should not be granted because of an
issue of material fact precluding such a determination. However, the
trial court entered final summary judgment of foreclosure on November
18, 2009, and set a sale date of December 21, 2009. This appeal
followed.

The standard of review on an order “granting summary judgment is de
novo.” McLeod v. Bankier, 63 So. 3d 858, 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
Summary judgment is granted only when no genuine issues of material
fact exist and the party moving for summary judgment is, as a matter of
law, entitled to judgment. Id. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c)
governs summary judgment motions and proceedings. The rule states,
in relevant part:

The motion shall state with particularity the grounds upon
which it is based and the substantial matters of law to be
argued and shall specifically identify any affidavits, answers
to interrogatories, admissions, depositions, a n d other
materials as would be admissible in evidence (“summary
judgment evidence”) on which the movant relies. The movant
shall serve the motion at least 20 days before the time fixed
for the hearing, and shall also serve at that time a copy of
any summary judgment evidence on which the movant relies
that has not already been filed with the court. . . . The
judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings
and summary judgment evidence on file show that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c).

The Dukes argued that at the time the foreclosure complaint was
filed, the mortgage was held by First NLC, not appellee, HSBC. In its
complaint, HSBC alleged it owned and held the note and mortgage at the
time the complaint was filed. “When exhibits are attached to a
complaint, the contents of the exhibits control over the allegations of the
complaint.” BAC Funding Consortium Inc. v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d
936, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Here, HSBC alleged in its complaint that it
“now owns and holds the Note and Mortgage,” but an assignment was
not attached to the complaint, supporting HSBC’s position. Instead, the
mortgage attached to the complaint showed First NLC as the lender,
creating discrepancies between the complaint and the attached exhibit.
Thus, at the time of the argument on the summary judgment motion,
genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether HSBC was the
proper owner and holder of the note and mortgage where First NLC was
named on the mortgage and evidence of an assignment was not included.

We therefore reverse the trial court’s order granting summary
judgment because genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute
regarding the owner and holder of the note and mortgage at the time the
complaint was filed.

Reversed.

GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Meenu T. Sasser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CA018957
XXXXMB.

Elsa M. Figueras of E. Figueras & Associates, P.A., Davie, and Peter J.
Snyder of Peter J. Snyder, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellants.
Enrico G. Gonzalez, Temple Terrace, for appellee.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

[ipaper docId=73762369 access_key=key-1x8tbk3ivm52gphti7kw height=600 width=600 /]

Great job! FL Atty Carol C. Asbury

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2011

VENTURE HOLDINGS & ACQUISITIONS GROUP, LLC and VINCENZO GURRERA,
Appellants,

v.

A.I.M. FUNDING GROUP, LLC,
Appellee.
No. 4D10-832

REAL INVESTMENTS, LLC and ALEXANDER GONZALEZ,
Appellants,

v.

A.I.M. FUNDING GROUP, LLC,
Appellee.
No. 4D10-1159

REAL INVESTMENTS, LLC and ALEXANDER GONZALEZ,
Appellants,

v.

A.I.M. FUNDING GROUP, LLC,
Appellee.
No. 4D10-1848

[ November 23, 2011 ]

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, appellants challenge three separate
final summary judgments of foreclosure entered in favor of appellee,
A.I.M. Funding Group, LLC. Appellants raise several arguments on
appeal, two of which merit discussion: (1) A.I.M., having assigned the
promissory note as collateral for a loan, was not the proper party in
interest to file suit, and (2) the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment for A.I.M. without receiving the original promissory note or
accounting for its absence. We find that because A.I.M. did not file the
original promissory note or account for its absence before the court
entered summary judgment, we must reverse the summary judgment
orders in each of the cases. We further find that A.I.M. lacked standing
to foreclose at the time it filed its complaints, but that some parties
waived the defense of lack of standing. Any remaining issues are
rendered moot by our decision and we decline to address them.

Factual Background

In April 2007, Venture Holdings & Acquisitions Group, Inc. and
Vincenzo Gurrera, individually, entered into a loan agreement with A.I.M.
and gave A.I.M. a mortgage on certain real property. Gurrera, Venture’s
president, signed the promissory note as a guarantor.

Likewise, Real Investments LLC entered into two loans with A.I.M, one
in January 2008 and another in May 2008. In connection with these
loans, Real gave A.I.M. a mortgage on two properties. Alexander
Gonzalez, Real’s president, signed the promissory notes as a guarantor.
There is no dispute that the borrowers failed to remain current on
their payments and defaulted on all three loans. Accordingly, A.I.M. filed
mortgage foreclosure actions on the three properties.

In Case No. 09-19636, A.I.M. sought to foreclose o n Venture’s
property. Gurrera filed a proper answer, but Venture did not. A.I.M.
moved for default against Venture and the court granted the motion.
This default has not been contested in this appeal.

In Case Nos. 09-018086 and 09-18089, A.I.M. sought to foreclose on
the two properties owned by Real. In Case No. 09-018086, Gonzalez filed
a proper answer, but Real did not. A.I.M. moved for a default against
Real and the court granted the motion. This default has not been
contested in this appeal. In Case No. 09-18089, however, both Real and
Gonzalez answered the complaint.

In each of its complaints, A.I.M. alleged that it “now owns and holds
the Mortgage Note and Mortgage.” Prior to initiating suit, A.I.M. assigned
its interest in the properties as collateral for a loan. This was indicated
by an allonge attached to each promissory note. The assignment was
still in effect when A.I.M. filed suit.1 The circuit court, in each case,
determined that no issues of genuine fact were raised by the defendants.
In each case summary judgment was entered against the defendants and
in favor of A.I.M. These consolidated appeals followed.

Analysis

“The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de
novo.” Allenby & Assocs., Inc. v. Crown St. Vincent Ltd., 8 So. 3d 1211,
1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). We examine the record in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Id. The moving party must
conclusively show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Id.
An assignment of a promissory note or mortgage, or the right to
enforce such, must pre-date the filing of a foreclosure action. Jeff-Ray
Corp. v. Jacobson, 566 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). A party
must have standing to file suit at its inception and may not remedy this
defect by subsequently obtaining standing. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co. v.
McGrath Cmty. Chiropractic, 913 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). “The
assignee of a mortgage and note assigned as collateral security is the real
party in interest, that he holds the legal title to the mortgage and note,
and that he, not the assignor is the proper party to file a suit to foreclose
the mortgage.” Laing v. Gainey Builders, Inc., 184 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1966); see also A & B Discount Lumber & Supply, Inc. v. Mitchell,
799 So. 2d 301, 307-08 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Here, before A.I.M. filed any of the foreclosure actions below, A.I.M.
assigned the promissory note and mortgage to a third party as collateral
for a loan. Thus, A.I.M. did not have standing to foreclose on any of the
properties at the time it filed suit. However, “th e entry of default
precludes a party from contesting the existence of the plaintiff’s claim
and liability thereon.” Fla. Bar v. Porter, 684 So. 2d 810, 813 n.4 (Fla.
1996) (citations omitted). Real, in Case No. 09-018086, was found to be
in default. Venture in Case No. 09-19636, was found to be in default.
Neither party may contest A.I.M.’s standing at the inception of the suit.
See Glynn v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 912 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA
2005) (holding that a homeowner waived any claim that the bank lacked
standing to foreclose where the homeowner never filed a motion or an
answer in the trial court).

But even a party in default does not admit that the plaintiff in a
foreclosure action possesses the original promissory note. See Lenfesty
v. Coe, 16 So. 277, 278 (Fla. 1894). “The decree pro confesso cannot be
extended to a confession of ownership of the note in complainant up to
the time of the master’s report and the confirmation thereof by the court,
and the authorities above cited sustain the view that a production of the
note or securities at the hearing is essential to show complainant’s right
to judgment then.” Id. A.I.M., in order to be entitled to summary
judgment, must establish that it is the proper holder of the promissory
note. Id.

In this case, A.I.M. failed to produce the original promissory note,
failed to account for its absence, and failed to present evidence to
otherwise establish it was the proper holder of the note. The allonge
established that the note was indorsed to a third party. A.I.M.’s failure to
produce the original promissory note, or account for its absence, created
a genuine issue of material fact. Lenfesty, 16 So. at 278. For this reason
alone, the summary judgments were improper in each of the cases.2

Accordingly, in Case No. 09-18089, we reverse the final summary
judgment and remand with directions that the action be dismissed in its
entirety without prejudice.

In Case No. 09-19636, we reverse the summary judgment and vacate
the final judgment of foreclosure. With regard to appellant Vincenzo
Gurrera only, we direct that the action be dismissed without prejudice.
With regard to Venture, however, we do not direct dismissal of the action.

In Case No. 09-018086, we reverse the summary judgment and vacate
the final judgment of foreclosure. With regard to appellant Alexander
Gonzalez only, we direct that the action be dismissed without prejudice.
With regard to Real, however, we do not direct dismissal of the action.
While A.I.M. is free to file the original promissory note and to move for
summary judgment in the actions that have not been dismissed as to
Venture and Real, we caution that the absence of Gurrera and Gonzalez
from those proceedings would leave those parties’ interests unaffected by
any judgment.

Reversed and Remanded.

TAYLOR, HAZOURI and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ana I. Gardiner, Judge(Carol, please
check the judges in the other cases) ; L.T. Case Nos. 09-018086 CACE,
09-18089 08, and 09-19636 CACE.

Carol C. Asbury, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Thomas D. Oates of the Law Offices of Oates & Oates, P.A., Pompano,
for appellee.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

[ipaper docId=73749444 access_key=key-1w2ts257limxmnpzdczp height=600 width=600 /]

Remember, PMI Group is also a Mortgage electronic Registration System, INC. “MERS” shareholder! Hmmm…

Business Week-

PMI Group Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection after the mortgage insurer lost a court bid to undo the takeover of its main unit by Arizona regulators.

The Walnut Creek, California-based company listed assets of $225 million and debt of $736 million as of Aug. 4 in a Chapter 11 petition filed today in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware.

Arizona Director of Insurance Christina Urias took control of the PMI unit last month on an interim basis and directed claims to be paid at 50 cents on the dollar after losses on mortgage defaults drained capital.“

The ADI Director’s action in seeking receivership of MIC, among other things, has led the debtor to seek bankruptcy protection in order to maximize value for its estate and creditors,” L. Stephen Smith, PMI’s chief executive officer, said in court papers.

[BUSINESS WEEK]

If you think these mills are the only ones? …GUESS AGAIN!

All of these firms should be barred and out of business period. You all know who you are.

REUTERS-

The sudden demise of one of New York’s largest foreclosure law firms has raised concerns of a drag on the thousands of cases it still has pending before the courts.

Steven J. Baum PC filed notice Monday informing federal labor regulators that it is planning “mass layoffs” on Feb. 20 as it prepares to close its doors. While no specific numbers were provided, the firm currently employs about 67 full and part-time employees at its main offices in western New York and 22 full and part-time employees in Long Island.

But while his firm may be on its way out, Steven Baum said in a statement Monday that he and remaining staff members will “fulfill our remaining work on behalf of our clients.”

Whether this means relying on the skeleton crew left behind to wind down the business or transferring cases to new firms will depend on the status of each case, according to attorneys who work on foreclosures in New York.

[REUTERS]

Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., Fraud Digest,
Thanksgiving
2011

….for Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and Chief Deputy Attorney General John Kelleher for filing criminal charges against two employees at Lender Processing Services, alleging that these employees filed thousands of falsified documents relating to foreclosures in Nevada. Attorney General Masto never said “I wish someone would do something about all of this mortgage fraud by servicers and document companies.”

…for Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, representing Maryland’s 7th
District, for his recognition of the importance of keeping families in
their homes, for his battle against fraudulent banking practices and for
being a constant, strong voice against fraudulent foreclosures in
America.

…for Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden for filing a lawsuit
against MERS for unfair and deceptive trade practices that plainly sets
out the fraudulent activities done in the name of MERS, including
obscuring important mortgage ownership information, acting as an
agent of the true owners of mortgage loans without authority, and
failing to properly oversee the MERS registry or enforce its own rules
in foreclosure proceedings. (State of Delaware v. MERSCORP,
Wilmington Division, Delaware Chancery Court). Attorney General
Biden also intervened in the $8.5 billion settlement proposed by Bank
of America to resolve claims by investors in mortgage-backed
securities put together by Countrywide Financial Corporation.

…for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman for his
determination to investigate whether securities laws were broken when
mortgage loans were bundled into securities, for intervening in the
Bank of America settlement, and for refusing any deal that would give
immunity for criminal acts to banks or securities companies.

…for New York Judge Arthur Schack, for his intolerance of lies by
banks, for exposing the massive problem of fraudulent documents
used in foreclosures, and for writing the following in response to a
sworn affidavit from a bank lawyer, Margaret Carucci, that an officer
from Downey Savings & Loan could vouch for the accuracy of the
documents: “Ms. Carucci affirmed under the penalties of perjury that
she communicated on Christmas Eve with the officer of a defunct
financial institution. This is a deceptive trick and fraud upon the court.
It cannot be tolerated. This Christmas Eve conduct, in the words of
Ebenezer Scrooge, ins‘Bah, humbug!’” (Downey Savings and Loan
Association, F.A. v. Trujillo, 2011 NY Slip Op 51517 (U)). Judge
Schack has led the way to honesty in courtrooms.

…for New York Times OpEd columnist Joe Nocera for bringing the
photographs of the Steven Baum Halloween party, where firm
employees mocked homeowners in foreclosure, to the attention of the
world.

…for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley for
focusing attention on Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
and whether MERS impaired the integrity of the state’s recording
system. Attorney General Coakley also made it clear that she would
do an in-depth investigation of MERS, stating, “We want to be clear we
are not prepared to give a release of liability on any broad scope of
MERS issues.”

…for Oscar-winning director Curtis Hanson and his HBO Film, Too
Big To Fail. Can anyone ever look at Treasury Secretary Henry
Paulson again without remembering William Hurt’s portrayal? When
we hear the name Ben Bernake, doesn’t Paul Giamatti come
immediately to mind? But James Woods, as Richard Fuld, Chariman
and CEO of Lehman Brothers, will always epitomize the clueless
corporate executive.

…for Florida attorneys Theresa Edwards and June Clarkson who
were fired from the Economic Crimes Division of the Attorney
General’s Office after targets of their foreclosure fraud investigations
complained that these Assistant Attorneys General were too
aggressive. Edwards and Clarkson had gone after some of the most
notorious foreclosure mills in the state, including the law offices of
David Stern and Marshall Watson. They were also conducting an
extensive investigation of Docx and Lender Processing Services at the
time they were forced to resign. Florida Representative Darren
Soto of Orlando called for an investigation of the firings by the U.S.
Department of Justice and by the Inspector General in the Attorney
General’s office.

…for Locke Barkley, the standing Chapter 13 Trustee for the
Northern District of Mississippi, and her attorneys, Nick Wooten
and D.W. Grimsley, for filing a class action complaint in federal court
against Lender Processing Services alleging a kick-back scheme and
unlawful fee splitting between LPS and the attorneys in its network.

…for New York Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert E. Grossman for
issuing the first federal court ruling that MERS cannot transfer and
assign mortgage through its electronic registry system. Judge
Grossman rejected the argument that the banks had the authority to
arbitrarily change state property laws, stating, “This Court does not
accept the argument that because MERS may be involved with 50% of
all residential mortgages in the country, that is reason enough for this
Court to turn a blind eye to the fact that this process does not comply
with the law.” (In re Agard, 10-77338, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern
District of New york (Central Islip).

…for Louisiana Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth W. Magner for
imposing sanctions against Lender Processing Services, stating: “The
fraud perpetrated on the Court, Debtors and trustee would be shocking
if this Court had less experience concerning the conduct of mortgage
servicers. One too many times, this Court has been witness to the
shoddy practices and sloppy accounting of the mortgage service
industry. (In re Wilson, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of
Louisiana.)

…for Guilford County Recorder Jeff Thigpen for showing in
painstaking and incontrovertible detail how foreclosure fraud has
permeated county recording offices, for standing up for the rights of
homeowners, and for explaining how foreclosure fraud affects ALL
homeowners, not just those in foreclosure.

…for Massachusetts Register of Deeds John O’Brien and Marie
McDonnell who studied the records of the Southern Essex County
Registry of Deeds and found massive fraud. O’Brien released findings
that 75% of the mortgage assignments in the registry are fraudulent.
“My registry is a crime scene…” said O’Brien, who also has assisted
other country recorders throughout the United States in understanding
mortgage fraud issues and identifying robo-signers.

…for Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Michigan
Attorney General Bill Schuette for issuing subpoenas to mortgage
servicers Lender Processing Services and Nationwide Title Clearing as
part of criminal investigations into the practices of mortgage servicing
companies. Just when the mortgage servicing companies thought they
had worked out a wonderful settlement with the OCC where they were
free to investigate themselves and report back, along came these
serious criminal law enforcement efforts.

…for Ingham County, Michigan Register of Deeds Curtis Hertel,
Jr. for investigating foreclosure fraud and robo-signing and reporting
his findings. Hertel found that banks were continuing to produce
foreclosure paperwork without proper reviews and signatures, despite
promises of reform.

…for Dallas County, Texas, District Attorney Craig Watkins and
Duval County, Florida, Clerk of the Court Jim Fuller for bringing
class action lawsuits against MERS. The lawsuits allege that MERS acts
as a “shadow recording system” for buying and selling mortgages in
the United States. The lawsuits attack the system that lists MERS as
the mortgagee on millions of loans throughout the country when MERS
did not originate the loans, lend any money or own or hold any
promissory notes.

…for Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Ralph Gants who
upheld a lower court ruling that two foreclosures were invalid because
the banks did not prove they owned the mortgages which had been
transferred into residential mortgage-backed trusts. The case was
expected to affect all foreclosures done without proper documents.
Judge Gants wrote, “the mortgages securing these notes are still legal
title to someone’s home or farm and must be treated as such.” The
case was seen as a significant warning to all purchasers of foreclosed
properties to be certain that an unbroken chain-of-title could be
established prior to making any purchase of residential real estate.

…for Scott Pelley, Robert G. Anderson and Daniel Ruetenik of 60
Minutes for their segments “The Hard Time Generation” and “The Next
Housing Shock.” Americans needed to see school buses stopping at
cheap motels in Orlando for children who have lost their homes and to
hear that the poverty rate for children in America would soon hit 25%.
For tens of thousands of people with mortgage documents signed by
Linda Green, the image of Chris Pendley forging Green’s name to
mortgage documents was the best possible confirmation that
something is rotten in the state of Denmark. This segment provided
the impetus for country recorders with conscience to take action
against mortgage fraud.

…for California Attorney General Kamala Harris for her
determination to investigate and expose the root causes of California’s
mortgage crisis by issuing subpoenas to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

…for U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan for
recognizing the significance of the Bank of America settlement when
he wrote, “This action concerns far more than the financial interests of
a few sophisticated investors,” and when he decided, “The intervention
of the state AGs in this action will protect the interests of absent
investors.” (Bank of New York Mellon v. Walnut Place, LLC, 11-cv-
05988, USDC, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

…for Academy Award Winning Director Charles H. Ferguson for
the movie Inside Job which documents the 2008 financial meltdown
and why it was avoidable. Ferguson himself has said that the film is
about the systemic corruption of the United Sates by the financial
services industry. There is a reason this film won the Academy Award
for Best Documentary as well as many other film critic awards. It is
chilling to watch.

…for filmmaker and author Michael Moore and his advocacy on behalf
of a nationwide moratorium on home foreclosures and his work to
expose “liar liens.”

…for Florida Appellate Court Judge Juan Ramirez, Jr., who wrote
in his dissent, “I dissent because I cannot condone the unprofessional
and unethical means used by the bank’s counsel, with the trial court’s
complicity, to obtain an amended final judgment in this case…This case
is the quintessential denial of due process. Due process requires
notice and an opportunity to be heard. Here appellant was granted
neither. A final judgment was amended from $216,485.73 to
$529,630.64, and the appellant was only informed after the fact when
he received the conformed copy in the mail…In my view, to affirm
what happened here requires that we turn a blind eye to the Florida
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct,
and the Code of Judicial Conduct, to say nothing of the Constitutions of
the United States and the State of Florida.” (Phillips v. Centennial
Bank, No. 3D10-2910, (Fla. 3rd DCA 2011).

…for Dylan Ratigan for making the word “fraudclosure” part of the
American vocabulary and for telling the story of tens of thousands of
American families impacted by fraudulent foreclosures when much of
the rest of the country would only focus on investors’ losses.

…for Max, April and Nye – because when everyone in a movement
knows you by your first name, you have fought the longest and been
an inspiration to the most.

…for Jack Wright who gives us MSFraud.org.

…for Massachusetts Land Court Judge Keith C. Long for his
careful, thoughtful common-sense ruling in the case of Antonio Ibanez,
a case eventually upheld by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

…for the Bankruptcy Trustees and Judges including Hon. Tracey
Hope Davis (Northern District of New York), Hon. Martin Glenn
(Southern District of New York), Hon. Harry C. Dees, Jr. (Northern
District of Indiana), Hon. Diane Sigmund Weiss (Eastern District of
Pennsylvania), Hon. Joel B. Rosenthal (Massachusetts), Hon. Joan
M. Feeney (Massachusetts), and, of course, Hon. Christopher Boyko
(Ohio) for carefully scrutinizing the evidence presented by the banks
regarding ownership claims of notes and mortgages.

…for Hon. William G. Young of Massachusetts who put the blame
squarely on the legal profession, stating:

After 43 years at the bar, the saddest thing about this case is
the conduct of the lawyers — all the lawyers. A careful reading
of the briefs in this case reveals only a single recognition that
counsel did anything amiss in their misrepresentations to the
Bankruptcy Court. There’s blame aplenty, of course, each one
blaming everyone else — including the hapless bankrupt
homeowner. … How is it that our profession, the legal
profession —which could have and should have strongly
counseled against the self interested excesses that set up the
collapse — instead has eagerly aided and abetted those very
excesses? How could we (all of us who profess to be lawyers)
have fallen so low?” (In re Nosek, 386 B.R. 374 (Bankr. D.
Mass. 2008)

…for Neil Garfield and his Livinglies weblog for his endless efforts to
educate consumers and their lawyers on “the largest economic fraud in
human history.” Neil is the source of so much valuable information –
he is a one-man Consumer Protection Bureau and THE SOURCE for
foreclosure defense.

…for Michael Olenick of LegalPrise for building Findthefraud.com,
allowing citizen researchers the power to view documents quickly and
thoroughly, eliminating the impediments in the systems set up by
many county recorders.

…for the ACLU for fighting for the rights of homeowners and for
exposing courtroom injustices.

…for Floridians Lisa Epstein, Damian Figueroa, Michael Redman,
and Matt Weidner for speaking the truth on their blogs, at great
personal cost, assisting tens of thousands of citizens across the
country who educate themselves regarding foreclosure fraud and
injustice, and reporting what actually goes in in county courtrooms
every day.

…and finally, for JPM Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon for his definition of
foreclosure as debt relief, for BOA’s CEO Brian “We have a right to
make a profit” Moynihan, for the partiers at the Steven Baum
Halloween party, to Cheryl (“David Stern buys me a new BMW every
year”) Samons, for Stern crony Miriam (“Let ME find the fraud”)
Mendieta and for screaming Representative Joe Walsh, for illustrating
this quotation from historian David C. McCullough:

History is not the story of heroes entirely. It is often the story
of cruelty and injustice and shortsightedness. There are
monsters, there is evil, there is betrayal. That’s why people
should read Shakespeare and Dickens as well as history – they
will find the best, the worst, the height of noble attainment and
the depths of depravity.

#

[ipaper docId=73576469 access_key=key-17v6txu3ss6n2vpgfima height=600 width=600 /]

Absolutely no respect for the AG’s who are doing their jobs. Absolutely no consideration for the valid reasons why they simply will not settle to the greatest heist in American History.

WSJ-

Bank representatives and government officials are working on a broad settlement of most state and federal foreclosure-practices investigations that could move forward without the participation of California, long considered a key to any deal, people familiar with the negotiations said.

The terms of the deal remain fluid. Banks have proposed a deal excluding California that would carry a value of $18.5 billion, though the final outcome remains uncertain, people familiar with the discussion said.

Negotiators are continuing to make a push to persuade California to join a settlement valued at $25 billion among federal officials, state attorneys general and the …

[WALL STREET JOURNAL]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

Washington, DC (Nov. 22, 2011)—Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings released the following statement today regarding the public release of highly redacted “engagement letters” between mortgage servicing companies and independent consultants they hired to review past foreclosure abuses:

“Although I am encouraged that some information is being made public today, our Committee should issue subpoenas to obtain full, unredacted copies of these documents so we can ensure that homeowners are being fully and appropriately compensated.  Six months is too long to wait to conduct oversight of mortgage servicing companies that illegally foreclosed against homeowners.”

Today, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released copies of the engagement letters with significant redactions, including the removal of sections regarding past work, actual and potential conflicts of interest, and the procedures available to homeowners to file claims and complaints due to errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in a foreclosure process.

Cummings first asked for full copies of these engagement letters on May 31, 2011, following a report issued by federal regulators finding “critical weaknesses” and “widespread risk” with 14 of the nation’s largest mortgage servicing companies’ foreclosure practices.

The regulators ordered the mortgage servicing companies to hire private consultants to conduct more comprehensive reviews of their foreclosure actions, but the regulators allowed them to propose the terms of the reviews, including the methodology of the reviews, the criteria guiding the selection of cases to be reviewed, and any proposed sampling techniques.  Some have criticized this approach for providing insufficient oversight of the banks’ actions.

In their responses to Cummings, the regulators explained that, by law, they cannot produce the full engagement letters until they are legally compelled to do so.

As a result, on October 27, Cummings wrote to Committee Chairman Darrell Issa requesting that he either issue subpoenas for the engagement letters or schedule a subpoena vote for the Committee’s business meeting on November 17, 2011.  Issa declined to take either step, stating at the business meeting that he preferred to wait until Thanksgiving to determine whether the engagement letters would be released voluntarily.

source: http://democrats.oversight.house.gov

Another home run from Michael Hudson this time deep inside several lenders

iWATCH-

Darcy Parmer ran into trouble soon after she started her job as a fraud analyst at Wells Fargo Bank. Her bosses, she later claimed, were upset that she was, well, finding fraud.

Company officials, she alleged in a lawsuit, berated her for reporting that sales staffers were pushing through mortgage deals based on made-up borrower incomes and other distortions, telling her that she didn’t “see the big picture” and that “it is not your job to fix Wells Fargo.” Management, she claimed, ordered her to stop contacting the company’s ethics hotline.

In the end, she said, Wells Fargo forced her out of her job.

[iWATCH NEWS]

UPDATE: Mr. Bryan Hubbard Director of Public Affairs Operations at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has informed this site of the following after several blogs learned that a former David J. Stern’s Attorney, Miriam Mendieta was to assist in reviewing of 4.5 Million foreclosure fraud cases:

Foreclosure Review Services (FRS) has not been contracted by any of the independent consultants conducting independent foreclosure reviews required by the consent orders issued by the OCC in April. The OCC and Federal Reserve reviewed independent consultant and subcontractors for conflicts of interest prior to approval. FRS was neither proposed nor reviewed.

Bryan Hubbard
Director, Public Affairs Operations
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

UPDATE:  Foreclosure Review Services (FRS) was neither proposed nor reviewed by either OCC or Federal Reserve

Rumor was Miriam may be working for Florida Default Law Group aka NetDirtector, ReoClosings.com?

And remember what Prof. Levitin was saying, watch out for Robo-Signing 2.0!

Lets not forget about a famous deposition from a former Stern paralegal where she mentions Miriam knew about the documents and was a controlling attorney for the firm!

I wonder who owns FRS?

Foreclosure industry veterans offer foreclosure review services in response to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s “Independent Foreclosure Review” program.

Miami, FL (PRWEB) November 21, 2011

Foreclosure Review Services (FRS) provides contract attorneys who diligently review cases to determine whether a homeowner may have suffered financial injury as a result of errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in the foreclosure process.

FRS’s Director of Operations and Training, Miriam Mendieta, Esq.,is a nationally recognized industry expert with over 15 years of hands-on experience. Miriam served as the managing attorney for one of the largest creditor’s rights firms in the country where she was responsible for the oversight of all the aspects of foreclosure and bankruptcy related services.

FRS’s team of contract attorneys are extensively trained to properly review and analyze each case. FRS will review each foreclosure case to determine if the homeowner suffered financial injury as a result of errors made during the foreclosure process.

The reviews are part of a series of compliance actions initiated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

FRS has facilities in Dallas and South Florida and also provides consultants onsite.

FRS: Foreclosure Review Services
1395 Brickell Ave., Ste. 800
Miami, FL 33131
888-603-5559
info(at)frserv(dot)com
EXPERTS IN DEFAULT SERVICES * EXPERTS IN DOCUMENT REVIEW

###

Bloomberg-

Bank of America Corp. (BAC) told Fannie Mae it refuses to cooperate with the U.S. mortgage firm’s new stance on loan buybacks, setting the lender up for a potential surge in claims and penalties.

The bank is disputing Fannie Mae’s demand that lenders repurchase mortgages or cover any losses themselves if an insurer drops coverage, Bank of America said this month in a regulatory filing. The lender, ranked second by assets among U.S. banks, said it “does not intend to repurchase loans” under what it deems to be new rules, and the refusal may trigger penalties or other sanctions.

[BLOOMBERG]

NYPOST-

What’s in this law firm’s wallet?

New York state’s beleaguered, largest foreclosure law firm — which today announced plans to shut down in the face of a firestorm of legal action — has allegedly failed to turn over about $130,000 owed to three people whose co-ops were foreclosed on, and could be sitting on millions of dollars of hundreds of other people’s money without those people knowing, The Post has learned.

Steven J. Baum P.C.’s move to shutter came a week after it was made ineligible to get new referrals on any Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgages — essentially a death knell for the controversial firm. The two federally backed mortgage giants moved in the face of numerous complaints about questionable legal filings by Baum.