Loan Shark… Maffia Style Tactics… Criminal… Fraud are only a few words that came to mind.

NYT-

Major banks have quickly become behind-the-scenes allies of Internet-based payday lenders that offer short-term loans with interest rates sometimes exceeding 500 percent.

With 15 states banning payday loans, a growing number of the lenders have set up online operations in more hospitable states or far-flung locales like Belize, Malta and the West Indies to more easily evade statewide caps on interest rates.

While the banks, which include giants like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, do not make the loans, they are a critical link for the lenders, enabling the lenders to withdraw payments automatically from borrowers’ bank accounts, even in states where the loans are banned entirely. In some cases, the banks allow lenders to tap checking accounts even after the customers have begged them to stop the withdrawals.

 [NEW YORK TIMES]

image: Richmond Times Dispatch- Brookins

Washington Post-

The vacant, dilapidated split-level rancher with the broken fence and dangling gutters has long been an eyesore to neighbors on Montrose Street in Alexandria. But Glen E. Scheirer saw it as an opportunity to snap up a dramatically discounted house directly across the street from his son and daughter-in-law, who have a son and another child on the way.

Last May, Scheirer made an all-cash offer of $375,000 for the foreclosure, which he figured would need about $100,000 more in repairs. Fannie Mae accepted the offer, and Scheirer began carting his belongings — including newly purchased appliances and furniture — from his Chantilly home to his son’s garage in preparation for the impending move.

But last month, Fannie Mae canceled the deal because it couldn’t determine whether the foreclosure had been done properly, and Scheirer is back to square one.

[WASHINGTON POST]

Other cases to note using “Declarations of Charles Boyle” were also:

In re: DOBLE | CA BK Judge Rips Deutsche, MERS, LPS System & Multiple “True & Correct” Copies of Note

IN RE ARIZMENDI | CA Bank. Court Denies Stay, Order to Show Cause “Contempt, Sanctions, (2) ONEWEST Notes; 1 Endorsed, 1 Unendorsed” “MERS Assignment”

amongst others…

~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

___________________________________________________________

JAMES MCDONALD,

                Plaintiff,       CASE NO. C10-1952RSL

 v.

ONEWEST BANK, FSB; NORTHWEST

TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC.;          

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.;

INDYMAC BANK FSB; DOES 1-50,

___________________________________________________________

VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

JANUARY 31, 2013                                  9:00 A.M

PROCEEDINGS

________________________________________________________________________

<EXCERPT>

46

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Boyle, do you still have the plaintiff’s exhibit that Ms. Dao gave you? Look at the last page of the note on that one and compare it to the last page of the note in Exhibit 1.

Do you see how the signature line, “Pay to the order of without recourse” has moved from the far left on one document, and it’s on sort of the center right on the other document?

47

THE WITNESS: Yes, I see that.

THE COURT: Do you have any explanation for how that might have happened in the copying, or anything like that?

THE WITNESS: I don’t know.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. DAO: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q (By Ms. Dao) So your testimony is that Exhibit 1 is a true and exact copy of the original note, as you’re sitting here on the stand today?

A Yes. That was my testimony in the declaration.

THE COURT: You looked at it yesterday. Do you remember where this line was?

THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t compare the two.

THE COURT: Counsel, as an officer of the court, could you represent to me where the signature is on the original?

MS. VACURA: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It’s on the center right?

MS. VACURA: Yes.

MS. DAO: Thank you, Your Honor.

76

Q (By Ms. Dao) We have discovered today that there are two versions of the original note. Are you now aware of that?

THE COURT: Well, you can leave the preamble out. You’re talking about the last page in the moving —

MS. DAO: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any explanation for that?

THE WITNESS: I know that in certain cases at origination there’s a copy of the note that’s made. You know, there’s several copies of the original note that are made, and sometimes, you know, it can be endorsed.

What I know is that the original note that Deutsch was holding was the one that we produced as the correct and true copy.

THE COURT: With the center right signature?

THE WITNESS: Yes, correct.

Q (By Ms. Dao) So you really can’t account for — well, let me ask you this question: Can the court be assured that whenever there’s a document that has been represented either by you or by your counsel that it is a true and exact copy, the court can rely upon that representation?

A Yes.

MS. DAO: Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Anything else further for this witness?

MS. VACURA: No.

Transcript of the evidentiary hearing in federal court

—

and the 2 versions of the indorsements are also attached below.

[ipaper docId=127032362 access_key=key-1k7ljw5he5klg59569r9 height=600 width=600 /]

Tidbit: DOCX was established in March of 1993 by its president, Lorraine O. Brown.

DOCX developed two software products; DOCX RID™ (Recorders Information Database) which keeps track of County Recorder fees, and the requirements for recording assignment and satisfaction documents, UCC’s, and to obtain certified true copies of recorded documents. DOCX’s latest software development, DOCX in a BOX™, takes the DOCX RID program significantly further by providing the software to produce the completed and legally-sufficient documents required to process…

Salon-

You remember Lynndie England. She was the Army Reserve soldier photographed at the Abu Ghraib prison giving the thumbs-up sign in front of a set of naked detainees. A lower-level reservist, she was among the few at Abu Ghraib who actually served prison time.

No officers who authorized and directed the torture and detainee abuse, either in that prison, at Guantanamo Bay or anywhere around the world, ever faced trial. But Lynndie England became a symbol for the sorry state of the rule of law in America, where a few small “bad apples” get held to account, and the higher-ups who devised and directed the criminal activity get off scot-free.

There’s a Lynndie England for the financial crisis, too.

Meet Lorraine O. Brown, an individual singled out for actual jail time for her role in the massive mortgage document fraud that plagued this nation. Like England, she stands alone among the multitudes of fraudsters, including those at the highest reaches of the financial industry.

[SALON]

image: mugshotsworld.com enhanced by dinsfla

Fact: The proposed bill shifts the burden of proof to the defendant

Fact: A Judge can ignore evidence that the foreclosure is improper

Fact: Foreclosures are slow for many reasons, but the legal process isn’t one.

Fact: Florida law already has an expedited foreclosure procedure

Fact: The proposed bill encourages fraud

Fact: The Proposed bill is retroactive

Fact: This bill will become law this legislative session if you don’t voice your opposition

Via Brian M. Levine

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT – QUEENS COUNTY

HSBC BANK USA, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF THE REN-
AISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET-
BACKED CERTIFICATE, SERIES 2004-4

Plaintiff,

-against-

MARIA CARCHI. ET AL.,
Defendants.

 EXCERPT:

In view of the fact that plaintiff’s counsel served an unsworn response to the notice to admit, which contained several improper objections, said response is a nullity. Plaintiff, therefore, is deemed to have admitted to the genuineness of the documents covered by request 1, 2, and 3, the original note, the original mortgage, and the assignment of the mortgage executed on June 3, 2011. Defendants assert that based upon notice to admit and the documents attached to said notice plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action, because MERS lacked authority to assign the mortgage to plaintiff, and plaintiff cannot establish that it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note. It is noted that lack of standing was asserted as an affirmative defense in the answer.

[…]

Plaintiff, in opposition to the within motion, has submitted an Affidavit from Youa Vang, an account manager employed by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, who states that Wells Fargo is the document custodian for the plaintiff and that Wells Fargo’s records show that it was in physical possession of the original note and original mortgage relative to the subject property on July 18, 2011.

Plaintiff counsel states in her opposing affirmation that “the original note and mortgage may be produced on the hearing date of the Defendant’ subject motion for inspection by the Court”. However, she offers no explanation as to why she cannot produce a copy of the original note at this time, and has not establish that said note was endorsed to plaintiff in blank, without recourse, or that there is an allonge securely affixed thereto. The production of the original note is clearly not a matter for in camera review, as defendants have raised the issue of standing and plaintiff is now required to establish that it has standing to commence this action.

[…]

This week, CitiMortgage requested a case against them be dismissed, as an active duty member of the military has sued them, alleging SCRA violations. This case could ultimately change the wording of the SCRA regarding protected interest rates.

AGBEAT-

South Carolina Army sergeant, Raymond Wray filed a federal lawsuit accusing CitiMortgage of violating the 70+ year old Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) which limits interest rates to 6.0 percent for military on active duty. Filed in the U.S. District of South Carolina, court documents reveal that the home Wray bought in 1997 for $68,000 was initially at a 12.99 percent interest rate.

When Wray enlisted in the Army two years later, he requested CitiMortgage, who had purchased his loan, to reduce his rate due to his becoming an active duty member of the military. The SCRA covers mortgages that were acquired prior to a servicemember’s enlisting in the military.

[AGBEAT]

So whenever the Department of Justice is “probing” them, you mean to tell me they also raise these red flags since they will have a conflict of interest issue with Covington & Burling?

Reuters-

JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) has raised questions about the involvement of a senior lawyer from the New York Attorney General’s office in one of the few government lawsuits alleging wrongdoing by banks in the run-up to the financial crisis.

The case against JPMorgan is similar to one that the lawyer had worked on before joining the Attorney General’s office, JPMorgan said in court papers this week, raising the possibility of a conflict of interest.

JPMorgan said it had asked New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman “whether there is additional information about this lawyer’s involvement … before deciding what further action is warranted.”

[REUTERS]

Yep! This too is a Covington & Burling client…nothing to see here…

Reuters-

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey is investigating Credit Suisse AG over mortgage-backed securities packaged and sold by the bank, according to people familiar with the matter.

U.S. Attorney’s Offices in other districts are focusing on other banks in related investigations, said the people, who were not authorized to speak publicly. It was unclear how many U.S. Attorneys were involved.

The investigations show that authorities are still trying to build cases over the alleged misconduct by banks that led to the 2008 financial crisis.

[REUTERS]

Supreme Court of Illinois

Joseph R. Tybor
Director of Communications

222 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone (312) 793-2323
Mobile (312) 636-0479
Fax (312) 793-0871

February 22, 2013

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT ADOPTS NEW RULES TO EASE BURDEN OF HOME FORECLOSURE PROCESS

The Illinois Supreme Court announced on Friday new rules aimed at mitigating abuses and uncertainty in mortgage foreclosures, and helping those who face the loss of their homes by imposing several require-ments on mediation programs and lenders seeking to foreclose.

These include the identification of resources for government-certified counseling, for free legal represen-tation to eligible homeowners, interpretive services and sworn assurances that all loan modification efforts have been made by the lender.

The three, stand-alone Supreme Court rules reflect the Court’s concern over well-publicized deceptive practices at the national and local level and the significant impact the continuing flow of residential mortgage foreclosures is having on Illinois citizens and communities.

The rules are a direct outgrowth of public hearings and 21 months of work by the Special Supreme Court Committee on Mortgage Foreclosures, whose formation was recommended by Justice Mary Jane Theis.

The 14-person committee consisted of those who have been on the front lines in dealing with the housing and foreclosure crises, including judges; bankers and their lawyers; a public interest attorney; a law professor and the head of the Consumer Protection Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s office.

“These new rules will promote fairness in home foreclosure proceedings, curb abuses in the system, provide lenders finality when foreclosure is necessary and ensure homeowners who have been thrown out of work during the years of a troubled economy are aware of their rights and where to turn for help,” said Chief Justice Thomas L. Kilbride, an early proponent of foreclosure mediation programs in Illinois. “The Special Committee, formed at the recommendation of Justice Theis, has done its work well, with perse-verance and with attention to the kind of detail that we believe will get positive results.

“I and my colleagues on the Supreme Court thank them as well everyone who participated in the process through written suggestions or testimony at the public hearings. All their efforts, we hope, will not only promote efficiency, finality and justice; but provide a touch of humanity in what is a painful process for homeowners and an unwelcome one for lenders.

Justice Theis acknowledged the hard work of the committee not only for its labors, but for engaging in extensive compromise to draft significant proposals that bridge the inherent self-interests on both sides, the lender and the borrower.

“The Special Committee worked hard and reached a consensus,” said Justice Theis. “Some of the provi-sions in these rules are controversial in their specific worlds, whether it be finance and lending or in public interest and consumer law. No side got everything it wanted.

“I applaud the Special Committee, and all those who had input, for drafting provisions that will lend some stability and certitude to what is a financially and emotionally draining process.”

Justice Theis explained that the new rules establish a uniform protocol around the state that will require lenders to provide homeowners with needed information so that they understand the process and conse-quences of foreclosure; require lenders to seek modification of loans for eligible homeowners before they complete foreclosure; require improved legal notice to homeowners throughout the process and before the actual sale of a foreclosed home; and require Circuit Courts in Illinois who have a mediation program to provide resources for HUD-certified consultation, free legal help and language interpretive services to those eligible and in need of them.

“There can be no ‘win-win’ in a process that is as painful to homeowners as foreclosure,” Justice Theis said. “But the process should be fair. These rules remedy or mitigate questionable practices such as robo-signing; speed up the process to hopefully shorten the blight on communities through boarded-up homes, and provide a certainty that will enable foreclosed homeowners to examine loan modification options or proceed on a new path.”

The changes in Illinois foreclosure practice are embodied in new Supreme Court Rule 99.1, dealing with requirements for mortgage foreclosure mediation programs in the Circuit Courts and counties; new Supreme Court Rule 113 which sets out required practice, procedure and notice obligations by the lender as plaintiff; and new Supreme Court Rule 114, which requires a lender to attest that it has complied with the requirements of any loss mitigation program which applies to the specific home loan. Without the affidavit, a judge many deny entry of a foreclosure judgment.

The rules are effective March 1. Those counties and Circuits which already have foreclosure mediation programs have 90 additional days until June 1 to amend their local rules to comply with the Rule 99.1 requirements, including the identification of resources for counseling, free legal aid and interpretive language services.

“I’m very proud of the Committee’s work,” said Judge Lewis M. Nixon, chair of the Committee, who is supervising judge of the Mortgage Foreclosure Section of the Cook County Circuit Court. “We had input from private citizens, people who were going through foreclosures themselves, from banks and attorneys. The rules are balanced. They contain recommendations that are helpful to both sides.”

Daniel P. Lindsey, a public interest attorney at LAF (formerly Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropoli-tan Chicago), was co-chair of a subcommittee which recommended the new rules requiring the loss-mitigation affidavit (Rule 114) and the requirements for mortgage foreclosure mediation programs (Rule 99.1).

“I hope what the loss mitigation and mediation proposals do is give homeowners a chance whenever possible to work something out with their lender, whether a loan modification or something else, instead of going through the entirety of the foreclosure process,” Mr. Lindsey said. “A lot of the work I do is with homeowners we think should get a loan modification who are getting the runaround. The lender is telling them one thing on the phone – ‘Don’t worry, we’ll work with you’ –and then their lawyers are barreling ahead with the foreclosure in court.

“I hope these rules can slow things down, when appropriate, to help the homeowner and lender to get a real chance to do a loan modification and avoid foreclosure. The loss mitigation affidavit is an enforce-ment tool to help reach that goal. It gives judges a concrete tool to make sure lenders are offering loss mitigation before seeking a foreclosure judgment.”

Counties with mediation programs which have until June 1 to adapt their local rules to Supreme Court Rule 99.1 are Cook, Will, Peoria, Madison and Bond, McLean and Kane. Kankakee and St. Clair counties are in the process of establishing mediation programs.

Supreme Court Rule 113 establishes new rules of practice and procedure that improve legal notice to a homeowner and is directly aimed at eliminating the questionable practice of robo-signings by requiring submission by the lender’s representative of a prove-up affidavit.

“The new rules improve the quality of notice to homeowners involved in foreclosure cases,” said Appel-late Justice Mathias W. Delort, who served as co-chair of the Practice and Procedure subcommittee which drafted Rule 113. “First, if a homeowner loses a foreclosure case by default because of a failure to appear in court, the clerk of the court will be required to send a clear notice to the homeowner explaining what occurred. Currently, there is no consistent practice in giving notice.

“Second, foreclosure plaintiffs (lenders) will be required to send a specific notice of the sale date to all homeowners, rather than simply advertising it in a newspaper. And thirdly, to alleviate some of the confusion caused by the frequent transfer of mortgages and lawsuits being brought by entities unknown to the borrowers, every foreclosure lawsuit must now include a copy of the note signed by the mortgagor, including all endorsements evidencing the transfer of ownership of the mortgage.”

In addition to Judge Nixon Mr. Lindsey and Appellate Justice Delort, the members of the Committee are:

–Circuit Court Judge Robert G. Gibson, of the 18th Judicial Circuit Du Page County, Wheaton;
–John J. Glowinski, senior vice president, First Midwest Bank, Itasca, senior officer responsible for remediation of troubled accounts;
–Richard M. Guerard, attorney and partner, Guerard, Kalina & Butkus, Wheaton, a firm concen-trating its practice in commercial, banking and real estate law;
–Deborah Hagen, chief, Consumer Protection Division, Illinois Attorney General’s office, Spring-field, publisher of “Illinois Consumer Protection Law” for the Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education;
–Richard L. Heavner, attorney, Heavner, Scott, Beyers & Mihlar, a firm concentrating in provid-ing legal services to mortgage lending institutions, and owner of Central Illinois Title Company, Decatur. He was co-chair with Judge Delort of the Practice and Procedure subcommittee.
–Circuit Court Judge Douglas L. Jarman, 4th Judicial Circuit, Montgomery County Courthouse, Hillsboro;
–Prof. Robert M. Lawless, University of Illinois College of Law, Champaign, teacher of courses including bailouts, bankruptcy, business bankruptcy and consumer law;
–Retired Cook County Circuit Court Judge Clifford L. Meacham, Chicago. Judge Meachem served as co-chair with Mr. Lindsey of the Loss Mitigation and Mediation subcommittee.
–Associate Judge Darryl B. Simko, Cook County Circuit Court, Mortgage Foreclosure Section;
–William F. Smith, attorney, general counsel Home Star Bank, Manteno;
–Kevin J. Stine, attorney, Mathis, Marifian & Richter, concentrating in banking law and creditor rights, Belleville.

–30—

(FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Joseph Tybor, director of communications to the Illinois Supreme Court, at 312.793.2323)

 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
January Term 2013

GIL L. SERRANO, ONELIA SERRANO and TIULANG VALDES,
Appellants,

v.

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR WELLS
FARGO ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION, MORTGAGE ASSETBACKED
PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-PA1,
Appellee.

No. 4D11-1767

[February 20, 2013]

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Gil L. Serrano, Onelia Serrano, and Tiulang Valdes,
defendants below, appeal a final summary judgment of foreclosure in
favor of appellee HSBC Bank USA, N.A. as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset
Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-PA1. We reverse the summary judgment
because there remains a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether
appellee complied with the condition precedent contained in the
mortgage to provide pre-suit notice of acceleration. See Dominko v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., 102 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). We find no merit
in the other issues briefed by appellants.

Reversed and remanded.

STEVENSON, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Judge; L.T. Case No. 09-26205 21.

Garry W. Johnson and Bruce K. Herman of 511-Law.com, Fort
Lauderdale, for appellants.

Donna L. Eng and Dean A. Morande of Carlton Fields, P.A., West Palm
Beach, for appellee.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

image: hammersmithlondon.co.uk

HuffPO-

Senka Huskic is mad, very mad and wants you to share that anger.

Every notable historical battle that’s pitted the outraged against the outrageous actions of an oppressor has had its Senka. In France, during the revolution you had Marianne — that symbol of reason and liberty — immortalized in Delacroix’s “Liberty Leading the People.” During the Spanish Civil War you had Federica Montseny, the Anarcho-Syndicalist, mobilizing supporters against the fascist assault of Franco and in this country you’ve had a long history of union maids like Norma Rae spearheading labor’s cause.

[HUFFINGTON POST]

Perhaps one of my readers would like to point this testimony out to Yves because she posted a dummy version of the purchase agreement with the FDIC and NOT the REAL One. In re Jolley: Secret FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank 118 Page Purchase and Assumption Agreement for Washington Mutual Bank Uncovered in Testimony of Jeffrey Thorne

Naked Capitalism-

It’s really easy to have a fortress balance sheet if you can get other people to eat your losses.

It’s also how some scandals are picked up and amplified by the media while others lie fallow. The London Whale scandal, which was never going to rise to the level of bank-threatening losses, did reveal JP Morgan to have grossly deficient risk controls and Dimon to be arrogant, lackadaisical, and dishonest in dealing with the problem. Predictably, regulators have refused to acknowledge serious Sarbanes-Oxley violations. And Dimon, who loves to take personal responsibility for JP Morgan’s successes, rapidly threw members of his laxly-managed Chief Investment Office under the bus to salvage his reputation.

We’ll go into more details on JP Morgan’s WaMu machinations below. The very short version is this story came to the fore last year, when Deutsche Bank filed a putback suit against both JP Morgan and the FDIC for dud loans in 99 WaMu mortgage securitizations (recall that when a mortgage backed bond is found to have worse merchandise in it than than the investors were promised, the trustee is supposed to put the bad loans back to the originator and have them replaced with good loans or get cash compensation. The Deustche Bank suit was noteworthy because trustees normally do nothing). The FDIC has made a compelling case that WaMu is no longer its problem and JP Morgan assumed the relevant liabilities.

[NAKED CAPITALISM]

This is the way you do it shareholders! If anyone comes across this complaint, please shoot it over. Thx in advance.

Law 360-

Lender Processing Services Inc. directors were hit with a shareholder derivative suit Tuesday alleging their failure to go after higher-ups responsible for the “robosigning” of foreclosure documents and other faulty practices left the mortgage servicer on the hook for hefty legal expenses.

Shareholder Steven Hill claims in a complaint filed in Delaware Chancery Court that while Florida-based LPS has borne the high cost of resolving litigation over the business practices of subsidiaries LPS Default Solutions and DocX, including a recently announced $127 million settlement, the company’s…

[LAW 360]

BNY Mellon no-showed court six times

WPRI-

A vacant two-story home in Providence’s Silver Lake neighborhood has become such an eyesore that not even the bank wants anything to do with it.

Empty for over a year, the first floor windows at the 223 Roosevelt Street property have been replaced with boards, old phone books have stacked up on the porch and the driveway has been transformed into a dumping ground for Heineken bottles and broken television sets.

The property is one of the nearly 2,000 city homes and 7,000 homes statewide that have entered the foreclosure process since 2009, according to figures released by HousingWorks RI, an affordable housing advocacy group.

[WPRI]

image: Reuters

They will always find a way no matter the scandal…This was part of the settlement plan and everyone involved in this shell game knew this. With all the folks involved, you mean to say not one thought of these ways and maybe put a stop to this?  Bend over because the screwing isn’t over just yet.

Tampa Bay Times-

Big banks are finding a way to benefit from what was supposed to be their punishment in the robo-signing scandal.

In Florida, they have spent 75 percent of $7.7 billion in settlement outlays approving short sales and forgiving home-equity loans, earning credit for debts they were unlikely to collect or sales that would have happened anyway, a monitor’s report released Thursday shows.

Only about 15 percent of the money has gone toward principal reductions or refinancings that would keep Floridians in their homes, the report states.

[TAMPA BAY TIMES]

From a very informative site.

Wall Street on Parade-

A study conducted by Edward N. Wolff for the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College in March 2010 made the following findings:

The richest 1 percent received over one-third of the total gain in marketable wealth over the period from 1983 to 2007. The next 4 percent also received about a third of the total gain and the next 15 percent about a fifth, so that the top quintile collectively accounted for 89 percent of the total growth in wealth, while the bottom 80 percent accounted for 11 percent.

Debt was the most evenly distributed component of household wealth, with the bottom 90 percent of households responsible for 73 percent of total indebtedness.

Wealth concentration in too few hands while the general populace is saddled with too much debt to buy the goods and services produced by the corporations, is a replay of the conditions leading to the crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression.

[WALL STREET ON PARADE]

Naked Capitalism-

Remember that big, ballyhooed mortgage settlement of early last year? The one where homeowners got $25 billion of relief (well actually only around $5 billion in cold cash, but why bother with pesky details?) The one made possible by Eric Schneiderman abandoning his fellow state attorneys general to grasp the brass ring of a do-just-about-nothing Residential Mortgage-Backed Task Force? The one that would make banks clean up their act and stop using robosigned documents and deal more fairly with borrowers?

Specifically, that agreement provided for strict limits on one practice, dual tracking, and the creation of a new one, single point of contact. Both relate to mortgage modifications. Dual tracking is when a bank starts and continues to advance the foreclosure process at the same time a borrower is being considered for a modification. That play out badly for a lot of borrowers during HAMP mods, when they would receive foreclosure notices, get understandably freaked out, since they had a modification application in with their servicer, and would typically be told to ignore the foreclosure mortgages. That was bad, and perhaps deliberately duplicitous advice, since many people lost their homes that way. Single point of contact is the requirement that a bank provide one person for a borrower to deal with during the mortgage modification process.

[NAKED CAPITALISM]

Reuters-

The U.S. Justice Department is investigating JPMorgan Chase & Co over allegations that Bear Stearns provided misleading information about its mortgage products during the lead-up to the financial crisis, according to people familiar with the matter.

JPMorgan acquired Bear Stearns in a 2008 fire sale encouraged by the government, and has pushed back against various government suits that have sought to hold JPMorgan accountable for the failed investment bank’s alleged mortgage-related misconduct.

In this investigation, civil lawyers in the Justice Department are looking into whether Bear Stearns altered due diligence information that third parties provided about the quality of mortgage loans packaged into securities, said the people, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the probe.

[REUTERS]

My office has noted a significant increase in the number of consumer complaints and comments through the website since my last report. For the first six months of reporting, we averaged approximately 550 consumer submissions per month. From November 1, 2012, through February 1, 2013, we averaged roughly 830 complaints per month.

This progress report is my third as Monitor under the National Mortgage Settlement. Like the reports I released in August and November, 2012, this report is not required by the Settlement. My first required reports concerning servicing standards compliance reviews will be submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the second quarter of this year. I have received the compliance reviews from the banks necessary for me to undertake this work, which my professional firms and I are in the process of doing. In addition, as more fully discussed below, I have determined that one bank has satisfied its consumer relief obligations, although it must still complete its mandatory solicitations of eligible borrowers.

This report is part of my ongoing efforts to inform the public about the steps the banks have taken to implement the settlement and my progress in its oversight. As such, it includes:

• Information about the relief distributed to customers under the settlement between March 1, 2012, and December 31, 2012.
• An update on the implementation of the servicing standards set forth in the settlement and the metrics I am using to
assess compliance.
• A review of the complaints I have received from professionals and consumers across the nation.
• An updated timeline for future reports and milestones.

With the exception of my certification with regard to one servicer’s satisfaction of its obligations discussed below, the consumer relief activities discussed in this report represent gross dollar amounts that have not been subject to the detailed review required to receive credit under the settlement, nor have they been scored toward each bank’s total obligation. The $45.83 billion in cumulative consumer relief cannot be used to measure progress toward the $20 billion obligation in the settlement. This figure includes both completed consumer relief and active first lien trial modifications.

Since my last progress report, I have continued to receive valuable insight from counselors, lawyers, advocates, and other professionals around the country. This information has highlighted continuing areas of concern with the banks, such as dual tracking and issues relating to single points of contact. As a result, I have engaged the banks to address these complaints and will continue to use this feedback to inform my oversight responsibilities.

It is my continued hope that this report, like the ones that preceded it, will inform the public in a clear and accessible way about the settlement, answer questions that have been raised about it, and inform policymakers and the public as they discuss the future of the home mortgage finance system.

Sincerely,
Joseph A. Smith, Jr.

[ipaper docId=126622824 access_key=key-154jo0j6ukkxnpef3icv height=600 width=600 /]

AND why should the CEO’s continue to make multimillion salaries for destroying taxpayers? Buying $32 Million dollar mansions as a 3rd, 4th or 5th home… Getting a 73% pay raise …this is just ludicrous! YES, we probable paid for those too!

The truth is the banks are Broke, they’ve always ran Ponzi Schemes and those in DC are Corrupt to the Core.

In the meantime, regulators are having a hard time sleeping at night worrying that these banks might fail, so who is watching your back when you’re about to fail, about to become homeless/food-less/ill? You’re not a priority.

Bloomberg-

On television, in interviews and in meetings with investors, executives of the biggest U.S. banks — notably JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Jamie Dimon — make the case that size is a competitive advantage. It helps them lower costs and vie for customers on an international scale. Limiting it, they warn, would impair profitability and weaken the country’s position in global finance.

So what if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S. banks aren’t really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from U.S. taxpayers?

Granted, it’s a hard concept to swallow. It’s also crucial to understanding why the big banks present such a threat to the global economy.

[BLOOMBERG]

image: Bloomberg View

LAPAVITSAS: I think one of the most interesting things to hit the news this week is the Libor manipulation case and the fine that has been imposed on the large British bank RBS for manipulating the Libor.

I think we need to talk a little bit about this so that people understand the significance of it, because it hasn’t really been widely appreciated by the public.

Now, the Libor is not a real interest rate. It’s a benchmark. It’s a benchmark that is set privately by the banks and in secret. There’s a committee of banks that does that. On the basis of the Libor, a whole host of other interest rates that are charged to people for their mortgages, to businesses, and so on are determined.

Now, the case and the fine imposed on RBS has discovered, has found that actually RBS has been colluding with brokers and others to manipulate the Libor. This is a criminal dimension. And they’ve been charged. The British government—.

JAY: Hang on one sec. Just for people that haven’t followed this story at all, just a little more on why this matters so much.

LAPAVITSAS: This matters enormously for a number of reasons. As I said to you, as I said, this is not a real interest rate; this is a benchmark. If the banks determine the benchmark in an untruthful way, then they can influence a whole host of other prices, and they can influence the receipts they make from people to whom they’ve lent money and from the various transactions they make in the derivatives markets. For the banks, the ability to manipulate the Libor is a key mechanism to make extra profits, basically. And they’ve got this ability to do it because they set the Libor privately and in a special committee, which they run themselves.

Now, the British government is making out that this is a criminal act, which it is, of course, because collusion with the aim of making extra profits is criminal. The point is, however—and this is something that the British government wishes to keep quiet—it isn’t simply criminality here. It looks as if the entire game is rigged from beginning to end. In other words, it isn’t simply collusion and illegality. The game is rotten.

And it is rotten for two reasons, I would argue. First, the banks have got an incentive to present falsely low rates, because they in this way appear to be stronger than their competitors. And the banks have got an incentive to manipulate the rate sometimes up, sometimes down, because they make different payments in this way on their derivatives portfolio. The banks, then, have got clear incentives to manipulate it, and they signal their incentives to each other.

So this committee doesn’t work. It doesn’t work systematically in the public interest; it works in the interest of banks. This is becoming increasingly clear, and this is going to be big news, I think, in the months to come, because, of course, there are more banks that would be hit—that will be charged fines in the months ahead.

[THE REAL NEWS]

image: AllVoices.com