* Department of Justice alerts judge to favorable ruling
* Ruling endorses key weapon in mortgage fraud cases
* U.S. using FIRREA in pending cases against BofA, Wells Fargo
Reuters-
The U.S. Justice Department has promptly capitalized on a court victory to bolster a case before another federal judge, citing a ruling on Wednesday that endorsed the agency’s use of a little known financial fraud law to prosecute bank actions during the financial crisis.
In a letter made public on Thursday, the agency told U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman on Wednesday that the ruling is one reason why its mortgage-fraud case against Wells Fargo & Co should not be dismissed.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan made that ruling in a lawsuit against Bank of New York Mellon, which the Justice Department accuses of overcharging clients for trading currencies.
[REUTERS]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Here we go another slap on the wrist. Wells Fargo yawns leans back laughs and puts their feet up on their desk. United States government wishes it take down these banks. The United States never won any previous wars against any states and it can win one against the banks either ha ha ha ha wimps
Here is a game changer
//deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/mers-too-many-dead-ducks/ And they all née explicit consent…UETA…:
MER-TOO-MANY-DEAD-DUCKS……. FREDDIE AND FANNIE SHELL GAME BY SHAWN NEWMAN. [below]
A game changer for the alleged lenders and con artist Washington RCW listed below protects the homeowners from MERS electronically filing without their explicit consent to do so and no one did. Not one of us which voids the contracts All states are covered the the UETA LAW.
Washington did not adopt UETA and E-Sign doesn’t apply since we have a statute addressing the issue RCW 19.34.320 [“No digital message shall be deemed to be an instrument under Title 62A RCW unless all parties to the transaction agree, including financial institutions affected.”] http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/uniform-electronic-transactions-acts.aspx
Overview of UETA Section 16
[0012]
UETA Section 16 introduced the concept of a transferable record and leveraged the legal requirements for controlling an electronic chattel paper as defined UCC 9-105 to specify the legal requirements for having control over a transferable record. However, it restricted the scope of a transferable record to be an electronic record that is either a note under Article 3 of the UCC or a document of title (i.e. title) under Article 7 of the UCC. Hence, transferable records are electronic equivalents only to either paper promissory notes (i.e. negotiable instruments) or paper documents of title. UETA Section 16 also requires the issuer of the electronic record to explicitly agree that such a record is to be treated as a transferable record.