FULL DEPOSITION OF JOSEPH A. SMITH JR | National Mortgage Settlement Monitor


FULL DEPOSITION OF JOSEPH A. SMITH JR | National Mortgage Settlement Monitor

FULL DEPOSITION OF JOSEPH A. SMITH JR | National Mortgage Settlement Monitor

H/T LivingLies

From deposition testimony pages 104 and 105:


Q. And did your office and/or you do anything to ensure compliance with the HAMP and the service participation agreements?


A. “ What we did with all servicers was to meet and require them to provide to us their assessment of what the applicable requirements we’ve just discussed –applicable to their compliance with the settlement were.  And we worked through a series of protocols and adjustments necessary to ensure that we wouldn’t cause them not to comply.


The issue really was whether compliance with the National Mortgage Settlement would require that a servicer put itself in a position of default or where it could be penalized. “


This appears to be an “admission” that the Monitor of the National Mortgage Settlement deliberately made adjustments to ensure that the servicers did not fail the compliance tests.  If they failed, the monitor would adjust the tests so they would pass. 


7415 by DinSFLA on Scribd

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



This post was written by:

- who has written 8833 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

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

Contact the author

One Response to “FULL DEPOSITION OF JOSEPH A. SMITH JR | National Mortgage Settlement Monitor”

  1. Randall Stephens says:

    Thank you for reporting on this.

    The terms of the NMS itself included a substantial “threshold error rate” for the servicers. I don’t recall what the rate was. Reporting on that could likely be found here, or on nakedcap, or via Levitin, or Field. That, in my opinion, rendered the settlement a failure from the outset, and without meaning, or effect.

    Another failure of the NMS was that it depended upon servicers to provide the data, or to “self report.” That is the equivalent of asking a 10 year with guile whether s/he has stolen any cookies from the cookie jar (or the fox guarding the hen house).

    Another failure was in the private companies hired to help Smith crunch and analyze the data provided by the 10 year old/fox/servicers. Several of them had reputations (and litigation history) indicating they were far from honest.

    Another failure … This list could go on, and on.


Leave a Reply

Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com


Please Support Me!

Recent Comments

All Of These Are Troll Comments