Dinsfla

Archive | dinsfla

Fraud Factories, MERS, LPS, Forgeries: Rep. Alan Grayson Explains the Foreclosure Fraud Crisis

Fraud Factories, MERS, LPS, Forgeries: Rep. Alan Grayson Explains the Foreclosure Fraud Crisis

RepAlanGrayson | September 30, 2010
.

This is Rep. Alan Grayson explaining the crisis of foreclosure fraud and how it links to the entire securitization chain of Wall Street.

.

One of My First Videos 2/10/2010

This is what made plenty of noise!


.

This is the actual “BOGUS ASSIGNEE” that was found…then came many.


.


.
.
.
_________________________________________


_________________________________________

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, bogus, chain in title, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, dinsfla, DOCX, fannie mae, florida default law group, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, investigation, jeff carbiener, jeffrey stephan, Kristine Wilson, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., law offices of Marshall C. Watson pa, Lender Processing Services Inc., linda green, LPS, mbs, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, notary fraud, note, robo signers, securitization, shapiro & fishman pa, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, stopforeclosurefraud.com, sub-prime, Supreme Court, trade secrets, Tywanna Thomas1 Comment

Short Sales…A Breeding Ground for Fraud?

Short Sales…A Breeding Ground for Fraud?

  I’ll Say it again Caveat Emptor… I do hope NAR’s President Vicki Cox Golder got my email!

By: Carrie Bay 04/23/2010 DSNEWS.COM

With defaults continuing to mount and declining property values still widespread, the industry is seeing an increase in short sales. Such transactions are expected to burgeon even further now that the federal government has implemented its Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) program.

Under HAFA, servicers participating in the administration’s foreclosure prevention effort are required to consider a short sale for all homeowners that don’t qualify for a modification, and incentives are paid out to borrowers, servicers, and lien holders for successful short sales.

With the new policies and still-precarious market conditions, short sales are gaining in popularity among lenders and distressed homeowners alike, but as with any modus operandi that rapidly picks up steam, this proliferation can open the gate for fraudulent activity.

Experts say one area of the short sale process particularly vulnerable to fraud is property valuation. Bank-owned fraud attributed directly to schemes involving short sales and REO inventories has increased by 40 percent over the past year and has more than doubled from two years ago, according to market data from the California-based risk mitigation firm Interthinx.

The administration’s HAFA program allows broker price opinions (BPOs) to be used to determine the value of properties to establish a minimum offer for a short sale. Some industry groups claim the allowance of BPOs is likely to exacerbate the potential for fraud. They say that the real estate agents and brokers who perform BPOs have an inherent bias toward producing a fee for themselves, irrespective of ensuring a fair return for the lien holder or homeowner.

In response to these allegations, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) stressed that BPOs are completed by licensed real estate agents who have a detailed knowledge and understanding of real estate pricing and local market trends. The organization argues that BPOs are widely accepted in the industry because of their established reliability and accuracy, and practitioners providing BPOs must adhere to a rigorous code of ethics and recognize their fiduciary responsibility to their clients.

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has described short-sale fraud schemes as “difficult to detect since the lender agrees to the transaction,” they are moving higher on the agency’s list of types of mortgage fraud to watch, with the number of cases mounting rapidly.

The FBI defines such fraud as: “Any material misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission relied upon by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase, or insure a loan.”

Freddie Mac recently issued a notice to its servicers and real estate practitioners on what the GSE called an emerging fraud trend – short payoff, or short sale, fraud.

Short sale volume at Freddie Mac has grew more than 1,000 percent from 2007 to 2009, and the GSE says this upward trend in volume leaves the market ripe for incidences of short payoff fraud.

According to a member of Freddie Mac’s Fraud Investigation Unit, any misrepresentation related to the buyer, a subsequent transaction at a higher prices, or the seller’s hardship reason to qualify for a short sale constitutes fraud.

The GSE outlined several red flags that might suggest short sale fraud:

  • Sudden borrower default, with no prior delinquency history, and the borrower cannot adequately explain the sudden default.
  • The borrower is current on all other obligations.
  • The borrower’s financial information indicates conflicting spending, saving, and credit patterns that do not fit a delinquency profile.
  • The buyer of the property is an entity.
  • The purchase contract has an option clause to resell the property.

Treasury officials say they have already incorporated safeguards against fraud into HAFA. To participate in the program, borrowers and the licensed real estate agent who lists the property are required to sign a Short Sale Agreement (SSA) and sales contract attesting that the transaction is being conducted at arm’s length, meaning the property is not being sold to a relative.

In addition, buyers must agree not to resell, or “flip,” the home within 90 days of the closing date, and the lender/servicer must have an independent property valuation in hand that meets their pre-set net return requirement before agreeing to the short sale. Treasury officials say servicers should terminate the short sale agreement if any evidence of falsification or misrepresentation is discovered.

Related Stories:

AGENTS BEWARE! HERE COME THE HAFA VENDORS aka LPS AFTER YOUR COMMISSION

National foreclosure auctions go online via LPS: “CAVEAT EMPTOR”

Short Sale Supervisor Talks to a Real Estate Agent – Recorded Conversation

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, dinsfla, foreclosure fraud, short sale0 Comments

Daily Inspiration:

Daily Inspiration:

“Whatever you do, you need courage. Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising that tempt you to believe your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires some of the same courage that a soldier needs. Peace has its victories, but it takes brave men and women to win them.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Posted in dinsfla, dinsfla inspirationalComments Off on Daily Inspiration:

§ RICO SECTION 1956. Laundering of monetary instruments

§ RICO SECTION 1956. Laundering of monetary instruments

Paying Attention?…ok

§ 1956. Laundering of monetary instruments

How Current is This?
(a)
(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity­
(A)
(i) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or
(ii) with intent to engage in conduct constituting a violation of section 7201 or 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part­
(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
(ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,
shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. For purposes of this paragraph, a financial transaction shall be considered to be one involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity if it is part of a set of parallel or dependent transactions, any one of which involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, and all of which are part of a single plan or arrangement.
(2) Whoever transports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit, or transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States or to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States­
(A) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or
(B) knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that such transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or in part­
(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
(ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,
shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. For the purpose of the offense described in subparagraph (B), the defendant’s knowledge may be established by proof that a law enforcement officer represented the matter specified in subparagraph (B) as true, and the defendant’s subsequent statements or actions indicate that the defendant believed such representations to be true.
(3) Whoever, with the intent­
(A) to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity;
(B) to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property believed to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
(C) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,
conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction involving property represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, or property used to conduct or facilitate specified unlawful activity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. For purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (2), the term “represented” means any representation made by a law enforcement officer or by another person at the direction of, or with the approval of, a Federal official authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of this section.
(b) Penalties.­
(1) In general.­ Whoever conducts or attempts to conduct a transaction described in subsection (a)(1) or (a)(3), or section 1957, or a transportation, transmission, or transfer described in subsection (a)(2), is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than the greater of­
(A) the value of the property, funds, or monetary instruments involved in the transaction; or
(B) $10,000.
(2) Jurisdiction over foreign persons.­ For purposes of adjudicating an action filed or enforcing a penalty ordered under this section, the district courts shall have jurisdiction over any foreign person, including any financial institution authorized under the laws of a foreign country, against whom the action is brought, if service of process upon the foreign person is made under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the laws of the country in which the foreign person is found, and­
(A) the foreign person commits an offense under subsection (a) involving a financial transaction that occurs in whole or in part in the United States;
(B) the foreign person converts, to his or her own use, property in which the United States has an ownership interest by virtue of the entry of an order of forfeiture by a court of the United States; or
(C) the foreign person is a financial institution that maintains a bank account at a financial institution in the United States.
(3) Court authority over assets.­ A court may issue a pretrial restraining order or take any other action necessary to ensure that any bank account or other property held by the defendant in the United States is available to satisfy a judgment under this section.
(4) Federal receiver.­
(A) In general.­ A court may appoint a Federal Receiver, in accordance with subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, to collect, marshal, and take custody, control, and possession of all assets of the defendant, wherever located, to satisfy a civil judgment under this subsection, a forfeiture judgment under section 981 or 982, or a criminal sentence under section 1957 or subsection (a) of this section, including an order of restitution to any victim of a specified unlawful activity.
(B) Appointment and authority.­ A Federal Receiver described in subparagraph (A)­
(i) may be appointed upon application of a Federal prosecutor or a Federal or State regulator, by the court having jurisdiction over the defendant in the case;
(ii) shall be an officer of the court, and the powers of the Federal Receiver shall include the powers set out in section 754 of title 28, United States Code; and
(iii) shall have standing equivalent to that of a Federal prosecutor for the purpose of submitting requests to obtain information regarding the assets of the defendant­
(I) from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury; or
(II) from a foreign country pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty, multilateral agreement, or other arrangement for international law enforcement assistance, provided that such requests are in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Attorney General.
(c) As used in this section­
(1) the term “knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity” means that the person knew the property involved in the transaction represented proceeds from some form, though not necessarily which form, of activity that constitutes a felony under State, Federal, or foreign law, regardless of whether or not such activity is specified in paragraph (7);
(2) the term “conducts” includes initiating, concluding, or participating in initiating, or concluding a transaction;
(3) the term “transaction” includes a purchase, sale, loan, pledge, gift, transfer, delivery, or other disposition, and with respect to a financial institution includes a deposit, withdrawal, transfer between accounts, exchange of currency, loan, extension of credit, purchase or sale of any stock, bond, certificate of deposit, or other monetary instrument, use of a safe deposit box, or any other payment, transfer, or delivery by, through, or to a financial institution, by whatever means effected;
(4) the term “financial transaction” means
(A) a transaction which in any way or degree affects interstate or foreign commerce
(i) involving the movement of funds by wire or other means or
(ii) involving one or more monetary instruments, or
(iii) involving the transfer of title to any real property, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, or
(B) a transaction involving the use of a financial institution which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce in any way or degree;
(5) the term “monetary instruments” means
(i) coin or currency of the United States or of any other country, travelers’ checks, personal checks, bank checks, and money orders, or
(ii) investment securities or negotiable instruments, in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery;
(6) the term “financial institution” includes­
(A) any financial institution, as defined in section 5312 (a)(2) of title 31, United States Code, or the regulations promulgated thereunder; and
(B) any foreign bank, as defined in section 1 of the International Banking Act of 1978 ( 12 U.S.C. 3101);
(7) the term “specified unlawful activity” means­
(A) any act or activity constituting an offense listed in section 1961 (1) of this title except an act which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31;
(B) with respect to a financial transaction occurring in whole or in part in the United States, an offense against a foreign nation involving­
(i) the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance (as such term is defined for the purposes of the Controlled Substances Act);
(ii) murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, destruction of property by means of explosive or fire, or a crime of violence (as defined in section 16);
(iii) fraud, or any scheme or attempt to defraud, by or against a foreign bank (as defined in paragraph 7 of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978)); [1]
(iv) bribery of a public official, or the misappropriation, theft, or embezzlement of public funds by or for the benefit of a public official;
(v) smuggling or export control violations involving­
(I) an item controlled on the United States Munitions List established under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act ( 22 U.S.C. 2778); or
(II) an item controlled under regulations under the Export Administration Regulations (15 C.F.R. Parts 730–774);
(vi) an offense with respect to which the United States would be obligated by a multilateral treaty, either to extradite the alleged offender or to submit the case for prosecution, if the offender were found within the territory of the United States; or
(vii) trafficking in persons, selling or buying of children, sexual exploitation of children, or transporting, recruiting or harboring a person, including a child, for commercial sex acts;
(C) any act or acts constituting a continuing criminal enterprise, as that term is defined in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act ( 21 U.S.C. 848);
(D) an offense under section 32 (relating to the destruction of aircraft), section 37 (relating to violence at international airports), section 115 (relating to influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member), section 152 (relating to concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery), section 175c (relating to the variola virus), section 215 (relating to commissions or gifts for procuring loans), section 351 (relating to congressional or Cabinet officer assassination), any of sections 500 through 503 (relating to certain counterfeiting offenses), section 513 (relating to securities of States and private entities), section 541 (relating to goods falsely classified), section 542 (relating to entry of goods by means of false statements), section 545 (relating to smuggling goods into the United States), section 549 (relating to removing goods from Customs custody), section 554 (relating to smuggling goods from the United States), section 641 (relating to public money, property, or records), section 656 (relating to theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee), section 657 (relating to lending, credit, and insurance institutions), section 658 (relating to property mortgaged or pledged to farm credit agencies), section 666 (relating to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds), section 793, 794, or 798 (relating to espionage), section 831 (relating to prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials), section 844 (f) or (i) (relating to destruction by explosives or fire of Government property or property affecting interstate or foreign commerce), section 875 (relating to interstate communications), section 922 (l) (relating to the unlawful importation of firearms), section 924 (n) (relating to firearms trafficking), section 956 (relating to conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure certain property in a foreign country), section 1005 (relating to fraudulent bank entries), 1006 [2] (relating to fraudulent Federal credit institution entries), 1007 [2] (relating to Federal Deposit Insurance transactions), 1014 [2] (relating to fraudulent loan or credit applications), section 1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse), 1032 [2] (relating to concealment of assets from conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent of financial institution), section 1111 (relating to murder), section 1114 (relating to murder of United States law enforcement officials), section 1116 (relating to murder of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), section 1201 (relating to kidnaping), section 1203 (relating to hostage taking), section 1361 (relating to willful injury of Government property), section 1363 (relating to destruction of property within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), section 1708 (theft from the mail), section 1751 (relating to Presidential assassination), section 2113 or 2114 (relating to bank and postal robbery and theft), section 2252A (relating to child pornography) where the child pornography contains a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, section 2260 (production of certain child pornography for importation into the United States), section 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), section 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), section 2319 (relating to copyright infringement), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit goods and services), section 2332 (relating to terrorist acts abroad against United States nationals), section 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), section 2332b (relating to international terrorist acts transcending national boundaries), section 2332g (relating to missile systems designed to destroy aircraft), section 2332h (relating to radiological dispersal devices), section 2339A or 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorists), section 2339C (relating to financing of terrorism), or section 2339D (relating to receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization) of this title, section 46502 of title 49, United States Code, a felony violation of the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988 (relating to precursor and essential chemicals), section 590 of the Tariff Act of 1930 ( 19 U.S.C. 1590) (relating to aviation smuggling), section 422 of the Controlled Substances Act (relating to transportation of drug paraphernalia), section 38 (c) (relating to criminal violations) of the Arms Export Control Act, section 11 (relating to violations) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, section 206 (relating to penalties) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, section 16 (relating to offenses and punishment) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, any felony violation of section 15 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (relating to supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits fraud) involving a quantity of benefits having a value of not less than $5,000, any violation of section 543(a)(1) of the Housing Act of 1949 (relating to equity skimming), any felony violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, any felony violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or section 92 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ( 42 U.S.C. 2122) (relating to prohibitions governing atomic weapons) [3] environmental crimes
(E) a felony violation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ( 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Ocean Dumping Act ( 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships ( 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act ( 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), or the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act ( 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.); or
(F) any act or activity constituting an offense involving a Federal health care offense;
(8) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(d) Nothing in this section shall supersede any provision of Federal, State, or other law imposing criminal penalties or affording civil remedies in addition to those provided for in this section.
(e) Violations of this section may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and by such components of the Department of the Treasury as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct, as appropriate, and, with respect to offenses over which the Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction, by such components of the Department of Homeland Security as the Secretary of Homeland Security may direct, and, with respect to offenses over which the United States Postal Service has jurisdiction, by the Postal Service. Such authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Postal Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Postal Service, and the Attorney General. Violations of this section involving offenses described in paragraph (c)(7)(E) may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and the National Enforcement Investigations Center of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(f) There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section if­
(1) the conduct is by a United States citizen or, in the case of a non-United States citizen, the conduct occurs in part in the United States; and
(2) the transaction or series of related transactions involves funds or monetary instruments of a value exceeding $10,000.
(g) Notice of Conviction of Financial Institutions.­ If any financial institution or any officer, director, or employee of any financial institution has been found guilty of an offense under this section, section 1957 or 1960 of this title, or section 5322 or 5324 of title 31, the Attorney General shall provide written notice of such fact to the appropriate regulatory agency for the financial institution.
(h) Any person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this section or section 1957 shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
(i) Venue.­
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a prosecution for an offense under this section or section 1957 may be brought in­
(A) any district in which the financial or monetary transaction is conducted; or
(B) any district where a prosecution for the underlying specified unlawful activity could be brought, if the defendant participated in the transfer of the proceeds of the specified unlawful activity from that district to the district where the financial or monetary transaction is conducted.
(2) A prosecution for an attempt or conspiracy offense under this section or section 1957 may be brought in the district where venue would lie for the completed offense under paragraph (1), or in any other district where an act in furtherance of the attempt or conspiracy took place.
(3) For purposes of this section, a transfer of funds from 1 place to another, by wire or any other means, shall constitute a single, continuing transaction. Any person who conducts (as that term is defined in subsection (c)(2)) any portion of the transaction may be charged in any district in which the transaction takes place.


Source:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001956—-000-.html

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 95 > § 1956

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, dinsfla, docs-4u, foreclosure fraud, HERS, scam, title company5 Comments

Taibbi: Will Goldman Sachs Prove Greed Is God?

Taibbi: Will Goldman Sachs Prove Greed Is God?

Contributed by Philstockworld (Reporter)
// Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:59

Taibbi: Will Goldman Sachs Prove Greed Is God?

Gordon GeckoCourtesy of John Lounsbury

Matt Taibbi has a feature article in The Guardian which parodies the Gordon Gecko “Greed is good” statement from the film “Wall Street”. He carries the subject forward to develop a picture of Ayn Rand Objectivism taking over the world.

This is an article that will make some readers scream in disgust at the position Matt espouses and others scream in disgust at the Randian world he rants against. He concludes the article:

This debate is going to be crystallised in the Goldman case. Much of America is going to reflexively insist that Goldman’s only crime was being smarter and better at making money than IKB and ABN-Amro, and that the intrusive, meddling government (in the American narrative, always the bad guy!) should get off Goldman’s Armani-clad back. Another side is going to argue that Goldman winning this case would be a rebuke to the whole idea of civilisation – which, after all, is really just a collective decision by all of us not to screw each other over even when we can. It’s an important moment in the history of modern global capitalism: whether or not to move forward into a world of greed with out limits.

Taibbi’s conclusion is similar to my repeated belief that it is important for the SEC vs. Goldman Sachs case to go to trial so the convoluted financial processes involved can be presented and reviewed by both plaintiff and defendant. The nature of the machinations must be understood by the masses and the limits of current law must be defined in order to have a rational debate. We need a complete expose so we can make logical decisions about where the financial system should go from here.

Absent the trial or some other process of discovery we risk being doomed to divide into three camps:

  1. The Randians’ anything goes credo.
  2. Those who want to regulate everything to death.
  3. The vast majority who abandon hope of ever understanding enough to have an opinion.

We need a citizenry that understands what has happened to a sufficient extent to support some rational middle ground between the law of the jungle and all animals in zoo cages. 

More on this topic (What’s this?)

Jon Stewart on Goldman Sachs (Red Hot Energy and Gold – Global…, 4/20/10)

Read more on Goldman Sachs Group at Wikinvest


continue reading

Read the original story at Phil’s Stock World

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, dinsfla, goldman sachs, matt taibbi, naked short selling, S.E.C., scam0 Comments

Bain v. METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE GROUP INC., Dist. Court, WD Washington, Seattle: LISTEN UP!

Bain v. METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE GROUP INC., Dist. Court, WD Washington, Seattle: LISTEN UP!

What a disaster! This ruling is absolutely hideous!

  • Ask these “VP’s” where MERS is located?
  • Who do they answer to?
  • Who is their superior in MERS?
  • How many meetings do they attend?
  • Are they paid employees?
  • What MERS branch do they work out of?

COMPLETE AND UTTER BULL SHIT!

Under the contract with MERS, they were appointed…

“CORRECTION “SELF” APPOINTED”

The instant motion for summary judgment concerns only one Defendant: Lender Processing Services (“LPS”). LPS “process[es] the necessary paperwork to pursue non-judicial foreclosure on behalf of its servicer and lender clients.” (Allen Decl. (Dkt. No. 74 at 1).) LPS had contracts with Defendants IndyMac Bank (now IndyMac Federal Bank) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”). Under the contract with MERS, LPS[3] employees were “appointed as assistant secretaries and vice presidents of [MERS] and, as such, are authorized to . . . execute any and all documents necessary to foreclose upon the property securing any mortgage loan registered on the MERS system

[ipaper docId=30483227 access_key=key-1wvrddmbshf3b79tlcrz height=600 width=600 /]

How about Christina’s many signatures and positions in 1-5 banks below? So not only does she sign for MERS????

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tL8mNL4bYw]

Hypothetically…even *if* they had authority…they are FORGING these documents!!!

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



Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, dinsfla, foreclosure fraud, indymac, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, MERS, robo signer, robo signers3 Comments

Daily Inspiration:

Daily Inspiration:

“When one door closes another door opens, but we so often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see the ones which open for us.”

Alexander Graham Bell –

Posted in daily dose, dinsfla, dinsfla inspirational0 Comments

Wells Fargo Assignment to Deutsche Bank violation CC 1095, attorney in fact violation.

Wells Fargo Assignment to Deutsche Bank violation CC 1095, attorney in fact violation.

Via: b.daviesmd6605

The assignment Wells Fargo did for Deutsche Bank. Note on the assignment it says, ” Wells Fargo N.A. Attorney-in-fact for New Century Mortgage Corporation” — this violated California Civil Code 1095. It is suppose to say, “New Century Mortgage Corporation, by Wells Fargo N.A. as Attorney In Fact”

California Civil Code says Civil Code Section 1095 says, ” “When an attorney in fact executes an instrument transferring an estate in real property, he must subscribe the name of his principal to it, and his own name as attorney in fact.”

There is a case, Hodge v. Hodge, 257 Cal. App. 2d 31 (1967), which says that if this is not followed exactly, the transfer is void. And obviously the judge agreed (thank goodness).

They don’t have a power of attorney to go with this assignment either! In discovery they gave us one that was done three months after the assignment; and six months after the NOD.

[ipaper docId=30455767 access_key=key-18e29jr634qn1gwy27o8 height=600 width=600 /]

  • CCC 1095 When an attorney in fact executes an instrument transferring an estate in real property, they must subscribe the name of his principal to it, and his own name as attorney in fact.

Plaintiff correctly asserts that this assignment is invalid for the reason it violates CC § 1095, in that it was executed solely by BANK 1 as attorney-in-fact for BANK X, without subscribing BANK 1 name. See Morrison v. Bowman (1865) 29 Cal. 337, 341, 352; Mitchell v. Benjamin Franklin Bond & Indem. Corp. (1936) 13 Cal.App.2d 447, 448.


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



Posted in conspiracy, dinsfla, foreclosure fraud, note, wells fargo0 Comments

Davies v. Ndex West Llc, Plaintiff Notice to Court–refusal to Comply With Discovery

Davies v. Ndex West Llc, Plaintiff Notice to Court–refusal to Comply With Discovery

Plaintiff is having difficulty in acquiring any documents with the discovery process. There is a Evidence Hearing on 4-26-10. Notice refers to attached letter from Defedants counsel.

Lets make this one FAMOUS!

[scribd id=30416796 key=key-cep46o3kgbqa3o4r8xs mode=list]

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, dinsfla, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, MERS, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, note, onewest0 Comments

Why Your Lawyer May Threaten You With a Deficiency Judgment After Foreclosure

Why Your Lawyer May Threaten You With a Deficiency Judgment After Foreclosure

Why Your Lawyer May Threaten You With a Deficiency Judgment After Foreclosure

One of the reasons homeowners have such a fear of being sued by their bank for a deficiency judgment after facing foreclosure is that nearly any lawyer they contact will bring up this possibility. Some attorneys may even use the threat of further litigation after foreclosure as a reason to file bankruptcy prematurely or otherwise pressure borrowers into retaining legal counsel throughout the process of disposing of the home. Lawyers, though, have a vested interest in keeping clients in fear of litigation, even for such a rare case as deficiency judgments.

Many in the real estate market are aware of the fact that banks rarely, if ever, sue former homeowners after a house has been lost to foreclosure. It is simply not in the bank’s financial interests to hire local attorneys to pursue another lawsuit in the courts and obtain a judgment when it was unable to collect on the initial foreclosure judgment except by selling the underlying asset, the real estate. Lenders know that it may be difficult even to locate the borrowers after a foreclosure in order to serve them properly with the lawsuit. As well, it will be even more difficult to collect the potentially tens of thousands of dollars owed from families who just lost their largest (and sometimes only) asset and who have no respectable credit score to maintain.

But none of this common sense matters when real estate or bankruptcy attorneys are threatening foreclosure victims with the potential of such a judgment and the possibility of having their wages garnished, retirement accounts seized, or similar implausible scenarios. It would seem that this is little more than fearmongering, lawyers attempting to wring a retainer fee out of homeowners or push them into paying a filing fee for bankruptcy. But there are a number of reasons that homeowners are threatened with a deficiency judgment every time they speak with a legal professional regarding foreclosure.

Obviously, in states where deficiency judgments are allowed, there is the possibility of the bank suing homeowners to obtain one. If lawyers did not mention the possibility, and the mortgage company then sued after foreclosure, the homeowners may feel they had been improperly advised. Thus, lawyers should mention any possibility of litigation relating to the foreclosure matter at hand, including future lawsuits even after the house has been auctioned off. From the lawyer’s perspective, past behavior is no indicator of future actions, and just because few banks have ever brought this lawsuit to court in the past does not mean financial firms will never use the law to go after former homeowners for even more money.

Homeowners , though, should evaluate the potential of being sued under such a case and not be afraid to ask their lawyers how many deficiency judgments they have had direct experience with and under what circumstances they occurred. A couple of such cases in decades of practice is a strong indication that banks may still be avoiding such lawsuits against former clients. Also, if the only homeowners the attorney is aware of who were sued after a foreclosure had clearly engaged in mortgage fraud or had substantial liquid assets they bank was aware of, and the current borrowers do not fit into such categories, then the fear of a deficiency may be unfounded.

There is little debate that America is now a society paranoid about being sued and knows that there is always the potential for a frivolous lawsuit by anyone against anyone else, and that the more resources one party has the more likely that party is to win. It should be no surprise that the legal profession is filled with some of the most unhappy people in the working world. Everyone fears a group of people who spend most of their time parsing words and phrases, looking for the simplest reasons to hang others on such legalese.

In foreclosure cases, in the best case a small local bank with tens of millions of dollars is suing a homeowner with little; in the worst case a multinational corporation with over a trillion dollars in assets is suing a homeowner with little. The deck is always stacked in favor of the mortgage companies in such instances in terms of financial resources and time available to go litigating for years. Unless homeowners wish to go down fighting on their own, there may be little money with which to mount their own legal defense with legal assistance.

Attorneys often find themselves in a difficult position in terms of discussing the real possibility of litigation with clients. Although the potential to be sued in any given situation is often quite minuscule, lawyers live in a world where everyone is always trying to get an advantage over everyone else and no one can solve a problem without the fine print and a judge to interpret it. To such eyes, the possibility of a deficiency judgment is a real one and one worth losing sleep over, just because the law is on the books allowing banks to go after former homeowners. Under the circumstances, it is borrowers who need to look a little closer and analyze the reality of the situation with some common sense and from the bank’s perspective; i.e., why would the lender sue a homeowner again after foreclosure?

Source: irslawyertaxattorney

Posted in dinsfla1 Comment

DOCS-4u ISO employees with min. 4 years of Creative Resources

DOCS-4u ISO employees with min. 4 years of Creative Resources

Docs-4u ISO back room clerical Vice President with minimum of 4 years of Creative Resource experience.

GA, MN, TX,FL and DC are a plus.

Must know photoshop 12.0 and commercial art! Be able to create any virtually any mortgage docs requested.

Please see tutorial video below:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFNOMsCSeFo]

Posted in dinsfla, docs-4u, foreclosure fraud0 Comments

FINED! NY Judge Spinner Orders Lender To Pay Long Island Couple $100K

FINED! NY Judge Spinner Orders Lender To Pay Long Island Couple $100K

Originally published: April 21, 2010 8:09 AM
By ELLEN YAN AND CARRIE MASON-DRAFFEN  ellen.yan@newsday.com, carrie.mason-draffen@newsday.com

Quick Summary

A state judge accused a mortgage company of premeditated attempts to destroy an East Northport couple’s chances of keeping their home.

Jane and Anthony Corcione appear

Photo credit: Kevin P. Coughlin | Jane and Anthony Corcione appear outside their East Northport home. A state judge has ordered their lender to pay the borrowers $100,000 in damages and scrapped as much as $119,330 in questionable late charges. (April 20, 2010)

A state judge accused Emigrant Mortgage Co. of premeditated attempts to destroy an East Northport couple’s chances of keeping their home, ordering the lender to pay the borrowers $100,000 in damages and scrapping as much as $119,330 in questionable late charges.

Borrower Jane Corcione could scarcely believe what she heard when a reporter broke the news by phone late Tuesday afternoon on the decision from State Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Arlen Spinner.

“Shut up. Shut up,” she said jokingly. She said she and her husband, Anthony, were ecstatic. “We have been fighting for this for almost two years.”

After a job loss, the Corciones defaulted May 1, 2008, on a $302,500 loan they got the preceding year. The mortgage had an 11.625 percent interest rate that would reset at least 6.375 percentage points higher every August from 2012 to its maturity in 2037, said Spinner’s decision on Friday on Emigrant’s request to move ahead on foreclosure.

But Emigrant waited 14 months before starting a foreclosure case, apparently to rack up penalty fees, the judge concluded. Then, two months ago, on Feb. 23, the lender offered a loan modification plan and 10 days to accept or reject a proposal whose “deplorable particulars” insulated Emigrant from any liability by violating Corciones’ state and federal rights, Spinner wrote.

“This court is driven to the inescapable conclusion that plaintiff has, by way of calculation and premeditation . . . created a scenario whereby it is a virtual certainty that defendants will ultimately be irreparably damaged,” he wrote. “In short, the conduct of plaintiff in this matter has been overreaching, shocking, willful and unconscionable.”

A spokesman for the New York-based lender said the decision was based on inaccuracies and that the lender has made many modifications: “Emigrant believes that the court’s decision in this matter is based upon an incomplete understanding of the underlying facts and certain factual inaccuracies, which Emigrant intends to address with the court as part of a motion to renew and reargue and, if necessary, through an appeal of the court’s decision.”

Spinner is the same judge who gave Greg Horoski and wife,Diana Yano-Horoski, of East Patchogue a Thanksgiving surprise last year by voiding their $292,500 mortgage. He had accused IndyMac Mortgage Services of failing to negotiate a loan modification in good faith. The lender’s appeal is pending.

This time, the judge set the Corciones’ debt at $301,721.58, the remaining principal, and “forever barred” Emigrant from “demanding, collecting or attempting to collect” any interest, default interest, legal fees, advances and other charges that may have accrued from May 1, 2008 to the date of his ruling.

That’s because Spinner did not believe the lender on several fronts, especially its list of charges. That included the lender’s claim of advancing $10,000 to pay the couple’s property taxes, despite contradictory records from Huntington Town and evidence from Emigrant’s own assistant treasurer cited in the decision.

Under Emigrant’s modification proposal, the Corciones would pay about $84,000 of the $119,000-plus arrears at 6 percent interest and have $30,000 forgiven after a year, the decision said.

But what the judge ripped into were the parts that called for the Corciones to “unconditionally” agree not to raise any challenges to Emigrant’s foreclosure actions, including filing for bankruptcy, if the couple defaults again. The agreement also seems to release Emigrant from federal truth in lending laws, the judge said.

“This court has never been presented with such a waiver, especially when accompanied by absurd representations [drafted by the lender] that amount to what could best be described as an express warranty that defendants presently are and will forever be insolvent,” the ruling read.

In the past year, almost 62,000 borrowers in the New York metro area, which includes Long Island, have gotten trial or loan modifications under the federal homeowner rescue program.

Corciones’ attorney, Sean C. Serpe of Manhattan, said any modification of their existing loan has yet to be agreed upon. But for more than a year, Serpe said, his clients had asked for a lower, fixed rate, and when Emigrant did propose a modification, it came with a threat: “If we didn’t respond, we lost any chance of a modification.”

Thank you to: b.daviesmd6605 for the doc below

[ipaper docId=30277188 access_key=key-zln3zjpf6926erdtk4d height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in concealment, corruption, dinsfla, foreclosure fraud, forensic mortgage investigation audit0 Comments


GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives