Title Company

Archive | title company

After Foreclosure, a Focus on Title Insurance

After Foreclosure, a Focus on Title Insurance


By RON LIEBER
Published: October 8, 2010

When home buyers and people refinancing their mortgages first see the itemized estimate for all the closing costs and fees, the largest number is often for title insurance.

This moment is often profoundly irritating, mysterious and rushed — just like so much of the home-buying process. Lenders require buyers to have title insurance, but buyers are often not sure who picked the insurance company. And the buyers are so exhausted by the gauntlet they’ve already run that they’re not interested in spending any time learning more about the policies and shopping around for a better one.

Besides, does anyone actually know people who have had to collect on title insurance? It ultimately feels like a tax — an extortionate one at that — and not a protective measure.

But all of the sudden, the importance of title insurance is becoming crystal-clear. In recent weeks, big lenders like GMAC Mortgage, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have halted many or all of their foreclosure proceedings in the wake of allegations of sloppiness, shortcuts or worse. And a potential nightmare situation has emerged that has spooked not only homeowners but lawyers, title insurance companies and their investors.

What would happen if scores of people who had lost their homes to foreclosure somehow persuaded a judge to overturn the proceedings? Could they somehow win back the rights to their homes, free and clear of any mortgage? But they may not be able to simply move back into their home at that point. Banks, after all, have turned around and sold some of those foreclosed homes to nice young families reaching out for a bit of the American dream. Would they simply be put out on the street? And then what?

The answer to that last question may depend on whether those new homeowners have title insurance, because people who buy a home without a mortgage can choose to go without a policy.

Title insurance covers you in case people turn up months or years after you buy your home saying that they, in fact, are the rightful owners of the house or the land, or at least had a stake in the transaction. (The insurance may cover you in other instances as well, relating to easements and other matters, but we’ll leave those aside for now.)

Continue reading…NEW YORK TIMES

.

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, Old Republic Title, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, title company, Title insurance2 Comments

North American Title Complaint to California–Fraudulent Documents

North American Title Complaint to California–Fraudulent Documents

North American Title Complaint to California–Fraudulent Documents

From: Brian Davies

Complaint to the State of California on title and escrow fraud. Security interest not perfected. Married sole and separate. Not single. Never can a married man ever be listed as single. Let alone I was married and they never got a quit claim release.

[ipaper docId=38476963 access_key=key-2h0zxem20tvkxaiflc52 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in lennar, north american title, title company, Title insurance4 Comments

CONGRESSMAN GRAYSON CALLS ON FLORIDA SUPREME COURT TO HALT ALL FORECLOSURES

CONGRESSMAN GRAYSON CALLS ON FLORIDA SUPREME COURT TO HALT ALL FORECLOSURES

September 20, 2010

Chief Justice Charles T. Canady
Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900

Dear Chief Justice Canady,

I am disturbed by the increasing reports of predatory ‘foreclosure mills’ in Florida. The New York Times and Mother Jones have both recently reported on the rampant and widespread practices of document fraud and forgery involved in mortgage assignments. My staff has spoken with multiple foreclosure specialists and attorneys in Florida who confirm these reports.

Three foreclosure mills – the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, Shapiro & Fishman, and the Law Offices of David J. Stern – constitute roughly 80% of all foreclosure proceedings in the state of Florida. All are under investigation by Attorney General Bill McCollum. If the reports I am hearing are true, the illegal foreclosures taking place represent the largest seizure of private property ever attempted by banks and government entities. This is lawlessness.

I respectfully request that you abate all foreclosures involving these firms until the Attorney General of the state of Florida has finished his investigations of those firms for document fraud.

I have included a court order, in which Chase, WAMU, and Shapiro and Fishman are excoriated by a judge for document fraud on the court. In this case, Chase attempted to foreclose on a home, when the mortgage note was actually owned by Fannie Mae.

Taking someone’s home should not be done lightly. And it should certainly be done in accordance with the law.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Alan Grayson
Member of Congress


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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, bogus, chain in title, chase, conflict of interest, congress, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, investigation, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., law offices of Marshall C. Watson pa, MERS, MERSCORP, Moratorium, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, notary fraud, title company, trade secrets, Trusts, Wall Street, wamu, washington mutual1 Comment

NY SUPREME COURT DENIES ‘MERS’| NO CRYSTAL CLEAR INVOVEMENT AS “NOMINEE”

NY SUPREME COURT DENIES ‘MERS’| NO CRYSTAL CLEAR INVOVEMENT AS “NOMINEE”

Dated: March 24. 2010
Lyons, New York

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) moves under Article 11 of the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) and within the limitations period set forth in RPTL § 1137 for an order setting aside a deed issued pursuant to a tax foreclosure proceeding under Article 11. The operative facts are uncomplicated and undisputed.

The central question presented in the instant matter are the rights, if any, Wilmington Finance and/or MERS gained under RPTL §I 125(a) by virtue of these references in the Mortgage.

To accept MERS’ argument would require the County to read every mortgage from A to Z to make sure there are no “Nominees” of the Lender entitled to notice of tax foreclosure in lieu of or in addition to the Lender.

Second, the Mortgage from which MERS derives its claim of right to statutory notice under RPTL § 1125 is by no means crystal clear as to what MERS’ involvement as “Nominee” requires after the recording of the mortgage. Indeed, MERS does not explain what role the “Nominee” plays in the recording of a mortgage, or thereafter, except perhaps as something akin to a power-of-attorney or agent, albeit with independent standing. If the later is the case, it is incumbent upon the “Nominee” to state its status as one due notice in the separate declaration of interest form required under section RPTL §1126, which the County does have a categorical duty to read.

According, the application of MERS shall be, and the same hereby is, denied.

[ipaper docId=37751868 access_key=key-24fih6oxf1j7dp0inp5q height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in conflict of interest, conspiracy, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Supreme Court, TAXES, title company1 Comment

WANTED: Attorney ‘Signatures’ From Law Office of David. J. Stern

WANTED: Attorney ‘Signatures’ From Law Office of David. J. Stern

Please submit documents that have been signed by any attorney from The Law Offices of David J. Stern located in Florida. I am collecting the signatures.

Can be any of the following:

  • Lis Pendens
  • Assignments
  • Affidavits
  • Complaint
  • Pleadings

Thank you in advance.

Click Envelope to Upload Documents

Or Info at stopforeclosurefraud.com

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



Posted in foreclosure, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, investigation, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., lis pendens, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., note, signatures, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, title company, Trusts1 Comment

Clogged foreclosure pipeline may lead to DJSP layoffs

Clogged foreclosure pipeline may lead to DJSP layoffs

DinSFLA here: Side note…DJSP recently signed what may be the largest lease in Orlando this year. They plan to open a 12,870-square-foot in Highwoods Properties’ Landmark Center Two, near Lake Eola.

by Austin Kilgore September 9, 2010

The clogged foreclosure pipeline is delaying new foreclosure filings, and Florida-based processing services firm DJSP Enterprises said it’s considering layoffs to deal with the decreased business.

DJSP Enterprises’ main client is The Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. (DJSPA). In the DJSP Enterprises second quarter 2010 and mid-year earnings report released this week, the company said a slow down in new foreclosure filings will likely necessitate cost cutting and personnel layoffs. The company said it initially believed file volume would increase in the third quarter, leading to the decision to maintain current staffing levels. However, file volumes continue to be delayed and existing staffing levels are not sustainable indefinitely, the report said.

“While a large portion of our business can only be processed with human capital, we are identifying opportunities where technology and process change can be implemented to create efficiency,” recently-appointed DJSPA President and COO Richard “Rick” Powers said in the financial statement. “We are prepared to create efficiencies and make cuts where appropriate over the next three to six months.”

Continue reading ….REO Insider

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



Posted in Bank Owned, djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, jobless, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., mortgage, REO, stock, title company, Wall Street3 Comments

DJSP reports smaller profit as AG probe looms

DJSP reports smaller profit as AG probe looms

South Florida Business Journal

Tuesday, September 7, 2010, 6:05pm EDT

As an investigation by the Florida Attorney General’s Office looms over its chairman and CEO, Plantation-based DJSP Enterprises reported a decline in both profits and income during the second quarter.

The foreclosure and title processing company (NASDAQ: DJSP) reported net income of $3.8 million, or 32 cents a share, on revenue of $56.1 million. That’s down from net income of $14.1 million, or 73 cents a share, on revenue of $61.7 million in the second quarter of 2009.

DJSP handles foreclosure legal work for major lenders, and its largest client is the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. The lawyer is chairman and CEO of DJSP.

On Aug. 10, Attorney General Bill McCollum announced he had started an investigation of David J. Stern, P.A., along with three other Florida law firms, over whether they engaged in unfair and deceptive actions in the handling of foreclosure cases. There have been allegations that the law firms fabricated mortgage assignments to speed up foreclosures.

David J. Stern, P.A. responded to the news by stating that it would cooperate with the investigation and it has done nothing wrong.

In addition, a pending class action lawsuit accuses Stern and his firm of violating the RICO Act.

Continue reading… South Florida Business Journal


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



Posted in chain in title, class action, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, djsp enterprises, fannie mae, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, investigation, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, notary fraud, racketeering, RICO, robo signers, stock, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, stopforeclosurefraud.com, title company3 Comments

CLASS ACTION AMENDED against MERSCORP to include Shareholders, DJSP

CLASS ACTION AMENDED against MERSCORP to include Shareholders, DJSP

Kenneth Eric Trent, P.A. of Broward County has amended the Class Action complaint Figueroa v. MERSCORP, Inc. et al filed on July 26, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida.

Included in the amended complaint is MERS shareholders HSBC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Company, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, WAMU, Countrywide, GMAC, Guaranty Bank, Merrill Lynch, Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), Norwest, Bank of America, Everhome, American Land Title, First American Title, Corinthian Mtg, MGIC Investor Svc, Nationwide Advantage, Stewart Title,  CRE Finance Council f/k/a Commercial Mortgage Securities Association, Suntrust Mortgage,  CCO Mortgage Corporation, PMI Mortgage Insurance Company, Wells Fargo and also DJS Processing which is owned by David J. Stern.

MERSCORP shareholders…HERE

[ipaper docId=36456183 access_key=key-26csq0mmgo6l8zsnw0is height=600 width=600 /]

Related article:

______________________

CLASS ACTION FILED| Figueroa v. Law Offices Of David J. Stern, P.A. and MERSCORP, Inc.

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



Posted in bank of america, chain in title, citimortgage, class action, concealment, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, countrywide, djsp enterprises, fannie mae, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, Freddie Mac, HSBC, investigation, jpmorgan chase, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., lawsuit, mail fraud, mbs, Merrill Lynch, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, Mortgage Bankers Association, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, non disclosure, notary fraud, note, racketeering, Real Estate, RICO, rmbs, securitization, stock, title company, trade secrets, trustee, Trusts, truth in lending act, wamu, washington mutual, wells fargo13 Comments

MERS comments on the Commission’s Proposed Rule for Asset-Backed w/ Referrals

MERS comments on the Commission’s Proposed Rule for Asset-Backed w/ Referrals

Excerpts:

MERS was created in 1995 under the auspices of the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), as the mortgage industry’s utility, to streamline the mortgage process by using electronic commerce to eliminate paper. Our Board of Directors and shareholders are comprised of representatives from the MBA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, large and small mortgage companies, the American Land Title Association (ALTA), the CRE Finance Council, title underwriters, and mortgage insurance companies.

Our initial focus was to eliminate the need to prepare and record assignments when trading mortgage loans. Our members make MERS the mortgagee and their nominee on the security instruments they record in the county land records. Then they register their loans on the MERS® System so they can electronically track changes in ownership over the life of the loans. This process eliminates the need to record assignments every time the loans are traded. Over 3000 MERS members have registered more than 65 million loans on the MERS® System, saving the mortgage industry hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Veterans Administration (VA) approved MERS for government loans because they recognized the value to consumers. On table-funded loans, MERS eliminates the cost to the consumer of the mortgage assignment ($30 – $150). In addition, the MERS process ensures that lien releases are not delayed by eliminating potential breaks in the chain of title. Similar to the residential product, we also addressed the assignment problem in the commercial market with MERS® Commercial, on which is registered over $110 billion in Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (CMBS) loans.

More than 60 percent of existing mortgages have an assigned MIN, making a total of 65,000,000 loans registered since the inception of the system in 1997. The corresponding data for these mortgages is tracked on the MERS® System from origination through sale and until payoff. MERS therefore offers a substantial base of historical data about existing loans that can be harnessed to bring transparency to existing MBS products. Attached are letters from the MBA, FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on this point.

[ipaper docId=35515524 access_key=key-vw36i36b7uiubwj5x8u height=600 width=600 /]

Related:

MERS May NOT Foreclose for Fannie Mae effective 5/1/2010

_________________________________________

Fannie Mae’s Announcing Miscellaneous Servicing Policy Changes

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



Posted in bank of america, chain in title, fannie mae, foreclosure, foreclosures, Freddie Mac, mbs, MERS, MERSCORP, Mortgage Bankers Association, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Notary, R.K. Arnold, Real Estate, robo signers, S.E.C., securitization, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, title company, Wall Street2 Comments

MUST READ | Finding The Missing Piece In The Reconveyance Puzzle

MUST READ | Finding The Missing Piece In The Reconveyance Puzzle

State-level legislation introduced earlier this year proposed that the beneficiary of a trust deed have only 30 days after payoff to deliver a written request to the trustee to reconvey the property back to the grantor.

If the beneficiary delayed delivery of the request and missed the 30-day deadline by even one day, the beneficiary would be liable to the grantor for $500, the legislation stated. This amount would be in addition to all actual damages incurred by the grantor.

Consequently, if a prospective sale of the property was lost because of a delay in following through with the reconveyance, the beneficiary would be held liable for substantial damages.

This can be a real trap if it takes more than 30 days to forward a request for reconveyance. The $500 fine could be just the beginning. In the opinion of George C. Reinmiller Trustee Inc., beneficiaries, loan servicers and trustees will probably see more of this type of legislation around the country, because a limited few have been slow in completing reconveyances.

The penalties and monetary losses don’t stop there.

With the rise in foreclosures and an increase in budget cutbacks, lenders and servicers have been seeing a higher demand to have complete and accurate collateral files to certify their pools of loans.

By completing an audit and ensuring everything is there, servicers will find it easier to close on the sale of the pool and will see a decrease in requests for the repurchase of certain assets in the file. These certified pools of loans are considered more valuable and are, therefore, sold relatively easily.

In today’s market, purchasers of pools look for any number of reasons for a seller to repurchase loans. One such reason – in fact, the most common reason – is incomplete files.

If there are problems within a pool, lenders and servicers can spend huge amounts of money trying to discover the missing pieces. Another possible headache is the time and money involved to go back and forth with the attorney trying to resolve these types of issues should the loan fall into foreclosure. If the issues cannot be resolved quickly, the seller may have to buy back the loans, which is something a struggling company shudders to hear.

What can lenders and loan servicers do to quickly correct these types of problems or keep them from occurring in the first place?

The more time that passes between origination and file verification, the more costly and difficult it becomes to obtain any missing documents. Sometimes, with cutbacks (such as loss of human resources) or, as we see happening more frequently these days, the relocation of offices, documents can be forgotten or misplaced and can end up sitting incomplete in an abandoned filing cabinet that will probably go untouched until someone accidentally comes across it.

Servicers should take aggressive document control and verify they have the documents they need in each file as soon as possible. If documents are missing, there are still strategies that can be employed.

Finding and obtaining missing original documents that have to be publicly recorded (e.g., mortgages, assignments and assumptions) are fairly easy to retrive. For instance, you can get a certified copy from the county recorder where the property is located, as long as the document was originally recorded.

Research can be done to verify whether the document was recorded by searching the county’s Web site or speaking with the recorder’s office. You may obtain a certified copy by phone or by mailing in a certified copy request to the county recorder. However, there are a few recording districts that require an abstractor to physically come in to research and/or request a copy of a document.

Obtaining copies of missing documents that were never recorded on the public record – such as title policies – can get much more complicated. One can always go directly to the title company or title agent that issued the policy, but with current conditions in the economy and mortgage industry, title companies have been closing their doors.

The next step is to contact the underwriter. Most underwriters will not send the original policy, because they normally do not have it. However, they should be able to send a certified copy. Because each purchaser is different and may have a different concept of what is acceptable, specificity is key. Get a clear definition of what a certified copy of a title policy is from the purchaser before obtaining one from the underwriter.

There is a chance that the underwriter may not have the policy, either. In that case, the underwriter might have to re-issue it, which can get pretty costly. To re-issue the policy, the underwriter will normally require a complete chain of assignments. Most underwriters will only reissue a title policy directly from the current beneficiary of the mortgage and will use the assignments on record to verify that person’s identity.

With Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), missing assignments have, in recent years, become less of a problem for some, but there are still many mortgages that are not registered with MERS. With the countless number of banks and mortgage companies being sold or closing, it can become a Sherlock Holmes case trying to find an entity that can sign and, therefore, complete the assignment chain. It usually starts with searching various Web sites and tracking down the current holder or entity of the company.

When all else fails
Then the phone calls start in an attempt to find the right person to sign the document. What happens if you can’t find anyone to sign? In many cases, when there is no one left that can sign an assignment, a lost assignment affidavit is a possible resolution. But keep in mind that only certain states and/or recording jurisdictions allow these affidavits. If all else fails, then it is up to the courts to resolve the problem, which is when the expenses start to increase once again.

By having all loan files complete, one is able to move quickly if a loan is paid in full, as well. Steep penalties can be avoided in certain states by providing a release or reconveyance in a timely manner. This is especially important if Reinmiller’s opinion holds true and the trend of shortened compliance time frames grows further.

Lenders and servicers should take a proactive approach in their daily functions and do whatever it takes to ensure that their files are complete from the start to avoid costly mistakes with unpredictable results.

Jessica Woods is vice president of Richmond Monroe Group Inc., an outsource services provider offering processing and technology solutions to the servicing industry. She can be reached at (417) 447-2931 or jessicaw@richmondmonroe.com.


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



Posted in conflict of interest, foreclosure, foreclosures, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, title company, trade secrets1 Comment

§ 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

WTF!!! DJSP Enterprises, Inc. Announces Agreement to Acquire Timios, Inc., Expand Presence Into 38 States

WTF!!! DJSP Enterprises, Inc. Announces Agreement to Acquire Timios, Inc., Expand Presence Into 38 States

DJSP Enterprises, Inc. Announces Agreement to Acquire Timios, Inc., Expand Presence Into 38 States

Adds Established National Title Insurance Agency with Multiple Locations Across the US for Expansion of Cyclical Products and Services to the Real Estate and Mortgage Industries

By DJSP Enterprises, Inc.

PLANTATION, Fla., April 19 — /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — DJSP Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq: DJSP, DJSPW, DJSPU), one of the largest providers of processing services for the mortgage and real estate industries in the United States, today announced it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Timios, Inc., a national title insurance and settlement services company. Timios is a licensed title insurance and escrow agent operating in 38 States. Headquartered in Westlake Village, CA, with additional offices in Houston and Plano, Texas, Timios will provide DJSP Enterprises the capability to provide its customers a balanced portfolio of services including new loan origination, refinance and national REO closing and title.  Additionally, Timios handles national loss mitigation services and pre-foreclosure title products from its multiple locations strategically placed for time-zone sensitive fulfillment.

Management expects that Timios, which uses advanced technology to produce a paperless environment, will aid DJSP Enterprises in its commitment to provide its customers with enhanced customer service in all lines of its business as it expands nationally. Timios presently services purchase money, refinance, reverse mortgage, REO and Deed-In-Lieu transactions for some of the largest lenders and servicers nationwide.  Last year, Timios closed in excess of $500 million in residential real estate mortgage transactions, and as forecasted, is expected to more than double the volume in 2010.  In addition, Timios has the capability to complete title searches for DJSP Enterprises’ growing REO liquidation business and loss mitigation business outside of Florida.

DJSP Enterprises will maintain Timios’ three offices while consolidating operations and back-office functions to streamline and reduce expenses.

David J. Stern, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of DJSP Enterprises commented, “This acquisition significantly expands our capacity to effectively handle national services for our current client base.  In addition it will support our cyclical expansion into other lines of the mortgage services business. In particular, our capacity to process national REO closings, refinance transactions, short-sale transactions, Deed in Lieu transactions, property reports, resale transactions, and multiple valuation products will be meaningfully expanded. Timios provides licenses for full settlement services in 38 states and we expect to obtain licenses in at least two additional states before the end of this year.

This acquisition further demonstrates our commitment to becoming the leading cyclical provider of products and services to the real estate and mortgage industries.”

“This transaction represents a great marriage of strengths and assets,” said Trevor Stoffer, president and CEO of Timios, Inc. “Our management teams could not ignore the obvious benefits to both organizations. DJSP Enterprises’ growth in the foreclosure space and our best in class technology and servicing of originations will create a very balanced portfolio. In addition, the financial support from DJSP Enterprises will allow Timios to grow from a boutique services company to a major player in settlement services with a complete offering for lenders.”

DJSP Enterprises will acquire Timios for $1.5 million in cash, 200,000 ordinary shares of DJSP Enterprises, and up to 100,000 ordinary shares of DJSP Enterprises to be earned upon achievement of defined performance metrics. Timios had revenue of $5.05 million for the last 12 months and DJSP Enterprises expects this acquisition to be accretive to earnings by the 3rd Quarter 2010.

The closing of the acquisition is subject to customary due diligence, closing conditions and regulatory approvals.

About DJSP Enterprises, Inc.

DJSP Enterprises is the largest provider of processing services for the mortgage and real estate industries in Florida and one of the largest in the United States. The Company provides a wide range of processing services in connection with mortgages, mortgage defaults, title searches and abstracts, REO (bank-owned) properties, loan modifications, title insurance, loss mitigation, bankruptcy, related litigation and other services. The Company’s principal customer is the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. whose clients include all of the top 10 and 17 of the top 20 mortgage servicers in the United States, many of which have been customers for more than 10 years. The Company has approximately 1,000 employees and contractors and is headquartered in Plantation, Florida, with additional operations in Louisville, Kentucky and San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Company’s U.S. operations are supported by a scalable, low-cost back office operation in Manila, the Philippines that provides data entry and document preparation support for the U.S. operation.

Forward Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, about DJSP Enterprises, Inc. and Timios, Inc. Forward looking statements are statements that are not historical facts. Such forward-looking statements, based upon the current beliefs and expectations of the Company’s management, are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from the forward looking statements. The following factors, among others, could cause actual results to differ from those set forth in the forward-looking statements: business conditions; changing interpretations of generally accepted accounting principles; outcomes of government or other regulatory reviews, particularly those relating to the regulation of the practice of law; the impact of inquiries, investigations, litigation or other legal proceedings involving the Company or its affiliates, which, because of the nature of the Company’s business, have happened in the past to the Company and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A.; the impact and cost of continued compliance with government or state bar regulations or requirements; legislation or other changes in the regulatory environment, particularly those impacting the mortgage default industry; unexpected changes adversely affecting the businesses in which the Company is engaged; fluctuations in customer demand; the Company’s ability to manage rapid growth; intensity of competition from other providers in the industry; general economic conditions, including improvements in the economic environment that slows or reverses the growth in the number of mortgage defaults, particularly in the State of Florida; the ability to efficiently expand its operations to other states or to provide services not currently provided by the Company; the impact and cost of complying with applicable SEC rules and regulation, many of which the Company will have to comply with for the first time after the closing of the business combination; geopolitical events and changes, as well as other relevant risks detailed in the Company’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, (the “SEC”), including its report on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2009, in particular, those listed under “Item 3. Key Information – Risk Factors.” The information set forth herein should be read in light of such risks. The Company does not assume any obligation to update the information contained in this press release.

Company Contact:
David J. Stern
Chairman and CEO
DJSP Enterprises, Inc.
Phone: 954-233-8000, ext. 1113
Email: dstern@dstern.com
or
Kumar Gursahaney
Executive Vice President and CFO
DJSP Enterprises, Inc.
Phone: 954-233-8000, ext. 2024
Email: kgursahaney@dstern.com
Investor Contact:
Hayden IR
Cameron Donahue
Phone: 651-653-1854
Email: cameron@haydenir.com

SOURCE DJSP Enterprises, Inc.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/19/v-fullstory/1586456/djsp-enterprises-inc-announces.html#ixzz0lbZw1okr

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



Posted in foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., title company1 Comment

To ROB a COUNTRY, OWN a BANK: William Black

To ROB a COUNTRY, OWN a BANK: William Black

William Black, author of “Best way to rob a bank is to own one” talks about deliberate fraud on Wall St. courtesy of TheRealNews

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA_MkJB84VA]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISsR7ZiWlsk]

Stop trying to get through the front door…use the back door…Get a Forensic Audit!

Not all Forensic Auditors are alike! FMI may locate exactly where the loan sits today.

 

This will make your lender WANT to communicate with you. Discover what they don’t want you to know. Go back in time and start from the minute you might have seen advertisements that got you hooked ” No Money Down” “100% Financing” “1% interest” “No income, No assetts” NO PROBLEM! Were you given proper disclosures on time, proper documents, was your loan broker providing you fiduciary guidance or did they hide undisclosed fees from you? Did they conceal illegal kickbacks? Did your broker tell you “Don’t worry before your new terms come due we will refinance you”? Did they inflate your appraisal? Did the developer coerce you to *USE* a certain “lender” and *USE* a certain title company?

If so you need a forensic audit. But keep in mind FMI:

DO NOT STOP FORECLOSURE

DO NOT NEGOTIATE ON YOUR BEHALF WITH YOUR BANK OR LENDER

DO NOT MODIFY YOUR LOAN

DO NOT TAKE CASES that is upto your attorney!

FMI does however, provide your Attorney with AMMO to bring your Lender into the negotiation table.

Posted in bank of america, bernanke, chase, citi, concealment, conspiracy, corruption, fdic, FED FRAUD, federal reserve board, FOIA, foreclosure mills, forensic mortgage investigation audit, fraud digest, freedom of information act, G. Edward Griffin, geithner, indymac, jpmorgan chase, lehman brothers, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ, MERS, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, nina, note, onewest, scam, siva, tila, title company, wachovia, washington mutual, wells fargo0 Comments

Bank of America Sues First American on ‘Lien Protection’ Claims

Bank of America Sues First American on ‘Lien Protection’ Claims

Is this the first of many to come?
Bank of America Sues First American on ‘Lien Protection’ Claims

March 18, 2010, 10:46 AM EDT

By David Mildenberg

March 18 (Bloomberg) — Bank of America Corp. stepped up efforts to curtail the cost of soured mortgages by suing First American Corp., claiming the title insurer refused to cover more than 5,500 loans that caused $535 million of losses.

First American, the second-biggest title insurer, was supposed to protect the bank against defective titles on home- equity loans and lines of credit, according to the suit, filed March 5 in a North Carolina court. The suit focuses on loans in which Bank of America relied on a borrower’s word regarding any outstanding liens or mortgages, the suit said.

Home lenders are sparring with mortgage insurers, bond investors and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over who should bear the cost of record defaults. Bank of America, the biggest U.S. lender by assets, said last week it’s writing off $1.5 billion to $2 billion of unpaid home-equity loans each quarter, and has sued MGIC Investment Corp., the biggest mortgage insurer, for allegedly denying millions of dollars of claims.

The policies described in the First American case sound like “liar’s title insurance,” similar to the “liar loans” common among subprime lenders in the middle of the last decade, said Jack M. Guttentag, chairman of GHR Systems, a consulting firm in Wayne, Pennsylvania. Liar loans are industry slang for mortgages made to borrowers who inflated their income on applications that weren’t verified by lenders.

Lenders such as Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America bought “lien protection” plans as a faster, cheaper approach for home-equity loans than full title insurance policies as housing sales soared in the mid-2000s. Full title insurance typically involves an independent check by the insurer on whether the title might face competing claims for ownership or financial obligations.

2,000 Letters

The American Land Title Association, a trade group representing title insurers, opposed some of the lien-protection plans because they offered less legal protection than traditional title insurance.

First American denied or ignored most of Bank of America’s claims in 2008 and 2009, according to the lawsuit. Last August, Santa Ana, California-based First American started sending more than 2,000 letters to the bank seeking information and documents related to the claims, the suit said.

First American subsidiaries “regret that their valuable customer, Bank of America, has chosen to file a legal action against the companies,” spokeswoman Carrie Gaska said in an e-mailed statement. “We are hopeful that we will be able to resolve this matter outside of court with continued discussions.”

The suit was filed in Mecklenburg County Superior Court in Charlotte. Bank of America spokeswoman Shirley Norton had no comment.

MGIC has said it will defend itself against Bank of America’s lawsuit, which was filed by the lender’s Countrywide unit. Bank of America ranked second last year in home mortgage lending behind Wells Fargo & Co.

–With assistance from John Gittelsohn in New York. Editors: William Ahearn, Rick Green

To contact the reporter on this story: David Mildenberg in Charlotte at dmildenberg@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Alec McCabe in New York at amccabe@bloomberg.net

Posted in bank of america, forensic mortgage investigation audit, title company0 Comments


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

Archives