Investor | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "Investor"

CITIZEN RESEARCHERS: PLEASE HELP WRITE THIS ARTICLE

CITIZEN RESEARCHERS: PLEASE HELP WRITE THIS ARTICLE


WHY INVESTORS, HOMEOWNERS AND THE ECONOMY
BENEFIT FROM PRINCIPAL WRITE-DOWNS

Principal write-downs have been condemned as morally hazardous.

Failure to include such write-downs may well sink any chances of an economic recovery. To demonstrate the value of write-downs, this research documents the history of homes now on the market due to foreclosure, and the losses to investors from failure to negotiate a meaningful modification.

1. Please limit your research to homes owned by Trusts (look for
the words “trustee for” in the name of the plaintiff.)

2. Search official records (or, in Florida, for a much easier search,
use findthefraud.com) and search document type “Jud”
(Judgments).

3. Find the amount of the judgment.

4. Be sure to include the county, CFN or Book and Page Number for
easy verification.

5. The actual street address almost always follows the legal
description of the property.

6. Final step: enter the address of the property on Google. If the
property is on the market, a listing will almost always appear
from the street address.

7. Please send your research to: szymoniak@mac.com for
compilation.

8. Please include your name if you would like to be listed in the
authors section of this article.

Example:

106 Devonshire Circle
Royal Palm Beach, FL

Sold for $510,772 on April 15, 2005

Final Judgment of Foreclosure Entered for $537,415 on 12/29/2010

Palm Beach County CFN: 20110000161 in favor of
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Trustee for

IMH Asset-Backed Bonds, Series 2005-5

Now Empty and on the Market for $229,900

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

IN RE: EXEC. COMPENSATION INVESTIGATION BANK OF AMERICA -MERRILL LYNCH DEPOSITION OF KEN L. LEWIS

IN RE: EXEC. COMPENSATION INVESTIGATION BANK OF AMERICA -MERRILL LYNCH DEPOSITION OF KEN L. LEWIS


EXCERPTS:

Q. At the point in time of this board
meeting, though, you were relating to the board
that you felt you had a commitment from the Fed and
the Treasury to make good on whatever harm is
caused by the increased losses at Merrill Lynch; is
that right?

A. I had verbal commitments from Ben
Bernanke and Hank Paulson that they were going to
see this through, to fill that hole, and have the
market perceive this as a good deal.

MR. CORNGOLD: Isn’t the only way to
fill that hole, though, to give you money,
not to give you money that you would have to
pay back at some interest rate with some
potential equity interest, too?

THE WITNESS: No. I think you have to
separate the fact that, yes, there is still
some short-term paying -it’s more
short-term paying now than we would have had
had all this not happened, but longer term we
still see a strategic benefit. So we saw it
as a short term versus a long term impact on
the company.

MR. CORNGOLD; When you entered into the
initial contract with Merrill Lynch did you
get a fairness opinion about the transaction?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. CORNGOLD: From whom?

THE WITNESS; Chris Flowers something.

MR. CORNGOLD: And did you get a
fairness opinion from anyone about the
transaction that you entered into with the federal government and the Fed?

THE WITNESS: No. MR. CORNGOLD: Did you consider whether you had a legal obligation to do that? THE WITNESS: I would rely on the advice of the general counsel for that.

MR. CORNGOLD: But when you say that, does that mean that you asked and got advice, or that you didn’t ask but relied
THE WITNESS: I would rely on somebody bringing that question forth, and nobody did.

Q. Did you ask anyone to look into whether the oral, verbal commitments from the Fed and Treasury were enforceable?

A. No. I was going on the word of two very respected individuals high up in the American government.

Q. Wasn’t Mr. Paulson, by his instruction, really asking Bank of America shareholders to take a good part of the hit of the Merrill losses?

A. What he was doing was trying to stem a financial disaster in the financial markets, from his perspective.

Q. From your perspective, wasn’t that one
of the effects of what he was doing?

A. Over the short term, yes, but we still
thought we had an entity that filled two big
strategic holes for us and over long term would
still be an interest to the shareholders.

Q. What do you mean by “short term”?

A. Two to three years.

Q. So isn’t that something that any
shareholder at Bank of America who had less
than a three-year time horizon would want
to know?

A. The situation was that everyone felt
like the deal needed to be completed and to be able
to say that, or that they would impose a big risk
to the financial system if it would not.

MR. LAWSKY: When you say “everyone,”
what do you mean?

THE WITNESS: The people that I was
talking to, Bernanke and Paulson.

MR. LAWSKY: Had it been up to you would
you made the disclosure?

THE WITNESS: It wasn’t up to me.

MR. LAWSKY: Had it been up to you.

THE WITNESS: It wasn’t.

MR. CORNGOLD: Why do you say it wasn’t
up to you? Were you instructed not to tell
your shareholders what the transaction was
going to be?

THE WITNESS: I was instructed that “We
do not want a public disclosure.”

MR. CORNGOLD: Who said that to you?

THE WITNESS: Paulson.

MR. CORNGOLD: When did he say that to
you?

THE WITNESS; Sometime after I asked Ben
Bernanke for something in writing.

Q. When did that occur?

A. Which one?

Q. When did Mr. Paulson state that he did
not want a public disclosure?

A. It was sometime late in the year. I
think it’s actually in the minutes.

MR. LIMAN: If you have the next set of
minutes it might help the witness.

Q. What’s your best recollection of what

Mr. Paulson said to you on that point?

A. That was the conversation that I
mentioned that I went to Bernanke to ask the
question, and he didn’t call me back but Hank did.
The request was for a letter stating what they
would do, and he had those two elements in there.
But the thing that we’re talking about is that he
said “We do not want a public disclosure.”

Q. A public disclosure of what?

A. Of what they were going to be doing for us until it was completed.

[…]

[ipaper docId=68566250 access_key=key-2dc4y4d1doa04df3yxe3 height=600 width=600 /]

 

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

For Bank of America, a $50 Billion Claim of Havoc Looms – SKLAR v. BANK OF AMERICA

For Bank of America, a $50 Billion Claim of Havoc Looms – SKLAR v. BANK OF AMERICA


NYT-

Bank of America’s potential liability for bad mortgages — in the tens of billions of dollars — is well known. But Bank of America is haunted by other demons from the financial crisis, the most significant one being a lawsuit arising from its troubled Merrill Lynch acquisition.

This lawsuit, brought by Bank of America shareholders, claims that Bank of America and its executives, including its former chief executive, Kenneth D. Lewis, failed to disclose what would be a $15.31 billion loss at Merrill in the days before and after the acquisition. The plaintiffs contend that this staggering loss was hidden to ensure that Bank of America shareholders did not vote against the transaction.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

[ipaper docId=66632752 access_key=key-2400ppd87n2krw88f69c height=600 width=600 /]

 

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Banks May Fight Banks as Mortgage Securities Investors Seek Class Status

Banks May Fight Banks as Mortgage Securities Investors Seek Class Status


Just as in Abigail C. Field’s Fortune piece “Fighting a foreclosure suit? Hope for the right judge”, the same may be true for these investors…

Bloomberg-

Bank of America Corp. (BAC), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and other banks may pay more to resolve claims over their alleged roles in the collapse of a $2.3 trillion mortgage- backed securities market if sophisticated investors are allowed to sue as a group along with less savvy ones.

Class-action status allows investors to pool financial and legal resources, giving them greater leverage to win larger settlements or verdicts. The banks, however, have a court ruling on their side that may help fend off such blockbuster cases. It says class status is barred because some investors are too sophisticated — in fact, because some of them are other banks, including JPMorgan.

[BLOOMBERG]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

MERS BULLETIN: Re-Title the Transfer to Non-MERS Member, MERS® ServicerID Modifications, Borrower SS# Needed for Investor Disclosure…etc.

MERS BULLETIN: Re-Title the Transfer to Non-MERS Member, MERS® ServicerID Modifications, Borrower SS# Needed for Investor Disclosure…etc.


The MERS® System is being enhanced effective September 6, 2011.

Existing batch interfaces that you or your technology provider may have installed will continue to function properly, but you must use the new file layouts to take advantage of the enhanced functionality. Some report file layouts have changed.

[ipaper docId=64182385 access_key=key-derj4j31q6um70iis5k height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

New York Attorney General Probing Bank of America Accord, Seeks Client Data

New York Attorney General Probing Bank of America Accord, Seeks Client Data


“Leaders do what needs to be done, when it needs to be done, whether they want to or not, without being asked”

Bloomberg-

Bank of America Corp. (BAC)’s proposed $8.5 billion settlement over mortgage-securitization trusts is being probed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is seeking client information from more than 20 companies.

Schneiderman’s office sent letters dated July 7 to the companies, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), BlackRock Inc. (BLK) and TCW Group Inc., regarding their participation in Bank of America’s proposed deal. He is asking for the information by tomorrow.

The information was requested in connection with an investigation by the office “into certain matters related to securitization of residential mortgages,” according to the letters.

[BLOOMBERG]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

The Swindler and the Home Loans – Gretchen Morgenson

The Swindler and the Home Loans – Gretchen Morgenson


NYT

HOLDING banks accountable for all those disastrous mortgages has been remarkably difficult. But last week, a big bank agreed to pay a price: Bank of America announced that it would part with $8.5 billion to settle claims that its Countrywide Financial unit had packaged garbage loans into investments that were said to be safe.

That is good news for investors, as these things go. But another, lesser-known case now winding its way through the courts may help others recover losses from lenders who dealt in risky mortgages and claimed that they had no duty to their customers.

Continue reading [NEW YORK TIMES]

[ipaper docId=59212998 access_key=key-2iecrsh12607lpl0er9o height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

READ | Bank of America Settlement Agreement w/ Mortgage Bondholders Investors 6/29/2011

READ | Bank of America Settlement Agreement w/ Mortgage Bondholders Investors 6/29/2011


SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Settlement Agreement is entered into by and among (i) The Bank of New York Mellon (f/k/a The Bank of New York) in its capacity as trustee or indenture trustee of certain mortgage-securitization trusts identified herein (“BNY Mellon” or the “Trustee”), and (ii) Bank of America Corporation (“BAC”), and BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC HLS”) (collectively, “Bank of America”) and Countrywide Financial Corporation (“CFC”) and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“CHL”) (collectively, “Countrywide”).

WHEREAS, BNY Mellon is the trustee or indenture trustee for the trusts corresponding to the five hundred and thirty (530) residential mortgage-backed securitizations listed on Exhibit A hereto (the “Covered Trusts”);

WHEREAS, Countrywide sold Mortgage Loans, which served as collateral for the Covered Trusts;

WHEREAS, the Trustee, CHL, and/or BAC HLS are parties to the Pooling and Servicing Agreements and in some cases Sale and Servicing Agreements and Indentures governing the Covered Trusts (as amended, modified, and supplemented from time-to-time, the “Governing Agreements”), and CHL, Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, and/or BAC HLS has acted as Master Servicer for the Covered Trusts (“Master Servicer”);

WHEREAS, certain significant holders of certificates or notes representing interests in certain of the Covered Trusts and investment managers of accounts holding such certificates or notes (the “Institutional Investors,” as defined in more detail in the Institutional Investor Agreement) have entered into a separate Institutional Investor Agreement with the Trustee, Bank of America and Countrywide, the due execution of which is a condition to the effectiveness of this Settlement Agreement;

WHEREAS, allegations have been made of breaches of representations and warranties contained in the Governing Agreements with respect to the Covered Trusts (including alleged failure to comply with underwriting guidelines (including limitations on underwriting exceptions), to comply with required loan-to-value and debt-to-income ratios, to ensure appropriate appraisals of mortgaged properties, and to verify appropriate owner-occupancy

[…]

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70858/000119312511176452/dex992.htm

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

BofA near $8.5 billion settlement on securities

BofA near $8.5 billion settlement on securities


Lets do some math:

$8.5 Billion Settlement for (1) Investor case

$20-25 Billion Settlement for (1,xxx,xxx…) of Foreclosure Fraud cases

NOPE! Don’t add up!

Reuters

Bank of America Corp is close to a deal to pay $8.5 billion to settle claims from a group of powerful investors that lost money on mortgage-backed securities, a person familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.

The deal could embolden investors holding mortgage-backed securities filled with now-toxic home loans to pursue claims against other large mortgage lenders such as Wells Fargo & Co and JPMorgan Chase & Co, analysts said.

A settlement, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, would be the largest in the banking industry to date. It would also require approval by Bank of America’s board, which met on Tuesday to discuss it, according to the source.

Continue reading [REUTERS]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

DEED in LIEU | ‘Zombie notes’ live to haunt deed transfers

DEED in LIEU | ‘Zombie notes’ live to haunt deed transfers


Thousands affected by Fannie Mae tactics

NEWS-PRESS-

David Cruz Jr. got what he believed was a great offer in a foreclosure lawsuit filed against him by giant mortgage lender Fannie Mae.

If Cruz deeded the modest Fort Myers investment house back to Fannie Mae, the government-backed company would release him from the loan’s $123,750 note: the obligation underlying his mortgage.

He deeded the house back to Fannie Mae, but court records show he didn’t get what he bargained for.

Continue Reading [NEWS-PRESS]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

SHAREHOLDER VERIFIED COMPLAINT | BRAUTIGAM v. RUBIN  ‘Citigroup Board, Robo-Signing, Nationwide Title, Derivatives, Breach, Putback’

SHAREHOLDER VERIFIED COMPLAINT | BRAUTIGAM v. RUBIN ‘Citigroup Board, Robo-Signing, Nationwide Title, Derivatives, Breach, Putback’


MICHAEL G. BRAUTIGAM,

v.

ROBERT E. RUBIN, C. MICHAEL
ARMSTRONG, JOHN M. DEUTCH,
ANNE M. MULCAHY, VIKRAM PANDIT,
ALAIN J.P BELDA, TIMOTHY C. COLLINS,
JERRY A GRUNDHOFR, ROBERT L. JOSS,
ANDREW N. LIVERIS, MICHAEL E. O’NEILL,
RICHARD D. PARSONS, LAWRENCE R.
RICCIARDI, JUDITH RODIN, ROBERT
L. RYAN, ANTHONY M. SANTOMERO,
DIANA L. TAYLOR, WILLIAM S. THOMPSON,
JR., AND ERNESTO ZEDILLO

~
Excerpts:


I. This is a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf and for the benefit of Citigroup against certain of its current and former directors. Citigroup is a global . financial services company, and provides consumers, corporations, governments and institutions with a range of financial products and services. The recipient of some $45 billion of federal government bail-out monies, Citigroup has suffered, and will continue to suffer, serious financial and reputational impacts from the inadequate servicing of its troubled residential mortgage loans.

2. On April 13, 2011, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) publicized findings from its fourth quarter 2010 investigation into Citigroup’s mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing practices. As a result of that investigation, the OCC concluded that Citigroup (through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Citibank, N.A.): engaged in improper servicing and foreclosure practices; lacked sufficient resources to ensure proper administration of its foreclosure processes; lacked adequate oversight, internal controls, policies, and procedures, compliance risk management, internal audit, third party management; failed to supervise outside counsel and other third parties handling foreclosure-related services; and engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices. The above findings were made public in the OCC’s formal enforcement agreement with Citibank as set forth in the Consent Order captioned In the Matter of Citibank, NA. Las Vegas, Nevada AA -EC-II-I3 (the “Consent Order”).

<SNIP>

13. Apar from a dismal track record in complying with its obligations under TARP and HAMP, Citigroup also suffered from the effects of a lack of adequate controls over its foreclosure processes. By third and fourth quarters of 20 10, reports had surfàced alleging that companies (including Citigroup) servicing $6.4 trillion in American mortgages may have bypassed legally required steps to foreclose on a home. For example, a New Jersey state cour administrative order specifically implicated Citi Residential Lending, Inc. (“Citi Residential,” a business of Citigroup) in the so-called “robosigning” scandal. Robo-signers, as the court put it, “are mortgage lender/servicer employees who sign hundreds-in some cases thousands-of affidavits submitted in support of foreclosure claims without any personal  knowledge of the information contained in the affidavits. ‘Robo-signing’ may also refer to improper notarizing practices or document backdating.” The administrative order cited devastating evidence of the inadequacies of Citigroup’s internal controls over its loan documentation and foreclosure processes:

An individual employed by Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc., with signing authority for Citi Residential Lending, Inc., testified in a deposition that when he signed documents for Citi, he did not review them for substantive correctness. He could not even explain what precisely an assignment of a mortgage accomplishes. He had no prior background in the mortgage industry.

Further, a second person with signing authority for Citi Residential Lending, Inc. testified that she never reviewed any books, records, or documents before signing affidavits and that she instead trusted the company’s internal policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information she signed. She signed several documents each day (in many instances without knowledge of what she was signing) and indicated that they were often notarized outside of her presence.

14. The deficiencies in Citigroup’s controls over its loan documentation and foreclosure processes have led to tens of thousands of adverse outcomes for the Company throughout the United States. On November 23, 20 i 0, a Managing Director of Citi- Mortgage, in a written statement to the House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, admitted that: (a) the Company was reviewing approximately 10,000 affidavits executed in pending foreclosures initiated before February 2010; (b) affidavits executed before fàll 2009 would need to be refilled;
(c) that the Company was reviewing another approximately 4,000 pending foreclosure affidavits that may not have been properly executed; and (d) it was transferring approximately 8,500 foreclosure files from its former Florida law firm that engaged in robo-signing.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=53708997 access_key=key-29j62rkkguzyij0xjuys height=600 width=600 /]

http://www.scribd.com/full/53708513?access_key=key-1pzxbltfa7cdhtky3rr8

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Them Be Fightin’ Words: The Fight Over Foreclosure Fees

Them Be Fightin’ Words: The Fight Over Foreclosure Fees


by PAUL JACKSON

Monday, August 30th, 2010, 2:56 pm

For the law firms that manage and process foreclosures on behalf of investors and banking institutions, what’s a fair legal fee? What’s a fair filing fee? Should fees to outsourcers be prohibited? And just how much money should it really cost to process a foreclosure?

As I write this, the answer to these and other questions are being fought out in the trenches, in an out-of-sight but increasingly heated battle involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the law firms that specialize in creditor’s rights, default industry service providers, and various private equity interests.

It’s a complex fight that many say will ultimately shape the way U.S. mortgages are serviced over the course of the next decade — and perhaps beyond. It’s also a debate that promises to spill over into how loans are originated and priced.

“No aspect of the U.S. mortgage business will go untouched by the outcome of this current debate,” said one attorney I spoke with, on condition of anonymity. “This is the single most important issue facing mortgage markets today, and will even determine how securities are structured in the future.”

How foreclosures are managed

Typically, a foreclosure involves legal and court filing fees — it is, after all, a legal process involving the forced transfer of a property from a non-paying borrower to secured lender. But the foreclosure process also typically involves a host of other associated fees, including necessary title searches, potential property insurance, homeowner’s association dues, property maintenance and repair, and much more.

Many of these fees are ultimately tacked onto the “past due” amounts tied to a delinquent borrower — and done so legally. Much like when a credit card becomes past due and the interest rate kicks into high oblivion, consumers looking to catch up on their delinquent mortgage payments must also make up the difference in additional fees in order to successfully do so.

Legal fees in the foreclosure business, however, aren’t what you might think. Instead of billing hourly for most work, as most attorneys in other fields would do, attorneys that specialize in processing foreclosures are paid on a flat-fee basis, using pre-determined fee schedules.

Thanks to the market-making power of the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — both of whom publish allowable fee schedules for every imaginable legal filing and process in the foreclosure repertoire — the entire foreclosure process has been reduced to a set of flat fees.

And not even negotiated fees, at that. For firms that operate in the field of foreclosure management, the GSE allowable fees amount to a take-it-or-leave-it menu of prices.

“For us, it doesn’t matter who the client is, even if it isn’t Fannie or Freddie,” said one attorney I spoke with, under condition of anonymity. “We know we’re only going to be able to claim whatever that flat fee schedule they set says we can claim, since other investors tend to employ whatever the GSE fee caps are.”

Fannie and Freddie as housing HMOs? In the foreclosure business, that’s pretty much what it amounts to.

But beyond determining the legal fee schedule for much of the multi-billion dollar default services market, the GSEs also largely determine who gets their own foreclosure work. Both Fannie and Freddie maintain networks of law firms called “designated counsel” or “approved counsel” in key states marked with significant foreclosure volume — and they either strongly suggest or require that any servicers managing a Fannie or Freddie loan in foreclosure refer any needed legal work to their approved legal counsel.

Each state will have numerous designated counsel — sometimes as many as five law firms — but in practice, attorneys say, two to three firms end up with the lion’s share of each state’s foreclosure work. In states hit hard by the housing downturn and foreclosure surge, like Florida, the amount of work can be substantial.

“The GSEs can force a servicer to use their designated counsel, especially if timeline performance in foreclosure management is out of some set boundary,” said one servicing executive at a large bank, who asked to remain anonymous. “It’s usually easiest to simply use their counsel on their loans, even if we don’t see that firm as best-in-class.”

With the vast majority of the mortgage market now running through the GSEs, and much of what’s left of the private market following the guidelines Fannie and Freddie establish, it should come as no surprise to find that a few law firms in each state end up with the majority of the foreclosure work, sources say.

The rise of the ‘foreclosure mills’

Being designated as approved counsel by Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac does carry risk. Just ask Florida’s David Stern, who has seen his burgeoning operation pejoratively branded a ‘foreclosure mill’ by consumer groups, dragged through the press for both alleged and real consumer misdeeds, and facing numerous investor lawsuits surrounding the operation of DJSP Enterprises, Inc. (DJSP: 3.22 -1.23%) — the publicly-traded processing company tied to the law firm.

While Stern’s operation may win the award for ‘most susceptible to negative publicity,’ how the law firm operates is far from unique in the foreclosure industry.

Continue reading…Housing Wire

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in conflict of interest, CONTROL FRAUD, djsp enterprises, fannie mae, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, Freddie Mac, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., lawsuit, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, mortgageComments (1)

EXCLUSIVE | ‘MERS’ DEPOSITION of SECRETARY and TREASURER of MERSCORP 4/2010

EXCLUSIVE | ‘MERS’ DEPOSITION of SECRETARY and TREASURER of MERSCORP 4/2010


Could this deposition hold the key to take all of MERS V3 &  MERSCORP down!

There is not 1, 2 but 3 MERS, Inc. in the past.

Just like MERS et al signing documents dated years later from existence the Corporate employees do the same to their own corporate resolutions! Exists in 1998 and certifies it in 2002.

If this is not proof of a Ponzi Scheme then I don’t know what is… They hide the truth in many layers but as we keep pulling and peeling each layer back eventually we will come to the truth!

“A Subtle Stranger” Orchestrates a Paradigm Shift

MERS et al has absolutely no supervision of what is being done by it’s non-members certifying authority PERIOD!

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CHANCERY DIVISION – ATLANTIC COUNTY
DOCKET NO. F-10209-08
BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWABS,
INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2005-AB3
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
VICTOR and ENOABASI UKPE
Defendant(s).

___________________________________________
VICTOR and ENOABASI UKPE
Counter claimants and
Third Party Plaintiffs,
vs.
BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWABS,
INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2005-AB3
Defendants on the Counterclaim,
and
AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER;
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.;
MORGAN FUNDING CORPORATION,
ROBERT CHILDERS; COUNTRYWIDE
HOME LOANS SERVICING LP,
PHELAN, HALLINAN & SCHMIEG,
P.C.,
Third Party Defendants
——————–

Deposition of William C. Hultman, Secretary and Treasurer of MERSCORP

[ipaper docId=36513502 access_key=key-1ltln0ondmrqe0v9156u height=600 width=600 /]

Does MERS have any salaried employees?
A No.
Q Does MERS have any employees?
A Did they ever have any? I couldn’t hear you.
Q Does MERS have any employees currently?
A No.
Q In the last five years has MERS had any
employees
?
A No.
Q To whom do the officers of MERS report?
A The Board of Directors.
Q To your knowledge has Mr. Hallinan ever
reported to the Board?
A He would have reported through me if there was
something to report.
Q So if I understand your answer, at least the
MERS officers reflected on Hultman Exhibit 4, if they
had something to report would report to you even though
you’re not an employee of MERS, is that correct?
MR. BROCHIN: Object to the form of the
question.
A That’s correct.
Q And in what capacity would they report to you?
A As a corporate officer. I’m the secretary.
Q As a corporate officer of what?
Of MERS.
Q So you are the secretary of MERS, but are not
an employee of MERS?
A That’s correct.

etc…
How many assistant secretaries have you
appointed pursuant to the April 9, 1998 resolution; how
many assistant secretaries of MERS have you appointed?
A I don’t know that number.
Q Approximately?
A I wouldn’t even begin to be able to tell you
right now.
Q Is it in the thousands?
A Yes.
Q Have you been doing this all around the
country in every state in the country?
A Yes.
Q And all these officers I understand are unpaid
officers of MERS
?
A Yes.
Q And there’s no live person who is an employee
of MERS that they report to, is that correct, who is an
employee?
MR. BROCHIN: Object to the form of the
question.
A There are no employees of MERS.

RELATED ARTICLE:

_____________________________

MERS 101

_____________________________

FULL DEPOSITION of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) PRESIDENT & CEO R.K. ARNOLD “MERSCORP”

_____________________________

DEPOSITION of A “REAL” VICE PRESIDENT of MERS WILLIAM “BILL” HULTMAN

_____________________________

HOMEOWNERS’ REBELLION: COULD 62 MILLION HOMES BE FORECLOSURE-PROOF?

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in bac home loans, bank of america, bank of new york, chain in title, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, countrywide, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, insider, investigation, lawsuit, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., note, originator, R.K. Arnold, racketeering, Real Estate, sanctioned, scam, securitization, servicers, stopforeclosurefraud.com, sub-prime, TAXES, trustee, trustee sale, Trusts, truth in lending act, unemployed, Violations, Wall StreetComments (4)

MERS Expands Website To Disclose Loan Investor Information

MERS Expands Website To Disclose Loan Investor Information


RESTON, Va.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–

July 16, 2010 12:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time 

MERSCORP, Inc. (MERS) announced today that investor information for loans registered on the MERS® System is now available to borrowers at no charge.

Through the MERS® ServicerID website (www.mers-servicerid.org), both servicer and investor information are now displayed. The added investor information is an expansion of the MERS® InvestorID program launched in June 2009, which mails a notice to borrowers when the identity of their loan’s owner or investor changed.

“MERS is an enthusiastic supporter of President Obama’s goal to bring more transparency to the mortgage banking process,” said MERS President & CEO R.K. Arnold. “I am pleased that we now have the capability to show the identity of a loan’s owner or investor to whomever wishes to see that data.”

The expanded MERS InvestorID program is an opt-out system which displays investor information on all MERS-registered loans unless the investor has specifically opted out of disclosure (servicer information will continue to be displayed). If a borrower wishes to find the investor on a loan with an opted-out investor, they can do so by sending a written request to their servicer for the information.

“Now both servicer and investor information are readily available to the public,” said Arnold. “Consumers and lenders want and need greater transparency and that’s what MERS is delivering.”

About MERS

MERS is an electronic loan registry created by the real estate finance industry to eliminate assignments when trading mortgage loans. Borrowers name Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as mortgagee and nominee for the lender on deeds of trust and mortgages that are recorded in the county land records. Lenders then register the loans on the MERS System and electronically track changes in servicing and beneficial ownership rights over the life of the loan. To learn more about MERS, visit www.mersinc.org.

MERSCORP, Inc.
Karmela Lejarde, 703-761-1274
karmelal@mersinc.org

RELATED ARTICLE:

Is MERS About To Unravel?

QUI TAM: MERS et al sued for FRAUD, Billions in Penalties

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in discovery, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., R.K. Arnold, robo signers, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

OFFICIAL! CLASS ACTION FIRM Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC Announces Investigation of DJSP Enterprises, Inc.

OFFICIAL! CLASS ACTION FIRM Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC Announces Investigation of DJSP Enterprises, Inc.


FL BROWARD COUNTY very own DJSP aka TOP FORECLOSURE FIRM Law Office of David J. Stern has alleged to have unloaded OVER 28% shares as it tanked!

CINCINNATI, Jun 14, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — Attorney Advertising

The class action law firm of Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC announced today that it is investigating DJSP Enterprises, Inc. (“DJSP” or the “Company”) (DJSP 6.29, +0.04, +0.64%) for potential violations of state and federal securities laws. The affected stock was purchased between March 11, 2010 and May 27, 2010.

The firm’s investigation was triggered on May 27, 2010, when DJSP announced its operating results for the first quarter 2010. DJSP revealed that the Company would be unable to meet its earnings estimates and revised its earnings guidance from $1.83 to $1.29-1.36 EPS.

As a direct result, on May 28, 2010, DJSP’s stock fell to $6.38 per share, a decline of over 28% on unusually high trading volume.

Shareholders who purchased DJSP stock between March 11, 2010 and May 27, 2010 may have a claim against the Company and are encouraged to contact attorney Melinda Nenning at (513) 658-8867 or mnenning@statmanharris.com for further information without any obligation or cost to you.

Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC has offices in Chicago, Illinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; and Dayton, Ohio. www.statmanharris.com

This news release was distributed by GlobeNewswire, www.globenewswire.com

SOURCE: Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC

CONTACT:  Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC
Melinda S. Nenning, Esq.
(513) 658-8867
Toll-Free: (888) 876-7881
mnenning@statmanharris.com
441 Vine Street, Suite 3700
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

(C) Copyright 2010 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, insider, investigation, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., lawsuit, stockComments (2)

***BREAKING NEWS*** David J. Sterns “DJSP Enterprises, Inc” under INVESTOR INVESTIGATION

***BREAKING NEWS*** David J. Sterns “DJSP Enterprises, Inc” under INVESTOR INVESTIGATION


I recently made a post about Shares of DJSP Enterprises Get SLAMMED….FALL 25%. Are we seeing a DownTrend?
Stock fell from $13.65 to $4.94 in 5 months!!!

I guess now we know what may be happening…Stay tuned as I will be watching closely!

Investigation on behalf of investors in DJSP Enterprises, Inc (NASDAQ:DJSP) over possible securities laws violations – Contact the Shareholders Foundation, Inc

mail@shareholdersfoundation.com

mail@shareholdersfoundation.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release)Jun 01, 2010 – An investigation on behalf of investors in DJSP Enterprises, Inc (NASDAQ:DJSP) securities over possible violations of Federal Securities Laws by DJSP Enterprises was announced.

If you are an investor in DJSP Enterprises, Inc (NASDAQ:DJSP) securities, you have certain options and you should contact the Shareholders Foundation, Inc by email at mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1 (858) 779 – 1554.

DJSP Enterprises, Inc., located in Plantation, Florida, through its subsidiary, DAL Group, LLC, engages in providing non-legal services supporting residential real estate foreclosure, other related legal actions, and lender owned real estate services in the United States. DJSP Enterprises, Inc reported in 2009 Total Revenue of $260.269million with a Net Income of $44.565million. According to the investigation by a law firm the investigation on behalf of investors in DJSP stock focuses on the following events. On May 28, 2010, DJSP Enterprises declined by $2.59, or 29.2%, to $6.28 after DJSP Enterprises posted weaker-than-expected first-quarter results and warned investors of a full-year earnings shortfall. DJSP Enterprises said it had a first-quarter adjusted profit of 35 cents a share, which was a nickel below the Thomson Reuters average estimate.

DJSP Enterprises said that in April one of its largest bank clients initiated a foreclosure system conversion that cut the number of foreclosures. Because of the foreclosure system conversion and the U.S. government’s steps to prevent foreclosures, DJSP Enterprises said it expects full-year earnings of $1.29 to $1.36 a share, which is below consensus. Volume topped 3.13 million shares, compared to the 50-day average daily volume of 190,000, so the investigation. Shares of DJSP Enterprises, Inc (DJSP) traded recently at $6.38 per share, down from its 52weekHigh of $13.65 per share.

Those who are investors in DJSP Enterprises, Inc (NASDAQ:DJSP) securities, you have certain options and you should contact the Shareholders Foundation, Inc by email at mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1 (858) 779 – 1554.


# # #

The Shareholders Foundation, Inc. is an investor advocacy group. We do research related to shareholder issues and inform investors of securities class actions, settlements, judgments, and other legal related news to the stock/financial market. At Shareholders Foundation, Inc. we are in contact with a large number of shareholders. We believe that together we can combine the interests of many investors, and use the size of our interest as leverage against the giant corporations. We offer help, support, and assistance for every shareholder. We help investors find answers to their questions and equitable solutions to their problems. The Shareholders Foundation, Inc. is not a law firm. The information is provided as a public service. It is not intended as legal advice and should not be relied upon.

RELATED STORY:

ARE FORECLOSURE MILLS Coercing Buyers for BANK OWNED homes? ARE ALL THE MILLS?

Law Firm of David J. Stern (DJSP) Appears to Be Under State And Federal Investigation For Fraud, Stern Law Firm Even Has It’s Own “Michael Clayton”.


© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, insider, investigation, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., stockComments (0)

GMAC v Visicaro Case No 07013084CI: florida judge reverses himself: applies basic rules of evidence and overturns his own order granting motion for summary judgment

GMAC v Visicaro Case No 07013084CI: florida judge reverses himself: applies basic rules of evidence and overturns his own order granting motion for summary judgment


THIS IS WORTH REPEATING OVER AND OVER!!!!

From: Neil Garfield Livinglies

RIGHT ON POINT ABOUT WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT IN HEARING YESTERDAY!!

I appeared as expert witness in a case yesterday where the Judge had trouble getting off the idea that it was an accepted fact that the note was in default and that ANY of the participants in the securitization chain should be considered collectively “creditors” or a creditor. Despite the fact that the only witness was a person who admitted she had no knowledge except what was on the documents given to her, the Judge let them in as evidence.

The witness was and is incompetent because she lacked personal knowledge and could not provide any foundation for any records or document. This is the predominant error of Judges today in most cases. Thus the prima facie case is considered “assumed” and the burden to prove a negative falls unfairly on the homeowner.

The Judge, in a familiar refrain, had trouble with the idea of giving the homeowner a free house when the only issue before him was whether the motion to lift stay should be granted. Besides the fact that the effect of granting the motion to lift stay was the gift of a free house to ASC who admits in their promotional website that they have in interest nor involvement in the origination of the loans, and despite the obviously fabricated assignment a few days before the hearing which violated the terms of the securitization document cutoff date, the Judge seems to completely missed the point of the issue before him: whether there was a reason to believe that the movant lacked standing or that the foreclosure would prejudice the debtor or other creditors (since the house would become an important asset of the bankruptcy estate if it was unencumbered).

If you carry over the arguments here, the motion for lift stay is the equivalent motion for summary judgment.

This transcript, citing cases, shows that the prima facie burden of the Movant is even higher than beyond a reasonable doubt. It also shows that the way the movants are using business records violates all standards of hearsay evidence and due process. Read the transcript carefully. You might want to use it for a motion for rehearing or motion for reconsideration to get your arguments on record, clear up the issue of whether you objected on the basis of competence of the witness, and then take it up on appeal with a cleaned up record.

[ipaper docId=29901870 access_key=key-2igblc29w7y5gelivtak height=600 width=600 /]

RELATED ARTICLE:

Judge reversed his own ruling that had granted summary judgment to GMAC Mortgage (DAVID J. STERN)


© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A.Comments (1)

Freedom of Information Act Requests Show OneWest Bank Misrepresentation

Freedom of Information Act Requests Show OneWest Bank Misrepresentation


When will ALL this Bull Shit come to an END? Everything is a stage and all these “Non-Bank’s” are characters!

 Freedom of Information Act Requests Show OneWest Bank Misrepresentation
Posted on March 17, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Submitted by BMcDonald

Most of us are trying to get the info from the banks, which they will not do unless forced. Well, now many of us can walk right in through the back door. FOIA requests! I fought for 7 months to get the bank to cough up the info and it only took 6 days by going through the FDIC. So now I’m in the drivers seat. This damned bank has been lying from day one claiming they are the sole beneficiary of my loan. Now they have committed the fraud and done the crime by illegally selling my home. They are now in deep, deep, trouble.

I’ve been fighting OneWest Bank since August of last year here in Colorado. In Colorado they have nonjudicial foreclosures and the laws as so totally banker-biased it’s insane. All the bank has to do is go to the public trustee with a note from an attorney who “certifies” that the bank is the owner of the loan. What they don’t tell you is the bank has to go before a judge and get an order for sale in a 120 hearing. Most only find out about it at the last minute and don’t even show up because the only issue discussed is whether a default has occurred or not.

I discovered however that if you raise the question of whether the foreclosing party is a true party in interest or not, the court has to hear that as well. I raised that issue and demanded the bank produce the original documents and endorsements or assignements. The judge only ordered them to produce originals, which they did.

Long story short, I managed to hold them off for seven months after hiring an attorney. I found a bankruptcy case from CA in 2008 in which IndyMac produced original documents and ended up having to admit they didn’t own them. I had a letter from OneWest that only stated they purchased servicing rights. I had admissions from the bank’s attorney that there were no endorsements. And at the last minute I discovered the FDIC issued a press release in response to a YouTube video that went viral over the sweetheart deal OneWest did with the FDIC. The FDIC stated in their press release that OneWest only owned 7% of the loans they service. I presented all this to the judge but he ended up ignoring it all and gave OneWest an order to sell my home, which they did on the 4th.

About a week before the sale I went directly to the FDIC and filed a FOIA request for any and all records indicating ownership rights and servicing rights related to my loans and gave them my loan numbers. I managed to get the info in about 6 days. I got PROOF from the FDIC that OneWest did not own my loan. Fredie Mac did. And the info came directly from OneWest systems. And just last Friday I got a letter from IndyMac Mortgage services, obviously in compliance with the FOIA request that Freddie Mac owned the loan. So I now have a confession from OneWest themselves that they have been lying all along! I have a motion in to have the sale set aside and once that’s done I’m going to sue the hell out of them and their attorneys in Federal court.

So I found a wonderful little back door to the proof most of us need. If the FDIC is involved, you can do a FOIA request for the info. I don’t know if it applies to all banks since they are all involved in the FDIC. You all should try it to see.

Most of us are trying to get the info from the banks, which they will not do unless forced. Well, now many of us can walk right in through the back door. FOIA requests! I fought for 7 months to get the bank to cough up the info and it only took 6 days by going through the FDIC. So now I’m in the drivers seat. This damned bank has been lying from day one claiming they are the sole beneficiary of my loan. Now they have committed the fraud and done the crime by illegally selling my home. They are now in deep, deep, trouble.


  

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, fdic, FOIA, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, freedom of information act, indymac, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., Lender Processing Services Inc., livinglies, LPS, MERS, neil garfield, note, onewest, respa, scamComments (2)


GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives