“Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Steven Baum got to go,” they chanted.

Buffalo News-

Nearly three dozen protesters from Occupy Buffalo demonstrated in front of the Amherst offices of Steven J. Baum PC, denouncing the controversial foreclosure attorney and calling on state authorities to shut down his office, take away his law license and even put him in jail.

The ragtag band of protesters, many of whom have been camping out in Niagara Square in downtown Buffalo, held up handwritten cardboard signs and chanted slogans to the beat of a bongo drum. They assembled at the corner of Northpointe Parkway and Sweet Home Road, before beginning a slow march down to Baum’s office at 220 Northpointe.

“Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Steven Baum got to go,” they chanted.

Signs called for a “moratorium on all foreclosures now,” proclaimed that “housing is a right,” and called Baum “the Grinch who stole houses.” Some protesters also wore paper crowns because “Stephen J. Baum is the foreclosure king of New York State,” said Samantha Colon, the spokeswoman for the protesters.

[BUFFALO NEWS]

This is a major victory. We will not rest until every last one is done… Including MERS!!

Housing Wire-

[Update 1: Adds confirmation that Fannie has terminated Baum firm from its attorney network]

Fannie Mae said Tuesday that it has removed the Steven J. Baum firm from its designated attorney network.

Last week, Freddie Mac told mortgage servicers they may no longer refer New York foreclosure or bankruptcy cases to the Steven J. Baum PC law firm.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

via Freddie Mac–

On and after November 10, 2011, Servicers may not refer any new Freddie Mac foreclosure or bankruptcy cases in New York to Steven J. Baum, P.C., whether referred within or outside of the Program.

Attorney Susan Chana Lask says

“This looks like the beginning of a well-deserved end for Baum”

Decided on November 10, 2011

Decided on November 4, 2011

2009-0488

Steven J. Baum, P.C.,
John A. Belluscio, Esq., of counsel
Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Barrett Greisberger, LLP,.
Mark M. Greisberger, Esq., of counsel,
Attorneys for Defendant.

W. Patrick Falvey, J.

This is a residential foreclosure proceeding. Plaintiff moves for an order nunc pro tunc validating the court’s January 21, 2010 order of reference, the court’s April 26, 2010 judgment of foreclosure, and substituting nunc pro tunc the affidavit of merit and amount due attached to the motion papers, in place of the affidavit attached to the initial motion papers.

The judgment of foreclosure was executed prior to Chief Administrative Judge Pfau’s Administrative Order 548-10 (revised November 18, 2011) requiring plaintiffs’ attorneys in mortgage foreclosures to confirm the factual accuracy of allegations set forth in the Complaint and any supporting affidavits or affirmations filed with the court, as well as the accuracy of the notarizations contained in the supporting documents filed therewith.

Since the order of reference and judgment predated implementation of AO 548-10, in preparing for the foreclosure sale, plaintiff’s attorney attempted to gather the information required to make the affirmation. In doing so, plaintiff’s attorney could not confirm via the attorney’s contacts with the client, the accuracy of the execution and notarization of the original affidavit of merit and amount due, and so seeks this order.

The plaintiff’s attorney was able to obtain a new affidavit of merit by Kara Dolch, a Vice President of Wells Fargo Bank, the servicer for plaintiff. Ex E. This affidavit confirms:

Plaintiff is the holder of the note and mortgage of record.

There is a default because defendants failed to make the February 1, 2009 payment and subsequent payments.

The 90 day pre-foreclosure notice was sent to borrowers by registered or certified mail and by first class mail to last known address of the borrowers, and if different, to the residence that is the subject of the mortgage.

The 90 day pre-foreclosure notice was mailed prior to February 13, 2010, and there was no filing requirement with the superintendent of banks at that time.

A notice of default was mailed to the mortgagors at the last known address provided by the mortgagors. The default stated in the notice was not cured.

Based on the default, plaintiff elected to call due the entire unpaid principal balance with interest, disbursements, attorney fees, costs.

The amount due as reflected in the complaint is $343,299.46, plus 7.375% interest from 1/1/09, plus late charges, etc.

At the initial return, defendants’ attorney appeared, and informed the court that his clients had recently received a letter from the plaintiff, inviting the defendants to apply for a mortgage modification. The Court then adjourned the matter several times to allow the parties to sort out this new development. At the last appearance date of November 1, 2011, neither of the parties offered any information concerning a modification, and so the court determined that it would decide the motion, and reserved decision.

There are form affidavits and affirmations prepared by the Unified Court System, to cover the information required by Judge Pfau’s order. The attorney’s affirmation in support of plaintiff’s motion by Bridget Faso does not contain all the information contained in this form affirmation, and so the court will not grant the relief requested until Ms Faso, or another attorney from the Baum firm, provides an additional affirmation with the missing information, including:

The date she communicated with which representatives of plaintiff, their names and titles.

Based on her communications with these named representatives, as well as upon her own inspection and other reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, she affirms to the best of her knowledge, information and belief, the summons, complaint and other papers filed or submitted to the court ( with the exception of the prior affidavit of merit) contain no false statements of fact or law. That she understands her continuing obligation to amend the affirmation in light of newly discovered material facts following its filing.

That she is aware of her obligations under 22 NYCRR part 1200 and part 130. [*2]

Additionally, Ms. Dolch’s affidavit does not contain all the information required under the rule, and so the court requires that she, or another officer, with knowledge, on behalf of plaintiff, supplement her affidavit to state, if applicable, that she performed the following actions in order to confirm the truth and veracity of the statements set forth, to wit:

1.That she/he reviewed the summons and complaint to confirm the factual accuracy of the identity of the proper plaintiff, the defaults and the amounts claimed to be due to plaintiff as set forth therein,

2.That she/he confirmed the affidavits executed and submitted by plaintiff together with this application have been personally reviewed by her, that the notary acknowledging the affiant’s signature followed applicable law in notarizing the affiant’s signature, and

3.That she/he is unable to confirm or deny that the underlying documents previously filed with the court have been properly reviewed or notarized.

Upon the foregoing, it is therefore,

ORDERED that plaintiff’s attorney shall supply the supplemental attorney affirmation and plaintiff’s affidavit to the Court and opposing counsel by January 2, 2012; and it is further

ORDERED that if these supplemental papers are not received and served upon opposing counsel by January 2, 2012, or if they do not contain all the information herein required by the court, the court will dismiss the foreclosure action, with prejudice.

Submission of an order by the parties is not necessary. The mailing of a copy of this Order and Judgment by this Court shall not constitute notice of entry.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision, Judgment and Order of this Court.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November, 2011

________________________________

W. Patrick Falvey

Acting Justice Supreme Court

Yates County

[ipaper docId=72046843 access_key=key-2elhbwpzhli88kuq7y6o height=600 width=600 /]

“Are the courts supposed to rubber-stamp the filings, to . . . just sign off?” Judge Walker asked. “How can the court rely on good faith, knowing what the court knows of robo-signing?”

The Buffalo News-

Attorneys for New York State and a delinquent Buffalo borrower facing the loss of her home squared off in court Monday against Steven J. Baum PC, as the state’s biggest foreclosure law firm sought to have a new court mandate for accuracy of documents declared unconstitutional.

The Baum firm wants a state court in Buffalo to overturn a statewide administrative rule, which the firm contends is impeding the rights of its bank and mortgage servicing clients, and intruding on the power of the local court.

[THE BUFFALO NEWS]

Baum just messed with the wrong attorney!

Just when you thought things just couldn’t seem to get any better after Joe Nocera’s disturbing story of Steven J. Baum’s Halloween Party… it does.

Soon after Joes’ article, Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings sent a letter to the law firm of Steven J. Baum requesting records, documents, and communications relating to allegations of improper and potentially illegal actions in the processing of foreclosures.

Oops.. it gets even better…

Today, Respectable Attorney Susan Chana  Lask received a letter to help in Rep. Cummings investigation, asking for copies of all documents in your possession relating to these allegations, as well as any other documents you believe are relevant to this inquiry.

I think the Baum firm needs to brace its self, as Attorney Lask is coming to deliver one final blow!

Here is Susan Chana Lask’s video from youtube-

Letter from Rep. Cumming to Susan Lask

[ipaper docId=72012175 access_key=key-1ktdnyg6r5hm0raclcy6 height=600 width=600 /]

image: Wall Street Journal

Document Request Follows Disclosure of Foreclosure Party Photos

Washington, DC (Nov. 4, 2011) – Today, Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings sent a letter to the law firm of Steven J. Baum requesting records, documents, and communications relating to allegations of improper and potentially illegal actions in the processing of foreclosures. 

“Given that your firm represents some of the nation’s largest mortgage servicers,” Cummings wrote, “these revelations are disturbing.  If true, they demonstrate a culture of disdain for families suffering foreclosure and a disregard for the rule of law.”

Cummings has been investigating allegations of the firm’s misconduct since February.  His latest request follows a New York Times column revealing photographs from a Halloween party in 2010 during which employees dressed as homeless people.  According to a former employee, the photographs “showed an appalling lack of compassion toward the homeowners” and “are an accurate representation of the firm’s mind-set.”

The column also reported that the firm is “under investigation by the New York State Attorney General,” is a defendant in a class action suit claiming that the firm “consistently failed to file certain papers that are necessary to allow for a state-mandated settlement conference that can lead to modification,” and has been described by a New York State Supreme Court Judge as “operating in a parallel universe, unrelated to the real universe.”

On February 25, 2011, Cummings launched a major investigation of mortgage servicer abuses that included a request to the Inspector General of the Federal Housing Finance Agency to investigate allegations against this firm and others.

In his letter today, Cummings requested that the firm provide all documents relating to:

·    false or misleading foreclosure documents, “robo-signed” documents, or improper mortgage assignments;

·    attempts by the firm to foreclose on borrowers who were attempting to obtain, or who had obtained, loan modifications;

·    instances in which the firm illegally or improperly charged for foreclosure settlement conferences, overcharged on foreclosure fees, or attempted to persuade foreclosure defendants to waive their legal rights;

·    preparing for, carrying out, or communicating about the firm’s 2010 Halloween party; and

·    instances in which the firm compensated Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or a client for improper foreclosure practices.

[ipaper docId=71703993 access_key=key-2gxurlffw2sjyehxvu1p height=600 width=600 /]

source: http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/

“I again want to sincerely apologize for the inappropriate costumes worn by some of our employees at our Halloween Party in 2010. It was in extremely poor taste and I take full responsibility,” Steven J. Baum said in an emailed statement to The Associated Press on Wednesday. “I know people were extremely offended and people have every right to be upset with me and my firm.”

[MSNBC]

I wonder what the theme was this year? I’m sure we’ll find out. But this apology is all PR related and he had to do it as he is being investigated.

Now this has to be an all time low and I warn you it will not be taken lightly by either Judge Schack who slammed his cases or by Attorney Susan Chana Lask who successfully settled the Class Action against his firm.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman now has a bit more ammo to work with.

Tell Steven J. Baum what u think 716-204-2400!

Lets see who’ll have the last laugh.

NYTimes-

On Friday, the law firm of Steven J. Baum threw a Halloween party. The firm, which is located near Buffalo, is what is commonly referred to as a “foreclosure mill” firm, meaning it represents banks and mortgage servicers as they attempt to foreclose on homeowners and evict them from their homes. Steven J. Baum is, in fact, the largest such firm in New York; it represents virtually all the giant mortgage lenders, including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

image: New York Times

Decided on October 28, 2011

 The Bank of New York Mellon F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWABS, INC., ASSETBACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-IMI 400 Countrywide Way Simi Valley, CA 93065, Plaintiff,

against

Nancy Martinez, ET.AL., Defendant.

21097/09

Attorney for Plaintiff:
Megan B. Szeliga, Esq.
Steven J. Baum, P.C.
220 Northpointe Parkway – Suite G
Amherst, New York 14228

Attorney for Defendant:
Steven Beispel, Esq.
20 W. 86 Street
New York, New York 10024

Phyllis Orlikoff Flug, J.

[*2]The following papers numbered 1 to 5 read on this motion

Notice of Motion1 – 2

Affirmation in Opposition3

Reply Affirmation (2)4 – 5

Defendant, Nancy Martinez, moves for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint as asserted against her.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on the real property located at 37-54 98th Street, in the County of Queens, City and State of New York.

On a motion for summary judgment, the proponent “must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate an material issues of fact from the case . . .” (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 852 [1985]). Once the proponent has made this showing, the burden of proof shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form to establish that material issues of fact exist which requires a jury trial (Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Defendant contends she is entitled to judgment on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing at the time the action was commenced. Defendant, however, has waived this defense as she did not raise it in her answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss (See HSBC Bank, USA v. Dammond, 59 AD3d 679, 680 [2d Dept. 2009]). Notably, defendant has also failed to move to amend her answer to assert this as a defense (See Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Thomas, 70 AD3d 986, 987 [2d Dept. 2010]).

Defendant also contends she is entitled to summary judgment and dismissal of the action due to a conflict of interest on behalf of plaintiff’s attorneys. An attorney employed by Steven J. Baum, the law firm representing plaintiff, Elpiniki Bechakas, executed an assignment in favor of plaintiff, on behalf of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”), a defendant in this action.

These actions undoubtedly raise the appearance of impropriety. Indeed, these practices were the subject of the October 6, 2011 settlement agreement between Steven J. Baum and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Nevertheless, defendant has failed to establish that these actions breached a specific duty to plaintiff and require a dismissal of the action as a matter of law (See, e.g., Swift v. Ki Young Choe, 242 AD2d 188, 192 [1st Dept. 1988]). [*3]

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ordered to submit waivers of any potential conflict of interest from plaintiff, Bank of New York, and MERS no later than December 2, 2011. In addition, plaintiff shall refrain from relying on any documents that raise the appearance of impropriety, including the aforementioned assignment, in its prosecution of this action.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied, with leave to renewal, upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order or upon the completion of discovery and on the presentment of proper papers.

October 28, 2011 ____________________

J.S.C.

[ipaper docId=70693071 access_key=key-19lqjzi414aw7ehddkff height=600 width=600 /]

I think MERS’ Janice Spokeswoman needs to be updated on all that happened from 1998-2002 before she comments.

Just like the others who have resigned when the company is on the brink of exposure. Wait until they get a hold of those who were involved from the beginning (X-CEO and X-VP/Treasurer)… who know what’s up.

But they will be reeled back in because they knew all along this was bound to happen. You ain’t so smart now… are you?

REUTERS-

New York’s attorney general has subpoenaed MERS, the electronic registry of mortgages used by the banking industry, seeking information about how it is used by major banks, a person familiar with the matter said.

Delaware also took action by filing a lawsuit on Thursday that accuses MERS of taking unlawful shortcuts in dealing with the foreclosure crisis.

The registry used by the banking industry is “unreliable” and “frequently inaccurate,” Beau Biden, the state’s attorney general said in the lawsuit, which seeks penalties of $10,000 per violation.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a subpoena earlier this week demanding documents from MERS about how it is used by major banks, a source told Reuters.

The subpoena is part of a joint New York-Delaware mortgage probe, the source said.

“I am glad the U. S. Attorney completed this phase of the Baum saga and that he is changing his practice,” said New York City attorney Susan Chana Lask

[…]

“I hope homeowners use the settlement to show the courts the foreclosure mill problem was real and damaged a lot of people’s lives. It’s not over.”

I’m almost certain she is referencing that although the US Attorney settled, AG Schneiderman has yet to complete his investigation.

Buffalo News–

Steven J. Baum PC, the Amherst law firm that has been under heavy fire for its foreclosure practices, agreed Thursday to pay a $2 million fine and “extensively” overhaul its practices in a settlement with the U. S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan that has statewide implications.

The agreement with Baum resolves a federal investigation into whether the state’s largest foreclosure law firm, on behalf of lenders, filed misleading affidavits, mortgage assignments and other documents in state and federal courts.

[BUFFALO NEWS]

image: thetorchtheatre

Mortgage Fraud

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
Pillar Processing, LLC
Steven J. Baum, P.C.

Action Date: October 7, 2011
Location: New York, NY

On October 6, 2011, a settlement agreement was signed regarding the practices of one of the largest foreclosure mills in the country, Steven J. Baum, P.C., a law firm operating from Amherst, New York. The settlement was obtained by Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY. The investigation was conducted by the Civil Frauds Unit of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York which investigated under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA).

Under the settlement, the Baum Firm is required to pay $2 million and make significant reforms, but is still allowed to say (paragraph 4): “This Agreement does not constitute a finding by any Court or Agency that Baum has engaged in any unlawful practice or wrongdoing of any kind.”

Most significantly, Baum employees – including the very prolific robo-signing associate, Elpiniki Bechakas, may no longer sign mortgage assignments as officers of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”). (Bechakas is not specifically named in the Agreement, but has been singled out by NY judges, including the Honorable (and very savvy) Arthur Schack of Brooklyn, as a Baum attorney with very questionable practices.)

The relief provided in the Settlement Agreement is very much prospective relief, and in that regard, is very comprehensive.

For those pending cases, however, the relief in paragraph 15(a) may seem grossly inadequate:

“Baum shall provide the following notification:

a. In any pending foreclosure action where an application for a judgment of foreclosure has not been submitted to a court, if Baum has filed an assignment of mortgage as a corporate officer of MERS, Baum shall disclose that fact to the court in the application for the judgment of foreclosure, or earlier. Such disclosure shall not be required if the Baum firm does not file a proposed judgment of foreclosure (e.g. because another law firm has been substituted as counsel for the matter prior to the filing of a proposed judgment of foreclosure, because the action is dismissed, etc.)”

All that the banks need to do under this settlement in pending cases is to sub in another law firm that may use the Baum assignments to foreclose, without even making any further disclosure to the courts such as “the signers are really employees of the Baum Law Firm who previously represented the banks in this matter.”

While it is true that most defense attorneys will no doubt raise this point, it is also true that most homeowners in foreclosure proceed pro se and are likely to be completely unaware of this Settlement Agreement, and the actual employer of Elpiniki Bechakas and other Baum signers.

Then there is the matter of the tens of thousands of homeowners who have lost their homes in cases where Baum employees signed mortgage assignments as officers of MERS. Most often, they assigned mortgages to mortgage-backed trusts so that the trusts could foreclose, even though such transfers did not take place on the dates and in the manner set forth on the Baum assignments. These Baum Assignments appear throughout the New York courts, but often in the Courts of other states as well.

Two million seems to be the magic number. This is also the amount paid by the Law Offices of Marshall Watson in Florida whose associates engaged in similar practices of signing as MERS officers, assigning mortgages after foreclosure actions were initiated, etc.

Further relief may be forthcoming, from both criminal prosecutions, the NY Bar, and most certainly from private class action and RICO lawsuits brought by private litigants.

Investors in mortgage-backed securities must ask for reports from the Trustees of how much they have paid for these Baum Assignments in the last five years, how much they have lost and how much more they will lose when foreclosures are successfully defended because the loan documents relied on by the trustees were “Baum-made.”

This is a first-of-its-kind settlement with one significant party in the foreclosure fraud morass.

Now you know why people Occupy Wall Street, They are pissed and sick and tired of all the fraud. Bloomberg warned that US unemployment will lead to RIOTS, I think he needs to broaden this statement.

NY POST-

The largest foreclosure mill in New York, under investigation for years by federal authorities for allegedly filing misleading paperwork, affidavits and mortgage documents, yesterday agreed to pay a $2 million fine to settle a probe by Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara.

Steven J. Baum PC, which has filed tens of thousands of foreclosure actions across the state over the past several years, promised to change the way it did business and admitted to “occasionally” making “inadvertent errors.”

The Buffalo-based firm, which was used by every major bank in the country, did not admit any wrongdoing in the settlement deal.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Southern District of New York

U.S. ATTORNEY PREET BHARARA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 6, 2011
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys

CONTACT: Ellen Davis, Carly Sullivan, Jerika Richardson
(212) 637-2600

.

MANHATTAN U.S. ATTORNEY ANNOUNCES AGREEMENT
WITH MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE LAW FIRM TO OVERHAUL
ITS PRACTICES AND PAY $2 MILLION FINE

PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that the United States has entered into an agreement with the law firm of STEVEN J. BAUM, P.C. (“BAUM”), one of the largest volume mortgage foreclosure firms in New York State, that requires the firm to pay $2 million to the United States and to extensively change its practices with respect to mortgage foreclosure actions (the “Agreement”). The Agreement resolves an investigation into BAUM’s mortgage foreclosure-related practices, specifically whether the firm, on behalf of its lender clients, filed misleading pleadings, affidavits, and mortgage assignments in state and federal courts in New York.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney PREET BHARARA said: “In mortgage foreclosure proceedings, there are no excuses for sloppy practices that could lead to someone mistakenly losing their home. Homeowners facing foreclosure cannot afford to have faulty paperwork or inadequate evidence submitted, and today’s agreement will help minimize that risk.”

The Agreement specifically prohibits BAUM from engaging in certain practices related to the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), a subscription-based electronic registry system for lenders and other entities that tracks ownership interests in mortgages. MERS members contractually agree to appoint MERS as their agent on all mortgages they register. Until recently, employees of BAUM, with the consent of MERS, had been assigning mortgages on behalf of MERS, even though they had no connection to MERS whatsoever, which resulted in errors in its legal filings in state and federal court. Pursuant to the Agreement, BAUM is prohibited from executing any assignment of a mortgage as an “officer” or “director” of MERS.

The Agreement also requires a general overhaul of BAUM’s practice with respect to its filings in mortgage foreclosure actions. Under the terms of the Agreement, BAUM has agreed to:

• Take steps to inform courts of the nature of the assignments in pending foreclosure proceedings it is handling;

• Obtain appropriate affidavits from its clients attesting to the fact that they possess original notes or have conducted a diligent search and the original note could not be found;

• Have experienced attorneys supervise the preparation of pleadings, and review and approve pleadings before they can be filed;

• Implement a 12-24 month training program for its attorneys that includes an overview of the foreclosure process in New York State and a review of the litigation procedures expected at BAUM;

• Provide immediate notice to the Government when objections are raised regarding the accuracy of certain court filings related to mortgage foreclosure proceedings; and

• Maintain documentation of its compliance with the settlement.

In addition, the Agreement requires BAUM to pay the United States $2 million in exchange for a release from any potential claims pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”). FIRREA authorizes the United States to seek civil penalties for violations of, and conspiracies to violate, certain predicate criminal statutes involving financial fraud, including mail and wire fraud. The release from liability does not preclude any other parties, including individual homeowners, from pursuing any rights they may have.

The Agreement does not constitute a finding by any court or agency that Baum has engaged in any unlawful practice or wrongdoing. In the Agreement, Baum acknowledges, however, that it occasionally made inadvertent errors in its legal filings in state and federal court, which it attributes to human error in light of the high volume of mortgage defaults and foreclosures throughout the State of New York in the wake of the national subprime mortgage crisis.

Mr. BHARARA thanked the U.S. Trustee’s Office for their invaluable assistance in this case. The case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys PIERRE ARMAND and LARA ESHKENAZI are in charge of the case.

The Civil Frauds Unit works in coordination with President BARACK OBAMA’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which Mr. BHARARA serves as a Co-Chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group. President OBAMA established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

11-302 ###

[Read the agreement below]

[ipaper docId=67831624 access_key=key-sjeggego2opcclgi8ik height=600 width=600 /]

It’s become a new world in America. No matter how hard one tries, all those families who were thrown out of their homes…how many individuals can settle and get away with this?

Money is the root of all evil.

Bloomberg-

Steven J. Baum’s foreclosure law firm, one of the largest in New York state, will pay the U.S. $2 million and change its practices to resolve a probe into its mortgage-related legal filings.

The agreement resolves an investigation into whether the Baum firm filed misleading pleadings, affidavits and mortgage assignments in courts, according to a statement today by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan.

[BLOOMBERG]

[ipaper docId=67831624 access_key=key-sjeggego2opcclgi8ik height=600 width=600 /]

IMOGENE COLE and GEORGIA BROWN,

-against-

STEVEN J. BAUM, P.C.,

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

I. Plaintiffs Imogene Cole and Georgia Brown bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated New York residents challenging the unfair and unconscionable debt collection and deceptive practices by defendant Steven J. Baum, P.C.(“Baum”) in residential foreclosure actions by grossly neglecting or willfully failing to file the specialized Request for Judicial Intervention required by the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts (“Uniform Rules”) § 202.12-a(b), 22 New York Code of Rules and Regulations § 202.12-a(b), which, in tum, deprives Plaintiffs and class members of their right to the statutorily mandated settlement conferences under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) Rule 3408 in foreclosure actions (the “Class”).

[…]

[ipaper docId=61775423 access_key=key-23iitbon87jawmgts77 height=600 width=600 /]

Excerpt:

Plaintiff has applied to this Court for the granting of a Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale pursuant to RPAPL § 1351. The express provisions of the Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts, no. A0548/10 require the filing of an Affirmation by Plaintiff’s counsel. No such Affirmation has been filed in this proceeding, in derogation of the aforesaid mandate. Accordingly, this application must be denied.

It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the within application by the Plaintiff shall be and the same is hereby denied without prejudice.

[ipaper docId=59494902 access_key=key-264kx7256bxnizbtwjpy height=600 width=600 /]

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS PURCHASER OF THE LOANS AND OTHER ASSETS OF WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FORMERLY KNOWN AS WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA (THE “SAVINGS BANK”) FROM THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, ACTING AS RECEIVER FOR THE SAVINGS BANK AND PURSUANT TO ITS
AUTHORITY UNDER THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT, 12 U.S.C. 9 1821(D),

-versus-

FREDERICK W. BUTLER,

EXCERPTS:

FURTHER, why an Order should not be entered that plaintiff pursued the Prosecution of this foreclosure action, and participated and engaged in actions,Constituting Settlement Conferences Before the Court in this Matter, when plaintiff had full knowledge, and plaintiffs counsel knew or should have known, that plaintiff had received payment on May 22,20 10 for the amount specified in paragraph SIXTH of its complaint dated on or about January 19,2010, as due and owing (that is, $434,382.89);

FURTHER, why an Order should not be entered that plaintiff and plaintiffs’ Counsels made material misrepresentations to the Court, on April 14,201 1 and May 2, 2011, for example, thereby engaging in misconduct before the Court;

[…]

FURTHER, why plaintiffs counsels, the law offices of Steven J. Baum, and their co counsel Cullen & Dykman LLP, should not be sanctioned pursuant to New York Judiciary Law 487 for misstatements and misrepresentations made to the Court on May 2, 2011, to defendant during the course of 11 settlement conferences over 12 months, and to defendant’s counsel and the Court with respect to the fact and procedural history of this case;

FURTHER, why Judgment should not be entered pursuant to CPLR 32111(a)(l), 321 l(a)(3), 321 l(a)(7) and 321 l(a)(8) dismissing this foreclosure action with prejudice;

FURTHER, why judgment should not be entered imposing sanctions against Plaintiff on the basis that plaintiffs affidavit of facts- namely its verified summons and complaint — contained material misrepresentations about its legal capacity to sue, about which plaintiff had full knowledge from commencement of this;

[…]

[ipaper docId=57973278 access_key=key-1sux49su06my9pi4x6pb height=600 width=600 /]

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
AS TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE
ASSETS TRUST 2006-5 MORTGAGE-BACKED PASS-HROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-5
4600 Regents Boulevard
Suite 200
Irving, TX 75063-1730

-against-

MARTIN SEIDLIN, JUNGKIL HAN, INA ZALOOM

HON SALIANN SCARPULLA, J.:

EXCERPTS:

In this foreclosure action, plaintiff (hereinafter “Deutsche Bank”) moves for leave to voluntarily discontinue without prejudice pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) “due to the assignment of the mortgage being incorrectly and/or incompletely acknowledged.” (Anderson Affirm., 7 6). Defendant Ina Zaloom (“Zaloom”), on behalf of herself and codefendant Martin B. Seidlin (“Seidlin”), cross-moves for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint with prejudice and an order (a) that no amounts are owed by Zaloom to Deutsche Bank under the mortgage note; (b) that plaintiff may not foreclose the subject mortgage; (c) that bars Deutsche Bank from seeking a deficiency judgment against Zaloom; and (d) that awards sanctions against Deutsche Bank pursuant to 22 NYCRR 5 130- 1.1, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

[…]

However, Deutsche Bank’s pleading against defendant Jungkil Han, previous owner of the subject apartment, is dismissed with prejudice, because Deutsche Bank has not alleged any basis of claim against him.

With respect to Zaloom’s counterclaim, it must also be dismissed without – prejudice. Because both parties agree that plaintiff cannot currently establish by admissible documentation assignment of the note and therefore may not foreclose on defendants’ mortgage, Zaloom cannot currently establish that Deutsche Bank at any time assumed liability for the actions of non-parties American Brokers Conduit and Cutaia Mortgage Group, Inc.

In accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs motion brought pursuant to CPLR 32 17(b) for leave to discontinue its application of foreclosure is granted in part and denied in part; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs pleading is dismissed without prejudice as against defendants Ina Zaloom and Martin Seidlin; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs pleading is dismissed with prejudice as against defendant Jungkil Wan; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the County of New York shall cancel and discharge the Notice of Pendency filed in this action in the Office of the Clerk of the County of New York on the 13* day of April, 2009; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant Ina Zaloom’s cross-motion is denied in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant Ina Zaloom’s counterclaim is dismissed without prejudice.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated: New York, New York
June 6,201 1

[ipaper docId=57892898 access_key=key-2at5gl1e1j3oa6xwoqan height=600 width=600 /]

BLOOMBERG-

Tailwind, a private equity firm, and investment firm Ares both have financial ties to Pillar Processing LLC, which processes foreclosures for the law firm of Steven J. Baum. Baum handles almost half the foreclosures in New York, according to one of the people. Baum and Pillar were subpoenaed about a month ago, according to the second person. Both declined to be identified because the matter isn’t public.