“Issues”…Nah no “issues”? If this isn’t sending us a message or 127 messages that there aren’t any “issues”… Let them continue to submit exactly what they were filing before the *New Rule*… don’t stop now! Believe me there is more than these!
EXCERPT:
Pursuant to an Administrative Order of the Chief Judge, dated October 20, 2010, all residential mortgage foreclosure actions require an affirmation from the attorney representing the plaintiff/lender/bank, as stated in the affirmation attached to this order, that he/she has inspected all documents.
The plaintiff is also directed on any future application to provide a copy of this Court’s order, the prior application/motion papers and an updated affidavit of regularity/merit from the plaintiff/lender/bank’s representative that he/she has reviewed the file in this case and that he/she documents that all paperwork is correct. The plaintiff/lender/bank’s representative shall also provide in said affidavit of regularity her/his position, length of service, training, educational background and a listing of the documents and financial records reviewed substantiating the review of the amounts owed. The affidavit should also include that she/he has personally reviewed both the mortgage and the note and any assignments for accuracy.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proof in a summary judgment proceeding and judgment will only be awarded when all doubt is removed as to the existence of any triable issue of fact. Under the present circumstances, where there have been numerous instances alleged as to “robo” signing of documents and a failure to attest to the accuracy of documents in mortgage foreclosure proceedings, the plaintiff must prove its entitlement to foreclose on a mortgage as a matter of law by establishing the regularity and accuracy of the financial documentary evidence submitted and the Court will be scrutinizing all documents for accuracy.
The foregoing constitutes the decision of the Court.
In this case, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence which shows that when MERS assigned the mortgage to Plaintiff, it also transferred the interest in the underlying note. According to the mortgage assignment contract, MERS held legal title to the mortgage. There is no language in the agreement which transfers interest in the note to MERS. Because MERS did not hold title to the underlying note, it could not transfer any rights to the underlying note when it assigned the mortgage to Plaintiff. See LPP Mortgage Ltd v. Sabine Properties No. 103648/10,2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4216, at*7 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Sept. 1, 2010); Lamy , 824 N.Y.S.2d at 769 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2006); HSBC Bank USA v. Miller, 26 Misc. 3d 407,411,889 N.Y.S.2d 430,433 (Sup. Ct. Sullivan Co. 2009). Without a transfer of title to the underlying note, Plaintiff cannot foreclose on the property based on default payment and lacks standing under CPLR 5 321 1 (a)(3)
[…]
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that this action is dismissed; and it is further
ORDERED that the clerk of the court directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Attorney General Martha Coakley is trying to determine whether a lender-created company that tracks mortgage loan data has failed to pay millions of dollars in property recording fees in Massachusetts.
Coakley is taking aim at the little-known but powerful Reston, Va., company whose members include Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase, and other major lenders.
The company, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., oversees a database of about 31 million mortgages, about half of the active loans in the United States.
As concern about foreclosure practices mounts across the country, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems is increasingly being questioned by regulators, lawyers, and housing advocates about the way it operates.
Essex County’s register of deeds, John L. O’Brien Jr., last month asked Coakley to investigate the company, known as MERS. He said that by using its own database for property transfers, MERS does not pay recording fees or disclose the transactions, as Massachusetts law requires.
O’Brien estimated that in Essex County alone, $10 million was lost over the past decade because MERS failed to pay a $75 fee each time a mortgage was transferred between lenders.
“They created their own registry of deeds,’’ he said. “They have to record these assignments. The taxpayers deserve these fees.’’
A spokeswoman for Coakley said her office is looking at the issues O’Brien raised.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A. vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE IS GIVEN that Petitioner/Appellant LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A. appeals to the Fourth Court of Appeal the Order on Petitioner’s Amended Petition to Quash the Investigative Subpoena Duces Tectum Issued by Florida’s Attorney General
This is my Begging people to STAND UP – WAKE UP AND TAKE ACTION!
It is Time – Please Lets get more awake and lets take action and have an intellectual Revolution! There are real inconvenient truths in the video and we need to take action to keep our freedoms! We are losing them and if we continue to sit back we will have lost them all!
First Posted: 12-14-10 04:23 PM | Updated: 12-14-10 04:32 PM
The leader of a nationwide investigation of foreclosure fraud told homeowners Tuesday that the probe will have some serious consequences for bankers.
“We will put people in jail,” Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said, according to homeowner advocates present at the meeting in Des Moines.
Miller said the 50 attorneys general participating in the investigation want criminal prosecutions as part of a big settlement with home-loan providers. The probe launched this fall in the wake of news that the foreclosure processes at many large banks are as bogus as the lending practices that fed the housing bubble in the first place, as banks granted loans indiscriminately to feed derivatives-market speculation and failed to track original mortgage documents after packaging the loans and selling them to investors.
Several banks temporarily halted foreclosures shortly after some of the more egregious practices were revealed, but resumed seizing homes as the scandal fell off the front pages.
Other components of the proposed settlement would require banks to modify home loans and reduce debt burdens for customers whose homes are worth less than their mortgages.
“One of the main tools needs to be principal reductions, just like in the farm crisis in the 1980s,” Miller told the assembled homeowners, adding that he also supported restitution for victims of wrongful foreclosure. “There should be some kind of compensation system for people who have been harmed.”
Congressional Oversight Panel Reviews Treasury’s Foreclosure Prevention Programs HAMP On Track to Prevent Far Fewer Foreclosures Than Expected, but Treasury Can Still Take Steps to Help More Homeowners Avoid Foreclosure
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 14, 2010
Thomas Seay
Thomas_Seay@cop.senate.gov
202-224-9979
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Congressional Oversight Panel today released its December oversight report, “A Review of Treasury’s Foreclosure Prevention Programs.” In the eight months since the Panel’s last report on the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), Treasury has made minor tweaks to the program, but the changes have not resolved the Panel’s core concerns. The Panel now estimates that, if current trends hold, HAMP will prevent only 700,000 foreclosures – far fewer than the three to four million foreclosures that Treasury initially aimed to stop, and vastly fewer than the eight to 13 million foreclosures expected by 2012.
While HAMP’s most dramatic shortcoming has been its poor results in preventing foreclosures, the program has had other significant flaws. For example, despite repeated urgings from the Panel, Treasury has failed to collect and analyze data that would explain HAMP’s shortcomings, and it does not even have a way to collect data for many of HAMP’s add-on programs. Further, Treasury has refused to specify meaningful goals by which to measure HAMP’s progress, while the program’s sole initial goal – to prevent three to four million foreclosures – has been repeatedly redefined and watered down.
Treasury has failed to hold loan servicers accountable when they have repeatedly lost borrower paperwork or refused to perform loan modifications. Treasury has essentially outsourced the responsibility for overseeing servicers to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but Freddie Mac in particular has hesitated to enforce some of its contractual rights related to the foreclosure process, arguing that doing so “may negatively impact our relationships with these seller/servicers, some of which are among our largest sources of mortgage loans.” Treasury bears the ultimate responsibility for preventing such conflicts of interest, and it should ensure that loan servicers are penalized when they fail to complete loan modifications appropriately.
It is too late for Treasury to revamp its foreclosure prevention strategy, but Treasury can still take steps to wring every possible benefit from its programs. Treasury should enable borrowers to apply for loan modifications more easily – for example, by allowing online applications. Treasury should also carefully monitor and, where appropriate, intervene in cases in which borrowers are falling behind on their HAMP-modified mortgages. Preventing redefaults is an extremely powerful way of magnifying HAMP’s impact, as each redefault prevented translates directly into a borrower keeping his home.
Treasury should acknowledge that HAMP will not reach the expected number of homeowners and should provide a meaningful framework for evaluating the program in the future. Treasury continues to state that HAMP will expend $30 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program funding, yet the Panel’s estimate based on Congressional Budget Office figures is that HAMP will likely spend only around $4 billion. Had Treasury acknowledged this reality before its crisis authority expired, it could have reallocated the money to a more effective program. Now, that option is gone. Absent a dramatic and unexpected increase in HAMP enrollment, many billions of dollars set aside for foreclosure mitigation may well be left unused. As a result, an untold number of borrowers may go without help – all because Treasury failed to acknowledge HAMP’s shortcomings in time.
The Congressional Oversight Panel was created to oversee the expenditure of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds authorized by Congress in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) and to provide recommendations on regulatory reform. The Panel members are former Senator Ted Kaufman; J. Mark McWatters; Richard H. Neiman, Superintendent of Banks for the State of New York; Damon Silvers, Policy Director and Special Counsel for the AFL-CIO; and Kenneth Troske, William B. Sturgill Professor of Economics at the University of Kentucky.
Ginnie Mae is pleased to announce that it has joined with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) in adopting the Mortgage Industry Standards Maintenance Organization’s (“MISMO”) Uniform Loan Delivery Dataset (“ULDD”) for delivering loan information to the agencies. The GSEs have been working on this effort; and, announced to their respective program participants that effective September 1, 2011, and forward, all loans delivered to the GSEs will be required to be transmitted to the GSEs using the ULDD specifications.
The mortgage finance industry supports the adoption of standards and common file formats, as they lead to higher quality data, less rework, and lower costs for all participants in the industry, including borrowers.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
HSBC BANK USA, N.A., as Indenture :
Trustee for the Registered Noteholders :
of Renaissance Home Equity Loan :
Trust 2007-1 :
:
v.
: JAMIE W. THOMPSON, et al.
EXCERPTS:
{¶ 67} In contrast to Watson, no evidence was presented in the case before us to indicate that the allonges were ever attached or affixed to the promissory note. Instead, the allonges have been presented as separate, loose sheets of paper, with no explanation as to how they may have been attached. Compare In re Weisband, (Bkrtcy. D. Ariz., 2010), 427 B.R. 13, 19 (concluding that GMAC was not a “holder” and did not have ability to enforce a note, where GMAC failed to demonstrate that an allonge endorsement to GMAC was affixed to a note. The bankruptcy court noted that the endorsement in question “is on a separate sheet of paper; there was no evidence that it was stapled or otherwise attached to the rest of the Note.”)
{¶ 86} We need not decide which approach is correct, because the alleged assignment of mortgage is attached to Neil’s rejected affidavits. Since the trial court’s disregard of the affidavits was not an abuse of discretion, there is currently no evidence of a mortgage “assignment” to consider. Moreover, we would reject HSBC’s position even if we considered the alleged assignment, because HSBC failed to establish that it was the holder of the note. Therefore, no “equitable assignment” of the mortgage would have arisen. All that HSBC might have established is that the mortgage was assigned to it after the action was filed. However, as we noted, the matters pertaining to that fact were submitted with an
affidavit that the trial court rejected, within its discretion.
2 minor corrections:1. There are now 66 Million mortgages in MERS 2. The First Edition of MERS Recommended Foreclosure Procedures was actually written in 1998. To see the First Ed. from 1998 go here towards the bottom.
Professor of Economics and Research Director of the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri–Kansas City
Posted: December 13, 2010 10:58 AM
.
In part one of this series I showed that MERS recommended that mortgage servicers retain the “wet ink” notes that borrowers signed. These notes are required in 45 states to foreclose on a home. Not only does the foreclosing party need to physically hold the note, but the note must be properly endorsed and transferred every time a mortgage is sold. A clear chain of title must be demonstrated to make the note valid. This is to protect borrowers from fraud — no one can manufacture a note, claim to be a creditor, and then take a homeowner’s property. And this is especially important when mortgages are securitized and bought and sold a dozen times — if there is no clear chain of title, the borrower can never be sure who is really the creditor.
But, in fact, the notes were never transferred, there is no clear chain of paperwork, and in many cases the notes have “disappeared” so that when the servicers or MERS tries to foreclose, they must file “lost note affidavits” claiming rightful ownership even though they do not have evidence. They have also been caught using “robo-signers” to forge documents — and sometimes they have foreclosed on the wrong properties and even seized homes on which there was no mortgage. That is precisely why the law requires proper transfers of the note. Without that, the mortgage is a fraud and foreclosure is fraudulent.
By itself, all of this is a horrific scandal, involving up to 65 million mortgages — the number of mortgages registered at MERS, most of which presumably were subjected to MERS’s guidelines and extremely sloppy record-keeping. But like Shrek’s onion, it is much more complicated than that — with layer after layer of fraud piled on fraud. There are many angles to be explored, most of them too complex and arcane to be pursued in a short column. Here, in part two, I will discuss the implications for the securities that bundled the fraudulent mortgages registered at MERS. Not only did MERS defraud the counties out of their recording fees and the homeowners out of their homes, but it also helped to perpetrate securities fraud and federal tax fraud. Fortunately for the investors in these securities, the securitization process was fatally flawed, meaning that they can return to the issuing banks and demand their money back. But that implies, of course, that the banksters are hopelessly insolvent — on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars.
DALLAS–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Goldfarb Branham LLP is investigating whether certain officers and directors of Lender Processing Services, Inc. (NYSE: LPS) violated state and federal securities laws due to statements the company made about its home foreclosure procedures. Concerned LPS shareholders are urged to contact securities attorney Hamilton Lindley at 877-583-2855 or hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com about their rights and remedies.
“According to a class action complaint, LPS failed to disclose that its DocX subsidiary used ‘robo signers’ to falsify documents and that LPS engaged in improper fee shifting with foreclosure attorneys to hide these deceptive practices,” said securities lawyer Hamilton Lindley. “After a company press release commented on these allegations, LPS stock price plummeted 13 percent.”
Goldfarb Branham LLP lawyers have significant experience representing shareholders and whistleblowers in securities lawsuits nationwide. The firm may be retained without financial obligation or cost to its clients. Lender Processing Services investors who purchased stock before or between July 29, 2009 and October 4, 2010, and continue to hold their shares, should contact the firm at hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com or 877-583-2855 to learn about their rights.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 10-3431
DENNIS A. RHODES et al, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
– v.-
ROSEMARY DIAMOND et al,
Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
09-cv-1302
APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF
AND APPENDIX VOLUME I (Pages A1-A13)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………………… 1
STATEMENT OF ISSUES …………………………………………………………………………… 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE …………………………………………………… 2
STATEMENTOFFACTS ……………………………………………………… 4
Appellees’ Foreclosure Practices ……………………………………………………………. .4
Facts Alleged in the PAC ……………………………………………………………………….. 8
Independent Confirmation of Abusive Foreclosure Practices ……………………. 11
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT …………………………………………….. 15
ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………………….. 17
I. THE COURT BELOW ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING
THE HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE PAC ………… 17
II. THE COURT BELOW ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED
THE HOMEOWNERS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ………………………………….. 21
A. Bankruptcy Creditors Have A Duty to Amend Inaccurate Claims ………. 21
B. The U.S. Bankruptcy Code Does Not Preclude FDCPA Lawsuits
Brought to Remedy Institutionalized Debt Collection Abuses …………… 21
CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………… 30
CERTIFICATION REGARDING BAR MEMBERSHIP ……………………….. 31
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE …………………………………………….. 32
CERTIFICATE OF IDENTICALNESS ………………………………………….. 33
CERTIFICATE OF VIRUS CHECK ……………………………………………. 34
SEATTLE – Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna announced today that his office has uncovered evidence that suggests foreclosure trustees are ignoring consumer protection laws in Washington, adding a new layer to a stack of problems reported in the mortgage-servicing industry. He sent letters today to 52 trustees outlining his concerns and calling on them to suspend any questionable foreclosures in the state.
“As part of our ongoing investigation, we have received complaints and information that indicate the Washington foreclosure process frequently includes inaccurate documents, conflicts-of-interest, faulty chains of title and failures to provide the disclosures and conduct mediations required by law,” McKenna said during a press conference today in Seattle with officials from the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) and the Washington State Housing Finance Commission. “Some of these practices can deprive homeowners of their legal right to assert legitimate defenses in an action to save their homes.”
“Problems aren’t limited to the national banks and mortgage servicers, however, and appear to extend to foreclosure trustees,” he continued.
The Department of Financial Institutions shares McKenna’s concerns that some foreclosures may not have been processed according to Washington law, said Director Scott Jarvis.
“Such failures potentially injure not just the homeowners denied the protections afforded to them under our laws, but also subsequent purchasers of foreclosed properties, financial institutions who might be inclined to lend on such properties, and the title insurance companies who insure the chain of title to those properties,” Jarvis said. “The last thing we need in these difficult times is to further damage our already struggling real estate industry.”
Washington state government officials are investigating foreclosure servicing problems from three perspectives:
McKenna and Jarvis announced today that they have joined the National Association of Attorneys General and banking regulators in forming a multistate group to investigate whether mortgage servicers have improperly submitted affidavits or other documents related to foreclosures in their states. The Washington Attorney General’s Office will serve on the executive committee of the multistate group. Jim Sugarman and David Huey, assistant attorneys general in the Consumer Protection Division, and Deborah Bortner, director of DFI’s Division of Consumer Services, will represent Washington on the new multistate group.
The Mortgage Fraud Working Group of The Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, a joint federal-state initiative co-chaired by McKenna, is also investigating certain aspects of these foreclosure problems.
On the local front, the Washington Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division since May of this year has been investigating reports of lenders and trustee services not properly reviewing foreclosure documents or following other legal procedures.
“Because Washington state law allows foreclosure without court oversight, you are the party most responsible for ensuring that foreclosures are done properly,” McKenna wrote in the letter to trustees. “Consequently, I ask you to suspend all foreclosures in which you have not yet confirmed that all foreclosure-related documents were lawfully signed, that the chain of ownership is clear and has been revealed to you in full, and that state consumer protection requirements have been followed.”
McKenna said that he strongly favors loan modifications and other means of preventing foreclosures when possible and advocates working with lenders to improve communication with borrowers. In addition to its enforcement efforts, the Attorney General’s Office plays a leading role in the multistate Foreclosure Prevention Working Group, which issues regular reports on the status of foreclosure prevention efforts.
“The housing counselors that we fund have told us again and again about the serious communication problems they are having on behalf of families facing foreclosure,” said Kim Herman, executive director of the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, “These families just want to be treated fairly and get a reasonable, timely decision so they can move on with their lives. That is not too much to expect and, hopefully, this process will help that happen.”
Washington residents facing foreclosure should call the Washington State Homeownership Information Hotline at 1-877-894-HOME (4663) for referral to a free, state-approved housing counselor or legal help. Additional resources are on the Attorney General’s Web site at www.atg.wa.gov/foreclosure.aspx.
Specific concerns addressed in McKenna’s letter to foreclosure trustees:
Employees of foreclosure trustees are signing documents posing as the corporate officer of multiple banks and mortgage servicers and signatures of some trustees vary widely from document to document. This appears to be happening even though signatures are notarized with a statement that the signer is the actual person standing before the notary.
Trustees may be foreclosing on homes when there is no clear chain of ownership for the loan or the security interest. At the national level, there are reports of lenders “reverse-engineering” the chain of title, including back-dating documents to make it appear as though the loan was passed from company to company.
Many default notices have gone out without all required information. Since July 26, 2009, Washington trustees have been required to identify the owner of the loan and the company that is acting as servicer. The notices must also include an address and phone number for the servicer. The absence of these details can make it harder for homeowners to contact their mortgage owners.
Lenders are not consistently telling homeowners about their right to explore alternatives to foreclosure. Lenders are required to advise borrowers who obtained mortgages between 2003-2007 of their right to meet and confer and, if requested, the loan owner must schedule a meeting to occur within 14 days. It is our understanding that lenders are regularly not telling homeowners about this right, which exists to help homeowners explore alternatives to foreclosure.
Washington is a “non-judicial foreclosure” state, which means that a lender can proceed directly to selling a home at public auction without first filing a lawsuit. This process was created by the state Legislature. Although lenders may foreclose in court in Washington, they almost always choose non-judicial foreclosures.
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/…
This is a crucial video with actual courtroom footage showing how mortgages and notes are lost as U.S. Citizens face foreclosure, as noted by journalists like Matt Taibbi. Fight back with KingCast courtroom video. I’ve been shooting courtroom video since I tried Civil Rights cases in the mid 1990’s.
KingCast — Reel News for Real People.
Ingress v. Wells Fargo
Hillsborough South
226-2010-CV571
That seems to be the approach that notorious robo-signing firm Nationwide Title Clearing has taken in responding to some of its critics.
If you are unfamiliar with their name, you might recall earlier this Fall when depositions of several Nationwide robo-signers employees went viral on YouTube (We mentioned these here and here).
This, amongst other perceived sleights has upset Nationwide Title, who has sued a St. Petersburg foreclosure defense lawyer, Matthew Weidner, for alleged libel and slander.
This is likely to be a terrible, terrible idea.
For those of you who are not attorneys, I need to point out a few things out about Libel and Slander laws in the United States. These are Constitutional issues, as the First Amendment protects speech, opinion, arguments, viewpoints, etc. In these cases, (capital “T”) Truth is an absolute defense. So if any defendant can demonstrate that the damaging statements were indeed, accurate, they win.
This case turns on the bizarre claim that the term robo-signer so libels the plaintiffs that they are entitled to damages. Given that Truth is a defense, the defendant will prevail if they can demonstrate Nationwide’s approach was robotic. Not literally machines doing the work, but any showing of assembly line manufacturing, for profit, of a streamlined document production that failed to review the documents, evaluate them, analyze the contents should qualify.
Here’s where things get very very interesting: In civil litigation, the discovery process provides lots of opportunities for a defendant to gather information related to the accusations to prove they are true. This is a very broad standard, and it means nearly anything relevant is fair game. Depositions of senior executives, the firm’s accounting and records, balance sheets, low level employees are all legitimate aspects of pre-trial discovery.
Why any private firm would subject themselves to this degree of scrutiny is quite baffling to me.
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. DIVISION I.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P.
f/k/a COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
v.
RONALD R. WHITE and TERI L. WHITE
Excerpt:
Therefore, in Oklahoma it is not possible to bifurcate the security interest from the note. An assignment of the mortgage to one other than the holder of the note is no effect.
[…]
The record on summary judgment in the present case contains conflicting evidence as to the ownership of the note. The note, in which the White’s ppromised to pay a sum certain to the order of Lender, is a negotiable instrument pursuant to 12A O.S.2001 30104(a).
[…]
The note in the record appears to be indorsed to Countrywide Document Custody Services, a division of Treasury Ban, NA; we are unable to determine from the record submitted to us that the instrument was later indoresed in blank and transferred to BAC.
Continue below to read the research this judge has done…
NEW YORK — One of Bernard Madoff’s sons was found dead of an apparent suicide Saturday on the second anniversary of his father’s arrest, according to a law enforcement official.
Mark Madoff, 46, was found hanged in his apartment in Manhattan’s fashionable SoHo section, according to the official. A family member notified police around 7:30 a.m.
The official was not authorized to speak publicly about the case and spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.
Mark Madoff and his brother, Andrew, were under investigation but hadn’t faced any criminal charges in the massive Ponzi scheme that led to their father’s jailing.
The Huffington Post | Nick Wing First Posted: 12-10-10 02:55 PM | Updated: 12-10-10 07:10 PM
UPDATE:The filibuster ended just shy of 7:00 PM ET, after 8 hours and 37 minutes of speaking.
…
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is leading a stalling session resembling a filibuster against Obama’s tax proposal on the Senate floor Friday, after earlier promising “to take as long as I can to explain to the American people the fact that we have got to do a lot better than this agreement provides.”
As First Read notes, however, the event is not an actual filibuster under the traditional definition: “If it were a true filibuster, he would be blocking Republicans from conducting business or speaking.”
The near-filibuster, which began at 10:25 AM, became so popular that it temporarily shut down the Senate video server.
Sanders kicked off the debate on the bill with a two-hour stand in opposition to the tax cut deal before handing over the lectern to Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and then Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
“How can I get by on one house?” Sanders said. “I need five houses, ten houses! I need three jet planes to take me all over the world! Sorry, American people. We’ve got the money, we’ve got the power, we’ve got the lobbyists here and on Wall Street. Tough luck. That’s the world, get used to it. Rich get richer. Middle class shrinks.”
v. Rodney K. Litteral, et al., Defendant-Appellant.
Appellate No. 23900.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County.
Rendered on December 3, 2010.
Excerpt:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Rodney Litteral appeals from a summary judgment rendered against him and in favor of plaintiff-appellee Bank of America. Litteral contends that the trial court abused its discretion and denied Litteral due process by failing to grant a motion for additional time to obtain counsel and respond, prior to granting the motion for summary judgment. Litteral also argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment before the deadline fixed by the trial court for Litteral’s response to the motion had passed.
{¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court erred in prematurely rendering summary judgment in favor of Bank of America. By prematurely entering the judgment the trial court erroneously removed Litteral’s timely filed motion for a continuance from its consideration. By depriving Litteral of the consideration of his motion within its sound discretion, the trial court erred to Litteral’s prejudice. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Reversed, and this cause is Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of LPS securities between July 29, 2009 and October 4, 2010 (the “Class Period”).
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company and certain of its executive officers violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company’s business, operations and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of LPS securities.
Thomas Seay
Thomas_Seay@cop.senate.gov
202-224-9979
On Thursday, December 16, the Congressional Oversight Panel will hold a hearing with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in room 538 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Congress created the Congressional Oversight Panel to oversee the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was originally authorized to spend $700 billion in taxpayer dollars.
WHO: Members of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel
WHAT: Hearing with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
WHEN: Thursday, December 16, 2010; 10:00 a.m.
WHERE: Room 538, Dirksen Senate Office Building
The hearing is open to press and public and will be webcast on the Panel’s website at cop.senate.gov. Individuals with disabilities who require an auxiliary aid or service, including closed captioning service for webcast hearings, should contact the Panel’s staff at 202-224-9925 at least two business days in advance of the hearing date.
The Congressional Oversight Panel was created to oversee the expenditure of the Troubled Asset Relief Program funds authorized by Congress in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and to provide recommendations on regulatory reform. The Panel members are former Senator Ted Kaufman; J. Mark McWatters; Richard H. Neiman, Superintendent of Banks for the State of New York; Damon Silvers, Policy Director and Special Counsel for the AFL-CIO;and Kenneth Troske, William B. Sturgill Professor of Economics at the University of Kentucky.
JUDGE COHALAN IS JUDGE OF THE WEEK!!!
![[VIDEO] WITNESSES “MERS DECEPTION”: Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis PT 2](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2010/12/shellgames.jpg&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
![[NYSC] DISMISSED “NO EVIDENCE MERS TRANFERRED INTEREST IN NOTE” LNV CORP v. MADISON REAL ESTATE LLC](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2010/12/NOEVIDENCE.jpg&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
GINNIE MAE MISMO
![[VIDEO] Nasty Mortgage Fraud Self Help remedy: Courtroom video in New Hampshire.](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2010/12/2D82062BF2F658F1B9C2E81EA569295E_250_5002.jpg&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
Recent Comments