“I can’t recall that the Fed was ever sued and forced to release information” in its 98-year history, said Allan H. Meltzer, the author of three books on the U.S central bank and a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
By Greg Stohr and Bob Ivry – Mar 21, 2011 12:22 PM ET
The Federal Reserve will disclose details of emergency loans it made to banks in 2008, after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an industry appeal that aimed to shield the records from public view.
The justices today left intact a court order that gives the Fed five days to release the records, sought by Bloomberg News’s parent company, Bloomberg LP. The Clearing House Association LLC, a group of the nation’s largest commercial banks, had asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
“The board will fully comply with the court’s decision and is preparing to make the information available,” said David Skidmore, a spokesman for the Fed.
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
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
The Law Offices of David J. Stern took its fight against the attorney general’s investigation to court on Tuesday, moving to quash the state’s subpoena.
The battle between Attorney General Bill McCollum and four law firms accused of shoddy foreclosure practices continued in Broward County Court on Tuesday, with the Law Offices of David J. Stern challenging the state’s subpoena.
Jeffrey Tew, legal counsel for Stern’s Plantation-based firm, argued that the attorney general’s office does not have jurisdiction to investigate law firms under the Federal Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, or FDUTPA.
That statute — the basis of McCollum’s case — only applies in cases where goods and services are being transferred between the accused and the alleged victim, Tew said.
“The alleged quote-unquote `victims’ in this case are the borrowers,” said Tew, presenting a motion to “quash” the subpoena. “FDUTPA requires that the law firm be exchanging goods and services of monetary value with the borrowers.”
Tew said that the law firm was exchanging its services with the banks, not the borrowers.
The judge, Eileen O’Connor, said she would rule in a couple of days.
The case is crucial to the state’s investigation, because it comes on the heels of another ruling in which a Palm Beach judge quashed the state’s subpoena of the Shapiro & Fishman law firm. That judge said the Florida Bar and the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to sanction lawyers, not the attorney general.
O’Connor indicated that she would judge independently.
“That’s not your better argument,” she told Tew after he referenced the Palm Beach case.
Attorney General McCollum I applaud you for STANDING UP for Florida!
Assistant AG’s June M. Clarkson and Theresa B. Edwards what an amazing job! Thank you.
Investigate the law suit Shapiro and Stern had against each other…You might just find missing pieces there.
The facts are the facts…crystal clear. This glass is not half full but spilling out the rim of the glass!
Attorney General Bill McCollum today filed a Motion for Rehearing on last week’s ruling by Circuit Judge Jack Cox that the Attorney General could not investigate the Shapiro & Fishman law firm for the firm’s alleged involvement in presenting fabricated documents to the courts in foreclosure actions to obtain final judgments against homeowners. The Attorney General is currently investigating four law firms, The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.; Shapiro & Fishman, LLP, the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., and Florida Default Law Group, PL for allegedly engaging in these practices.
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (ABC 4 News) – “They’re foreclosing illegally here in Utah,” those were the words of St. George Attorney John Christian Barlow spoken in early June. Barlow at the time had appeared before a Federal Judge arguing that the Banking Giant, Bank of America, was foreclosing illegally in the State of Utah. The Southern Utah Attorney believed that because B.O.A was not a registered business or corporation in the state, they lacked authority to do business here.
Barlow had succeeded in getting a 5th Circuit Court Judge to agree with him; as a result the judge imposed an injunction on all Bank of America foreclosures. Weeks later, the case went before a Federal Judge where B.O.A. argued that they were regulated by Federal Laws not State. Federal Judge Clark Waddoups heard case, and threw out the injunction therefore Bank of America’s foreclosure company: ReConTrust was allowed to foreclose once again.
After the decision, ABC4 got a tip about the case and started digging. Our tipster said that the Judge may have a conflict of interest in hearing the B.O.A. cases. Why? Because the Judge Waddoups old law firm represents Bank of America.
We checked into Waddoups background and the Federal Judge did work for Parr,Brown, Gee & Loveless for nearly 30 years. And Waddoups, as of 2008, drew a pension from the law firm. We placed a call to the firm, but they wouldn’t comment if the former firm Partner had ever handled B.O.A cases.
(Salt Lake City, UT) – The Bank of America’s motion for dismissal filed July 2, 2010 in US District Court of Utah may have opened the way for Judge Clark Waddoups to set aside his order halting foreclosures in Utah by ReconTrust Company and remand the case to state court. Attorneys John Christian Barlow and E. Craig Smay, in their plaintiff’s response filed Friday, July 8, 2010 say “the defendant’s motion to dismiss re-opens the issue of preemption of State law which previously arose in the analysis of the courts jurisdiction. There, the court analyzed and relied upon the wrong statute, producing an erroneous conclusion of preemption. That conclusion should now be corrected,” the attorneys said.
“The defendant’s motion to dismiss is based upon claims the plaintiff lacked a cause of action under Utah Code §16-10a-1501 and 57-1-21 addresses an issue not in dispute,” Barlow said. “ReconTrust Company is permitted to serve as trustee in Utah, but the company is still required to register and have offices in the state along with its competitor state banks, and may not foreclose non-judicially,” according to Barlow and Smay. “Bank of America’s motion to dismiss serves to more clearly show the federal court lacks jurisdiction to set aside the restraining order previously issued by the state court,” Barlow said. The Plaintiff filing cites the federal court’s own decision denying federal jurisdiction. (Jensen-ReconTrust)
The attorneys conclude “the motion by the defendant to dismiss must be denied and the prior order setting aside the state court injunction should be withdrawn and the matter remanded to the state court.”
While, the judge ponders his response to the filing, the plaintiff has moved the case to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver (Appeal) The Bank of America has become the symbol of what’s wrong in America where homeowners (taxpayers) want less federal control and more accountability. The plaintiff Peni Cox has become a symbol of homeowners everywhere caught in the financial meltdown fighting faceless – paperless financial giants of Wall Street and their legal brain trusts.
Shareholders and mortgage investment portfolio managers are beginning to quietly caution banks about their foreclosure policies. Most of the financial institutions with foreclosures have received TARP TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) was designed to get so-called toxic assets off the books of major banks. These assets included mortgage-backed securities deemed impossible to value. Because banks could not buy and sell these securities, they were becoming increasingly illiquid, and a credit crunch began to emerge as lending between banks ground to a halt. TARP funds were utilized to purchase these assets, injecting banks with liquidity.
Barlow continues to champion his client’s rights contending remedies were taken away from her by faceless lenders who continue to overwhelm homeowners and the judicial system with motions and petitions as remedies instead of actually making a good-faith effort in face-to-face negotiations to help homeowners. “Mortgage lenders are required by law to be registered and have offices in the State of Utah to do business, that is unless you’re the Bank of America or one of their subsidiary companies which apparently are above the law in Utah,” Barlow said. “The Bank of America and other financial institutions, under the guise of mortgage lenders are trampling the rights of citizens,” he said.
Bank of America acquired the bankrupt Countrywide Home Loan portfolio in a stock deal June 3, 2009. And, according to the ReconTrust, the bank has over 1162 Utah homeowners in foreclosure as of July 10, 2010.
Next week KCSG News will report on Utah court cases in which the plaintiffs (homeowners) claim neither the lender, MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System), nor the Bank of America, nor any other defendant in the case, has any remaining interest in the mortgage promissory note bundled with other notes and sold as mortgage-backed securities or otherwise assigned and split from the Trust Deed. Last month the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling protecting homeowners from losing their homes to foreclosure mills hired by the lenders to foreclose using bogus documents created for lenders in which the lender had no secured interest. Similar cases are now making there way through Utah courts.
St. George, UT) – A Notice of Appeal to Federal Judge Clark Waddoups court order vacating an Injunction against Bank of America and its subsidiary ReconTrust Company halting all foreclosures in Utah was filed Friday, June 25, 2010 by St. George attorney John Christian Barlow.
Barlow told KCSG News he was “troubled by Court ruling but unrelenting in pursuit of redress for his client (Cox) and other homeowners who have become victims of mortgage lending gone mad.” Barlow said he has motioned the court to allow Cox’s complaint to include a “Class of Citizens” currently in foreclosure in Utah. Barlow contends his client’s rights to remedies were taken away from her by a faceless lender who continues to overwhelm homeowners and the judicial system with motions and petitions as a remedy instead of making a good-faith effort in face-to-face negotiations to help homeowners as the Utah legislature intended. The David and Goliath legal battle over federal versus states-citizens rights is headed to the 10th Circuit Court.
Judge Waddoups’ Memorandum of Explanation in support of vacating a statewide Preliminary Injunction halting all foreclosures by the Bank of America only served to raise more questions.
Some of the questions include:
1.) Why is the judge’s ruling at variance with his previous rulings this year as noted in a Letter to Judge Waddoups submitted to the court June 10th, 2010 by the Plaintiff’s counsel John Christian Barlow, Esq. and E. Craig Smay, Esq. and posted June 21, 2010 in the court docket, after the Ruling and Memorandum of Explanation.
2.) Why did Judge Waddoups essentially brush aside the Plaintiff’s pleading that included the Supreme Court decision Cuomo vs. Clearing House Association in which the Court said…“If a State chooses to pursue enforcement of its laws in court, its targets are protected by discovery and procedural rules” meaning a state has a right to enforce its own laws against national banks.
3.) Why hasn’t Judge Waddoups recused himself from all Bank of America or ReconTrust Company related cases since he was a senior partner in the law firm Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless now Parr, Brown, Gee & Loveless that represented the Bank of America in Utah Fourth District Court, Case No. 070402786 before he took the bench. And, the law firm continues to represent the Bank of America and its subsidiaries. According to the Code of Conduct for US Judges, a judge should recuse himself when there may be a conflict of interest.
4.) Why shouldn’t Judge Waddoups recuse himself from any case in which his old law firm represents either the plaintiff or the defendant until he takes full distribution of his retirement fund with the law firm as disclosed in Judge Waddoups most recent Financial Disclosure Statement that shows he only took a partial distribution of his retirement from the firm’s 401K
“Bank of America acquired the bankrupt Countrywide Home Loan portfolio in a stock deal June 3, 2009. And, according to the ReconTrust website, the Bank of America has over 1113 Utah homeowners in foreclosure this month, and the numbers keep growing,” Barlow said.
The second part of the Plaintiff’s complaint has yet to be addressed. It alleges neither the lender, nor MERS*, nor Bank of America, nor any other Defendant, has any remaining interest in the mortgage promissory note. The note was bundled with other notes and sold as mortgage-backed securities or otherwise assigned and split from the Trust Deed. Barlow said he has begun a quiet title action and expects the court to adjudicate it according to the facts of evidence which will clearly demonstrate lenders bundling notes into securities and trading in the financial markets have created the underlying homeowner’s mortgage nightmare.
*MERS(Mortgage Electronic Registration System) is a process designed to simplify the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated, sold and tracked created by the real estate finance industry. MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans as securities.
Recent Comments