Tag Archive | "assignments"

Computer Forensic Advances Raise Complex Issues

Posted on 29 March 2012. Tags: amartinezlaw, Anthony Martinez, assignments, court hearing, discovery, discovery request, discovery tactics, e-discovery, ediscovery, electronic discovery, ESI, expert, florida, florida court, florida judge, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosure strategies, fraud, litigation hold, MERS, Mortgage Electronic registration Systems, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., motion to dismiss, producing documents, Sanctions, spoliation, Stop Foreclosure Sale, strategies, summary judgment

via: Alina

e-discovery is a must. Everything was transmitted electronically. An electronic database where its members “shake hands” to make transfers. Preservation letters must be sent out to the foreclosing entities. Most states have stringent spoliation laws. If evidence is destroyed, it goes against the entity doing the destroying.

Law.Com-

Advanced forensic ability leads to advanced law enforcement capability. That’s not a particularly insightful theorem but, nevertheless, an accurate one.

Probably no forensic realm has seen a more expansive increase in capabilities than the analysis of digital devices, and this reality was brought home in what were certainly the two most prominent trials of 2011 — State of Florida v. Casey Anthony and People of the State of California v. Conrad Murray. In both cases, the timelines generated by digital forensic evidence played significant roles in the prosecutions’ respective attempts to prove guilt.

FORENSIC TIMELINE ANALYSIS …

In the Conrad Murray case, a recording of a cell phone conversation between Michael Jackson and the defendant stored on the latter’s phone was introduced into evidence, which forensic testimony demonstrated occurred six weeks prior to Jackson’s death. Jackson’s obviously slurred and …

[LAW.COM]

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Re-POST: E-Discovery …Electronic Registration Systems WORST NIGHTMARE!

Via: Discovery Tactics aka Anthony Martinez & Assoc.

Latest Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Cases

I’ve been harping on the importance of demanding and acessing ESI from foreclosing parties for quite some time now. A properly made ESI discovery request will provide numerous “smoking gun” documents that are sure to place the opposing party in a uncomfortable position. Below I’ve identifed some of the most recent and more important cases that involve ESI.

—————————————————-

Court Grants Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Clawback Provision

Rajala v. McGuire Woods LLP, 2010 WL 2649582 (D. Kan. July 22, 2010) Plaintiff, as Bankruptcy Trustee, brought suit against defendant, alleging several claims. The parties could not agree on the entry of a clawback provision. Accordingly, defendant moved the…

Jury Instruction Allowing Inference that Destroyed Evidence Was Unfavorable and Payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Ordered as Sanction for Failure to Preserve

Medcorp, Inc. v. Pinpoint Tech., Inc., 2010 WL 2500301 (D. Colo. June 15, 2010) Finding “willful” spoliation of 43 hard drives “in the sense that Plaintiff was aware of its responsibilities to preserve relevant evidence and failed to take necessary…

Judge Scheindlin Amends Recent Pension Opinion

On May 28th, Judge Shira Scheindlin entered an order amending her recent opinion in Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of Am. Secs., LLC. The order provides important clarification regarding the scope of a party’s obligation…

Court Rules Failure to Copy Files on Flash Drive Prior to Failure of the Drive Violated Duty to Preserve

Wilson v. Thorn Energy, LLC, 2010 WL 1712236 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010) In this case, the court ordered sanctions for defendants’ failure to preserve relevant data where defendants failed to back up a flash drive containing all relevant financial records…

Court Orders Monetary Sanctions for Production Delay Resulting from Counsel’s Failure to Become Familiar with Plaintiff’s Retention Policies and Systems

GFI Acquisition, LLC v. Am. Federated Title Corp. (In re A & M Fla. Props. II, LLC), 2010 WL 1418861 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2010) Where plaintiff’s counsel “failed in his obligation to locate and produce all relevant documents in…

Court Rules Communications with Attorney Using Work Computer are Protected as Privileged

Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 2010 WL 1189458 (N.J. Mar. 30, 2010) In this employment litigation, the Supreme Court of New Jersey addressed whether employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to attorney-client privileged emails sent and received…

Despite Malaysian Blocking Statute, Court Compels Third Party’s Production of Foreign Banking Information Pursuant to Subpoena

Gucci Amer., Inc. v. Curveal Fashion, 2010 WL 808639 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2010) Plaintiff sought to compel the production of documents and information regarding defendants’ Malaysian bank accounts pursuant to a subpoena served on United Overseas Bank’s New York Agency…

Court Provides Detailed Analysis of Law of Spoliation, Orders Adverse Inference Instruction, Monetary Sanctions for Intentional Spoliation of ESI

Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata, 2010 WL 645253 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2010) For intentional spoliation, the court declined to order terminating sanctions but ordered an adverse inference instruction and for defendants to pay plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs….

Court Finds Data “Not Reasonably Accessible,” Denies Motion to Compel

Rodriguez-Torres v. Gov. Dev. Bank of Puerto Rico, 265 F.R.D. 40 (D.P.R. 2010) In this employment discrimination case, the court found the electronically stored information (“ESI”) requested by the plaintiffs “not reasonably accessible because of the undue burden and cost”…

“Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later”: Judge Shira Scheindlin Issues her Latest e-Discovery Opinion

Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of Am. Secs., LLC, 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (Amended Order) Issued earlier this month, Judge Shira Scheindlin’s opinion in Pension Comm. of Univer. of Montreal Pension Plan…

Court Compels Discovery from Foreign Corporation Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

In re Global Power Equip. Group, Inc., 418 B.R. 833 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009) Upon a motion to compel production of documents from claimant, a foreign corporation, the court found the documents at issue to be within the control of…

Swiss Government Says It Would Seize UBS Data Sought by U.S.

Bloomberg.com, July 8, 2009 By David Voreacos and Mort Lucoff July 8 (Bloomberg) — Switzerland said it would seize UBS AG data to prevent the U.S. Justice Department from pursuing a U.S. court order seeking the identities of 52,000 American…

Finding Defendants’ Behavior “a Textbook Case of Discovery Abuse,” Court Orders $1,022,700 in Monetary Sanctions

Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 2009 WL 1473708 (N.D. Ga. May 27, 2009) In this constructive transfer and fraud case arising out of the 2003 bankruptcy of Magnatrax Corporation, plaintiff alleged numerous discovery abuses on the part of defendants and sought…

Court Declines to Compel Production of Documents from Foreign Jurisdiction upon Finding a Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and where Certain Documents are Protected from Production by Israeli Law

Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 2009 WL 1456573 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2009) In this case, defendant Arab Bank moved to compel production of documents, pursuant to subpoena, by non-parties Israel Discount Bank, Ltd. (“IDB”), its indirect, wholly –owned subsidiary, Israel…

Granting Motion to Compel, Court Orders Appointment of Independent Expert “to Retrieve any Deleted Responsive Files from Defendants’ Computers”

Bank of Mongolia v. M & P Global Fin. Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 1117312 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2009) In this case arising from allegations that defendants conspired to defraud plaintiff of $23 million, defendants failed to properly and timely…

Court Orders Production of Relevant Source Code Citing Defendant’s Suggestion for Mitigating Costs

Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Savings Bank, 2008 WL 4722336 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 24, 2008) In this breach of contract case, Emigrant filed several motions to compel Metavante’s response to multiple discovery requests. One motion sought the production of source code…

Updated List: Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines of United States District Courts Addressing E-Discovery Issues

At least 41 United States District Courts now require compliance with special local rules, forms or guidelines addressing the discovery of electronically stored information. In some districts where there are no local rules or court-mandated forms, individual judges have created…

Finding “No Reason to Treat Websites Differently than Other Electronic Files,” Court Grants Adverse Inference for Failure to Preserve Website

Arteria Prop. Pty Ltd. v. Universal Funding V.T.O., Inc., 2008 WL 4513696 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2008) (Not for Publication) In this case arising from failed negotiations for a long term development loan, the plaintiff filed a motion for spoliation sanctions…

Court Denies Protective Order, Orders Allegedly Proprietary Data Produced Directly to Competitor

In re NVMS, LLC, 2008 WL 4488963 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. Mar. 21, 2008) In this case, the debtor, a medical services company, moved for expedited discovery of information contained in the database of a former billing partner. In July of…

No Spoliation Found Where Expert Drafted His Report on Computer, Without Saving or Preserving Progressive Iterations

In re Teleglobe Communications Corp., 2008 WL 3198875 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 7, 2008) In this lengthy opinion addressing a variety of issues, the bankruptcy judge denied defendants’ motion to exclude testimony of the plaintiff’s expert as a sanction for…

Magistrate Judge “Clearly Erred” by Analyzing Cost-Shifting Dispute for Paper Production under Seven-Factor Zubulake Test

Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., 2008 WL 3287035 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2008) In this wage and hour employment case, plaintiff sought documents about class members’ employment and salary history, terminations, performance evaluations, discipline, certain communications, and personnel files. Rite…

Inadequate Preservation Efforts Necessitate Restoration and Production of Email from Backup Tapes, and Forensic Search of CEO’s Laptop

Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 2008 WL 866594 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008) In this case, plaintiff alleged that Biovail Corp., its CEO, general counsel and others engaged in a “smear campaign” that destroyed plaintiff’s career as a securities analyst. He asserted…

Magistrate Judge Sets Protocol for Plaintiff’s Forensic Examination of Former Employee’s Computer and Requests Affidavit from Expert Explaining Certain Issues

Equity Analytics, LLC v. Lundin, 248 F.R.D. 331 (D.D.C. 2008) In this case, plaintiff Equity Analytics claimed that defendant, its former employee, gained illegal access to electronically stored information after he was fired. Defendant explained that another Equity employee had…

Recent Amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil and Criminal Procedure Require Redaction of Personal Identification Information from Documents Filed with the Court

On December 1, 2007, the amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedure that implement the E-Government Act of 2002 became effective. The amendment to Appellate Rule 25, and new Bankruptcy Rule 9037, Civil Rule 5.2,…

The Biggest Data Disaster Ever

From The Red Tape Chronicles, Posted: Friday, November 30 at 05:15 am CT by Bob Sullivan: “It’s being called the worst data leak of the information age. Earlier this month, U.K. officials had to admit they’d lost hard drives containing…

Email Communications Between Physician and His Attorney Exchanged Over Hospital’s Email System Not Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege or Work Product Doctrine

Scott v. Beth Israel Med. Center Inc., 2007 WL 3053351 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 17, 2007) Plaintiff is a physician who sued for breach of contract based upon his termination from defendant hospital (“BI”). Under the contract at issue, BI…

Inadequate Legal Hold Measures, and Resulting Spoliation, Warrant Sanctions

In re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2007 WL 241344 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2007) In this opinion, Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck granted plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction and awarded plaintiffs their costs and…

Court Allows Plaintiffs to Conduct Expedited Discovery Regarding Possible Spoliation

Roberts v. Canadian Pac. R.R. Ltd., 2007 WL 118901 (D. Minn. Jan. 11, 2007) In this decision, Chief District Judge James M. Rosenbaum granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct limited discovery concerning spoliation of evidence on an expedited basis….

Condemning Defendant’s Gamesmanship, Court Orders Production of Database

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2006 WL 3803152 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 14, 2006) In this case involving UCC claims stemming from defendant’s internet-based check service, defendant disputed that it did sufficient business with Ohio residents to subject it…

Court Grants Plaintiff Access to Defendant’s Database

Bianchi v. The Bureaus, Inc., 2006 WL 3802758 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2006) In this brief order, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to allow her computer expert access a database maintained by defendant, for the purpose of determining whether the…

Citing Conference of Chief Justices’ Guidelines to State Courts, North Carolina Court Refuses to Compel Nonparty to Produce Deleted Emails from Backup Tapes

Bank of America Corp. v. SR Int’l Bus. Ins. Co., Ltd., 2006 WL 3093174, 2006 NCBC 15 (N.C. Super. Nov. 1, 2006) In its introductory remarks, the court advised: This opinion should be read in conjunction with the opinion in…

North Carolina Court Orders Production of Email from Backup Tapes; Parties to Share Restoration Costs Equally

Analog Devices, Inc. v. Michalski, 2006 WL 3287382 (N.C. Super. Nov. 1, 2006) (Unpublished) In this misappropriation of trade secrets case, defendants moved to compel the production of emails of the originators of the trade secrets at issue relating to…

North Carolina Court Relies on Conference of Chief Justices’ Guidelines in Two Decisions Involving the Production of Email from Backup Tapes

These two opinions, both filed on November 1, 2006, discuss for the first time the extent to which inaccessible electronic data is discoverable and who should pay for its production under the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Bank of…

$1.888 Million Judgment Entered in Favor of Bankruptcy Trustee Based on Adverse Party’s Spoliation of Financial Records

In re Quintus Corp., 353 B.R. 77 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006) Avaya, Inc. purchased the assets of the debtors in bankruptcy, and agreed to assume certain of the debtors’ liabilities. Thereafter, the trustee filed an adversary complaint against Avaya asserting…

Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation for Responsive Documents and Other Discovery Abuses Warrant Adverse Inference Instruction

3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tomar Elecs., 2006 WL 2670038 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2006) In this patent infringement litigation, the district court judge affirmed the magistrate’s report and recommendation that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against the defendant be granted…

Party Not Entitled to Shift Costs of Restoring Emails that were Converted to Inaccessible Format After Duty to Preserve was Triggered

Quinby v. WestLB AG, 2006 WL 2597900 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2006) Like the plaintiff in the Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, the plaintiff in this case was a highly-paid investment banker who accused her employer of gender discrimination and illegal…

Crime-Fraud Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege Invoked to Allow Testimony and Production of Notes by Attorney, Where Executive’s Deletion of Email Sought by Grand Jury Could Constitute Obstruction of Justice

In re Grand Jury Investigation, 445 F.3d 266 (3rd Cir. 2006) This opinion relates to an ongoing grand jury investigation of suspected federal criminal activity; because of the secrecy of the proceeding, the court’s opinion lacks specific details. The grand…

Second Circuit Reverses Frank Quattrone Conviction for Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering

In 2000, Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation (“CSFB”) employed Frank Quattrone as head of its Global Technology Group (the “Tech Group”). In that capacity, Quattrone managed approximately 400 technology investment bankers from the firm’s Palo Alto, California office. The Tech…

Florida Court Affirms $75,000 Coercive Civil Contempt Sanction Against Defendants For Prolonged Discovery Abuse

Channel Components, Inc. v. Am. II Electronics, Inc., 915 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) In this case alleging tortious interference and related claims against two former employees, the plaintiff sought intervention by the court several times in…

Defendant Sanctioned for Negligent Failure to Institute and Communicate Legal Hold

In re Old Banc One Shareholders Sec. Litig., 2005 WL 3372783 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2005) In this opinion, the District Court adopted in full the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation regarding plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions based upon the defendant’s failure…

Bank of America Corporation Ordered to Provide Discovery on Behalf of Non-Party Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries

In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 2005 WL 3299763 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2005) In this class action, plaintiffs propounded requests for production of documents and a request for admissions to all named defendants, including Bank of America Corporation (“BAC”)….

Despite Evidence of Intentional and Negligent Concealment, Bankruptcy Court Dismisses Trustee’s Spoliation of Evidence Counterclaims Because No Injury Was Shown

In re Tri-State Armored Services, Inc., 332 B.R. 690 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2005) Insurance company brought adversary proceeding against Chapter 7 trustee, seeking either equitable rescission of employee dishonesty, crime, and disappearance insurance policies issued to debtor armored car company, or…

Court Orders Production of Home Office Backup Tape Created in Connection with CFTC Receivership

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Equity Financial Group, LLC, et al., 2005 WL 2205789 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2005) In April 2004, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) filed an enforcement action against Equity Financial Group, LLC (“Equity”) and others…

UBS Securities to Pay $2.1 Million in Penalties and Fines for Failure to Preserve Email

On July 13, 2005 the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) issued an Order in connection with the alleged failure of UBS Securities LLC (“UBS”) to preserve email. The Commission accepted an Offer of Settlement and UBS consented to entry of…

Spoliation Instruction Appropriate where Defendants Failed to Preserve Email

Arndt v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 613 S.E.2d 274 (N.C. Ct.App. 2005) Donald Arndt (“Arndt”) was hired by First Union National Bank (“First Union”) in June 1996 with an initial salary of $90,000 per year and a guaranteed minimum incentive…

Seventh Circuit Reverses Sanction Requiring Production of Documents Listed on Privilege Log

American National Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 406 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2005) American National Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago, as Trustee f/b/o Emerald Investments LP, and Emerald Investments…

Privilege Not Necessarily Waived Where Email Between Employee and Personal Attorney Maintained on Corporate Email System

In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., 322 B.R. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Asia Global Crossing, Ltd. and Asia Global Crossing Development Co. (collectively “Asia Global”) were pan-Asian telecommunication carriers which filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 on November 17, 2002. Asia…

Magistrate Recommends Adverse Inference Instruction and Monetary Sanctions for Failure to Preserve Hard Drives, Audio Recordings and Email

E*Trade Securities LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al., Civil No. 02-3711 RHK/AJB and Civil No. 02-3682 RHK/AJB (D. Minn. Feb. 17, 2005) United States Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan filed a Report and Recommendation regarding several electronic discovery disputes…

Court Denies Motion to Compel Review of CD-ROMs for Responsive Documents

Zakre v. Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale, 2004 WL 764895 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2004) Plaintiff requested an order compelling defendant to review for responsive documents two compact discs containing some 204,000 emails. Defendant had conducted a review of the emails for privileged…

Court Precludes Offering of Evidence as Sanction for Discovery Evasion

In re LTV Steel Co., Inc., 307 B.R. 37 (N.D. Ohio 2004) In bankruptcy proceeding, a creditor (“C&K”) submitted a claim for $1.9 million against the estate, a portion of which the debtor agreed was due. When the debtor sought…

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS…TIME TO TAKE OFF THE GLOVES!!!

Posted on 29 September 2010. Tags: amartinezlaw, Anthony Martinez, assignments, court hearing, discovery, discovery request, discovery tactics, e-discovery, ediscovery, electronic discovery, ESI, expert, florida, florida judge, foreclosure defense, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure offense, foreclosure strategies, fraud | Categories: foreclosure defense, homeowner, litigation hold, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., motion to dismiss, producing documents, Sanctions, spoliation, Stop Foreclosure Sale, strategies, summary judgment

I have to apologize to Mr. Martinez as I normally do not post full content unless it is one of those post that you must read without being navigated to another place or distracted. Please visit the link below as it is a great source from an insider stand point.

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS…TIME TO TAKE OFF THE GLOVES!!!

.

Ok I get it… ….Attorney’s are to hold themselves to a higher standard…professionalism…professional courtesy…courtroom edicate…yada yada yada! I get it I really do! But my fellow legal advocates…it really is time to take off the gloves.

In hearing after hearing I’m seeing these defense attorneys walk in with the same timid attitude of sorts trying to be nice, trying to maintain their professionalism while across the table I’m seeing these foreclosure mill runners (I call them runners because they’re not even the attorney on the case just the runner appearing before the judge on behalf of the foreclosure mill) being extremely flagrant, arrogant and flat-out bully like to a large degree. And what I’ve noticed is that the moment they get tripped up by the more aggressive defense lawyer, they tend to quickly tell the judge how they’re not the attorney assigned to the case and how they’re just present for the hearing and will have to check back or ask for a continuance or make the defense feel like they’ve won something by postponing the sale. Amazing how on the fly these runners are making decisions for their clients about postponements without making a call.

Quite frankly for those who know me personally I give you what you dish out. If you act like a bully I’m going to treat you like a bully. I personally don’t like these foreclosure mills and what they stand for on a moral and ethical front. I believe that any attorney that can stomach putting families in masses in the street for money is morally challenged and any lawyer that’s willing to commit fraud upon the court doesn’t deserve my professional courtesy. Defense attorneys need to stop treating these foreclosure mill attorneys as their equal brothers and sisters of the profession and start treating them like enemies of the state. That may seem a bit harsh but for every homeowner that seeks our assistance does so with a passion unseen or felt by our profession. We need to harvest that same passion, translate it into legal argument and bring it right into the courtroom. We cannot allow for families to lose their home as a matter of course through runners! RUNNERS!!! Are you kidding me! We should be kicking their ass’s right out the courtroom down out to the street and we aren’t. We are giving them professional courtesy.

I think it’s time to get aggressive and outright scary in these courtrooms. Why should a judge take us seriously when we’re not bringing the passion and seriousness of the issues to the forefront? I walk into courtrooms and see judges laughing, I see lawyers talking while waiting their turn and a hearing is going on. I see judges making jokes and then saying your motion to dismiss is denied. I am nothing short of AMAZED at how unimportant kicking a family out of their home is. Let me tell you that it’s one thing to see an adult client in front of you but it is something completely different to visit their home and see a child 4 or 5 holding a toy or a 12-year-old ask you if you’re going to save his family. I recently traveled to New York on another case and let me tell you that in these judges courtroom, intimidation is not the word. NO ONE is talking in the courtroom. These judges in New York are not playing and neither are the defense attorneys. I see great passion and argument and I see judges looking squarely at the merits of the case. So why is this not happening in Florida courts?

When I see my legal associates like Matt Weidner put up a post of frustration and fear that we are losing the battle I get angry and begin calling members of my legal team to have a strategy session and figure out new ways to take back the momentum. Defense attorneys need to silence the courtroom with their passion and sound legal arguments. They need to create the platform in which judges and other defense attorneys stay quiet to learn. We need to own the room when we’re in it and speaking and we need to spank these little foreclosure mill runners and make them run back to daddy Stern or daddy Watson. Walk into court every time knowing they’ve committed fraud. Stop being so scared to say it and use every other word you know to describe it. Say it loud…FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD!!! Move for sanctions! They’re crooks…treat them like it! Stop treating them like your equal, stop giving them professional courtesy and start treating them like they deserve to be treated!

TIME TO TAKE OFF THE GLOVES!!!

Source: DISCOVERY TACTICS

Posted in assignment of mortgage, chain in title, conflict of interest, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., note, robo signers, servicersComments (5)

MUST READ |E-Discovery…Electronic Registration Systems WORST NIGHTMARE!

Posted on 24 August 2010. Tags: amartinezlaw, Anthony Martinez, assignments, court hearing, discovery, discovery request, discovery tactics, e-discovery, ediscovery, electronic discovery, ESI, expert, florida, florida court, florida judge, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosure strategies, fraud, litigation hold, MERS, Mortgage Electronic registration Systems, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., motion to dismiss, producing documents, Sanctions, spoliation, Stop Foreclosure Sale, strategies, summary judgment

Via: Discovery Tactics aka Anthony Martinez & Assoc.

Latest Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Cases

—————————————————-

Court Grants Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Clawback Provision

Jury Instruction Allowing Inference that Destroyed Evidence Was Unfavorable and Payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Ordered as Sanction for Failure to Preserve

Judge Scheindlin Amends Recent Pension Opinion

Court Rules Failure to Copy Files on Flash Drive Prior to Failure of the Drive Violated Duty to Preserve

Court Orders Monetary Sanctions for Production Delay Resulting from Counsel’s Failure to Become Familiar with Plaintiff’s Retention Policies and Systems

Court Rules Communications with Attorney Using Work Computer are Protected as Privileged

Despite Malaysian Blocking Statute, Court Compels Third Party’s Production of Foreign Banking Information Pursuant to Subpoena

Court Provides Detailed Analysis of Law of Spoliation, Orders Adverse Inference Instruction, Monetary Sanctions for Intentional Spoliation of ESI

Court Finds Data “Not Reasonably Accessible,” Denies Motion to Compel

“Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later”: Judge Shira Scheindlin Issues her Latest e-Discovery Opinion

Court Compels Discovery from Foreign Corporation Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Swiss Government Says It Would Seize UBS Data Sought by U.S.

Finding Defendants’ Behavior “a Textbook Case of Discovery Abuse,” Court Orders $1,022,700 in Monetary Sanctions

Court Declines to Compel Production of Documents from Foreign Jurisdiction upon Finding a Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and where Certain Documents are Protected from Production by Israeli Law

Granting Motion to Compel, Court Orders Appointment of Independent Expert “to Retrieve any Deleted Responsive Files from Defendants’ Computers”

Court Orders Production of Relevant Source Code Citing Defendant’s Suggestion for Mitigating Costs

Updated List: Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines of United States District Courts Addressing E-Discovery Issues

Finding “No Reason to Treat Websites Differently than Other Electronic Files,” Court Grants Adverse Inference for Failure to Preserve Website

Court Denies Protective Order, Orders Allegedly Proprietary Data Produced Directly to Competitor

No Spoliation Found Where Expert Drafted His Report on Computer, Without Saving or Preserving Progressive Iterations

Magistrate Judge “Clearly Erred” by Analyzing Cost-Shifting Dispute for Paper Production under Seven-Factor Zubulake Test

Inadequate Preservation Efforts Necessitate Restoration and Production of Email from Backup Tapes, and Forensic Search of CEO’s Laptop

Magistrate Judge Sets Protocol for Plaintiff’s Forensic Examination of Former Employee’s Computer and Requests Affidavit from Expert Explaining Certain Issues

Recent Amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil and Criminal Procedure Require Redaction of Personal Identification Information from Documents Filed with the Court

The Biggest Data Disaster Ever

Email Communications Between Physician and His Attorney Exchanged Over Hospital’s Email System Not Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege or Work Product Doctrine

Inadequate Legal Hold Measures, and Resulting Spoliation, Warrant Sanctions

Court Allows Plaintiffs to Conduct Expedited Discovery Regarding Possible Spoliation

Condemning Defendant’s Gamesmanship, Court Orders Production of Database

Court Grants Plaintiff Access to Defendant’s Database

Citing Conference of Chief Justices’ Guidelines to State Courts, North Carolina Court Refuses to Compel Nonparty to Produce Deleted Emails from Backup Tapes

North Carolina Court Orders Production of Email from Backup Tapes; Parties to Share Restoration Costs Equally

North Carolina Court Relies on Conference of Chief Justices’ Guidelines in Two Decisions Involving the Production of Email from Backup Tapes

$1.888 Million Judgment Entered in Favor of Bankruptcy Trustee Based on Adverse Party’s Spoliation of Financial Records

Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation for Responsive Documents and Other Discovery Abuses Warrant Adverse Inference Instruction

Party Not Entitled to Shift Costs of Restoring Emails that were Converted to Inaccessible Format After Duty to Preserve was Triggered

Second Circuit Reverses Frank Quattrone Conviction for Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering

Florida Court Affirms $75,000 Coercive Civil Contempt Sanction Against Defendants For Prolonged Discovery Abuse

Defendant Sanctioned for Negligent Failure to Institute and Communicate Legal Hold

Bank of America Corporation Ordered to Provide Discovery on Behalf of Non-Party Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries

Despite Evidence of Intentional and Negligent Concealment, Bankruptcy Court Dismisses Trustee’s Spoliation of Evidence Counterclaims Because No Injury Was Shown

Court Orders Production of Home Office Backup Tape Created in Connection with CFTC Receivership

UBS Securities to Pay $2.1 Million in Penalties and Fines for Failure to Preserve Email

Spoliation Instruction Appropriate where Defendants Failed to Preserve Email

Seventh Circuit Reverses Sanction Requiring Production of Documents Listed on Privilege Log

Privilege Not Necessarily Waived Where Email Between Employee and Personal Attorney Maintained on Corporate Email System

Magistrate Recommends Adverse Inference Instruction and Monetary Sanctions for Failure to Preserve Hard Drives, Audio Recordings and Email

Court Denies Motion to Compel Review of CD-ROMs for Responsive Documents

Court Precludes Offering of Evidence as Sanction for Discovery Evasion

Posted in breach of contract, chain in title, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, discovery, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, investigation, lawsuit, mail fraud, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., non disclosure, notary fraud, note, originator, RICO, robo signers, securitization, servicers, trade secrets, Trusts, ViolationsComments (0)

From Paper to Electronic: Exploring the Fraud Risks Stemming From the Use of Technology

Posted on 16 August 2010. Tags: assignments, Australian Torrens System, electronic registration system, foreclosure, forgery, fraud, identity, mortgage, notes, paper, title

Hmm…now doesn’t this ring close to home?

From Paper to Electronic: Exploring the Fraud Risks Stemming From the Use of Technology to Automate the Australian Torrens System

By Rouhshi Low

Interesting points:

In all electronic systems, land title instruments are prepared electronically. This may make it easier for fraudulent persons with access to the system to perpetrate fraudulent alterations, because unlike a physical alteration, an electronic alteration on an electronic document will not leave any physical evidence of the alteration.

In the paper system, the practice of the Land Titles Office manually checking instruments lodged for registration before updating the register may be said to act as a safeguard against this type of fraud, since any alteration of an instrument might leave some form of a physical mark which might then be noticed by the officer and appropriate action may then be taken. Of course the effectiveness of this safeguard depends on the vigilance of the examining officer.

It is observed that these considerations do not arise in the paper registration system. They are unique to an electronic system because of the use of technology to replace the handwritten signature. In the paper system, handwritten signatures can be forged, but there was never a requirement or a need for individuals to keep their signatures safe. It is simply not possible. Replacing handwritten signatures with digital signatures introduces a new element into the process. And because of the potential for fraud whether because the fraudulent person has managed to obtain an existing digital certificate/PSP or circumvented the registration process to obtain one, the use of digital signatures therefore imposes ‘new’ obligations on users as well as the entity responsible for the registration process that do not exist in the paper system. The user is now responsible for keeping the digital certificate/PSP safe. The entity issuing the digital certificate/PSP is responsible for developing and maintaining effective registration processes to minimize the risk of a fraudulent person impersonating an authorised user. In fact, attacking the registration process in this manner is an additional avenue for the fraudulent person to perpetrate identity fraud so that it could be said that in an electronic system, there might be two opportunities for identity fraud: (i) identity fraud of the owner of the land and (ii) identity fraud of an authorized user of the system.

So to perpetrate fraud in an electronic registration system, the solicitor would not even need to forge the victim’s signature, or mislead the client into signing documents, or create false powers of attorney, or fraudulently alter instruments, as is the case in the paper registration system. All that the solicitor would have to do would be to prepare the instrument, digitally sign it and submit it to the Land Titles Office for registration. As noted above, being able to fraudulently use a digital certificate/PSP to digitally sign instruments for lodgement and registration is a new opportunity for fraud in an electronic system. As seen in the discussion here, solicitors will have the greatest opportunity to perpetrate this new type of fraud.

In all the electronic systems, clients no longer sign land title instruments for registration. Rather an authorisation form is signed instead. This change in practice may see a shift in forgery cases – instead of forging the signature of the victim on the land title instrument, fraudulent persons will now have to forge the signature of the victim on the authorisation form.

The concern in abolishing the paper certificate of title in an electronic registration system is that it will result in more identity fraud. When the New Zealand system was introduced, Thomas argued that ‘[T]he absence of an outstanding duplicate certificate of title (or anything in substitution of the same) is argued to be a key flaw in the new system, making it more vulnerable to fraud’.63

But will this be the case? It is argued that identity fraud might be perpetrated in an electronic registration system in the same way as in the paper registration system – when the fraudulent person is able to successfully impersonate the victim of the fraud to convince the authorised user responsible for the transaction that he or she has a right to deal with the land. The difference is that in the paper registration system, since the certificate of title is the document used to evidence a right to deal with the land, identity fraud uses the certificate of title. In an electronic registration system, the manner in which identity fraud may be perpetrated would depend on the system and how identity and right to deal might be established.

[ipaper docId=35988900 access_key=key-kdw163zwfgg5k11v3i1 height=600 width=600 /]

Posted in concealment, conflict of interest, CONTROL FRAUD, foreclosure fraud, forgery, mortgage, Notary, notary fraud, note, Real Estate, robo signers, trade secretsComments (2)

Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act (URPERA)

Posted on 31 July 2010. Tags: assignments, deeds, e-sign, leases, memorialized, Mortgages, title, UETA, Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act, URPERA

DinSFLA Here: Now if we just put these time frames such as ‘1999’ with all that is happening today we arrive to some answers…Don’t we?

Electronic communications make it possible to conduct old transactions in new forms. Some of the oldest kinds of transactions governed by law are transactions in real estate: for example, sales, leases and mortgages. In the Middle Ages transactions in real estate were conducted symbolically, without paper or signatures. Writing, printing and more universal literacy brought paper deeds, mortgages and leases, memorialized by words on paper with manual signatures. These were filed in public records to establish who had rightful title to any piece of land. Several centuries have gone by since that initial migration to the then-new technology of paper documents and manual signatures. A new technology of computers, software to run them, and electronic communications has come to replace paper. The law of real property must now make a transition to accommodate the new technology. The efficiency of real estate markets makes this imminently necessary.

This long dependence on paper, however, casts up certain barriers to using electronic communications to carry on real estate transactions. The law of the states of the United States has many “statute of fraud” requirements that inhibit the use of electronic communications. Statute of fraud requirements put total and express reliance upon paper documents and manual signatures to make transactions enforceable. No paper, no enforcement. These same requirements have also made it more difficult to develop electronic analogues to transactions in paper that are equally enforceable.

The first step to remedy the problem took place in 1999 when the Uniform Law Commissioners promulgated the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). This act adjusted statute of fraud provisions to include electronic “records” and “signatures” for the memorialization of all kinds of transactions, including basic transactions in real estate. It is possible to have sale contracts, mortgage instruments (in whatever form a jurisdiction uses) and promissory notes memorialized in electronic form with electronic signatures that will now be treated the equal of the same paper documents with manual signatures. This is the result of the widespread enactment of UETA and of the subsequent enactment of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign) by Congress.

Real estate documents must be recorded on public records to be effective. Recording takes place in most states in a county office devoted to keeping these records. Recording protects current interests in real estate by clarifying who holds those interests. The chain of title leading to the current title-holder, meaning the historic record of documents relating to transactions for a specific piece of real estate, establishes the marketability of that piece of real estate by the current owner of interests in it. The real estate records establish this chain of title. State law governs these local recording offices, and there are requirements in the law of every state relating to the originality and authenticity of paper documents that are presented for recording. UETA included optional provisions dealing with governmental authority, including that of local governments, to accept and utilize electronic records. However, not all states adopted these optional provisions, and confusion still persisted whether these provisions, coupled with the rest of UETA, authorized recordation of electronic records.

The Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act (URPERA) removes any doubt with regard to the ability of a local recording office to accept and otherwise process electronic documents and signatures for recording. Further, there must be an orderly conversion of every recording office in the United States for electronic recording to become accepted universally. That will be a complex process, but it needs a starting point in the law. URPERA, promulgated by the Uniform Law Commissioners in 2004, provides that essential start.

The act does three fairly simple things that will have monumental effect. First, it establishes that any requirement for originality, for a paper document or for a writing manually signed before it may be recorded, is satisfied by an electronic document and signature. This is essentially an express extension of the principles of UETA and E-Sign to the specific requirements for recording documents relating to real estate transactions in any state. Second, it establishes what standards a recording office must follow and what it must do to make electronic recording effective. For example, the office must comply with standards set by the board established in a state to set them. It must set up a system for searching and retrieving electronic documents. There are a minimum group of requirements established in URPERA. Third, URPERA establishes the board that sets statewide standards and requires it to set uniform standards that must be implemented in every recording office.

These may be simple steps in the law, but the entire process of implementing electronic recording of electronic real estate documents will be complex from state to state. Inserting URPERA in the law of a state requires careful scrutiny of its real estate law. If paper documents are effective, for example, when they are time-stamped when delivered to a recording office, when should electronic documents that may be delivered electronically when an office is closed be considered effective? Answers to questions like this one will take some work and some complex decisions as URPERA is considered for enactment in any state.

Notwithstanding this need for careful effort, it is important to make the start on electronic recording of real estate documents. Real estate transactions involve billions of dollars in the United States. The efficiency of real estate markets depends upon the adoption of technology to make them faster and more competitive. After UETA and E-Sign, the key is URPERA. Every state needs to consider it as soon as possible.

More info…ElectronicRecording.org

RELATED ARTICLE:

Electronic Property Document Recording (ERDS)

Posted in deed of trust, heloc, mortgage, note, Real EstateComments (1)

Electronic Property Document Recording (ERDS)

Posted on 09 May 2010. Tags: assignments, california, county documents, deeds, electronic property document recording, foreclosure, MERS, mortgage, Real Estate, secure erds, trust

Via: perfectreign

Introduction

As a manager with the Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder, I am in charge of the software development team who creates applications to handle property document recording. Whenever one buys, sells or refinances a house or land, property documents are generated. These documents must be submitted to a County Recorder for storage and indexing to be made available as a public record. Los Angeles County – having well over 10 million residents – is the most populous county in the United States and contains 88 separate cities. As such, my office records – or processes – over 2 million property document recordings per year.
Until now, each one of those documents must be brought in by hand, looked over, entered into our application and then scanned for permanent storage. (The current system was brought online in January 2007, as documented by this video: ELECTRONIC RECORDING ARCHIVE – 2007)

The transport, handling and mailing back of paper documents is an overwhelming task. It is also very expensive both in terms of labor and time. For years, the various county Recorder offices wished to pursue something more streamlined. With the advent of newer, less expensive and more accessible technology, the possibility of scanning in documents at the title company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance) offices and electronically sending these documents to the county offices is a reality. State law, however, impeded the process for many years. Up until today, only Orange and San Bernardino counties were allowed by law to electronically record title company documents.
In order to change this, several County Recorders worked with the State Legislature and Attorney General office to pass a law (AB 578 – http://ag.ca.gov/erds1/) entitled the Electronic Recording Delivery Act, which enabled a statewide standard and governance for an Electronic Recording Delivery System (ERDS). Los Angeles decided to partner with Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties to move forward with an in-house developed system, which allowed for economies of scale, flexible implementation and leveraged the 10-year electronic recording experiences of the Orange County Clerk-Recorder. The new system was dubbed, SECURE. It was developed by in-house staff, along with a contractor, who also maintains (as a vendor) the current Orange County recorder system. All four counties own the software and work together to move forward with improvements.

[CLICK ABOVE FOR LARGER IMAGE]The above screen shows the common submitter client to be used by title companies, service providers and other institutions in order to submit documents. In this case a Deed is being prepared to be sent to Los Angeles County. The submitter – if authorized – is able to send these documents to any county in the system.Each county participating in the SECURE system is able to leverage the infrastructure built for the system and hosted at the Orange County data center. This data center is a purpose-built facility designed for extreme reliability and high availability. All title companies and other submitters – such as banks – will submit documents through an encrypted Internet connection to the Orange County data center. The documents will be held there until the various participating county recorders pick them up and process them.The structure will look similar to this:

All submitters – Financial Institutions such as banks, Title Companies and eventually governmental departments such as the IRS and SSA –are able to use the common client, submit to the common data center and be assured that their documents are routed to the appropriate County Recorder.The system started out on December 1, 2009 with only Orange and Los Angeles counties active. Within six months, it is expected that other counties will be brought online. As the system is enhanced and developed title companies will be allowed to submit more documents and eventually scale back their paper handling processes altogether.This will result in a decrease in costs to the title companies as well as to the counties as a result of paper handling efficiencies. Of the two million annual documents recorded and by the Los Angeles County Recorder, 60% will be able to be processed eventually through this system. Since each document must currently be mailed back to the customer by the recorder, an annual savings in postage and mail handling is expected to show efficiencies.Once the document has been submitted to the Recorder office, it will be examined and – if valid – accepted for recording. The document will be stored in the recording archive and is available for further activities as needed by the general public.

[CLICK ABOVE FOR A LARGER IMAGE]After the document has been recorded, the lead sheet (in the case of LA County, who attaches a separate sheet to the front of each document) and the first page are returned to the submitter. They are then able to print and mail the document back to the customer.

[CLICK ABOVE FOR A LARGER IMAGE]As seen in the above image, the recorded document has been automatically returned to the submitter. At this stage, the process is complete for the county recorder.Since the SECURE (www.secure-erds.com) group owns the software, the counties will be free to upgrade and enhance the software to fit future needs. These future processes will include an interface to allow banking institutions direct access to send documents such as reconveyances and liens directly from their internal systems. This will further reduce costs as those documents are currently delivered via certified mail. Further enhancements will include electronic delivery of notary signatures, when that becomes allowed in the state. Because the system is built to abstract the back-end recording system from the delivery system, any number of California counties are able to join as participants and leverage the infrastructure already built by Orange, LA, Riverside and San Diego counties.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this
message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. GRG [Ref.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

Posted in chain in title, deed of trust, mortgage, Notary, note, Real EstateComments (0)

§ 152. Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery

Posted on 02 May 2010. Tags: assignment of mortgage, assignments, bankruptcy, bribery, claims, concealment of assets, cornell, dinsfla, din_sfla, false oathes, Mortgage Fraud, RICO, sect. 152

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 9 > § 152
Prev | Next
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000152—-000-.html

§ 152. Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery

How Current is This?
A person who
(1) knowingly and fraudulently conceals from a custodian, trustee, marshal, or other officer of the court charged with the control or custody of property, or, in connection with a case under title 11, from creditors or the United States Trustee, any property belonging to the estate of a debtor;
(2) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false oath or account in or in relation to any case under title 11;
(3) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28 , in or in relation to any case under title 11;
(4) knowingly and fraudulently presents any false claim for proof against the estate of a debtor, or uses any such claim in any case under title 11, in a personal capacity or as or through an agent, proxy, or attorney;
(5) knowingly and fraudulently receives any material amount of property from a debtor after the filing of a case under title 11, with intent to defeat the provisions of title 11;
(6) knowingly and fraudulently gives, offers, receives, or attempts to obtain any money or property, remuneration, compensation, reward, advantage, or promise thereof for acting or forbearing to act in any case under title 11;
(7) in a personal capacity or as an agent or officer of any person or corporation, in contemplation of a case under title 11 by or against the person or any other person or corporation, or with intent to defeat the provisions of title 11, knowingly and fraudulently transfers or conceals any of his property or the property of such other person or corporation;
(8) after the filing of a case under title 11 or in contemplation thereof, knowingly and fraudulently conceals, destroys, mutilates, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any recorded information (including books, documents, records, and papers) relating to the property or financial affairs of a debtor; or
(9) after the filing of a case under title 11, knowingly and fraudulently withholds from a custodian, trustee, marshal, or other officer of the court or a United States Trustee entitled to its possession, any recorded information (including books, documents, records, and papers) relating to the property or financial affairs of a debtor,

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Posted in bankruptcy, case, concealment, conspiracy, corruption, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, forensic mortgage investigation audit, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, securitization, universityComments (0)

Fed's Mortgage Purchase Program Sunsets (Exits)

Posted on 01 April 2010. Tags: assignments, Fed, FED FRAUD, investors, notes, scam

The TRILLION dollar question – if the Fed bought those *securities*, who is the Real Party in Interest/Holder in Due Course of the right to *foreclose*?

And were the assignments legally enforceable and *recorded*?? (Obviously not!!!!!!)

By: Carrie Bay (DSNEWS)

The Federal Reserve’s role as buttress, crutch, and benefactor of the nation’s mortgage debt market came to an end Wednesday. Since November 2008, the central bank has been the market’s No. 1 patron, buying up $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae.

There’s been chatter that the Fed’s exit could leave a gaping hole in the secondary market for mortgage bonds, causing interest rates for home loans to spike and buyer demand to dwindle. But the central bank has been prepping the market for its absence for some time now in the hopes of diminishing such effects, and has indicated that it will be keeping a close eye on market reactions, hinting that it could step back in if conditions begin to falter.

Most market observers, though, are predicting that won’t be necessary. It appears that private investors’ appetites for agencies’ mortgage bonds are piquing. Analysts are

saying private equity will step in to pick up the slack and mortgage interest rates will rise less than a quarter of a percentage point over the next quarter.

It’s expected that there may be some price volatility in the mortgage securities space after the Fed’s withdrawal, but analysts don’t expect prices to plunge or issuers’ yields to start heading upwards. One reason for this assumption is that traditional MBS buyers now have money to burn.

Christian Cooper, an interest rate strategist at Royal Bank of Canada’s RBC Capital Markets, explained to American Banker, “As the [U.S.] government has become the world’s largest buyer of mortgage securities in the last year, they’ve effectively squeezed all other buyers out of the market. The natural mortgage-backed securities buyer has been accumulating cash, effectively waiting for the program to end.”

Economists also say that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s decision to pull seriously delinquent loans from securitized pools, which they announced in February, is making the prospect of purchasing such bonds more appealing to investors. Over the next few months, the GSEs plan to buy back loans in MBS that are 120 days or more overdue – some $127 billion in loans for Fannie, and $70 billion for Freddie.

The New York Times noted that while the mortgage market appears to be taking the end of the Federal Reserve’s MBS buying in stride, any talk from the central bank about actually selling its recently-acquired holdings should be a cause for greater concern than the Fed simply ending further purchases, since the Fed now owns about 25 percent of the outstanding stock of mortgage bonds.

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, federal reserve boardComments (0)

Tag Archive | "assignments"

Computer Forensic Advances Raise Complex Issues

Re-POST: E-Discovery …Electronic Registration Systems WORST NIGHTMARE!

Latest Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Cases

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS…TIME TO TAKE OFF THE GLOVES!!!

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS…TIME TO TAKE OFF THE GLOVES!!!

.

Ok I get it… ….Attorney’s are to hold themselves to a higher standard…professionalism…professional courtesy…courtroom edicate…yada yada yada! I get it I really do! But my fellow legal advocates…it really is time to take off the gloves.

TIME TO TAKE OFF THE GLOVES!!!

MUST READ |E-Discovery…Electronic Registration Systems WORST NIGHTMARE!

Latest Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Cases

From Paper to Electronic: Exploring the Fraud Risks Stemming From the Use of Technology

Hmm…now doesn’t this ring close to home?

Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act (URPERA)

More info…ElectronicRecording.org

Electronic Property Document Recording (ERDS)

Electronic Property Document Recording (ERDS)

§ 152. Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery

§ 152. Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery

Fed's Mortgage Purchase Program Sunsets (Exits)

Archives

Search

Please Support Me!

Recent Comments

All Of These Are Troll Comments

Important Links

Tag Archive | "assignments"

.

Ok I get it… ….Attorney’s are to hold themselves to a higher standard…professionalism…professional courtesy…courtroom edicate…yada yada yada! I get it I really do! But my fellow legal advocates…it really is time to take off the gloves.

Hmm…now doesn’t this ring close to home?

More info…ElectronicRecording.org

§ 152. Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery

Archives

Search

Top Posts

Please Support Me!

Recent Comments

All Of These Are Troll Comments

Important Links