Washington, DC – Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Acting Director Edward J. DeMarco today sent to Congress a strategic plan for the next phase of the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises). The plan builds on the Acting Director’s February 2010 letter to Congress on the conservatorships and sets forth objectives and steps FHFA is taking or will take to meet FHFA’s obligations as conservator. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed into conservatorships Sept. 6, 2008 and have since received more than $180 billion in taxpayer support.

FHFA identifies three strategic goals for the next phase of the conservatorships:

• Build. Build a new infrastructure for the secondary mortgage market;

• Contract. Gradually contract the Enterprises’ dominant presence in the marketplacewhile simplifying and shrinking their operations; and

• Maintain. Maintain foreclosure prevention activities and credit availability for newand refinanced mortgages.

“With the conservatorships operating for more than three years and no near-term resolution in sight, it is time to update and extend the goals and directions of the conservatorships,” DeMarco wrote. “FHFA is contemplating next steps to build an infrastructure for the secondary mortgage market that is consistent with existing policy proposals and will support any outcome of the leading legislative proposals. FHFA looks forward to working with Congress and the  Administration on a resolution of the conservatorships and a comprehensive review of the nation’s housing finance system,” said DeMarco.

[ipaper docId=82313508 access_key=key-18jdfs59fy5a33q1yaqj height=600 width=600 /]

Washington, DC (Jan. 17, 2012)—Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to Chairman Darrell Issa seeking information about how he plans to proceed with his investigation of Members of Congress who received mortgage loans from Countrywide Financial Corporation under its VIP loan program, also known as the “Friends of Angelo” program after the company’s embattled CEO, Angelo Mozilo. 

In one of his first official acts after becoming Chairman last year, Rep. Issa issued a unilateral subpoena demanding the mortgage files of the Members of Congress who received Countrywide VIP loans.  He stated that “the American people have a right to know the totality of who participated in the Countrywide’s VIP program and what they did in return for access to it,” and that his goal was to “find a way to disclose it all and then get the American people outraged enough to make sure that it never happens again.”

Below is the full letter (click the link for footnotes):

January 17, 2012

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

     I am writing to request information about how you plan to proceed with the Committee’s investigation of Members of Congress who received mortgage loans from Countrywide Financial Corporation under its VIP loan program, also known as the “Friends of Angelo” program after the company’s CEO, Angelo Mozilo.

     Over the past three years, you have waged a high-profile campaign to obtain the mortgage files of Members of Congress who received VIP loans from Countrywide.  You have referred to these loans as “bribes,” “influence buying,” and “public corruption.”  Although two previous Chairmen of the Oversight Committee followed the longstanding practice of referring matters involving Members of Congress directly to the Ethics Committee, you abandoned this practice last February when you issued a unilateral subpoena—your first as Chairman—demanding to see these Member files yourself.

     The documents produced in response to your subpoena reveal four previously undisclosed instances in which Members of Congress received Countrywide VIP loans.  All four instances involve Republican Members, including three current Republican House Members and one former Republican House Member.

     When you issued your subpoena last February, you explained that you had two purposes in demanding these files.  The first was to determine whether any official actions were taken by policymakers to benefit Countrywide.  The second was to make public all of the information obtained by the Committee in order to deter future wrongdoing.  In one of your first public interviews after issuing your subpoena, you stated that your goal was to “find a way to disclose it all and then get the American people outraged enough to make sure that it never happens again.”

     Last month, however, you reversed course.  Rather than publicly identifying the four additional Members who received Countrywide loans or attempting to determine whether they took any official actions on behalf of Countrywide, you chose instead to refer their cases to the Ethics Committee.  This is exactly the approach you criticized when used for Democratic Senators Kent Conrad and Christopher Dodd and precisely the approach you abandoned when you issued your subpoena last February. 

    On January 13, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon and Rep. Elton Gallegly reported publicly that you referred them to the House Ethics Committee, although both denied taking inappropriate actions on behalf of Countrywide.  To date, you have declined to publicly identify the two other Republicans who also received Countrywide VIP loans. 

    Despite your decision to refer these cases to the House Ethics Committee, you have now scheduled two transcribed interviews with Countrywide officials to take place this week.  Both of these transcribed interviews will be with the Countrywide officials who oversaw and processed Chairman McKeon’s VIP loan.

    Since you failed to consult with me before taking these actions, I have several questions about how you plan to proceed with this investigation, which are set forth below.

Campaign to Obtain Files on Members of Congress

    You launched your campaign to obtain the files of Members who received loans under the Countrywide VIP loan program on June 17, 2008, when you wrote to former Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting that “the Committee investigate and hold hearings on allegations that mortgage lenders may have made special deals with Members of Congress.”  Chairman Waxman denied your request, responding that the longstanding practice of the Committee had been to allow the House Ethics Committee to handle allegations regarding Members of Congress.

    Rather than defer to the Ethics Committee, you argued that the Oversight Committee must investigate Members of Congress who were part of a wider conspiracy of “influence buying” and “public corruption.”    You stated:

We’re talking about a vast business enterprise that was buying, currying favor with politicians throughout the country and in fact probably distorted the laws that you and I had to live under.

    You also stated:

We cannot close the book without criminal investigations and likely indictments against Countrywide officials and people who knowingly took subsidized below-cost loans and in return produced, if you will, a deal for Countrywide.

    Even when the Ethics Committee conducted investigations, you dismissed them as limited and inadequate.  After the Senate Ethics Committee found no credible evidence that Senators Kent Conrad or Christopher Dodd knowingly accepted discounted loans, you stated:

This story does not change my approach to the investigation of the Countrywide VIP program.  I will continue to press forward with this investigation and strongly believe that a subpoena to Bank of America [which purchased Countrywide] is a necessary next step to fully expose how Countrywide attempted to use its VIP program to buy influence.

Similarly, on September 30, 2009, you stated:

We’re beyond ethics here.  We are at a point where the American people at least should know who they gave money to or benefit to, how they did it, and so on. … What we do know is there is a level of intended corruption by Countrywide that clearly had an effect on government’s decisions for years, and we are ignoring it.

    Over the past three years, you have stated repeatedly that the Oversight Committee should determine the full scope of the loan program and make this information public.  According to a Washington Post story on March 19, 2009, you stated:  “The full story of Countrywide’s efforts to buy influence hasn’t been told and shouldn’t be swept under the rug because no chairman is prepared to issue a subpoena.”  Similarly, on June 24, 2009, you stated in a press release:  “The American people deserve to know the extent that special benefits co-opted public servants who were supposed to be watchdogs of the mortgage industry.”  And on September 29, 2009, you stated on Fox Business:  “[I]f we don’t get to these individuals and figure out what they did in their official capacity, we’re not going to be able to reasonably undo some of what was done.” 

Information About Additional Republican Members

    In one of your first official acts as Chairman, you issued a unilateral subpoena on February 16, 2011, demanding a wide array of documents, emails, and other communications relating to mortgages offered through the “VIP and/or Friends of Angelo program.”  Unlike the subpoena issued by former Chairman Edolphus Towns, your subpoena demanded that mortgage files for Members of Congress—even those of current Members—be delivered directly to your offices instead of the House Ethics Committee. 

    You reiterated that your goals were to determine whether any official actions were taken by policymakers to benefit Countrywide and to make public information you obtained in order to deter future wrongdoing.  You stated:

This subpoena will allow us to obtain the information needed to answer the outstanding public interest questions regarding the full size and scope of the VIP program.  The American people have a right to know the totality of who participated in the Countrywide’s VIP program and what they did in return for access to it.  Our role is to get all of the facts so that the American people can judge for themselves who should be held responsible and accountable.

     Prior to the issuance of your subpoena, three Democratic Members of Congress had been identified publicly as potentially having received VIP loans from Countrywide:  Senator Kent Conrad, Senator Christopher Dodd, and Congressman Edolphus Towns.  Senators Conrad and Dodd were both cleared by the Senate Ethics Committee, which concluded on August 7, 2009, that there was “no credible evidence” that either Senator “knowingly accepted a gift, including a loan not available to the public.”  Congressman Towns issued several public statements denying that he knowingly received any preferential treatment from Countrywide.

    In response to your subpoena, the Committee obtained information about four previously unknown instances in which Members of Congress received VIP loans, including three current Republican House Members and one former Republican House Member.  After discovering that all of these Members are Republicans, you sent a letter on December 16, 2011, referring their cases to the House Ethics Committee.

    On Friday, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon and Rep. Elton Gallegly acknowledged publicly that they are two of the Republican Members you referred to the House Ethics Committee in December.  In particular, a spokesperson for Chairman McKeon said he was “pretty shocked and angry” when you informed him about the VIP loan documents obtained by the Committee.

Interviews with Countrywide Officials Who Processed Chairman McKeon’s VIP Loan

    Although you referred cases involving Members to the House Ethics Committee in December, you have now scheduled two transcribed interviews with Countrywide officials to take place this week.  In particular, Committee investigators are scheduled to conduct transcribed interviews with two officials who oversaw and processed Chairman McKeon’s VIP loan:  Stephen Brandt, a Countrywide Executive Vice President who oversaw the VIP program, and Maritza Cruz, a Countrywide Loan Manager for VIP loans.

     The documents obtained pursuant to your subpoena indicate that Ms. Cruz is listed as the contact person for several of Chairman McKeon’s VIP loan documents.  In addition, she prepared his Uniform Underwriting and Transmittal Summary.  Her signature, as well as Chairman McKeon’s signature, appear on his Notification of Underwriting Approval and Closing Conditions. 

     These documents also indicate that Chairman McKeon appears to have obtained a significant discount on his VIP loan as a direct result of personal intervention by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo.  Specifically, an internal email from Mr. Brandt to Countrywide employees handling this loan states explicitly:

Per Angelo – “take off 1 point, no garbage fees, approve the loan and make it a no
doc”.

     Last week, a spokesperson for Chairman McKeon stated that he had “no inkling” that he received a VIP loan and that, “as far as he knew, never received any special favors on the home loan.”  The documents obtained pursuant to your subpoena do not indicate whether Chairman McKeon was informed about his discount.  However, the documents describe at least three conversations Chairman McKeon had with Countrywide employees, including with an account executive instructed to provide the preferential rate.  That employee’s notes of these conversations state:

FOA [Friends of Angelo] referral, Please order appraisal ASAP.  You may call the borrower at his Washington office [number redacted] and get the Sons phone number for the appraiser contact.  The borrower would like to hear from the appraiser this week. 

The borrower is a bit difficult to deal with.  He seems on the edgy side.

Called Mr. McKeon at work [redacted name] his secretary said she would ask “B” for son’s phone #.  Mr. McKeon called said we could call 1) his home [number redacted] his wifes work [number redacted] campaign office

Borrower wants to close ASAP.  Explained to him demands are not here yet.

     In addition, a follow-up letter sent to Chairman McKeon provided forms for him to sign and stated:  “Thank you for allowing COUNTRYWIDE’s VIP TEAM to assist you with your financing needs on the above referenced property.”

    Finally, the documents obtained pursuant to your subpoena indicate that Chairman McKeon was referred to the VIP program by “Mike Farrell/MBA.”  This notation appears to be a reference to Michael J. Ferrell, who was then the chief lobbyist of the Mortgage Bankers Association of America (MBA).  According to his biography, Mr. Ferrell led MBA’s successful campaign to lobby Congress to block the imposition of higher fees on mortgage lenders.

Request for Information

    When you issued your unilateral subpoena last February, press accounts noted your aggressive approach and your high-profile demands for Member files.  For example, one press report stated that your “maiden subpoena is no-holds-barred Issa” and that the “restraint showed in the prior Congress … is nowhere to be found in this subpoena.”  It also stated:  “Issa could be launching grenades.  If the probe turns up anything and the findings become public, it could provide a degree of discomfort for lawmakers.”

    At the time, you seemed to recognize the possibility that Republicans could be among the Members of Congress who received VIP loans.  On multiple occasions over the past three years, you indicated that you planned to pursue this investigation even if Republican Members were implicated.  For example, on September 29, 2009, you stated:

There’s plenty of high profile Republicans who took these, some might call them bribes, certainly they were inappropriate to take under our laws.  Congressman, key staffers, including on the committees of jurisdiction on the Republican side are involved.   

    After initially driving the Committee down the road of investigating Members of Congress, you appeared to reverse course in December when you referred these cases to the Ethics Committee.  Now, however, you have scheduled transcribed interviews with Countrywide officials who oversaw and processed Chairman McKeon’s VIP loan.  These sudden shifts raise key questions about how you plan to proceed with this investigation:

1. You have stated:  “The American people have a right to know the totality of who participated in the Countrywide’s VIP program and what they did in return for access to it.”  Have you instructed your staff to question Mr. Brandt and Ms. Cruz about their roles in overseeing and processing Chairman McKeon’s VIP loan?  
2. You have stated:  “The full story of Countrywide’s efforts to buy influence hasn’t been told and shouldn’t be swept under the rug because no chairman is prepared to issue a subpoena.”  Do you intend to publicly release the identities of the remaining two Republican lawmakers, one current and one former, who your investigation has revealed were also beneficiaries of Countrywide VIP loans? And do you intend to conduct a transcribed interview with the former chief lobbyist of the Mortgage Bankers Association of America?
3. You have stated:  “The American people deserve to know the extent that special benefits co-opted public servants who were supposed to be watchdogs of the mortgage industry.”  Do you intend to hold public hearings on these issues?  If so, do you intend to call as a witness former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo?

    Thank you in advance for your prompt answers to these critical questions.

                        Sincerely,
                        Elijah E. Cummings
                        Ranking Member

[ipaper docId=78586594 access_key=key-1wafoedmuizd8341ne0j height=600 width=600 /]

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

This is a great video in detail of how and who was responsible for the greatest financial disaster of our time. While you watch this video you can understand why MERS was the perfect middleman, straw-man whatever you wish to call it.

image and video by CBS

CNN Money-

The recession of 2008, precipitated by the collapse of the subprime mortgage bubble, may be officially over, but economic growth remains anemic and is producing virtually no job growth. We must stimulate the moribund housing markets. Yet in the past three years, there has been no progress on the housing front, and Washington policymakers seem bereft of ideas for turning things around.

[CNN MONEY]

Just one day after Attorney General Martha Coakley urged Congress to investigate Ally, GMAC, this comes.

REUTERS-

Congressman Barney Frank on Wednesday asked his colleagues to hold a hearing on alleged mortgage abuses at Ally Financial, a day after the attorney general from his home state of Massachusetts requested that lawmakers investigate.

“Given Ally’s significant role in the mortgage business and the federal government’s considerable financial investment,” Frank wrote to Spencer Bachus, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, “a prompt investigation of this matter by the Committee is warranted.”

The U.S. Treasury owns some 74 percent of Ally after a 2008 investment in the firm.

Last week Massachusetts sued Ally’s mortgage unit, GMAC Mortgage, and four other top banks for allegedly pursuing illegal foreclosures and deceiving homeowners whose loans they service.

[REUTERS]

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ONE ASHBURTON PLACE
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108
MARTHA COAKLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
(617) 727-2200
www.mass.gov/ago

December 6, 2011
The Honorable Tim Johnson
Chairman

U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
534 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Financial Services
2129 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Ally Financial; GMAC Foreclosure Behavior

I am writing regarding what we believe is serious misconduct committed by Ally
Financial, through its subsidiary GMAC Mortgage, against homeowners in
Massachusetts.

Last week, our office filed a lawsuit against Ally and four national banks for
pursuing illegal foreclosures and deceptive loan servicing. Ally and other banks charted
a destructive path by cutting corners and rushing to foreclose on homeowners without
following the rule of law, which has exacerbated the nation’s foreclosure crisis.
In light of Ally’s alleged deceptive and illegal actions against homeowners in
Massachusetts and across the country, I respectfully request that your committees
investigate Ally’s serious misconduct and consider what actions the federal government
can take to ensure that Ally adheres to the law.

[…]

[ipaper docId=74953296 access_key=key-26rwiob9swfb2t53q7p9 height=600 width=600 /]

By: Donna M. Nagy

Indiana University Maurer School of Law

Abstract:     
This article refutes what has become the conventional wisdom that insider trading by members of Congress and legislative staffers is “totally legal” because such congressional officials are immune from federal insider trading law. It argues that this well-worn claim is rooted in twin misconceptions based on: (1) a lack of regard for the broad and sweeping duties of entrustment which attach to public office and (2) an unduly restrictive view of Supreme Court precedents, which have interpreted Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act to impose liability whenever a person trades securities on the basis of material nonpublic information in violation of a fiduciary-like duty owed either to the issuer’s shareholders or to the source of the information. It also argues that nonpublic congressional information constitutes property which, like congressional funds and tangible property, rightfully belongs to the federal government and its citizens.

The article was first presented at a conference honoring the publication of Boston University Professor Tamar Frankel’s new book on Fiduciary Law. Drawing from Professor Frankel’s extensive work, and from the prior application of fiduciary principles in congressional disciplinary actions and Executive Branch prosecutions of members of Congress for so-called honest-services fraud, the article maintains that congressional officials owe duties of trust and confidence to a host of persons including the citizen-investors they serve, as well as the federal government, other members of Congress, and government officials outside of Congress who rely on their loyalty and integrity. These persons are deceived and defrauded when congressional officials misappropriate nonpublic congressional knowledge to enhance the profit in their personal investment portfolios. The article concludes that Rule 10b-5 prohibits members of Congress and legislative staffers from trading securities on the basis of material nonpublic information obtained through congressional service, but for a variety of prudential reasons, it suggests that education, rather than prosecution, may be the SEC’s most effective enforcement tool.

[ipaper docId=72755281 access_key=key-1bsc1obvmatg82xg06mg height=600 width=600 /]

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

by azipaybarah

Mayor Michael Bloomberg blames congress and defends banks, over the mortgage crisis, during a November 1, 2011 breakfast in midtown.

But Who Created The Fraud? Who got paid to let Wall Street do what they so desired?

Members ramp up pressure on FHFA to implement President’s plan to boost economy by helping responsible homeowners refinance at historically low rates.

(Washington, DC) – Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Congressman Dennis Cardoza, Co-Chair of the Housing Stabilization Task Force, today were joined by 27 Members of Congress in sending a letter to Edward DeMarco , Acting Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), renewing their request for a meeting to begin discussing a plan to allow more American families to refinance their mortgages at historically low interest rates.

Cummings and Cardoza originally made the request in a previous letter last Friday , but FHFA officials declined the request, asserting that it would be premature to give Congress a “briefing” on their response to the President’s proposal.

“Contrary to the assertion made by your Office of Congressional Affairs, the letter from Representatives Cummings and Cardoza did not request a ‘briefing,’” the Members wrote.  “It requested a meeting that would enable us to begin a detailed dialogue about the process by which agency officials will ‘review, evaluate, and implement the President’s proposal.’”

“Contrary to another assertion made by the Office of Congressional Affairs, this meeting would not be premature—if anything, it is overdue,” the letter stated. “On Friday, you issued a public statement in response to the President’s address indicating that your office has been ‘analyzing these issues’ and discussing them with ‘a range of stakeholders.’ As Members of Congress who have been tirelessly seeking to support renewed economic growth by stabilizing the housing market, we certainly deserve the same courtesy and consideration as other stakeholders in this process.”

Today’s letter significantly increases the pressure on FHFA to act quickly on the President’s proposal, which is similar to bipartisan legislation introduced in the House and Senate that garnered widespread support from industry, investors, and consumer groups. 

According to Bill Gross, the Managing Director and co-CIO of the world’s largest bond fund, PIMCO, removing barriers to refinancing under this type of proposal could provide an economic stimulus of up to $50 or $60 billion.

There are currently more than 8 million homeowners whose mortgages are guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that carry an interest rate at or above 6%, even though current 30-year mortgage rates are hovering at about 4.12%.

[ipaper docId=64855973 access_key=key-fx2jylq8xa25e4khh9j height=600 width=600 /]

#WikiLeaks- PAULSON DISCUSSES FINANCIAL MARKETS, IRAN WITH SARKOZY, LAGARDE

Alexander Higgins-

In 2007 top US and France officials knew rampant fraud being committed by regulators, rating agencies and Wall Street Banks would soon cause a global financial collapse.

While investors and nations around the world were happily giving trillions of dollars away to crooked Wall Street bankers top officials in the United States and France knew the market would soon collapse and people would be robbed of millions.

While raising the issue that the role of government regulators and rating agencies needed to be reviewed in the wake of the upcoming crisis, US officials ignored calls from the French government to enact necessary regulation to stop the rampant fraud that would soon result in investors losing tens of trillions of dollars they had invested into the markets.

The cable reveals that while discussing the ability of the French banks to survive the crisis, French President Sarkozy was pushing the US to enact regulations to forestall the crisis. Instead, Henry Paulson responded by telling Sarkozy not to overreacted because the” it would take months, not weeks, for credit to be re-priced” telling France this is “not a major crisis.”

Paulson went on to warn that the major problem was with the German banks and which would require a bailout from the taxpayer while warning that the assets held by banks but covered up from investors by being held off-balance sheet presented systematic risk to banks and to sovereign wealth.

The cable clearly reveals that taxpayer bailouts would be needed.  Paulson further up sticks up for the Wall Street hedge fund saying they were not to blame for the crisis while acknowledging there were major Wall Street transparency issues.

To summarize, the cable reveals that top government officials in France and the US knew Wall street banks were committing fraud in the origination and packaging of sub-prime mortgage and lying to investors about the resulting securities they were creating and selling. Officials knew banks were also lying about their own liabilities and hiding them from investors by keeping the assets off their balance sheets.  The government also knew that both regulators and ratings agencies were participating in the scheme.

Remember as you read this cable, these conversations all took place over a year before the 2008 financial collapse when taxpayers around the world were forced into giving up trillions of dollars for banker bailouts. Also keep in mind that while the cable discusses “systemic risk”, “bailouts” and “market turbulence”, none of these had happened yet. They were discussing what would soon happen in the future.

The discussion of “systemic risk”, “market turbulence” and “taxpayer bailouts” over a year before the markets actually collapsed and those events actually occurred, show they knew a global financial collapse. Not only did they know it would occur but knew what the consequences would be for the investors and the governments who were fleeced by Wall Street. As the cable reveals, Paulson chose to deal with the crisis by letting it continue and urging France to keep the issue underwaps  by  urging Sarkozy not  to “over react”, hence allowing the scandal to the continue which just postponed the inevitable.

Also remember when we were forced into these bailouts, it was  under the guise that our governments had no idea the banks were doing this and this was a sudden and unforeseeable crisis. Finally, remember that – while there have been plenty of accusations from “conspiracy theorists”,  “fringe economists” and “wing nut” politicians such as Ron Paul – there still has been no admission from our government that financial regulators or the ratings agencies played a role in the crisis.

…

[ALEXANDER HIGGINS]

The screwing of homeowners just don’t quit!

by Lois Beckett
ProPublica, Aug. 25, 2011, 3:28 p.m.

[DYLAN RATIGAN]

We’ve got a real problem…this is a mathematical fact. Tens of trillions of dollars are being extracted from the United States of America. Democrats aren’t doing it, republicans aren’t doing it, an entire integrated system, banking, trade and taxation, created by both parties over a period of two decades is at work on our entire country right now.

H.RES.344 — Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the States should enact a temporary moratorium on residential mortgage foreclosures. (Introduced in House – IH)

HRES 344 IH

112th CONGRESS 1st SessionH. RES. 344

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the States should enact a temporary moratorium on residential mortgage foreclosures.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 8, 2011

Ms. KAPTUR submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the States should enact a temporary moratorium on residential mortgage foreclosures.

Whereas there are nearly 6,900,000 fewer jobs in the United States economy since the start of the recession;

Whereas, in April 2011, the unemployment rate remains at 9.0 percent, nearly double the unemployment rate of the pre-recession economy;

Whereas the Director of the Congressional Budget Office testified as follows in a Senate hearing on January 28, 2009: `Challenging conditions seem likely to persist for some time in the housing and mortgage markets as well. Housing sales remain weak, and construction activity continues to decline. With the housing market’s large glut of vacant properties, the prices of homes are likely to fall considerably further, pushing the value of more borrowers’ homes below the value of their outstanding mortgages. As more of those `underwater’ borrowers experience losses of income during the current recession, rates of delinquency and foreclosure on residential mortgage loans are likely to rise further.’;

Whereas the current economic situation began to unfold some time ago and, in fact, the Federal Reserve System first began to supply additional liquidity to credit markets in August 2007, as pressures from losses on mortgage-related assets unexpectedly began to mount;

Whereas many economists today believe that to avoid relapsing into another devastating financial crisis, a key component is the Nation’s housing markets and providing necessary changes for our Nation’s financial markets;

Whereas the intent of the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the Department of the Treasury, established by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343), was to, in large portion, purchase troubled assets, including securitized mortgages, and to enable banks and other lenders engaged in the mortgage market to engage in mortgage modifications, loan workouts, and other processes designed to stem off the ever-rising tide of foreclosures, and that has not happened to the level necessary to stem the tide of foreclosures and it continues;

Whereas there were nearly 219,000 new foreclosures in April 2011, which is 7,300 homes per day;

Whereas it is projected by housing market experts that there are approximately 11,000,000 homes in the Nation which are underwater or in foreclosure;

Whereas the United States finds its housing market in a precarious and unstable state, where homeowners’ mortgage balances are routinely larger than the current value of their homes and where people are losing their homes at an alarming rate;

Whereas during the Great Depression, the State of Minnesota declared an economic emergency, and enacted a law granting relief in certain cases, `for inequitable foreclosure of mortgages on real estate and execution sales and for postponing certain others’ (Chapter 339, Laws of Minnesota, 1933, page 514);

Whereas the Minnesota statute included provisions that postponed foreclosure sales or extended mortgage redemption, as well as taking actions relating to the jurisdiction of such activities, and the Minnesota statute established a hard and fast deadline of when such relief would end, making the Act temporary in nature;

Whereas this law was challenged in the case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, which was argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1933, with the Court ruling in 1934 in favor of the Minnesota law;

Whereas there are clear challenges to implementing a nationwide moratorium on mortgage foreclosures, yet this case tells us that the States can take action using the police power of the State; and

Whereas, in this time of instability and uncertainty, with unemployment at 9.0 percent for April 2011, a global financial system still reeling from the effects of the recession, a volatile housing market, and our Nation’s citizens struggling to balance essential needs of housing, work, and nutrition, it is time that the Nation, through the action of the President of the United States, declare a national foreclosure emergency and State-by-State seek to end the foreclosure crisis: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that–

• (1) the President of the United States should declare a national residential mortgage foreclosure emergency and, through such declaration, encourage the States, by use of their police power, to enact a moratorium on residential mortgage foreclosures similar to the moratorium enacted by the State of Minnesota in 1933 and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (290 U.S. 398 (1934)); and

• (2) the States should exercise such power and enact such a moratorium.

“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.

Shahien Nasiripour

shahien@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting

First Posted: 01/24/11 07:27 PM Updated: 01/24/11 07:29 PM

The bipartisan panel appointed by Congress to investigate the financial crisis has concluded that several financial industry figures appear to have broken the law and has referred multiple cases to state or federal authorities for potential prosecution, according to two sources directly involved in the deliberations.

The sources, who spoke on condition they not be named, declined to identify the people implicated or the names of their institutions. But they characterized the panel’s decision to make referrals to prosecutors as a significant escalation in the government’s response to the financial crisis. The panel plans to release its final report in Washington on Thursday morning.

In the three years since major lenders teetered on the brink of collapse, prompting huge taxpayer rescues and amplifying an already painful recession into the most punishing downturn since the Depression, public indignation has swelled while few people who played prominent roles in the crisis have faced legal consequences.

That may be about to change. According to the law that created the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the panel has a responsibility to refer for prosecution any evidence of lawbreaking. The offices that have received the referrals — the Justice Department, state attorneys general, and perhaps both — must now determine whether to prosecute cases and, if so, whether to pursue criminal or civil charges.

Bank evicts, then offers Boca Raton couple a loan mod

By Kimberly Miller Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Updated: 10:34 p.m. Saturday, Dec. 4, 2010
Posted: 10:27 p.m. Saturday, Dec. 4, 2010

In hours of congressional hearings last week, the nation’s banks were repeatedly condemned for dual-track loan modification systems that give hope to homeowners seeking lower monthly payments while at the same time foreclosing on their properties behind their backs.

“Unacceptable deficiencies,” is how the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency put it. Failed oversight, ineffective practices and insufficient staffing were criticisms added by other top regulators and legislators.

Boca Raton resident James Strass­burger could have told lawmakers all that. He just wishes they were listening this year when One West Bank sold his home at foreclosure auction during negotiations for a loan modification.

Strassburger, 56, and his wife, Deborah, 58, who lived in their home for 19 years, were ordered out in May, holding two yard sales so they could squeeze into a rented apartment.

But the real kick in the gut came in August, six months after the auction, when they got a letter congratulating them for earning a trial loan modification. It was followed by a note alerting them to a hearing­ that would essentially give them their home back. Their mortgage payment was due Sept. 1, the letter reminded.

“This all could have been avoided. We could have been living our lives,” said James Strass­burger, a former business owner whose flooring jobs dropped off when the economy fell. “It’s not a good feeling. I don’t like seeing my wife cry.”

One West Bank said it was looking into the Strass­burgers’ case, but did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Washington lawmakers began paying earnest attention to the nation’s foreclosure nightmare this fall as banks pulled back on their home repossessions after acknowledging assembly line-like processing systems had potentially illegal shortcomings.

Hastily prepared court documents, as well as the dual-track foreclosure and loan modification process, were discussed Wednesday in a hearing of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and Thursday in the House Judiciary Committee.

NOVEMBER OVERSIGHT REPORT*

November 16, 2010
Examining the Consequences of Mortgage
Irregularities for Financial Stability and Foreclosure
Mitigation

*Submitted under Section 125(b)(1) of Title 1 of the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-343

Excerpts beginning pg 19:

Various commentators have begun to ask whether the poor recordkeeping and error-filled
work exhibited in foreclosure proceedings, described above, is likely to have marked earlier
stages of the process as well. If so, the effect could be that rights were not properly transferred
during the securitization process such that title to the mortgage and the note might rest with
another party in the process other than the trust.44

iv. MERS

In addition to the concerns with the securitization process described above, a method
adopted by the mortgage securitization industry to track transfers of mortgage servicing rights
has come under question. A mortgage does not need to be recorded to be enforceable as between
the mortgagor and the mortgagee or subsequent transferee, but unless a mortgage is recorded, it
does not provide the mortgagee or its subsequent transferee with priority over subsequent
mortgagees or lien holders.4

During the housing boom, multiple rapid transfers of mortgages to facilitate securitization
made recordation of mortgages a more time-consuming, and expensive process than in the past.46
To alleviate the burden of recording every mortgage assignment, the mortgage securitization
industry created the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), a company that
serves as the mortgagee of record in the county land records and runs a database that tracks
ownership and servicing rights of mortgage loans.47 MERS created a proxy or online registry
that would serve as the mortgagee of record, eliminating the need to prepare and record
subsequent transfers of servicing interests when they were transferred from one MERS member
to another.48 In essence, it attempted to create a paperless mortgage recording process overlying
the traditional, paper-intense mortgage tracking system, in which MERS would have standing to
initiate foreclosures.49

MERS experienced rapid growth during the housing boom. Since its inception in 1995,
66 million mortgages have been registered in the MERS system and 33 million MERS-registered
loans remain outstanding.50 During the summer of 2010, one expert estimated that MERS was
involved in 60 percent of mortgage loans originated in the United States.51

Widespread questions about the efficacy of the MERS model did not arise during the
boom, when home prices were escalating and the incidence of foreclosures was minimal.52 But
as foreclosures began to increase, and documentation irregularities surfaced in some cases and
raised questions about a wide range of legal issues, including the legality of foreclosure
proceedings in general,53 some litigants raised questions about the validity of MERS.54 There islimited case law to provide direction, but some state courts have rendered verdicts on the issue.
In Florida, for example, appellate courts have determined that MERS had standing to bring a
foreclosure proceeding.55 On the other hand, in Vermont, a court determined that MERS did not
have standing.56

In the absence of more guidance from state courts, it is difficult to ascertain the impact of
the use of MERS on the foreclosure process. The uncertainty is compounded by the fact that the
issue is rooted in state law and lies in the hands of 50 states. judges and legislatures. If states
adopt the Florida model, then the issue is likely to have a limited effect. However, if more states
adopt the Vermont model, then the issue may complicate the ability of various players in the
securitization process to enforce foreclosure liens.57 If sufficiently widespread, these
complications could have a substantial effect on the mortgage market, inasmuch as it would
destabilize or delegitimize a system that has been embedded in the mortgage market and used by
multiple participants, both government and private. Although it is impossible to say at present
what the ultimate result of litigation on MERS will be, holdings adverse to MERS could have
significant consequences to the market.

If courts do adopt the Vermont view, it is possible that the impact may be mitigated if
market participants devise a viable workaround. For example, according to a report released by
Standard & Poor.s, ¡°most¡± market participants believe that it may be possible to solve any
MERS-related problems by taking the mortgage out of MERS and putting it in the mortgage owner’s name prior to initiating a foreclosure proceeding.58 According to one expert, the odds
that the status of MERS will be settled quickly are low.59

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=42782637 access_key=key-1z5r1jx9391att3umgpv height=600 width=600 /]

Please take the time to watch these videos with Mr. Paulson and where we are today after this…nothing has been done. What a Sham and a Shame!

Testimony of Hank Paulson, Part 27 (Rep. Stearns Questioning)

Testimony of Hank Paulson, Part 24 (Rep.Kaptur Questioning)

Kaptur calls Pelosi, Paulson CRIMINALS!!!

Back in January 15, 2009 Marcy Kaptur told Foreclosure Victims “Don’t Leave your Home” because we will find out that they don’t have the mortgage.

“They can’t find the paper up there on Wall Street”

You can feel it through her passion she knows what she’s talking about. I have a feeling I may know who might be consulting her 🙂

Go to 3:05 where they clearly mention the problems with MERS

Barry Ritholtz goes at it with Diana Olick

The banks admit to not reading the fine print on the crappy mortgages the American taxpayers now own.

.
.

California Democratic Congressional Delegation Urges Bank Investigations

 [ipaper docId=38782438 access_key=key-1krlshwit8iqdv96ypqi height=600 width=600 /]

Below is a document that Lender Processing Services, Inc. or it’s many subsidiaries submits by wire transmission to the foreclosure mill with instructions NOT to name the actual owner of the note on the foreclosure but in the name of the servicer!

“FORECLOSURE SHOULD BE IN THE NAME OF ”

It clearly states the names of the real parties:

• SERVICER
• TRUST
• TRUSTEE/NOTE-OWNER
• BORROWER

A foreclosure is rarely commenced under the “Real Entity.” So why do they keep this from us when they knew all along the real parties of interest? This was only discovered during an actual case or we would have never found this.