Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
This site has been my lifeline during my ongoing battle with Litton Loan and mortgage servicing fraud.  When I was totally clueless, and terrified,  and had no idea what was happening to me, or how to fight, it was the posts of so many of you who are so very knowledgeable that informed me and gave me the strength to fight. 
So, I, and I'm sure many others, have so very many questions about the latest events involving this proposed fed bailout of the giants who have victimized so many.  How is this going to affect us? Here's an excerpt from a piece posted on CNN online that I find troubling:

One way the agency under discussion could work is by setting up bulk auctions to buy mortgage assets from financial institutions. The auctions would be for set dollar amount purchases. Companies that want to offload the hard-to-sell assets from their balance sheets bid to sell to the government at a huge discount. The company willing to sell at the lowest price wins.

The government would then be able to sell the assets back into the market when it wanted.

According to policy research firm the Stanford Group, such a setup would allow the government to refinance borrowers in the loans owned by the government, thereby lowering the risk of their defaulting and eventually boosting the price of the mortgage security in which those loans are packaged.
My simple reading of this leads me to believe that at this early stage, the parameters of which companies auction off their hard-to-sell assests, (i.e., our mortgages?) is being left to the discretion of the companies themselves.  This is troubling to say the least. I think it is crucial that we, the victims, have some say with respect to whether we choose to have our loans included or not. 
Where would the current proposal leave those of us with Litton Loan, owned by Goldman Sachs, who may very well NOT choose to auction off our mortgages?
Please forgive me if my understanding of this is naiive, I'm just a victimized homeowner here, and hoping to get some insight from those of you on this board who have a better understanding.  What can, what should we be doing as a group to have our voices heard at this critical juncture?
Best to all,
Quote 0 0
Miss Molly
It will protect the Bankers & Investors--- but what about the homeowners?

When the FDIC took over Superior Bank- they sold our loans off to the wolves, then they turned their backs on us. They have known all along what happening to all those loans & they really didn't care.

It's just more money that we are tagging our grandchildren with.

Our Grandchildren will HATE us.  

Quote 0 0
Miss Molly, that's what I'm afraid of too.  I've heard a few whispers about protecting Main Street, not just Wall Street, but no details, and definitely just whispers, no one is shouting from the mountaintop.  Trying to keep my cynicism to a minimum here, but I'd really like to hear if anyone knows what a best-case scenario for us might look like here?  Any chance that under this plan, the mortgages taken over by the feds would be serviced properly?  Any chance they'd undertake modifications to remove improper fees, etc.  and help keep homeowners in their homes on Main Street?  Thoughts anyone?
Quote 0 0

Same thing they did last time the real estate industry went on a racketeering spree, take from the poor and give to the rich.

Quote 0 0

A credit-crisis fix for banks and homeowners

While banks fight with devalued mortgage securities or sell them for pennies on the dollar, owners fight to hang on to homes. Why not let the homeowners buy their discounted mortgages?

This looks like a better-case scenario to me.  At least someone out there is thinking about the homeowner.

Quote 0 0
George Bailey
It would seem to be a great idea, only if the newly Government owned Freddie and Fannie would be willing to finance, and insure the refi's.

Ain'ta gonna happen.

Quote 0 0
tired and tattered
The whole thing started with fraud. They took any one of us that had any marks on our credit so that we would not be believed when we tried to show that we were making our payments in spite of what these savages were saying. They quickly started reporting late payments even though we were not late, in order to further destroy our credit. They also added on fees that were so huge that many of us could not pay them. They would not except our payments so that they could once again say they we were not paying. Many taxpayers were worried that they would have to bail the homeowners out. Most of us did not want bailed out, we just wanted the fraud to stop. While Fannie and Freddie were a part of the whole huge scheme and the CEO's were sitting pretty well financially while we all suffered due to the fraud that was happening to us homeowners. Still nothing has been said except that we did not pay our mortgages. The fraud is still being denied. It does not matter which political party you are for or against, it was all of them that did nothing to stop this. And whoever gets elected this time is not going to help us either. We have given up our home. We have surrendered it back to the lender. We want to find some peace of mind and for most of us that's not going to happen in the injust system that we are living in. It's all about the greed. Nearly everyones hand is in this pot. Now to add insult to injury, after all the money that many of us have spent on our fight to keep our homes, we now have to give even more money to those who frauded us.
I wish everyone the best and I am always glad when someone can save their home, this mess is never going to get the justice that is due it in this crooked, greedy world we live in. The downfall of the US is upon us. We no longer have the money to give the rest of the world. We are losing our power.
Quote 0 0
I'm trying to understand this. In this buyout who's loans are they buying? Loans that have already been forclosed on? Loans that are in the process of being forclosed on? Loans with bad paying habits?

if the loans are in process - who is going to do the actual servicing?

The fed took over fanny & freddie, & now they are buying a huge additional portion of the loans in this country with this buyout. Doesn't that mean that basically the fed goverment now owns the bulk of our properties, our homes, & our lives?  
Quote 0 0
Ok, I LOVE artistic license, and I would have peppered this article with it, but I cannot do so at this time, due to the content.  It speaks for itself.


The sky truly IS falling now.

Quote 0 0
No not the government, the President though the Treasury secretary controls all the assets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Here is the White house legislative proposal to be presented to Congress. The President asks for unlimited powers over all mortgage based assets and that all current laws and courts be rendered void in other words sole authority for all U.S. based assets will rest with the President and secretary of the Treasury. The News did not carry this information but due to continuing terrorists threats the President has granted himself authority to control the entire government, all assets, transportation, telecommunications, etc. for one year past August 28 2008. There is no legal recourse outside of restoring a Constitutional government and monetary system or reversing reversing the recent actions of the President in relation to the seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and of course preventing the President from seizing all mortgage based assets on Monday or near time frame.


Notice: Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

RSS Feed  White House News

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2008. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.



August 28, 2008.







    Section 1. Short Title.


    This Act may be cited as ____________________.


    Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.


    (a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.


    (b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:


    (1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;


    (2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;


    (3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;


    (4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and


    (5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.


    Sec. 3. Considerations.


    In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--


    (1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and


    (2) protecting the taxpayer.


    Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.


    Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.


    Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.


    (a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.


    (b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.


    (c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.


    (d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.- -The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage- related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.


    Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.


    The Secretary's authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time


    Sec. 7. Funding.


    For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.


    Sec. 8. Review.


    Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.


    Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.


    The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.


    Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.


    Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.


    Sec. 11. Credit Reform.


    The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.


    Sec. 12. Definitions.


    For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:


    (1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term mortgage- related assets means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.


    (2) Secretary.--The term Secretary means the Secretary of the Treasury.


    (3) United States.--The term United States means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

Quote 0 0
I don't want to give that kook any more power than he has already nabbed.
Everything he touches get screwed up.
Quote 0 0
And Iran Iran So Far Away


Next stop on the terror tour is.....



Quote 0 0
4 justice now

Once a majority of citizens here actually begin to understand just what it is that their our government and its partners in crime have done to the people of this country, they are going to have a real difficult time finding volunteers to fight any war and particually those that might be waged on behalf of the non-working class(less) of this nation.

My Opinion.

Quote 0 0
Iran and Pakistan are the only two major countries in the world with clean hands in the respect that the politicians have not allowed the banks to get rich off from interests payments for transferring "money" ( really IOU's and fractional reserve notes) from one party to another and funding government debt.  A few nukes would silence the banksters worst enemies, and leave the rest of the world in debt slavery.

Many people misunderstand the Democrats role in this mess funding social programs and government debt is the largest source of interest based income and cash flow for the multinational financial interests. The more welfare, medicare, medicare, social security, health care etc. we have the larger single source control over money and cash flow they have.

You may have heard the term single source payer thrown around as a reason for universal health care, that means the banks only have to deal with the government in order to finance the program the more the government spends on us the more money that gets spent on interest and the less money we have, the rich get richer and the poor poorer.

The only real solution to this problem is the one the founding fathers came up with to escape feudalism a hard money, stable inflation, free currency, limited government and low or no taxes. The only way to preserve freedom and prosperity is for the people to keep their own assets and run their own lives and let the chips fall where they may and use the government to provide an equal chance for all not for it to artificially equalize income though handouts and progressive tax rate.

Make no mistake about Paulson's proposal is a proposal to transfer the private property backed by mortgages under the sole control of the treasury dept under the control of President Bush. The plan needs to be rushed though becuase it's an official declaration of dictatorship at least over mortgage based assets which is the primary backing for our entire country.

Quote 0 0
No!  To the bail out
Get the 85 Billion back from AIG!
Quote 0 0
in shock

I am still in shock the Gov would even propose this. Let the homeowners sink while the crooks get bailed out. The word is preposterous. Bushie tried to pull  a fast one.

Quote 0 0
Has anyone heard any plans to require disgorgement by the head crooks at these failed banks and other companies? Millions have been skimmed by select individuals and all of us should be left holding the collective bags?

The ban on legal challenges of actions by Treasury is ``distasteful, it's unfortunate and it's bad precedent, but this is an emergency and you have to act,'' said Jerry Markham, a law professor at Florida State University and author of ``A Financial History of the United States.''

``What you don't want happen is to have lawsuits that will slow things down and cause problems,'' he said.

Thugs like Jerry Markham need to lose their jobs if this is what they are teaching the new generation of lawyers. Basically he is admitting that the judiciary should be rendered impotent. What a silly boob he is! Thinking like this will ensure that this idiot doesn't have a job for much longer.

I am tired of hitting the panic button on everything. All this fear and panic is what has turned America into a quasi-dictatorship. The bailouts make me more afraid than any number of Wall Street companies going down. Let's face it, they gambled with everything they had and everything WE had.

Can we sue Congress for dereliction of duty?

And ratings are now "opinions" and/or "free speech" and thus protected against lawsuits? Malarkey! This forum is free speech; no one here is being paid to post. The ratings companies were paid to give ratings; (alas, they were paid by the companies they were rating creating a huge conflict of interest.) Nevertheless, the ratings companies passed themselves off as a professional service for hire and should be liable for their misdeeds. Anything else means that they were just "bloggers".

Here, Gary...the lawsuits have already started.

September 22, 2008, 12:00AM EST

Wall Street Bailout: Now, the Lawsuits

Angry investors are suing the Reserve Fund for "breaking the buck," AIG for pension losses, Merrill Lynch for its Bank of America deal—but the bar is high

Consider the developments of the past 10 days: collapsing share prices, huge investor losses, allegations of financial obfuscation and mismanagement. It would seem a likely setup for a new wave of litigation and a boon for the plaintiffs' bar. The reality, however, is far more muted. Legal rulings have made it significantly harder to press shareholder claims. And since the victims of the current financial carnage include some of the primary defendants themselves, investors may find themselves reaching into empty pockets for redress.

Yes, lawsuits stemming directly from the turmoil of recent days have been filed. On Sept. 19, for example, an investment firm sued the Reserve Fund, a money-market fund that serves institutions, for "breaking the buck" and causing a flood of investors to cash out at less than $1 per share. A former employee sued American International Group (AIG) for losses in AIG's pension resulting from the collapse of the insurer's stock. And a Merrill Lynch (MER) shareholder sued the investment firm, claiming the terms of its proposed acquisition by Bank of America (BAC) are unfair.

Reserve Fund representatives could not be reached over the weekend for comment. An AIG spokesman says the company does not discuss pending litigation, and Bank of America said it has no comment. Merrill Lynch did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Tough Slog for Plaintiffs

The fact is, though, many of the nation's major financial-service firms were sued months ago for losses stemming from the subprime mortgage crisis. Plaintiffs already faced tough slogging in those cases due to U.S. Supreme Court decisions in recent years that raised the bar for investor claims. To avoid having their cases dismissed, for instance, investors must now come forth with very specific allegations about what defendant companies did to knowingly deceive the market—a high hurdle. And a ruling in January of this year made it virtually impossible to try to hold corporate advisers, such as accountants and lawyers, responsible for a stock issuers' securities fraud, putting any insurance they have beyond reach.

Recent events raise additional obstacles. With Lehman Brothers (LEH) in bankruptcy, all lawsuits against the firm are frozen and funds to pay out on any claims will be severely limited. Squeezing money out of institutions that have been effectively nationalized, such as AIG, Fannie Mae (FNM), and Freddie Mac (FRE), will also be no easy task. "It's going to make it more challenging for investors to recover assets that have basically gone into thin air," says Gerald H. Silk, an attorney with Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, the New York firm that filed suit against the Reserve Fund. As for losses incurred in recent days, defendants may assert they were due not to any misleading statements or mismanagement on their part but by the calamitous state of the markets. Courts don't award damages for market-related price drops.

Next Target: Rating Agencies?

Plaintiffs' attorneys vow to press forward, including with new cases. Rating agencies may once again come within their sites, says John P. "Sean" Coffey, another Bernstein Litowitz lawyer. They "are very complicit in this disaster," he maintains. "They were putting the Good Housekeeping seal of approval on crap." Courts have rejected past efforts to hold bond raters liable, in part based on the notion that ratings are expressions of opinion protected as free speech. Fitch Ratings said it had no comment; Moody's Investors Services (MCO) did not respond to a request for comment; Standard & Poor's, which, like BusinessWeek, is a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies (MHP), declined to comment.

The phenomenon of investors losing money in supposedly highly secure money-market funds may also prompt additional litigation. Says Darren J. Robbins, an attorney at Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins in San Diego: "You cannot overstate the concern that our pension fund clients have concerning those investment vehicles marketed as conservative" turning out to hold "substantial amounts of high-risk, mortgage-backed products."

Quote 0 0
Congress, Bush team OK bailout terms; Stocks sink

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer 11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Scrambling for a quick accord on the $700 billion bailout, the Bush administration and leading lawmakers have agreed to include mortgage aid and strong congressional oversight along with unprecedented help for failing financial institutions, a key lawmaker said Monday.

Unimpressed, investors sent stocks plummeting anew, pushed oil up $16 a barrel and propelled gold prices ever higher as they searched for a safe place to park their money.

President Bush prodded Congress to pass the administration's rescue plan quickly, declaring, "The whole world is watching." And there did seem to be movement in talks between the White House and Capitol Hill.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said "a great deal of progress has already been made." And a government official with knowledge of the talks said the administration had agreed to create a plan to help prevent foreclosures on mortgages it acquires as part of the bailout — a key demand of Democratic lawmakers.

Under other additions the Democrats are asking to the administration package, according to a draft of the plan obtained by The Associated Press:

• Judges could rewrite mortgages to lower bankrupt homeowners' monthly payments.

• Companies that unloaded their bad assets on the government in the massive rescue would have to limit their executives' pay packages and agree to revoke any bonuses awarded based on bogus claims.

The proposal by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman, would give the government broad power to buy up virtually any kind of bad asset — including credit card debt or car loans — from any financial institution in the U.S. or abroad in order to stabilize markets.

But it would end the program at the end of next year, instead of creating the two-year initiative that the Bush administration has sought. And it would add layers of oversight, including an emergency board to keep an eye on the program with two congressional appointees, and a special inspector general appointed by the president.

The plan also would require that the government get shares in the troubled companies helped by the rescue.

Wall Street didn't seem comforted. The Dow Jones industrials were down nearly 400 points near the end of the trading day.

Investors were uncertain just how successful the administration's plan will be in unfreezing credit markets, which many businesses depend on to fund day-to-day operations, and for propping up the still-weak housing market.

Congressional aides said the House could act on a bailout bill as early as Wednesday.

Bush said, "Obviously, there will be differences over some details, and we will have to work through them. That is an understandable part of the policy making process." But he also said, "It would not be understandable if members of Congress sought to use this emergency legislation to pass unrelated provisions, or to insist on provisions that would undermine the effectiveness of the plan."

The proposal that Dodd sent to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would let judges modify the mortgages of homeowners in bankruptcy to allow them to keep their homes.

It also would require that the government come up with "a systematic approach for preventing foreclosure" on the mortgages it acquires as part of the bailout. That would include the home loans held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the troubled mortgage giants now under the control of a government regulator.

Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said, "We are confident that we can get a bill done this week."

The fast-moving negotiations between the administration and Congress unfolded a day after the government approved a request by investment houses Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to change their status to bank holding companies.

That change will allow the two venerable institutions to set up commercial banks that will be able to take deposits, significantly bolstering the resources of both institutions. It will also grant them permanent access to emergency loans supplied by the Fed rather than the temporary loan status they have had since last March when the Fed moved to prop up investment banks following the forced sale of Bear Stearns.

Frank said that lawmakers "are building strong oversight" into the new bailout measure.

"The private sector got us into this mess," he said, "The government has to get us out of it. We do want to do it carefully."

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, speaking Monday on NBC's "Today" show, said, "We are in the most serious crisis since World War II."

The President didn't get to grant Paulson dictatorial powers according to this article. But as we all know legislation that gets passed can be very misleading and incorporate a handful of little clauses that invalidate the body of the agreement.

As far as the statement the private sector got us into this mess and the government needs to get us out that's pure bull the Government granted the Fed a monopoly and has sheltered these criminal for years going as far as framing people like Jack, Bob, and myself to make us look like criminals so we have no credibility. We had limited free market economy sure we could chose our lenders but only between lenders that used the Government backed Federal reserve and half the paper was held by the GSE'S Fannie and Freddie at the root of this mess. As far as the comments about not getting bonus's well trillions of dollars have been laundered. What about jail time?

The foreclosure provisions how strong are those and are they discretionary? We need to see the full text out of Congress, which we will have soon.

Our assets will be controlled by the Government under this plan we never agreed to that. Track down the assets force a write down of the derivatives and securities and force the crooks to restore the assets they looted out of the country and/or into offshore accounts. Better yet just plain enforce Constitutional law and restore a hard money system and integrate loans and debts into the system along with entitlements so the public doesn't panic. This bailout will cause further devaluation or perhaps an inflationary or even hyper-inflationary cycle, not to mention it's illegal to seize the assets of citizens to pay for business mismanagement and fraud. Printing the money will cause inflation. 

Quote 0 0
Quote 0 0
The people who hold the actual notes and the people who converted mortgages into securities and those securities into actual assets as well as those who placed options on market volatility and those who foreclosed on PSA pools to cash in on CDS credit default swaps (lenders foreclosure insurance), Realtors, foreclosure mills etc.

Bottom line follow the money trail to who really owns your note. The assets are not gone they have been transferred.

A little insight from Chris Langone the laywer that stiffed me on the Ameriquest Rico action said that he was disgusted he could not find a way to use the legal system to end property rights for rich white males which in his opinion was the source of social injustice. Of course he happens to be a rich white male that doesn't want to share with anyone else.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...