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
SHOCKING Explosive Headline (News?) or is it?........

FHFA Set to Sue Big Banks and Wall Street Firms
Quote 0 0
17 named in Manhattan New York Court Filing by FHFA
(CLICK HERE FOR UPDATE)
The institutions are listed alphabetically below:
  1. Ally Financial Inc (formally GMAC, LLC )
  2. Bank of America Corporation
  3. Barclays Bank PLC
  4. Citigroup, Inc.
  5. Countrywide Financial Corporation (KNA Bank of America Corp.)
  6. Credit Suisse Holdings (USA), Inc.
  7. Deutsche Bank AG
  8. First Horizon National Corporation
  9. General Electric Company
  10. Goldman Sachs & Co.
  11. HSBC North America Holdings, Inc.
  12. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
  13. Merrill Lynch & Co. (AKA - First Franklin Financial Corp.)
  14. Morgan Stanley
  15. Nomura Holding America Inc.
  16. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC
  17. Société Générale
Quote 0 0
Foley
1. Banks Sued.
2. Banks Settle
3. Banks Continue Foreclose Fraud
4. No Homeowner Relief

Haven't we seen these bullsh@t before, folks?

Quote 0 0
Texas

Real or Imaginary

The FHFA Suits

9-2-2011 r1

Ally Financial Inc. f/k/a GMAC, LLC Bank of America Corporation Barclays Bank PLC Citigroup, Inc. Countrywide Financial Corporation Credit Suisse Holdings (USA), Inc. Deutsche Bank AG First Horizon National Corporation General Electric Company Goldman Sachs & Co. HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. JPMorgan Chase & Co. Merrill Lynch & Co. / First Franklin Financial Corp. Morgan Stanley Nomura Holding America Inc. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC Société Générale

 

In reviewing the lawsuits filed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency against the seventeen (17) banks, questions must be asked. Why was there no mention of MERS? Why was there no mention of non compliance with state recordation laws? The most dangerous question is why there was no mention of oxymoronic electronic tangible negotiable instruments? Are these blundering oversights due to the FHFA’s attorneys’ ignorance, or is it legal posturing intended to mislead and appease the masses?  This lawsuit gives the  false impression that Elliot Ness is on the job, but it appears that on the inner sanctum of the FHFA legal team,  serious inquiries are banned, even ones as harmless as by Inspector Clousseau.

Attorneys know, and many non lawyers know, standing is required to invoke the court’s jurisdiction. Also known, to seek equitable relief in a court of equity one must have clean hands to seek equity.

To the average American Persons, these suits most likely would appear to look like the real deal.

Where MERS is used in place of public records, millions know the MERS registry was not a lawful substitution for public records. Non compliance with state recordation laws has resulted in losses of billions of dollars to the nations counties. The suits appear to this author about the same as the last two sentences would appear too many readers, an attempt to divert attention from truth and fact.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both have published guidelines that third parties must follow to meet the purchasing requirements of the GSE’s. Following these published guidelines did not meet the legal compliance of many state laws. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both placed into conservership under authority of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Some have referred to part of the housing crisis as being Housing-gate, named derived from the Watergate cover up. People, just like attorneys know that a case of this magnitude will take years to be fully adjudicated in the court system. FHFA has filed suit as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the attorneys that filed the suit should have known that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had unclean hands and with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac having unclean hands a judge would have a method to dismiss the case with no funds being conveyed. Since the case would be dismissed somewhere in the future and in the eyesight of the taxpayer no one would be able to claim a cover up. As MERS is one the hottest topic in the land, one could not believe the lawyers would be so ignorant to as not include MERS.

Ignorance, cover up, corruption, this author hopes each person can reach their own conclusion.

Again, greed people are trying to shove lousy paper upon the American People/Taxpayer. Hey, White House, Congress, and Law Enforcement, not all Americans are deaf, dumb and stupid.

Quote 0 0
Moose
The whole case boils down to this allegation:

Quote:

325. In contrast, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not know of the untruths and omissions contained in the Prospectuses at the time they purchased the GSE Certificates. If the GSEs would have known of those untruths and omissions, they would not have purchased the GSE Certificates.


If a competent judge actually believes Fannie and Freddie weren't in on the scheme (or weren't aware of the practices), there is no hope for our judicial system.

Moose


Quote 0 0

The Feds Sue The Banks- Robosigning Is Powerful Evidence of A System Gone Terribly Wrong

September 3rd, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
First, go back in time and understand exactly where the term, “Robosigning” came from. According to internet archives, the first time it appeared on a blog was right here! Read the History and Here.

Digging deeper into this you will find the proactively-titled article, Niche Lawyers Spawn Housing Frackas an article in the Wall Street Journal that appropriately gives credit to the passionate and committed lawyers like Tom Ice, Tom Cox, Jim Kowalski for standing up for consumers and fighting for the Rule of Law.

Mr. Ice mentioned the deposition testimony to a fellow lawyer, Matthew Weidner. “Tom and I were talking, and it was, ‘Jesus, they’re like robots!’” Mr. Weidner says.

More at http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2011/09/the-feds-sue-the-banks-robosigning-is-powerful-evidence-of-a-system-gone-terribly-wrong/

Quote 0 0
BobbieF
The whole suing thing is a cover up and a distraction.  The government has
been involved in the mortgage fraud from the start. It's like someone standing
on a hill and pointing upwards, shouting, "look there, shiny"!  All the while
the crooks are busy burying the bodies, skeletons, and evidence.
They think we all live in the land of rubes.

Quote 0 0
ANN posted:
Robosigning Is Powerful Evidence of A System Gone Terribly Wrong
 
OHIO FRAUDclosure: FHFA  - We have provided a Cliff Notes Video and Post below:
(Hint) Watch the three (3) Linda Green's create thousands of FRAUDulent documents and then PROSECUTE your lawsuit to the fullest extent of the law and additional - OUTRIGHT CRIMINAL FRAUD charges.

Come on FHFA... this is a really easy answer....Will it be A) ....or... B)
A) Criminal Prosecution - Jail time - Heads of Bankers or
B) Another sell-out and minuscule settlement figure

Cliff Notes and links below 

LINDA GREEN - FRAUDclosure - CRIME SCENE !!!

 
David Dayen:
And you (FHFA) see.....banks HAVE to fabricate documents. Because they destroyed the private property system through improper and sloppy securitizations and lost or missing mortgage assignments during the bubble years, and as such they cannot prove standing to foreclose without lying. Robo-signing is a crime, but ...a cover-up for a much bigger crime, which involves MERS and improper mortgage transfer and securities fraud.

The robo-signed, forged, fabricated documents (are the smokescreen being used to foreclose) and get the real problem off the books. Banks are ....saying they are merely “memorializing” past actions with the fake documents. Some courts aren’t buying it; the pooling and servicing agreements stipulate that all assignments showing transfers must take place within 60 days, not years later through “memorialized” actions

Banks Continue to Fabricate Documents, Commit Foreclosure Fraud

Quote 0 0
Moose
FHFA has zero criminal enforcement power.

We have to understand that as currently enabled by law, the perpetrators of these schemes are beyond criminal prosecution. Period. That's how the system was designed, constructed and operated.

If you expect law enforcement to alter the way mortgage servicing is operated, you might as well hope the tooth fairy is coming.

After all these years, it is still not a crime to abuse mortgage borrowers and with the present structure in Washington and the state legislatures, it never will be.

Moose.









Quote 0 0
BobbieF
Here is a history of  MERS, which is implicated in every faction of the
mortgage fraud from the 1990s.
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/mers-101/

What Moose posts is pretty true.  There are designed loopholes in the laws
and regulations used to control the pipelines used by those in the mortgage,
real estate, banking. These pipelines allow cash to flow unrecorded, and
untraceable. This is money that is never seen by the IRS, as intended
Kind of reminds one of the cash banks used by the jihadists, where the
money never moves, yet is transferred to other locations.
You can read more about these loopholes and pipelines over at
LivingLies.

Quote 0 0
Aside from the smoke and mirror issues,  there are many interesting information in each complaint that can be used for foreclosure defense . For example :
1. How the faulty loan securization process and who did it.
2. Lists of Trusts belong to each banks
3. The change of notes ownership from one bank to another.
and many more.

Each complaints is not the same. Look for the Bank who sue you , read the complaint against that bank, you will find some interesting info.

These complaints are the formal confirmation that the fraud of Securization, the missing notes etc are reality facts coming directy from the US Government. Hopefully these facts will convince the Judges to stop letting the Banks taking homes away from the real fraud victims, the Homeowener.
Quote 0 0
Texas

File No. S7-34-11

SEC Seeks Public Comment on Asset-Backed Issuers and Mortgage-Related Pools Under

Investment Company Act

 http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-176.htm

 In Re: The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted unanimously to request public comment on the treatment of asset-backed issuers as well as real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other mortgage-related pools under the Investment Company Act.

Even for those mortgage asset backed securities under governance, there was a failure of compliance with 15 USC 77nnn. Maybe some think, just let time pass-by and the statute of limitations will conceal the fraud for those registered. (THE MERS RECORDATION FACTOR)

Lack of oversight in the Asset Backed security arena is not the largest colorable issue, Swap Agreement Section 3A (b)(3), (A) and (B) raise more of an alarm. Such rules restricted the SEC from preventing fraud. One serious question arises: can Congress pass a law that prohibits a government agency from taking measure to prevent fraud, is it constitutional?

The maximum value of the Mortgage Backed Asset arena per Fannie Mae's number equals approximately $12-14 Trillion dollars in the residential market, however, the unregulated Swap arena would subject parties to additional multi trillion dollar loses greatly exceeding the Mortgage Backed Asset arena. Add failure of compliance in the commercial asset backed arena and the problem increases.

Section 16 3A (b) 3.     Except as provided in section 16(a) with respect to reporting requirements, the Commission is prohibited from--

 

        A.    promulgating, interpreting, or enforcing rules; or

 

        B.   issuing orders of general applicability; under this title in a manner that imposes or specifies reporting or record keeping requirements, procedures, or standards as prophylactic measures against fraud, manipulation, or insider trading with respect to any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 USCS § 78c note]).

When one addresses only a portion of the legal issues at hand and fail to address all the issues, fraud will find a way to propagate. In the opposite, keeping the prophylactic on, many have felt the pain of the gizmo. Section 16(a) does allow for equitable relief, but the fact is, the crime should have never been allowed to be committed.

To add another nightmare to the equation, applying 15 USC 7001 to electronic tangible negotiable instruments under Uniform Commercial Code Article 3, well that's the problem, you can't per 15 USC 7003, 15 USC 7003 excludes governance over items governed by Uniform Commercial Code Article 3 & 9. 15 USC 7001 could possibly be applied to electronic payment intangibles and beneficial security interests, but the courts may need to sort some of the specific issues out.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...