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

Citi Reaches Deal With Lawmakers on Home Loans

Article Tools Sponsored By
Published: January 8, 2009

WASHINGTON — In a move that would help troubled homeowners, Citigroup agreed to support legislation that would let bankruptcy judges adjust mortgages for at-risk borrowers, leading Congressional Democrats said on Thursday.

Financial industry lobbyists, however, said the plan was flawed and vowed to fight legislation aimed at easing up on homeowners facing foreclosure.

Members of the House and Senate said Citigroup had agreed to drop its opposition, providing no future mortgages are covered by the law.

Citigroup, which is receiving more than $300 billion in bailout assistance, says that it is open to measures that would help homeowners.

“Citi shares this legislation’s goal to help distressed borrowers stay in their homes, and believes it will serve as an additional tool to the extensive home retention programs currently in place to help at-risk borrowers,” Vikram S. Pandit, the chief executive of Citigroup, wrote in a letter released Thursday night.

The revised bill that Citigroup endorsed would allow bankruptcy judges to adjust the principal payments or interest rates on existing loans.

Judges could also extend the terms on mortgage loans, according to the language of the bill, which would force lenders to take losses without a say in bankruptcy court proceedings.

Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said he and fellow backers of the plan see it as a way to create more voluntary negotiations between struggling homeowners and financial institutions. So far, voluntary programs have proved ineffective, Democrats said.

Citigroup had been part of the Bankruptcy Coalition of the Financial Services Roundtable, an industry group, since it aggressively lobbied for changes to the bankruptcy code in 2005.

The coalition — a group of major trade associations and lenders like Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — also fought to block the so-called cramdown legislation last year.

No other bank has broken ranks with the industry on the proposed bill. Mr. Durbin said he hoped the move by Citigroup, should other banks and financial trade associations take the same stance, would lead to backing by enough Democrats and moderate Republicans to push the bill through.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said he had been contacting officials of top financial institutions for months, trying to persuade them that it would be to their advantage to back the plan since it could help stabilize a housing market that has severely hurt the economy.

Three changes were made to the legislation sponsored by Mr. Durbin and Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee: only existing mortgages will be eligible; homeowners will have to certify they tried to contact their mortgage holder lenders regarding loan modifications before filing for bankruptcy; and only major violations of the Truth in Lending Act will cause lenders to forfeit their claims in a bankruptcy.

Backed by bankers and other financial groups, many Congressional Republicans and some Democrats have balked at the plan to let bankruptcy judges alter mortgage terms on primary residences, saying that would drive up mortgage costs.

But officials said financial institutions were coming to the conclusion that it might be better to get a reduced loan payment through a bankruptcy or voluntary negotiations than to get no money at all.

Aides to Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Senate banking committee, said he would have no immediate response to the plan.

Scott E. Talbott, senior vice president for government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, said the group opposed cramdown legislation because it “creates huge risks” for the mortgage market.

He suggested the bill would force banks to further restrict lending and absorb huge losses as the economy worsens. He also suggested the bill would create perverse incentives that might encourage more homeowners to seek bankruptcy protection.

Citigroup recently began negotiating with lawmakers, in a move that some observers suggest reflects its desire to win favor on Capitol Hill after receiving billions in funds from the bailout program.

The government has invested $45 billion in Citigroup and agreed to guarantee about $269 billion in highly illiquid mortgage investments.

“If you’re looking at a way to get to the bottom of the economic problems in our country, this is the cause of our economic problems,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the banking committee. “It is the housing foreclosure problem. We’ve got to address that.”

The plan has been backed by members of Congress who see it as a way to help distressed homeowners and balance federal relief efforts that have been aimed at Wall Street and the automobile industry.

Mr. Schumer said he had been in contact with other large banks and he expected they would soon announce their support or at least drop their opposition to the plan.

“Citigroup’s action has broken the dam,” he said.

Eric Dash in New York contributed reporting.

Citi Reaches Deal With Lawmakers on Home Loans -
Quote 0 0
So what this all says is that everyone has to file for bankruptcy in order to get relief or stay in your home.

What happens to the other homeowners?

Do you realize how jam packed the Federal Courts will be?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for this.... I just don't understand how they are going to deal with this case load. The courts are busy now.

Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
This is a very bad idea, in my opinion.

1) This will pervert contract law completely.

2) This will not address the crimes committed on the part of the many players in the scheme - mortgage brokers, appraisors, origninating lenders, rating agencies (Moodys, Standard and Poors), various and sundry foreclosure mill law firms, Fidelity (or any derivitive there of). I'll stop this item here.

3) This will not address the attitudes and practices of the many court jurisdictions that have consistently and erroneously ruled in favor of Plaintiffs in foreclosure cases.

4) According to PSA's I've read neither originating lenders nor loan servicers have the authority to alter, change or modify mortgage contracts or P-notes. In fact there are already suits being brought against services for doing exactly that.

5) The real party at interest are/is the investors in the MBS pools. Kept hidden through most foreclosure actions. I doubt they will take this lieing down as most to all losses will be passed on to them.

Primarily I'm against this because it will likely be a "get out of jail free card" to all those that misbehaved in the various processes. I feel strongly they need to be held fully accountable. Without accountability what is to stop anyone from engaging in similar misbehavior in the future.
Quote 0 0
This whole bailout plan was designed to cover up the fraud perpetrated by appraisers, brokers, lenders, servicers and everyone else associated with RE for the past ten years. We are buying back bad debt certs from all over the world with this money. I don't think anyone will ever be prosecuted for all this fraud except low-level players who do not have the funds to buy off Congresspeople. They will be our scapegoats. The really big players will walk away unscathed.

If the plan was to truly stimulate the economy, they would have sent every taxpayer $150,000 to $200,000...mortgages would have been paid off, credit cards would have been paid off, car loans would have been paid off and people would be spending money now. Small businesses could have paid off debt and avoided going bankrupt and laying off all their employees. Instead, we are getting massive layoffs and higher numbers of unemployed, banks hoarding cash and refusing to tell anyone what they are doing with it...the economy is definitely NOT stimulated.

The next bailout scheme, scam, whatever you wish to call it, is a plan to put lots of people to work in a CCC-type infrastructure rebuilding. That's fine and well overdue. However, the money will remain stubbornly at the top...this ploy is just to get people to work at reduced wages and paying taxes again so that we can continue to pay the banks to cover the fraud. I cannot see an end to it for many years.

So, Citi should be willing to let cramdowns be done. The whole loan portfolio is based on fraudulent values. To investigate them will expose the fraud. Citi won't have to worry; if they begin losing, the government will be there to backstop them with some more of our money. Anything to hide the fraud, right?

Madoff has nothing on the U.S. Government and the idiots who work for it. Ponzi schemes seem to be their stock in trade!

Quote 0 0
You guys are "RIGHT".......

I want to hang every last one of these S.O.B's... I have a few of them on the chopping block right now. They don't even know it. They shouldn't get away with one thing. If it were you are I we would be in jail right now.

Quote 0 0
I'm not sure U.S. citizen realize just what has happened here. The bailout is for all practical purposes a bankruptcy agreement distributing our assets to the creditors with the executive branch, the treasury dept and the Fed as trustees.

There are no courts except under the discretion of the creditors primarily China the E.U. and oil rich nations who supported the speculative lending frenzy.

Here is Paulsons initial proposal the language is still similar in the second and final proposals the 400+ pages are fluff the bottom line is the bailout grants dictatorial powers to the treasury secretary (under the President) and the Fed ( Fed chairman is appointed by the President) The second and final proposals are in pdf I have to convert them to post.






    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.

As anyone can see according to section 8 the secretary of the treasury over rules the courts

As anyone can see according to section one a and b the secretary of the treasury has unlimited powers over U.S. mortgage bases assets.

Quote 0 0
BFTB? Again?

What are they going to do with this money?

Quote 0 0
I find it remarkable that I have not heard one whisper about whom Obama may name as Treasury Secretary. Since he kept Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, do you think Obama may keep Paulson? Ugh....

They are selling us into bondage bit by bit.

Quote 0 0
The IRS was formed in 1862 to pay for civil war expenses. The IRS is supposedly part of the treasury but the current role of the IRS to feed the feed the Fed was assumed in 1913. Congress handed over control of the U.S. economy to a consortium of private bankers and industrialists. The U.S was officially opposed to WWI and the majority favored Germany even if we were to enter. The FED/IRS stealthily transferred U.S. assets to fund military expenditures both sides of the conflict in WWI and WWII some of these programs such as lend lease and Marshall plan were public others were not. Fractional reserve money the banks "lend" us for our homes is backed by the government, Fed and IRS. Our taxes provide the backing for the loans on top of deposits and the down payment. The GSE's Fannie and Freddie funded the loans and the investment bankers got rich.

Many of us on the forum put the money trail together years ago though most people thought it was off the wall to even suggest the government had some role in lending fraud partnering with investment bankers. But now we can see the chickens have come to roost and the Bailout agreement combined with the politicians source of election funds completes the picture. We can see that Paulson the treasury secretary has delegated his authority to the very same criminals who looted the economy.

In the late twenties the Fed implemented monetary polices designed to transfer U.S. gold to England to artificially support socialism and coupled with a speculative lending spree and a contraction in credit created the great depression. All U.S. citizens monetary gold was seized in 1933.

My best guess is a similar  thing is happening again look at where the assets have been transferred China, Indonesia, oil rich Arab states. Welfare and military states are two sides of the same coin  high tax central government though liberal and conservative media pundits will vehemently argue otherwise, and must draw income form the same source stripping the assets of the middle and upper middle class by taxes, inflation, monetary manipulation, interest payments, etc. increasing the disparity between the rich and poor. Funding wars or welfare either way the banks get rich off the interest payments both are official explanations for the FED/IRS.

Bottom line is the wealth gets redistributed either to social services, military expenses or both.

This explains why this scam was so easy to pull off the left wants social services and the so-called right wants military expenditures. The left is willing to put up with dictatorial expansion of powers to gain food, shelter, education, medical care, support illegal immigration, the so-called right is willing to put up with it for security.

Quote 0 0
O -
I hear it's a dead heat between Mickey and Goofy? Goofy wants a recount...
Quote 0 0
Their apparent extreme stupidity would be funny except for the joke winds up on us.
Quote 0 0
Robert Rubin

Exits: The Tired Legacy of Robert Rubin

Quote 0 0

Yeah, I bet he's just worn out lugging around his $17 million dollar a year salary from Citigroup...makes me tired just thinking about it. Huff, puff, puff....chug, chug. What an onerous job it is to screw up absolutely everything and then be forced to quit and lug all that money off when you go.

"Rubin was the object of scrutiny when he served as a high-profile director at Citigroup, after losses in the billions due amid the mortgage and credit crises. He was reported to have made approximately a yearly salary of $17 million, including salary, bonus, and stock, according to WSJ."

The Top Ten People Who Should Be Unemployed in a Just 2009

8. Robert Rubin and everyone who has ever worked for him. Rubin broke the economy, and trained a new generation of democratic finance-wizards who helped break the pieces of the economy into smaller pieces, and then he went to work for Citigroup, where he still draws a nice f***ing salary, after shepherding through legislation that allowed for the creation of Citigroup, a massive financial services conglomerate that also broke the economy, this year. Everyone who worked for him will now fix the economy with their fancy new jobs in Barack Obama's administration.

Quote 0 0
    Congressman and Senators probably won't figure this out in time to take
any real, meaningful action but here goes any way. You guys need to recog-
nize the fact of deflation, which in one year has increased the value of all
debts by at least two fold. This means that a $200,000 debt in 2006 before
deflation hit is like trying to pay back a $400,000 debt in 2009 dollars!
    Short of allowing real estate prices to crash to 10% of their pre 2006
values (which is what happened from 1925 to 1935) by allowing foreclosures
and the massive disruption of homelessness to hit America like a hurricane,
they can by fiat devalue all mortgages (issued since 1968 and still unpaid)
down to 50% of the amount owed. This will allow the mortgages to get paid
off at 50 cents on the dollar and allow people to stay in their homes while
everyone adjusts to lower prices and wages caused by deflation.
    Congress is to blame for the problem, because it was them in 1968 who
removed the 25% gold backing from Federal Reserve Notes and set off this
wave of inflation which had to be followed by the deflation and misery we
are just starting to see. Solution: everything old is new again! US Notes
backed by Fort Knox gold at $1,000/ounze! Stop borrowing Fed. Notes!

Quote 0 0
giving courts big say

Citigroup supports measure giving courts big say on mortgage reductions - Los Angeles Times

Quote 0 0
giving courts big say


Citigroup supports measure giving courts big say on mortgage reductions

Democratic Leaders Discuss Priorities
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Las Vegas, second from left, speaks at a news conference in Washington. He is joined by Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) , left, Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). Citigroup is now backing Senate legislation chiefly sponsored by Durbin to let bankruptcy judges reduce the principal on certain mortgages.
The lender agrees to support letting bankruptcy judges lower the principal owed on 'underwater' loans.
By James Oliphant
January 9, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- For the first time since the housing crisis began, a major mortgage lender agreed Thursday that courts should be allowed to order reductions in the principal of "underwater" loans for some troubled borrowers, cracking what had been fierce and unified industry opposition.

The agreement struck between congressional Democrats and Citigroup Inc. would permit bankruptcy judges to change the terms of mortgages as part of court-ordered debt restructuring. Democrats hope to include the provision in the upcoming economic rescue legislation under negotiation between Congress and the incoming Obama administration.

The suggested change in the nation's bankruptcy laws has been repeatedly proposed -- and defeated -- in recent years.

Under Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, judges currently have the right to reduce the principal of auto, credit-card and other loans but cannot reduce the principal on a primary mortgage under any circumstances. As a result, homeowners who go into bankruptcy often wind up with mortgage payments that are even higher than the ones they had before, after skipped payments and other fees are added to the principal.

Some housing experts and many Democrats blame this unwillingness to reduce the principal on mortgages for the difficulty that many homeowners have had as they try to modify their mortgages and avoid foreclosure.

But giving bankruptcy judges the power to "cram down" mortgages has been opposed by congressional Republicans and mortgage lenders such as Citigroup, who have warned that it would make providing loans riskier and, because of that, reduce the amount of credit available to buyers.

The measure was termed a deal-breaker in last fall's $700-billion Wall Street bailout bill and was left out of the final package. But Democratic leaders said Citigroup's about-face could be the crack that breaks the banking community's dam of opposition to the idea.

"This is the breakthrough we've been waiting for," said the bill's chief sponsor in the Senate, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). "They can make a big difference in convincing their fellow institutions to join us."

Last month, the powerful National Assn. of Home Builders also switched positions, removing its objections to a similar bill in the House sponsored by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). That move was another signal that the bloc of industry groups lined up against the legislation is fissuring as the foreclosure crisis has worsened.

Durbin said the measure was necessary to stem the rapid rise in foreclosures, which have quadrupled since the fall of 2007, potentially affecting more than 8 million homeowners nationwide.

So far, lenders modifying mortgages have focused on other means of reducing monthly payments, including extending the term of the loan and reducing the interest rate.

But there are indications that those borrowers were running into trouble again, either because their payments remained too high or because their homes had lost so much value that it was unrealistic to continue making payments on the full value of the principal.

Moreover, economic conditions have significantly worsened in recent months. And some banks, including Citigroup, have received new infusions of capital as part of the government's economic rescue programs and may be in a better position to resume lending.

In a statement, Citigroup said it would support Durbin's legislation provided that it applied only to mortgages in effect before passage of the act. To be eligible, borrowers would have to contact their lenders and try to work things out before filing for bankruptcy.

The company also said it would support the proposal only if a provision was eased that would void the mortgage if the lender was found to have violated consumer protection laws.

The exception would be if the lender violated specific sections of the Truth in Lending Act that already carried such rescissions of mortgages as penalties.

In letters to members of the House and Senate, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit endorsed the proposal, saying, "This legislation would represent an important step forward. Given today's exceptional economic environment, we support its swift passage."

In his statement, Pandit did not specify why the company had changed its position.

But Durbin said that earlier efforts to slow the rate of foreclosures were obviously not succeeding.

"I think they may have come to this with some reluctance, but became resigned to the fact" that foreclosures were escalating, Durbin said.

It is unclear whether other banks will join Citigroup. But Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said his office has heard from other banking executives who wished to discuss the legislation.

"My office has now been called by heads of most of the major banks in the country, saying they want to hop on board," Schumer said Thursday after the deal was announced. "And I'm now hopeful that we can get the banking industry to be supportive of this provision -- at the very least, not oppose it."

Industry groups remain concerned that the bill would apply to all mortgages, not simply the subprime loans that helped spark the current recession. That, they argue, would provide some homeowners with an incentive to seek bankruptcy or buy a larger house than they may be able to afford.


Save/SharePost to MySpace!
Quote 0 0
Just who will eat the losses when judges start reducing principal and interest?


Or all of us as our money is being used to keep these crooks afloat?

This will hide the fraud very well, won't it? Blame huge losses on the judges, scream that it wasn't our fault; the judge did it, everybody goes away happy, and it's business as usual.

Quote 0 0
    In my humble opinion,the problem with the piecemeal approach of allowing bankruptcy Judges to devalue mortgage debts one at a time, is that it will overwhelm the bankruptcy courts. If people start seeing their neighbors get a
break in bankruptcy, soon everyone will be defaulting and running to the
Courts for relief.
     If Mr. Nixon could unilaterally devalue the dollar by fiat in 1971 thereby
reducing the value of all debts, then Mr. Obama and Congress should have
the power to devalue all mortgage debt by 50% by fiat and thereby stop
the crisis in its tracks.
     Such a move by Mr. Obama and Congress would take a huge load of
stress off the middle class and help provoke a recovery, which would be more
effective than all these piecemeal bail-outs which don't get to the root
of the problem,  the overinflated real estate market, caused by 40 years of
monetizing the perceived value of real estate with fiat currency created out
of thin air. They also need to bring back lawful, constitutional currency and
honest banking!
Quote 0 0
Good idea Mike H

People need to get over the idea that irresponsible borrowers caused the crises and that the banks even loaned them money in the sense of intrinsic value at all.
It's true that banks can go under due to bad loans but it's because the debt ration is considered insolvent. People might think this is a trivial distinction but it is not, it's the root of the problem. No stockpile of money has been lost from the banks they cannot lose money at all on a foreclosure because they actually brokered the Borrowers collateral, that's right the so-called borrower is actually the lender in terms of providing actual assets and the so called lender is in one sense the borrower since they create debt though they hold the so-called borrower (us) responsible for the debt they created.

People confuse the green paper stuff in their pockets with money. Actually it's Federal reserve note, a promise to pay and when you give it to someone else you are just transferring a debt to them. Can the bank employees, investors and other people connected to financial services lose real assets, yes they can they lose the property, buildings, and other assets seemingly owned by the banks as well but they created those assets by leveraging the so-called borrowers collateral, and deposits along with investors capital.

The effects of this imaginary money are quite real but only because a large enough percentage of the public believes paper money is real and that the banks are lending them money that it becomes a herd effect.

If someone robs you with a toy gun the effects are still real trauma, loss of money,
sense of powerlessness but the threat was imaginary. The banks and our politicians have stampeded us over an economic cliff using imaginary money a threat.

Your plan is on target there is no loss in a fiat devaluation of mortgages because they were all fiat loans in the first place, it's matter of replacing one decree with another.

Quote 0 0

Bank of America reported near deal on U.S. aid - International Herald Tribune

Quote 0 0
I kind of get it. But here is my situation. My origingal lender was Ownit Mortgage Solutions. They then took my mortgage and put it into an Asset Backed Certificate. Merrill Lynch did the prospectus for the investors. It stated that Lasalle Bank National was the trustee for Ownit Mortgage and Litton Loan was the servicer.

So my question is; "Where does Merrill Lynch come into this picture????" There was no assignment for Merrill. But they advertised it for investors. So put yourself in my shoes and let me know what the story is?????

I think that I am missing something here. How does this situation work???

I am really confused right about now....
Quote 0 0
     Dear Cmc, You must be new to the forum. To fill you in, your Note, ie
what you owe, gets sold like a 'baseball card" to different investors. Sometimes, it gets sold at a discount, other times it gets sold for a premium
depending on the going interest rates. The mortgage lein is usually held
by a "loan servicer" or "MERS" a nominee for whoever owns the "NOte" at
the moment.
     It appears that the "loan servicers" guarantee the payment to the "Note
holder" whether the borrower pays or not. Of course if the borrower doesn't
make payments, the "servicer" is going to take strong action, including fore-
closure if necessary. The problem the "servicer" is facing, is that often, nobody knows who owns the "Note" at the moment and sometimes it is
actually "lost" due to incompetence among "trustees".
     Such a system only works when 99% of borrowers are dutifully making
their payments on time. When a Panic follwed by a Crash occurs, the whole
system breaks down. This is what happened in 2008. As unemployment mounts, a downward spiral of deflation begins, feeding upon itself.
Quote 0 0
greg collins
CMC it depends on what you want to do with the information. The reason I put the information is twofold one is to relate to the general public how ms fraud harms everyone and not just the borrower who lost equity or their home.

Another reason for posting is to pursue lawsuits. This information will not help prevent a foreclosure for a small lawyer trying to save a home with  fraud as a cause of action, but only someone or group willing to put in the elbow grease and work with several people to pursue a case based on profiting from multiple titles claims or making loans intended to fail or cashing in on credit default swaps etc.

Andrew Fastow originated  securitizing loans in order to profit off the books. Profiting off the books will leave a complicated paper trail if any at all. There may be multiple title claims on your property and it may very well be that Litton intends to foreclosure to cover for bad origination, multiple title claims, to profit from credit defaults etc. etc. Litton loan is a major player in the servicing industry know to engage in ms fraud.

Merrill Lynch may have done nothing other than put information together for investors.

Gary Wait has done much work with Litton and Nye LaValle has done much work with proving who really holds the note.

Whats really critical is putting together a time-line of events and carefully documenting all your information and correspondence. Issues like the Fed, Credit River decision, mortgage securitization are tough row to hoe. You are far more likely to win a case on proving payments were made and not posted or refused, or fictitious billing, bogus late charges etc.intended to force foreclosure or collect illegal fees, although attempting to foreclose without a valid note may be a very good defense but much more complicated and time consuming. Many of us have had slam dunk cases and still lost in my case I never even got loan it was transferred from Option one to Ameriquest allegedly as a cash out re-fie I never agreed to, foreclosure was initiated after 30 days and Ameriquest fabricated and back dated all evidence.

It's best to keep to the basics and keep things simple but on the other hand like I said many of us have lost slam dunk provable cases and perhaps the bold will try causes of action based on fraudulent title claims and intentional foreclosures for the purpose of creating securitized assets. Fraudulently creating assets is considered debasing the currency and is a very serious crime actually the highest form of treason and a capitol offense very serious charges like this require much evidence and resources.

The bottom line is investors have figured out a complicated way to transform our mortgages into assets worth many times what the mortgage is worth, when that mortgages is foreclosed it creates a domino effect because it backed many times it's value a CDO (collateralized debt obligation) is 30-60 time the base value of the loan. So our down-payment  is collateral for the loan and the loan is collateral for many times the value of the mortgage in debt based assets generally called derivatives.

I'm particularly outraged that at the very least the government and regulatory agencies permitted so much speculative, high risk and outright fraudulent lending that it caused an economic collapse that is rippling worldwide even more so because historically wars almost always follow economic disasters, and I have been telling people for years the system will collapse and taxpayers will be asked to bailout the criminals to cover for their crimes.

The decision is individual are you pragmatic and think the damage is done and just want to recover losses or prevent foreclosure try something simple. If you want to pursue large punitive damages, recovery of assets, and care about getting to the bottom of the financial crises and restoring our country then by all means please follow the money trail get educated and take the best course of action your judgment tells you to.

Personally I believe property rights and due process are the cornerstone of freedom and nothing is more important than preserving those rights.

Quote 0 0

I can only CONGRATULATE the words spoken here. They've gotten me thru a lot. I can only hope I contribute beyond the spectrum that's been shared thus far.

Your best bet is doing a QWR-The qualified written request. Yes you originated it they sliced it diced it and lost it. NOT YOU. SO you have to go to
Point A:Who you originated mortgage with. Who it was assigned to. If there's no asisgnment or proof of the original documents then like someone told me HOLD IT LIKE YOUR IN A MICHEAL VICK DOG FIGHT.

STANDING TO SUE IS EVERYTHING. The other is honesty. You can only do what you can do. They can't expect you to have wads of cash stashed anywhere at this point and time.

From what I've been told its also about painting a picture about yourself or your life. Not outlandish things. The TRUTH. Life isn't always everything you
want. But you have to make the best of it.

While I've been undecided about the best legal method these are the most important things. I tried initially doing a complaint styled by one of the top consumer attorneys in our country. I ended up having to do it myself. I always knew about God but didn't find out as much as I should of about him earlier in life. But the thing to realize is that their suppose to uphold laws based upon GOD'S LAWS. Yes they've been stampeding us in court, lying cheating and such. Trust me I know more than most.

However, recently after being DENIED my rights TWICE now in court for what ever reason the Judge ended up RECUSING herself now. And assigned the case to another judge. What this will end up doing for me I'm not sure. I really dont undersand it. However judicial conduct requires IMPARITIALITY.

The legal forum on here is great. I think I even put like an outline template in there for a fed suit. Maybe, think about becoming a paralegal. It could come in handy. That or Wiki does. Some of the real estate forums help. Maybe, find a good consumer attorney or a paralegal who understands it.

 Anyway, Good Luck


Quote 0 0
Mike H,

I am kind of new to this forum. And I am so greatful for all of the advice and thing that I have learned. I don't think that there is another forum out there like this one. If you look at the post: Asset-Backed Certificates, I put those questions up and I have to tell you as you can see, it was and education for me.

greg collins,

I want to thank you also for your information. It was helpful. I too am going through proving who really owns the note. And as I said before, this forum has helped me.


Thanks for the information also. I hope you do well will your case. It sounds like you will perform....Good Luck.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...