UPDATE: ROBO-SIGNING=”PAPER TERRORISM”

Posted on June 25, 2013 by eggsistense

Remembered more examples of the “paper terrorism” of the banks that belonged in the original “Robo-signing=’Paper Terrorism'” article, thanks to a friend’s Facebook post:

Here’s one from the New York Times on February 15, 2012:

“An audit by San Francisco county officials of about 400 recent foreclosures there determined that almost all involved either legal violations or suspicious documentation, according to a report released Wednesday…The improprieties range from the basic — a failure to warn borrowers that they were in default on their loans as required by law — to the arcane. For example, transfers of many loans in the foreclosure files were made by entities that had no right to assign them and institutions took back properties in auctions even though they had not proved ownership.”

Sounds like “paper terrorism” to me.  So does this, from the opposite side of the country:

“Register John O’Brien revealed the results of an independent audit of his registry.  The audit, which is released as a legal affidavit was performed by McDonnell Property Analytics, examined assignments of mortgage recorded in the Essex Southern District Registry of Deeds issued to and from JPMorgan Chase Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, and Bank of America during 2010.  In total, 565 assignments related to 473 unique mortgages were analyzed.

McDonnell’s Report includes the following key findings:

• Only 16% of assignments of mortgage are valid

• 75% of assignments of mortgage are invalid.

• 9% of assignments of mortgage are questionable

• 27% of the invalid assignments are fraudulent, 35% are “robo-signed” and 10% violate the Massachusetts Mortgage Fraud Statute.

• The identity of financial institutions that are current owners of the mortgages could only be determined for 287 out of 473 (60%)

• There are 683 missing assignments for the 287 traced mortgages, representing approximately $180,000 in lost recording fees per 1,000 mortgages whose current ownership can be traced”.

This led O’Brien to famously declare that “my registry is a crime scene.”

So Barbara Bratton sits in jail this very moment as she has for almost two weeks, while these banks are free to carry on this paper terrorism.  This is not what most people imagine when they hear about “equal protection of the laws.”

Posted in Foreclosure, Police State | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

ROBO-SIGNING=”PAPER TERRORISM”

Posted on June 25, 2013 by eggsistense

So Barbara Bratton is currently in solitary confinement in the Glen Helen detention center in Devore, CA.

Inmate Record 6-25-13

Apparently she’s being held for filing two documents on April 11, 2013, with two separate criminal counts being leveled against her for each of the two documents: 1) a “Correction of Grant Deed” for which she is being charged both with forgery and “procuring and offering false or forged document,” and 2) a Warranty Deed for which she is being charged for the same two counts above.  She is also accused of “second degree burglary” supposedly because she entered the office of the San Bernardino County Recorder with “intent to commit larceny and any felony.”  So that’s 5 counts total against Bratton.

Isn’t that what banks do?

What Bratton is accused of doing is exactly what banks have been doing for years now, that is, offering falsified documents to county recorders in order to foreclose on people’s houses.  That’s what the LPS/DocX lawsuit was all about.  Just to refresh our collective memory:

“…documents prepared by DocX and filed in Michigan were reviewed.  DocX processed mortgage assignments and lien releases for residential lenders and servicers nationwide. The investigation revealed that former DocX president Lorraine Brown allegedly orchestrated a widespread scheme in which employees were directed to forge signatures on mortgage documents in order to execute these documents as quickly as possible, producing increased profits for DocX.  Internally, DocX identified this practice as facsimile signing or surrogate signing.  The investigation revealed that more than 1,000 unauthorized and improperly executed documents were filed with county registers of deeds throughout Michigan.

This is what the 2011 consent orders and the “Independent” Foreclosure Review and the $25 billion National Mortgage Settlement were all about–filing fraudulent documents with county recorders across the country.  Indeed, the consent order with U.S. Bank–the entity which Bratton was contending with–states the following about U.S. Bank:

(a) filed or caused to be filed in state and federal courts affidavits executed by its employees making various assertions, such as the amount of the principal and interest due or the fees and expenses chargeable to the borrower, in which the affiant represented that the assertions in the affidavit were made based on personal knowledge or based on a review by the affiant of the relevant books and records, when, in many cases, they were not based on such personal knowledge or review of the relevant books and records;

(b) filed or caused to be filed in state and federal courts, or in local land records offices, numerous affidavits that were not properly notarized, including those not signed or affirmed in the presence of a notary;

(c) failed to devote to its foreclosure processes adequate oversight, internal controls, policies, and procedures, compliance risk management, internal audit, third party management, and training; and

(d) failed to sufficiently oversee outside counsel and other third-party providers handling foreclosure-related services.

(3) By reason of the conduct set forth above, the Bank engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices.

Now, how is that substantively different from what Bratton did?  It isn’t of course, but we don’t see the San Bernardino legal eagles branding U.S. Bank as “domestic terrorists” or “paper terrorists.”  Why not?  After all, if U.S. Bank engaged in substantively the same behavior as Barbara Bratton, does not U.S. Bank deserve to be disgraced with the same label as Barbara Bratton?

Robo-signing=”paper terrorism”

And that’s the problem–no judge or district attorney seems willing to label the banks as “terrorists” even when the banks engage in what those same judges or district attorneys would readily call “paper terrorism” if a private citizen did it.  It’s a distinction without a difference, i.e. the same behavior is considered A-OK if banks do it but it’s punishable by solitary confinement if a private citizen does it.

I want to be clear that I am in no way arguing that because U.S. Bank may be a “paper terrorist,” then that means that Barbara Bratton is a paper terrorist–I believe the exact opposite is true.  Indeed, the truth is the ultimate defense.  So the truth needs to be determined, namely: who is entitled to the house, Bratton or U.S. Bank?  As the consent order with U.S. Bank makes abundantly clear, along with the general fact pattern of the ongoing foreclosure crisis, there is more than enough evidence to come down in favor of Bratton.  So if Bratton is in fact the true owner of her property, then that necessarily means the following: the documents she filed are not forgeries but the documents that U.S. Bank filed are forgeries, and should be treated as such.

Bratton v. U.S. Bank

Bratton filed suit against U.S. Bank to determine who the true owner is.  From a cursory glance over some of the documents in that case, one can see that Bratton was not allowed to conduct any discovery in her case because Judge Dale S. Fischer (who interestingly presided over the Pellicano celebrity wiretapping case) ended the case on the motion to dismiss of U.S. Bank and its co-defendants.  This is of course, a very typical result, and obviously serves the purpose of suppressing the truth of who is entitled to Bratton’s house.  It’s the perennial tale of the non-judicial foreclosure process–the party who is forced to bear the burden of proof in such a lawsuit (i.e, the homeowner) is not allowed to compel the party holding all the evidence (i.e., the bank) to produce any of that evidence.  Then the judge says the homeowner is merely making baseless legal conclusions and has no chance to prevail.

However, since Bratton filed her suit as a pro se litigant, Judge Fischer was precedent-bound to construe Bratton’s pleadings more liberally than those of U.S. Bank as well as FRCP-bound to consider the motion to dismiss in the light most favorable to Bratton.  Without having read the motions to dismiss or Bratton’s response(s) to them, one can safely conclude that the judge did neither of those things.  Again, that would be par for the course.

So how has it come to this?

The headline for an article at Liberty Blitzkrieg sums it up nicely:

The New Orwellian Term for Americans that Disagree with Government:  ‘Paper Terrorists”

But, one might ask, U.S. Bank isn’t part of the government, right?  So if Bratton disagreed with U.S. Bank, that’s different than disagreeing with the government, right?  Refresh your memory with this little jewel (regarding the coordination between the banks and the feds to crackdown on the Occupy Wall Street movement) and then make your own decision about whether the banks and the government are two separate entities:

“[A newly-released document] shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned, locally executed mission. The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens.”

Yes, we have arrived at a place most decent Americans never imagined we’d come to–where big corporations and banks can, with essentially absolute impunity, perpetrate acts which are considered felonies (and treated as such) if private, decent Americans perform the same acts.  Even if the private, decent Americans are in the right.

God help us.  (Updated here with more links to “paper terrorism” of the banks.)

Posted in Foreclosure, Police State | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

BARBARA BRATTON IS NOT A TERRORIST

Posted on June 25, 2013 by eggsistense

FYI: Barbara Bratton, 55, of Ontario, California, has been held in solitary confinement in the Glen Helen detention center since June 14, 2013.  Her bail hearing scheduled for June 24, 2013 has been rescheduled for Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. at the San Bernardino Superior Court.

Bratton a “domestic terrorist?”

The criminal complaint against Bratton asks that her bail be increased from $145,000 to $250,000 because she “appears to be involved in the sovereign citizen movement.”  The complaint goes on to say that “Members of this group are known to engage in Domestic/paper terrorism.”  Guilt by association, anyone?

There are so many things wrong with just the second statement above that it’s difficult to know where to begin.  But maybe I’ll start with what “terrorism” is and isn’t.  The felony complaint against Bratton essentially accuses her of four counts of forgery (the fifth count is second degree burglary)–since when did forgery become terrorism?  If forgery is terrorism, then Linda Green needs to be hauled off to the waterboarding suite at Guantanamo Bay.  Does anything about forgery or second degree burglary even come close to the official United States definition of terrorism, which is this: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents?”  No, it does not.  Mostly because there’s no violence involved in forgery.  Barbara Bratton is not alleged to have committed any violence.

And what, pray tell, is this “paper terrorism?”  A recent Salon.com article defines it thusly: “filing fraudulent tax returns, liens and foreclosures.”  Hey, wait a minute–that’s what the banks do!  And that “paper terrorism” is exactly what Bratton was trying to undo when she filed documents styled as a “Correction of Grant Deed” and a warranty deed.  A press release issued on behalf of Bratton describes the situation like this:

“Ms. Bratton began working with San Bernardino County Recorder Dennis Draeger and his staff to conduct a thorough search of the property records on her home. In a signed declaration authorized by Draeger, his custodian of records concluded that the involved parties lacked the authority to foreclose on the Bratton home. To set the record straight, Ms. Bratton filed a corrective deed at the County Recorder’s office on April 11, 2013 — a preliminary step towards gaining court recognition of fraudulent foreclosure. To insure proper procedure, she asked the Secretary of State’s Office to validate the document with their seal before filing with the county recorder. For additional insurance, she attached a copy of her 2012 notice to the police of title fraud with her request to have them investigate (a request they ignored.)”

So the recorder’s office itself found that U.S. Bank did not have the authority to take Bratton’s home.  Bratton apparently lost her suit against U.S. Bank on January 10, 2013.  In the memorandum granting the motions to dismiss of U.S. Bank and their co-defendants, the judge made sure to expunge the lis pendens Bratton had filed, while pointedly and without explanation denying Bratton’s “Request to Expunge Substitution of Trustee and Election to Sell Notice of Trustee’s Sale Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale.”  So obviously Bratton was concerned about what documents were filed with San Bernardino County long before she filed the documents she’s now in jail for.  And she was right to be concerned.

More on this story as it develops.  But suffice to say, Bratton is most assuredly not a terrorist, either paper or domestic.  She is simply trying to keep her house in a country with a court system that runs roughshod over the rights of homeowners while blessing the forgery and falsehoods of banks.  I have not seen all the pertinent documents in this case, but if she indeed had the blessing of the County Recorder, the filing of her documents shouldn’t be a problem and Bratton should never have been thrown in jail.

 

Posted in Foreclosure, Police State | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

BANK ROBO-ENDORSERS: PERSONALLY ON THE HOOK FOR BILLIONS?

Posted on June 19, 2013 by eggsistense

Well, maybe…hopefully…because in most, if not all, promissory notes—particularly in the context of mortgages—this clause appears toward the end (often under section 8):

“If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed.  Any person who is a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things.  Any person who takes over these obligations, including the obligations of a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note, is also obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note.  The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each person individually or against all of us together.  This means that any one of us may be required to pay all of the amounts owed under this Note.”

 Now, this is written very unambiguously and in straightforward, plain English. Let’s break down a couple of the main points.

Sentence 1:

“If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally obligated to keep all of the  promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed.”

 This is obviously to keep both husbands and wives bound to repay the Note, even if they get divorced or one of them dies or becomes incapacitated.  Also note that this is why the lender doesn’t sign the Note, which is a circumstance that many people have pointed to as being an inherent problem with the Note to begin with.

Sentence 2 (THE BIG ONE):

 “Any person who is a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things.”

 The phrase “these things” is a clear reference back to the first sentence which requires those signing the note to  “keep all of the promises made in this Note” which includes “the promise to pay the full amount owed.”  This sentence, while also clear and unambiguous, opens a giant can of worms, because it means, as Neil Garfield has said for some time now, that there are multiple co-obligors on these promissory notes.  That is, there are (or can be) multiple persons who are on the hook to repay the loan just as much as the borrower is on the hook.

Robo-endorsers and GSEs in a world of hurt

So to put this in the context of a case I know a lot about, i.e. my own, this second sentence of section 8 means that Michele Sjolander and Laurie Meder—both of whom are endorsers on my Note–are obligated to “keep all of the promises made” in my Note which includes the promise to “pay the full amount owed.”  And that’s gotta be a bitch for Sjolander and Meder, because their names are allegedly on a hell of a lot of Notes, so they are “fully and personally obligated” to pay literally billions of dollars, according to section 8 of millions of promissory notes.

Furthermore, Fannie Mae was/is a guarantor on my Note.  That is, Fannie Mae explicitly states the following in the prospectus supplement for the pool my note was supposedly placed in (I’m paraphrasing): that Fannie Mae will pay the principal and interest payments due under my Note to the holders of certificates issued by that pool whether or not I pay Fannie Mae. I’ll get the exact quote later, but that paraphrase is practically a quote.  And Fannie Mae has put this same guarantor language in other prospectus supplements as well, so Fannie Mae itself is on the hook for literally billions or trillions of dollars.  QE Unlimited starts to make a lot more sense in this context, does it not?  The ongoing conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie also can be seen in a much clearer light in the context of this section.

Why Neil Garfield is right

As mentioned earlier, Neil Garfield of Living Lies has talked about this phenomenon for some time.  I don’t remember him ever actually specifically mentioning section 8 of a promissory note, but he may have.  One of Garfield’s collaborators—Dan Edstrom—talked about this issue recently in an article entitled “Failure to Allege Lack of Default,” which nicely sums up what Garfield has been saying for a while now.

And what Garfield has said is this: there is never a default on your Note.  The payment may not have been made by the borrower, but it was made by someone, either a guarantor or an endorser.  So the Noteholder never experienced a default.  In other words, if your Note is/was securitized, the person who was ultimately supposed to receive your payments always received them, just not from you.

Now some might say, “Well, since Fannie Mae made the payments to the Noteholder in the borrower’s stead, the borrower really does owe Fannie Mae because Fannie Mae has made good on the borrower’s promise.”  Section 8, I think, argues otherwise.  After all, no one forced Fannie Mae to become a guarantor of my Note. Fannie Mae knew very well that by becoming a guarantor of my Note, they were “fully and personally obligated” to keep all the Note’s promises, including full payment of the amount due.  Fannie Mae wrote the Note, so they can’t say they didn’t know what it said or what it meant! So that’s on Fannie Mae, not on me or any other borrower.

What right do they have to take my house, then?

So what gives Fannie Mae the right to come after me or you? Nothing!  Fannie Mae is only a trustee of the pools of notes which are sold to benefit certificateholders.  And the certificateholders never experienced a default, since Fannie Mae was the guarantor of all the Notes it securitized.  And it’s Fannie/Freddie’s idiotic decision to be guarantors of trillions of dollars worth of notes that led to the ongoing taxpayer bailout of those two companies.

IMPORTANT NOTE/DISCLAIMER:  The above article is not and should not be construed as legal advice and was not written by an attorney.  It is merely a collection of common-sense, rational observations written by a sane, rational layperson with common sense.  It is recommended that you consult with an attorney for any and all legal advice and/or action.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

BANK OF AMERICA MODIFICATION SCANDAL AFFIDAVITS/DECLARATIONS

Posted on June 18, 2013 by eggsistense

210-1 (William Wilson, Jr.)

210-2 (Simone Gordon)

210-3 (Theresa Terrelonge)

210-4 (Steven Cupples)

210-5 (Recorda Simon)

210-6 (Erika Brown)

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

MAYBE U.S. BUS FARES SHOULD BE INCREASED

Posted on June 18, 2013 by eggsistense

The Brazilians get millions into the streets over bus fare increases.  Why are Americans so docile?  We’re being spied on every second of every day (without warrants or justification) and not a single bankster responsible for 2008 crash has even stood trial, much less gone to jail.  What the hell is it gonna take?  Maybe if American bus fares were increased?  Would that do it?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!

Posted on June 18, 2013 by eggsistense

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

BANK OF AMERICA MODIFICATION SCANDAL: A FRIEND DEALS WITH A FARCE

Posted on June 14, 2013 by eggsistense

Below is a little farcical tragicomedy inspired by a message from a friend of mine who dealt with Bank of America’s hampering of HAMP.  It’s what I imagine must have gone on in Bank of America offices when dealing with people like my friend ( and it’s obviously informed by the BoA employee declarations which have recently surfaced), who described his situation like this:

“We were accepted in a trial mod back in Dec 2009, and it was supposed to be 3 months etc…   I called and called, and they said that there was a backlog etc…  In July I got a request for more documentation and due by 8/30/10.

 I sent all the documentation that arrived by FedEx on 8/30 at BofA,  like a few days later they sent me a denial letter.  I called and they said I sent in a copy of our 2009 tax return unsigned so that is why we the modification was denied!  I said you have to be kidding me, and they said , no it’s required.

 Then they sent me an acceleration of the note letter,   I raised hell, started writing letters, and then getting educated.  I fell for another “in house” modification and then we were denied in December, all along we were making the trial mod payments still.

 I then said forget it, and stopped the payments.  After we filed Chapter 13 in 2011, BofA sent a letter in response to one of the many letters I had been sending them, that we were denied, because we did not sign the 4506-T for the tax returns.  I looked in the copies of the documents I sent them in 2010, and there was the 4506-T, filled out and signed, that we had sent to them.

 It’s all so clear now.”

And he’s right–it’s so clear that Bank of America was engaged in purposeful fraud, costing people their money, their homes, and their lives.  It’s unconscionable.

My friend sent me copies of documents proving he HAD mailed in the documents in the allotted time, and then also Bank of America’s responses to those documents.  The redacted documents (and Jack Mark obviously isn’t my friend’s real name) appear in my little farce below as the drama unfolds (I tried to make them talk like gangsters because they are)…

HAMPERING HAMP: A Farce In Several Criminal Acts

SCENE: Bank of America office, circa 2010…

CAST:

D. SANTOS–BoA henchman

DEWEY CHEATEM–“Team Leader” of BoA henchmen

JACK MARK–our man, trying to get a HAMP modification

Aug. 30, 2010

D. SANTOS: Boss, I just got a FedEx package from dis bozo Jack Mark.  Whaddya want me to do wid’ it?

DEWEY CHEATEM: Just throw it in the pile wid’ the udder ones.

D. SANTOS: Youse want I should mebbe take a look at it, boss?

DEWEY CHEATEM: Youse know we don’t look look at dem things.

(Phone rings)

D. SANTOS: Hello, Bank of America!  How may we help you today?

JACK MARK: Yes, this is Jack Mark and I was just calling to make sure you got my HAMP modification documents.  I have a FedEx tracking record that shows you received them today.

FedEx Delivery Information REDACTED

D. SANTOS: Can you hold please, sir?

JACK MARK: OK, sure.

D. SANTOS: Boss!  The bozo is callin’ in to see if we got his package!

DEWEY CHEATEM: Youse know what to do–lie to him and tell him we d’int geddit.  You don’t wanna open no can o’ woims or nuttin’.

D. SANTOS: But he sez he gots a FedEx tracking record that we DID geddem!

DEWEY CHEATEM: Who cares–he ain’t got nuttin’.  Just tell that clown we ain’t got his stinkin’ papers.

D. SANTOS: OK, Boss–whatever youse say!

(D. SANTOS goes back to Jack Mark)

D. SANTOS: I’m sorry to keep you waiting, sir.  We did not receive your modification documents today.  Maybe you could resend them.  Let me give you the address–

JACK MARK:  Look, this is crazy.  I sent these documents in good faith, to the right address, and I have a tracking record that I not only sent them, but that you received them.

D. SANTOS: I’m sorry, Mr. Mark.  We’re dealing with a high volume of HAMP modification requests at this time.  If you’d like to resend the documents, I–

JACK MARK: I’ve had enough of this. Goodbye! (slams down phone)

DEWEY CHEATEM: Ya done good, Santos.  Keep that up and youse gonna get dem Target gift cards for sure!

Early September, 2010

DEWEY CHEATEM: Santos, youse remember that Jack Mark from da udder day?

D. SANTOS: Sure, boss!

DEWEY CHEATEM: Too bad he didn’t send in his modification documents, cuz now we gotta turn him down for his pwecious widdle modification!  Go ahead and send him dis letter…

9-2-10 HAMP Decline Letter-001 REDACTED

D. SANTOS: Sure, boss.  (Reads letter)  I loves dis part about how we gotta turn him down cuz he didn’t send us no documents!  Even tho’ he did!  (Laughing)  Dis is our best job yet, huh, boss?

DEWEY CHEATEM:  It sure is, Santos. It sure is.  I bet you can almost taste dem Target and Bed Bath and whatever gift cards…

D. SANTOS: Yeah, boss!  I need a coupla more o’ dem decorator olive oil sets!  My goilfriend loves dem things.

A few days later

DEWEY CHEATEM: Yo, Santos–looks like youse gonna get dem gift cards!

D. SANTOS: Really, Boss?

DEWEY CHEATEM: Yeh–‘member dat Jack Mark and how he sent in his modification documents, but he didn’t send ’em in, wink wink?

D. SANTO: Sure, Boss!

DEWEY CHEATEM:  Now we gotsta send ‘im ‘dis letter. If he don’t pay up we take his house and dem gift cards is all yours dis month!

Notice of Intent to Accelerate 9-8-10-001 REDACTED

D. SANTOS: I can’t believe it, Boss!  I’m a winnah!

FIN

Yes, and the country and the economy are losers…oh and by the way, below is the letter from the office of Bank of America’s CEO telling my friend he hadn’t sent in his tax document properly, followed by his request to the IRS to send BoA that tax document, which the IRS presumably did like clockwork.  Just to further show how full of Bravo Sierra Bank of America is and what a Charlie Foxtrot this whole scam was/is…

Letter from BoA CEO saying denial was because of no 4506-T:

9-1-11 Letter from BOFA Office of the CEO REDACTED

And then here’s the 4506-T that my friend DID send in…

FedEx Delivery Information and 4506-T-002 REDACTED

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

BANK OF AMERICA SCANDAL: “WE WERE TOLD TO LIE” TO BORROWERS

Posted on June 13, 2013 by eggsistense

3utvnb

More conspiracy fact:

From the declaration under penalty of perjury of former BoA “senior collector” Simone Gordon we learn that it was the policy of Bank of America not just to tell borrowers that BoA hadn’t received borrowers’ modification documents when they had in fact received them, but also to put the accounts of those same borrowers into foreclosure status.  And the employees that met certain foreclosure status quotas were rewarded with cash bonuses and gift cards to stores like Bed Bath and Beyond and Target.

This was BoA’s idea of fulfilling their obligations under the federal HAMP program–to purposely and repeatedly frustrate borrowers who filled out modification documents in good faith and then taking the houses of said borrowers without even looking at said modification documents?  Bank of America was required to participate in the HAMP program, a program which was ostensibly supposed to prevent foreclosures, not reward bank employees for increasing foreclosures!

Here’s what Ms. Gordon had to say about purposely and repeatedly frustrating borrowers:

“Using the Bank of America computer systems I saw that hundreds of customers had made their required trial payments, sent the documents requested of them, but had not received permanent modifications.  I also saw records showing that Bank of America employees had told people that documents had not been received when, in fact, the computer system showed that Bank of America had received the documents.  This was consistent with the instructions my colleagues and I were given.  We were told to lie to customers and claim that Bank of America had not received documents it had requested, and had not received trial payments (when in fact it had).”

They were told to lie.  And if they didn’t lie, they not only didn’t get the coveted gift cards, they got fired:

“Team Leaders walked the call room floor throughout the day wearing headsets that they would use to plug in and listen into a call without warning.  Employees who were caught not carrying out the delay strategies that Bank of America instructed were subject to discipline including termination.”

What a fascinating and frightening look into Bank of America’s workplace culture:  random checks to make sure the truth was not being told and consequently that borrowers would lose their homes–even though they were in fact doing everything they were supposed to do, all as the result of Bank of America’s required participation in a program mandated by federal law.

Why in the hell isn’t Brian Moynihan in prison already?  Why hasn’t Bank of America been shut down?  They’re breaking the law–but not just breaking it, more like completely undermining it while giving the appearance that they’re upholding it. It begs the question: what else are they lying about?

More to come on this…

Posted in Conspiracy, Foreclosure | 1 Comment

MERS IS THE PROBLEM, PART 5 MILLION AND COUNTING…

Posted on June 7, 2013 by eggsistense

I’ll try to keep this short.  MERS is the problem, not the solution.  I feel like this needs to be pointed out after reading the opinion of District Judge Sam Sparks in the Texas case of Kramer v. FNMA (i.e., Fannie Mae).  Sparks argued that MERS is allowed to assign a Deed of Trust separate from a note and disparages the Plaintiff’s (i.e., Kramer) reliance on the Carpenter v. Longan decision of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1872.  Carpenter says that assigning only a mortgage/deed of trust is “a nullity.”  Sparks says that statement is merely dicta and not precedent and therefore, he doesn’t have to heed it and besides, Texas law says assignment of only deeds of trust is A-OK.  Except that Sparks ignores all the other Texas case law which says exactly the same thing as Carpenter, a lot of which can be found in the brief of David Rogers in the appeal of Kramer v. FNMA, which brief can be found on PACER.

What MERS would like us to believe

MERS would have us believe that it is the agent of every purchaser of a note “secured by” a MERS mortgage/deed of trust.  So if a note names Countrywide as the lender and MERS is on the deed of trust, the MERS argument goes, MERS is the agent of Countrywide (of course they never use the word “agent” in the actual document(s), but rather call themselves a “nominee”).  Then if Countrywide sells that same note to Fannie Mae, then MERS becomes the agent for Fannie Mae, simply because MERS is named in the deed of trust that accompanies that note.  And so on for any subsequent purchasers of that note.

Now let’s pretend for a moment that MERS is correct about this.  Let’s say that MERS IS actually the agent for Countrywide and then for Fannie Mae and then for the trust/pool that Fannie Mae supposedly sets up.  I don’t buy that, but let’s suppose it is true.  Here’s my point though, and this is something the courts need to get (and they would if they weren’t bought off or just plain biased against homeowners): even if MERS IS the agent for all these entities, that STILL does not allow them to assign only the deed of trust/mortgage to ANYONE.  And by MERS’ own admission, MERS can only assign the interest it has, which is supposedly the “legal title” to the deed of trust.  But wait, there’s more–even if MERS was authorized by Countrywide or Fannie Mae or whomever to assign the deed of trust to some other entity, MERS still can’t legally do that because mortgages and notes are inseparable AND an assignment of ONLY the mortgage/deed of trust is “a nullity.”  ALL case law prior to the “financial crisis” (and some even in the midst of it), not just Carpenter, agrees with that proposition.

Even so, MERS is TSOL

MERS attempts to get around these problems by wording their assignments as assignment of BOTH the note AND the mortgage/deed of trust.  But in answers to interrogatories I obtained from my own lawsuit against MERS, MERS admitted that it cannot assign notes for two reasons: 1) MERS has no interest in the note to assign (even if they are the agent of the noteholder/owner) and 2) notes do not move through assignments in the land records.  So Sparks is wrong on every point: MERS can’t assign only deeds of trust, nor can they assign notes, and Carpenter is not the only (or even the definitive/precedential) source for the proposition that assignments of deeds of trust/mortgages alone are a nullity.

Here are the relevant quotes from the interrogatories, along with a couple others that are significant:

Interrogatory #4: “MERS is only able to transfer what it actually holds and cannot transfer a negotiable instrument by virtue of a transfer of real property.”

Interrogatory #7: “Any language in the assignment which claimed to assign the note could not do so, as notes do not move through assignments in the land records.”

Interrogatory #13: “The MERS assignment can only assign the interest that MERS is holding.  When MERS is named as the beneficiary, it holds legal title to the Deed of Trust and can assign the Deed of Trust.  Unless MERS is the note holder it cannot transfer the note since the note moves through endorsement and delivery pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code.”

Reading over #13 again, I’m just flabbergasted–it’s a backhanded admission that MERS splits the note and the deed of trust, yet they will argue til blue in the face that it isn’t.  These are interesting times, my friends…

Please feel free to download these interrogatories and use them in whole or in part, or model your own interrogatories after them or do anything else with them you think would help bring MERS to a grinding halt.

IMPORTANT NOTE/DISCLAIMER:  The above article is not and should not be construed as legal advice and was not written by an attorney.  It is merely a collection of common-sense, rational observations written by a sane, rational layperson with common sense.  It is recommended that you consult with an attorney for any and all legal advice and/or action.

Posted in Foreclosure, MERS | 1 Comment