Posts Tagged ‘WELLS FARGO’

Posted from:

commonly known as mark of the house of keen YouTube Channel

Published on Jan 20, 2014

Warning — Mirrored

This video is not owned by us, we are merely sharing or mirroring this video to help promote the creators view to a greater audience.

We do not monetize any mirrored videos and only have the intent to educate and inform whatever we deem worthy of sharing to others.

We have absolutely no expectation of PRIVACY in any way over a PUBLIC website, therefore we have no claim to anything we have chosen to share or mirror, it is a shame that others still do.

The more mankind wakes up to what’s going on around them the better.

Enjoy, Share, Like, Subscribe, your choice to spread the knowledge!

Legal Disclaimer;

The Information and/or knowledge contained in this video is for guidance and education only.

While we are aware of common law, we are in no way functioning in a commercial / legal capacity. The knowledge and/or information in this video are offered as an opinion only and are not a substitute for using your own brain and logic or doing your own research..

The intent of this video is to help promote knowledge to all mankind and to cause no harm, loss or fraud to anyone.

For appropriate PRIVATE LEGAL advice ‘you’ should contact or contract a PRIVATE LEGAL professional who is fluent in legalese and a member of ‘your’ PRIVATE LEGAL SOCIETY, a member of the PRIVATE LEGAL society with the correct jurisdiction and LEGAL authority over ‘your’ LEGAL and NATURAL PERSONs’.

Legal Disclaimer;

The Information and/or knowledge contained in this video is for guidance and education only.

While we are aware of statutory legislation we are in no way legal professionals, the knowledge and/or information in this video are offered as an opinion only and are not a substitute for PRIVATE professional LEGAL advice.

The intent of this video is to help promote knowledge to all mankind and to cause no harm, loss or fraud to anyone.

For appropriate PRIVATE LEGAL advice ‘you’ should contact or contract a PRIVATE LEGAL professional who is fluent in legalese and a member of ‘your’ PRIVATE LEGAL SOCIETY, a member of the PRIVATE LEGAL society with the correct jurisdiction and LEGAL authority over ‘your’ LEGAL PERSON.

All rights as man reserved without prejudice.

COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER

UNDER SECTION 107 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT 1976, ALLOWANCE IS MADE FOR “FAIR USE” FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITISICM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING, SCHOLARSHIP AND RESEARCH. FAIR USE IS A USE PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT STATUTE THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE INFRINGING. NON-PROFIT,EDUCATIONAL OR PERSONAL USE TIP THE BALANCE IN FAVOR OF FAIR USE.

DO NOT WATCH THIS CLIP

IF YOU RELY ON A PRIVATE LEGAL SYSTEM TO GIVE YOUR LIFE A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY AND MEANING!

THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS CLIP IS POTENTIALLY UPSETTING BUT MUST BE WATCHED WITH AN OPEN MIND.

UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO PUT EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW TEMPORARILLY ON HOLD, AND OPEN UP TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU MAY ACTUALLY BE A MEMBER OF MANKIND LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD AS MAN, WITH EACH MAN AND WOMAN HAVING THE ABILITIES TO CREATE, REASON, PRODUCE AND LABOUR, USING LOGIC AND KNOWLEDGE AS GUIDANCE, THEN THIS CLIP IS NOT FOR YOU.

———————————————-

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/01/bankers-arrested-in-iceland-ireland-uk-usa-switzerland-india-france-russia-austria-video-2879054.html

———————————————-

You are the bank

Posted from:

Image

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/richmond-california-fights-banks-with-first-in-the-nation-plan-and-guess-who-says-it-wont-work/

By PAUL ELIAS 08/25/13 09:39 AM ET EDT AP

SAN FRANCISCO — When the mayor of Richmond, Calif., and a gaggle of activists and homeowners showed up at the Wells Fargo Bank headquarters in downtown San Francisco this month, they were on a mission to speak with the bank’s chief executive.

They wanted the bank to drop a lawsuit aimed at stopping Richmond’s first-in-the-nation plan to use the government’s constitutional power of eminent domain to “seize” hundreds of mortgages from Wells Fargo and other financial institutions.

As Mayor Gayle McLaughlin and the plan’s backers approached the bank building, security guards locked the doors. After a bank official told her there would be no meeting then and that someone would call her later, she grabbed a bullhorn.

“I am absolutely not backing down,” McLaughlin said, as curious tourists and lunching office workers milled about.

Wells Fargo, three other banks and even the Federal Housing Finance Agency think otherwise.

The banks have filed two lawsuits alleging that the plan is an illegal abuse of eminent domain, which allows governments to seize private property for public use – like a house in the path of a new highway or a piece of land needed for a new park.

The banks argue the plan would “severely disrupt the United States mortgage industry” because many other cities would likely adopt the same program to help homeowners who owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth.

So far, Richmond has sent out more than 600 offers, but has not yet begun any eminent domain proceedings. Newark, N.J., North Las Vegas, Nev., El Monte, Calif., and Seattle are considering similar plans, according to Wells Fargo’s lawsuit.

While the housing industry is recovering slowly, Richmond, a city of roughly 100,000 people, is in the middle of a housing crisis, as plummeting home values and rising crime has left many worried that an era of urban blight is upon them.

McLaughlin said cities are considering the program because they are desperate. Nearly half the mortgages in Richmond, for example, are “underwater,” the owner owes more than the house is worth.

The plan is the brainchild of Cornell University law school professor Robert Hockett and here’s how it works:

“The fact of the matter is that underwater loans do default at massive rates,” Hockett said. “Underwater loans are a major drag on the economic recovery. We have got to do something.”

Richmond, working with San Francisco-based Mortgage Resolution Partners, offers $150,000 to buy a $300,000 bank loan on a house that is now worth $200,000 and is in danger of foreclosure.

If the bank agrees, the city and the company then obtain the loan at $150,000. Richmond and the company then offer the homeowner a new loan of $190,000, which, if accepted, lowers the monthly payments and improves the owners’ chances of staying.

In such transactions, the company receives $4,500 for each completed sale and splits any additional profits with the city.

If the bank refuses to sell the loan to Richmond, then the city invokes its power of imminent domain and seizes the mortgage. It would then offer the bank a fair market value for the home.

Mortgage Resolution Partners, the company partnering with the city, puts up the money and had promised to pay all Richmond’s legal costs. City officials have not said how many homes they hope to refinance through eminent domain.

McLaughlin is a Green Party candidate who beat back opposition from the city’s police and fire unions to win a second term in 2010.

She said she fears homeowners will begin to abandon their homes, leading to blighted neighborhoods and the draining of public coffers to the point of municipal bankruptcy experienced by Stockton, Calif., and Detroit.

“The city is stepping in where Wall Street and where the federal government have been unable or unwilling to do so,” she said.

Federal regulators said eminent domain isn’t the answer. The Federal Housing Finance Agency said plans to seize loans “present a clear threat to the safe and sound operations Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks.”

The plan is the brainchild of Cornell University law school professor Robert Hockett and here’s how it works:

“The fact of the matter is that underwater loans do default at massive rates,” Hockett said. “Underwater loans are a major drag on the economic recovery. We have got to do something.”

Richmond, working with San Francisco-based Mortgage Resolution Partners, offers $150,000 to buy a $300,000 bank loan on a house that is now worth $200,000 and is in danger of foreclosure.

If the bank agrees, the city and the company then obtain the loan at $150,000. Richmond and the company then offer the homeowner a new loan of $190,000, which, if accepted, lowers the monthly payments and improves the owners’ chances of staying.

In such transactions, the company receives $4,500 for each completed sale and splits any additional profits with the city.

If the bank refuses to sell the loan to Richmond, then the city invokes its power of imminent domain and seizes the mortgage. It would then offer the bank a fair market value for the home.

Mortgage Resolution Partners, the company partnering with the city, puts up the money and had promised to pay all Richmond’s legal costs. City officials have not said how many homes they hope to refinance through eminent domain.

McLaughlin is a Green Party candidate who beat back opposition from the city’s police and fire unions to win a second term in 2010.

She said she fears homeowners will begin to abandon their homes, leading to blighted neighborhoods and the draining of public coffers to the point of municipal bankruptcy experienced by Stockton, Calif., and Detroit.

“The city is stepping in where Wall Street and where the federal government have been unable or unwilling to do so,” she said.

Federal regulators said eminent domain isn’t the answer. The Federal Housing Finance Agency said plans to seize loans “present a clear threat to the safe and sound operations Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks.”

Continue reading at bottom of red text at:

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/richmond-california-fights-banks-with-first-in-the-nation-plan-and-guess-who-says-it-wont-work/

——————————

Image

Several Big Banks Forge Mortgage Documents, New Unsealed Documents Show

Posted on August 21, 2013
by Joshua De Leon •

http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2013/08/several-big-banks-forge-mortgage-documents-new-unsealed-documents-show/

Last year, some Wall Street banks settled in a fraud lawsuit for $95 million, filed by Florida resident and white-collar fraud specialist, Lynn Szymoniak. The lawsuit named 28 “banks, mortgage servicers and document processing companies,” and was filed in federal courts in North and South Carolina.

The scam consisted of the banks drawing up fake mortgage documents “because they could not legally establish true ownership of the loans when trying to foreclose.”

The lawsuit, recently unsealed, exposes some nasty secrets about the way in which banks handled the lawsuit and what that handling means. David Dayen with Salon, reported because the banks settled, rather than fought the suit, there are “tens of millions of mortgages in America [that] still lack a legitimate chain of ownership.” These tens of millions have been estimated to equal up to trillions of dollars. And because the mortgage documents are forgeries, there is no “underlying owner” that can rightfully foreclose on these mortgages.

What the banks were doing is sending off securities that were not mortgage-backed. They were essentially empty securities. As Syzmoniak points out, the “Defendants used fraudulent mortgage assignments to conceal that over 1400 MBS trusts, . . are missing critical documents.” The banks would push out these non-mortgage backed securities and eventually created over $1.4 trillion of worthless mortgages and securities.

A crucial piece of evidence in the lawsuit was that, in 2009, one “Assignment of Mortgage was inadvertently not recorded prior to the Final Judgement of Foreclosure.” This makes the underlying ownership of the mortgage invalid because that finding proved that the “mortgage assignment was not made before the closing date of the trust.”

Because these documents were faked, mortgages “were materially harmed by the subsequent impaired value of the securities.” The banks committed fraud to the most severe degree. They created $1.4 trillion in non-mortgage-backed securities, but they were able to settle by only paying a fraction of the amount they defrauded. And they even lied to the Securities and Exchange Commission about the valuelessness of the mortgages. No one was put in handcuffs, no one was convicted.

Despite the five largest banks settling, Szymoniak can still bring other banks like HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon, and Deutsche Bank to trial to seek retribution of their crimes.
———————
Josh is a writer and researcher with Ring of Fire. Follow him on Twitter @dnJdeli.

20130822-170322.jpg

Your mortgage documents are fake!
Prepare to be outraged. Newly obtained filings from this Florida woman’s lawsuit uncover horrifying scheme (Update)

BY DAVID DAYEN
Posted from Salon
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/your_mortgage_documents_are_fake/

Lynn Szymoniak (Credit: CBS News/60 MInutes

If you know about foreclosure fraud, the mass fabrication of mortgage documents in state courts by banks attempting to foreclose on homeowners, you may have one nagging question: Why did banks have to resort to this illegal scheme? Was it just cheaper to mock up the documents than to provide the real ones? Did banks figure they simply had enough power over regulators, politicians and the courts to get away with it? (They were probably right about that one.)
A newly unsealed lawsuit, which banks settled in 2012 for $95 million, actually offers a different reason, providing a key answer to one of the persistent riddles of the financial crisis and its aftermath. The lawsuit states that banks resorted to fake documents because they could not legally establish true ownership of the loans when trying to foreclose.

This reality, which banks did not contest but instead settled out of court, means that tens of millions of mortgages in America still lack a legitimate chain of ownership, with implications far into the future. And if Congress, supported by the Obama administration, goes back to the same housing finance system, with the same corrupt private entities who broke the nation’s private property system back in business packaging mortgages, then shame on all of us.

The 2011 lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in both North and South Carolina, by a white-collar fraud specialist named Lynn Szymoniak, on behalf of the federal government, 17 states and three cities. Twenty-eight banks, mortgage servicers and document processing companies are named in the lawsuit, including mega-banks like JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi and Bank of America.
Szymoniak, who fell into foreclosure herself in 2009, researched her own mortgage documents and found massive fraud (for example, one document claimed that Deutsche Bank, listed as the owner of her mortgage, acquired ownership in October 2008, four months after they first filed for foreclosure). She eventually examined tens of thousands of documents, enough to piece together the entire scheme.

A mortgage has two parts: the promissory note (the IOU from the borrower to the lender) and the mortgage, which creates the lien on the home in case of default. During the housing bubble, banks bought loans from originators, and then (in a process known as securitization) enacted a series of transactions that would eventually pool thousands of mortgages into bonds, sold all over the world to public pension funds, state and municipal governments and other investors. A trustee would pool the loans and sell the securities to investors, and the investors would get an annual percentage yield on their money.

In order for the securitization to work, banks purchasing the mortgages had to physically convey the promissory note and the mortgage into the trust. The note had to be endorsed (the way an individual would endorse a check), and handed over to a document custodian for the trust, with a “mortgage assignment” confirming the transfer of ownership. And this had to be done before a 90-day cutoff date, with no grace period beyond that.

Georgetown Law professor Adam Levitin spelled this out in testimony before Congress in 2010: “If mortgages were not properly transferred in the securitization process, then mortgage-backed securities would in fact not be backed by any mortgages whatsoever.”
The lawsuit alleges that these notes, as well as the mortgage assignments, were “never delivered to the mortgage-backed securities trusts,” and that the trustees lied to the SEC and investors about this. As a result, the trusts could not establish ownership of the loan when they went to foreclose, forcing the production of a stream of false documents, signed by “robo-signers,” employees using a bevy of corporate titles for companies that never employed them, to sign documents about which they had little or no knowledge.

Many documents were forged (the suit provides evidence of the signature of one robo-signer, Linda Green, written eight different ways), some were signed by “officers” of companies that went bankrupt years earlier, and dozens of assignments listed as the owner of the loan “Bogus Assignee for Intervening Assignments,” clearly a template that was never changed. One defendant in the case, Lender Processing Services, created masses of false documents on behalf of the banks, often using fake corporate officer titles and forged signatures. This was all done to establish standing to foreclose in courts, which the banks otherwise could not.

Szymoniak stated in her lawsuit that, “Defendants used fraudulent mortgage assignments to conceal that over 1400 MBS trusts, each with mortgages valued at over $1 billion, are missing critical documents,” meaning that at least $1.4 trillion in mortgage-backed securities are, in fact, non-mortgage-backed securities. Because of the strict laws governing of these kinds of securitizations, there’s no way to make the assignments after the fact. Activists have a name for this: “securitization FAIL.”

One smoking gun piece of evidence in the lawsuit concerns a mortgage assignment dated Feb. 9, 2009, after the foreclosure of the mortgage in question was completed. According to the suit, “A typewritten note on the right hand side of the document states: ‘This Assignment of Mortgage was inadvertently not recorded prior to the Final Judgment of Foreclosure… but is now being recorded to clear title.’”
This admission confirms that the mortgage assignment was not made before the closing date of the trust, invalidating ownership. The suit further argued that “the act of fabricating the assignments is evidence that the MBS Trust did not own the notes and/or the mortgage liens for some assets claimed to be in the pool.”

The federal government, states and cities joined the lawsuit under 25 counts of the federal False Claims Act and state-based versions of the law. All of them bought mortgage-backed securities from banks that never conveyed the mortgages or notes to the trusts. The plaintiffs argued that, considering that trustees and servicers had to spend lots of money forging and fabricating documents to establish ownership, they were materially harmed by the subsequent impaired value of the securities. Also, these investors (which includes the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve) paid for the transfer of mortgages to the trusts, yet they were never actually transferred.

Finally, the lawsuit argues that the federal government was harmed by “payments made on mortgage guarantees to Defendants lacking valid notes and assignments of mortgages who were not entitled to demand or receive said payments.”

Despite Szymoniak seeking a trial by jury, the government intervened in the case, and settled part of it at the beginning of 2012, extracting $95 million from the five biggest banks in the suit (Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citi and GMAC/Ally Bank). Szymoniak herself was awarded $18 million. But the underlying evidence was never revealed until the case was unsealed last Thursday.

Now that it’s unsealed, Szymoniak, as the named plaintiff, can go forward and prove the case. Along with her legal team (which includes the law firm of Grant & Eisenhoffer, which has recovered more money under the False Claims Act than any firm in the country), Szymoniak can pursue discovery and go to trial against the rest of the named defendants, including HSBC, the Bank of New York Mellon, Deutsche Bank and US Bank.

The expenses of the case, previously borne by the government, now are borne by Szymoniak and her team, but the percentages of recovery funds are also higher. “I’m really glad I was part of collecting this money for the government, and I’m looking forward to going through discovery and collecting the rest of it,” Szymoniak told Salon.
It’s good that the case remains active, because the $95 million settlement was a pittance compared to the enormity of the crime. By the end of 2009, private mortgage-backed securities trusts held one-third of all residential mortgages in the U.S. That means that tens of millions of home mortgages worth trillions of dollars have no legitimate underlying owner that can establish the right to foreclose. This hasn’t stopped banks from foreclosing anyway with false documents, and they are often successful, a testament to the breakdown of law in the judicial system. But to this day, the resulting chaos in disentangling ownership harms homeowners trying to sell these properties, as well as those trying to purchase them. And it renders some properties impossible to sell.

To this day, banks foreclose on borrowers using fraudulent mortgage assignments, a legacy of failing to prosecute this conduct and instead letting banks pay a fine to settle it. This disappoints Szymoniak, who told Salon the owner of these loans is now essentially “whoever lies the most convincingly and whoever gets the benefit of doubt from the judge.”

Szymoniak used her share of the settlement to start the Housing Justice Foundation, a non-profit that attempts to raise awareness of the continuing corruption of the nation’s courts and land title system.

Most of official Washington, including President Obama, wants to wind down mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and return to a system where private lenders create securitization trusts, packaging pools of loans and selling them to investors. Government would provide a limited guarantee to investors against catastrophic losses, but the private banks would make the securities, to generate more capital for home loans and expand homeownership.

That’s despite the evidence we now have that, the last time banks tried this, they ignored the law, failed to convey the mortgages and notes to the trusts, and ripped off investors trying to cover their tracks, to say nothing of how they violated the due process rights of homeowners and stole their homes with fake documents.

The very same banks that created this criminal enterprise and legal quagmire would be in control again. Why should we view this in any way as a sound public policy, instead of a ticking time bomb that could once again throw the private property system, a bulwark of capitalism and indeed civilization itself, into utter disarray? As Lynn Szymoniak puts it, “The President’s calling for private equity to return. Why would we return to this?”

Update: This story previously suggested that banks settled this lawsuit with the federal government for $1 billion. That number is actually the total for a number of whistle-blower lawsuits that were folded into a larger National Mortgage Settlement. This specific lawsuit settled for $95 million. The post above has been changed to reflect this fact.
———-
Posted from Salon
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/your_mortgage_documents_are_fake/