Tag Archives: predatory lending

IMPORTANT – California court holds the business judgment rule does not protect corporate officers in California‏

IMPORTANT – California court holds the business judgment rule does not protect corporate officers in California‏.



Posted on December 30, 2011 by Neil Garfield


Between TARP (only $700 Billion) and the FED bailouts ($16 TRILLION) the Banks have already received from all of us enough money to pay off every mortgage, credit card, student loan, auto loan and every other kind of debt allegedly owed to them. And yet, we are told we still owe them the money. If we owe anyone, it is the Federal government and the General Accounting Office should figure out who we pay and how much. It certainly does not seem right that we should pay the $16 TRILLION all over again when the banks have already received the money.

Now add approximately $15 TRILLION that was made in “trading” some of which was booked as principal so it didn’t count as taxable profits, and you may get what I am saying here. If you add all the debt of all Americans to all the banks that received the bailout money, they have already been paid twice over, at a minimum. We are still told that we should pay on those paid debts — payable to the Banks. For those of you counting, that would be the THIRD time the debt is paid. I say they have already been paid. I say the money should go to the Federal government.

What would happen? Well, the government could figure out if any of that money truly should go to the banks and then give them their fair share if there is any fair share. The rest clears up the deficit and provides enough stimulus dollars to shock our recumbent economy into renewed life. Once a full and fair accounting is done, the investors who lost money could be repaid with interest up to the point that the borrowers have borrowed money. The Banks will scream at that because the amount of borrowed money does not equal the total owed to the investors. The amount borrowed is far less than the amount loaned, because the banks siphoned off some 30%of the investors’ money in “fees” and “trading profits.”

The money that was NOT loaned to borrowers is not the borrowers’ problem. The Banks need to take care of that with the money they stuffed into off-shore accounts. The money that has been paid to the investors is also not a problem anymore to the borrowers because the creditor has already been paid — directly or indirectly. That leaves some sort of balance owed by borrowers, which by quick estimates would be around 1/3-1/2 of the amount they borrowed. THAT would reduce the amount due on each debt to a manageable and payable size. Allowing for a fair interest rate of around 3% would clear the decks immediately and boost consumer wealth and confidence sufficient for decades to come.

None of this will happen of course unless there is a paradigm shift from doing what is best for the Banks to doing what is best for the country. It just so happens that it also shifts back to the rule of law. Anyone who has borrowed $100 from Joe, which was paid off by his Aunt Sally knows that if he pays anyone it is going to be Aunt Sally. You are not going to pay Joe AGAIN on the same debt. Or are you?

So there is the question: after all the money we gave to the Banks, why would we pay them again on the same debts that they SAID they lost so much money on? Are we going to give them the whole $16 TRILLION AGAIN? When will people stop beating themselves up about a debt they owe and start questioning why they are paying the same debt multiple times? Why is there a difference between paying the debt as a taxpayer and paying the debt as a borrower? Isn’t it immoral to collect on the same debt multiple times? Isn’t that the true moral question?

What if the SEC investigated Banks the way it is investigating Mutual Funds?

By William K. Black

The Wall Street Journal ran a story today (12/27/11) entitled “SEC Ups Its Game to Identify Rogue Firms.”

“Rogue” is an interesting word with a range of definitions. When it is used as an adjective its meaning is: “a playfully mischievous person; scamp.” The trivialization of the most destructive elite frauds is one of the most common forms of what criminologists call “neutralization” of the moral content of wrong doing. Neutralization increases crime.

The actual story makes it clear that the criminals that the SEC was identifying were not “rogues.” They were the CEOs of seemingly legitimate firms. The SEC is identifying “accounting control frauds” – the frauds that cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime combined. The SEC is not identifying a few rotten apples, but roughly 100 hedge funds likely to have engaged in accounting fraud. The WSJ describes the SEC’s identification system:

“The list is the low-tech product of a high-tech effort by the SEC to crack down on fraud at hedge funds and other investment firms. After the agency failed to detect the $17.3 billion Ponzi scheme by Bernard L. Madoff, who wowed investors with steady returns over several decades, SEC officials decided they needed a way to trawl through performance data and look for red flags that might signal a possible fraud.

In 2009, the SEC began developing a computer-powered system that now analyzes monthly returns from thousands of hedge funds. Officials won’t say exactly how it works or how much it cost to build, but the agency has announced four civil-fraud lawsuits filed as a result of what it calls the “aberrational performance initiative.”” The SEC should be applauded for finally understanding that “if it’s too good to be true; it probably isn’t true.” Our agency put a similar system in place in 1984 to identify the S&L accounting control frauds that were driving that crisis. A quarter-century later, the SEC began to follow our well-trodden trail – but only with regard to felons inhabiting the middle of the fraud food chain (hedge funds).

The SEC has, inevitably, discovered that accounting fraud is common among hedge funds. It is unlikely that the SEC system is really “high-tech” in information science terms. Low-tech information systems have been capable of identifying “aberrational performance” for at least thirty years. We did not have to create any pioneering software in 1984 in order to identify aberrational performance. The cost and time to create our “red flags” was trivial (a few hours of programming time by an agency staffer). (We were collecting the data and computing the necessary ratios anyway. One simply decides the level of a few key variables worthy of being flagged. There’s nothing magic about a “flag.” All it means is that suspicious levels are highlighted on the computer screen and on physical copies of the periodic reports so that they capture the reader’s attention.)

The SEC took two years to create its “aberrational performance” system and is embarrassed enough about the cost that it wants to keep it secret. The two year development process allowed the SEC to make a major advance relative to our system – they invented a title consisting of two words and eight syllables. Devising a title that recondite doubtless accounts for six months of the time it took the SEC to develop its flags.

The most interesting aspects of the WSJ story, however, are two unexamined topics that should have been central to the story. First, there is not a word in the article about criminal prosecutions for the frauds the SEC has identified. The frauds, as described in the article, are so blatant that they would make relatively simple to prosecute. There is no indication that the SEC wanted the WSJ to know that they had made well over a hundred criminal referrals against hedge fund CEOs and senior officers. There is no indication that the WSJ reporters were interested in whether the SEC had made criminal referrals against these moderately elite felons. As a result, we have no information on whether the SEC has in fact made hundreds of criminal referrals against the senior officers at the hedge funds that they have identified as having engaged in likely fraud. Indeed, we have no evidence that they have made any criminal referrals. Neither the SEC nor the WSJ reporters indicated that any prosecutions, or even Department of Justice investigations, resulted from the SEC hedge fund investigations.

Second, why isn’t the SEC’s top priority the systemically dangerous institutions (SDIs)? The SDIs are the financial institutions that are so large that the administration fears that their failure will cause a new global crisis. The SDIs pose by far the greatest risk to the economy and investors of any entity. Their frauds reached “epidemic” proportions and drove our ongoing crisis and the Great Recession. The SEC, however, applied its “aberrational performance” system to its smallest entities and is now expanding it to mutual funds. There is no indication that the SEC intends to use the system to spot fraudulent SDIs. There is no indication that the SEC has even contemplated using the system to spot fraudulent SDIs. There is no indication that the WSJ reporters asked why the SEC was failing to use its system where it was most needed.

Applying the SEC system to the SDIs would have led the SEC to develop a more sophisticated analytical approach to identifying fraud. There is no indication that the SEC has any familiarity with the criminology, economics, and regulatory literature about how to identify accounting fraud. Admittedly, the SEC (finally) has taken seriously the warning that generations of parents have impressed upon their children – “if it’s too good to be true; it probably isn’t true.” The Achilles’ heel of the SEC analytics is that it assumes fraud must be aberrational and its flags are (at least as described in the story) all tied to identifying aberrations premised on the implicit assumption that fraud cannot be endemic. The SEC official told the WSJ reporter that they looked for “outliers.” Accounting control fraud, however, can become endemic, particularly in a product line, because it produces a “Gresham’s dynamic” in which bad ethics drives good ethics out of the market. Accounting control frauds report results that are too good to be true, but they all report extraordinary results because accounting fraud is a “sure thing” (George Akerlof and Paul Romer, “Looting: the Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit, 1993). Accounting control fraud was far more common among the SDIs than the SEC system has identified among hedge funds.


Charles Wayne Cox – Oregon State Director for the National Homeowners Cooperative
Email: mailto:Charles@BayLiving.com
Websites: http://www.NHCwest.com; http://www.BayLiving.com; and http://www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Call to Action From National Ass’n Independent Land Title Agents (NAILTA)

Posted by Beth Findsen:

I think that anybody familiar with the title issues facing this country following the foreclosure crisis could agree that we need to continue to foster the independent title business, if we ever want certainty in land sales again. Or should we just keep rewarding cronyism and monopolies by the banks/title companies? It’s all so very cozy, especially when you add the politicians to the mix. It’s just one big, happy family, kind of like La Familia or the cartels.

Dear Beth K.,

RESPRO and those who support the proliferation of anti-competitive affiliated businesses in the settlement services industry are at it again.

Legislation which would exempt controlled business arrangements from certain provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act regarding Qualified Residential Mortgages may be considered in Congress before the end of the year, according to an article in the Source of Title.

Legislation providing relief to affiliated businesses from regulation that counts fees paid to affiliated businesses toward a 3% cap on closing fees on Qualified Residential Mortgages could be considered by the House Financial Services Committee as soon as the week of December 19th. If not taken up then, the legislation would likely be considered in January or February, when Congress reconvenes.

If successful, a CBA exemption to Dodd-Frank would allow bank-owned and real estate firm-owned title companies to play under a different set of rules than all other settlement service providers, including independent land title agents like you who depend upon a fair market to do business. RESPRO and the Realty Alliance, along with the bank and realtor lobbies, are pushing hard to obtain this exemption and pushing harder to take away more of your market. Having this exemption allows referral sources to streamline a large percentage of their mortgage business to captive providers leaving independent title agents and their colleagues on the outside looking in.

In order to stop them, we need your help! We need each of you to contact the members of the House Financial Services Committee, by phone and email, and tell them you are from NAILTA and a small business owner and you do not support exempting affiliate settlement service providers from Dodd-Frank’s 3% cap on QRM.

For those who want to spread the word on Twitter, the HFSC Twitter site is located at @FinancialCmte. Tweet at them as many times as possible!

On behalf of the NAILTA Board, we appreciate your attention and support to these important issues and encourage you to stay involved!



Rob Holman & John Novarina


NAILTA Policy and Legal Affairs Committee


Posted on December 13, 2011 by Neil Garfield
Schack doesn’t say the pleadings were false but the inference is obvious. The documents submitted were fabricated, forged and false.
US Bank couldn’t come up with something better. And the lawyers for US Bank balked at signing an affirmation of the pleadings and exhibits, as required under New York State law.
From my seat it looks like this: if it is US Bank, the pleadings and representations are most likely living lies.
The implications are obvious. Homeowners who were “foreclosed” and/or evicted by US Bank probably have a right to go back into court and make their case for damages and recovery of the property, clearing title by a lawsuit for quiet title.
NYSC Judge Schack Slams Foreclosure Firm Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C. “Conflicted Robosigner Kim Stewart”
Decided on December 12, 2011
Supreme Court, Kings County
U.S. Bank, N.A., Plaintiff,
Wayne Ramjit et al., Defendants.
17027/08 Plaintiff Rosicki Rosicki and Associates
Batavia NY
Arthur M. Schack, J.
In this foreclosure action, plaintiff, U.S. BANK N.A. (U.S. BANK), moved for an order of reference and related relief for the premises located at 1485 Sutter Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4259, Lot 22, County of Kings). For the Court to consider the motion for an order of reference, I ordered plaintiff’s counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., on July 29, 2011, to comply with the October 20, 2010 Administrative Order of then Chief Administrative Judge Ann T. Pfau, as revised on March 2, 2011, and concluded that:
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that plaintiff U.S. BANK N. A.’s motion for an order of reference and related relief for the premises located at 1485 Sutter Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4259, Lot 22, County of Kings) and the instant foreclosure action will be dismissed with prejudice, unless, within sixty (60) days from this decision and order, counsel for plaintiff, U.S. BANK N.A., complies with the new Rule, promulgated by the Chief Administrative Judge Ann T. Pfau on October 20, 2010, as revised on March 2, 2011, by submitting an affirmation, to my Chambers (not the Foreclosure Department), [*2] 360 Adams Street, Room 478, Brooklyn, NY 11201, using the new standard Court form, pursuant to CPLR Rule 2106 and under the penalties of perjury, that counsel for plaintiff, U.S. BANK N.A., has “based upon my communications [with named representative or representatives of plaintiff], as well as upon my own inspection and reasonable inquiry under the circumstances . . . that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Summons, Complaint and other papers filed or submitted to the Court in this matter contain no false statements of fact or law”, and is “aware of my obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200) and 22 NYCRR Part 130.”
On September 23, 2011, plaintiff’s counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., filed with the Court the instant motion, requesting an extension of thirty (30) days, up to and including October 26, 2011, to submit the required attorney’s affirmation.
According to ¶ 15 of the affirmation in support of the motion, by Timothy Menasco, Esq., of Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., “plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel has been actively reviewing the file in order to properly abide by said Administrative Order creating the delay in submission of the affirmation.” Mr. Menasco then states, in ¶ 16 of his affirmation, “[i]t is unduly harsh and inappropriate to dismiss this action, on the basis of a delay in submitting an affirmation to the court.”
Plaintiff’s counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., continued, for reasons unknown and not satisfactorily explained to the Court, to not comply with the Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge and my July 28, 2011 order. I have not received the affirmation from plaintiff’s counsel, as ordered by the Chief Administrative Judge’s Administrative Order and my previous order.
Today, plaintiff U.S. BANK’S instant motion to extend the time to file the required attorney’s affirmation, appeared on my motion calendar. It is one hundred thirty-seven (137) days since I issued my July 28, 2011 order and four hundred eighteen (418) days since the Chief Administrative Judge issued her Administrative Order. Therefore, for violation of these orders, the instant foreclosure action is dismissed with prejudice and the notice of pendency is cancelled and discharged.
The Office of Court Administration issued a press release on October 20, 2010 explaining the reasons for the Administrative Ordered issued that day by Chief Administrative Judge Pfau. It stated:
The New York State court system has instituted a new filing requirement in residential foreclosure cases to protect the integrity of the foreclosure process and prevent wrongful foreclosures. Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman today announced that plaintiff’s counsel in foreclosure actions will be required to file an affirmation certifying that counsel has taken reasonable steps — including inquiry to banks and lenders and careful review of the papers filed in the case — to verify the accuracy of documents filed in support of residential [*3] foreclosures. The new filing requirement was introduced by the Chief Judge in response to recent disclosures by major mortgage lenders of significant insufficiencies — including widespread deficiencies in notarization and “robosigning” of supporting documents — in residential foreclosure filings in courts nationwide. The new requirement is effective immediately and was created with the approval of the Presiding Justices of all four Judicial Departments.
Chief Judge Lippman said, “We cannot allow the courts in New York State to stand by idly and be party to what we now know is a deeply flawed process, especially when that process involves basic human needs — such as a family home — during this period of economic crisis. This new filing requirement will play a vital role in ensuring that the documents judges rely on will be thoroughly examined, accurate, and error-free before any judge is asked to take the drastic step of foreclosure.” [Emphasis added]
(See Gretchen Morgenson and Andrew Martin, Big Legal Clash on Foreclosure is Taking Shape, New York Times, Oct. 21, 2010; Andrew Keshner, New Court Rules Says Attorneys Must Verify Foreclosure Papers, NYLJ, Oct. 21, 2010).
The failure of plaintiff’s counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., to comply with two court orders, my July 28, 2011 and Chief Administrative Judge Pfau’s October 20, 2010 order, as revised on March 2, 2011, demonstrates delinquent conduct by Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C. This mandates the dismissal with prejudice of the instant action. Failure to comply with court-ordered time frames must be taken seriously. It cannot be ignored. There are consequences for ignoring court orders. Recently, on December 16, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74, 81 [2010], instructed:
As this Court has repeatedly emphasized, our court system is dependent on all parties engaged in litigation abiding by the rules of proper practice (see e.g. Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 748 [2004]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]). The failure to comply with deadlines not only impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and the adjudication of claims, but it places jurists unnecessarily in the position of having to order enforcement remedies to respond to the delinquent conduct of members of the bar, often to the detriment of the litigants they represent. Chronic noncompliance with deadlines breeds disrespect for the dictates of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and a culture in which cases can linger for years without resolution.
Furthermore, those lawyers who engage their best efforts to comply with practice rules are also effectively penalized because they must somehow explain to their clients why they cannot secure timely [*4] responses from recalcitrant adversaries, which leads to the erosion of their attorney-client relationships as well. For these reasons, it is important to adhere to the position we declared a decade ago that “[i]f the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity [Emphasis added].” (Kihl, 94 NY2d at 123).
Despite Mr. Menasco’s assertion, it is not unduly harsh and inappropriate to dismiss the instant action because of the delay by plaintiff’s counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C. to submit the required affirmation. “Litigation cannot be conducted efficiently if deadlines are not taken seriously, and we make clear again, as we have several times before, that disregard of deadlines should not and will not be tolerated (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 748 [2004]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]) [Emphasis added].” (Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy and Drake, Architects and Landscape Architects, P.C., 5 NY3d 514, 521 [2005]). “As we made clear in Brill, and underscore here, statutory time frames —like court-order time frames (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]) — are not options, they are requirements, to be taken seriously by the parties. Too many pages of the Reports, and hours of the courts, are taken up with deadlines that are simply ignored [Emphasis added].” (Miceli, 3 NY3d at 726-726). The Court cannot wait for plaintiff’s counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., to take its time in complying with court mandates.
Moreover, even if plaintiff U.S. BANK’s counsel complied in a timely manner
with my July 28, 2011 order and the order of the Chief Administrative Judge, plaintiff U.S. BANK would have to address its use, in the instant action, of conflicted robosigner Kim Stewart. The instant mortgage and note, were executed on October 11, 2007 and recorded on December 10, 2007, by MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATIONS SYSTEM, INC. (MERS), “acting solely as a nominee for Lender [U.S. BANK]” and “FOR PURPOSES OF RECORDING THIS MORTGAGE, MERS IS THE MORTGAGEE OF RECORD,” in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, at City Register File Number (CRFN) 2007000605594. Then on May 23, 2008, MERS assigned the instant mortgage and note back to U.S. BANK. This was recorded on July 24, 2008. in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, at CRFN 2008000294495.
The assignment was executed for MERS, in Owensboro, Kentucky, by Kim Stewart, Assistant Secretary of MERS, as assignor. The very same Kim Stewart, as Assistant Vice President of assignee U.S. BANK, on April 13, 2009, also in Owensboro, Kentucky, executed the affidavit of merit for an order of reference in the instant action.She signed the affidavit of merit as Assistant Vice President of plaintiff U.S. BANK. However, in ¶ 1 of her affidavit of merit, Ms. Stewart alleges to “a Vice President of U.S. BANK, N.A., the plaintiff.”
Perhaps, plaintiff U.S. BANK and its counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., do not want the Court to confront the conflicted Ms. Stewart? This would certainly contradict the disingenuous opening statement by Richard K. Davis, Chairman, President and Chief Executive [*5]Officer of U.S. BANCORP, (U.S. BANK’s parent corporation), in his cover letter to the 2010 Annual Report of U.S. BANCORP, sent to U.S BANCORP’s shareholders. Mr. Davis stated that “[t]hroughout its history, U.S. Bancorp has operated with a tradition of uncompromising honesty and integrity.”
Further, the dismissal of the instant foreclosure action requires the cancellation of the notice of pendency. CPLR § 6501 provides that the filing of a notice of pendency against a property is to give constructive notice to any purchaser of real property or encumbrancer against real property of an action that “would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of real property, except in a summary proceeding brought to recover the possession of real property.” The Court of Appeals, in 5308 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp. (64 NY2d 313, 319 [1984]), commented that “[t]he purpose of the doctrine was to assure that a court retained its ability to effect justice by preserving its power over the property, regardless of whether a purchaser had any notice of the pending suit,” and, at 320, that “the statutory scheme permits a party to effectively retard the alienability of real property without any prior judicial review.”
CPLR § 6514 (a) provides for the mandatory cancellation of a notice of pendency by: The Court,upon motion of any person aggrieved and upon such notice as it may require, shall direct any county clerk to cancel a notice of pendency, if service of a summons has not been completed within the time limited by section 6512; or if the action has been settled, discontinued or abated; or if the time to appeal from a final judgment against the plaintiff has expired; or if enforcement of a final judgment against the plaintiff has not been stayed pursuant to section 551. [emphasis added]
The plain meaning of the word “abated,” as used in CPLR § 6514 (a) is the ending of an action. “Abatement” is defined as “the act of eliminating or nullifying.” (Black’s Law Dictionary 3 [7th ed 1999]). “An action which has been abated is dead, and any further enforcement of the cause of action requires the bringing of a new action, provided that a cause of action remains (2A Carmody-Wait 2d § 11.1).” (Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 40 [2d Dept 2005]). Further, Nastasi at 36, held that the “[c]ancellation of a notice of pendency can be granted in the exercise of the inherent power of the court where its filing fails to comply with CPLR § 6501 (see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., supra at 320-321; Rose v Montt Assets, 250 AD2d 451, 451-452 [1d Dept 1998]; Siegel, NY Prac § 336 [4th ed]).” Thus, the dismissal of the instant complaint must result in the mandatory cancellation of plaintiff U.S. BANK’s notice of pendency against the subject property “in the exercise of the inherent power of the court.”
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the instant action, Index Number 17027/08, is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Notice of Pendency in this action, filed with the Kings County Clerk on June 16, 2008, by plaintiff, U.S. BANK, N.A., to foreclose on a mortgage for real property located at 1485 Sutter Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4259, Lot 22, County [*6]of Kings), is cancelled and discharged.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Gather the Spirit ….Occupy Detroit


Occupy Detroit

Contact Info:

web: occupydetroit.us

OccupyDetroit: http://twitter.com/#!/OccupyDetMI
OccupyTheHood: Http://twitter.com/#!/OccupyTheHoo

Monetary Donations to be sent to: https://www.wepay.com/donate/17751

Moratorium NOW! has a new phone number: 313-744-7912


Vanessa Fluker confronts Congress about the incentive for banks to foreclose on homes:


Most Home Loans Are Owned or Backed by the Federal Government
Federal Government is now the force behind most evictions

Today the vast majority of home loans are owned or backed up by the federal government. This means when your home is foreclosed, the government pays off the bank for the full value of the inflated loan, evicts you from your home, and then sells off your home to some investor for peanuts. This is a silent bail-out of the banks. Instead of evicting us from our homes, the government should declare a moratorium on foreclosures – just like they did in 25 states during the 1930’s. Then people could stay in their homes with affordable payments, based on the real value of their property.

Today the vast majority of home loans are owned or backed up by the federal government. This means when your home is foreclosed, the government pays off the bank for the full value of the inflated loan, evicts you from your home, and then sells off your home to some investor for peanuts. This is a silent bail-out of the banks. Instead of evicting us from our homes, the government should declare a moratorium on foreclosures – just like they did in 25 states during the 1930’s. Then people could stay in their homes with affordable payments, based on the real value of their property.

Today the vast majority of home loans are owned or backed up by the federal government. This means when your home is foreclosed, the government pays off the bank for the full value of the inflated loan, evicts you from your home, and then sells off your home to some investor for peanuts. This is a silent bail-out of the banks.

Instead of evicting us from our homes, the government should declare a moratorium on foreclosures – just like they did in 25 states during the 1930’s. Then people could stay in their homes with affordable payments, based on the real value of their property.

Demonstration called by the People Before Banks Coalition, and the Moratorium NOW! Coalition to Stop Foreclosures, Evictions, and Utility Shutoffs

People Before Banks Coalition

“Bail Out of Chase”

PBBC staff: Rev. Charles Williams, 734-652-6382 or Joan Smith, 402-689-8878.

The People Before Banks Coalition unites organized labor, faith communities and local organizations in a campaign calling on JP Morgan Chase Bank to do the right thing. Coalition leaders are asking individuals and organizations to sign a pledge to withdraw their Chase accounts and/or cancel their Chase credit cards if the bank continues to reject two actions that are morally and economically just:

1. Declare a two-year moratorium on foreclosures
As a beneficiary of billions of taxpayer dollars spent to bail out the banks, Chase should take the lead in stemming the flood tide of foreclosures sweeping the country. In communities devastated by unemployment, people need a temporary bailout scaling back their housing costs to affordable levels.

2. Sever its business ties with the RJ Reynolds Corporation if
the tobacco giant refuses to join negotiations with the Farm Labor Organizing Committee over the slave-labor working conditions at the company’s contract growers in North Carolina. Chase is RJ Reynolds’ principal creditor.

To encourage Chase Bank to take these urgent steps, we are enlisting supporters to sign a pledge to withdraw their Chase accounts and/or cancel their Chase credit cards. The UAW has already made the pledge and we are asking individuals and organizations to join this campaign.


JP Morgan Chase is now racking up growing profits at the same time it admits to massive irregularities in the foreclosure of homes without proper documentation. Chase and other mega banks would rather rush to foreclosure when the mortgage is federally insured, collecting the full value at taxpayer expense.

Chase proclaims that it has “offered more than 900,000 mortgage modifications to troubled homeowners,” but government reports for the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP Servicer Report, August 2010) indicate that Chase has a poor record for making these modifications permanent. Chase finds it cheaper to postpone permanent modification or deny it altogether if it can collect on federal insurance for the full value of the foreclosed mortgage.

Chase has joined only a portion of Michigan’s “Helping the Hardest Hit” for the unemployed, at the same time that the bank is the prime contractor to the state of Michigan for issuing debit cards to those collecting unemployment insurance. Chase Bank, while collecting the fees from those cards, should be in the forefront of guaranteeing that the unemployed do not lose their homes. (For more information, go to http://www.moratorium-mi.org/).


Every year, thousands of migrant farm workers travel to North Carolina to work for tobacco growers under contract to RJ Reynolds. Many suffer from subminimum wages, corrupt crew leaders, extreme poverty, unregulated labor camps, and serious daily health risks, including nicotine poisoning and heat stroke. JP Morgan Chase is one of the lead banks in a consortium of lenders that has invested $500 million in Reynolds.

UAW President Bob King recently visited the tobacco fields with Baldemar Velasquez of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee. “Chase needs to help unemployed homeowners in Michigan and underpaid farm workers in the Carolinas,” King said on his return. “The bank could make a huge difference by suspending foreclosures and by pressuring RJ Reynolds to join negotiations with farmworkers and contract growers.” (For more information go to http://supportfloc.org/)

The People Before Banks Coalition unites faith-based activists, community groups, and unions on behalf of social justice. Its constituent groups include the Interfaith Workers Justice Committee, the UAW, the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, Rainbow PUSH, Moratorium Now Coalition to Stop Foreclosures, Evictions, and Utility Shutoffs, and Jobs With Justice.
For more information, contact: peoplebeforebanks@gmail.com

Stop the Eviction of Michelle Hart and her Mother
Demand a Two Year Moratorium on all Foreclosures & Evictions
STOP Bank of America

UPDATE: The eviction hearing for Michelle Hart and her mother has been rescheduled for Dec. 15. It appears that the fraud (lost documents, improper title tranfers, robosigning, etc.) that has been exposed in hundreds of thousands of foreclosures around the U.S. may exist in this case as well.

The very same week that Bank of America — and other major banks — announced it was suspending foreclosures to try to clean up their massive fraud, Michelle Hart and her elderly mother were served with eviction papers by Bank of America! Bank of America’s lawyers informed Ms. Hart’s representative that they fully intend to evict them from their Southfield home despite BOA’s public proclamations and the front page news headlines that call into question every property transaction during and after the housing crisis erupted.


BOA would rather toss Michelle Hart and her mother, who suffers from pancreatic cancer, out on the street, than negotiate a loan modification.
Michelle Hart and her mother — like hundred of thousands of others — applied for a loan modification of their usurious, adjustable-rate mortgage from Countrywide and Bank of America to reflect her reduced income. BOA refused to modify Ms. Hart’s usurious, adjustable-rate mortgage. BOA ignored the binding Consent Agreement to modify loans that it signed with the Attorney General’s office on Oct. 6, 2008. BOA even received $7 billion from the federal government to participate in the Making Home Affordable Program.

Why is virtually every government program announced to help homeowners with modifications collapsing? The programs don’t work because they are based on the belief that the same banks that have perpetrated and profited from massive foreclosure fraud, will treat borrowers who seek modifications in a fair manner when they seek modifications of their loans. Borrowers are stymied. It is a fact that the lenders either have no one to answer their calls, or when they do, the banks routinely deny the modifications, violating the banks’ agreements with the government to carry out modifications.


The majority of home loans are now either owned or backed-up by the federal government through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the FHA. The president and the governor have the authority and responsibility to declare such a moratorium by executive order. Join the struggle to demand a TWO YEAR MORATORIUM ON FORECLOSURES AND EVICTIONS to save our communities and defend our human right to decent affordable housing.

Stop the “Silent Bailout” to the Banks!

Send online messages demanding that President Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Donovan, members of the House and Senate Banking and Finance Committees, the Joint Economic Committee, Congressional leaders, your own Congressional delegation, the Governor of your state, and media representatives! petition



Today the vast majority of home loans are backed up the federal government through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA or the Veterans Administration. This means when your home is foreclosed, the government pays off the bank for the full value of the inflated loan, evicts you from your home, and then sells off your home to some investor for peanuts. The difference between what the government reimburses the banks for your mortgage and the price the home sells for is paid by the taxpayers.
This silent bailout of the banks, which occurs with virtually every foreclosure, amounts to $400 billion for Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-backed loans, and hundreds of billions more on FHA properties.
Instead of the government evicting us from our homes, the government at both the federal and state level should declare a Moratorium on Foreclosures and evictions, just like the foreclosure moratoriums that were enacted by 25 states during the 1930s. Instead of the government bailing out the banks by paying off overvalued loans, they should allow people to stay in their homes with affordable payments based on the real value of the property.
And the criminal shut-offs of power by DTE and the Water Board must be halted so people can survive this economic crisis.


The Pentagon war budget is over $700 billion a year, and that doesn’t even include the tens of billions of dollars a year spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and supporting Israeli apartheid. It’s time to end U.S. wars and military occupations abroad. The vast sums spent on war should be used instead for a massive jobs program modeled on the Works Progress Administration of the 1930s, and to provide free and universal health care for all. A “jobless recovery” violates the Full Employment Act enacted in 1946 and reaffirmed in 1978, which mandates that the government has a duty to insure jobs for all.


While services are slashed, city workers are being laid off and forced to accept draconian wage and benefit cuts and schools are shut down and class sizes increased, the same banks that have destroyed our neighborhoods have asserted direct control over and are robbing the public budgets.
This year alone, the City of Detroit will pay over $220 billion in debt service to the banks. Casino tax revenues are handed directly over to U.S. Bank. The banks have first lien on state revenue sharing dollars. 71% of state aid to the schools, amounting to $438.2 million this year, goes to the banks instead of being used to educate our youth. The banks’ grab on school operating funds is slated to go up to $523.8 million in 2011.
In the 1930s Detroit Mayor Frank Murphy led a national movement for a Moratorium on the cities’ debts to the banks. We need a Moratorium on debt service today to stop the banks’ robbery of Detroit and every U.S. city.


Stop police brutality. End the stepped up-raids by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the increase in hate crimes against women and lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender people, and lack of rights and accessibility for people with disabilities. These ills are meant to intimidate and divide the working class to prevent the kind of unified struggle needed against the banks and bosses. We reject the idea that any worker is illegal and demand full rights for immigrant workers including the undocumented.


The BP catastrophe in the Gulf and the oil pipeline disaster in Michigan point out the need for a people’s takeover of the oil companies and energy monopolies to stop their destruction of the environment in their drive to maintain their obscene profits. Oil and all resources belong to the people and should be controlled by the people to provide safe energy for all.


While corporate profits increase, wages continue to decline during this “jobless recovery.” We need to reinvigorate the union movement to guarantee jobs at living wages for all.


THE FIX IS IN …MBS take over

MI Supreme Court Errors —Reverses law MERS allowed to foreclose

Poor compliance with the claims rules effectively deflects creditors’ obligations onto cash-strapped, bankrupt families, who must choose between the costs of filing an objection or the risks of overpayment. Deficiencies in the claims process can permit unmeritorious or excessive claims to dilute the participation of legitimate creditors.

The fix is in‏
10:15 AM
Sent: Sun 11/20/11 10:15 AM
To: Charles Cox (charles@bayliving.com)

Hotmail Active View1 attachment (870.6 KB)

MBS OWC t…pdf
Download(854.9 KB)
Download as zip
Not unexpected.

From Brian Longley…

Charles Wayne Cox – Oregon State Director for the National Homeowners Cooperative
Email: mailto:Charles@BayLiving.com
Websites: http://www.NHCwest.com; http://www.BayLiving.com; and http://www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
P.O. Box 3065
Central Point, OR 97502
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

MERScurse Protect America’s Dream



Paralegal; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker; Certified Forensic Loan Analyst. Litigation Support; Mortgage and Real Estate Expert Witness Services.
DISCLOSURE: I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY AND NOTHING IN THIS EMAIL SHALL BE CONSIDERED OR CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. I am a California Business and Professions Code § 6450 qualified paralegal and only work as a paralegal when employed by an attorney or law firm. I am also a licensed California Real Estate Broker #01217620. My license expires 10/09/2013. As a real estate broker, I am qualified to advise on real estate but I do not offer legal advice. If you have any questions concerning the legal sufficiency, legal effect, insurance, or tax consequences regarding any real estate or other matter, consult with your attorney, accountant, insurance agent, tax or other appropriate professional.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of, and the original message. Thank you.

From: Brian Longley [mailto:brian@zotzdigital.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 9:14 PM
To: Charles Cox; William or Mary Cochrane; nancie@realtimecrm.com
Subject: the fix is in

%d bloggers like this: