Tuesday, March 23, 2010

A Father's Love, 12/3/09

I have the distinction of being the father of three children who neither respect or love me. My eldest son is Ethan Wade, my Daughter Shannon Michelle, and my youngest son Sean Travis. Life has been cruel and I did not have much time in their lives. Ethan was 3 1/2 when his mother moved away. After that my involvement can be measured in days. They probably have spent more time playing video games that with me. Sean came on this blog over a year ago to spit his venom and hatred. He is very ignorant of the events that have hurt him. Still, a father's love has not changed. This tragedy in my life has caused me to understand my Father God much better. My children reject and hate me without cause. Though I have a wealth of love for them, they run from it out of foolish pride. Even their sins do not move my heart to condemnation. Always do I desire the best for them. I am not troubled by their rejection, I am troubled by their pain. Though they can justify the rejection by their belief that I don't love them, factually this is a lie. Even the pain I experience from their behavior I do not charge to them. There is a special gracious standard applied to them that I don't apply to those who aren't my children.

I know there are only shadowy experiences in light of the revelation they lighten upon, but God is kind in using them as such. I have not always been a child enamored with my heavenly Father. Many times I have brought false accusations, misunderstood, and rejected Him. I have used my pain as an excuse to run from Him instead of to Him. Fortunately His lover never changed and His grace never brought a charge against me. In fact, every provision has been made to restore me to relationship. He is my example of a good father and I have too many examples of rebellious children to ever grow weary of thanksgiving for a Father's love.

95 comments:

mogel007 said...

Bank of America to offer a principal reduction program up to 30% for some of their borrowers:

http://certifiednotebroker.com/?p=737#more-737

Hopefully more banks will follow. This is the answer to many troubled loans.

judge allslop said...

This wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it?

Class Action – Bank of America Sued by Homeowners for Withholding Federal Bailout Funds


Bank of America Home Loans
Date Filed: March 22, 2010
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: Seattle
Ticker Symbol: BAC

Washington homeowners sued Bank of America claiming the lending giant is intentionally withholding government funds intended to save homeowners from foreclosure. Hagens Berman represents plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit. Attorneys are interested to speak with other eligible home owners who were intentionally deferred or wrongfully declined a permanent mortgage adjustment per the Home Assistance Modification Program (HAMP). The case, filed in U.S. District Court, claims that Bank of America systematically slows or thwarts Washington homeowners’ access to Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds by ignoring homeowners’ requests to make reasonable mortgage adjustments or other alternative solutions that would prevent homes from being foreclosed. Bank of America accepted more than $25 billion in government bailout money financed by taxpayer dollars earmarked to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. One in eight mortgages in the United State is currently in foreclosure or default. Bank of America, like other TARP-funded financial institutions, is obligated to offer alternatives to foreclosure and permanently reduce mortgage payments for eligible borrowers struck by financial hardship but, according to the lawsuit, hasn’t lived up to its obligation. Bank of America services more than 1 million mortgages that qualify for financial relief, but have granted only 12,761 of them permanent modification, reported the U.S. Treasury Department. According to the TARP regulations, banks must gather information from the homeowner, and offer a revised three-month payment plan for the borrower. If the homeowner makes all three payments under the trial plan, and provides the necessary documentation, the lender must offer a permanent modification.
Bank of America continues to ignore TARP regulations and instead creates more financial pressure on homeowners, the court filing states. The lawsuit charges that Bank of America intentionally postpones homeowners’ requests to modify mortgages, depriving borrowers of federal bailout funds that could save them from foreclosure. The bank ends up reaping the financial benefits provided by taxpayer dollars financing TARP-funds and also collects higher fees and interest rates associated with stressed home loans. If you received an inadequate response from Bank of America for a home loan modification request after April 13, 2009, you are encouraged to join the suit.

Please visit: www.hbsslaw.com for more info.

judge allslop said...

Foreclosure Case Killer!- An Allonge Is Not Admissable Evidence of Bank’s Ownership

Across the country, banks are attaching “allonges” to original promissory notes, then using the attached allonge to allege their ownership of the note and their standing to foreclose. The problem for the banks is an allonge is only supposed to be used when there is not sufficient blank space on the front or the back of the original note to stamp a “wet” endorsement on the face of that original document to transfer ownership from the lender whose name appears on the face of the note to the next holder of the note.

judge allslop said...

Send your Trustee's a note of thanks. Six years ago allegations of mortgage fraud were thought as madness, now its everyday, allday.

Florida Supreme Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases

Here we are struggling mightily to PROVE that the Plaintiff doesn’t own the mortgage or note in cases where the Plaintiff is forging documents to PROVE that they DO own the mortgage and note………………and la-de-da in waltzes Freddie Mac’s VP and bumbles his way into the most inane (and shockingly honest) comment in the world!

“The Task Force has recommended a requirement for a plaintiff in a foreclosure action to verify that it owns and holds the note. Typically, the plaintiff in a foreclosure action does not own the underlying note or loan that is secured by the property subject to the foreclosure proceeding. Freddie Mac’s servicers initiate foreclosure actions in their names, even though they are not the owners of the notes or loans in question, because they are the mortgagees as shown on the land records (by fraudulent, fabricated assignments) and they are the holders (not in due course) or otherwise in possession of the (fabricated) notes. During foreclosure proceedings, our servicers and foreclosure counsel have authority to negotiate and execute loan restructurings (against what the pooling and servicing agreements state?) and other foreclosure alternatives (trial modifications that are ultimately denied) with borrowers as well as attend (pointless) mediation. To require investors who do not service the loan to be a party in the foreclosure action and attend mediation would be costly and unduly burdensome (because they do not even know it is in default?), which may result in additional costs being passed on to the borrower. The intended purpose of the mediation program could be achieved effectively without this verification requirement.”

Robert E. Bostrom
Freddie Mac
Executive Vice President
General Counsel & Corporate Secretary

judge allslop said...

From the Florida Bankers Assoc

“It is a reality of commerce that virtually all paper documents related to a note and mortgage are converted to electronic files almost immediately after the loan is closed. Individual loans, as electronic data, are compiled into portfolios which are transferred to the secondary market, frequently as mortgage-backed securities.”
“The reason “many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative pleading in the complaint” is because the physical document was deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic file.”

How cool is that? Presto,changeo

The court said this

First, rule 1.110(b) is amended to require verification of mortgage foreclosure complaints involving residential real property. The primary purposes of this amendment are (1) to provide incentive for the plaintiff to appropriately investigate and verify its ownership of the note or right to enforce the note and ensure that the allegations in the complaint are accurate; (2) to conserve judicial resources that are currently being wasted on inappropriately pleaded “lost note” counts and inconsistent allegations; (3) to prevent the wasting of judicial resources and harm to defendants resulting from suits brought by plaintiffs not entitled to enforce the note; and (4) to give trial courts greater authority to sanction plaintiffs who make false allegations.

You mean you can't do this?

Your Honors, all we know, after diligent review and inquiry into the matter”, is that someone, at some point, owed something to someone else.
Or
Your Honors, we also know, that the proceeds to the foreclosure sale will go to someone, that at some point had a right, maybe, to receive the windfall profits, probably, we think.

Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.

Mortgage free said...

Does anyone have Dr. Johnson's new phone number?

sopsback said...

Does anyone have Dr. Johnson's new phone number?


sure.


1-888-MARS-2911

RP said...

Dr Fred's # is 408-603-8707

Mortgage free said...

Thank you RP.

judge allslop said...

While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
“Welcome to heaven,” says St. Peter. “Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you.”
“No problem, just let me in,” says the man.
“Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we’ll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.”
“Really, I’ve made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,” says the senator.
“I’m sorry, but we have our rules.”
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises…
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
“Now it’s time to visit heaven.”
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
“Well, then, you’ve spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.”
The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: “Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.”
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he’s in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder.
“I don’t understand,” stammers the senator. “Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.
What happened?”
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, “Yesterday we were campaigning.. .
…and today you voted.”

家瑩 said...

If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.............................................

habakkuk said...

"On Earth as it is in Heaven". Legislate in the Heavens first..then it will manifest on Earth.

mogel007 said...

Mortgage Assignment Fraud done by Indymac:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DinSFLA#p/u/1/SD6XUboT1JM

sopsback said...

well, looky here?

looks like the govs have been served and their bonds arrested.

-----------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_governors_extremists


By EILEEN SULLIVAN and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Eileen Sullivan And Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer – 15 mins ago


WASHINGTON – A federal intelligence note is warning police that an anti-government group's call to remove dozens of sitting governors may encourage others to act out violently.


A group that calls itself the Guardians of the free Republics wants to "restore America" by peacefully dismantling parts of the government, according to its Web site.
As of Wednesday, more than 30 governors had received letters demanding they leave office within three days or they will be removed, according to an internal intelligence note by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, which was obtained by The Associated Press.
Investigators do not see threats of violence in the group's message, but fear the broad call for removing top state officials could inspire others to act out violently.
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal were among those receiving the letter.
Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said federal authorities had alerted the governor that such a letter might be coming, and it arrived Monday or Tuesday. Boyd, who described the letter as "non-threatening," said it was opened by a staffer and immediately turned over to the Michigan State Police.
Jindal's office confirmed the governor had received a letter from the Guardians of the free Republics and directed all further questions to the Louisiana State Police.
"They called us as they do for any letter that's out of the norm," said Lt. Doug Cain, a state police spokesman.
He declined to provide specifics about the letter, but said, "not knowing the group and the information contained in the letter warranted state police to review it." Cain said the letter has gone to numerous governors across the country.
The FBI warning comes at a time of heightened attention to far-right extremist groups after the arrest of nine Christian militia members last weekend accused of plotting violence.
In explaining the letters sent to the governors, the intelligence note says officials have no specific knowledge of plans to use violence, but they caution police to be aware in case other individuals interpret the letters "as a justification for violence or other criminal actions."
The FBI associated the letter with "sovereign citizens," most of whom believe they are free from all duties of a U.S. citizen, like paying taxes or needing a government license to drive. A small number of these people are armed and resort to violence, according to the intelligence report.
Last weekend, the FBI conducted raids on suspected members of a Christian militia in the Midwest that was allegedly planning to kill police officers. In the past year, federal agents have seen an increase in "chatter" from an array of domestic extremist groups, which can include radical self-styled militias, white separatists or extreme civil libertarians and sovereign citizens.
____
Associated Press Writer Melinda Deslatte in Baton Rouge, La., contributed to this report.

sopsback said...

later article from yahoo.news

===============================



WASHINGTON – The FBI is warning police across the country that an anti-government group's call to remove governors from office could provoke violence. The group called the Guardians of the free Republics wants to "restore America" by peacefully dismantling parts of the government, according to its Web site. It sent letters to governors demanding they leave office or be removed.

Investigators do not see threats of violence in the group's message, but fear the broad call for removal of top state officials could lead others to act out violently. At least two states beefed up security in response.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said he received one of the letters but wasn't overly alarmed.

"We get all kinds of, shall we say, 'interesting' mail, so it's not out of the norm," Pawlenty said Friday. "It got more attention because it went to so many governors."

As of Wednesday, more than 30 governors had received letters saying if they don't leave office within three days they will be removed, according to an internal intelligence note by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The note was obtained by The Associated Press.

The FBI expects all 50 governors will eventually receive such letters.

Governors whose offices reported getting the letters included Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chet Culver of Iowa, Dave Heineman of Nebraska, Jim Gibbons of Nevada, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Bob McDonnell of Virginia, and Gary Herbert of Utah, where officials stepped up security in response to the letter.

In Nevada, screening machines for visitors and packages were added to the main entrance to the state Capitol as a precaution.

"We're not really overly concerned, but at the same time we don't want to sit back and do nothing and regret it," Deputy Chief of Staff Lynn Hettrick said.

Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said federal authorities had alerted the governor that such a letter might be coming, and it arrived Monday. Boyd, who described the letter as "non-threatening," said it was opened by a staffer and immediately turned over to the Michigan State Police.



cont'd below

sopsback said...

Jindal's office confirmed that the governor had received one of the letters and directed questions to the Louisiana State Police.

"They called us as they do for any letter that's out of the norm," said Lt. Doug Cain, a state police spokesman. He declined to provide specifics about the letter, but said, "not knowing the group and the information contained in the letter warranted state police to review it."

The FBI warning comes at a time of heightened attention to far-right extremist groups after the arrest of nine Christian militia members last weekend accused of plotting violence.

In explaining the letters sent to the governors, the intelligence note says officials have no specific knowledge of plans to use violence, but they caution police to be aware in case other individuals interpret the letters "as a justification for violence or other criminal actions."

The FBI associated the letter with "sovereign citizens," most of whom believe they are free from all duties of a U.S. citizen, like paying taxes or needing a government license to drive. A small number of these people are armed and resort to violence, according to the intelligence report.

Last weekend, the FBI conducted raids on suspected members of a Christian militia in the Midwest that was allegedly planning to kill police officers. In the past year, federal agents have seen an increase in "chatter" from an array of domestic extremist groups, which can include radical self-styled militias, white separatists or extreme civil libertarians and sovereign citizens.

____

Associated Press writers Melinda Deslatte in Baton Rouge, La., Brian Bakst in St. Paul, Minn., and David Aguilar in Detroit contributed to this rep

sopsback said...

i guess that we'll find out where the rubber hits the road.

all the other groups tried to work 'inside the system' or use violence.

none have ever presented letters to govs arresting their public indemnity bonds.

we'll now see "wha hoppens" next???

sopsback said...

The FBI associated the letter with "sovereign citizens," most of whom believe they are free from all duties of a U.S. citizen, like paying taxes or needing a government license to drive.



and the FIB got that one right on the money.

they dont own anything. its not their city, not their state and NOT thier country.

AND NOT THEIR PLANET.


H-E-L-L-O...


THIS IS G-O-D-S PLANET, GET IT?

sopsback said...

Governors whose offices reported getting the letters included Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chet Culver of Iowa, Dave Heineman of Nebraska, Jim Gibbons of Nevada, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Bob McDonnell of Virginia, and Gary Herbert of Utah, where officials stepped up security in response to the letter.




Dave Heineman of Nebraska,




jizzzzzzzzzz.....whey ive heard of dat name beeefo???


it seems smilar.....


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!!

sopsback said...

As of Wednesday, more than 30 governors had received letters saying if they don't leave office within three days they will be removed





ok, can we be a little 'lite harted' here....



"ok, gov...im a sovin' see? so hears yo letta movin' yo frum offs....SO NOW YO GUT 3 DAYS TO GET THE F*** OUT!!!"



'an dun let the doe' hit yo in yo hiney....man!!!'


LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

habakkuk said...

State Lawmaker Sued by Her Bank: When Michele Reagan asked her lender about who actually owns her loan she got slapped with a federal lawsuit.

Check it out: http://www.kpho.com/video/23009083/index.html

Horse with No Name said...

This is very telling. If the bank had nothing to fear, they would simply respond and tell the homeonwer that "they" (Colonial Savings) owned the note. But Nooooo, they respond with a lawsuit to intimidate and cause fear to shut it down. How blatent is that?

sopsback said...

HAPPY EASTER TO YOU ALL!!!

sopsback said...

...btw, gov....yo still in offs???

cause if yo still are, i hope its coss yo packing yo bags...coss if yo not, da u-haul truck is comming fo yo stuff tomrow.

mogel007 said...

I think the two keys in getting your mortgage cancelled and having it upheld is (1) accusing the lender of "securities fraud" and providing enough information and facts to prove it in court. Sue for 204 times the amount of your original note for compensatory & punititve damages due to the lenders fraud of stealing your note without permission or disclosure.

Give them an incentive to stop the foreclose against you. File a counterclaim on your foreclosure action, and file an injunction based upon the lender's attorney failure to file original documents in the Court which are mandated by law & many recent Court cases. Provide enough memorandum of law in your claim that shows that there are serious violations of the lender. You might even seriously consider doing a forensic audit on your closing documents too as extra ammunition to sue for. There are companies that specialize in this.

(2) Then, the second key is to complain to all of the government agencies that a fraud is being perpetrated against you. Give them all the evidence of this crime. File all your evidence with: (1) The Secret Service, (2) FBI, (3) Office of the Comptroller of Currency, or the regulatory agency that applies based upon your lender (4) File with the Clerk of Court & put them under Judicial Notice of your evidence of a crime (5) File complaint with Securities & Exchange Commission & (6)File complaint with the Attorney General of your State. If you want, you can give all of your evidence to the media too. These crooks don't want bad publicity.

Remember, everyone that has participated in your foreclosure is guilty of conspiring against you as co-conspirators of securities fraud against you & stealing your home from you and can be criminally held liable for all your losses & their actions against you & their violations of RICO statutes.

If you show that you know what you are talking about & show more knowledge than the attorney trying to foreclose on you on this subject, you stand a fair chance of winning and having the lender voluntary discharge your mortgage and note since none of the parties want to be convicted of securities fraud which carries up to 20 years in prison & a hefty financial fine.

18 U.S.C 474 is the Statute that requires ORIGINALS TO BE FILED IN THE COURT. Lenders don't do that when they foreclose, so by definition they are filing counterfeit securities as exhibits in Court to lie to the court saying they own your mortgage & note & have the right to foreclose when timely payments aren't met. Attorney's in essence are filing false documents which could get them disbarred too by filing a fraud on the court. Since very few people stand up to these criminals, they have gotten away with this for a very long time.

If you can put fear into them, you stand a fair chance of winning.

mogel007 said...

Whistleblower said:
I have taken on the role of a whistleblower in the American Mortgage Industry because of my prior experience with being prosecuted by the government for securities fraud. I didn't mind doing the time (5yrs. 8mon.) for a crime I didn't commit but I did mind the hypocrisy of the mortgage industry doing everyday what the government convicted me of and there being no interest."

Now 6 years later after first being acquainted with the Dorean Group, and first hearing this comment, I finally fully appreciate and understand Kurt's comment, now that I've done some serious studying on this subject on how lenders & their their assigns commit security fraud in every loan.

The question still remains, why do they still get away with this & at the same time are still able to foreclose? Maybe the answer is that the alleged borrowers still don't know enough about the subject of "securities fraud". This subject is indeed the "achillees heel" of the lender.

Learning about this subject may be your best defense right now against your lender in achieving your goals.

judge allslop said...

What...this didn't make front page news? See you soon gentlemen.
Moral to the story… ALL assignments are FRAUDULENT.
CHALLENGE EVERYTHING!

"Case dismissed WITH PREJUDICE“.

From the order

"The hearing time was set for March 1, 2010 at 3 p.m. for a 20-minute hearing but the Plaintiff failed to appear. After sounding the halls and after awaiting telephonic communication from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff still failed to appear. An assistant for Plaintiff s counsel called at about 3:44 p.m. to find out the outcome of the hearing.
Motion to Compel, the court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to produce answers to the Interrogatories for a period of 26 months.
The Defendant’s Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike was based on an allegation that the Assignment of Mortgage was created after the filing of this action, but the document date and notarial date were purposely backdated by the Plaintiff to a date prior the filing of this foreclosure action.
The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in this Court intentionally perpetrated upon this court by the Plaintiff, was made to appear as though it was created and notorized on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation/notarization date was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19,2012. Since Notary commissions only last four years in Florida (see F .S. Section 117.01 (l )), the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the purported date on the Assignment.
The court specifically finds that the purported Assignment did not exist at the time of filing of this action; that the purported Assignment was subsequently created and the execution date and notarial date were fraudulently backdated, in a purposeful, intentional effort to mislead the Defendant and this Court. The Court rejects the Assignment and finds that is not entitled to introduction in evidence for any purpose. The Court finds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to bring its action.
IT IS THEREFORE. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:

The Motion to Compel is granted. As a sanction for egregious failure to comply with discovery Rules the Plaintiff shall be prohibited from presenting the alleged Promissory Note to this Court. The Plaintiff shall be prohibited from introducing into evidence the alleged Promissory Note. The Plaintiff’s recording and filing regarding the fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage is stricken, and the Plaintiff is prohibited from entering the Assignment of Mortgage into evidence. The Motion for Rehearing of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Motion to Dismiss is granted. The Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice, based on the fraud intentionally perpetrated upon the Court by the Plaintiff."

judge allslop said...

We're from the Goverment..er the Bank and we're here to serve..er protect..no no to HELP.


SACRAMENTO (CN) – JPMorgan Chase instructed homeowners to stop making mortgage payments, as that was the only way to be considered for a loan modification, then repossessed their house when they followed the bank’s advice, a couple claims in Federal Court. “I’ve seen this happen to so many people,” their attorney said. “When they come in here to tell me their story, I can actually tell it to them.”

Faiz and Khadua Jahani sued Morgan Chase and its predecessor, Washington Mutual Bank, on their own behalf and on behalf of the public.
“When they called the 800 number, they were specifically told that as long as they were current on their mortgage they wouldn’t even be considered for a loan modification,” the couple’s attorney, Piotr Reysner, said in an interview.

In their federal complaint, the Jahanis say they contacted the bank in December 2008 “to indicate that they were having trouble paying their mortgage and would like to discuss a possible loan modification.”

The Jahanis say the bank representative told them “that they would not work with plaintiffs at all because they were currently not in breach of their loan terms. Plaintiffs were specifically advised at that time to stop making payments for a period of three months, at which time defendants would consider a loan modification. Plaintiffs were specifically informed that as long as they were current on their mortgage payments, that defendants would not consider a loan modification. The Jahanis demand general and special damages of $150,000 for breach of contract, fraud, predatory lending and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
They also seek an order requiring Chase to return any money fraudulently collected from homeowners.

“The goal is to hit them hard,” Reysner said. “But it’s also to try to get them to change their business practices.”(prosecute to the full extent of the law will be a good start)

fireinthehole said...

Absentee fathers always end up being resented by their kids when they get older. Having kids is a big responsibility and was probably something you were not ready for. You will probably never admit that, but I'm sure its true. :)

Oh well. Next time make sure children are what you want more than anything else world. If you do that they will take priority over anything else you have going on in your life.

sopsback said...

Next time????????????????

judge allslop said...

Just FOI you should know who the plaintiff in the above case is and realize who is profiting from these "foreclosure mills".

Chardan 2008 China Acquisition Corp. (CACA, CACAW, CACAU) signed a definitive agreement for a business combination with DAL Group, LLC, a provider of processing services for mortgage lenders and servicers in Florida.
At the closing of the business combination with Chardan, DAL will own 100% of the business and operations of Default Servicing, Inc. and Professional Title & Abstract Company of Florida and the non-legal operations supporting the foreclosure and other legal proceedings handled by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., collectively known as the Company.
Upon consummation of the transaction, Beijing, China-based Chardan will change its name to DJSP Enterprises, Inc. “DJSP” (David J. Stern Processing), and its stock is expected to trade on the Nasdaq under the symbols DJSP, DJSPU, and DJSPW.
Assuming no redemptions by Chardan shareholders, the current owners of the company, the “Stern Parties” will receive approximately $111 million from DAL and the right to receive another $35 million in post-closing cash. In addition, “Stern Parties” will also hold equity interests. Kerry Propper, Chardan’s chief executive officer said, “The acquisition should generate significant value for our shareholders. David J. Stern, who will be DJSP’s CEO, has an impressive record building this business by continually strengthening the customer relationships on which it is based.

fireinthehole said...

Yes, Next time... in the next life.

mogel007 said...

Fire in his Ass said: "Yes, Next time... in the next life."

Don't you love it when people give advice & know nothing of what they are talking about let alone bother to get to know the person they are giving advice to?

Math: 22: 30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Apparently "fire in the hole" means to suggest having children out of wedlock in the next life being "unmarried" since marriage is only an earthly ordinance that can only be done here on earth.
Good advice? And that assumes that the angels can even produce children. LOL

Course "fire in the hole" seems to make plenty of assumptions. More assumptions, better the advice? LOL

mogel007 said...

Who suggested that Kurt even wanted another or a different family than the one he already has? If the children forgive in the end, & reach out & the love bond is again created, does the past even matter a whole lot?

Fire in the Hole, you are a presumptive idiot.

"You will probably never admit that, but I'm sure its true." :)

mogel007 said...

"Absentee fathers ALWAYS end up being resented by their kids when they get older."

In other words, there isn't even one human being on earth that is above this tendency ever recorded in human history. LOL

"Idiots" make a habit of saying absolute statements as if they understand the mind of all people.

"Fire in the hole," believes himself to be a God.

Last time I checked, only God knew the hearts & minds of all men.

mogel007 said...

File in the Hole said: "Having kids is a big responsibility and was probably something you were not ready for."

You can be ready all you want, but if you marry the wrong person, and if it ends in divorce, sometimes children's minds are sometimes poisoned by the spouse that takes custody, so failure of a marriage or even the misguided feelings of the children are not always because the man was unprepared.

Also, "fire in the hole" I'm sure you won't admit that you are a "sexist pig" either, since you immediately blame the man in the relationship, without even bringing the woman into the equation, but "I'm sure it's probably true" as you say. LOL

Remember whatever "judgement you judge, ye shall also be judged."

It's not always flattering when you see your words put in a fashion that is unlogical or even prejudicial, is it?

Why don't you put something positive to the relationship, rather than just dwelling on the negative. Judges are a dime a dozen.

Do you have anything beneficial to add to the subject of "mortgage fraud"?

Didn't think so.

mogel007 said...

"Fire in the hole," where do you get the notion of Kurt being "unprepared" here in this statement?

"Still, a father's LOVE HAS NOT CHANGED. This tragedy in my life has caused me to understand my Father God much better. My children reject and hate me WITHOUT CAUSE. Though I have a wealth of love for them, they run from it out of foolish pride."

sopsback said...

whatdoseitmens????


rushin GRU takes out hed of polish cenfral bank


http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1361.htm

mogel007 said...

"Ethan was 3 1/2 when his mother moved away."

Fire in the hole, it seems to me the MOTHER MOVED AWAY, not the Father, so why would a reasonable person blame the Father?

Oh that's right, YOU AREN'T REASONABLE, MY MISTAKE, AS HAS BEEN PROVEN BY YOUR OWN WORDS.

Here's a little advice for you, since advice is cheap, don't give any advice until you know what you are talking about and don't become your worst witness.

sopsback said...

back to biznizz...i dunt get volved in famlee mattas...it nuns of my pissniss....just stuf liek 2012 and Lou Minottti stuf

mogel007 said...

Fire in the Hole said: "If you do that they will take priority over anything else you have going on in your life."
______________________________

So do the children's priorities or decisions have anything to do with this?

Of course not! Everything is absolute to you! LOL

sopsback said...

John 3:16 PM said...

sopsback said...

he said...

"its 3:17 PM"

mogel007 said...

"the Court assessed a special fine
of $3,500 and ordered both men, jointly and severally, to make restitution in the amount of $512,911.63 to the victims."

Now if the clients are the victims, and there were 5500 clients @ $3,000 cost per client that's $16,500,000, so how could the clients be the victims? Or the judge is just pulling a number out of the air.

Now if the lending institutions are the victims, and the lenders lost money, how does a half a million cover their alleged loss either? Again, Judge Alsup is just pulling a number out of the air.

mogel007 said...

After reading the 25 page appeal brief by Kurt & Scott, it seems that there are two major issues discussed, (1) the constitutional rights of Kurt & Scott were breached by not getting a speedy trial, which if this is true, than due process was not afforded either of them, which in that case, without due process, the criminal indictments become void along with the convictions and the Court loses jurisdiction.

(2) Second issue is that the statutes Sections 1341 & 1349 they were convicted upon are "vague" in their very nature the way they are written. The courts have maintained that statutes are not enforceable if they are vague where they don't define exactly the nature of the crime or give notice of all of the points that define the crime.

"Supreme Court held that the Speedy Trial protection is more a promise TO THE PUBLIC than to the individual and therefore cannot be waived. Zedner v. U.S., 547 U.S. 489 (2006)

In other words, if the prosecution argues that a speedy trial was waived, IT IS IRRELEVANT & THE DEFENSE STILL EXISTS.

Another issue is that the ability to bond out was never given to Kurt & Scott.

The Utah charges certainly didn't go to to trial in 74 days.

Problem with the criminal trial is that the trial Court used the vagueness in the statutes to use Special verdict forms to find overt acts only known to the prosecution. How does one fairly defend against that?

The prosecution basically said that the whole Dorean process was a scam, however, what about "honest services", an honest attempt to challenge the banks to answer legitimate questions? If honest services are a crime too, than the mail & wire fraud statututes seem kind of silly to be concocted into a crime on the services the Dorean Group provided.

If you are not noticed of all the elements of a crime, due to the vagueness of a law, than the Court cannot inflict the punishment of that crime. Not only can the individual understand all the elements that make it a crime in order to be a law abiding citizen, but one cannot defend against charges either in Court if the prosecution can make up things as they go on what the vague law can potentially mean.

mogel007 said...

A "Complaint" must contain a statement OF THE FACTS showing jurisdiction of court; ownership of a right by plaintiff, violation of that right by defendant; injury resulting to plaintiff by such violation; justification for equitable relief where that is sought; and a demand for relief.
Pierce v. Wagner, 134 F.2d 958, 960

Don't believe the prosecution proved all of the conditions above.

mogel007 said...

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174 (1803)

Since property & constitutional rights were violated against Kurt & Scott due to the vagueness of the statutues they were convicted upon, redress should be available to them.

"Federal courts will discharge their duty to protect constitutional rights." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396

"Judge must be fair to all parities and MAY NOT DO OR SAY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT PREJUDICE WITHER LITIGANT." U.S. v. Price 13 F.3d 711 (3rd Cir. 1994)

We (Court of Appeals) may not disturb the judgment of the lower court) unless we find that judgment to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
Perreira v. Secretary of DHHS, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

"District Court's conclusion of law is subject to complete and independent review." Gould Inc. v. United States, 935 F.2d 1271, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 1991)

"When a person of ordinary intelligence does not receive fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden, prosecution for such conduct DEPRIVES HIM OF DUE PROCESS."
U.S. v. Nevers, 7F.3d 59 (9th Cir. 1993)

"When hearing is necessary to protect defendants due process rights, then failure to hold hearings would be abuse of discretion." U.S. v. Henderson, 19 F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 1994)

"Due process requires that litigant claim be heard by fair and impartial fact finder applies to administrative as well as judicial proceedings." Muse v. Sullivan 925 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1991)

"Prosecution of Citizen who is unaware of any wrongdoings for "wholly passive conduct" violates due process."
U.S. v Layne 43 F.3d 127 (5th Cir. 1995)

"For the government to punish a person because he had done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort." U.S. v. Guthrie, 789 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1986)

"Absent notice, such as where regulation is not sufficiently clear to warn party of what is expected of it, agency may not deprive party of property by imposing civil or crimi8nal liability." General Electric Co. v. E.P.A. 53 F.3d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1995)

"Only by due process of law may courts acquire jurisdiction over parties."
Weiss v. Shapiro Candy Mfg. Co., Inc., 18 A.2d 706, 707

"The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend." Simon v. Croft, 182 U.S. 427

"Individual must be afforded notice and opportunity for hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest, and exceptions to this principle can be justified only in extraordinary circumstances."
Randone v. Appellate Dept. of S.Ct. of Sacramento Co., 488 P.2d 13 (1971)

Law of the Land...and "due process of law" are synonymous." Direct Plumbing Supply Co., v. City of Dayton, 38 N.E.2d 70, 72

"Due process clause not only applies when one's physical liberty is threatened, but also where a person's good name, reputation, honor or integrity are at stake." Gotkin v. Miller, 514 F.2d 125 (1975)

"Right of a fair trial is basic requirement of due process and includes the right of unbiased judge." Haupt v. Dillard, 17 F.3d 285

"A judge may not direct a verdict of guilty no matter how conclusive the evidence." Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73, 83

mogel007 said...

The duty of one making an arrest to bring the prisoner before a proper magistrate that proceedings for the trial of the prisoner may be instituted and that he may have AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE BAIL OR THEREFORE PROCURE HIS RELEASE,is even more imperative than if a warrant had been issued before arrest; and if the prisoner is released without being brought before such magistrate, the officer or private person who made the arrest becomes a trespasser ab initio.
Williams v. Zelzah Warehouse, 14 P.2d 177, 178 (1932)

"It is well settled that a civil code which contemplates criminal penalties and sanctions is unenforceable, null and void."
United states v. Claflin, 97 U.s. 546 (1878)

"Absent notice, such as where regulation is not sufficiently clear as to warn party of what is expected of it, agency may not deprive party of property by imposing civil or criminal liability." General Electric Co. v. E.P.A. 53 F.3d 1324 D.C. Cir. 1995)

"An officer who acts in violation of the United States Constitution ceases to represent the government." Brookfield Const. Co., Inc. v. Stuart, 234 F.Supp. 94, 99 (1964)

"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Standard v. Olsen, 74 S.Ct. 768

"Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to federal reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards or other needful buildings." 18 U.S.C. Section 451

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the States, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 215

"All officers, including judges, are liable if they act wholly outside of their jurisdiction or official authority, even where the act is a discretionary one. The officer is then regarded as not acting in the capacity of an officer at all." Robichaud V. Ronan, 351 F.2d 533 (9th Cir., 1965)

Government officials may be held liable for constitutional wrongs caused by their failure to adequately train or supervise subordinates." Cole v. Bone, 993 F2d 132 (8th Cir. 1993); White v. Farrier, 849 F2d 322 (8th Cir. 1988)

"Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivations of constitutional rights on the strength of 18 USC, Section 242. " Imbler v. Pachtman, 47 L.Ed.2d 128

mogel007 said...

"Untrue statements amount to constructive fraud." Thompson v. Huston, 135 P2d 834

"Person is not criminally responsible unless criminal intent accompanies wrongful act." Gasho v. U.S., 39 f.3D 1420 (9th Cir. 1994)

"With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face." Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512

"Plaintiffs in federal courts must allege some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action BEFORE a federal court may assume jurisdiction." Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617

"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Standard V. Olesen, 74 S.Ct 768

"Courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere with action of administrative agency until administrative remedies have been exhausted, at least where applicable rules have been followed." Herrriges v. United States, 314 F. Supp 1352 (1970)

"A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter, any authority exercised is a usurped authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335, 351

"A fiction of law will not prevail where the fact appears, or where there is no voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction." United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee, 8 Cranch 398, 415 (1814)

"The mere fact that a matter arises under the laws of the United States or even involves the question of constitutionality under the Federal Constitution is, in itself, insufficient to give jurisdiction to the federal courts. Jurisdiction does not exist unless, at the same time, THE PLAINTIFF CAN SHOW AFFIRMATIVELY THAT HE IS INJURED IN THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT." Gaitor v. Peninsular & Occidential; Steamship Co., 287 F.2d 252 (1961)

"Civil Rule, providing that party waives all objections and other matters then available to him by motion by failure to assert same, was not intended to apply to situation in which court has no jurisdiction to proceed, which is equivalent to no "jurisdiction of subject-matter." State ex rel. Ballew v. Hawkins, 361 S.W.2d 850, 852

mogel007 said...

“A check is not money.” School Dist. V. U.S. Nat’l Bank, 211 P2d 723

So when you thought you got a loan from your lender, the lender did not give out money.

sopsback said...

so hoo downded the airplan with da polish pres and bank, miltry x x iin it???


Lou Minotti disciple put'in say: "i'm takin' ova the investigaton".....hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....



LOLLOOLOLOOLOL!!!!!!!!!!


like the bable say and it strating to hoppens....all the world cuntries will aling themselfs against a certain m/east cuntry.

well, it startin to hoppens now as one by one, all the zionist east erupean cuntries control by the USA are being taken down...

soviet georgia will be next.

and thats all she rote.

this will 'putin' the final nail to any cuntry thinkg of doing the beach boys songs...."bom, bom, bom, bom, eye ran....bom, bom, bom, bom, bom eye ran....bom, eye ran....oh, bom eye ran...."

sopsback said...

or do it goes... o' bama ran....o' bama ran.....

sopsback said...

WOW!!!!!!!!!!

talk about "settling all the family business" in one "shot"

this wood have made even Don Corlene proud!!!

looks like someone "gave the orders" for the 'hit'

perhaps put in putin "the orders"

chris story used the right word here:

"DECAPITATED"


story pubbed the list of ppl who were on the poolish jet that 'crashed"


its hard to bleef that all these important ppl could be on only on airplain:



The casualty list of those who perished in the Tupolev Tu-154 crash on Saturday implies that Polish sources of problems considered to be intractable by Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (Shalomov), of Soviet Military Intelligence (GRU), and Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachëv (KGB-FSB-covert Party) from his administrative wing inside the Kremlin complex, have likewise been liquidated in what can be considered to be ‘the second Katyn Massacre’.

THE KEY FIGURES IDENTIFIED AMONG THE CASUALTIES
Among the dead were the following:

• Blasik, Andrzej, Chief of the Polish Air Force.
• Bochenek, Krystyna, Deputy Speaker of the Polish Senate.
• Chodakowski, Archbishop Miron, Orthodox Ordinary of the Polish Army.
• Deptula, Leszek, Member of the Sejm (Lower House of Parliament).
• Dolniak, Grzegorz, Member of the Sejm.
• Fetlinska, Janina, Member of the Polish Senate.
• Gagor, General Franciszek, Chief of the Polish Army General Staff.
• Gesicka, Grazyna, Member of the Sejm.
• Gosiewski, Przemyslaw, Member of the Sejm.
• Handzlik, Mariusz, Undersecretary of State in President's Office.
• Jaruga-Nowacka, Izabela, Member of the Sejm.
• Karpiniuk, Sebastian, Member of the Sejm.
• Karweta, Vice Admiral Andrzej, Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Navy.
• Kaczynski, Lech, President of the Republic of Poland.
• Kaczynski, Mrs, wife of the President of the Republic.
• Kochanowski, Janusz, Polish Ombudsman for Citizen Rights.
• Kremer, Andrzej, Polish Deputy Foreign Minister.
• Kurtyka, Janusz, Historian and President of the Institute of National Remembrance.
• Natalli-Swiat, Aleksandra, Member of the Sejm.
• Nurowski, Piotr, President of the Polish Olympic Committee.
• Plazynski, Maciej, President of the Polish Community Association.
• Ploski, Tadeusz, Bishop of the Military Ordinariate of the Polish Army.
• Przewoznik, Andrzej, Secretary-General, Council for Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites.
• Putra, Krzysztof, Deputy Speaker of the Sejm.
• Rumianek, Ryszard, Rector of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University.
• Rybicki, Arkadiusz, Member of the Sejm.
• Skrzypek, Slawomir, President of the National Bank of Poland.
• Stasiak, Wladyslaw, Chief of the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland.
• Szczyglo, Aleksander, Head of the National Security Bureau.
• Szmajdzinski, Jerzy, Deputy Speaker of the Sejm.
• Szymanek-Deresz, Jolanta, Member of the Sejm.
• Walentynowicz, Anna, free trade union activist, member of Solidarity (Solidarity heroine).
• Wassermann, Zbigniew, Member of the Sejm.
• Woda, Wieslaw, Member of the Sejm.
• Wojtas, Edward, Member of the Sejm.
• Wypych, Pawel, Secretary of State in the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland.
• Zajac, Stanislaw, Member of the Senate
… and several other Members of the Sejm.

ALL POLAND’S TOP PEOPLE WIPED OUT IN ONE HIT
To recapitulate, Poland lost, in addition to the President of the Polish Republic and his wife:

• The Chief of the Polish Air Force.
• The Chief of the Polish Army General Staff.
• The Commander-in-chief of the Polish Navy.
= ALL THE MILITARY SERVICE CHIEFS.

• The head of Polish Intelligence (National Security Bureau).

• The three top officials inside the Office of the President of the Republic.

• The Governor of the National Bank of Poland.

• The Deputy Foreign Minister of Poland.

sopsback said...

want to use 'math' as a reason?


its statistically an impossiblity that all those VIPs could be on one plane.

E.O.S.


somenun had to arrange it.


and then you get the internet blaaaghs that are saying, that like 9/11, there were no rabbi/ts on the plane.

they chose not to fly because of the shoe bath, they had to cleen they shoos, they must of steeped on sum sh*th


From the latest Arutz Sheva:

OBSERVING SABBATH SAVED LIFE OF POLAND’S CHIEF RABBI

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

“A Jewish delegation from Poland, including the American-born Chief Rabbi Michael Schudrich, was spared from certain death by refusing to violate the Sabbath to fly with President Lech Kaczynski.

The president, his wife, his military chief of staff and senior political leaders were killed on Saturday when the plane crashed en route to a Russian city.

The Jewish delegation was supposed to fly with the president, according to Warsaw Rabbi Meir Stembler. “The delegation canceled its participation after it was understood that that plane was to fly on the Sabbath,” he said.”

(This brings to mind the many Jews absent from the WTC towers on 9-11 because they went to hear a speech by Ariel Sharon, which was curiously canceled prior to the attacks.)

Can rabbis travel on the Sabbath to administer a blessing or say “kaddish” over the dead–which is what these non-flying rabbis were supposed to do? I’m guessing the answer is “yes”. And, as the Jewish religious press has graciously asked: Why were so many Polish officials (dangerously) together on the same plane?

judge allslop said...

Politics are global. Last week we heard of the great improvement in relationships between Russia and the US. some media presented it as the end to a cold war, having never reported a cold war.In fact it is said that Russia and the US stand in the shadow over the war concerning the Kyrgyzstan. The coup is rumored to be Russian backed. The US stands to lose its last air base, the Manas Air Base, which is seen as CRUCIAL for fighting the Afghanistan war. The US and Russian signing of the nuclear disarmament treaty was not the great step forward that US media presented it to be.

judge allslop said...

The story speaks for itself and is symptomatic of much that ails our nation at this time. Corruption abounds in high places as virtue and ethics are tossed out the window in favor of short term financial or political gain.

Senate Probe Finds Fraud in WaMu Mortgage Lending
WaMu’s mortgage lending operations rife with fraud, Senate investigators contend
By MARCY GORDON AP Business Writer
WASHINGTON April 12, 2010

(AP) The mortgage lending operations of Washington Mutual Inc., the biggest U.S. bank ever to fail, were threaded through with fraud, Senate investigators have found.

And the bank’s own probes failed to stem the deceptive practices, the investigators said in a report on the 2008 failure of WaMu.
The panel said the bank’s pay system rewarded loan officers for the volume and speed of the subprime mortgage loans they closed on. Extra bonuses even went to loan officers who overcharged borrowers on their loans or levied stiff penalties for prepayment, according to the report being released Tuesday by the investigative panel of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman, said Monday the panel won’t decide until after hearings this week whether to make a formal referral to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. Justice, the FBI and the Securities and Exchange Commission opened investigations into Washington Mutual soon after its collapse in September 2008 at the height of the financial crisis.
The report said the top WaMu producers, loan officers and sales executives who made high-risk loans or packaged them into securities for sale to Wall Street, were eligible for the bank’s President’s Club, with trips to swank resorts, such as to Maui in 2005.

sopsback said...

it look like archie bucker from ALL IN THE FAMLEE was rite afta all...


he use to call his son in law, meathead...a "dum polack"


wonda if this is the same guy who arranged for all dose polish VIPs to fly on the same airplan????


he certainly wasnt a 'smart polack' now was he??


that list is still incredible to bleef....they must of been clons.....

even a toddler knows enuf to not put all dose VIPs on one plane....


the pres. and vice pres. never fly on one plane, let along the pres., veep, chief of staff of army,navy, air farce, etc....


yo still shaking yo head.. ()()()()()()()()()()()()()........

sopsback said...

goldless sucks charged with frawd.


UPDATE:


GOLDMAN/SACHS CHARGED WITH FRAUD BY SEC


4/16/2010


11:33 PM



Major fraud allegations have been leveled by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Goldman Sachs over their marketing of collateralized debt obligations tied to subprime mortgages. The government's press release is worth a close read:

"The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Goldman, Sachs & Co. and one of its vice presidents for defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages as the U.S. housing market was beginning to falter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Materials Litigation Release No. 21489 SEC Complaint

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs structured and marketed a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO) that hinged on the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Goldman Sachs failed to disclose to investors vital information about the CDO, in particular the role that a major hedge fund played in the portfolio selection process and the fact that the hedge fund had taken a short position against the CDO.

"The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the Division of Enforcement. "Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party."

Kenneth Lench, Chief of the SEC's Structured and New Products Unit, added, "The SEC continues to investigate the practices of investment banks and others involved in the securitization of complex financial products tied to the U.S. housing market as it was beginning to show signs of distress."

The SEC alleges that one of the world's largest hedge funds, Paulson & Co., paid Goldman Sachs to structure a transaction in which Paulson & Co. could take short positions against mortgage securities chosen by Paulson & Co. based on a belief that the securities would experience credit events.

According to the SEC's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the marketing materials for the CDO known as ABACUS 2007-AC1 (ABACUS) all represented that the RMBS portfolio underlying the CDO was selected by ACA Management LLC (ACA), a third party with expertise in analyzing credit risk in RMBS. The SEC alleges that undisclosed in the marketing materials and unbeknownst to investors, the Paulson & Co. hedge fund, which was poised to benefit if the RMBS defaulted, played a significant role in selecting which RMBS should make up the portfolio.

The SEC's complaint alleges that after participating in the portfolio selection, Paulson & Co. effectively shorted the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into credit default swaps (CDS) with Goldman Sachs to buy protection on specific layers of the ABACUS capital structure. Given that financial short interest, Paulson & Co. had an economic incentive to select RMBS that it expected to experience credit events in the near future. Goldman Sachs did not disclose Paulson & Co.'s short position or its role in the collateral selection process in the term sheet, flip book, offering memorandum, or other marketing materials provided to investors.

judge allslop said...

ooooo... big bad Goverment going after a pillar of the crime syndicate, what do you think will happen? A "rogue trader" will be the fall guy, a small fine without admitting fault? Back to being "productive" while doing "God's work"?

sopsback said...

were booms planted inside the volcanos in niceland?

were the airplans taken down with poolish vips in it?


ans.

1. niceland refused to pay back IMF when they went broke

2. poland refuse to take out IMF loans that they didnt need



but it all consindense rite??

哲云 said...

辛苦了!祝你愈來愈好!........................................

judge allslop said...

EVERY DAY ALL DAY.
Wachovia has settled a Mexican narcotics money laundering case for $160 million with the USGovt. Wachovia will make the settlement to end a federal investigation into laundering of illegal drug profits through Mexican exchange houses. It constitutes the largest case of its kind ever brought against a US bank, an historic case never seen before. The probe began in 2005 when a Drug Enforcement Admin narcotics dog in Florida detected cocaine traces in an airplane, and ultimately uncovered at least $110 million in drug profits laundered from Mexico through Wachovia. The total settlement includes forfeiture in that amount plus a $50 million fine. If truth be known, perhaps between 500 and 1000 such shipments take place every single year. Nonsense distraction claims came from the DEA Miami chief, who said "The DEA will follow drug money wherever it leads us," Hardly! Not when it is a major Wall Street bank doing business for the US Security Establishment. The DEA will instead expand inventory. The plea bargaining agreement means Wachovia and its executives will avoid criminal prosecution in return for the $160 million payment and significant improvements in its anti-money laundering program. No jail time for the executives means a sweet deal. They can even earn the benefit of other charges being dropped, if certain conditions are met within one year. The $160 million fine and forfeiture represents the biggest penalty ever imposed under the Bank Secrecy Act, which requires financial institutions to keep close records on suspicious transactions that could indicate money is being laundered from criminal enterprises. According to prosecutors, the Wachovia program was woefully inadequate and bank executives were aware of the inadequacy, meaning that numerous red flags were overlooked during a three year period. Ultimately at least $13 million from the Mexican exchanges went through Wachovia for the purchase of aircraft. Four planes were seized by investigators, along with more than 22 tons of cocaine. From there, investigators from the DEA, the IRS, and other agencies tracked billion$ in wire transfers, bulk cash shipments, and other transactions from the Mexican exchanges through Wachovia. Many were considered suspicious, since they bore such markings as multiple round number wire transfers on the same day for a single account, deposits of travelers checks with sequential numbers that contain unusual markings, and bulk cash transfers up to 50% greater than a customer had led Wachovia to expect. The case enables the USGovt to look strong and vigilant, while the bigger portions of the financial sector and security apparatus conducted well over $500 billion in annual narcotics trafficking. The seized drugs undoubtedly went directly into syndicate inventory for sale. Somebody with Wachovia or the Mexican partners were on the wrong side of the CIA. The details will never be known.

sopsback said...

i always new that wack off me a was a crocked bank.

judge allslop said...

What’s really interesting, as always, is the story that no one is telling. The SEC is either stupid or corrupt for announcing their suit on options expiration Friday, the most volatile day of the month. April 170 Goldman Sachs puts, which would have expired worthless had the SEC waited until today, rose 140,000% on Friday.
Anyone with an extra thousand bucks and some insider info on Friday morning could have made just shy of a million and a half by Friday afternoon. There was surprisingly large volume in these “out of the money” puts the days before. Who in their right mind would bet on such a large fall for such a typically stable company? Someone who knew what was coming.
It looks like the big action on airline puts the trading day before 9/11 that no one has any interest in following up even though the doer of that deed lies in the paper trail. The buyer of the Goldman puts also lies in the paper trail. All day everyday

mogel007 said...

It Really Works Like This -- No Joke

This is the way a "bank loan" really works.

Interviews with bankers about a foreclosure. The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in. The plaintiff's (borrower's) attorney asked the banker the routine questions concerning the banker's education and background.


The attorney asked the banker, "What is court exhibit A?"

The banker responded by saying, "This is a promissory note."

The attorney then asked, "Is there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the defendant?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Do you believe the agreement includes a lender and a borrower?"

The banker responded by saying, "Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower."

The attorney asked, "What do you believe the agreement is?"

The banker quickly responded, saying, " We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a check."

The attorney asked, "Does this agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or money within the agreement?"

The banker responded by saying, "Sure it does."

The attorney asked, `"According to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written agreement?"

The banker responded by saying, "The lender loaned the borrower a $50,000 check. The borrower got the money and the house and has not repaid the money."

The attorney noted that the banker never said that the bank received the promissory note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. He asked, "Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Do you believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the right to enforce payment from the borrower?"

The banker said, "Absolutely we own it and legally have the right to collect the money."

The attorney asked, "Does the $50,000 note have actual cash value of $50,000? Actual cash value means the promissory note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the ordinary course of business."

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "According to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally fulfill the agreement and legally own the promissory note?"

The banker said, "$50,000."

The attorney asked, "According to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan the borrower $50,000 actual cash value, would the bank or borrower own the promissory note?"

The banker said, "The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the money. The bank gave the borrower a check and that is how the borrower financed the purchase of the house."

The attorney asked, "Do you believe that the borrower agreed to provide the bank with $50,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay the bank back $50,000 plus interest?"

The banker said, "No. If the borrower provided the $50,000 to fund the check, there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge interest on money it never loaned."

mogel007 said...

The attorney asked, "If this happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal payments?"

The banker said, "I am not a lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions."

The attorney asked, " Is it bank policy that when a borrower receives a $50,000 bank loan, the bank receives $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, that this gives value to a $50,000 bank loan check, and this check is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower must repay?"

The banker said, "I do not know the bookkeeping entries."

The attorney said, "I am asking you if this is the policy."

The banker responded, "I do not recall."

The attorney again asked, "Do you believe the agreement between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith provides the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which is used to fund a $50,000 bank loan check back to himself which he is then required to repay plus interest back to the same bank?"

The banker said, " I am not a lawyer."

mogel007 said...

The attorney said, "Did you not say earlier that an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney handed the bank loan agreement marked "Exhibit B" to the banker. He said, "Is there anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing where the borrower gave the bank authorization or permission for the bank to receive $50,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the $50,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $50,000 plus interest?"

The banker said, "No."

The lawyer asked, "If the borrower provided the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which the bank used to fund the $50,000 check and returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in your opinion, did the bank loan $50,000 to the borrower?"

The banker said, "No."

The attorney asked, "If a bank customer provides actual cash value of $50,000 to the bank and the bank returns $50,000 actual cash value back to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000."

The banker replied, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Did the agreement call for an exchange of $50,000 swapped for $50,000, or did it call for a $50,000 loan?"

The banker said, "A $50,000 loan."

The attorney asked, "Is the bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks grant loans."

The banker said, "Yes."

mogel007 said...

The attorney asked, "What are the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?" The attorney handed the banker FED publication Modern Money Mechanics, marked "Exhibit C".

The banker said, "The promissory note is recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is created. Then we issue a check from the new deposit back to the borrower."

The attorney asked, "Is this not a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000?"

The banker said, "This is the standard way to do it."
The attorney said, "Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange of $50,000 actual cash value for $50,000 actual cash value? If the note funded the check, must they not both have equal value?"

The banker then pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

The attorney asked, "If the bank's deposits (liabilities) increase, do the bank's assets increase by an asset that has actual cash value?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Is there any exception?"

The banker said, "Not that I know of."

The attorney asked, "If the bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank's books having actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?"

The banker thought for a moment and said, "Yes."

mogel007 said...

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new liability?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney said, "Does the promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank loan check?"

The banker said "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Does this bookkeeping entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank loan check?"

The banker said, "Yes, the bank president told us to do it this way."

The attorney asked, "How much actual cash value did the bank loan to obtain the promissory note?"

The banker said, "Nothing."

The attorney asked, "How much actual cash value did the bank receive from the borrower?"

The banker said, "$50,000."

The attorney said, "Is it true you received $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or other depositors' money to obtain the promissory note in the first place? Is it true that the borrower financed the whole transaction?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Are you telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $50,000 actual cash value for free and that the banker returned the actual cash value back to the same person as a bank loan?"

The banker said, "I was not there when the borrower agreed to the loan."

The attorney asked, "Do the standard FED publications show the bank receives actual cash value from the borrower for free and that the bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank loan?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney said, "Do you believe the bank does this without the borrower's knowledge or written permission or authorization?"

The banker said, "No."

The attorney asked, "To the best of your knowledge, is there written permission or authorization for the bank to transfer $50,000 of actual cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for free?

The banker said, "No."

Does this allow the bank to use this $50,000 actual cash value to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, forcing the borrower to pay the bank $50,000 plus interest? "

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney said, "If the bank transferred $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the bank loan anything of value to the borrower?"

mogel007 said...

The banker said, "No." He knew that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash, check, or promissory note) to fund a check.

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to first transfer the actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount of the alleged loan?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Does the bank pay IRS tax on the actual cash value transferred from the alleged borrower to the bank?"

The banker answered, "No, because the actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not taxable."

The attorney asked, "If a loan is forgiven, is it taxable?"

The banker agreed by saying, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a loan from the bank to the alleged borrower?"

"Yes", the banker replied.

The attorney said, "You never pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower and keep as the bank's property?"

"No. No tax is paid.", said the crying banker.

The attorney asked, "When the lender receives the actual cash value from the alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent of legal tender or other depositors' money?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Are you telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors' money or legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this right? I give you the equivalent of $50,000, you return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $50,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?"

In a shaking voice the banker cried, saying, "All the banks are doing this. Congress allows this."

The attorney quickly responded, "Does Congress allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false and misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorization, and without the alleged borrower's knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a loan?"

The banker said, "But the borrower got a check and the house."

mogel007 said...

The attorney said, "Is it true that the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for free?"

"It is true", said the banker.

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank's policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank's property, which they loan out as bank loans?"

The banker, showing tears of regret that he had been caught, confessed, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Was it the bank's intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan?"

The banker said, "Yes." He knew he had to say yes because of the bank policy.

The attorney asked, "Do you believe that it was the borrower's intent to fund his own bank loan check?"

The banker answered, "I was not there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower's mind."

The attorney asked, "If a lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the money, do you believe the lender is damaged?"

The banker thought. If he said no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank of which the bank never repaid. The banker answered, "If a loan is not repaid, the lender is damaged."

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the borrower?"

The banker said, "The bank returns the funds."

The attorney asked, "Was the actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to the borrower?"

The banker said, "As a loan."

The attorney asked, "How did the bank get the borrower's money for free?"

The banker said, "That is how it works."

habakkuk said...

...Yep, thats exactly how it works.

That basically sums it all up, folks. Great post Mogel.

sopsback said...

ok...lets go visit our good friend burly baal and see waht his donkey has to say about nesaro updated on 4/15/10



details here: http://www.detailshere.com/nesara.htm

sopsback said...

ok...lets go visit our good friend burly baal and see waht his donkey has to say about nesaro updated on 4/15/10



details here: http://www.detailshere.com/nesara.htm

judge allslop said...

The National Inflation Assn has announced the launch of a new platform program called "Coin Melt Values." The new NIA feature, shared with a public webpage, will update on a daily basis the latest meltdown values of US coins currently in circulation, in addition to those previously in circulation. Their purpose is to demonstrate how over time, inflation renders US coins worth more than their denomination values. The motive is made to reduce coins to metal for profit, without urging the public to engage in such illicit activity. It is not a felony to declare paper as legal tender, but it is a felony to melt down metal in coins. Go figure! Due to the rise in the price of copper, the 1909-1982 US one-cent penny is now worth 2.2402 cents, more than double its face value. The US five-cent nickel is now worth 5.7412 cents, or 15% over its face value. Last December 2009, the NIA declared in forecast silver to be the best investment for the next decade. Their webpage shows how US silver coins that circulated during the 1900s are now worth between 5-fold and 19-fold of their denomination values. NIA believes these silver coins will be useful in future barter during the next hyper-inflation phase.

judge allslop said...

A recent update from a managed account. TAKE POSSESION. SOON.

"Section 6.3.7. General Terms: We have added language clarifying our right to close your account. We may close your Metals Select Account at anytime upon reasonable notice to you. If we believe that it is necessary to close your account immediately in order to limit losses by you or us, we may close your account prior to providing notice to you. Notice from us to one of you is notice to all of you. If we close your account, we reserve the right to convert your Precious Metals to US dollars and tender the balance to you by mail."
Notice the clear multiple mentions of conversion to USDollars, a point they do not wish to be unclear about. They continued with further written explanation. "We may close your ....... Metals Select Account(s) or to convert Precious Metals to US dollars at anytime, if we deem such action prudent, necessary or appropriate, in our sole discretion, in response to acts of God, government restrictions (including, without limitation, the denial or cancellation of any export or other necessary license), wars, insurrections and/or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of us. If we do close your ...... Metals Select Account(s) or convert the Precious Metals in such account(s) to US dollars as described above, we will not have any liability to you resulting from changes in the value of those Precious Metals resulting from the timing of our closing the account or converting the Precious Metals to US dollars."
ONE IS LEFT TO WONDER IF GOLDMAN SACHS ACTIVITY IS COVERED BY "ACTS OF GOD!!

judge allslop said...

CONT
What they seem to admit, without actual words, is that they have very little gold & silver bullion, and probably have a large hedge position. They could be heavily short both gold & silver, and own a pile of paper certificates, working in league with the gold cartel. They are positioning themselves with a back door to exit in case the precious metals prices zoom higher. An investor would not participate in the price rise. They could be an enlisted player in the Ponzi Scheme. They might be deadly fearful of the CFTC revelations of price rigging in the gold & silver markets, timed in unison suspiciously. They might be at high risk for catastrophic losses due to the 100:1 leverage in the LBMA & COMEX exchanges, with far more metal sold than exists in inventory. They are very clearly in my view admitting that they have almost no gold or silver, and have been running a fraudulent shell game.
The other great possibility is that account will assist the USGovt in the confiscation of gold accounts, or rather claims to gold bullion. Redemptions in US$ terms after liquidation appears to be the path soon to be taken. Conversions of accounts to cash will deny investors of participation in the powerful upward price thrust. Therefore, ..... gold fund investors should get the hell out immediately. They repeat their legal obligation to send investors their gold & silver directly in certain types of accounts at any time. In effect, London has already defaulted as a result of such cash bonus payments. .... is small, and appears to be coming clean on fraud. It is an order of magnitude smaller than the $40 billion fraud in the SPRD Gold Exchange Traded Fund (GLD) run by the trusty JPMorgan custodians. Paper gold promises such as ETFunds, Gold investment funds, Unallocated & Pooled accounts are practically worthless in my opinion. They all have back doors leading to the crime syndicates.

sopsback said...

*********************
******BREAKING*******
********************



tom broke off just annnounce on nbc nitly noose that ppl may mistake the usd for the euro come decimber.

how is that possible?

they showed a pic of the new bills and they def look like the euro.

could this be the amero everyone has been talking about for years now??

if tom brokoff is reporting it,you knwo there is something to it.


why change the bills now?

thye just changed them only a few years ago.


i no....i no....to stop cunterfitting....right!

Joseph said...

Good defense in fighting foreclosure:

http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/2009/03/10/what-if-your-lender-cant-produce-the-note/

Make the lender produce the note & don't let them say it's lost or stolen. They say that, when in fact it has been sold. The lender bears the burden of proof that the note was lost or stolen. Estimates range that lenders say that 50% of notes are lost or stolen. If you had something valuable, would you lose it half the time? LOL

If they do produce the note, than use that as evidence that the lender has committed forgery or that the lender never gave you a loan.

sopsback said...

is this the long awaited amero currency back by gold???


notice the "pot of gold" in the bill??


http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/04/americas-new-100-bill-might-as-well-be-a-euro.html

habakkuk said...

Micah 2:1-3

1 What sorrow awaits you who lie awake at night,
thinking up evil plans.
You rise at dawn and hurry to carry them out,
simply because you have the power to do so.
2 When you want a piece of land,
you find a way to seize it.
When you want someone’s house,
you take it by fraud and violence.
You cheat a man of his property,
stealing his family’s inheritance.
3 But this is what the Lord says:
“I will reward your evil with evil;

habakkuk said...

Alex Jones Makes an Appeal to Heaven: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ydNOjJo7jc

He's speaking my language. I love it!!

judge allslop said...

Certain "actors" spining goodfaith, technical violations into lucrative litigation, perhaps bank mortgage fraud? Whats the world coming to?


Supreme Court Tells Debt-Collection Law Firm that Ignorance of Law Is No Excuse

Law firms that misinform a debtor facing foreclosure about his or her legal obligations aren’t shielded from liability for the legal error, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. In a 7-2 opinion (PDF) by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court said the “bona fide error defense” doesn’t protect debt collectors who make mistakes when interpreting the legal requirements of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The law imposes civil liability for certain debt collection practices, but provides an exception—when the “the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error.”
The bona fide error defense does not extend to mistakes of law, Sotomayor said. “We have long recognized the ‘common maxim, familiar to all minds, that ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally,’ ” she wrote, quoting from an 1833 opinion.
Sotomayor ruled against an Ohio law firm, Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, accused of making a mistake when bringing foreclosure proceedings on behalf of Countrywide Home Loans Inc., the Wall Street Journal reports.
Carlisle McNellie had told homeowner Karen Jerman that her debt was assumed to be valid unless she disputed it in writing. Jerman had paid her debt, and she sued the law firm after the foreclosure was withdrawn. The trial court had noted a division of authority over the need for a written protest, but ruled against the law firm on the question. However, the court said the law firm was shielded under the bona fide error rule, and an appeals court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in a decision that will make it easier for debtors to sue debt collectors, the Wall Street Journal says. Sotomayor also acknowledged concerns that the opinion will affect debt-collecting lawyers, but said the burdens are not unmanageable.
She pointed to two objections. Carlisle and amici warned of a flood of lawsuits for errors. The dissenters, Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr., warned of another problem: The majority opinion may force lawyers to resolve ambiguities in the debt collection law against their client’s interests.
Sotomayor disagreed, saying, “We do not believe our holding today portends such grave consequences.” The law has several provisions that protect against abusive lawsuits, she said. And restraints on advocacy are not unique, she said. Lawyers can be sanctioned for improper motives in filing suit, and ethics rules provide outer limits on their advocacy.
Kennedy, who wrote the dissenting opinion, countered that the majority holding may result in lawyers being punished for reasonable advocacy. “Today’s holding gives new impetus to this already troubling dynamic of allowing certain actors in the system to spin even good-faith, technical violations of federal law into lucrative litigation.”

sopsback said...

is burly baal really a 'closet' member of the guradians of the rebublic???

check this out?

didn thik yo had it in yo burly!

----------------------------------

Subject: 4-23 -2010 Newsletter Update from Ber
email addy – berry@detailshere.com

To either subscribe or unsubscribe to/from this newsletter go to www.detailshere.com/listserve.htm
and put your email addy in the box and click subscribe.. I also post all my newsletters at www.detailshere.com/newsletterupdates.htm You can find all the programs I am vested in
at www.detailshere.com/dog.htm I do not cover all of them each newsletter.

Back to the constitution
We are told this is a done deal. Our republic is officially restored. We have the support of many countries, we have the support of our military. Would you like to see our country restored to what it was previous to the Civil War (1860)? Well,
it is on its way as we speak. Look for the IRS and the government in D.C. to be history sometime THIS MONTH. A currency change is supposed to take place in the third week of April that is backed by gold. No more property taxes! Schools will have prayer again. Court houses will have the ten commandments displayed again. Energy technology will be released to the people. For $3000 you can buy a unit that will power your entire house with free electricity. Click the link below, then
download the file underneath it and listen (about 1 hour). Expect to be surprised at what you hear. Praise God!! And by all means, pass it on. Use Mozilla Firefox to open. http://www.freedomyell.com/freedom-documents/archived-broadcasts
Look for Constitutional Americans 04-05-2010 file, third file down. Some of what you hear will absolutely infuriate you.
Example: We use 150 million barrels of oil a day. 42 gallons of fuel come out of that barrel. In most states, state plus
federal taxes are above 50 cents/gallon, but lets just say it is only 25 cents/gallon. That's $157 billion dollars a day that is coming in in taxes just from fuel. Think of all the other taxes we are also hit with. Our government does not need this kind
of money to operate. Why so much?


cot'd

sopsback said...

Because our elected officials are stealing it. Did you know Washington DC does not belong to America, it belongs to the IMF (International Monetary Fund). Take the time to listen to Tim Turner and the above broadcast and start exploring the links below.
Go to www.restoreamericaplan.net who are working diligently to bring a peaceful return to our proper lawful government
(that was instituted by our founding fathers) and to restore the freedoms of the American people. Click on your state and sign up to support them.
You can find their plan at http://www.restoreamericaplan.net/index.php?cID=110
They have our military firmly behind them. This has nothing to do with Nesara that I am aware of.
Also see www.freedomyell.com
Go to www.google.com and type in "restore america plan" to get a lot more information.
Spread this around. This fourth of July will be a celebration to remember this year.
WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD:
1 - We have been on Constitutional Law since 12:01 AM Eastern since Friday, April 16th, 7 days ago. And we are
using the Constitution that was printed in 1870. Get a copy and educate yourself.
2 - Many meetings going on in D.C. as most of them know nothing about the laws.
3 - Most attorneys and judges know nothing or very little about these laws. They were not covered in law school.
4 - All executive orders, acts and laws that were enacted while our country was a corporation will be null and void.
5 - The first announcement will be April 26, 2010, which will be regarding debt forgiveness.
6 - The second announcement will be the following night and will be about the new government.
7 - The third announcement will be the following night which will be about all the "bad stuff" that has been started by the "bad boys" over the past 100 years.
8 - Many nights of announcements will follow. A number of them will be the education of the masses. I heard a total of about 10 to 12 nights.
9 - Political prisoners will be released most any day.
10 - Go to www.RestoreAmericaPlan.net for more information and also sign up if you want to become sovereign.
11 -A package of what will be done and how has been delivered to each governor of each Republic, the Supreme Court, the Military and many other official offices. The officials had to take an oath to the Constitution within 72 hours or resign from their office. We no longer call them states, they are Republics.
If anyone has a list of the meetings and/conference calls pertaining to the Restore America Plan, their times, phone numbers, radio stations, etc., please forward them to me so we can inform many more people.
THIS IS A LEGITIMATE PROCESS AND MORE INFORMATION WILL BE FORTHCOMING.

sopsback said...

Back to the constitution
We are told this is a done deal.



one thins tho bur...yo shud of said"



"THIS IS GONG TO BE BIG"!!!!



fo once, yo wood of bin rite!!

sopsback said...

9 - Political prisoners will be released most any day.



hop yo rite about this burly....it wood be good fo the dg principals as they are considered a 'pp'

Joseph said...

New York, NY (PRWEB) March 4, 2010 -- New York homeowners filing for bankruptcy are breathing a sigh of relief, knowing that the courts are on their side. In a scathing opinion issued recently by US. Bankruptcy Court Judge Martin Glenn, JPMorgan Chase Bank was effectively denied payment of their entire alleged mortgage claim because they refused to prove their ownership of the loan. The case is In re Minbatiwalla, Chapter 13 Case No. 09-15693 (MG) (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2009).
New York bankruptcy lawyer David B. Shaev
“The homeowner won the battle today. But with so much mortgage servicer abuse in bankruptcy, the war wages on.” - David B. Shaev, New York Bankruptcy Lawyer

Kerman J. Minbatiwalla, a Manhattan homeowner, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy to repay his debts over time and save his East Side condominium. Though he was current on his mortgage at the time his case was filed, Minbatiwalla is the poster child for a system gone horrible wrong at the hands of shoddy recordkeeping at his mortgage company.
Minbatiwalla had two mortgages with various JPMorgan Chase entities. On filing of his bankruptcy, Chase Home Finance, LLC filed papers with the court on behalf of U.S. Bank as well as an unknown mortgage trust asking for payment of pre-bankruptcy arrears; a second claim was filed by JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. also demanding payment of arrears.
Minbatiwalla’s attorney, Manhattan bankruptcy lawyer David B. Shaev, looked on both documents with suspicion. “My client wants to pay his mortgage, but now he doesn't know who is the rightful recipient of the money. There was nothing but a summary attached, with nothing to indicate which party was which, or to whom the monies should be paid,” Shaev said. “A string of mortgage trusts and servicers only confused the situation, and we needed to be sure that the property parties would be paid.”
Though Shaev demanding more information on the transfer of the loans and the relationships of the parties, he was met with no response. Undeterred, he demanded that the claims for payment be denied in full.
Bankruptcy Court Judge Martin Glenn, in a 26-page written opinion, found that Chase’s failure to attach documentation and respond to the Shaev’s information requests is fatal to their claims for payment. “Here it is not clear whether the claim was assigned to Chase, or whether Chase was the original party on the mortgage and the note,” Glenn wrote. “[The Debtor requested additional information from the claimant in October and has received no documents.”
A copy of the full opinion is available from the Court's website here.
This is not the first time Shaev has seen mortgage servicer abuses in the bankruptcy courts. He has recently fought – and won – in cases against a variety of lenders who have refused to treat bankruptcy debtors with the fairness the law demands.
“The homeowner won the battle today,” Shaev said on hearing of the decision. “But with so much mortgage servicer abuse in bankruptcy, the war wages on.”
David B. Shaev is a New York bankruptcy lawyer and partner at Shaev & Fleischman, LLP where he concentrates his practice in the field of protecting consumers in bankruptcy."

sopsback said...

5 - The first announcement will be April 26, 2010, which will be regarding debt forgiveness.

Joseph said...

"Acceptance for Value" is touted by some to be a process to get your mortgage discharged:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThankYouWhiteKnights#p/c/B6A80B916D0E5F2D/0/i9IK7DpbMUY

Joseph said...

Listen to two videos: Most people in jail are there voluntarily, part 1 & part 11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xep0Z3J8lF0&feature=related

sopsback said...

ok, burly baal....yo said that the nouncemints wood be toddy???


wehre r they??

eye still wating fo dem to cum out?

Joseph said...

Those needing help to fight foreclosure, a slew of information is here:

http://privateaudio.homestead.com/Bank-Fraud.html

邦雄 said...

愛情是一種發明,需要不斷改良。只是,這種發明和其他發明不一樣,它沒有專利權,隨時會被人搶走。 ..................................................

sopsback said...

burly get his own nesarta site:


www.nesaranews.blogspot.com