Monthly Archives: May 2012

Loan or Investment Contract, By John Korman

 

Loan or Investment Contract

By John Korman

 

Borrower is actually entering into an undisclosed investment contract, not a loan

 

The point, as we have stated here before, is that there were no loans because the money advanced by the investors was subject to a set of documents supporting a bond in which the homeowner was not the payor and where the homeowner never signed. The homeowner was subjected to a set of documents that failed to disclose the real party or the real terms of the entire transaction — a black letter requirement of the truth in lending laws. (TILA)

 

The purpose of the transaction was for the investment banks to get money from the investors and to get a signature from the homeowner without connecting the two. The real purpose of the transaction was an investment scheme wherein the intermediaries took everything — the money, the property and the gains from credit default swaps, insurance and government bailouts.

 

Thus the intent of the investor to lend money for residential mortgages, and the intent of the homeowner, to get a loan for his home, was never accomplished and was effectively thwarted by the attempt to cover tracks by refusing to document the trail of the money. The actual documents offered in foreclosures document a fictitious trail — one in which no money ever changed hands.

 

The homeowner, without consent or knowledge, was converted from a borrower to a securities issuer and the investor was converted from being a part owner in a valid REMIC pool to being the alleged buyer of the security issued by the homeowner. Hence the right of rescission and damages arises not only from TILA but from the SEC rules and regulations. And the time for filing doesn’t start to run until the parties had enough information to either know or where they should have known of the fraud.

 

From:  John Korman

934 SW 21st Way

Boca Raton Florida 33486

(561) 372-1741

(561) 350-0828

February 16th 2011

 

This letter is addressed to the Attorney General in each great State of America.

Alabama; Luther Strange

Alaska; John J. Burns

Arizona; Tom Home

Arkansas; Dustin McDaniel

California; Kamala D. Harris

Colorado; John W. Suthers

Connecticut; George C. Jepsen

Delaware; Beau Biden III

Florida; Pam Bondi Only

Georgia; Sam Olens Hawaii; David M. Louie Idaho; Lawrence G. Wasden Illinois; Lisa Madigan Iowa; Tom Miller Kansas; Derek Schmidt Kentucky; Jack Conway Louisiana; James D. Caldwell Maine; William J. Schneider Maryland; Douglas F. Gansler’s Massachusetts; Martha Coakley Minnesota; Lori Swanson Mississippi; Jim Hood ; Missouri; Chris Koster Montana; Steve Bullock Nebraska; Jon Bruning Nevada; Catherine Cortez Masto New Hampshire; Michael A. Delaney New Jersey; Paula T. Dow New Mexico; Gary King

smclure@ago.state.al.us attorney.general@alaska.gov consumerinfo@azag.gov consumer@arkansas.gov

piu@doj.ca.gov attorney .general@state.co.us

attorney.general@ct.gov Attorney.General@State.DE.US provides an electronic on-line Form agolens@law.ga.gov hawaiiag@hawaii.gov kriss.bivens.cloyd@ag.idaho.gov ag_consumer@atg.sta te.il. us webteam@ag.state.ia.us

general@ksag.org

attorney.general@ag.ky.gov

Adminlnfo@ag.state.la.us

attorney.general@maine.gov

consumer@oag.state.md.us

ago@state.ma. us. attorney .general@state.mn.us

ccano@ago.state.ms.us consuhier.help@ago.mo.gov contactdoj@mt.gov nedoj@nebraska.gov

aginfo@ag.nv.gov doj-cpb@doj.nh.gov citizen s.serv iees@lps.sta te. nj .us ewood@nmag.gov

Iof9

New York; Eric T. Schneiderman NYAG.Pressoffice@oag.state.ny.us

North Carolina; Roy Cooper ncogo@ncdoj.gov

North Dakota; Wayne Stenehjem ndag@nd.gov

Ohio; Mike DeWine comsumerweb@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

Oklahoma; E. Scott Pruitt diane.cl»y@oag.ok.gov

Oregon; John Kroger consumer.hotline@doj.state.or.us

Pennsylvania; William H. Ryan, jr info@attorneygeneral.gov

Rhode Island; Peter Kilmartin contactus@riaj.ri.gov

South Carolina; Alan Wilson info@scattorneygeneral.com

South Dakota; Marty J. Jackley consumerhelp@state.sd.us

Tennessee; Robert E. Cooper, jr tnattygen@ag.tn.gov

Texas; Greg Abbott Greg.Abbott@oag.state.tx.us

Utah; Mark Shurtleff uag@utah.gov

Vermont; William H. Sorrell atginfo@atg.state.vt.us

Virginia; Ken Cuccinelli, II mailoag@oag.state.va.us

Washington State; Rob McKenna belcrc@atg.wa.gov

West Virginia; Darrell V. McGraw, jr consumer@wvago.gov

Wisconsin; J.B. Van Hollen 608 267-2779 faxed

Wyoming; Bruce A. Salzburg djourg@state.wy.us

 

My name is John Korman. I, as a paralegal who lives in Florida investigated Mortgage Loans for an Attorney who defends clients against foreclosure. The job I did was research the Corporate / Trust Documents [law of the case] filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in reference to the target loan and create an Affidavit based on my finding. Almost every Mortgage loan investigated which was produced by a major Banking Institution between the years 2000 – 2008 was securitized. Securitization is the act of producing an investment vehicle of Mortgage-Backed Securities (“MBS”) using the Borrower’s Mortgage NOTE as the under-lying corpus, as collateral.

 

In each and every securitized loan produced by these Banking Institutions, file with the Securities and Exchange Commission certain documents which are mandated, include but is not limited to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, Prospectus, Indenture, 10-K [yearly report], 10-Q [quarterly report], 8-K [current report] Form 15-D and the Servicing Agreements] (herein after referred to as “Documents”), agreed to by the Party’s.

 

Reading these Documents, in each investigation to date, the common mandated procedure is as follows; first we have the Lender. Shortly after the Mortgage

 

2 of 9

 

NOTE documents have been executed [or before the NOTE is executed] the Lender sells [or has already sold] its right, title and interest in this Mortgage NOTE to a third party, an arms length transaction [true sale] to a party known as the Seller. Within thirty [30] days or less the Seller will sell its right title and interest to this Mortgage NOTE to another party known as the Purchaser, also identified as the Depositor. The Depositor agrees to “trade” with a named Trust-Entity, it’s Mortgage NOTE for a predetermined amount of Mortgage-Backed Securities [less commission], these Certificates are then sold to investors.

 

Now a really interesting thing happens once the Mortgage NOTE is acquired by this named Trust Entity, witnessed through the use of specialty licensed software which permits investors [or licensed users] access to any “named Trust-Entity”. I can see each Mortgage Loan held by this named Trust-Entity, and I can see its currant status. I can see if the named Trust-Entity is in possession of the Mortgage NOTE documents. I can see if a Mortgage NOTE is thirty (30) days late, sixty (60) days late, ninety (90) days late, or if it is in foreclosure. I can also see how many “tranches” have been created within this named Trust-Entity.

 

The analogy to describe what a tranche is [in my minds eye] would be similar to, you giving me one apple, I return this one apple to you as apple juice [different form], and however I manage to create from this one apple, ten additional artificial apples out of thin air and transform them into apple juice. Now this named Trust-Entity has the authority and ability to sell [juice from ten artificial apples] Mortgage-Backed securities in multiples of the underlying collateral by creating multiple tranches within the said named Trust Entity. Within these multiple tranches I find the same Mortgage NOTE to exist, at full face value.

 

The last investigation which I just completed within this past week the named Trust Entity held twenty one tranches and the target Mortgage NOTE appeared in each one of those tranches. This one Mortgage NOTE now has the potential of generating twenty one times its face value of this Mortgage NOTE, in Mortgage-Backed Securities sold to investors. Based on the foregoing if a Trust sells these Mortgage-Backed Securities to investors and receives only ten times the face value of the original under-lying Mortgage NOTE [Security] has the named Trust Entity been damaged by the Mortgagor not making the promised monthly payments under the Mortgage NOTE agreement? In other words, if Sam goes to the Bank and borrows a sum of money but Sally pays off the debt can the Bank still claim to be a damaged party because Sam did not make the payments as promised?

 

3 of 9

 

In the event whereby the Lender knows fore-hand this loan [Mortgage NOTE] will be sold out-right, securitized once executed, the Borrower is actually entering into an undisclosed investment contract, not a loan, per-say. In the not so distant past and throughout our history, prior to securitization, the Maker of the Mortgage NOTE Holds a possessory right to said Mortgage NOTE. Once the debt was discharged the Bank which held this Mortgage NOTE as a “Special Deposit” returned it to the Borrower. Today, with the advent of securitization these so-called loans [Special Deposits] are truly investment contracts [Mortgage NOTE sold out-right to generate profit] and the Borrower is an undisclosed investor with possessory rights to the profits generated from said Mortgage NOTE.

 

Because this undisclosed investor [Borrower] is unaware of the moneys due it abandons the right to receive said funds when Borrower / Maker fail to make a claim to said funds within three years. To prove my point the Attorney General needs to request the Servicer, or the Trustee to produce a copy of the 1099-OID Form which was filed with the Internal Revenue Service, and the 1099-A including the 1099-B. These three Forms are filed with the Internal Revenue Service by either the Servicer or the Trustee and will prove the aforementioned allegation, that it is the Borrower that created, and is entitled to the “O”riginal “I’ssue “D"iscount, but the Borrower has abandoned these funds [1099-A] which is now claimed by the Servicer, or the Trustee [1099-B]. In other words, these aforementioned Forms will identify the Bank as the Debtor. The profit made from the invested Mortgage NOTE belongs to the Maker. We live in a wonderful place, if it wasn’t for the deceit.

 

Many of today’s so-called Lenders only lent their name to the Mortgage loan transaction. In other words, the Lender did not lend you their money, an undisclosed third party provided the funds for the Borrower making it appear like the Lender / Bank / Broker provided the funds. A group of investors, or a single investor creates what is commonly known as a Special Purpose Vehicle (“SPY”) wired the money to the Lender just prior to Closing.

 

The Lender / Bank now acting in the capacity of a Nominal Lender used this SPY money to transact the Closing. Once the Closing was completed the Nominal Lender was paid in full plus a commission, then the Nominal Lender put its name on the Mortgage NOTE. Within twenty-four (24) hours from Closing the Nominal Lender was required to physically conveyed the Mortgage NOTE to the true Lender / Investor. Thereafter this Nominal Lender takes on a new role as the Servicer of the debt, or it may employ a subServicer. The Borrower makes the monthly payments to the Servicer who s/he believes is the Lender, who forwards the payment [less its fee] to the true Lender / Investor[s]. The Homeowner was

 

4 of 9

tricked into thinking he was a Borrower of a Loan, when in fact was a Seller of a Mortgage NOTE into an Investment Trust [SPV]. This Investment Trust has no right to a Mortgage which is used to facilitate the purchase a NOTE, fraudulently procured under the guise of a “Loan”, when in fact it was not a Loan but rather the “Purchase / Sale of a Mortgage Note” facilitating the foundation of these Mortgage-Backed Securities; the true nature of this Transaction was not disclosed to the Borrower either before or at Closing; and this Nominal Lender was paid in full plus a commission for loan it did not fund.

 

Question; can a Nominal Lender that did not fund the transaction [Loan], putting its name on a Mortgage NOTE pretending to be the True-Lender, tricking a Homeowner into signing over a Mortgage NOTE in order to secure an Investment Security, thereafter assign a Beneficial Right to a third party, a right which it never Held from the beginning?

A reading of the Corporate / Trust Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission two constants are apparent; the Original Lender after selling its right, title and interest to said Mortgage NOTE becomes the Servicer of this debt; and the “conveyance” of the Mortgage NOTE, Documents [law of the case] mandate the delivery of the Original Mortgage NOTE, endorsed in blank … without recourse … with ALL prior and intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the Originator [Lender] to the “person” so endorsing to the Trustee. In every investigation that I have personally conducted find there are four parties to the initial transaction, if we exclude the Borrower.

 

The “Originator / Lender,” who sells its right, title and interest to said Mortgage NOTE to the “Seller,” the Seller sells its rights, title and interest to the “Purchaser / Depositor,” who sells to the “Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificate-Holder[s].” Although the named Trust Entity Documentation [law of this case] mandates this “chain of endorsements” I have yet to witness these endorsements on any Mortgage NOTE.

 

Rather I witness an “Assignment” of the Mortgage that purports to convey the NOTE directly to the named Plaintiff. My understanding is a NOTE can not be assigned; it is endorsed from the present Holder / Owner of said NOTE and conveyed to the new Holder / Owner. Instead I am witnessing the Servicer [who was once the Lender] claiming to be the Plaintiff with all the rights title and interest as an Owner / Holder of a Mortgage NOTE, after selling its right title and interest to that same Mortgage NOTE to a third party, at an arms length transaction, viewed as a true sale. The Documents [law of this case] mandate it to be a true sale.

 

5 of 9

I witness assignments [and or endorsements] being filed with the Courts assigning [endorsing] the right title and interest of the Originator / Lender directly to the Plaintiff, passing-over the Seller, Purchaser and the Trustee, when the Plaintiff is a named Banking Institution. The named Banking Institution would need to acquire this said Mortgage NOTE from the Trustee in order to foreclose, [not from the Lender] thus the Trustee’s endorsement would be expected on the NOTE, from it to the named Plaintiff, in a proper chain of endorsement. Instead I witness over and over again where an assignment of the Mortgage will go directly from the source [Lender] to the Plaintiff, as there are no prior and intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the Originator [Lender] to the “person” so endorsing the NOTE to the Trustee.

 

If the Trustee is the named Plaintiff acting for a named Trust-Entity would still require the endorsement from the Depositor / Purchaser to the named Trustee in trust for the Certificate-Holder. In my opinion, [non-attorney] this is why there was a rash of “Lost NOTE” claims in the past; the endorsements are missing, however re-establishing a NOTE cures that problem; however re-establishing a NOTE you never Owned, Held or possessed is a criminal act, in my opinion. Not only do I believe this act is a Fraud upon the Court but it is also using the legal system to facilitate a counterfeited financial instrument. The Homeowner who loses their home to foreclosure [95% are uncontested] with the use of a re-established NOTE faces the added threat that the true Owner / Holder may appear at some future date requiring the Homeowner to pay this same NOTE a second time, unless the Order from the Court provides the Defendant protection against such an occurrence.

 

However when a Homeowner does not defend their case, lack of funds, or whatever, this protection [should the Real-Party-In-Interest appear at some future date and demand payment for the Original Mortgage NOTE] against paying twice, is often missing from the Final Order for Foreclosure, because the Homeowner lacked the legal capacity to request this protection be included in the Order from the Court, and the Plaintiff will not do the right thing, voluntarily, by including this protection, exparte.

In the event the Plaintiff does possess and produces the Original NOTE bearing the once wet ink signatures of the Borrower[s], it [NOTE] must contain the endorsements of all the aforementioned parties, otherwise there is a clear break in the Chain of Title. The Chain of Title in every securitized document I have personally reviewed requires an endorsement from the Originator / Lender to the Seller, from Seller to Purchaser and from the Purchaser to the Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificate Holder [s], this is in accord with each one

 

6 of 9

of the documents I have reviewed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

These investigations that I have personally conducted disclose that most Trustees over-see dormant, dissolved or unregistered named Trust-Entities. Every named Trust Entity that I personally have investigated filed a Form 15-D with the Securities and Exchange Commission, notifying all parties of its Termination of Registration and suspension of its Duty to File Reports under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 77a et seq., 78a et seq.).

 

The Trustee foreclosing on a Homeowner [after filing a Form 15-D] is doing so on behalf of a named Trust-Entity contrary to the INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940, see Section 7, under TRANSACTIONS BY UNREGISTERED INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

 

What is really transpiring with these Mortgage loans is [in my minds eye] the Lender is selling the Borrower an automobile that the Lender knows has faulty brakes, and then said Lender takes out an insurance policy on that automobile. Once the automobile is totaled in a crash, the Lender collects on the insurance and still holds the borrower liable to pay the out-standing balance due on the automobile. Look no further than the foreclosure rates here in Florida or your home State, and then look at the record profits being generated by the Banks. How do you think this feat is being accomplished? Are foreclosures a negative force on the economy, because it does not seem to be negatively impacting the major banking institutions.

 

Brings me to my final observation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”), which acts as the purported Mortgagee of record [which we know is not true; as MERS did not loan any money and the Borrowers] do not owe any money to MERS]. MERS usually acts in the capacity as nominee for the Mortgage NOTE Owner / Holder; however, according to the procedural manual produced by MERS, it may only act in such a capacity [nominee] for and on behalf of another MERS’ Member. To the best of my knowledge none of these securitized named Trust Entities are MERS Members, thus bifurcating the Mortgage and NOTE, destroying the security and rendering the Mortgage a nullity.

 

When you get right down to it I think we would all agree, the bottom line is, the Creditor is the party with the skin in the game, they are the Certificate Holder[s], they are true investors], Hard-Money-Lender[s]. All Certificate Holders are customers of Cede & Co., being the nominee of the Depository

7 of 9

 

Trust Company (“DTC”), a subsidiary of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. The Entities that purchase these Trust Certificates must purchase them from Cede & Co., or from one of its authorized agents. Seems to imitate the MERS model in so far as Cede & Co. appears to be the central recordation hub were investors trade positions by electronic registration. These named Trust Entity’s Certificates are almost always Held in the “street name” of Cede & Co.

 

Within the past month I was engaged to conduct research / investigation into a Mortgage Note foreclosure, Plaintiff is JPMorgan Chase, the Original Lender was Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”). Within this Complaint JPMorgan Chase avers it is the Mortgage NOTE Owner and Holder by virtue of a Purchase and Assumption Agreement facilitated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) after it seized WaMu. Within this Complaint filed by JPMorgan Chase is attached as prima fascia evidence this aforementioned Purchase and Assumption Agreement between JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC which read, [paraphrasing] JPMorgan Chase purchased all of the assets of WaMu, as such is the Owner / Holder of the Mortgage NOTE being foreclosed on [presumptively giving JPMorgan Chase Standing]. However, reading the Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission WaMu sold this Mortgage NOTE out right to a third party [true sale] long before its seizure by the FDIC.

 

The only nexus held by WaMu in reference to this Mortgage NOTE in question were its right to Service this debt. In the case styled UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, case number 09-CV-01656-RMC, Document 55, styled DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for the Trusts listed in Exhibits 1-A and 1-B, Plaintiff, vs. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, National Association; and WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION, Defendants; JPMorgan Chase herein pleads, on page 33. of 39;

 

“Under the plain terms of that agreement, JPMC did not become WMB’s successor in interest. Since its closure, the FDIC as receiver has controlled WMB. While JPMC purchased all of the assets of WMB, it assumed only specified liabilities: those that had been reduced to a dollar amount on WMB’s ‘general ledger and subsidiary ledgers and supporting schedules which support the general ledger balances.’”

8 of 9

 

I only know of this one case in particular whereby JPMorgan Chase is foreclosing on a property in which it holds no right title nor interest aside from its Servicing right[s] acquired under a Purchase and Assumption Agreement, still to be executed between it and the FDIC. However JPMorgan Chase is telling a Judge in New Jersey it Owns and Holds this particular Mortgage Note by virtue of the aforementioned Purchase and Assumption Agreement acquired from the FDIC. Then in this case, [as sited above] in order to avoid / evade liability now pleads it”… did not become WMB.’s successor in interest.” You’ all know the difference between “avoid” and “evade,” [twenty years]!

 

It is my sincere hope the Attorney General of Florida along with the Attorney General in the other forty-nine States investigate JPMorgan Chase’s claim as successor in interest to WaMu, wherein JPMorgan Chase claims to be a Plaintiff, as its foundation points to the Purchase and Assumption Agreement. Equity would call for an Estoppel of all foreclosure Actions in which JPMorgan Chase claims to be WaMu’s successor in interest.

 

In closing, these named Trust Entities by-and-large are missing a mountain of Mortgage NOTEs. I have not had the time to do a mean average [as some named Trust Entities hold literally a thousand Mortgage Loans and the calculations must be done manually] however the field marked “Doc” [abbreviation for Documents] either reads “Unknown” or “Limited” in over 50% of these Mortgage Loans [by observation] conservatively. The named Trustee of the named Trust Entity clearly did not do even a reasonable job in receiving the Mortgage NOTEs as mandated under these named Trust Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

/s/ John Korman

 

 

Ally Financial says its Residential Capital mortgage unit seeks Ch.11 bankruptcy protection

 

Ally also said Monday that it is exploring the possible sale of its international operations, a move that also should help strengthen its finances and make payments to the government. International businesses include auto loan, insurance and banking operations in Canada, Mexico, Europe, England and South America.

Ally, which is 74 percent owned by the U.S. government, was the financial arm of General Motors Co. until the banking industry meltdown in 2008. It needed a $17.2 billion bailout to survive the downturn. Ally has repaid about $5.5 billion and it still owes the government just under $12 billion. The government is hoping to get the rest of the money back through a public stock offering by Ally, or perhaps the sale of its remaining businesses.

When the bankruptcy and potential sale of international operations are finished, Ally expects to repay two-thirds of its bailout, or about $11 billion. The additional payments could come by year's end, the company said.

"We believe that this action puts taxpayers in a stronger position to continue recovering their investment in Ally Financial," Assistant Treasury Secretary Timothy Massad said in a statement. ResCap is a separate company, and the government does not hold any debt or equity in it, the government said. The ResCap board decided to seek bankruptcy protection on Sunday.

Ally's statement said that ResCap has reached agreements with its key creditors for a speedy bankruptcy. But Ally has to put up $150 million for bankruptcy financing and pay $750 million to ResCap to make the deal work. Ally also will make the first bid on up to $1.6 billion worth of troubled mortgages that will be auctioned. The agreements made before the filing have milestones for ResCap to come out of bankruptcy protection by the end of the year, Ally said.

ResCap also has agreements with big investors in mortgage-backed securities to support the bankruptcy reorganization, Ally said.

Ally makes loans to GM and Chrysler customers and finances dealer inventories. The government first bailed out the company, then known as GMAC Inc., in late 2008 as part of the Bush administration's aid to the auto industry. The Obama administration provided additional funding in May and December 2009.

But ResCap has been a drain on Ally's finances for years, struggling to make payments on its heavy debt ever since the bottom fell out of the U.S. housing market in 2007. In regulatory filings before the bankruptcy, Ally said that deterioration in the U.S. housing market has led to fewer sources of money for ResCap, which is highly leveraged due to mortgage defaults.

Without the bankruptcy filing, ResCap would have needed billions of dollars from Ally to pay its debts "which would have substantially delayed Ally's plans to repay the remaining capital investment to the U.S. Treasury," Ally's statement said.

In the filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York, ResCap lists $15.7 billion in assets and $15.3 billion in debt. The filing says that ResCap has reached a deal for companies including NationStar Mortgage LLC and Fortress Investment Group LLC to buy most of ResCap's assets.

NationStar said in a statement that it expects to buy about $374 billion in mortgage servicing assets in late 2012. Shares of NationStar rose 94 cents, or 6.4 percent, to $15.78 in afternoon trading.

ResCap's net worth dropped below limits required by its loan agreements in the fourth quarter of last year, but it was saved because Ally forgave some of the debt that it was owed by ResCap. But Ally said in its most recent quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it may not help ResCap anymore.

ResCap also is close to defaulting on a $20 million interest payment that was due on April 17. The payment, on $473 million in unsecured loans, can be made within 30 days of the due date, but it doesn't look like ResCap can pay.

The mortgage unit remains heavily reliant on Ally for funding "and there can be no assurance that Ally or its affiliates will continue such actions," the filing said.

ResCap also owes Ally roughly $1.9 billion, with $500 million of the debt unsecured. Ally said in the filing that may lose the money it loaned to ResCap as a result of the mortgage company's bankruptcy filing.

Detroit-based Ally anticipates taking an approximately $1.3 billion charge in the second quarter related to the ResCap filing.

Georgia County Sheriff Evicts Four-Generation Family In Raid Resembling ‘Drug Bust’

 

In Atlanta, a Dekalb County sheriff evicted a four-generation family, which had been occupying its home, in a 3 am raid earlier this week. Christine Frazer, a widow who lost her job in 2009 and lived in her home for eighteen years, shared her story with Occupy Our Homes:

The group says the early morning raid resembled a drug bust with officers sneaking across Frazer's property in the middle of the night before fifty officers stormed her home to serve an eviction notice.

Occupy Our Homes claims Frazer's home was foreclosured on fraudulently by Investors One Corporation in October 2011, and she has been fighting it in court ever since. In January, activists set up camp on her lawn and told the Frazer family they would defend their home.

Sheriff Thomas Brown said police used "intelligence" to wait until the activists were not present at the home to guard it, and neighbors were asleep, to serve the unprecedented eviction, which includes kicking out Frazer's 85-year-old mother and 3-year-old grandson. Occupy alleges that police refused to allow Frazer to shower or for her elderly mother to get dressed and told Frazer to behave as if it were a fire drill.

Adding insult to injury, the police then rounded up her dogs and took them to the pound.

Again acting as though a major crime was going down, police blockaded the neighborhood and wouldn't allow anyone to secure the family's valuable personal belongings from the curb.

"Once again, it is clear that the government and our law enforcement officials are being used to serve and protect the interest of the 1% and not of ordinary people or even the laws that they have put in place. Occupy Atlanta is more committed than ever to the fight for Chris Frazer’s home, and the thousands of other homeowners just like her who are being disrespected every day," said Occupy Our Homes in a press release.

Sheriff Brown called into WAOK to give his side of the story and answer questions from listeners and offered a couple untruths and vague details about the case. After having to be reminded of Frazer's name, the sheriff claimed Frazer was offered a ride when she was not, and said her case is not in federal court, which it is.

The militarization of local police when it comes to things like drug raids or even routine searches has rightfully received much media attention and condemnation from the public, particularly when it comes to terrible stories like the police officer in Texas who shot Cisco the dog without reason.

But the same level of condemnation isn't present when a four-generation family has its home raided in the dead of night as though local police discovered a drug cartel in the basement.

The absurdity of this kind of hostile raid, combined with the fact that Frazer's lawyer claims there is evidence of fraud because there's a break in the chain of title—a surprisingly common bit of sloppy bookkeeping that occurs as banks shuffle around mortgage papers and never bother to keep track of what institution actually owns the house—should be enough reason to allow Frazer and her family to remain in their home until the courts can work things out.

"Now, I'm not saying all bankers out there are wicked, but I think there are a lot of them that turned their heads when they knew what was going on," says Frazer, "And it was just that old, evil thing called greed."

Home Owners Across the Nation Sue All Bank Servicers and Their Offshore Havens; Spire Law Officially Announces Filing of Landmark Lawsuit

PRESS RELEASE

Largest International Money Laundering Network in History Formed During Obama Administration; U.S. Banks' Theft of Home Owners' Money Laundered Through Cayman Islands, Isle of Man and Numerous Offshore-Based Affiliates

NEW YORK, NY, Apr 23, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- In a lawsuit alleged to involve the largest money laundering network in United States history, Spire Law Group, LLP -- on behalf of home owners across the Country -- has filed a mass tort action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Kings. Home owners across the country have sued every major bank servicer and their subsidiaries -- formed in countries known as havens for money laundering such as the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, Luxembourg and Malaysia -- alleging that while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners, it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole hundreds of millions of dollars of home owners' money during the last decade and then laundered it through offshore companies. The complaint, Index No. 500827, was filed by Spire Law Group, LLP, and several of the Firm's affiliates and partners across the United States.

Far from being ambiguous, this is a complaint that "names names." Indeed, the lawsuit identifies specific companies and the offshore countries used in this enormous money laundering scheme. Federally Chartered Banks' theft of money and their utilization of offshore tax haven subsidiaries represent potential FDIC violations, violations of New York law, and countless other legal wrongdoings under state and federal law.

"The laundering of trillions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money -- and the wrongful taking of the homes of those taxpayers -- was known by the Administration and expressly supported by it. Evidence uncovered by the plaintiffs revealed that the Administration ignored its own agencies' reports -- and reports from the Department of Homeland Security -- about this situation, dating as far back as 2010. Worse, the Administration purported to endorse a 'national bank settlement' without disclosing or having any public discourse whatsoever about the thousands of foreign tax havens now wholly owned by our nation's banks. Fortunately, no home owner is bound to enter into this fraudulent bank settlement," stated Eric J. Wittenberg of Columbus, Ohio -- a noted trial lawyer, author and student of US history -- on behalf of plaintiffs in the case.

The suing home owners reveal how deeply they were defrauded by bank and governmental corruption -- and are suing for conversion, larceny, fraud, and for violations of other provisions of New York state law committed by these financial institutions and their offshore counterparts.

This lawsuit explains why loans were, in general, rarely modified after 2009. It explains why the entire bank crisis worsened, crippling the economy of the United States and stripping countless home owners of their piece of the American dream. It is indeed a fact that the Administration has spent far more money stopping bank investigations, than they have investigating them. When the Administration's agencies (like the FDIC) blew the whistle, their reports were ignored.

The case is styled Abeel v. Bank of America, etc., et al. -- and includes such entities as ML Banderia Cayman BRL Inc., ML Whitby Luxembourg S.A.R.L. and J.P Morgan Asset Management Luxembourg S.A. -- as well as hundreds of other obscure offshore entities somehow "owned" by federally chartered banks and formed "under the nose" of the Administration and the FDIC.

Commenting further on the case, Mr. Wittenberg stated: "As if it is not bad enough that banks collect money and do not credit it to homeowners' accounts, and as if it is not bad enough that those banks then foreclose when they know they do not have a legally enforceable interest in the realty, we now learn that they have been operating under unbridled free reign given by the Administration and some states' Attorneys General in formulating this international money laundering network. Now that the light of day has been shined on it, I believe we can all rest assured that the beginning of the end of the bank crisis has arrived."

All United States home owners may have the right to bring a lawsuit of this kind if they paid money to a national bank servicer during the years 2003 through 2009.

One lawyer impacted by the corruption -- Mitchell J. Stein, who formerly represented the FDIC, the RTC and the FSLIC during the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1990s, and who predicted all of the foregoing in open court two years ago -- commented: "Two years ago, I remarked in open court to a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, as well as to legislators including Senator Dianne Feinstein's office during a multitude of in-person meetings, that the ongoing violations of the Patriot Act by these financial institutions was outrageous and a breach of the public trust of unprecedented proportions," said Stein.

"The size and scope of this misconduct -- stretching to far-away islands never before having standing as approved United States Bank affiliates -- is remarkable and emblematic of what we have seen," he continued. "The bank crisis represents the height of corruption and brazen behavior where our historically trusted financial institutions have no qualms about breaking the law, because they have the Administration behind them. Banks do well enough when they operate lawfully without needing to be permitted to operate as criminal enterprises that steal money from United States citizens."

Additional plaintiffs' counsel Nicholas M. Moccia commented: "Having been in the trenches of the bank crisis for years, I always knew that the misconduct was being conducted by a network. When I started litigating against banks, however, I could have never imagined that it would be this extensive. I look forward to taking discovery of these thousands of obscure foreign entities and to obtaining for homeowners their constitutionally entitled injuries for this international ring of theft and deception."

Comments were requested from the Attorney Generals' offices in NY, CA, NV, and MA and the White House, but no comment was provided.

About Spire Law Group

Spire Law Group, LLP is a national law firm whose motto is "the public should be protected -- at all costs -- from corruption in whatever form it presents itself." The Firm is comprised of lawyers nationally with more than 250-years of experience in a span of matters ranging from representing large corporations and wealthy individuals, to also representing the masses. The Firm is at the front lines litigating against government officials, banks, defunct loan pools, and now the very offshore entities where the corruption was enabled and perpetrated.

        
        Contact:
        James N. Fiedler, Esq.
        Managing Partner
        Spire Law Group, LLP
        877-475-2448
        Email Contact
        
        
        


SOURCE: Spire Law Group, LLP