Tag Archives: mortgage fraud

The true level of mortgage fraud is largely unknown…..STATEMENT OF CHRIS SWECKER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, FBI

Although there is no specific statute that defines mortgage fraud, each mortgage fraud scheme contains some type of material misstatement, misrepresentation or omission relied upon by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase or insure a loan. The Mortgage Bankers Association projects 2.5 trillion in mortgage loans will be made this year. The FBI compiles data on mortgage fraud through Suspicious Activity Reports filed by financial institutions and HUD Office of the Inspector General reports. The FBI also receives complaints from the industry at large.

A significant portion of the mortgage industry is void of any mandatory fraud reporting. In addition, mortgage fraud in the secondary market is often underreported. Therefore, the true level of mortgage fraud is largely unknown. The mortgage industry itself does not provide estimates on total industry fraud. The industry provides incomplete or inconsistent fraud data. Based on various industry reports and FBI analysis, mortgage fraud is pervasive and growing.

The potential impact of mortgage fraud on financial institutions in the stock market is clear.  If fraudulent practices become systemic within the mortgage industry and mortgage fraud is allowed to become unrestrained, it will ultimately place financial institutions at risk and have adverse effects on the stock market. Investors may lose faith and require higher returns from mortgage-backed securities, which will result in higher interest rates and fees paid by borrowers, limiting the amount of investment funds available for mortgage loans.

Often mortgage loans sold in secondary markets are used by financial institutions as collateral for other investments. Repurchase agreements have been utilized by investors for protection against mortgage fraud. When loans sold in the secondary market default and have fraudulent or material misrepresentation, loans are repurchased by the lending financial institution based on a repurchase agreement. As a result, these loans become a nonperforming asset, and in extreme fraud cases, the mortgage-backed security is worthless. Mortgage fraud losses adversely affect loan loss reserves, profits, liquidity levels and capitalization ratios, ultimately affecting the soundness of the financial institution itself.

More INFO on Attorney Chris Swecker.

See the interview with Chris Swecker on CBS This Morning from 7/11/12. Click here.

Justice League

TESTIMONY OF CHRIS SWECKER BEFORE CONGRESS in 2004:

STATEMENT OF CHRIS SWECKER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Although there is no specific statute that defines mortgage fraud, each mortgage fraud scheme contains some type of material misstatement, misrepresentation or omission relied upon by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase or insure a loan. The Mortgage Bankers Association projects 2.5 trillion in mortgage loans will be made this year. The FBI compiles data on mortgage fraud through Suspicious Activity Reports filed by financial institutions and HUD Office of the Inspector General reports. The FBI also receives complaints from the industry at large.

A significant portion of the mortgage industry is void of any mandatory fraud reporting. In addition, mortgage fraud in the secondary market is often underreported. Therefore, the true level of mortgage fraud is largely unknown. The mortgage industry itself does not provide estimates on…

View original post 224 more words

REMICS | DID THE IRS CAUSE THE FINANCIAL CRISIS?

Justice League

As the dust from the financial crisis begins to settle, we learn that the lack of IRS enforcement of themortgage-backed securities industry bears blame for the financial crisis. The financial crisis began when lenders started making bad loans on a large-scale basis in the late ’90s and early ’00s. Big banks purchased these bad loans, bundled them into trusts, and sold interests in the trusts to investors worldwide. The interests in the trusts are mortgage-backed securities. The investors (financial institutions, pension and retirement plans, insurance companies, state and local governments and individuals) did not know the loans were bad, and paid inflated prices for the mortgage-backed securities. Now that the practices of lenders and banks are coming to light, borrowers and investors are seeking to recover losses through lawsuits. And it is obvious that better practices, as required by tax law and enforced through IRS audit, would have prevented or mitigated those losses.

Mortgage-backed securities are a vital part…

View original post 117 more words

Living Lies’ Neil Garfield on the Arrest and Bail of Bratton

Occupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail

Posted on June 23, 2013 by Neil Garfield

In my judgment, based upon the scant facts and documents supplied to me this far, there is no doubt that Bratton DID own the property and probably still does if the law is applied properly.

I know of cases where probable cause was found for Murder and the bail was set less than that. The calls and emails keep coming in and I can’t say that I have a total picture of what was really going on here. But, based upon what I have the current story is this:

Bratton is one of the leaders in the Occupy movement. It may be true that the Occupy movement has been put on a watch list or even the terrorist list which might account for the high bail. I have not been able to confirm that. But it seems that some inference of that sort was used in getting bail set at a quarter of a million dollars. If so, the government is confusing (intentionally or otherwise) the Occupy movement which is a political movement within the system allowed and encouraged by the U.S. Government — with the sovereign citizen movement for which I have taken a lot of heat.

The sovereign citizen concept is a contradiction in terms. If you are a citizen you are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which you are a citizen. If you are “sovereign” then you are announcing that you are outside the bounds of the rules, regulations and laws of government. It would seem to me that the use of the word “sovereign” might be tantamount to renouncing your citizenship and making you an alien, subject to the immigration and naturalization agencies of the Federal government, which is a Federal question, not a state question.

From what I understand, Bratton acted as a pro se fighter against an illegal taking of her property by U.S. Bank, who will probably disclaim knowledge of the event when the heat turns up on this news item. My experience is that where claims of securitization are involved and U.S. Bank is a key player, virtually everything is false, fabricated and illegal — including the notices of default, notices of sale, the “auction,” the “credit bid” and the deed issued upon “foreclosure” of the property based upon the alleged sale. Judges find this hard to believe but the facts are coming out as the tsunami of whistle-blowers has just started.

My opinion is that the deed issued on foreclosure is VOID (not voidable) if there was no consideration. Check with a lawyer in your jurisdiction before you act on that. If the party submitting the “credit bid” has no proof that they paid for the origination and/or acquisition of the loan, then all their actions constitute the same value as a “wild deed” which is customarily ignored by title examiners and title agents.

If in fact the situation goes to as far as establishing that no transaction occurred in which a purchase or funding of the loan occurred then fraud, utterance of a false instrument and the rest of the charges pending against Bratton now actually should be brought against U.S. Bank and the other parties that contributed to the plan leading to theft of Bratton’s title!?!

It is the latter situation that in my opinion is the dominant permeating fact pattern throughout the financial industry in which they put CLAIMS of securitization ahead of proof that it ever occurred — as a cover up for a racketeering scheme using a PONZI structure (new investments used to pay off old investors).

Based upon the facts and documents I have heard and seen Bratton went through the usual foreclosure fight where the Judge failed to apply the law properly and require proof of ownership the loan, mistakenly applying a presumption that is rebuttable, just as the Maryland Supreme Court did last week in a decision that will come back and haunt them. So needless to say she lost and the sale went forward with US bank submitting a credit bid on behalf of an asset pool that does not appear to exist in reality because it was never funded, and therefore was incapable of paying for the the funding of the origination of the loan nor the acquisition of the loan.

The usual fabricated papers were submitted and the usual untrue proffers by counsel apparently were present as well. So, like I have said on this blog, acting WITHIN THE SYSTEM, she went to the police showing them that she was alleging fraud, fabrication, forgery, and uttering an false instrument and recording it. The police refused to investigate saying it was a CIVIL MATTER.

So again, acting within the system, she went and filed a corrective deed in order to give legal notice to the world that the title was still in dispute. Meanwhile U.S. Bank allegedly sold the property to a third party who pay or may not have been a straw-man. The straw-man is attempting to get possession. Bratton is fighting it because the only basis for possession is not that she didn’t pay her rent, but because title changed from her to this third party.

Despite their refusal to investigate her claims as falling within the category of a civil matter, the police then arrested Bratton for filing in the public records a corrective deed. POOF! What was a civil matter suddenly turned into a serious criminal matter, alleging, apparently nearly word for word, the allegations Bratton made against U.S. Bank, which if true would mean that any deed FROM U.S. Bank would also be a wild deed conveying no interest in the property whatsoever.

The kicker is the bail that has been set: $250,000. While I am familiar with this tactic being used around the country to scare off the leaders in the fight, this is the first time I have ever seen bail set at level that effectively puts Bratton behind bars without any hope of release based solely on what appears to be a completely unfounded accusation of criminal intent.

There are some rumors that the reason bail was set so high was because there were inferences that Bratton was affiliated with a terrorist group — something I find hard to believe based upon the information I have received thus far. There is no evidence brought to my attention that could possibly be interpreted as coming within the scope of a definition of “terrorist.” If her accusations against U.S. Bank are true, the term terrorist would more aptly apply to U.S. Bank than anything Bratton did.

My view is that the failure of the police to investigate her claims on the basis of their determination that this was a matter to be resolved in the civil courts completely undermines even the semblance of probable cause. If the police could say that they DID investigate the claims of Bratton and found them to be without merit, THEN the technical violation MIGHT apply assuming the document she filed was completely without merit — i.e., that the content of the document was completely false.

My view is that without that investigation the best one could say about the police action in this case is that they were premature. The worst is that they were doing the bidding of the banks who have achieved a level of influence on law enforcement that is unprecedented in protecting themselves from prosecution for mass crimes against humanity AND bringing mortgage fraud and other criminal charges against those whom they are throwing under the bus or otherwise want to silence.

The police were wrong when they first told Bratton that this was a civil matter. The theft of millions of homes based upon false, fabricated, fraudulent documents corroborated by perjury and intentional misrepresentation to the court, is a big deal. It ripped open the fabric of our society and diminished respect for all three branches of government. Now that the police department has thrown its hat into the ring with this bogus criminal charge, it is time to force them politically to investigate the bank crimes (regardless of what assurances were given from the Bush and Obama administrations to the contrary).

Here is the Press RELEASE from the Bratton Camp:

PRESS RELEASE_Bratton Hearing 24June13

Can I recommend any attorney that is “on the cutting edge of the securitization issues” here in California? No, not without gagging, I cannot.

Dear Charles, Question:  Do you know an attorney that you can recommend that is on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California? We are in the Santa Barbara Central District.

[[[First: a merely rhetorical question: Why do you want a State Licensed Bar-Card Attorney beholden to the Supreme Court of California and an officer of every court before whom you appeal, would you not rather have independent, non-monopolistic, representation by someone not officially integrated into one of the few expressly authorized State Action exceptions to the Anti-Trust Laws under the New Deal Era “Parker Doctrine?”]]]
So, dear reader, you want “an attorney that [I] can recommend that is on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California?”  I fear there is nobody who fits that bill.  I sadly cannot recommend a single California attorney of whom I have any knowledge who is also “on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California.”  I am copying this letter to Catherine Bryan who may have a different opinion, or at least “some” opinion on which way to turn—it generally appears that almost everyone who goes with a “bar attorney” ultimately loses, with a very few exceptions (but then, almost everyone loses, regardless).
          Attorney Michael Pines would be the closest, because he once (exactly a year ago in fact) wrote and filed a complaint (“on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California) which I considered magnificent, here attached “Michael T. Pines NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure”. On June 15, 2010, one of the best complaints ever was filed:  Michael T Pines’ NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure 10-02622 Class Action, but then, 96 days later, that case was dead because the Plaintiffs’ California State Bar Licensed Counsel failed to file any responses to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss OR even to the Defendants’ Motions for Sanctions…CAND-ECF-10-02622 Michael T Pines v Silverstein Docket 09-19-2010
So as you can see, that case foundered and died because of Michael T. Pines Voluntary Dismissal 09-21-2010–PINES AND ASSOCIATES—Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and Failure to file responses to Steven D. Silverstein’s Motion to Dismiss.  09-27-2010 10-cv-02622-RS Case Status Report
Since that dismal episode, Michael T. Pines would appear to be constantly trying to make the news.  He has been arrested several times for “trespass” or trying to get people back onto their lands/homes.  I’m not sure where all that stands right now but you can probably google it.  His complaint last year was filed against too many defendants on too many issues.  But he didn’t really try at all, in my opinion.  We have a case, 09-cv-01072-DOC, in USDC CDCA-Southern Division (Orange County) which is currently still alive but hanging by a thread…..and we’re unsure what exactly we’re going to do next.
           Then there was Dennis Martin Russell, who responded to my on-line/website-based ad (charleslincoln3.wordpress.com) seeking a Constitutional Lawyer to advance the issue of civil rights removal in Orange County.  Dennis Martin Russell accepted $5,000.00 from Renada Nadine March, which was close to 100% of her settlement from a car wreck, and proceeded to do absolutely NOTHING.  I am considering helping Renada with a malpractice lawsuit against him.  We had high hopes for Russell, but to say he disappointed us would be a cruel understatement: he misled us and deceived us.
        But any such malpractice suit will go up against the precedents set and actions taken by current California Governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown while he was attorney General, again last year.  Governor Moonbeam, while Moonlighting as Attorney General Moonbeam, prosecuted several attorneys for….what was the phrase, advancing a novel legal argument that a borrower’s loaCEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010n could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it.”  See attached letter, “CEL to Edmund G. Brown, AG, 08-26-2010.”  
           To that fairly meaty letter we received a completely content-free reply, namely the attached “09-08-2010 K. Savona Response to CEL Letter.”  09-08-2010 K Savona Response to CEL Letter to Edmund G Brown
          Finally, Diane Beall Templin is currently working with an enigmatic, New York licensed, Attorney named Paul Nguyen, who won a case against Chase Bank before the highly enigmatic A. Howard Matz here in the Central District of California.   See attached files for reference: 09-cv-04589-AHM Docket Report as of 09-19-201009-04589-AHM-AJW 10-29-2009 Nguyen Motion to Howard Matz for Contempt against ChaseHoward Matz Granted Foreclosure TRO 09-4589 July 2009Howard Matz Supplemental TRO Requiring Authenticated Appraisal 08-03-2009
          Paul Nguyen has since then opened an office somewhere in Orange County and is now supposedly practicing with some success, but I cannot personally vouch for anything except that I met him once in his office and he is very sharp and energetic and MIGHT be as good as he looks—my only reservation after meeting him was that he preached a kind of caution which, although traditional and understandable among attorneys, did not seem quite sufficient or adequate to the task of unraveling the non-judicial foreclosure & eviction morass in California created by legislative statute: California Civil Code §2924 et seq..  
        And then again Paul Nguyen MIGHT just have pulled a special trick on Judge A. Howard Matz, or intimidated him in such a manner as Jose L. Pineda appears to have done—see the lead story on my blog (right after this letter).
          If I can provide you with any further information, please let me know.  On the whole, I am opposed to the State Bar Monopoly and believe that the licensing of attorneys does little more than to insulate incompetent and corrupt practice from challenge.  As I have recently written, I think that Judges such as A. Howard Matz are completely and totally knowing collusion with the banks, and so lawyers like Diane Beall Templin and Paul Nguyen may be as well.
Catherine Bryan, to whom I have copied this letter, has accused Diane Beall of being in complicity with the Banks and their attorneys.  Catherine Bryan to CEL re-Diane Beall April 3 2011 .  We do not know the truth because we see only through a glass, darkly.  We moan like doves and growl like bears.  We seek for the light but live in darkness and grope like blind men along the walls.  OK, so what else  does Corinthians 13 have in common with Isaiah 59 and the allegory of the Cave in Book VII of Plato’s Republic?
          I simply do not know what to say at this stage about Paul Nguyen and Diane Beall, but if Catherine were a lawyer, or if Bar Cards were not required, she would be the first person I would recommend, immediately after myself….. The connection between A. Howard Matz and Paul Nguyen’s victory on the one hand and subsequent migration to California on the other are both….curious and disturbing to me.  
         If you haven’t read my blog, please do so at https://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com, especially the lead article on A. Howard Matz and the Jose L. Pineda case, and what it may or may not mean.
After Midnight on June 12, Pentacost Sunday, Jennifer Lee wrote in from Pasadena:
Thanks Charles
As for Paul Nguyen he stole 4 k from my mom and promised an adversarial complaint and never did it and I could give you a list of horrible things he did to her including a chapter 11 bankruptcy that he botched so badly and abandoned her when she had paid in full to him. He then told us he has 100 customers and can’t possibly help them all so he had to pick which ones he is going to let loose and he doesn’t care less if they loose and get evicted. He told us he chose us to loose as our case was more difficult and he doesn’t care. I just spoke to a lady I saw tonight who told me he did the same to her and many more people she knows and she has someone who is going to go after him for her. I was given advice of how to report him. I have been too busy but I really need to report him to the bar and judicial review. Don’t remember off hand the place.he is a con man. Diane beall was upset to hear what he did to us but she told me she was losing all her cases so she needed to learn from him and she needs money even though she didn’t want to be there and she was sick to watch what he did to mom. She tried to confront him for what he did to us and she got in trouble for it.  

Another Case to Follow in New York (State Supreme Court, NYC)

MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION v CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC Filed Dec 14 2009 in Supreme Court of New York

My Co-plaintiff Bob Rivernider in Wellington, Florida sent me this case commenting on the connection between his own situation and what was revealed here in the Complaint Filed by a Title Insurance Corporation against Credit Suisse:

Insurance company lawsuit attached detailing how they were lied to to insurance a large pool of loans that are almost all in default that they had to pay the insurance on. Which means the lenders was paid off. They then foreclose sell the property and make more money, sweet deal. Until now. I expect more of these to be filed next year now that the MI companies are waking up to the fraud that the lenders were engaging in that they insured.

For Example: On my house which appraised in April 2006 for $810,000, they did a CMA which I just received in June 2006 value $695,000, US Bank bought the loan in Sept. 2006, did they know the value at the time? Where they lied to? Did they have insurance? Have they already been paid? Is my loan paid off already by an MI company?

See the comments about New Century and how they would not insure New Century loans. It was New Century who sold my loan to US Bank.

Call to Arms: Wells Fargo Class Action possible on Mortgage Servicing/Holder-in-Due Course Fraud, Securitization issues?

FEDERAL CASE AGAINST WELLS FARGO

Currently I am the sole Plaintiff in a lawsuit against Wells Fargo in US District Court in Boise Idaho. The suit, like many of the others I write, is for Quiet Title to my property located in Caldwell Idaho. My assistant, Peyton Freiman, took it to the Court for filing in September along with an Application for Temporary Restraining Order, regarding which the Court immediately ordered a three hour hearing set for October 28, 2009.  Usually the decision on whether or not to grant a TRO is made in a manner of minutes in chambers. But, on this particular occasion, given the current economic climate, distrust of banks and maybe the individual language used in my pleadings I have been given a great deal of time to make my case for injunctions against Wells Fargo as we continue onward into Discovery and finally a trial. Hopefully this is a Court that realizes the seriousness of the matter and is giving me more time as a result, not simply a scare tactic to make me have second thoughts. Either way, I plan on being as prepared as ever to argue the issues in my pleadings.

I realize that this is a great opportunity and extend the option to anyone reading this who also has a loan out with Wells Fargo to intervene and join as a co-plaintiff in this case in Idaho. It would be a great strategic advantage  to have a massive list of Plaintiffs going into this hearing to give added weight to my words and possibly gain class action certification as a result.  To obtain certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there has to be at least one claim and issue regarding which all class members have identical claims. They have gotten very strict about that recently, it seems.  So class action status as a co-plaintiff we would need to talk about what issues there are in common and whether we can make identical claims for damages, injunction, or declaratory judgment.   In other words, there’s a difference in drafting issues of a different kind here: tailored issues for class certification and designation of one representative as “typical.”  We will also have to get a lawyer representing everyone’s claims in this action.  There is nothing specific in Rule 23 that says you have to have a licensed attorney.  Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, while Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(iv) states that “a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member desires.  Almost decision I have seen, however, requires that a class be represented by a licensed attorney and I’m not sure this is the place to try to challenge that issue, although it may be.  I’m open to discussion on that point.  The Court’s discretion to impose the requirement of a licensed attorney springs from Rule 23(d) (1)(C) “In conducting an action under this rule, the court may issue orders that….impose conditions on the representative parties or on intervenors.”

For the time being, and I’m writing this as of September 30, 2009: I issue this “Call to Arms”—Will everyone who believes they have been defrauded by Wells Fargo in regard to the servicing or modification of a mortgage note or mortgage contract signed after January 1, 2000, or who particularly believes that Wells Fargo is no longer the “holder in due course” of their note, or has otherwise acted in a manner inconsistent with “privity of contract” contact me through Robert Ponte at 860-599-5557?  It would be easier to start out with people in the Ninth Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and American Samoa, but we have another anchor state in Florida and still others in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Michigan where parallel actions could be filed.

I’d ask this:  I am working on the lawyer, are you, dear reader, willing to work with me?  If you want to know more I am willing to forward on the complaint, essentially the damages are “holder in due course” issues, which I talk about frequently on this blog. In short, if you think that somehow you and I don’t share the same kind of damages or allegations of material fact please think again: we are ALL being duped by big banks who have no idea where our original notes are. So, think about it and contact me if you wish,

CEL III

Search these terms on Google

Search these terms on Google and make up your own mind.  Mortgage fraud, florida bar association, countrywide fraud.  Think of some on your own and make a comment to find out how to save your own home?