We have attached an excellent document produced by Reuters that gives a good overview of not only the problems with robo-signers but explains the facts surrounding missing mortgage paperwork that is suddenly found – albeit maybe with different signatures and fabricated legal affidavits.

Click HERE —>  Mortgage Mess Robo Signers Return – Reuters Report May 2011

If you want to see how the bank or their lawyers can fake your signature check this machine out  —> Auto Signer

Here is an example of different signatures for the same person.

In Texas we have noticed foreclosures in the name of MERS have suddenly become VERY rare.  We haven’t run across one in several months.

Does this mean MERS has vanished? 

Nope, but the mortgage servicers are downplaying the role of MERS and trying to shield MERS and themselves from the bright light.

This means you need to dig a little deeper to uncover really what is going on behind the curtain.

The article below from Reuters highlights MERS’ recent announcement to its members and 20,000+ “officers” that they need to leave out MERS’ name in foreclosure proceedings.

If you or someone you know is facing a mortgage hardship or foreclosure contact our office immediately.

- The Bank Slayer

Exclusive: Facing criticism, MERS cuts role in foreclosures

(Reuters) – MERS, the electronic mortgage registry that faces multiple investigations for its role in thousands of problematic foreclosure cases, changed its rules to lower its profile in court-supervised foreclosures.

MERS, a unit of Merscorp Inc. of Reston, Virginia, owns the computerized registry, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. Mortgage loan giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and several of the largest U.S. banks established MERS in 1995 to circumvent the costly and cumbersome process of transferring ownership of mortgages and recording the changes with county clerks.

In rule changes announced to MERS members on July 21, the company forbade members to file any more foreclosure actions in MERS’s name.

It also required mortgage servicers to obtain mortgage assignments and record them with county clerks before beginning foreclosures.

Mortgage-loan servicers perform routine duties for the investment trusts that own pools of mortgages, including collecting mortgage payments and, when necessary, filing foreclosures.

Although these trusts are legally required to own the mortgages when they file to foreclose, the servicers in many cases did not obtain documents known as assignments on their behalf until weeks or months after launching a foreclosure action in court, a recent Reuters Special Report found. (link.reuters.com/kyb72s)

Since the collapse of the housing boom, many foreclosure cases were filed in MERS’s name, even though the registry doesn’t really own either the mortgage or the promissory note, the document which states the terms of the mortgage loan.

MERS’s role in foreclosure cases has made it a lightning rod in recent months in court decisions which have held that loan servicers’ use of the registry violates basic real estate and mortgage laws.

In the last week, state attorneys general in Massachusetts and Delaware have announced investigations of MERS, and several other states have broader inquiries into foreclosure practices that include MERS.

It is unclear how much the rule changes will help MERS with its legal problems.

Under the new rules, servicers are required to stop filing foreclosures in MERS’s name, but MERS’s role in foreclosures won’t actually be eliminated. The servicers will continue to obtain the needed mortgage assignments from MERS. In past cases examined by Reuters, such assignments have included ones of questionable legitimacy, such as mortgages owned by now-defunct lenders.

O. Max Gardner III, a North Carolina lawyer who is specialist in foreclosure actions in bankruptcy courts, said the change will have the effect of making MERS’s role in assigning mortgages invisible in court.

The assignments will still come from MERS, but “they just won’t be in the court files any more,” he said.

MERS spokeswoman Janice Smith said the new rules make mandatory a trend that already was under way.

She noted that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and several large banks already had stopped filing foreclosures in MERS name. Smith said the change would avoid confusing homeowners facing foreclosure by eliminating MERS, a company they had never heard of, from court documents.

She also said that MERS’ s original purpose was to keep track of changes in servicers and mortgage ownership. “Foreclosure really was not central to MERS’s core business,” she said, adding that MERS received no income from foreclosures.

Mortgage-law specialists say that lenders and servicers for a long time relied heavily on bringing foreclosures in MERS’s name. This helped make possible foreclosures that otherwise might not have taken place because the necessary original documents were missing.

MERS says that it is the holder of record of 32 million, or 60 per cent, of U.S. mortgages. But it has only a handful of employees. Instead, it has designated some 20,000 employees of banks and other servicers as MERS “officers.”

Some courts and homeowners’ lawyers have criticized this system because in effect it enables servicers to assign mortgages to themselves whenever they needed one to foreclose.

The rule change also comes amid a growing movement against MERS among county clerks around the U.S. They have been pressing state attorneys general and local prosecutors to investigate MERS for allegedly failing to record documents with them and pay the associated filing fees. The rule change, by requiring servicers to record mortgage assignments sooner and pay recording fees, will partly address the clerks’ concerns.

(Editing by Michael Williams)

SHOCKER, not everyone in foreclosure “bought too much house” or “lied about their income on the loan application”.

It turns out, that at times, Wells Fargo  falsified records and changed borrowers loan applications or steered them into sub-prime profitable loans.

“The order requires Wells Fargo to compensate borrowers affected by these practices.”

To identify Wells Fargo Financial borrowers whose income information was falsified without their knowledge, Wells Fargo is required to set up a procedure for potentially affected borrowers to show that their actual income at the time did not qualify them for the loans they were granted. Wells Fargo is required to provide notice of this procedure to all borrowers who obtained cash-out refinancing loans between January 2004 and June 2008

Thanks to 4closurefraud.org for the article.

- The Bank Slayer

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Federal Reserve Orders $85M Civil Penalty Against Wells Fargo for Steering Potential Prime Borrowers Into More Costly Subprime Loans and Falsifying Income

The following is an announcement by the Federal Reserve Wednesday regarding a civil penalty against Wells Fargo:

The Federal Reserve Board on Wednesday issued a consent cease and desist order and assessed an $85 million civil money penalty against Wells Fargo & Company of San Francisco, a registered bank holding company, and Wells Fargo Financial, Inc., of Des Moines. The order addresses allegations that Wells Fargo Financial employees steered potential prime borrowers into more costly subprime loans and separately falsified income information in mortgage applications. In addition to the civil money penalty, the order requires that Wells Fargo compensate affected borrowers.

The $85 million civil money penalty is the largest the Board has assessed in a consumer-protection enforcement action and is the first formal enforcement action taken by a federal bank regulatory agency to address alleged steering of borrowers into high-cost, subprime loans.

Wells Fargo Financial–a once-active, non-bank subsidiary of Wells Fargo–made subprime loans that primarily refinanced existing home mortgages in which borrowers received additional money from the loan proceeds in so-called cash-out refinancing loans. The order addresses allegations that Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel steered borrowers who were potentially eligible for prime interest rate loans into loans at higher, subprime interest rates, resulting in greater costs to borrowers. The order also addresses separate allegations that Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel falsified information about borrowers incomes to make it appear that the borrowers qualified for loans when they would not have qualified based on their actual incomes.

These practices were allegedly fostered by Wells Fargo Financials incentive compensation and sales quota programs and the lack of adequate controls to manage the risks resulting from these programs. These deficiencies allegedly constitute unsafe and unsound banking practices and unfair or deceptive acts or practices that are prohibited by the Federal Trade Commission Act and similar state laws. In agreeing to the order, Wells Fargo did not admit any wrongdoing. The order requires Wells Fargo to compensate borrowers affected by these practices. To identify prime-eligible borrowers with cash-out refinancing loans who were subject to improper steering, Wells Fargo is required to reevaluate the qualifications of all borrowers who took out a subprime, cash-out refinancing loan between January 2006 and June 2008 to account for certain specific steering techniques. To identify Wells Fargo Financial borrowers whose income information was falsified without their knowledge, Wells Fargo is required to set up a procedure for potentially affected borrowers to show that their actual income at the time did not qualify them for the loans they were granted. Wells Fargo is required to provide notice of this procedure to all borrowers who obtained cash-out refinancing loans between January 2004 and June 2008 at a Wells Fargo Financial office where there is evidence that sales personnel at that office altered or falsified borrowers income information.

These compensation plans must be approved by the Federal Reserve. An independent, third-party administrator will review determinations about the eligibility of individual borrowers for compensation and the amounts of compensation provided. The Federal Reserve will also monitor compliance with the approved plans. Failure to comply with the plans will constitute a breach of the cease and desist order.

The amount of compensation provided to individual borrowers will depend on a number of factors, including differences between what borrowers paid and what they should have paid in terms of origination points, interest payments, fees, and penalties. Until specific determinations of harm to individual borrowers are made, it is difficult to determine the total amount of compensation provided to borrowers. Based on preliminary estimates, the amount of compensation that each eligible borrower will receive ranges between $1,000 and $20,000, but some eligible borrowers may receive less than $1,000 and others may receive more than $20,000. The number of borrowers who may receive compensation under both plans is estimated to be between 3,700 and possibly more than 10,000.

Further information for borrowers may be found at www.wellsfargo.com/mortgage.

In addition to the monetary components of the settlement, Wells Fargo is required to improve oversight of its anti-fraud and compliance programs and incentive compensation and performance management policies for personnel who sell and underwrite home mortgage loans. The Board
also has issued consent orders against 16 former Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel prohibiting them from becoming employed in the banking industry. The Board has also issued a consent cease and desist order against another former Wells Fargo Financial sales person prohibiting future improper conduct.

Read the fine print!  Although the FTC has agreed to forbear enforcing some provisions of MARS against REALTORS, this doesn’t mean that real estate agents are completely off the hook.

What it does mean is that some of the more onerous and ridiculous record-keeping and disclosures requirements will not be pursued as violations…that is unless you don’t pay your dues and or forget to do continuing education.

In reality, the real “gotcha” is focused on representations.

In other words what you tell or represent to the homeowner or others.  Here are some of the exact types of “mis”-representation (straight from FTC) with examples alongside :

1. The likelihood of negotiating, obtaining, or arranging a specific form of mortgage relief;  (A short sale will save you from foreclosure.)
2. The amount of time needed to obtain the promised mortgage relief; (If I can get an offer into the bank before the foreclosure sale date we should be OK.)
3. The affiliation of the provider with the government, public programs, or consumers’ lenders or servicers; (The bank pays us to get you out of trouble.)
4. Consumers’ payment obligations under their mortgage loans; (A short sale will “settle” your debt and save your credit.)
5. The terms or conditions of consumers’ mortgage loans; and (After the short sale you won’t owe the bank anymore.)
6. The amount or percentage of debts that consumers may save by purchasing MARS. (Hiring me will get you a higher offer and make it easier to settle your short sale.)

As you can see some of these are typical statements agents could make in the course of closing a short sale.  Be very careful what you say.

The FTC recommends you use phrases such as this uplifting gem.

“In fact, consumers who stop making payments may incur additional fees and charges and lose their homes, regardless of whether they have retained a MARS provider. ”

Bottom line is make sure that you stick to activities that are standard to being a real estate agent – don’t interpret documents like the short sale agreement or play lawyer.

The FTC press release is below.

- The Bank Slayer

FTC Will Not Enforce Provisions of MARS Rule Against Real Estate Professionals Helping Consumers Obtain Short Sales

The Federal Trade Commission today issued a statement announcing that it will forbear from enforcing most provisions of its Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule against real estate brokers and their agents who assist financially distressed consumers in obtaining short sales from their lenders or servicers.

As a result of the stay on enforcement, these real estate professionals will not have to make several disclosures required by the Rule that, in the context of assisting with short sales, could be misleading or confuse consumers. As more and more American homeowners seek short sales, it is especially important that the Rule not inadvertently discourage real estate professionals from helping consumers with these types of transactions.

The MARS Rule was issued pursuant to authority granted by Congress in 2009. The issuance of the Rule followed numerous FTC and state enforcement actions against companies that claimed to be able to obtain from consumers’ mortgage lenders or servicers a loan modification or other relief to avoid foreclosure. The Rule covers companies or individuals, among others, who assist consumers in obtaining approval of a short sale from their lender or servicer.

A short sale occurs when a home is sold for an amount less than the balance owed on the mortgage loan, and the lender or servicer agrees to accept the proceeds of the sale instead of pursuing foreclosure. Short sales can benefit consumers by allowing them to escape from a mortgage that they cannot afford, while avoiding foreclosure. Many real estate professionals assist distressed homeowners by providing both traditional services associated with selling their homes (e.g., listing the property) and working to seek lender or servicer approval of a short sale.
The MARS Rule requires companies offering mortgage assistance relief services to disclose certain information to consumers about the services they provide, bans collection of advance fees, and prohibits false or misleading claims. After the Rule went into effect, a number of real estate professionals who help consumers with short sales raised concerns about complying with the Rule. These professionals pointed out that some of the required disclosures could confuse consumers or could be inaccurate in this context.

At this time, the Commission has announced that it will not enforce most of the provisions of the MARS Rule against real estate professionals who are engaged in obtaining short sales for consumers. The stay applies only to real estate professionals who: 1) are licensed and in good standing under state licensing requirements; 2) comply with state laws governing the practices of real estate professionals; and 3) assist or attempt to assist consumers in obtaining short sales in the course of securing the sales of their homes. The stay exempts real estate professionals who meet these requirements from the obligation to make disclosures and from the ban on collecting advance fees. These professionals, however, remain subject to the Rule’s ban on misrepresentations.

The Commission stated that the stay does not apply to real estate professionals who provide other types of mortgage assistance relief, such as loan modifications. In addition, the FTC will continue to enforce the Rule and Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices, against all other providers of mortgage assistance relief services.

The Commission vote approving the MARS Rule enforcement policy was 5-0. It can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. More information about the Rule can be found here, and information about consumers’ mortgage rights can be found here.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

MEDIA CONTACT:

Mitchell J. Katz, Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2161

STAFF CONTACT:

Evan Zullow or Leah Frazier, Bureau of Consumer Protection 202-326-3224

In fact, consumers who
stop making payments may incur
additional fees and charges and lose
their homes, regardless of whether they
have retained a MARS provider. The
purported benefit of immunity from
foreclosure is material to consumers’
decisions to purchase MARS and
whether to continue making payments
on their mortgages.

On the surface this looks like a win for the investors who lost billions when they bought lousy and in many cases FAKE mortgage backed securities.   But the question for Henry Homeowner who is wrestling with his own mortgage woes is, what does this mean to me?  Will I benefit from this “win”?

I have posted below comments and editorial from Neil Garfield @ LivingLies, Christine Riccardi @ Housing Wire, and a related post from the Subprime Shakeout website.

As far as my take…Let’s see the specific 530 RMBS to which this cases was pointed.  If your mortgage is inside (or was supposed to be inside) one of these allegedly held in Trust by the Bank of New York Mellon then you should have a leg up on BofA, as to your rights as a borrower and BofA as the servicer.  We’ll see.

- The Bank Slayer

NEIL GARFIELD COMMENTS & NOTE: The investors put up the money for the funding of mortgage transactions with BOA and other investment banking operations brokering the deal. Now BOA is about to pay the largest settlement to investors so far. The real question is that if the investors were the real creditors, which they were, then the obligation from borrowers should be prorated downward. If BOA is buying these pools that were never filled it doesn’t mean that the pools gain any more credibility as having the assets claimed for the pool than they had before.

And if BOA wants to move into the shoes of the investors they are faced with the same conundrum that the investors had when they decided to abandon claims against homeowners and seek redress from BOA, to wit: do they really want to move directly into the line of fire of a hail of defenses, affirmative defenses and counterclaims for predatory and fraudulent lending? And is there anyway that they can say that their claim was secured when the loans were never transferred by proper documentation or delivery?

This is a classic PR move for Wall Street. This is a fake scenario in which the true liability is being masked by a friendly deal. They are taking hundreds of billions and probably trillions in liability and attempting to distill it down to what appears to be a large a number but in reality is less than 1% of the total liability. This isn’t the end of it even if they want it to be.

But in the meanwhile, brokers and investors will be hearing what they want to hear and BOA stock will inch up a bit.

The reality is that these bonds are worthless  and always were worthless. Any balance sheet item anywhere is a fake if it is based upon mortgages or mortgage bonds whose value is derived from mortgage loans.

The loans were not originated in a standard contractual manner — the borrower and the lender were shown, and each agreed, to two different sets of documents. They treated the loans as if they were transferred but never actually transferred them. So the mortgage was invalid at inception and even if it wasn’t, is not perfected as a lien. The amount due is clearly effected by these settlements, but more than that, we can see that the investors as creditors have clearly abandoned their claims against the so-called borrowers

Investors, creditors stand to benefit from BofA settlement (Housing Wire)

Posted By CHRISTINE RICCIARDI On June 29, 2011 @ 12:33 pm | No Comments

The $8.5 billion Bank of America (BAC^[1]: 11.14 0.00%) settlement with investors of residential mortgage-backed securities issued by Countrywide Financial Corp., which the banking giant acquired in 2008, will have positive ramifications for both creditors and investors, according to analysts throughout the industry.

Bank of America reached an agreement^[2] with Bank of New York Mellon (BK^[3]: 25.44 0.00%), which served as trustee for 530 RMBS trust with a total balance of $424 billion, to reimburse investors who lost money on failed securities.

Barclays Capital analysts said Countrywide deals and other nonagency RMBS will now be more attractive to investors because of the potential return. For the most part, Barclays said, nonagency investors only assume small benefits from rep-and-warranty-related repurchases.

“A less negative (or positive) development on any of the (housing) issues could help alleviate price pressures,” Barclays said. “We believe the headline housing data will improve in the coming months, roll rates will continue to improve and this news should help nonagency prices.”

Barclays analysts expect cash flow from the settlement will most likely filter into the trusts that represent 226 deals involved in the complaint, thereby benefiting Countrywide cash flows, “as these effectively come in as faster prepays and reduce total losses.” Cash flows on Alt-A securities might hit senior mezzanine and even junior mezzanine loans, Barclays said. Subprime bonds should also benefit.

“Deals as part of the settlement could see a direct benefit of 8 to 10 points of additional cash flow,” analysts said. “Even if we assume that the settlement covers all of Countrywide outstanding ($285 billion), the benefit would be at least three to five points of additional cash flow.”

The $8.5 billion settlement represents about 10.8% of the $79 billion outstanding on the list of Countrywide deals repurchased by BofA. The original balance of all these securities was $179 billion. BofA is paying about 4.8% of that original balance, Barclays said.

Moody’s Investors Service said the settlement, alongside its $5.5 billion reps and warranties payout, reduces BofA’s potential exposure to higher losses under a stress scenario. And while BofA’s earnings will undoubtedly suffer in the second quarter, Moody’s expects the bank’s capital ratios to remain above the same period of 2010.

“The costs incurred are at the high end of the range that Moody’s had previously estimated Bank of America might be required to pay to resolve these matters,” said David Fanger, Moody’s senior vice president. “However, following today’s settlement and the announced addition to reserves, Moody’s believes that (BofA’s) remaining representation and warranty exposures are no longer a negative credit concern.”

On June 2, Moody’s placed the banking giant on review for possible downgrade^[4], saying analysts will evaluate the bank’s standalone financial strength to see if credit-risk improvements were made over the past few years. Moody’s expects the settlement will have positive credit implications.

BofA’s overall liability for Countrywide assets could reach $24 billion, according to Barclays based on the percentage of deals in the settlement. However, other securities could be concentrated in cleaner vintages, Barclays said.

Bank of America’s stock closed at $10.82 Tuesday after word of the settlement leaked. Shares of the component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average opened at $11.15 Wednesday, and activity in BofA is helping push the DJIA toward three days of gains^[5].

Breaking News: BofA Close to Reaching $8.5 bn Settlement with
BlackRock, PIMCO (100th Post)
Posted By igradman On June 29, 2011 (12:10 am)

As part of the Subprime Shakeout’s 100th Post (woo-hoo!), I bring you an analysis of some big, breaking news: today, the Wall Street Journal reported that Bank of America was closing in on an agreement with the
investor group led by Kathy Patrick to pay $8.5 billion to settle claims over mortgage backed securities.  If true, this would be the largest MBS settlement to date arising out of the mortgage crisis.

I first reported on this investor effort back in October 2010.  You can find my initial take here, a link to the demand letter sent by Patrick here, and a link to the response fired off by BofA here.
While we heard early in 2011 that the parties would extend all deadlines while they negotiated, we had heard very little about the progress of these efforts until today.

While the details of the purported settlement are sketchy, the WSJ report states that the current investor group includes 22 institutions, including BlackRock, PIMCO, the New York Fed, MetLife
and Freddie Mac, which collectively hold $56 billion worth of mid-2000s vintage MBS.  Though it did not report on any impending settlement, Bloomberg also published an article today on these
negotiations, and stated that the value of the securities at issue was $84 billion, while the original principal value of the securities was $182 billion.  While it is not entirely clear how these numbers line
up, my best guess is that the investor group holds approximately $56 billion of the $84 billion outstanding.

What’s also unclear is how much of the reduction in the value of the bonds at issue is as a result of pay-downs and prepayments, and how much is as a result of the trusts taking losses on foreclosed properties.  Thus, it is difficult to assess what percentage of potential damages from investor claims is being born by BofA under the settlement.  My initial reaction is that, while the absolute dollar amount sounds large, this settlement is ultimately fairly small compared to the potential damages.

This result would be consistent with the consensus among commentators regarding this investor group, including some of the comments contained in today’s Bloomberg article and my initial take on this effort: namely, the investors involved have significant other business dealings with BofA (a.k.a. conflicts), and thus would not seek an aggressive settlement.  At the same time, BofA has exhibited a growing interest in resolving its legacy RMBS liability, and thus would be interested in entering into a sweetheart settlement with a prominent group of investors that would set a precedential ceiling on future recoveries and discourage other investors from coming forward.

Without seeing the terms of the settlement and the details of the group’s holdings, it’s impossible to know what claims are being released in this settlement and how the proceeds are to be shared. For example, if the group is being paid outside of the trust waterfalls, and thus receiving the entire $8.5 billion, then the investors would actually be recovering much larger proportion of their potential damages (while potentially throwing the other investors who did not participate in the settlement under the bus, either by purporting to release their claims, or by making it impossible for those other investors to gain standing to sue).

However, sources have indicated that the settlement funds will actually be paid into the trust waterfalls.  This would be ostensibly more equitable, in that all bondholders would be entitled to receive a share of the settlement proceeds, depending on their seniority. However, query how equitable it really is for a portion of the bondholders (and most likely the senior portion, since these are primarily institutional investors) to set the settlement amount for the rest of the non-participating bondholders, and to receive the lion’s share of the benefits based on their more senior bond position. Whether the investor group could or would engineer such a settlement remains to be seen.

Regardless, the fact that these investors got any money at all out of the nation’s largest bank, let alone a material dollar amount, might actually encourage other investors to come forward.  A settlement of this size would reveal that BofA’s initial rhetoric, that it would fight these claims tooth and nail until they were forced to pay, was just that–empty rhetoric.  For example, BofA CEO Brian Moynihan stated
during the company’s third quarter 2010 earnings call that, “we will go in and fight this.  It’s worked to our benefit to—we have thousands of people willing to stand and look at every one of these loans.”  Further, this settlement undermines BofA’s recent estimate that the cost of its legacy RMBS putback issues would not exceed $10 billion.  BofA cannot seriously assume that this is the only large investor group with which it will have to tangle over defective Countrywide loans.

The simple truth is that investors have significant amounts of viable repurchase and Securities Act claims stemming from their purchase of Countrywide-issued or originated MBS, and BofA will be forced to confront many additional claims by investors in the coming years.  These additional investors might not have the same level of business dealings with BofA and thus might be willing to take more aggressive steps in pursuing reimbursement for its losses.  In that case, BofA’s strategy of creating a lowball settlement to discourage investors from coming forward might end up backfiring and further eroding the already strained capital on BofA’s balance sheet.

Article taken from The Subprime Shakeout – http://www.subprimeshakeout.com
URL to article:  breaking-news-bofa-close-to-reaching-8-5-bn-settlement-with-blackrock-pimco-100th-post.html

HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY!!

Finally!  Bank of America coughs up $20 million and Saxon another $2.35 millionto members of the military who are victims of wrongful foreclosure actions.

On average, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez said victims in the Saxon case will receive an average of $130,555, while the Countrywide victims will receive about $125,000 each.

He said he hopes that all other servicers “will take a very careful look at these settlement agreements.”

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act provides protections for those military personnel that are deployed away from home.  Specifically prohibiting foreclosure on a servicemember’s home unless there is a court order.

It’s a very simple process for banks to quickly search a database to determine if a borrower is a member of the military and then just follow the rules!  Court orders for foreclosures are routinely and fairly simple to obtain but banks are in such a rush to foreclose that innocent families are caught up in a whirlwind of bank negligence and profiteering.

If you or someone you know is facing a foreclosure or has been wrongly foreclosed upon contact our office today.

– The Bank Slayer

The article below is from the Huffington Post

Improper Military Foreclosures: U.S. Settles With Two Firms [UPDATE]

Amid blistering heat and thunderous bombing in central Iraq during summer 2005, U.S. Army Sgt. James Hurley suddenly found it difficult to reach his wife back home in Michigan.

For four days straight, he called and got a troubling message that the line had been disconnected. Eventually, Hurley tracked her down through his uncle.

“She tells me, ‘We got kicked out of the house, we’re foreclosed,’” Hurley recalled. “I was so pissed off. If it wasn’t for my roommate and my sergeant who was over me, I think I would have gone nuts.”

As his wife removed every stick of furniture from their home, cramming it in her parents’ house and in a nearby garage, Hurley was left to stew halfway around the world. He asked for extra-long shifts and additional mechanic assignments, just to keep his mind off things.

It would be another six months before he could return home to sort out the mess, beginning a years-long court battle with Saxon Mortgage Services over the loss of his home while deployed overseas.

Prompted in part by Hurley’s case, the Justice Department on Thursday announced a $22 million settlement with Saxon and a unit of Bank of America to provide relief to more than 170 active-duty military members who experienced improper foreclosures over the past few years.

Active-duty military are protected by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a law that provides a slew of consumer protection measures designed to protect military personnel from financial distress. Among other things, the law prohibits foreclosure on a servicemember’s home unless there is a court order.

The Government Accountability Office hinted at the investigation in a report earlier this month.

The Justice Department alleged that the Bank of America unit, formerly part of Countrywide Financial, improperly foreclosed on 160 military personnel between January 2006 and May 2009 and didn’t check whether the borrowers were active-duty military.

They also alleged that Saxon Mortgage Services Inc., a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, foreclosed on 17 servicemembers without obtaining court orders.

Bank of America agreed to pay $20 million, and Saxon Mortgage Services, of Fort Worth, Texas, agreed to pay $2.35 million. If additional military members come forward, the companies have agreed to compensate them beyond those amounts.

“I feel quite confident in the thoroughness of the investigation to date,” said Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez. “However, if we identify other victims in the course of our review, or if the servicers identify other victims, we will of course compensate them.”

On average, Perez said victims in the Saxon case will receive an average of $130,555, while the Countrywide victims will receive about $125,000 each.

JPMorgan Chase has also disclosed in recent months that it improperly foreclosed on 18 servicemembers. Perez said he could not comment on other mortgage servicers that the Justice Department may be investigating for violations of military consumer laws.

He said he hopes that all other servicers “will take a very careful look at these settlement agreements.”

A spokesman for Morgan Stanley issued a statement on behalf of Saxon Mortgage Services.

“First and foremost, we want to apologize to those military families that were affected by any mistakes made in the foreclosure process. Our servicemen and women deserve the highest level of customer service. Saxon has taken meaningful steps to ensure it has appropriate policies and procedures in place to comply fully with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.”

Victims identified by the Justice Department included soldiers who returned home severely paralyzed and suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

Hurley settled with Saxon Mortgage Services separately in March, but the Justice Department initiated the investigation in response to his case, Perez said.

For six months after he heard the news in 2005, Hurley was burdened with both the mental strain of a war zone and concerns about the fate of his wife and home on the other side of the world.

Since returning home to Michigan in early 2006, he and his wife have moved into a small cabin where her parents lived.

He did receive some money earlier this year — he couldn’t disclose the amount based on the terms of his settlement — but he said his only real wish was to get his house back.

A longtime handyman, Hurley has done his best to expand the place and make it more comfortable. But after the foreclosure, his prior home of more than a decade remains in the hands of someone else.

“To this day I still don’t understand why,” Hurley reflected. “They took it illegally; why can’t I get it back? I didn’t want any money. All I wanted was my house back.”

He suffers from pinched nerves and major back and neck problems, the result of injuries sustained while driving around in tanks. He has major difficulties hearing out of his right ear.

Hurley said he was happy to hear that others are getting restitution, and he hopes that more come forward.

“These banks know they can’t do it, but they turn around and they do it anyway,” he said. “Because they’re the people who are in power, and they think all the government’s going to do is slap their hands.”

Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial (GMAC) have been (and still are) cheating taxpayers by wrongfully foreclosing and then claiming millions of dollars in reimbursements from HUD, FHA & other governmental bodies for losses on mortgage loans.

Why won’t you let the dog sniff your locker?

As the article below shows, these banksters resist all attempts to uncover the truth about what is really going on behind the curtain – instead offering up billions to sweep the problems under the rug.  Doesn’t that just smell wrong?  Why would anyone offer BILLIONS to just look the other way if you hadn’t done anything wrong?

This just affects the deadbeats who don’t pay their mortgage, right?

A frequent comment we hear is, “Hey those deadbeats that can’t pay their mortgage deserve to be foreclosed.”  Yes, some folks are deadbeats or what we call predatory borrowers but most are not.  Most folks have had life hit them in the mouth and are just looking for some relief.   Many are not looking for a handout and are willing to sell their home and walkaway.

Almost every month we have a family walk into our office, who is CURRENT and not in default but their mortgage account is jacked up.  For instance, they paid their property taxes but the bank paid them as well (erroneously) and now won’t accept their regular mortgage payment unless they also send them money for the mis-paid taxes.   Or how about the military families that were foreclosed while they were deployed overseas – in direct violation of the law.

The article below from the Huffington Post points out the consistent, rampant and willful way in which these large banks enrich themselves not just the expense of the deadbeat or the honest law abiding borrower whose account is jacked up but every tax paying citizen in America.

Whether or not you or someone who you know is struggling with their mortgage situation, the shameful acts of some of the largest banking institutions in America needs to stop.  We all suffer.

- The Bank Slayer

Confidential Federal Audits Accuse Five Biggest Mortgage Firms Of Defrauding Taxpayers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/foreclosure-fraud-audit-false-claims-act_n_862686.html

WASHINGTON — A set of confidential federal audits accuse the nation’s five largest mortgage companies of defrauding taxpayers in their handling of foreclosures on homes purchased with government-backed loans, four officials briefed on the findings told The Huffington Post.

The five separate investigations were conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s inspector general and examined Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial, the sources said.

The audits accuse the five major lenders of violating the False Claims Act, a Civil War-era law crafted as a weapon against firms that swindle the government. The audits were completed between February and March, the sources said. The internal watchdog office at HUD referred its findings to the Department of Justice, which must now decide whether to file charges.

The federal audits mark the latest fallout from the national foreclosure crisis that followed the end of a long-running housing bubble. Amid reports last year that many large lenders improperly accelerated foreclosure proceedings by failing to amass required paperwork, the federal agencies launched their own probes.

The resulting reports read like veritable indictments of major lenders, the sources said. State officials are now wielding the documents as leverage in their ongoing talks with mortgage companies aimed at forcing the firms to agree to pay fines to resolve allegations of routine violations in their handling of foreclosures.

The audits conclude that the banks effectively cheated taxpayers by presenting the Federal Housing Administration with false claims: They filed for federal reimbursement on foreclosed homes that sold for less than the outstanding loan balance using defective and faulty documents.

Two of the firms, including Bank of America, refused to cooperate with the investigations, according to the sources. The audit on Bank of America finds that the company — the nation’s largest handler of home loans — failed to correct faulty foreclosure practices even after imposing a moratorium that lifted last October. Back then, the bank said it was resuming foreclosures, having satisfied itself that prior problems had been solved.

According to the sources, the Wells Fargo investigation concludes that senior managers at the firm, the fourth-largest American bank by assets, broke civil laws. HUD’s inspector general interviewed a pair of South Carolina public notaries who improperly signed off on foreclosure filings for Wells, the sources said.

The investigations dovetail with separate probes by state and federal agencies, who also have examined foreclosure filings and flawed mortgage practices amid widespread reports that major mortgage firms improperly initiated foreclosure proceedings on an unknown number of American homeowners.

The FHA, whose defaulted loans the inspector general probed, last May began scrutinizing whether mortgage firms properly treated troubled borrowers who fell behind on payments or whose homes were seized on loans insured by the agency.

A unit of the Justice Department is examining faulty court filings in bankruptcy proceedings. Several states, including Illinois, are combing through foreclosure filings to gauge the extent of so-called “robo-signing” and other defective practices, including illegal home repossessions.

Representatives of HUD and its inspector general declined to comment.

The internal audits have armed state officials with a powerful new weapon as they seek to extract what they describe as punitive fines from lawbreaking mortgage companies.

A coalition of attorneys general from all 50 states and state bank supervisors have joined HUD, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission in talks with the five largest mortgage servicers to settle allegations of illegal foreclosures and other shoddy practices.

Such processes “have potentially infected millions of foreclosures,” Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair told a Senate panel on Thursday.

The five giant mortgage servicers, which collectively handle about three of every five home loans, offered during a contentious round of negotiations last Tuesday to pay $5 billion to set up a fund to help distressed borrowers and settle the allegations.

That offer — also floated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in February — was deemed much too low by state and federal officials. Associate U.S. Attorney General Tom Perrelli, who has been leading the talks, last week threatened to show the banks the confidential audits so the firms knew the government side was not “playing around,” one official involved in the negotiations said. He ultimately did not follow through, persuaded that the reports ought to remain confidential, sources said. Through a spokeswoman, Perrelli declined to comment.

Most of the targeted banks have not seen the audits, a federal official said, though they are generally aware of the findings.

Some agencies involved in the talks are calling for the five banks to shell out as much as $30 billion, with even more costs to be incurred for improving their internal operations and modifying troubled borrowers’ home loans.

But even that number would fall short of legitimate compensation for the bank’s harmful practices, reckons the nascent federal Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. By taking shortcuts in processing troubled borrowers’ home loans, the nation’s five largest mortgage firms have directly saved themselves more than $20 billion since the housing crisis began in 2007, according to a confidential presentation prepared for state attorneys general by the agency and obtained by The Huffington Post in March. Those pushing for a larger package of fines argue that the foreclosure crisis has spawned broader — and more costly — social ills, from the dislocation of American families to the continued plunge in home prices, effectively wiping out household savings.

The Justice Department is now contemplating whether to use the HUD audits as a basis for civil and criminal enforcement actions, the sources said. The False Claims Act allows the government to recover damages worth three times the actual harm plus additional penalties.

Justice officials will soon meet with the largest servicers and walk them through the allegations and potential liability each of them face, the sources said.

Earlier this month, Justice cited findings from HUD investigations in a lawsuit it filed against Deutsche Bank AG, one of the world’s 10 biggest banks by assets, for at least $1 billion for defrauding taxpayers by “repeatedly” lying to FHA in securing taxpayer-backed insurance for thousands of shoddy mortgages.

In March, HUD’s inspector general found that more than 49 percent of loans underwritten by FHA-approved lenders in a sample did not conform to the agency’s requirements.

Last October, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said his investigators found that numerous mortgage firms broke the agency’s rules when dealing with delinquent borrowers. He declined to be specific.

The agency’s review later expanded to flawed foreclosure practices. FHA, a unit of HUD, could still take administrative action against those firms for breaking FHA rules based on its own probe.

The confidential findings appear to bolster state and federal officials in their talks with the targeted banks. The knowledge that they may face False Claims Act suits, in addition to state actions based on a multitude of claims like fraud on local courts and consumer violations, will likely compel the banks to offer the government more money to resolve everything.

But even that may not be enough.

Attorneys general in numerous states, armed with what they portray as incontrovertible evidence of mass robo-signings from preliminary investigations, are probing mortgage practices more closely.

The state of Illinois has begun examining potentially-fraudulent court filings, looking at the role played by a unit of Lender Processing Services. Nevada and Arizona already launched lawsuits against Bank of America. California is keen on launching its own suits, people familiar with the matter say. Delaware sent Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., which runs an electronic registry of mortgages, a subpoena demanding answers to 75 questions. And New York’s top law enforcer, Eric Schneiderman, wants to conduct a complete investigation into all facets of mortgage banking, from fraudulent lending to defective securitization practices to faulty foreclosure documents and illegal home seizures.

A review of about 2,800 loans that experienced foreclosure last year serviced by the nation’s 14 largest mortgage firms found that at least two of them illegally foreclosed on the homes of “almost 50″ active-duty military service members, a violation of federal law, according to a report this month from the Government Accountability Office.

Those violations are likely only a small fraction of the number committed by home loan companies, experts say, citing the small sample examined by regulators.

In an April report on flawed mortgage servicing practices, federal bank supervisors said they “could not provide a reliable estimate of the number of foreclosures that should not have proceeded.”

The review of just 2,800 home loans in foreclosure compares with nearly 2.9 million homes that received a foreclosure filing last year, according to RealtyTrac, a California-based data provider.

“The extent of the loss cannot be determined until there is a comprehensive review of the loan files and documentation of the process dealing with problem loans,” Bair said last week, warning of damages that could take “years to materialize.”

Home prices have fallen over the past year, reversing gains made early in the economic recovery, according to data providers Zillow.com and CoreLogic. Sales of new homes remain depressed, according to the Commerce Department. More than a quarter of homeowners with a mortgage owe more on that debt than their home is worth, according to Zillow.com. And more than 2 million homes are in foreclosure, according to Lender Processing Services.

Rather than punishing banks for misdeeds, the administration is now focused on helping troubled borrowers in the hope that it will stanch the flood of foreclosures and increase consumer confidence, officials involved in the negotiations said.

Levying penalties can’t accomplish that goal, an official involved in the foreclosure probe talks argued last week.

For their part, however, state officials want to levy fines, according to a confidential term sheet reviewed last week by HuffPost. Each state would then use the money as it desires, be it for facilitating short sales, reducing mortgage principal, or using the funds to help defaulted borrowers move from their homes into rentals.

In a report last week, analysts at Moody’s Investors Service predicted that while the losses incurred by the banks will be “sizable,” the credit rating agency does “not expect them to meaningfully impact capital.”

************************* Shahien Nasiripour is a senior business reporter for The Huffington Post.

Strange but true…bank AND attorney fraud.   No surprise either that AHMSI is named!

It’s bizarre but, it turns out, Wall Street cut corners when it created those mortgage-backed investments that triggered the financial collapse. Now that banks want to evict people, they’re unwinding these exotic investments to find, that often, the legal documents behind the mortgages aren’t there. Caught in a jam of their own making, some companies appear to be resorting to forgery and phony paperwork to throw people – down on their luck – out of their homes.

Names such as:
Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. , American Home Mortgage Servicing, Docx, LLC, Florida Default Law Group, Law Offices of David Stern, Law Offices of Marshall Watson, Lender Processing Services, Inc., Shapiro & Fishman Law Firm

Action Date: April 4, 2011
Location: West Palm Beach, FL

On April 3, 2011, CBS’ 60 MINUTES aired a segment showing massive fraud by banks and mortgage-backed trusts in foreclosures. The segment focused on one particular document mill, Docx, LLC, owned by Lender Processing Services, Inc., a company that works for over 51 banks. One former employee confessed to forging 4,000 documents each day.

What mortgage servicing companies used the Docx forged documents in hundreds of thousands of cases?

The major mortgage servicer involved was American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. in Coppell, TX. Other mortgage servicers that used forged documents from LPS include Saxon Mortgage Services in Fort Worth, TX and Select Portfolio Servicing in Salt Lake city, Utah.

What bank/trustees most often used the Docx forged documents in foreclosures?

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Citibank and Bank of America were the top five users of these forged documents, but other banks were also involved.

American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. knew about the forgeries, but never disclosed to courts or homeowners their widespread use of forged documents.

In thousands of cases across the country, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company continues to push these documents upon the courts as proof that they own mortgages and have the right to foreclose, despite overwhelming evidence and even admissions of forgeries.

These servicing companies and bank need to begin the process of admissions, disclosures and reparations.

What law firms pushed and continue to push these fraudulent documents upon Courts and homeowners?

In Florida, the firms that used these documents and continue to use these documents are: Law Offices of David Stern; Florida Default Law Group; Law Offices of Marshall Watson; Shapiro & Fishman Law Firm and Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. Lawyers who used and continue to use these Docx forgeries in court should, at a minimum, lose the right to practice law.

The government focus must be on protecting the rights of homeowners and shareholders and the court system and holding the banks and securities companies accountable.

60 Minutes – Lender Fraud

The letter below shows EXACTLY how the banks and their lawyers try to twist the facts and scare homeowners as well as consumer advocates into accepting their lies.   The blogs referenced in this response letter are credible and valuable in the foreclosure defense arena.

Statements like: “A paralegal at the now defunct law firm of David Sterns gave a deposition to the Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum’s Office indicating that virtually every affidavit, assignment, or other sworn document coming out of the firm was faked.” show that once the rocks are overturned the light is shown on the fraud happening in the foreclosure mills.

Read and enjoy.  EXCELLENT REPONSE!

- The Bank Slayer

posted at http://4closurefraud.org/author/4closurefraud/

SAVE MY HOME LAW GROUP
3601 WEST COMMERCIAL BLVD., SUITE 16
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309
TEL:  954-677-8888; FAX: 954-677-8881
CAROL C ASBURY, SENIOR ATTORNEY

March 30, 2011

Michael B. Colgan
GLENN RASMUSSEN FOGARTY & HOOKER
100 South Ashley Drive
Suite 1300
Tampa, Florida 33607

RE:  Cease and Desist Demand Letter to Lisa Epstein dated March 14, 2011

Dear Attorney Colgan:

Please be advised that this Law Firm has been retained to represent Lisa Epstein regarding your Cease and Desist Letter to Lisa Epstein dated March 14, 2011 seeking to silence Lisa Epstein regarding matters of great public interest in order to discourage debate on these important issues of public concern directly impacting and complicating the foreclosure crisis in Florida.

My first concern with regard to your letter is that you state that your Office is counsel to Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. (“NTC”) but your Office seems to be seeking redress concerning individuals who are employees of NTC but who are not represented by your law firm.  For instance, the first example involving Crystal Moore does not even mention your client, NTC, yet your Office insist that Lisa Epstein remove this very old posting (September 20, 2010) directing her attention to an Order by Sarasota Circuit Judge Rick DeFuria enjoining Christopher Forrest and The Forrest Law Firm, implying that the Judge’s Temporary Injunction somehow applies to her and her blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org Not only is the Judge’s Order not directed at her or her blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org but you failed to inform her that on or about December 10, 2010 that Order was appealed by the ACLU, who is representing Christopher Forrest and The Forrest Law Firm, to the Second District Court, which places its viability in question.

I would note that these videotaped depositions can be found in a number of places on the internet including some State Governmental sites.  Furthermore, posting a third party article directing people to a YouTube site is not defamation nor can it be considered “posting, publishing, disseminating, or maintaining materials” related to those depositions.  All of which is done on YouTube.

In fact, in a letter to the Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Canady, Howard Simon, ACLU of Florida, Executive Direct said, “Putting the videotaped depositions of ‘Robosigners’ on YouTube give the world an opportunity to see how the practices of Banks and Title Companies are affecting homeowners facing financial problems.  This is a public service that shouldn’t be subject to a court imposed gag order.”  This Letter was co-signed by the Florida Association of Broadcasters, Florida Society of News Editors, Florida Press Association, Florida Times-Union Newspaper, and the First Amendment Foundation.  More information can be found at a site that my Office sponsors, www.4closurefraud.org, authored by Michael Redman.

Example two in your letter is an objection to Attorney Lynn Szymoniak’s summary of Brian Bly’s deposition.  Now if summarizing the sworn testimony or statements of an individual is actionable then every newspaper and newsroom needs to be shut down immediately.  The public would instantly be cast into the dark ages – a time when a few powerful individuals attempted to control the people by keeping the masses in ignorance.  As with Example one, NTC is not even mentioned, with the exception that example two indicates that Brian Bly is employed by Nationwide Title Clearing.   However, your letter adds the additional information that, in your legal opinion, it is not legally improper for NTC to direct Brian Bly to sign documents as an officer of over 20 banks although Mr. Bly has no knowledge of what he is signing or the contents of the assignments.   In other words, your letter admits that he just “robo signs” documents put in front of him because NTC directs him to do it.

Since your are being so open an honest, I will also be open and honest.  I have in my office sworn Affidavits – not assignments – signed by both Crystal Moore and Brian Bly.  Based on your candid statement, I can surmise that Crystal Moore and Brian Bly sign these affidavits without any knowledge of the contents because they are directed by NTC to sign these documents as an officer of over 20 banks.  Does your Law Firm find this policy regarding sworn Affidavits also legally permissible?

It may be your legal opinion that your clients do not need to read the documents that they sign but, in my legal opinion, I inform all my clients to read and understand everything that they sign; especially, if that document is going to be recorded in the county records and used in a court of law as evidence.  Moreover, if – as you state – “the signer is not required to read them before signing” – then how do you, as the attorney for NTC, know that Crystal Moore and Brian Bly only signed Assignments since “not reading” a document means, by definition, that neither of them knows what kind of document they signed – whether it be an Assignment, Lost Note Affidavit, Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment, Satisfaction of Mortgage or any other document – because neither of them had any knowledge of the contents of the documents that they signed.  To use your phrase, “I am sure you know” that both Crystal Moore and Brian Bly signed sworn Affidavits of all kinds.

By Mr Bly’s own admission, he signed 5000 documents a day in batches of 200.  Assuming an 8 hour day, Mr. Bly  would have had to sign over 600 documents every hour or 10 documents every minute.  Mr. Bly accomplished this feat by not reading the documents, which prevents him from having any knowledge of the content of the document or what type of document he was signing.  I am sure he did not even care what he was signing as his job was signing – not reading, understanding, or knowing.   As pointed out in Example 3, the document signed is a Satisfaction of Mortgage – not an Assignment of Mortgage.  To sign a Satisfaction of Mortgage, Mr. Bly would have to have some knowledge of whether or not the mortgage was in fact paid off.  However, he was not reading the documents he signed, which, of course, begs the questions – Was the mortgage really satisfied?

Example 4, relates to Crystal Moore and Brian Bly signing Affidavits and Example 5 relates to a question posted by a reader of www.foreclosurehamlet.org regarding another employee of NTC, Mary Jo McGowan.   Although you state that these statements are false and materially misleading, you don’t explain your statement.  In my legal opinion, a person who signs an Affidavit swearing to facts set forth therein without any personal knowledge of those facts is making a false statement.  It is fraud on the Court to utilize such fraudulent affidavits as evidence in a court of law.  One law firm has, this very week, agreed to pay a paltry $2 Million in fines to Florida regarding the filing of such false affidavits and paper work.  I guess that the Attorney General’s Office in Florida is seeking to hold someone “accountable” for these “sworn false statements.”

Twice you make the rather amazing statement that my client “knows” that NTC has duly executed resolutions or power of attorney for the financial institutions for which its employees executed assignments.  Need I point out that my client does NOT “know” anything of the sort.  I have been practicing in this area of the law (Mortgage Defense Law) since early 2008 and I have never seen such a resolution or power of attorney.  So not even I know anything about “resolutions” or “power of attorneys” authorizing Mr. Bly, Ms. Moore, or anybody else to sign for any bank, lender or financial institution.  Since these resolutions you mention deal only with “assignments”, can I assume that there are not resolutions authorizing the signing of Affidavits, Satisfactions of Mortgages, or other sworn statements, which have been filed in courts throughout Florida?

Your statement that such confidential resolutions or power of attorneys exists secretly, hidden from view, is meaningless, pointless, and not trustworthy.  For example, you provide a copy of a three year old, November 20, 2008 “Unanimous Written Consent of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of Citi Residential Lending Inc.” which is neither “unanimous”, as it is signed by only two out of three people, nor does it authorize the signing of any and all assignments no matter what State or legal case the assignments relates.  Half the resolution seems to be missing. (See, Page 2).  Its not authenticated – but just a copy.  Its old.  I have no idea if Sanjiv Das and Paul R. Ince have really signed this alleged resolution or are authorized to sign this resolution.  The resolution “specifically” relates to something happening in Colorado, not Florida.  The resolution is not even valid until NTC executes an Indemnity Agreement.  Who knows if NTC executed this Indemnity Agreement.  Since this alleged resolution is no longer confidential, can I assume that your Law Office will be making all these “confidential” resolutions or power of attorneys available for discovery should your Client decide to sue my Client?

Again your letter states that these duly-executed corporate resolutions or powers of attorney allows the employees of NTC to execute assignments only. Again, can I assume that there are no secret, confidential resolutions or power of attorneys granting the employees of NTC the right to sign sworn affidavits, satisfactions of mortgages, or other sworn statements? If that is true, as you imply, then any Affidavit, Satisfaction of Mortgage, or sworn statements signed by Mr. Bly, Ms. Moore or other employees of NTC are, consequently, legally invalid.

Now let me tell you a little bit about Lisa Epstein and her blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org.  The blog specifically states that it is for “Supporting, Informing, & Connecting People in Foreclosure.”  The blog posts every day the latest news in this very important public interest subject of foreclosure and foreclosure fraud.  This area is of such importance that the ACLU has become involved in Florida due to the blatant violations of Floridian’s constitutional due process rights.  The Florida Attorney General is actively investigating several law firms for filing false affidavits and false documents in the courts.  A paralegal at the now defunct law firm of David Sterns gave a deposition to the Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum’s Office indicating that virtually every affidavit, assignment, or other sworn document coming out of the firm was faked.  All these issues and many, many more are tracked on Lisa Epstein’s blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org.

On a daily basis, Lisa Epstein’s blog provides its readers with up to date information and news regarding events surrounding Foreclosures; including, but not limited to changes in the court administrative rules and recent rulings from Judges throughout Florida.  The Blog receives over 3,000 hits every day from people seeking information on this vitally important area of public importance in Florida.  In short, www.foreclosurehamlet.org receives approximately 100,000 hits per month.  Every day the number of hits increase.

Lisa Epstein’s name is known even in Tallahassee.  Recently she was one of the leaders in the Rally to Tally where she traveled with two bus loads of fellow advocates to Tallahassee to protest the new attempts to cut short the due process rights of homeowners in Florida.  There in Tallahassee, she met with representatives of the Attorney General’s Office as well as members of the State Legislator regarding bills presently pending before the House of Representatives and State Senate.

Lisa Epstein has been named the Homeowners Advocate by the Palm Beach Post.  In December, 2010, Florida Trend named Lisa Epstein and Michael Redman the Florida News-makers of the Year for 2010.

Lisa Epstein and Michael Redman have assisted the Florida Attorney General’s Office in investigating and providing evidence of the the fraudulent documents that have been filed in the county records and in different courts throughout the States.  Both Lisa Epstein’s, www.foreclosurehamlet.org, and Michael Redman’s, www.4closurefraud.org, investigative journalism have been responsible for exposing how different signatures appear for the same robosigners, how the banks have filed two blue ink notes, and exposed all the different kinds of fraudulent affidavits, assignments of mortgages, and other fraudulent documents have been filed in the courts and in the county records.  Lisa Epstein and Michael Redman have investigated and reported on many issues that are now in the forefront of newspapers and the nightly news.  In addition, both web blogs are considered the two most important sites for seeking information in this most critical area for Floridians who are losing their homes and their finances.  Without a doubt, Lisa Epstein’s blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org, concentrates on gathering, selecting, and preparing, for purposes of publication to a mass audience, information about current events of interest and concern to her audience  — specifically, “Supporting, Informing & Connecting People in Foreclosure.”

It is well settled law that Lisa Epstein is entitled to the protections provided by the First Amendment with respect to the freedom of free speech.  In addition to her investigative work, Lisa Epstein’s  republishes articles picked up from other new sources, blogs or internet news sites.  In the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971), the federal government sought to enjoin The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing a stolen classified documents on United State decision-making policy in Vietnam.  The documents contained highly classified information that presumably threatened national security.  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that even those threats to important governmental interests could not overcome the established presumption against prior restraint on speech.  It is a “hallowed First Amendment principle that the press shall not be subjected to prior restraints.”

Moreover, the activities of Brian Bly and Crystal Moore have made them infamous throughout the United States.  These two names are well-known.  Whether Brian Bly or Crystal Moore intended the notoriety, these two people – along with many others – have become famous and will be forever linked to the name “robosigner”.  Consequently, any defamation action will need to meet a higher standard to state a cause of action.

My client will not waive her First Amendment Rights which protect and guarantees the full and uninhibited discussion of the vitally important public issues surrounding foreclosure litigation in Florida; especially since there has been no statements that can be reasonably interpreted as stating false and defamatory facts about Mr. Bly or Crystal Moore or NTC reputations, which may warrant stifling the First Amendment rights to public debate.  The First Amendment guarantees a full and uninhibited discussion of public issues.  In the arena of public discussion, differing views may be voiced within the established limits of verbal discord or rhetorical hyperbole’, and even offensive utterance, without violating the law of defamation; especially, where such statements cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual’s reputation.   The public has a right to weigh all the facts in arriving at conclusions related to any individual who signs for companies he or she is not employed with or who swears to facts in affidavits where the individual admittedly has no personal knowledge.    Fifty States are now investigating these activities.  The Florida Bar has now stated that lawyers may loose their Florida Bar licenses over filing such false and fraudulent paper work in the courts.

To the extent that your Law Firm does not represent the individuals you seek redress for, my client declines to comply with your demand letter to abridge her Constitutional Right guaranteed under the First Amendment in favor of demands your Law Firm has no legal right to make.  With regard to NTC, you letter simply refers to “implications” you have drawn from statements your Law Firm have interpreted as being defamatory to the reputation of NTC.  My client declines to accept those interpretations; therefore, she will continue to exercise her Constitutional Rights of free speech.

As far as Matthew Weidner’s actions with regard to NTC’s law suit, he has chosen the higher ground and the better fight.  His energy is better served in the court room and not being drawn off into some legal battle that draws his attention away from the real battle.  On the other hand, my client, Lisa Epstein, is an advocate for the People of Florida and her arena is the public.  Her strengths are in her First Amendment rights as a journalist and an Advocate.  That is why your letter and this response will be posted on her Blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org, as well as, www.4closurefraud.org.

Sincerely,

Carol C Asbury
Senior Attorney