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.

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

Citing the need to protect borrowers from mortgage payments that potentially balloon out of control, Fannie Mae is putting forward new standards for the purchase and securitization of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products.

Why stop now?  You have unlimited U.S. taxpayer money.   Everyone NEEDS to have a home.  More loans, more loans, more loans.  A mortgage loan in every pot.  Say it together.

Bottom Line:  Until homeowners are educated on the true and total cost of home ownership AND brokers stop gouging folks, a tweak here or there will be countered by lenders needing to make a fast buck and will continue to dupe borrowers.

- The Bank Slayer

Fannie Modifies Criteria for Purchase and Securitization of ARMs

Citing the need to protect borrowers from mortgage payments that potentially balloon out of control, Fannie Mae (FNM ^[1]: 1.22 -3.17%) is putting forward new standards for the purchase and securitization of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products. The government sponsored entity is also tweaking its rules on interst0only products.

“There is no trust in this business” said the foreclosure trustee.  Scary huh?  This isn’t some fictional story.  This is real life in Harris County, Houston, Texas.

Recently, members of our team confronted the Trustee that was about to auction off the homestead of one of our clients.  In our hand was the Temporary Restraining Order, the ink still wet from a Judge’s signature; effectively stopping the foreclosure sale and saving this home owner.

When the TRO was handed to the Trustee he feigned surprise and acted as if he didn’t care one way or another if some local Judge had ordered the foreclosure sale to stop.  Why? He was on a mission for the bank or possible his buddies.  Sell the house.

As he glanced at the TRO our team said, “I guess that’s all you need.”  The Trustee’s retort, “You going to stick around to see if I still sell the house?”   Incredulously we said, “I trust you’re going to follow the Judge’s order.”  His curt reply, “There is no trust in this business.”

Amazing huh?   Sadly this Trustee who is supposed to sell a home to the highest bidder and show impartiality between the bank and the homeowner is untrustworthy.

Just take a trip down to the foreclosure auctions.  You’ll quickly see that homeowners are getting the shaft.

We have witnessed trustees high fiving each other after clearing the sale board.  why? Not a single house sold to a third party buyer, in other words they bid back every house to the bank.

Bottom Line: You can’t trust the trustee.  Want another example…read on below.

- The Bank Slayer

Department of Justice Press Release – Stockton Real Estate Executive Pleads Guilty to Bid Rigging at Auctions of Foreclosed Properties

For Immediate Release
April 16, 2010 United States Attorney’s Office
Eastern District of California
Contact: (916) 554-2700
From Dan Edstrom:

Stockton Real Estate Executive Pleads Guilty to Bid Rigging at Auctions of Foreclosed Properties

SACRAMENTO, CA—United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner and Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division announced today that Anthony B. Ghio, 43, of Stockton, pleaded guilty today before United States District Judge Edward J. Garcia to conspiring to rig bids at public real estate foreclosure auctions held in San Joaquin County.

These charges arose from an ongoing federal antitrust investigation of fraud and bidding irregularities in certain real estate auctions in San Joaquin County. The investigation is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California, the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office.

According to Assistant United States Attorneys Robin R. Taylor and Russell L. Carlberg, who are prosecuting the case with assistance from Barbara Nelson and Richard Cohen of the Antitrust Division, Ghio admitted in his guilty plea that he conspired with a group of real estate speculators who agreed not to bid against each other at certain public real estate foreclosure auctions in San Joaquin County. The primary purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition and obtain selected real estate offered at San Joaquin County public foreclosure auctions at noncompetitive prices.

Court documents show that after the conspirators’ designated bidder bought a property at a public auction, they would hold a second private auction. Each participating conspirator would submit bids in the private auction above the public auction price. The conspirator who bid the highest amount at the end of the private auction won the property. The difference between the noncompetitive price at the public auction and the winning bid at the second auction was the group’s illicit profit, and it was divided among the conspirators in payoffs. Ghio participated in the bid-rigging scheme from April 2009 until October 2009.

Ghio is charged with bid rigging, a violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victim of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory sentencing factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.

The investigation is continuing. Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to real estate foreclosure auctions should contact the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office at 415-436-6660 or visithttp://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm, or the FBI’s Sacramento Division at 916-481-9110, or the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California at 916-554-2900.

Media inquiries to the U.S. Attorney’s Office should be directed to Lauren Horwood at 916-554-2706. Media inquiries regarding the department’s Antitrust Division should be directed to Gina Talamona at 202-514-2007.

This law enforcement action is part of President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.

IndyMac is a shady operation.  One of our staff used to be on the inside working against homeowners but (in my words…turned his life around) and now battles for home owners.

He tells tales of “being trained” on programs like HAMP and seeing blacked out sections.   When he asked why IndyMac (now OneWest) redacted the HAMP training guidebook, his supervisor told him, “We don’t agree with those parts so you won’t be trained on them since we aren’t going to implement  it.”   Nice huh?

As a REALTOR you wonder, “Why don’t these banks follow the rules set out to help homeowners, like HAMP and HAFA?”  Because:

#1 they are guidelines, not laws.

#2 they don’t care and do what they want.

If you have an account or mortgage with what was IndyMac, below is info relating to what happened and supposedly who you can contact.   Thanks to Neil Garfield.   The mortgage companies have MERS.  He’s building HERS.      Stay tuned.

- The Bank Slayer

Information for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., and IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena,

Introduction

1. Press Release
2. Acquiring Financial Institution
3. Question and Answer Sheet
   • En Español
   • Chinese Language Version (350 kb PDF File PDF Help)
4. Banking Services
5. Loan Customers
6. Unclaimed Deposits
7. Possible Claims Against The Failed Institution
   • FAQ re IndyMac “No Value” Determination
8. Priority of Claims
9. Dividend Information
10. Brokered Deposits (Institutional Brokers)
11. Agreements
    • Purchase and Assumption Agreement (1.1 mb PDF File – PDF Help)
    • Master Purchase Agreement by and among FDIC as Conservator for IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB and IMB HoldCo LLC, and OneWest Bank Group LLC (5.3 mb PDF File – PDF Help)
    • Loan Sale Agreement Between the FDIC as Receiver for IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB and OneWest Bank, FSB (3.5 mb PDF File –PDF Help)
    • Shared Loss Agreement Between the FDIC as Receiver for IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB and OneWest Bank, FSB (1.7 mb PDF File – PDF Help)
12. IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Contact Information
    JavaScript is disabled or blocked. Alternatively, you may navigate towww2.fdic.gov/drrip/cs/index.asp and search for the contacts.
13. Balance Sheet Summary

I.  IntroductionOn March 19, 2009, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) completed the sale of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, Pasadena, California, to OneWest Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena, California.  OneWest Bank, FSB is a newly formed  federal savings bank organized by IMB HoldCo LLC.  All deposits of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB have been transferred to OneWest Bank, FSB.OnJuly 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena, CA was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the FDIC was named Conservator.  All non-brokered insured deposit accounts and substantially all of the assets of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. have been transferred to IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. (IndyMac Federal Bank), Pasadena, CA “assuming institution”) a newly chartered full-service FDIC-insured institution.  No advance notice is given to the public when a financial institution is closed.

The FDIC has assembled useful information regarding your relationship with this institution.  Besides a checking account, you may have Certificates of Deposit, a car loan, a business checking account, a commercial loan, a Social Security direct deposit, and other relationships with the institution.  The FDIC has compiled the following information which should answer many of your questions.Back to top

II.  Press Release The FDIC has issued the following press releases (PR-56-2008, PR-42-2009) about the institution’s closure.  If you represent a media outlet and would like information about the closure, in California, please contactDavid Barr with the Office of Public Affairs at 202-898-6992, in Washington D.C. please contact Andrew Gray at 202-898-7192. Back to top

III.  Acquiring Financial InstitutionOn March 19, 2009, all deposits of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB were transferred to OneWest Bank, FSB, (OneWest Bank) Pasadena, California.On July 11, 2008, all non-brokered insured deposit accounts were transferred to IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. (IndyMac Federal Bank), Pasadena, CA (“assuming institution”) a newly chartered full-service FDIC-insured institution.  The OTS appointed the FDIC conservator of IndyMac Federal Bank.  All insured deposit accounts will be available as usual during regular business hours starting July 14, 2008.

Principal and interest on insured accounts, through July 11, 2008, are fully insured by the FDIC, up to the insurance limit of $100,000.  You will receive full payment for your insured account.  Certain entitlements and different types of accounts can be insured for more than the $100,000 limit.  IRA funds are insured separately from other types of accounts, up to a $250,000 limit.

All accounts that exceed the $100,000 insurance limit, and/or all accounts that appear to be related and exceed this limit, are reviewed by the FDIC to determine their ownership and insurance coverage.  If you think you might have uninsured deposits you should call the FDIC Call Center to arrange for a telephone interview with  a Claims Agent at 866-806-5919. The Claim Agent may direct you to download and submit a particular form that will assist in expediting the processing of your claim.

List of Affidavits, Declarations, and Forms available for download

Please return the forms to the FDIC by FAX (facsimile) or mail at the number or address listed for the failed institution.

If it is determined that you have uninsured funds, the FDIC will generate and mail to you a Receiver Certificate.  This certificate entitles you to share proportionately in any funds recovered through the disposal of the assets of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.  This means that you will eventually recover some of your uninsured funds.  The FDIC declared a 50% advance dividend for uninsured deposits.To find out more about FDIC Deposit Insurance:

• Visit EDIE the FDIC’s Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator
• View the FDIC Deposit Insurance Coverage Video

Checks that were drawn on IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. will be honored up to your available balance or the insured amount.  You may withdraw funds from any transferred account without an early withdrawal penalty until you enter into a new deposit agreement with IndyMac Federal Bank.  A hold may be in place on deposits accounts due to delinquent loans where the depositor is the borrower or guarantor.  Additionally, any account pledged as collateral for a loan will be held.Back to top

V.  Banking ServicesOn March 19, 2009 there was no break in services.As ofJuly 14, 2008 you may continue to use the services to which you previously had access, such as, online service, safe deposit boxes, night deposit boxes, wire services, etc.

Your checks will be processed as usual.  All outstanding checks will be paid against your available insured balance(s) as if no change had occurred.  IndyMac Federal Bank will contact you soon regarding any changes in the terms of your account.  If you have a problem with a merchant refusing to accept your check, please contact IndyMac Federal Bank, Customer Service Department, at 800-998-2900.  An account representative will clear up any confusion about the validity of your checks.

All interest accrued through Friday, will be paid at your same rate.  IndyMac Federal Bank will be reviewing rates and will provide further information soon.  You will be notified of any changes.

Your automatic direct deposit(s) and/or automatic withdrawal(s) will be transferred automatically to IndyMac Federal Bank.  If you have any questions or special requests, you may contact a representative of your assuming institution at 800-998-2900. Back to top

VI.  Loan Customers If you had a loan with IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., you should continue to make your payments as usual.  The terms of your loan will not change under the terms of the loan contract because they are contractually agreed to your promissory note with the failed institution.  Checks should be made payable as usual and sent to the same address until further notice.For all questions regarding new loans and the lending policies of IndyMac Federal Bank, please contact 800-998-2900 or visit the IndyMac Federal Bank website atwww.IndyMac.com. Back to top

VII.  Unclaimed Deposits Please note that any deposits that have not been claimed within 18 months of the failure of Indymac Bank was sent to the FDIC by One West Bank. If the FDIC is unable to locate the deposit customer, the unclaimed funds will eventually be escheated to the state or according to Federal Law (12 U.S.C., 1822(e)).

Back to top

VIII.  Possible Claims Against the Failed InstitutionDetermination of Insufficient Assets To Satisfy Claims Against Financial Institution in Receivership

SUMMARY: The FDIC, by its Board of Directors, has determined that insufficient assets exist in the receivership of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena, California and the receivership of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, Pasadena, California to make any distribution to general unsecured claims, and therefore such claims will recover nothing and have no value.

DATES: The Board made its determination on November 12, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions regarding this notice, contact Thomas P. Bolt, Counsel, Legal Division, (703) 562–2046 ortbolt@fdic.gov; Shane Kiernan, Senior Attorney, Legal Division, (703) 562–2632 or skiernan@fdic.gov,

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena, California (‘‘IndyMac Bank’’) (FIN # 10007) was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (‘‘FDIC’’) was appointed as its receiver. In complying with its statutory duty to resolve the institution in the method that is least costly to the deposit insurance fund (see 12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)), the FDIC effected a pass-through receivership. Accordingly, the FDIC organized IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, Pasadena, California (‘‘IndyMac Federal’’), a new federal savings bank for which the FDIC was appointed as conservator. IndyMac Bank’s assets were transferred to IndyMac Federal under an agreement whereby the amount (if any) realized from the final resolution of IndyMac Federal after payment in full of IndyMac Federal’s obligations was to be paid to the IndyMac Bank receivership. On March 19, 2009, IndyMac Federal was placed in receivership and substantially all of its assets were sold. The amount realized from the resolution of IndyMac Federal is insufficient to pay all of its liabilities, and therefore there will be no amount to pay to the IndyMac Bank receivership.Section 11(d)(11)(A) of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11)(A), sets forth the order of priority for distribution of amounts realized from the liquidation or other resolution of an insured depository institution to pay claims. Under the statutory order of priority, administrative expenses and deposit liabilities must be paid in full before any distribution may be made to general unsecured creditors or any lower priority claims. The FDIC has determined that the assets of IndyMac Bank are insufficient to make any distribution on general unsecured claims and therefore, such claims, asserted or unasserted, will recover nothing and have no value. The FDIC has also determined that the assets of IndyMac Federal are insufficient to make any distribution on general unsecured claims and therefore, such claims, asserted or unasserted, will recover nothing and have no value. //

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 18, 2009 / Notices59541

FAQ re IndyMac “No Value” Determination Back to top

IX.  Priority of ClaimsIn accordance with Federal law, allowed claims will be paid, after administrative expenses, in the following order of priority:

Depositors

General Unsecured Creditors

Subordinated Debt

Stockholders

Back to top

X.  Dividend Information When IndyMac was placed into Conservatorship in July of 2008, the FDIC calculated that the ultimate resolution of IndyMac would result in a recovery of approximately 50% of the uninsured deposits of IndyMac. Based upon that estimate, an advance dividend in that amount was paid to the uninsured depositors at that time. The announced sale of IndyMac to IMB Management Holdings is consistent with the original estimate and no additional dividend will be paid as a consequence of this sale.While no dividends for the uninsured depositors are anticipated at this time, the FDIC will continue to periodically re-assess the financial condition of the receivership to determine if there is additional cash for dividend distributions.

Dividend History on IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.
JavaScript is disabled or blocked. Alternatively, you may navigate to
www2.fdic.gov/DIVWEB/Dividendindex.asp and search for the dividends. Dividend Information on Failed Financial Institutions Back to top

XI.  Brokered Deposits The FDIC offers a reference guide to deposit brokers acting as agents for their investor clientele.  This site outlines the FDIC’s policies and procedures that must be followed by deposit brokers when filing for pass-through insurance coverage on custodial accounts deposited in a failed FDIC Insured Institution.Deposit Broker Processing Guide

Can you levy a judgment win against a bank or creditor by applying it to your loan?  Your mortgage loan is an asset for the bank so in theory this will work.  It’s an interesting idea posed by Neil Garfield.

Regardless, fighting bank that are trying to collect on you is a daunting task unless you know what you are doing.  Hats off to Steven Katz, a “credit terrorist”.  His website debtorboards may be just the tool you’re looking for to “suit up” in an attack on your debt collector.

Aiding in the fight is the fact that On Wednesday, the Supreme Court made it even easier for consumers to use the courts to fight debt collectors, ruling that collectors cannot be shielded from suits by claiming they made a mistake in interpreting the law.

I’m going to try to get this guy on the radio in a week or so.

- The Bank Slayer

Learning How to Fight the Collector

By ANDREW MARTIN

Among debt collectors, Steven Katz is known as a “credit terrorist.” For years, he has run what he calls the Steven Katz School of Bill Collector Education, otherwise known as the “credit terrorist training camp.”

Mr. Katz, a 58-year-old accountant in suburban Tucson, spends his free time schooling debtors on the finer points of consumer protection law to help them turn the tables on debt collectors. On occasion, he thumbs his own nose at them too.

“How many times can I sue you? Let me count the ways,” he wrote under his pseudonym, Dr. Tax, in a March posting on Inside ARM, a debt collectors’ Web site.

A former bill collector himself, Mr. Katz rebelled after a debt buyer damaged his credit score with what he says was a bogus bill. Mr. Katz sued, and in 2003 he collected his first damage award, a $1,000 check that he now keeps framed behind his desk.

“The bill collectors, when they call, make you feel like the only option you have is to lay down and play dead. That’s not true,” said Mr. Katz said, who does not charge for his advice. “Nothing validates this more than getting a check.”

Call this movement revenge of the (alleged) deadbeats. Even as collectors try to recoup debts from millions of Americans struggling to pay their bills, a small but growing number of lawyers and consumers are fighting back against what they describe as harassment, unscrupulous practices — and, most important to their litigiousness, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In fact, 8,287 federal lawsuits were filed citing violations of the act in 2009, a 60 percent rise over the previous year, according to WebRecon, a site that tracks collection-related litigation and the most litigious consumers and lawyers on behalf of debt collectors.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court made it even easier for consumers to use the courts to fight debt collectors, ruling that collectors cannot be shielded from suits by claiming they made a mistake in interpreting the law.

When a consumer stops paying a bill, creditors often try to collect on their own for a few months. In many instances, the creditor hires another company to collect the debt. In other cases, they may dispose of the debt by selling it to a debt buyer for a steep discount.

Debt collectors and debt buyers are the targets of litigious consumers, since the debt collection law primarily applies to third-party collectors.

Peter Barry, a Minneapolis trial lawyer, is so bullish on the future of debt collection litigation that he holds several “boot camps” each year to share his secrets with other lawyers who want in on the action. If the debtor wins a court case under the act, the debt collector must pay the lawyer’s fees.

The next boot camp is being held in early May in San Francisco, at a cost of $2,495 a person for two and a half days of instruction.

“I can’t sue every illegal debt collector in America, although I’d like to try,” Mr. Barry said.

Mr. Katz can also claim some credit for the increase in lawsuits. For six years, he has run a free Web site called Debtorboards.com, where people share tips on topics like keeping a paper trail and recording calls from collectors.

He said the site received two million hits in 2009, a 60 percent increase over the previous year.

“Debtorboards is geared to help people use the laws as they are on the books as both a shield and a sword,” said Mr. Katz, who says he has won $36,000 from his own litigation against collection agencies. (Since many of the settlements are confidential, it is difficult to prove the claims of Mr. Katz and others).

Of course, debt collectors are hardly pleased with the litigation trend.

Rozanne M. Andersen, chief executive of ACA International, a trade association for the debt collection industry, said she was “extremely concerned” about the increase in lawsuits, which she said cost her industry hundreds of millions of dollars a year. She said much of the increase was the result of ambiguous language in the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Debt collectors are required, for example, to identify themselves on a voice message left for a consumer, she said. But they are also prohibited from telling a third party — including someone who might overhear a phone message — about a consumer’s debt.

“We are between a rock and a hard place,” Ms. Andersen said.

Ms. Andersen said she had little patience for Web sites that encouraged consumers to thwart debt collectors.

“We believe those types of Web sites are encouraging people to not take responsibility for just debt,” she said.

Jack Gordon, who runs the fee-based WebRecon site, said it was no wonder lawsuits were increasing, because consumers were being bombarded with ads from lawyers when they searched online for information on debt collection. He said the proliferation of discussion sites like Mr. Katz’s had, to a lesser extent, also contributed to the trend.

On the boards, he said, “There’s a lot of hot air, a lot of people who overinflate their accomplishments.”

Regardless, Mr. Gordon’s database has become a badge of honor among the devotees of Debtorboards.com. As Brandon Scroggin, a 37-year-old from Little Rock, Ark., puts it, “That’s one list I’m a proud card-carrying member of.”

Mr. Scroggin, who provides price estimates at a body shop, said he was the type of person who refused to be taken advantage of, even for petty offenses. For instance, years ago, he said he joined in the class-action suit against the pop group Milli Vanilli, accused of lip synching, and collected a $1.25 check.   After a messy divorce, Mr. Scroggin was stuck with a $7,000 bill that he said belonged to his ex-wife. Instead of paying it, he began researching the law and stumbled on Debtorboards.com.

Armed with lessons he learned on the site, he demanded proof of the debt from the collection agency, and the calls stopped. But two and a half years later, they started up again so he sued the collection agency, National Loan Recoveries, for failing to provide proof of the debt, among other things.

The case was settled in 2008. The terms were confidential, but he says he never paid National Loan a dime. “Let’s just say I’m a very happy person,” he said. A lawyer for National Loan, Kathryn Bridges, did not return messages seeking comment.

Mr. Katz said his Web site was not intended to help people avoid paying legitimate debts. But if they do so, so be it — he feels no need to apologize.

He said Congress gave consumers certain rights, and he is simply making people aware of them, sometimes colorfully.

As Mr. Katz says at the bottom of each Dr. Tax posting, “A telephone in the hands of a collector is like a crowbar — it can be used to pry a mouth open wide enough to insert a foot.”

Barbara Thompson, 46, of Atlanta, said she challenged $11,000 in credit card debt using online research about collection laws. She does not dispute the debts but reasons that the credit card company wrote off her charges long ago. By her account, she owes the credit card company, not the debt collector.

“The credit card company, they sell it off, they charge it off, it’s just business as usual,” she said, adding, “I’m adamant about not paying a collection agency.”