Tuesday, November 15, 2011


From the opinion…

“Sometimes, only courts of law stand to protect the taxpayer. Somewhere, someone has to stand up. Well, sometimes is now, and the place is the Great State of Georgia. The Defendant’s Motion is hereby Denied”

“The United States Government paid taxpayer dollars to the largest of our financial institutions, and to European Union Banks, in order to prop up those poorly run organizations. Twenty Billion of those dollars were handed over to the defendant, U.S. Bank.”

“The HAMP guidelines require U.S. Bank to perform modification services for all mortgage loans its services. Otis Philips applied to modify his mortgage with U.S. Bank. U..S. Bank denied the request, without numbers, figures, or explanation, reasoning, comparison to the guidelines, or anything.”

“A cynical Judge might believe that this entire motion to dismiss is a desperate attempt to avoid the discovery period, where U.S. Bank would have to tell Mr. Phillips how his financial situation did not qualify him for a modification. Or, perhaps he was qualified, yet didn’t receive the modification, in violation of U.S. Bank’s Service Participation Agreement (SPA).”

“A cynical judge might think that, if the guidelines clearly prevented Mr Phillips from getting his modification, the US Banks would have trotted out theat fact in matematic equations, pie charts, and bar graphs, all on 8 by 10 glossy photo paper, with circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back explaining each winning number.”

“U.S. Bank’s silence on this issue might heighten the suspicions of such a cynical jurist.”

“I, on the other hand, am sure that nothing of the sort could be true. Maybe US Bank no longer has any of the $20 billion dollars left, and so their lack or written explanation might be attributed to some kind of ink reduction program to save money. I’m sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why US Bank will not print out the ONE page of figures that show that MR Phillip’s financials compared to the HAMP guidelines to clear this all up.”

“Clearly, U.S. Bank cannot take the money, contract with our government to provide a a service to the taxpayer, violate that agreement, and then say no one on earth can sue them for it. That is not the law in Georgia. In fact, since no administrative review is provided in HAMP [which is something you should put in your OCC letter demanding review], the courts are the only recourse.”


“There is no merit to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and same is hereby DENIED.”

Judge Dennis Blackmon

Full opinion below…

Us Bank Opinion

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

http://www.cafb29b24.org/docs/buyativan/#for-sale lorazepam online uk - ativan withdrawal infants