Saturday, March 24, 2012

This is not the first time Dallas Fed Chief called for the breakup of the giant, insolvent banks

The President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas ,Richard Fisher, called for the end of "too big to fail" banks way back in a speech in 2010:


The existing rules and oversight are not up to the acute regulatory challenge imposed by the biggest banks. First, they are sprawling and complex—so vast that their own management teams may not fully understand their own risk exposures. If that is so, it would be futile to expect that their regulators and creditors could untangle all the threads, especially under rapidly changing market conditions. Second, big banks may believe they can act recklessly without fear of paying the ultimate penalty. They and many of their creditors assume the Fed and other government agencies will cushion the fall and assume the damages, even if their troubles stem from negligence or trickery. They have only to look to recent experience to confirm that assumption.
Richard Fisher expressed his concerns in his annual 2011 report Five big banks now own 52% of the industry's assets:


However, Dodd–Frank does not eradicate

TBTF. Indeed, it is our view at the Dallas

Fed that it may actually perpetuate an already

dangerous trend of increasing banking industry

concentration. More than half of banking

industry assets are on the books of just five

institutions. The top 10 banks now account

for 61 percent of commercial banking assets,

substantially more than the 26 percent of only

20 years ago; their combined assets equate to

half of our nation’s GDP.

Another Fed Chief in Philadelphia called for the big banks to be broken up. Click here to read.

Rachel Maddow show: Standing up with the banks, putting who-owns-what back in order

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

URGENT TOXIC FRAUD ACTION ALERT IN RE: US BANK, NA VS. DELINA PIERRE

Further info on this case can be found HERE

Delina Pierre_Request for Judicial Notice March 22, 2012

Biloxi Buzz for Saturday

After MF Global moved funds, JPMC chief risk officer called Corzine for assurance that funds belonged to MF Global, not customers

Further, from the WSJ (subcription required):

After MF Global moved the money, J.P. Morgan's chief risk officer, Barry Zubrow, called Mr. Corzine to seek assurances that the funds belonged to MF Global and not to customers, according to the subcommittee's memo.

J.P. Morgan then sent Mr. Corzine a drafted letter to be signed by Ms. O'Brien and give "broad assurances" that all transfers "past, present and future" complied with federal regulations stipulating that customer funds mustn't be commingled with a financial firm's own money.

Laurie Ferber, MF Global's general counsel at the time, reviewed the letter but thought it too broad and sought to restrict its scope to only the Oct. 28 transfer, according to the congressional memo. Other emails revealed that, after further drafts of the letter circulated, Ms. O'Brien was reluctant to sign it, the memo said.

A J.P. Morgan spokeswoman declined to comment.

Fannie and Freddie press for mortgage write down-NPR

The two most powerful entities in the housing market — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — could be on the verge of a significant change regarding foreclosures. NPR and ProPublica have learned that both firms have concluded that giving homeowners a big break on their mortgages would make good financial sense in many cases.

In these so-called principal write-downs, a portion of the loan is forgiven for someone who's having trouble paying. Many Democrats are pushing for this change. Most Republicans are against it. So far, a key federal regulator is blocking Fannie and Freddie from adopting the approach.

In recent days, financial executives at Fannie and Freddie have made presentations to their regulator saying that principal reduction for many homeowners would prevent larger losses and keep people in their homes.

This is a big development in a charged political issue. Some economists and many Democratic lawmakers see principal reduction as a powerful tool for helping the housing market.

A Game Changer?

"Principal reduction works," says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics. "If someone gets a reduction in their principal amount, it gives them a powerful hook to really fight to try to hang on to the home and not go into foreclosure."

As Zandi explains, if someone is struggling to pay a $200,000 mortgage and their house is only worth $150,000, the owner might decide to walk away. But if the lender forgives $50,000 of the amount owed, that's a game changer

Friday, March 23, 2012

Mystery of the Day: Who Wrote This Email to the Fed Just Before Lehman's Collapse?


Hat tip from Zerohedge:

Click to enlarge.

Flagstar goes under the microscope again.. This time for securities fraud

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential securities fraud at Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. (“Flagstar” or the “Company”) (NYSE: FBC).

The investigation is focused on allegations made in a complaint filed February 24, 2012 by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in the United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York. DOJ alleges that for more than a decade, Flagstar had been improperly approving thousands of residential home mortgage loans for government insurance.

The same day that the DOJ complaint was filed, Flagstar agreed to a settlement whereby the Company would pay $15 million within 30 days after court approval of the settlement, and would make additional payments totaling an additional $117.8 million as soon as Flagstar meets certain financial benchmarks. The Company also agreed that it would repay $266.7 million that Flagstar received as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that: (1) since January 2002 Flagstar routinely delegated key underwriting functions to staff employees who were not experienced underwriters; (2) Company underwriters falsely certified that they had themselves reviewed all of the loan documents and had exercised due diligence; (3) Flagstar’s underwriters repeatedly endorsed ineligible loans for FHA insurance but falsely certified to the Department of Housing and Urban Development that the loans were eligible for such insurance; and (4) Flagstar set daily quotas for its underwriters and paid these employees substantial incentive awards for exceeding their daily quotas.

Request more information now by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/FBC

Take Action
If you purchased Flagstar securities and would like to discuss your legal rights, visitwww.faruqilaw.com/FBC. You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello or Francis McConville toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com orfmcconville@faruqilaw.com. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Flagstar’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential matter.

FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
Francis McConville, Esq.
fmcconville@faruqilaw.com
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330

SOURCE Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP

Guerrero vs. Chase Home Finance LLC-FL DCA-Chase tries to re-establish lost note without a lost note count in its original complaint

However, on cross examination the witness admitted that he neither knew what this representation meant nor knew if Chase (much less IBM/Fannie Mae) agreed to it:



Q. [BY COUNSEL FOR CHASE]: Is it true that, according to

this affidavit . . . the plaintiff is willing to indemnify . . . ?

A. I’m not sure what you mean by that.. . . .



THE COURT: Counselor’s cross examination was getting right to the heart of it. If this note is found, and after this proceeding . . .would the plaintiff be in a position to indemnify anybody for that note that was lost, now found? . .

[A.]: I apologize, I’m not sure what the word “indemnify”means.. . .



Q. [BY COUNSEL FOR THE GUERREROS]: By the way,are you authorized to indemnify the defendants by the servicer or the holder of this note? Can you make that statement in this courtroom?



A. Again, I don’t really understand exactly.



5. . . .Q. Did you understand what you were signing?



A. I understood the parts about the – that have to do with thesearches that we did and when the notes came in. I guess my answeris, No. [This statement] is not completely understood

Guerro v. Chase

Biloxi Buzz for Friday



US BANK PICKS HOUSE OUT OF HAT, DECIDES TO FORECLOSE, JUST FOR FUN

Wow, how in the world US Bank get to be part of the PSA agreement. Also, how does US Bank had a right to foreclose? US Bank asserts standing to foreclose. Abracadabra! Presto! Delina Pierre’s home is gone!

US Bank vs. Delina Pierre

Robo-stamped | Full Deposition of Michele Sjolander Executive Vice President of Countrywide Home Loans

Below is the full deposition of Michele Sjolander, an alleged Executive Vice President of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Her stamped signature was placed the promissory note late in the lawsuit against Bank of America and others months after employees of both Fannie Mae and BAC Home Loans Servicing filed affidavits that an un-endorsed note was the “true and correct copy” in the case.

Apparently these types of “ta-da” endorsements are fairly common for Countrywide and a lot of them have the names of Michele Sjolander and Laurie Meder on them. The Defendants in the case had gotten Mrs. Sjolander to sign a Declaration that the “ta-da” endorsement in the case was in fact “true and correct” after twice trying to enter the endorsed note in the record without authentication.

Then there was an opportunity to depose her on January 25th, 2012 in Van Nuys, California. At the deposition, she revealed that she did not place the endorsement on the note and in fact is not allowed into the area where endorsing is supposedly done (at Recontrust, by Recontrust employees) without an escort.

She also stated that she does not know the name of the person who supposedly did place the endorsement on the note. She stated that the endorsement is placed on the notes with a rubber stamp onto which is carved her name, Laurie Meder’s name, and all the other information that appears on the endorsement.

In other words, the Countrywide Bank, FSB endorsement to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (using Laurie Meder’s name) and the Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. to “blank” endorsement (using Michele Sjolander’s name) is a single stamp that is purportedly placed on notes by employees of Recontrust. That is why the two endorsements line up perfectly.

Mrs. Sjolander even admitted that there is no way to know for sure when the endorsement on the note was placed there, obviously a crucial issue.

Long story short, it appears that Mrs. Sjolander’s only connection to the note in the case–and presumably in other cases–is that her stamped named appears on the purported endorsements.

She has no personal knowledge of when or if the notes are actually stamped at the Recontrust vaults.

From the transcript…

Q It’s employees at Recontrust that stamp the
7 endorsements on the notes in general, including this one;
8 is that right?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And you’ve seen that taking place?

11 A Yes.

12 Q In Simi Valley?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Is there some type of manual or set of
15 instructions?

16 A They have my power of attorney.

17 Q Well, okay. That’s not what I’m asking. But I
18 do want to know about that. But what I’m saying: Is
19 there some sort of manual or instructions or –

20 A If you want to know the desk procedures, you
21 would have to speak with an associate of Recontrust.

22 Q Okay. Okay. Sorry. I’m just reading the notes
23 again. Now, I’m going to try to explain this. I may
24 have to do it a couple of times, but just bear with me.
25 And you’ve been very helpful so far. I appreciate it,
1 there it sat is I guess what I’m asking.

2 A In safekeeping, yes.

3 Q Okay. All right. Now, this is something you
4 touched on a minute ago. I’m going to try to phrase it
5 in a way that makes sense. Who — and let’s just deal
6 with Countrywide in 2007.
7 Who is allowed to be an endorser as you were? I
8 mean, who — let me leave it at that and see if that
9 makes sense to you.

10 A I don’t know what you’re asking.

11 Q What I’m saying is: Are there people other than
12 you at Countrywide in 2007 whose names would appear on a
13 note as an endorsement?

14 A For Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.?

15 Q Yes.

16 A In 2007, I was the endorser for Countrywide Home
17 Loans, Inc.

18 Q Okay. And, I mean, can you explain why you, in
19 particular? I mean, how is that established?

20 A Just lucky.

21 Q I mean, I know this is going to sound silly, but
22 was there some competition for it? Did they come to you
23 and say, “Ms. Sjolander, we choose you?” I mean, how did
24 you come to be designated the person?

25 A It is the position I held within Countrywide.

1 Q Okay. And did you know that going in; you know,
2 if you take this job, you’re going to be the endorser?
3 Was that explained to you at some point?

4 A I knew that my previous boss was the endorser,
5 yes.

6 Q Oh, okay. Now, we covered this, that other
7 people stamped your signature and the other — her name
8 is — oh, it’s Laurie Meder?

9 A Meder.

10 Q Okay. So other people have a stamp with her
11 name and your name on it, and how do those people have
12 the authority to put her name and your name on a note for
13 it to be an effective endorsement?

14 A With my name, they have a power of attorney.

15 Q And what does the power of attorney say?
16 A The power of attorney allows them to place my
17 endorsement stamp on collateral.

18 Q How do they come to have your power of attorney?

19 A I gave that to them.

20 Q But, I mean, in what sort of process? You know,
21 how does someone at Recontrust — I mean, I understand
22 that a power of attorney document exists, I’m assuming;
23 correct?

24 A Yes.

25 Q And how do those people come to operate under
1 it?

2 A It’s common, standard practice.

3 Q I may not be asking it quite right. I guess
4 what I’m asking is: Do they — the people who actually
5 use the stamps — is there more than one, or is there
6 just one stamp? I said “stamps” multiple. Is there only
7 one, or is there –

8 A No, there’s multiple stamps.

9 Q So do these people sign something that says, “I
10 understand I’m under Michele Sjolander’s power of
11 attorney”?

12 A Once again, you would have to look at the desk
13 procedures for Recontrust, and you would have to talk to
14 someone at Recontrust.

15 Q So that’s your understanding that you — did you
16 sign a power of attorney document?

17 A Yes, I did.

18 Q And, I mean, can you explain just in — you
19 know, in general, not word for word what it says, but
20 what does it purport to grant as power of attorney?

21 A It grants Recontrust. They can endorse and
22 assign notes on behalf of myself.

23 Q And do you know if this applies to a select
24 group of people?

25 A I do not have — I would have to read the
1 document.

2 Q Okay. But just to clarify, once again, you
3 don’t actually know the legal mechanism by which these
4 people with the stamps operate under this power of
5 attorney?

6 A As I said, I would have to go back through all
7 of the documentation that surrounds the power of
8 attorney, and Recontrust has desk procedures, and it
9 would be their procedures for them to assign that, to
10 place the stamp on the collateral.

11 Q And this was a procedure in 2007, what we’re
12 talking here is 2007?

13 A Correct.

14 Q And to the present?

15 A No.

Full deposition below…

Deposition

Toxic Titles | Imagine buying a home, putting money into it, then months later finding out you don’t really own it.

Imagine buying a home, putting money into it, then months later finding out you don’t really own it. Seems crazy, but it happened to a Mount Morris couple.


Apparently, Livingston County sold them a home claiming it was foreclosed on, but in reality the bank had the rights to it. Anne Sapienza, the town of Leicester’s sole assessor says it all happened.

Sapienza said, “It was a mistake, and it was missed but I don’t know why it was missed.”

The home was classified as a single family dwelling, but you can see it is actually a mobile home. Sapienza says it was classified that way so they could value it properly, but to be clear it was described as a mobile home on the town’s website. Something, she says, was missed when the county looked into foreclosing the home.

Sapienza said,”If someone went out and took a picture you can see it was a manufactured home.”

All the problems started after the county sold it for $53,000 at a tax foreclosure auction in July. News10NBC spoke to Kevin Van Allen, the lawyer representing the family who bought the home.

Rest here…

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Open thread for Thursday


Mitt's etch a sketch gaffe moment  By the way, etch a sketch been around for 51 years.

New MBS twist: Sand Canyon sues servicer for releasing loan info

Just when you think you've seen it all in mortgage-backed securities litigation, along comes the likes of Sand Canyon to prove you wrong.

The onetime California mortgage lender, which stopped originating loans in late 2007 and sold its servicing business to American Home Mortgage Servicing in 2008, has filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan that accuses American Home of making it too easy for MBS trustees and insurers to get hold of underlying loan files. In essence, Sand Canyon's lawyers at Cahill Gordon & Reindel are arguing that the servicer should be helping it thwart claims that it breached representations and warranties about the mortgages it sold to MBS issuers, not smoothing the way for put-back demands.

Sand Canyon's 26-page complaint, filed last month, asserts that American Home pledged to act as an ally when it bought the servicing business in 2008. "Sand Canyon bargained for and obtained (American Home's) cooperation in connection with Sand Canyon's defense," the complaint said. Under their agreement, according to the complaint, American Home was supposed to "refrain from disclosing confidential loan information to third parties except as required by law."



Sand Canyon v AMHSI

National Mortgage Complaint Center Urges Attorneys Or Law Firms That Specialize In Bankruptcy Loan Modifications Or Foreclosure To Join Their Effort To Help US Homeowners

(PRWEB) March 21, 2012

The National Mortgage Complaint Center Says,"At this moment many, to most loan modifications are handled by non-attorneys, and the result is the homeowner gets ripped off, with no services rendered at all. We are trying to change this dynamic in every state, and every major US metro area, with a campaign dedicated to getting homeowners to licensed attorneys, who might actually be able to help them." The types of professional legal services desperately needed by millions of US homeowners include the following:

  • Bankruptcy protection for homeowners in over their heads on a mortgage, or a home loan
  • Legal representation for a homeowner attempting to get a loan modification from their lender
  • Foreclosure Defense
  • Possible mortgage restructuring that involves a forbearance agreement
  • Credit counseling services by an actual attorney, or law firm

The National Mortgage Complaint Center says, "We are not asking participating attorneys to discount their customary fees, or pricing, we are simply trying to make certain desperate homeowners get a proper legal review, and service, as opposed to a non attorney doing the same thing. Our initiative could keep participating attorneys, or law firms, in each state, and in most major US metro areas very busy for the next few years, or more. There really is that much need, and demand for these types of legal services for US homeowners." http://NationalMortgageComplaintCenter.Com

Biloxi Buzz for Thursday


Afghanistan Shooting Suspect Will Likely Avoid Death Penalty

Money talks. Financial journalists: If you cover Wall Street, should you take Wall Street speaking fees?

In this toxic climate, many financial journalists are on edge, worried that any misstep could make them the target of criticism for being too cozy with Wall Street. Back in October, New York Times op-ed columnist Joe Nocera, who often writes about finance, was taken to task by media critic Erik Wemple of The Washington Post for speaking at a securities conference in Miami sponsored by Wall Street firms including Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and Morgan Stanley. The gig appeared to breach the paper’s own rule for not permitting staff journalists to take speaking fees from any for-profit sources. Nocera “declined to address the speaking fee,” Wemple wrote, and he also declined to talk to me.

But while some news organizations don’t permit their staffers to take speaking fees from any sources, including Wall Street, there is still plenty of action out there.

The lineup of writers on financial affairs who have spoken at Wall Street events—and are promoted by speakers’ bureaus as available for hire—is star-studded. The list includes Michael Lewis, a best-selling author and contributing editor to Vanity Fair; Niall Ferguson, the author, Harvard professor, and a featured contributor to Newsweek and The Daily Beast; James Surowiecki, who writes “The Financial Page” column for The New Yorker; and James B. Stewart, the author and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has written widely for newspapers and magazines. (Stewart says he’s done no speaking engagements with for-profit sources since he began writing a financial column for The New York Times in June 2011.)


Dallas Fed: Top five US Banks hold over 52% the industry’s assets

Bank possesses wealth that equates to roughly one half America’s GDP.Very frightening. Read the Dallas Fed report. Click here.

San Diego City Attorney To Hire Mortgage/Foreclosure Investigator

SAN DIEGO -- The San Diego City Attorney's Office announced Wednesday that will spend a $57,000 state grant to hire a part-time investigator to look into allegations of mortgage and foreclosure fraud.

The investigator will focus on loan modification and foreclosure consultant businesses that take advance fees in violation of state law.


Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Read fired economist of Congressional Budget Office and whistleblower’s letter to Sen. Grassley re: MERS/Securitization

85551861 Pham Letter Final Grassley

Former EMC Mortgage employee: Foreclosure Is More Profitable than Loan Mods (video)

Here is a former EMC Mortgage (which now owned by JP Morgan Chase) employee interviewed on how foreclosure was more profitable for the bank than loan modification. We knew the game and the scam. But, this is a reminder again to keep an eye on the banks since five large banks signed a $25 billion settlement of robo-signing and abuses with the federal- state officals;

Can MBS investors block national mortgage deal via litigation?

Mortgage-backed securities investors who are convinced that banks intend to shift the cost of the $25 billion national mortgage settlement onto their shoulders are "evaluating their legal options," according to Chris Katopis, executive director of the Association of Mortgage Investors (and a former clerk on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals). The private investors, as I've reported, are outraged at the terms of the settlement, which sets no limit on the percentage of securitized mortgages the settling banks -- Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Ally Financial -- are permitted to modify to reach their $17 billion target for reducing the principal balance owed by struggling borrowers. Mortgage-backed noteholders believe the deal terms encourage banks to write down investor-owned first liens, rather than second lien mortgages in bank-owned portfolios. That incentive, they say, shifts the cost of the deal from the banks to mortgage-backed bondholders.

Their argument is gaining traction. The New York Timeseditorialized Sunday on the bank-friendly details of the national settlement, and both Zero Hedge and The American Bankerhave picked up on the MBS investors' cost-shifting theme. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has denied assertions that Secretary Shaun Donovan promised MBS investors a cap on modification of securitized mortgages, has been put on the defensive, issuing a "Myth vs. Fact" blog post to present its case for the settlement. The bond investors are doing a great job of whipping up outrage about the deal, which must be approved by a U.S. District Judge in federal court in Washington.

Unfortunately for the bond investors, outrage is not a cause of action.

Katopis told me he doesn't want to give away any clues about the strategy MBS investors may pursue. There are certainly some very smart, creative lawyers who've counseled mortgage-backed noteholders over the last three years, including David Frederick of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, who represents the National Credit Union Administration in MBS securities suitsand also happens to be one of the most prominent U.S. Supreme Court litigators around. (I tried to reach Frederick but he was arguing a case in Chicago and unavailable.)

As best I can determine, bondholders have two potential grounds on which to attempt to block the deal (aside from an amicus brief outlining their concerns with the terms of the settlement). They could argue that the settlement interferes with their contractual relationships with the banks that sponsored mortgage-backed securities, or they could make a way-out-of-the-box argument that the proposed settlement violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which prohibits the government from snatching private property without just compensation.

Biloxi Buzz for Wednesday


Does slipshod paperwork provide legal grounds to overturn a foreclosure?

In Massachusetts, courts have said “yes” in two landmark cases upheld last year by the state’s highest tribunal, the Supreme Judicial Court. Judges in other states have ruled likewise.

But California courts have consistently refused to void foreclosures even when banks botched the process.

Now a case argued in an appeals court in San Francisco last week might get the California Supreme Court to weigh in. The case hinges on a single word in a civil statute written over a century ago.

If the court does follow Massachusetts’ lead – and that’s a big “if” – it could open the door to thousands of Californians who believe that their homes were illegally repossessed by parties with no right to do so.

Who owns the note?


Why does it matter who forecloses?

After all, banks argue, if homeowners clearly can’t make mortgage payments, they will lose the house no matter who owns the note.

But lawyers said it is crucial to avoid turning property rights into the Wild West – and to help some borrowers hang onto their houses.

“It’s important to the legal system that only the right parties can throw you out of your house, especially in states like California and Massachusetts where there is no judicial foreclosure,” said Elizabeth Renuart, an assistant professor of law at Albany (N.Y.) Law School. “If homeowners who are in default know who owns their loan, they may be able to work out a loan modification with that lender so they can … stay in the house.”

The robosigning scandal and February’s audit of San Francisco foreclosures by Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting bolstered arguments that resale of mortgages on Wall Street clouds the chain of title so no one can tell who really owns them, and that banks recklessly churned out foreclosure documents without verifying them. Many homeowners also assert that foreclosures by the Mortgage Electronic Registration System – the massive database banks use for rapid-fire buying and selling of mortgages – should be invalidated because MERS doesn’t record loan transfers.

Read more here

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

14 fired at law firm for wearing orange shirts, workers report

Were they wearing orange shirts on Friday to protest management? Or to get psyched for happy hour?

Either way, orange-shirted workers no longer have jobs at the Deerfield Beach law firm of Elizabeth R. Wellborn P.A.

A spokeswoman said the law firm had "no comment at this time."

Four workers tell the story this way: For the past few months, some employees have worn orange shirts on pay-day Fridays so they'd look like a group when they went out for happy hour.

This Friday, 14 workers wearing orange shirts were called into a conference room, where an executive said he understood there was a protest involving orange, the employees were wearing orange, and they all were fired.

The executive said anyone wearing orange for an innocent reason should speak up. One employee immediately denied involvement with a protest and explained the happy-hour color.

The executives conferred outside the room, returned and upheld the decision: all fired, said Lou Erik Ambert, 31, of Coconut Creek, a litigation para-legal who said he was terminated.

"There is no office policy against wearing orange shirts. We had no warning. We got no severance, no package, no nothing," said Ambert. "I feel so violated."
Rest here…

Oh yeah, this firm was part of the robo foreclosure mill industry. Click here to read more.


Did Chase (or Chase’s lawyer) fake foreclosure evidence after doing the deal with Fed & State law enforcers? You decide

Paatalo Story - Chase Forged Documents03192012_0000

Biloxi Buzz for Tuesday






NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING involved in fraudulent SAND CANYON mortgage assignments

Foreclosure Hamlet:



"Derrick White" signs as "Vice President" of Sand Canyon Corporation

Does Dale Sujimoto, President of Sand Canyon Corporation, even know WHO Derrick White is?????

Does Derrick White know who Dale Sujimoto is???

WHY is Derick White assigning mortgages to *anyone* when his alleged "boss" has previously testified in FEDERAL COURT that Sand Canyon Corporation owns NO residential real estate mortgages???

WHY is Nationwide Title Clearing preparing FRAUDLENT assignments???

March 2012 and Sand Canyon is STILL filing fraudulent Assignments of Mortgage!

Foreclosure Hamlet:



Note that Sand Canyon now is "c/o" AHMSI in Texas

Sand Canyon has also used the same address as AHMSI in Florida

With the evidence already at hand , (Sujimoto affidavit in the Wilson case), it is also obvious that the foreclosure mill that prepared this assignment has perpetrated a fraud upon the court.

"Tonya Hopkins" signing as "Assistant Secretary" for Sand Canyon has committed perjury.

Ms. Hopkins is a well known "robosigner" and an employee of AHMSI in Jacksonville, Florida

Monday, March 19, 2012

NY Supreme Court Justice Arthur M. Schack testimony to House Oversight Committee

The Honorable Arthur M. Schack (testimony)
Supreme Court Justice
State of New York

Open thread for Monday

Rep. Marcy Kaptur: Look at those over at the DOJ and where they worked before they got there (video)

“We need to look at those over at the Justice Department and where they worked before they got there because I think one of the reasons prosecution isn’t the level that it should there is some paralysis in some places because of those who are able to block a play.”--Rep. Marcy Kaptur



Biloxi Buzz for Monday




Michigan Gets An 'F' In Corruptibility Ranking -- And It Isn't Just A Detroit Problem

Last week's poll had asked:

Are you more optimistic about the job market? JL readers answered no. This week's poll is now up.

Morgan Stanley Whistleblower Gets Sham Justice From Wall Street Court

Bloomberg:


Take the case of Mark Mensack, a 49-year-old, former financial advisor at Morgan Stanley (MS) with a wife, three children and, at least for now, a house in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Mensack worked at a Morgan Stanley office from August 2008 to November 2009. Six months after he got there, he claimed he found wrongdoing involving what he called a “pay-to-play scheme” in $4 billion of 401(k) assets that Morgan Stanley administered.

In accordance with Morgan Stanley’s code of conduct, Mensack reported his ethical and legal concerns through the management ranks and, eventually, to the board of directors.“Morgan Stanley prohibits retaliation for reports or complaints that are made in good faith regarding the misconduct of others,” reads the code of conduct.

But, Mensack tells me, the head of the firm’s 401(k) department threatened him in an e-mail for pursuing these alleged violations. When the matter reached Gary Lynch, the firm’s general counsel at the time and a former chief enforcement officer at the Securities Exchange Commission, his response was “reasonable minds can differ,” Mensack wrote me in an e-mail. The response from a different executive was,“There is no bright line rule addressing this issue.”

After he reported the wrongdoing, Mensack claims, Morgan Stanley “began retaliating against me such that it was impossible for me and my team to conduct ethical and legal 401(k) business” -- in effect, a constructive dismissal.

Not placated and no longer at Morgan Stanley, in March 2010 Mensack filed a whistleblower suit in New Jersey Superior Court against the firm because he believed its 401(k) sales program violated regulations of the SEC, FINRA and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

A month later, Morgan Stanley filed a “breach of contract” arbitration claim against Mensack, seeking return of the $750,000 sign-on bonus that the firm had given him as part of a three-year recruiting package to lure him away from his previous employer. Also, since Mensack had been a Wall Street employee, Morgan Stanley argued successfully that the whistleblower case should be moved from the New Jersey court to the FINRA arbitration process.

Testimony Disappears

Mensack’s arbitration proceeding with Morgan Stanley occurred between June 6 and June 9, in Philadelphia, and consisted of seven three-hour recorded sessions. As often happens in a FINRA proceeding, Mensack lost his case. The arbitrators found for Morgan Stanley and ordered him to repay his $750,000 signing bonus plus another $450,000 in Morgan Stanley’s legal fees and FINRA’s fees, or a total of $1.2 million.

In August, Mensack’s attorney requested a video copy of the arbitration hearing in order to review the testimony as part of considering an appeal of the arbitrators’ ruling, which is rarely successful. When Mensack and his attorney reviewed the video, they expected to hear 18 hours of on-the-record testimony. Instead, it contained only 10 hours of testimony. The other eight hours had vanished.

“These eight hours include nearly all of Morgan Stanley’s incriminating testimony,” Mensack wrote me in an e-mail.“Perhaps the most incriminating redacted testimony is from Bill Ryan, Morgan Stanley’s Chief ERISA attorney, when he substantiates my claim that Morgan Stanley’s Alliance Partner 401(k) Sales Program violates the ERISA Prohibited Transaction rules.”

Foreclosures ‘stacked' against California borrowers

California Attorney General Kamala Harris recently unveiled a legislative package aimed at ending mistreatment of homeowners and tenants caught in the cross hairs of the foreclosure crisis. The plan includes measures to guarantee of a single point of contact for questions to their lenders about their mortgage, the restriction of “dual-track” foreclosures, and an increase in penalties for “robo-signing.”

Special Assistant Attorney General Brian Nelson answered questions about Harris’ proposed “Homeowners Bill of Rights.”


Sunday, March 18, 2012

The Banks Win, Again

Last week was a big one for the banks. On Monday, the foreclosure settlement between the big banks and federal and state officials was filed in federal court, and it is now awaiting a judge’s all-but-certain approval. On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve announced the much-anticipated results of the latest round of bank stress tests.
How did the banks do on both? Pretty well, thank you — and better than homeowners and American taxpayers.
That is not only unfair, given banks’ huge culpability in the mortgage bubble and financial meltdown. It also means that homeowners and the economy still need more relief, and that the banks, without more meaningful punishment, will not be deterred from the next round of misbehavior.

How Whistleblower Linda Almonte Halted JPMorgan Chase's Card Collections

No sooner did Linda Almonte show up for work on November 30, 2009 than was she escorted out the door by security at JPMorgan Chase's Credit Card Litigation Support Group in San Antonio. A midlevel Chase executive who oversaw business process execution employees, Almonte says she was fired after just six months on the job for challenging her superiors about the accuracy of the bank's credit card records.

Colleagues first learned of her dismissal later in the day when operations manager Jason Lazinbat, Almonte's former boss, gathered bank staff in a conference room and announced she was no longer with the bank. Under no circumstances, Lazinbat warned, were staffers to communicate with Almonte, recalls Carole McGinn, a quality control worker who spent 14 years at Chase. The account was confirmed by second employee, who requested to speak anonymously.

"It was an unusual statement," McGinn says. "Other people had left the bank, and we were not told" to cut off contact with them.

The contentious nature of Almonte's departure was a prelude to a series of events that serve as a cautionary tale for the banking industry. The former mid-level staffer eventually filed a whistleblower suit and complaints with regulators that accused Chase of a range of lapses over three years. They include: failure to reconcile the inconsistent past-due balances generated by the bank's computer systems; pressure from management to collect delinquent debts even in the absence of complete or accurate records; and robosigning of affidavits that brings into question the legal integrity of Chase's claims against tens of thousands of consumers.

Many of Almonte's accusations are backed by internal bank documents and current and former employees. What's more, they've forced Chase to cease operations in a collections unit that had previously generated billions of dollars in annual revenues.