Claims for loan servicer abuse can be challenged as a debt collector

Litigation brought by a borrower cannot likely stick where the parties bringing the action lacks meritfor the arguments for standing. Consider the matter whereby no holder in due course exists and for which this plaintiff can demonstrate the security (as in mortgage) is lost to the original lender who forecloses.

No claims for loan servicer abuse can be determined when a debt collector is by tradition aggressive and at times abusive. Not just anyone but rather the appropriate parties can bring sufficient paperwork deemed to give rise to a right to action and make a successful claim against you.

That servicer has no standing as a debt collector for an unsecured obligation and therein can a beneficiary gain momentum for arguments plead in claims for wrongful foreclosure of his home. Just because the document SAYS that an entity is the beneficiary doesn’t mean that is either true or dispositive. It is merely an allegation that is subject to the test of judicial process.

Will the courts look to “substance over form” as suggested here when made to consider the arguments for possession? With no exceptions, outside of jurisdiction, yes is the answer.

The court was specific yesterday where I testified in a wrongful foreclosure matter. The presiding judge wanted no part of the obvious elements of fraud which only confused a procedural court and limited jurisdiction.

Confusion begets confusion as I was asked by the court yesterday in testimony to “talk English” upon using vernacular such as “Pro Tanto”, Creditor Judgment, abstract and clandestine maneuvers by a fiduciary”. Did I bring to the court these words or were they part and parcel to the evidence brought by the plaintiff?

NG is correct when he states “You only want to pay your real creditor, not some imposter.”

The fundamental elements for arguing a breach and fraud are at issue and deemed a monumental task where limited by a procedural court.

Therefore is to clearly offer the court creditability for making your arguments and to seek expedited discovery. In the wrong jurisdiction your defense may become lost or seen merely as a misplaced delay tactic by a “pro per”.

After all the answers and paperwork you are seeking should have been in the possession of the foreclosure before they initiated proceedings.
In the context of a motion for lift from stay, the burden is on the moving parties (claiming to be a lender in the case) to establish to prove it is the real party in interest. This is a standing issue one can raise as a defense at any time if standing is a matter of jurisdiction. The accounting rules again state that for a sale and sale accounting tied to derecognition, their status as real party in interest should be apparent to a lay person and demonstrate in a pleading what evidence exists for claims to be the real party in interest.

GOOD FORECLOSURE INFOSEARCH

Conditions pprecedent. In Scotts matter we are pleading the performance or occurrence of conditions precedent, it is sufficient to allege generally that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. A denial of performance or occurrence shall be made specifically and with particularity, and when so made the party pleading the performance or occurrence shall on the trial establish the facts showing such performance or occurrence.

   

B Judgment or other determination of court or officer; how pleaded. In pleading a judgment or other determination of a court or officer of special jurisdiction, it is not necessary to state the facts conferring jurisdiction, but such judgment or determination may be stated to have been duly given or made. If such allegation is controverter, the party pleading is bound to establish on the trial the facts conferring jurisdiction.

C Private Statute; how pleaded. In pleading a private statute, or a right derived there from, it is sufficient to refer to such statute by its title and the day of its passage, and the court shall thereupon take judicial notice thereof.

   

D Corporate existence of city or county and of ordinances or comprehensive plans generally; how pleaded.

D(1) In pleading the corporate existence of any city, it shall be sufficient to state in the pleading that the city is existing and duly incorporated and organized under the laws of the state of its incorporation. In pleading the existence of any county, it shall be sufficient to state in the pleading that the county is existing and was formed under the laws of the state in which it is located.

D(2) In pleading an ordinance, comprehensive plan, or enactment of any county or incorporated city, or a right derived therefrom, in any court, it shall be sufficient to refer to the ordinance, comprehensive plan, or enactment by its title, if any, otherwise by its commonly accepted name or number, and the date of its passage or the date of its approval when approval is necessary to render it effective, and the court shall thereupon take judicial notice thereof. As used in this subsection, comprehensive plan has the meaning given that term by ORS 197.015.

   

E Libel or slander action.

E(1) In an action for libel or slander it shall not be necessary to state in the complaint any extrinsic facts for the purpose of showing the application to the plaintiff of the defamatory matter out of which the cause of action arose; but it shall be sufficient to state generally that the same was published or spoken concerning the plaintiff. If such allegation is controverted, the plaintiff shall be bound to establish on the trial that it was so published or spoken.

E(2) In the answer, the defendant may allege both the truth of the matter charged as defamatory, and any mitigating circumstances, to reduce the amount of damages, and whether the defendant proves the justification or not, the defendant may give in evidence the mitigating circumstances.

   

F Official document or act. In pleading an official document or official act it is sufficient to allege that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law.

   

G Recitals and negative pregnants. No allegations in a pleading shall be held insufficient on the grounds that they are pled by way of recital rather than alleged directly. No denial shall be treated as an admission on the ground that it contains a negative pregnant.

   

H Fictitious parties. When a party is ignorant of the name of an opposing party and so alleges in a pleading, the opposing party may be designated by any name, and when such party�s true name is discovered, the process and all pleadings and proceedings in the action may be amended by substituting the true name.

   

I Designation of unknown heirs in actions relating to property. When the heirs of any deceased person are proper parties defendant to any action relating to property in this state, and the names and residences of such heirs are unknown, they may be proceeded against under the name and title of the �unknown heirs� of the deceased.

   

Designation of unknown persons. In any action to determine any adverse claim, estate, lien, or interest in property, or to quiet title to property, the plaintiff may include as a defendant in such action, and insert in the title thereof, in addition to the names of such persons or parties as appear of record to have, and other persons or parties who are known to have, some title, claim, estate, lien, or interest in the property in controversy, the following: �Also all other persons or parties unknown claiming any right, title, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint herein. [CCP 12/2/78]

   

The matter will go before a court and unlawful detainer hearing where the jurisdiction is highly limited for arguments regarding the ownership and title. The matter of a UD is confined to jurisdiction with little if any concerns for the causes of action brought in a grievance complaint better suited for another court's jurisdiction.

 

Consent judgment, a final, binding judgment in a case in which both parties agree, by stipulation, to a particular outcome

Declaratory judgment, a judgment of a court in a civil case which declares the rights, duties, or obligations of each party in a dispute

Default judgment, a binding judgment in favor of the plaintiff when the defendant has not responded to a summons

Summary judgment, a legal term which means that a court has made a determination without a full trial

Vacated judgment, the result of the judgment of an appellate court which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court.

 

The expert can document various lengthy history of training and working exclusively at an institutional level in subprime lending was mostly spent as a secondary trader. I now work as an Expert.Witness who appraises a case and testifies in court. I jumped ship in 2003 wrongly thinking the market would soon crash. Little did I know what the industry would resort to in order to keep the lies alive? Hundreds of thousands of American homeowners face losing their homes due to unaffordable loans they received.

 

The breadth and depth of experience allows for a unique perspective for sharing with the public my views certain procedural knowledge that offers insight into the procedural defects seen to exist from one lender to another the parties consistent procedural must be limited to facts as I try to steer way from any bias. In this market that is hard. My views and experiences on the subject of foreclosure assume you'll need an attorney. I can merely make a distinction for you case from the presence of unlawful business practices and deceptive acts in a foreclosure. Here's what is at stake when If you're facing eviction from a foreclosure.

 

Filing an action is necessary for keeping your home after determining a wrongful foreclosure claim. Until a court rules on the matter it may be the only way have a way to protect your home. Real Property (e.g. in California) cannot transfer from one party to another where a lien is considered to be defect. The notion is the sale must fail whereby a transfer or conveyance or real property is near impossible. But a closer look at case law will show us the need to seek out a good attorney for determining the grounds for calling a Trustees Sale void or voidable and understanding the remedies where a tort or material violation does exist. Even when a fraud takes place we remind clients the court may not necessarily rule your home is you're anymore even after determining the deed and transfer was unenforceable.

 

A predatory loan is something that falls under a theorem of "Mutual Consideration". It is the shared responsibility by both sides for a willful act offered by one and accepted by the other party. For example, you took the loan under the circumstances as a borrower from a predatory lender and now changed your mind. The courts say I don't think so. Courts also are sticking with the notion of equitable consideration. Therefore there is no one to blame according to some courts recent rulings. I don't know about that where a cause of action can be made by an attorney and claims can be made supporting the deed is potentially defective. Another type of claim is made for circumstances where a forgery or recorded document accomplishes the sale from someone committing an unlawful act.

 

Where it can be shown there exists fraud or deceptive business practices the deed is considered defect and therefore the sale must fail. If the subject loan originated through unfair business practices, then your deed or mortgage maybe argued to be subject to a defect. 

   

That deed or mortgage will "rest disturbed" if subject to substantive arguments brought in litigation. Therein your claims may make the transfer of the property to anyone impossible. In other words the Power of sale and right to acceleration in a non judicial matter are rendered unenforceable. You challenge the lenders security which allows them to claim your home in a default judgment. It is unenforceable from commencement or discovery and subject to a void or voidable determination by the court. Here is the catch you need to be aware of. It falls under fraudulent releases, request for reconveyance and forgeries.

 

Can a bona fide purchaser acquire title to property involved free of the improperly reconvened deed of trust? The answer is yes!  The distinction between void and voidable acts and deeds, suggest it's not the mere presence of forgery but where forgery comes into play that determines the outcome between innocent victims.

   

Case Law:

A reconveyance of a deed of trust, executed by the trustee in misplaced reliance on a forged request for reconveyance, is voidable but not void. That is according to a California Court of Appeal that held  this decision in the case is Schiavon v. Arnaudo Brothers, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 801, 2000 WL 1586381 (2000) . The same rules apply to the reconveyance of the property interest under a deed of trust as to the conveyance of property by grant deed. Here, the lawful trustee under the deed of trust executed the reconveyance of the deed by the signature of its Vice President and with full awareness of the effect of the act. The fraudulent misrepresentation occurred in the forgery on the request for reconveyance. The conveyance was therefore voidable, but not void. The subsequent bona fide purchaser of the property was entitled to rely on it. "The Court then described earlier California cases to illustrate the void vs. voidable distinction.

   

In Erickson v. Bohne, 130 Cal.App.2d 553 (1955), the plaintiff was mentally and physically incompetent when she executed a deed. She didn't know she was signing a deed, didn't intend to convey her property, and received no consideration. The deed was held void, and the plaintiff prevailed over a later bona fide purchaser.

In Wutzke v. Bill Reid Painting Service, Inc., 151 Cal.App.3d 36 (1984), the plaintiff held a deed of trust naming as trustee a corporation that was owned by the trustor/borrower. The trustor/borrower executed and recorded a reconveyance using a fictitious name, purportedly the executive officer of the trustee/corporation. The reconveyance was found to be a forgery and held void, and the plaintiff prevailed over a later bona fide Lender.

 

In Fallon v. Triangle Management Services, Inc., 169 Cal.App.3d 1103 (1985), the original owner executed a deed to Tolbert, and Tolbert then mortgaged the property. The deed was found to have been procured by undue influence and held voidable, and the bona fide lender prevailed over the original owner.

 

Now in Firato v. Tuttle, 48 Cal.2d 136 (1957), plaintiffs held a deed of trust naming a real estate broker as trustee. The trustee/broker executed a reconveyance without authority, falsely stating that the loan was paid off. The reconveyance was found to have been unauthorized and voidable, and a bona fide lender prevailed over the plaintiffs.

   

You should conclude that the facts in the Schiavon case are more akin to those in Firato than Wutzke, where the Court held that the interest of the "innocent purchaser for value" (Arnaudo Brothers) will prevail over Schiavon et al. This case presents a classic example of the distinction between void and voidable acts and deeds.

 

This case study is not intended to offer a legal opinion where only a licensed practitioner may do so. It is more for giving the pre-foreclosure victim something to consider where affirmative defense should include acts of fraud but mat not necessarily save their home if it goes to sale. In a trustee sale the lender will take back the home in a trustee's sale or sell it through a trustee sale to a bonifide purchaser. As an expert who testifies in court I can tell you the problems you have with potential deceptive and unlawful acts such as forgery are likely to get you the courts attention. But if discovered after the fact you may find your remedy at best may not include getting your home returned to you. It appears it's not the mere presence of forgery but where forgery comes into play that determines the outcome between innocent victims.

   

Therefore do evaluate and consider the need to mount a defense against foreclosure before a sale back to the bank or even worse a third party. As an Expert Witness who provides testimony in these matters I know where to evidence fraud if fraud exists in the file. I often see repeated foul play in the transferring of the asset from the parties to a trust and then after the fact.

 

And know that there is a strong chance the lender and interested parties can be prevented from forcing a borrower out of the home. In the examples you have read an unlawful detainer may not be justified if another court can determine your rights are being violated subject to a court having the proper jurisdiction rule in accordance with remedies and damages subject to the deed having been determined to be void or voidable.

 

Expert.witness@live.com

   

 

 

CONFERENCE: THE NEXT GENERATION OF CLAIMS, REGULATIONS,

RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LITIGATION & REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT October 27 - 28, 2009 The Adolphus Hotel Dallas, Texas American Conference Institute’s National Forum on PREPARING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF CLAIMS, REGULATIONS, OBTAIN EXPERT ADVICE AND KEY INSIGHTS THAT WILL HELP YOU: • Mitigate the impact of borrower stall tactics, including claims arising from bankruptcy Proceedings, on foreclosures • Respond to suitability and misrepresentation claims tied to Option ARMs and other non-traditional mortgages • Prepare for the effects that emerging regulations and legislation, including amendments to RESPA and TILA, will have on litigation and compliance initiatives • Defend against investor claims arising from loan modifications • Manage the increase in investor repurchase demands and contest improper claims • Counter investor claims related to mortgage-backed securities and derivative products, including CDOs and CDS • Ensure proper standing before bringing foreclosure proceedings and defeat challenges to loan ownership • Defend against claims brought by municipalities seeking damages for alleged harm caused by foreclosures Hon. Timothy J. Corrigan - U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Fla. Hon. Michael B. Kaplan - U.S. Bankr. Ct., D.N.J. Post-Conference Master Class: Mastering the Nuances of Foreclosure and Bankruptcy: Establishing Effective Defenses Against the Newest Claims and Counterclaims October 28, 2009 – 3:15 p.m. - 5:45 p.m. DISTINGUISHED CO-CHAIRS: Frank A. Hirsch, Jr. Partner Alston & Bird LLP Andrew K. Stutzman Partner, Chair of the Mortgage & Lending Litigation Practice Group Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP REGULATORY AND ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVES FROM: Department of Justice Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Federal Reserve Board Illinois Attorney General’s Office EXPERIENCED IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FROM: Bank of America GMAC Financial Services Greenpoint Mortgage Bankers Association VIEW FROM THE BENCH: MEDIA PARTNERS: MORTGAGE FINANCE INSIDE SPONSORED BY: RESIDENTIALMORTGAGE LITIGATION & REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT October 27 - 28,

The International Accounting Standards Board and FASB proposed a standard that would replace IASB IFRS 3 Business Combinations and FASB Statement No. 141, Business for Combinations. A registers asset backed securities vehicle is specific to the collateral, interest therein and default. The belief loans are being held by Countrywide, for example only, the originating “source” (“Depositor”) after the alleged “sale” to the trust is wrong. The registration, purchase and sale and master polling and servicing agreement therefore are lacking standing. FASB has issued Staff Position (FSP) No. 133-1 and FIN 45-4, Disclosures about Credit Derivatives and Certain Guarantees: An Amendment of FASB Statement No.133 and FASB Interpretation No. 45.The FSP is intended to exact the truth by improving disclosures about credit derivatives by requiring more detailed information about the potential adverse effects of changes in credit risk on the financial position, financial performance and cash flows of the sellers of credit derivatives. It amends FASB Statement No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, to require disclosures by sellers of credit derivatives, including credit derivatives embedded in hybrid instruments. I agree that FSP addresses the concerns that the disclosure requirements in Statement 133 do not adequately address the potential adverse effects of changes in credit risk on the financial statements of the sellers of credit derivatives. www.borrowerhotline.com

Myths and Facts about the Financial Crisis The conservative spin machine went into overdrive after the financial crisis exploded the claim that unregulated markets always work best. Talking points fed to sympathetic columnists and reporters told an alternate, racially tinged tale: poor people were to blame. In the mythos they created, the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to “loosen underwriting standards” and to lend to the poor and those with poor credit, forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the “800 pound gorilla in the room,” to careen down the path of bad loans, dragging other lenders with them. Incredibly, conservatives blame insufficient regulation of Fannie and Freddie, and cite the Clinton administration as the architect of the mortgage industry’s collapse. Of course, none of this stands up to scrutiny. Here’s a guide to the most widely spun myths: Myth #1: De-regulation had nothing to do with this crisis The Facts Conservative de-regulation left Wall Street with no cop on the beat. Bush’s conservative appointees rolled back regulation and oversight of banks, insurers, lenders, and credit raters. - The explosion in subprime loans after 2000 were made by unregulated mortgage companies, and the vast majority of them were issued to higher income borrowers, not low- to moderate-income borrowers. - The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA) dismantled Depression-era law that had prohibited bank holding companies from owning other financial companies such as investment, commercial banking, and insurance companies. GLBA ignited a wave of mergers and hampered government regulators charged with preventing conflicts of interest and risky financial behavior. Myth #2: Private lenders were pressured into giving out risky loans The Facts Private lenders—not the government-backed Fannie and Freddie—issued the vast majority of subprime loans, and to low- and moderate-income borrowers in particular. Fannie and Freddie did not guarantee and securitize large quantities of subprime loans. - In fact, Fannie Mae actually lost market share because it chose not to “participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005” because it “determined that the pricing offered for these mortgages often was insufficient compensation for the additional credit risk associated with these mortgages.” As economist Dean Baker stated, “Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector….In short, while Fannie and Freddie were completely irresponsible in their lending practices, the claim that they were responsible for the financial disaster is absurd on its face—kind of like the claim that the earth is flat.” - In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld acknowledged that Fannie and Freddie’s role in Lehman’s demise was “de minimis,” or so small that it does not matter. Myth #3: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Caused the Crisis The Facts While some are attempting to scapegoat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, economist Dean Baker recently stated that while Fannie and Freddie “got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble,” they were “trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector” and actually lost market share to private subprime lenders in the years 2002-2007, when “the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded.” - In a 2006 Securities and Exchange Commission filing (available here) covering its activities in 2004, Fannie Mae stated: “We did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005.” In the report, Fannie Mae also noted the growth of subprime lending and reported, “These trends and our decision not to participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages contributed to a significant loss in our share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances to private-label issuers during this period.” - Additionally, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 6, 2008, that Fannie and Freddie’s failure played a minimal role in Lehman’s demise. Myth #4: The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the current financial crisis The Facts Several media figures have attempted to connect the financial crisis to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), originally passed in 1977 and since amended. However, according to housing experts, a large number of subprime loans were not made under the CRA, which applies only to depository institutions. Additionally, a study released earlier this year by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. However, the claim that the CRA is responsible for the current crisis ignores several crucial facts: - The CRA does not cover independent mortgage companies, which issued the vast majority of the loans underlying the crisis. The act applies only to depository banks and thrifts (savings and loan associations) that are federally insured. According to University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, just 20 percent of the subprime mortgages since the late 1990s were issued by CRA-covered lenders. Thus, 80 percent subprime loans were made by lenders not regulated by the CRA. - The CRA actually created more responsible lending. San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Janet L. Yellen rejected the “tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending,” and noted “that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.” - The act was passed in 1977, well before the subprime loan bonanza occurred. In fact, the Bush administration’s weakening of the CRA coincided with the subprime boom. - Banks did not engage in an orgy of reckless subprime lending to meet CRA obligations; they did so for they same reason they always do: to make money. Only this time, deregulation allowed them to get paid not just for making the loans, but for turning them into securities and trading them (see below). Myth #5: Progressives have opposed strengthening oversight over Fannie and Freddie The Facts Several media figures have accused progressives in Congress of opposing stronger oversight of two mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and his predecessor, Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) made efforts to enhance regulatory oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 and sponsoring the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007. Both of these bills called for a new agency to oversee and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Myth #6: Congress funded ACORN in the bailout package The Facts Numerous media figures reported that Congress tried to steer money to ACORN in the recent housing bailout bill. In fact, neither the draft proposal nor the final version of the bill contained any language mentioning ACORN. Those making the false claim were misrepresenting a provision—since removed—that would have directed 20 percent of any profits realized on troubled assets purchased under the plan into two previously established funds: the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund, which, under the law authorizing them, distribute funds through state block grants and through competitive application processes, respectively.

IMPORTANT ANNOUCEMENT: Link to Stop Foreclosure

PressRelease "Immediate" Los Angeles, CA /11 01 2008 Link to Stop Foreclosure (dateline) A director for a mortgage secondary markets aduiting group shares their views on the recent events impacting Wall Street and lenders. Maher Soliman is a outspoken critic and somewhat boisterous voice that demands the mortgage industry start to implement a real mortgage loan setlement plan. According to Soliman, "the sooner the better for determining actual losses from wrongfull and highly speculative securities dealings - -somthing needs to give, in other words. FASB and FSP Reporting The FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP) FAS 140-3, is as follws: "Accounting for Transfers of Financial Assets and Repurchase Financing Transactions," to address repurchase financing transactions related to previously transferred financial assets. A repurchase financing transaction occurs when a buyer (First Franklin and a Merill Lynch Partner) who are initial transferee of a financial asset obtains financing from the seller (Merill Lynch Operating Subsidiary i.e. Bank & Trust, the initial transferor) through a repurchase agreement. Under this arrangment, the buyer transfers the financial asset back to the seller as collateral until the financing is repaid. The term repurchase agreement is described in paragraphs 96 and 97 of FASB Statement 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities. When a transfer of a financial asset and a repurchase financing occur between the same counterparties (or consolidated affiliates of either counterparty), a question arises as to whether the transactions should be viewed together or separately for purposes of evaluating the sale accounting criteria in Statement 140. This question first arose with respect to mortgage real estate investment trusts (REITs) but may have widespread application to a number of other entities, including those that buy financial assets and make use of repurchase financing from the seller and those that sell financial assets and provide repurchase financing to the buyer. Mortgage REITs, hedge funds, broker-dealers and banks may be parties to these transactions. Some entities may participate at different times as either buyers (initial transferees) or sellers (initial transferors). B. Scope The FSP applies to a repurchase financing which is a transaction in which the buyer (initial transferee) of a financial asset obtains financing from the seller (initial transferor) by transferring the financial asset back as collateral until the financing is repaid. Typically, there are three transfers of financial assets that take place in a repurchase financing as discussed in the following table: Transfer Transferor Transferee Initial transfer of financial assets with cash paid by buyer to seller Seller (initial transferor), for instance a broker-dealer or bank Buyer (initial transferee), for instance a customer such as a mortgage REIT or hedge fund Transfer of financial assets to the lender (initial transferor) in a repurchase financing transaction with cash paid to the borrower (initial transferee) Borrower under the financing (initial transferee) Lender under the financing (initial transferor) Transfer of financial assets in settlement of repurchase financing with borrower (initial transferee) making payment to the lender (initial transferor) Lender (initial transferor) returns financial assets Borrower (initial transferee) receives financial assets " If Soliman is correct in his assumptions, this could mean a long, very long winter for us all. Material Misrepresentation NLS or Nationwide Loan Services, LLC. is a compliance and due diligence firm that has purchased and sold over a billion in mortgages, subprime mortgage receivables, and loan servicing for over 20 years. The Subprime mortgage loan collateralized programs were always vulnerable and they did not work back when NLS serviced and traded mortgage loans. I am talking about the late eighties and up tp today. I recall selling, mortgage’s to the likes of Westinghouse and Ford. It did not work back then we want to tell you it does not work now. Now consider, “why the need to make such a bold and maybe boring statement? I do so for one reason! THIS IS THE MEANS FOR YOU TO CANCEL A LOAN OR GET BACK THE HOME YOU LOST. The lender as determined by the promissory note is not a lender at all. It is a pass through certificate loan originator I partnership with an investment banking concern. The provider is who “originates” the debt from consumers. A lender or a bank has two or more capitalization rules and reg’s it must follow and that is what assures us of the misrepresentation. This correspondence is simply called the Foreclosure "Link" How to Avoid a Foreclosure”. The subject is so convoluted and so complex that most will balk. Others try to repeatedly understand and to no avail. These questions will answer the question “What is NLS and what do we do?". We are not counsel and do not represent to be such. We are not a "help you fix the problem" Internet de Novo run by mortgage brokers. We are experts in court case’s and act as an attorneys consultant and litigation specialty development firm who needs your help in correcting the mortgage mess that plagues the country.What’s the payoff to you? You may keep your home or get back the home you lost to a lender that may not be a lender at all or a "Party" allowed under federal guidelines to foreclose on you and your family.You need to register with us and that is for free. Our cost for processing your information is reasonable. THE COST WE CHARGE HOWEVER IS NOT FOR PROFIT AND OUR EARNINGS WILL SHOW HOW WE OPERATE AT A LOSS. Are we failing to disclose something here with regards to the public? If proven to date we are not clear on things, then let me disclose the following to all our clients. We can show why and most importantly "where" the subprime mess is flawed with respect to liability for these obligations! In other words, the private label securities and mortgage loan origination platforms carried a heavy price in terms of its efficiency. The programs and products were destined to be abused for the sake of the securities and certificate holders (who I believe were also duped). The business needed a "bull" or continually "propped up" housing market to keep it from collapse between periods of flat rates and zero growth in housing. So does this all ring a bell? Were you inclined to refinance or move up and purchase a more expensive home after the previous market and your involvement (loan origination) was at that time over?Our goal is as follows in accordance with the objectives listed below; 1.To get you out of foreclosure and out of an arguable obligation 2. To expose the subprime markets as a questionable origination and delivery platform. 3. Show consumers were the facts point to "huge" front end margins to the Wall Street sponsor's but were flawed in a sizable downward fall back and would cause an economic collapse. (Cause and not be a victim of - this is critical to understand). 4. To expose the industries weaknesses and flaws with regards to exposure and claim. 5. To protect American's barring an executive order and congressional and senate support for government intervention and preemption. 6. To make the arguments for a loan to be rescinded (removed) with an honest and integrity rich approach towards the sensitive condition of the investment firms, all people’s livelihoods and the need to correct the problem. I want to emphasize in the last statement or line item 5 what is meant. We do consider the United States need to remain a viral and stronger economic leader and its efforts to bail out the investment banking firms who have now an unimaginable outstanding obligation to the world. Your loan obligations over the recent years were the sources of capital flow into the economy and caused the domestic GNP to remain strong and for our World trade partners to prosper. So now all we ask is to get the picture straight and to stop deceiving Americans at risk of losing their homes. Unfortunately for the economy, the truth is that if Americans are allowed to walk from their homes, the impact to the economy will be even more devastating that what you see now at hand. That's not your fault. You did your part and now the mortgage industry, the Capitol markets investors ,the surety bond holders, title insurers and errors and omissions blanket providers and others paid premiums to ensure us IN times like this has arrived.That's who must make good on their promises and allow the credit rating agencies, investment bank securities sponsors and capital management firms purchasing these securities acknowledge once and for all - Subprime borrowers are not the problem - it's the defective loans you received that now must be returned to the place of purchase. Thank you Maher Soliman Director Senior Compliance Officer P.s No we never have or were willing to acknowledge something we are not. We do not negotiate modifications or workout under a lender terms and that's due to - -there is nothing valid to modify! Complaince Case Study: Nomura /Lehman/Aurora Oct 31st 2008 The lender as determined by the promissory note is not a lender at all. It is a pass through certificate provider who nearly “originates” the debt from consumers. These private label (non agency) business entities are fully disclosed in SEC memorandum filings and provide specific information with regards to the parties named on the promissory note as an originator, holding NO ASSETS, and under a repurchase and sale contract. They do not act as a lender in any way other than appearance. This deceptive means of operating is an attempt to mirror the efficiency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in accordance with government guarantees and trading the assets to and from investors in that government secuired certificate. Not as a lender and not as a lender. (definitions) Aurora is a master Servicer who specializes in originating and servicing residential mortgage loans.Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (NYSE:LEH), the nation's fourth-largest investment bank, is under bankruptcy protection and has 'substantially' reduce its U.S. residential-mortgage lending business. The investment house said the move will mostly affect its Aurora Loan Services business, which acts as its primary mortgage unit. Lehman will take a $40 million charge as part of the plan." The collapse of Lehman Brothers is feared to leave Nomura to cover such losses on its own. Nomura fell into the red for the first time in nine years in fiscal 2007, with a group net loss of 67.8 billion yen, due to the disposition of 260 billion yen in losses resulting from the subprime loan crisis. The value of certain world debt related securities (Icelandic securities)has established a potential claim under a disposition of assets by the parties as evidenced by value having fallen sharply recently, making it increasingly likely that Nomura's losses will worsen or cause it seek bankruptcy protection. Nomura must cope with a potential loss resulting from a dip in the share price of a U.S. hedge fund management firm it financed. The risk of insolvency for so-called monoline bond insurers in the United States, with which Nomura has business deals, increased, inflicting additional (billion’s)in losses resulting from specific subprime related difficulties and overall crisis. Aurora’s Master Servicing group is headquartered in Littleton, Colorado. As one of the nation’s largest master servicers of residential mortgage-backed securities, we are defined by our commitment to our Investors and our dedication to “solely” building master servicing partnerships that add unprecedented value for our clients. Aurora as a facilitator to the investors, or beneficiaries, is solely acting as a master servicer that services and whose principle business is designed to do the following: 1. Evaluate the overall performance of the underlying servicers 2. Mitigate investor risk 3. Support post purchase due diligence They have relationships with over 200 servicers, resulting in our boarding over 500,000 loans per year (as of 2005). This achievement reflects Aurora’s ability to effectively oversee the loan administration, investor reporting, compliance and default management activities of primary and special servicers.

San Diego tell's WaMu "Your Next"

San Diego official accuses Washington Mutual of predatory lending The City attorney is stepping up and is acting a little outside the role of a City Attorney. That said after the AG's were allegedly warned by the US Attorney to back off (FBI DOJ investigating) Countrywide – Talk about Ali “phantom” knock out over “Sonny Liston; Wow! What a lay down given the complaint merely described normal lending practices against suckers who own a home. So Brown pulls off a monumental settlement which still leaves me puzzled as an auditor. The complaint misses the barrel of abuses I find in files especially WaMu. Now that’s abusive. Who are these fools that taint the name of both States I am independent so will watch my comments. But Wa Mu is way out there compared to Countrywide check writing wimps and from the audits I have seen. So here is my point. To the CITY ATTORNY - I APPLAUD YOU FOR THE COURAGE AND EFFORT. I have files “Stated Income” liar loans that make Cyrano a joke. Oh you would love to see what we came up with - if we can help! admin@borrowerclaims.com

BK and Foreclosure Fraud

Foreclosure tops the list of conversations lately amongst all voters, homeowners, mortgage professionals and loan brokers. Bankruptcy has never carried any negative stigma for me as an anlayst (mortgage brokers being the exception). I am referring to the times I am confronted with a consumer who is acting humiliated. It's a fact of life and based on actuarial tables just like births, accidents and divorce. The statistics are now impacted by limitations and conditions for seeking protection or relief from creditors through liquidation. A higher incomes bracket filing for bankruptcy cannot use Chapter 7 as an immediate option. The debtor must now endure the limitations of a "13" filing. All debtors must seek credit counseling prior to filing. The bankruptcy case will mandate additional counseling and debt management before their debts can be forgiven.The changes in the new bankruptcy law has altered the approach many must take when considering their insolvency. Chapter 7 filings are much more restricted with reference to eligibility as compared to the prior rules. The debtor filing for bankruptcy use to choose the type of bankruptcy that seemed best for them. Its understandable why most pursue Chapter 7 (liquidation) over Chapter 13 (repayment). You will need to first determine if your income under the the new law prohibit's you from filing for protection under Chapter 7. My view is the changes in the law will make things more difficult when trying to find an attorney. Therefore, be forewarned that these new requirements are also imposed on counsel, and can cause you to expand your search for a qualified attorney to represent you in a bankruptcy case. Maher Soliman Sub Prime Analyst

According to the CNN report, Friday, a conference call in which Paulson and Bernanke briefed House GOP members struck a similar tone, according to GOP aides who were on the call. "The call was very sober, very strong on seriousness and very vague on details," one aide said. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. Senate Banking Committee Chairman told reporters on Friday."I've never been in a more sobering moment in my 28 years with the language that was used - careful language - by the financial leaders of the ... country," "Chairman Bernanke made all too clear the cost of inaction. When I heard his description of what might happen to our economy if we failed to act, I gulped," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "Everyone put aside their partisan differences and agreed to work together to pass something to address the state of our economy." Schumer told CNN that while the rescue will be expensive, "the only salvation is it would cost even more" to do nothing. The economy is slowly being strangled," said Lyle Gramley, a former Federal Reserve governor. The administration's case-by-case handling of the crisis so far hasn't worked, he said, "because it hasn't dealt directly with the principle problem, which is a lot of bad mortgage debt.""We've been in a credit crunch that's getting worse," Gramley said. "Businesses can't borrow, which means they can't invest." And if they can't invest, they can't keep people employed. According to the President, Bush said. "Given the precarious state of today's financial markets - and their vital importance to the daily lives of the American people - government intervention is not only warranted, it is essential."Soliman said, "The chaotic events in the market this past week must have sold the President that it was time to act. But no word from economists on how this bail out will affect each homeowners across the country...especially those in trouble!" Reference acknowledgment to CNN's / Ted Barrett and Deirdre Walsh Correspondents Kate Bolduan and Kathleen Koch

Filing BK & Important Changes.

Foreclosure tops the list of conversations lately amongst all voters, homeowners, mortgage professionals and loan brokers. Bankruptcy has never carried any negative stigma for me as an anlayst (mortgage brokers being the exception).

I am referring to the times I am confronted with a consumer who is acting humiliated. It's a fact of life and based on actuarial tables just like births, accidents and divorce. The statistics are now impacted by limitations and conditions for seeking protection or relief from creditors through liquidation. A higher incomes bracket filing for bankruptcy cannot use Chapter 7 as an immediate option.

The debtor must now endure the limitations of a "13" filing. All debtors must seek credit counseling prior to filing. The bankruptcy case will mandate additional counseling and debt management before their debts can be forgiven.The changes in the new bankruptcy law has altered the approach many must take when considering their insolvency. Chapter 7 filings are much more restricted with reference to eligibility as compared to the prior rules.

The debtor filing for bankruptcy use to choose the type of bankruptcy that seemed best for them. Its understandable why most pursue Chapter 7 (liquidation) over Chapter 13 (repayment). You will need to first determine if your income under the the new law prohibit's you from filing for protection under Chapter 7.

My view is the changes in the law will make things more difficult when trying to find an attorney. Therefore, be forewarned that these new requirements are also imposed on counsel, and can cause you to expand your search for a qualified attorney to represent you in a bankruptcy case.

Maher Soliman

Sub Prime Analyst

The domestic foreclosure problem continues to escalate. It is amazing to the author how many baseless articles are being written stating the end of the problem is in sight.When a ship is sinking the captain is later held responsible if unwilling to alert the passengers of the actual problem until it is too late. The American housing market is not sunk and only regionally appears to be sinking lower. Research will show from 2008, the number of foreclosures has risen and that has the mortgage industry lost for words. Pollyanna PR for the sake of silencing people’s fears is not ethical. Its true that thousands of families across America are struggling to keep their homes but no longer are able to keep current under the provisions of their promissory note. This is reflected in the number of delinquencies being cited nationwide. Delinquency (payments) calculated by the volume of borrower payments in arrears has tripled according to estimates by comparison to the same period of time, when the market peaked and prior to the commencement of the mortgage meltdown. Where these numbers are as expected press releases citing a cure vise-a-vie the Paulson bailout plan or other resolution offered to quell fears are unsubstantiated and do not address facts as much as gain popularity for public fear. The pressures affecting the market are not difficult to understand nor are they surprising. Although the current volume of foreclosures (continued) Maher Soliman http://www.borrowerhotline.com/

Foreclosure is a serious matter.

Did you know.... Under-disclosure of the cost of credit: This is failure to disclose a charge or fee. By law, any fees must be disclosed on loan closing documents, and included when calculating the true cost of a loan. Consult a legal professional before you take anyones advice! And know your options including the key buss words being used. " Lenders power of sale, negotiated settlement, loan loss reserve, Right of redemption, TILA, Section 32 violations, judicial foreclosure, mediation..." There really is a lot to know about saving your house. Brenda Michelson bmichelson@borrowerhotline.com

Domestic lending and Finanicnal Reporting

Reporting & Fraudulent Loan Origination

Regulated lending with regards to consumer home loans and the origination sources may benefit from the application of a strategic-systems for employing a means to investigate fraudulent instances and to detect fraudulent financial reporting practices in the specific industries (Lender's). Fraudulent Loan Origination is one aspect of  fraud focused largely on identifying the indicators of fraudulent financial reporting and modeling fraudulent reporting characteristics. The matter is with respect to lenders and certain aspects of loan origination, and for determining the likelihood of fraudulent financial reporting through the reductionist audit approach (also referred as a transaction lens). Practices & Reporting Lenders are to a greater or lesser extent responsible for fraudulent financial reporting as defined as intentional misstatements or omissions of amounts or disclosures in preparation of financial statements, (with regards to booking assets, income, liabilities  and contingent liability and upon constructive notice or other determination) which are meant to deceive the interested parties (Braiotta, Hickok and Biegler, 1994). It is also referred to as management fraud because fraudulent financial reporting activities are articulated with high management’s supports and participation.  In many cases, fraudulent financial reporting is done to further such management goals as inflating reported earnings. The fraudulent financial reporting practices involve the deliberate misapplication of such accounting principles as recognizing unlawfully obtained revenue, overstating receivables or inventory, disregarding (contingent) liabilities, and shifting current expenses to future periods by capitalizing costs that should have been expensed. Detect and Report Errors and irregularities

Detect and Report Errors 

The Auditor’s Responsibility to Detect and Report Errors and Irregularities for timely signaling unlawful practices (or even negligent activity with repect to concealment of such after notice is made), that lead to misrepresentations and  or fraudulent financial reporting practices throughout a financial statement audit, the Auditing Standards Board (ASB) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) in 1988 issued Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 53, The Auditor’s Responsibility to Detect and Report Errors and Irregularities. This Statement provides the primary guidance on identification of risk factors inherent in fraudulent financial reporting activities. In 1997, SAS No. 53 was replaced by Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 82, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. SAS No. 82 provides the more detailed guidance on identification of fraud risk factors than SAS No. 53, and adds the guidance on risk assessment of fraudulent financial reporting. Afterwards, the Committee of Sponsoring Organization (1999) and the Public Oversight Board’s Panel on Audit Effectiveness (2000) analyze the nature of fraudulent financial reporting practices, identify key symptoms of financial statement fraud, and emphasize the importance of fraud risk assessment.       In application of SAS No. 53 and SAS No. 82, most academic researchers conduct experimental or empirical studies for identifying reliable signals of fraudulent financial reporting activities. They further apply several statistical methods to model the relation between reliable indicators of financial statement fraud and fraudulent/non-fraudulent outcomes for assessing the likelihood of financial statement fraud. Other researchers devote to studying fraudulent financial reporting characteristics in terms of industry traits and corporate governance mechanisms.    

Material Misstatement

Recent academic research is suitable for audit reveiws in accordance with lending and evaluating risk of material misstatement in reproting. These assertions follw through the KPMG strategic-systems audit approach (also referred as the KPMG strategic-systems lens), a new auditing perspective. The KPMG strategic-systems lens is derived from the systems theory, which suggests that ‘a business organization is a complex living system whose productivity, profitability, adaptability, and ultimate survival are dependent on the strength of its intra- and interconnections- structural couplings and symbiotic alliances among the business processes comprising the organization itself, and between the organization and external economic agents’ (Bell et al., 1997, p. 15). The KPMG strategic-systems lens directs auditors to assess business and audit risks from a systems perspective in terms of the strengths of the connections between an organization’s strategies and business processes and its external environment. As an application of the KPMG strategic-systems lens, recent researchers investigate some fraudulent instances to detect fraudulent financial reporting practices in the specific industries.

Portions taken with acknowledgement to

(O’Reilly, McDonnell, Winograd, Gerson, and Jaenicke, 1998)

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Blogged with the Flock Browser