Reverse Engineering Wall Street
Who to Contact Regarding Mortgage Fraud
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
The following is a press release issued by the Department of Justice FBI’s Sacramento Office. It represents a fairly comprehensive list of who is going after mortgage fraud. While this press release covers the Sacramento and Fresno areas of California, it is highly likely there is a similar task force in your area.
|
Department of Justice Press Release
|
|
||||||
Hundreds of Years of Title Destroyed in a Decade and a Half
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Neil F. Garfield, Esq. just posted the following article:
Posted on June 18, 2011 by Neil Garfield
What nearly everyone is missing is that any property that was mortgaged at any point in the last 15 years may have serious title defects. Here is the scenario:
What did the Attorneys for OneWest Learn at Trial?
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
From the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of California Bankruptcy No. 09-19263-PB13 (RS No. CNR-2), the Honorable Laura S. Taylor presiding (Not for Publication). OneWest submitted a motion for relief from stay as a secured creditor. This means they are the one with money at risk and there is security for the collateral (a Deed of Trust securing the debtors home). Attorneys had submitted this information and much more on behalf of OneWest. OneWest used a Brian Burnett to provide a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that OneWest was the real party in interest in connection with the Stay Motion. Mr. Burnett also stated under penalty of perjury that: (a) OneWest received an interest in the Trust Deed pursuant to an assignment attached to the OneWest Declaration; and (b) that OneWest is “holder and in actual physical possession of the original Promissory Note dated July 14, 2007 …”. A copy of the note (unendorsed) was attached to the declaration. This note was identical to the note attached to the Claim (Proof of Claim).
At trial, Charles Boyle, an Assistant Vice President in the Default Risk Management Group, Litigation Department of OneWest, testified, among other things, that the beneficiary of the Loan is Freddie Mac. This testimony was not consistent with the OneWest Declaration (by Mr. Burnett). The court required more information after the trial in order to decide the outcome.
OneWest’s post-trial documents contained factual assertions inconsistent with the OneWest Declaration and claim. OneWest now provided a new copy of the note with an allonge dated July 24, 2007 evidencing a transfer from Original Lender to “IndyMc Bank, FSB” and bore an endorsement in blank from IndyMac Bank FSB. Continue reading “What did the Attorneys for OneWest Learn at Trial?”
County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
The news release from Massachusetts speaks for itself: County Recorders Surprised to Find Acknowledgements Cannot be Relied Upon.
New release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Salem, MA
June 7th, 2011
Contact:
Kevin Harvey, 1st Assistant Register
978-542-1724
Jeff Thigpen, Register of Deeds
336-451-5300
Massachusetts Register of Deeds John O’Brien is first in the nation to say no to recording robo-signed documents; North Carolina Register of Deeds, Jeff Thigpen agrees. Continue reading “County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents”
Georgia Supreme Court – Aurora vs. Veatch
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Title does not pass with a forged deed, even to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the forgery . Affirmed unanimously.
View the ruling: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Aurora-v-Veatch-forged-deed-and-bona-fide-purchaser.pdf
View Video of Appellant Aurora Loan Services: http://multimedia.dailyreportonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Weber_Kimberly_101810.mp4
View Video of Appellee John Macelray Veatch: http://multimedia.dailyreportonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Robinson_John_101810.mp4
Internal Revenue Service Publication 938 – REMICs Reporting Information
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Publication 938 contains a directory listing of REMICs and CDOs. It contains newly created REMICs and CDOs as well as amended listings to existing REMICs and CDOs. Interestingly the IRS did not publish this publication for 2008. Why is this interesting? It is the peak of the meltdown with the failure of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Why is the IRS keeping this information a secret? I have heard many interesting conspiracy theories, but my guess is “they” feel “we” can’t handle the truth. From my review of these documents, I only have more questions. Why are some REMICs not listed? If Wells Fargo claims that World Savings Bank loans were held in house and not securitized, why are so many World Savings REMICs reported to the IRS? Why is the REMIC claiming to hold my loan not listed in any of these documents? Is it a law that all REMICs have to report themselves to the IRS for publication?
The Introduction to Publication 938 for 1996 states:
This publication contains directories relating to real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs) and collaterized debt obligations (CDO’s). The directory for each calendar quarter is based on information submitted to the Internal Revenue Service during that quarter. This publication is only available on the IRS electronic bulletin board and the Internet.
For each quarter, there is:
• A directory of new REMICs and CDOs,
and
• A section containing amended listings.
You can use the directory to find the representative of the REMIC or the issuer of the CDO from whom you can request tax information. The amended listing section shows changes to previously listed REMICs and CDOs.
The directory for each calendar quarter will be added to this publication approximately six weeks after the end of the quarter. Continue reading “Internal Revenue Service Publication 938 – REMICs Reporting Information”
L. Randall Wray does it again – Requiem For MERS
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics and Research Director for the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri-Kansas City posted an article on the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com) that I somehow missed. The MERS design was woven in fraud. Professor Wray points out the two main issues with MERS. The first is that most foreclosures are illegal because those doing the foreclosing do not have legal standing. Second the practices that create the foreclosure problems also mean that the mortgage backed securities are actually unsecured debt. Professor Wray says that this means the banks must take them back, so they are toast. He also states that it all comes back to MERS business model: it destroyed the chain of title.
Continue reading “L. Randall Wray does it again – Requiem For MERS”
Lawyers CLE Workshop On Foreclosure Defense and Offense in Ft. Lauderdale, FL
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
LAWYERS CLE WORKSHOP ON FORECLOSURE DEFENSE AND OFFENSE
SEE LIVINGLIES BLOG FOR DETAILS ON THIS EXCITING REVISION AND IN-DEPTH UPDATE OF GARFIELD CONTINUUM
EARLY BIRD ($995) FOR AN ATTENDANCE PASS TO THE GARFIELD CONTINUUM CLE SEMINAR, 2 DAYS, CLE CREDITS VARY FROM STATE TO STATE, ESTIMATED AT 16 TOTAL CREDITS, 2.5 CREDITS ETHICS.
The PRESENTERS are Neil F Garfield, Esq., Jon Lindeman, Esq., Alex Goldovsky, Dan Edstrom, Lori Enriquez, James Macklin, and Beth Findsen, Esq..
Conference Pass – for Attorneys, includes lunch and seminar materials in digital format .
JUNE 25-26 – in FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA
Retail $1495, EARLY BIRD $995 UNTIL JUNE 15, RESERVE SEATING NOW, SPACE LIMITED
Membership $1395, EARLY BIRD $895 UNTIL JUNE 15, RESERVE SEATING NOW, SPACE LIMITED, Go to livinglies.wordpress.com for membership pricing
Continue reading “Lawyers CLE Workshop On Foreclosure Defense and Offense in Ft. Lauderdale, FL”
Oregon Does it to MERS Again
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Once again MERS is hammered, this time in Federal District Court by the Honorable Owen M. Panner. This judge understands clearly what is going on and has some serious questions. Read this case to understand securitization and foreclosures. Here are some highlights (there are many others):
Should the beneficiary choose to initiate non-judicial foreclosure proceedings, the Act’s recording requirements mandate the recording of any assignments of the beneficial interest in the trust deed.
Nobody held a gun to the head of the servicers and required them to use non-judicial foreclosure. They have the right to choose which action they wish to use – non-judicial or judicial. The problem in this case (and almost all other cases), is that the servicers are making the wrong choices. Why? Money, what else?. It is not their concern that they don’t qualify to use non-judicial foreclosures. It is not their concern that they have to strictly comply with statutes. In 90% or more of all cases the homeowners are walking away so nobody will know anyway right? Oops, now the titles have to be cleaned up because of the mess left behind by the servicers, which have all but destroyed the title records for foreclosed properties. This means that in the future, somebody else will have to file a judicial lawsuit to clean up the title for a property because the servicer made the wrong choice and failed to strictly comply with non-judicial statutes. By the way this problem is understated and far worse than anyone actually imagines or understands at this point.
Bankruptcy Cram-Downs Being Used on Primary Residences
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
A “cram-down” is where the principal balance is reduced, usually to fair market value. DSNews.com is reporting that the research firm and ratings agency DBRS has learned from various servicers that cram-downs are being done in some bankruptcy courts. We have seen the occasional cram-down but this shows that it is far more prevalent then most people realize. The effect of a cram-down is that the loan principal balance is reduced to fair market value and all amounts over that are “unsecured”, meaning they could be fully discharged. For example if a homeowner owes $750,000.00 on their primary residence, but the actual market value is $440,000.00, the bankruptcy court could cram-down the loan so that the actual principal balance is $440,000.00 and the rest ($310,000.00) is unsecured debt.
For more, read the DSNews.com article here: http://www.dsnews.com/articles/mortgage-cram-downs-by-bankruptcy-judges-are-taking-place-dbrs-2011-05-02
You can view more about DBRS here: http://dbrs.com/
