About Deadly Clear

This blog site is for you - to make your opinions known and enable you to express your thoughts, insights, fears and be DEADLY CLEAR. The author of the blog has become more compassionate and socially enlightened with age after entering this world from a very brainwashed right-winged culture. My goal is to achieve perfection and share in Ho'oponopono which means to make things right.

“Hardworking” Congress off on a 54 day vacation—only 8 working days after returning from 5 week summer recess

Deadly Clear:

Is it time to change how Congress operates? I’m so tired of political commercials – all lying about each other.

Originally posted on Justice League:

Congress roaches-2013

I would certainly been dropped kick to the curb from a job with this type of scheduling by Congress! That’s right, legislators left the Capitol — only eight work days after returning from a five-week summer recess — and will not be back to work for another 54 days, until after the November midterm elections. Rachel Maddow said it all:

“Sixteen-hundred U.S. families have gotten the call that their loved ones deployed to Iraq. They’re flying those missions right now..But Congress? Heading home for another seven-week break, because they can’t be bothered to think about that right now. They’ve got more important business to tend to — they’ve gotta get re-elected.”

Folks, get out and vote the loafers out of office!!!

From Rachel Maddow show: on.msnbc.com/1mkdLI0

View original

Virginia attorney general sues 13 banks for fraud

Deadly Clear:

OMG Mr. Herring – let us provide you with the USPTO patents that help establish the intent! Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus.

Originally posted on Justice League:

State SealCommonwealth of Virginia
Office of the Attorney General

name and titleaddress

For media inquiries only, contact: 
Michael Kelly, Director of Communications
Phone: (804)786-5874
Email: mkelly@oag.state.va.us


~ Largest suit ever brought under Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act seeks accountability for banks that fraudulently sold mortgage-backed securities to the Virginia Retirement System ~

RICHMOND (September 16, 2014)–Attorney General Mark R. Herring today announced a historic lawsuit against some of the largest commercial banks in the world for fraud committed against Virginia taxpayers during the height of the real estate bubble. A lawsuit unsealed today in Richmond Circuit Court seeks $1.15 billion in damages against thirteen banks that are each accused of fraudulently misleading the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) during the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) to the state retirement fund. The VRS was entitled to accurate information about the underlying…

View original 435 more words

Big Blow to Banks as CFTC Policy Change Is Upheld

Deadly Clear:

Holy smokes! “The derivatives market has since rebounded from the crisis, and financial firms have an estimated $700 trillion derivatives exposure worldwide.”

Originally posted on Justice League:

(CN) – A federal judge dealt a blow to big-banking interests by upholding a policy extending regulatory reach to the overseas subsidiaries of U.S. financial firms involved in derivative swaps.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced a new policy regarding cross-border derivative swaps in July 2013, trying to address a problem made clear by the 2008 financial crisis: that the investment decisions of foreign offices had major ramifications for U.S. financial firms.
American International Group nearly failed because of the risks incurred by swaps made by its London-based subsidiary, AIG Financial Products – but the U.S. government bore the burden of bailing the company out.
And Lehman Brothers, which did not benefit from a government bailout, similarly guaranteed nearly 130,000 derivative contracts held by one of its London-based subsidiaries when it filed for bankruptcy in 2008.
The derivatives market has since rebounded from the crisis, and financial firms have…

View original 108 more words

Coming Home to Roost – Congressional Oversight Panel, “Banks cannot prove they own the loans…”

Deadly Clear:

This certainly deserves an update and Reblog. See the Holden appeal decision HERE. 

Since this case began in 2011 there have been a lot of discoveries regarding securitization and NTMs (non-traditional mortgages). If you research any of the trust Prospectus’ they talk about UCC Article 9 in the foreclosures – because the collateral (loan) has been converted into securities shares and treated like a cooperative. You would think that there is no way an actively trading trust Trustee can foreclose on a trust asset as an Article 3 – unless it buys the asset out of the trust …and the trust documents say in most cases the trustee can’t own the assets.

Isn’t there an argument to be made that the trust documents indicate that the borrowers’ collateral (mortgage loan) would fall under UCC Article 9 and that in most cases no financing statements have been filed and certainly UCC Art. 8:501(d) has not been complied with?  Looks like Financing Statement may also be required:

Here is a 2005 Prospectus example. Search “Article 9″:

“Anti-Deficiency Legislation and Other Limitations on Lenders

Certain states have imposed statutory prohibitions that limit the remedies of a beneficiary under a deed of trust or a mortgagee under a mortgage. In some states, statutes limit the right of the beneficiary or mortgagee to obtain a deficiency judgment against the borrower following foreclosure or sale under a deed of trust. A deficiency judgment is a personal judgment against the former borrower equal in most cases to the difference between the net amount realized upon the public sale of the real property and the amount due to the lender. Other statutes require the beneficiary or mortgagee to exhaust the security afforded under a deed of trust or mortgage by foreclosure in an attempt to satisfy the full debt before bringing a personal action against the borrower. Finally, other statutory provisions limit any deficiency judgment against the former borrower following a judicial sale to the excess of the outstanding debt over the fair market value of the property at the time of the public sale. The purpose of these statutes is generally to prevent a beneficiary or a mortgagee from obtaining a large deficiency judgment against the former borrower as a result of low or no bids at the judicial sale.

In addition to the statutory prohibitions on deficiency judgments, certain Mortgage Loans in the trust fund may, by their terms, prohibit recourse to the borrower in the event proceeds from foreclosure or other liquidation are insufficient to satisfy the debt. These Mortgage Loans may also not require payments of principal and interest until maturity, thereby increasing the likelihood that a deficiency will exist.

Cooperative Loans

Generally, lenders realize on cooperative shares and the accompanying proprietary lease given to secure a Cooperative Loan under Article 9 of the UCC. Some courts have interpreted section 9-504 of the UCC to prohibit a deficiency award unless the creditor establishes that the sale of the collateral (which, in the case of a Cooperative Loan, would be the shares of the Cooperative and the related proprietary lease or occupancy agreement) was conducted in a commercially reasonable manner.”

It would stand to reason since the non-traditional loans were allegedly securitized and certificates issued in lieu of the promissory notes that an active trust would be unable to claim a passive/static promissory note as an UCC Article 3 negotiable instrument. How could it be negotiable when it has other notes (certificates) issued against it?

Originally posted on Deadly Clear:

In the recent filing November 9, 2011 of an Ohio case, Deutsche v. Holden, in the Court of Common Pleas in Summit County, (Akron) Ohio, defense attorneys submit that the note had not been transferred pursuant to the PSA therefore the foreclosing entity (Deutsche) did not own the note and mortgage.

Holden‘s Motion to dismiss cites the November 16, 2010 Congressional Oversight Panel’s (COP) report titled “Examining the Consequences of Mortgage Irregularities for Financial Stability and Foreclosure Mitigation” as well as the PSA and New York trust law.

Senator Ted Kaufman warned that the COP investigation found evidence that he stated as the worse case scenario, “considerably grimmer” where “robo-signers served to conceal the fact the banks cannot prove that they own the mortgage loans that

View original 688 more words

NYU Law Professor Jennifer Arlen and Off the Record Corporate Crime

Deadly Clear:

Too good to miss.

Originally posted on Justice League:

What happens if there’s a conference on corporate crime and nobody hears about it?

Did it happen?

It did.

It happened on April 4 and 5, 2014 at New York University School of Law.

The conference — Deterring Corporate Crime: Effective Principles for Corporate Enforcement – was the brainchild of Jennifer Arlen, co-chair of the NYU Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement. The conference was co-sponsored by the American Law Institute.

Food for the event was provided by Jules Kroll and his firm K2 Intelligence.

Reporters were not invited or allowed in.

As a result, there was no reporting on the conference.

And not that reporters wouldn’t have loved to have been there.

You had some of biggest names in the field.

You had your prosecutors — including Preet Bharara, Benjamin Lawsky, Andrew Ceresney, Denis McInerney, Jeffrey Knox.

You had your defense attorneys — including Lanny Breuer (Covington &…

View original 130 more words


Deadly Clear:

013627-yahoo-nsa-watching-091314Since Yahoo seems to have a problem allowing the links to this post be emailed – it must be hitting a very hot button and time to Reblog the information.

Originally posted on Deadly Clear:

patent_officeWhile fishing for bank-related patents this gem surfaced and jumped into the net.  At first it wasn’t apparent it was a keeper because the UETA issue has not been in the forefront of foreclosure defense. However, taking the time to dissect the document it became apparent that, as some of us have suspected, there is a mandatory methodology from the origination of the mortgage loan on a trip to the securitized trust that includes the EXPLICIT CONSENT of the obligor (homeowner).

Yup… The road to securitization needs an electronic record that the “issuer” aka the “obligor” has explicitly consented to at the time of origination. Yeah, ya think maybe that was the real intention of MERS aka Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.? But it looks like it didn’t have all its ducks in a row. This is a lot to digest – but you need to know and understand…

View original 2,882 more words

Behind the Securitization Curtain – 21st Century Mortgage Casino

Deadly Clear:

This is worth reviewing again.

Originally posted on Deadly Clear:

The turn of the century mortgage lending fiasco was built like a 21st Century casino.
The entire scheme started with the homeowner who wanted to buy a home or refinance at unbelievable interest rates… too good to be true… and they were!

It all started with a loan application called a “1003.”  EVERY lender in the scheme used the same loan application software.  In fact, Fannie Mae patented the sucker. Inside this specific patent are numerous patents related to and referenced that make up the beloved 1003 loan application. These patents are listed on line in the USPTO.

One of the reference patents is a gem called the “Online system for fulfiling loan applications from loan originators” and it describes how technological methodology is integrated into the mortgage lending process.  

View original 598 more words

Morgan Stanley : to pay $95 million in U.S. mortgage-debt settlement

Deadly Clear:

Do you think that since they sold the applications of borrowers to the investment banks that maybe these were actually securities sales, rather than traditional mortgages? If you found out you were unwittingly participating in a securities fraud scheme – what would you do?

Originally posted on Justice League:

Morgan Stanley has agreed to pay $95 million (59 million pounds) to resolve a lawsuit accusing the Wall Street bank of misleading investors in mortgage-backed securities in the run up to the 2008 financial crisis.

The settlement, disclosed in court papers filed Monday in New York federal court, follows years of litigation by investors over allegedly false and misleading statements over the soured securities.

The deal stemmed from a lawsuit pursued by the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi (MissPERS) and the West Virginia Investment Management Board.

The plaintiffs accused Morgan Stanley of violating U.S. securities law in packaging and selling mortgage backed securities in 13 offerings in 2006 and 16 offerings in 2007.


Read on.

View original

Courts Have Ability To Issue Sanctions In Foreclosure Cases

Originally posted on Justice League:

In response to the insightful article by Daniel Wise, “Panel Shifts Toward Remedy in ‘Sarmiento,'” (Aug. 29), I would raise one small point. Wise lamented that “The 2009 New York law (mandating settlement conferences in foreclosure cases) specifically instructed the Judiciary to issue rules to ‘ensure’ that judges have ‘the necessary authority and power’ to see that ‘conferences not be unduly delayed or subject to willful dilatory tactics,'” but that “the Judiciary has taken no action on the Legislature’s command.”

What the Legislature actually stated was “The chief administrator of the courts shall … promulgate such additional rules as may be necessary to ensure the just and expeditious processing of all settlement conferences authorized hereunder.”1

Although banks and mortgage servicers have argued in a number of cases that the failure of the chief administrator to have issued rules specifying what sanctions might be imposed for failing to…

View original 30 more words