The Center for Public Integrity posted a superb article by Reity O’Brien and Chris Young.

“At least five and perhaps as many as eight of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court are millionaires according to recently released financial disclosures, and only two hold any consumer debt.

Assets on the forms are reported in a range making it impossible to say precisely how much each justice is worth, but suffice to say, none of them are hurting financially.

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg boasts the highest potential net worth at $18.1 million with Stephen Breyer a close second at $17.1 million. Both were appointed by former President Bill Clinton. [DC Ed. Doesn't look like Justice Ginsburg will be sitting in on any decisions regarding JPMorgan Chase]

However, Ginsburg’s actual net worth may be as low as $4.4 million and Breyer’s as low as $5 million. Federal officials are also exempt from disclosing the value of their homes, making an accurate calculation even more difficult.

After collecting nearly $2 million in book advances, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s assets rose to between $1.7 and $10.3 million, ranking her No. 3 in terms of highest potential net worth. Sotomayor is an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, possesses one of the court’s most complex financial portfolios. His net worth is valued between $2.8 million and $6.6 million, ranking him No. 4.

As for the rest:

• Antonin Scalia, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, reported a net worth between $1.9 and $4.2 million, ranking him No. 5.

• Obama appointee Elena Kagan’s assets total between $815,000 and $2.1 million, according to the Center’s analysis, putting her at No. 6.

• Clarence Thomas, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush reported between $1.8 million and $715,000, ranking him seventh.

• Samuel Alito has not yet filed his 2012 report and sought an extension, but in 2011 the George W. Bush appointee reported between $380,000 and $1.1 million in wealth putting him at No. 8 for maximum potential wealth.

• Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Reagan, reported assets of between $330,000 and $700,000, placing him at No. 9.

Salaries plus perks

Justices make good money, though with their backgrounds they could easily earn much more in the private sector. Roberts, as chief justice, earns $223,500 per year, while the eight associate justices make $213,900.

But there are perks. Judges rake in tens of thousands of dollars from speaking fees, professorships and book deals.

Most of Ginsburg’s assets are held in mutual funds and retirement accounts. In 2012, Ginsburg earned nearly $26,000 for taking part in two separate university-sponsored events, including a two-week Wake Forest School of Law summer seminar held in Venice, Italy, and in Vienna, Austria.

The bulk of Breyer’s holdings are in mutual funds, retirement accounts and bonds. But one of Breyer’s two largest reported assets is a $1 million to $5 million stake in Pearson, the publishing company that owns the Penguin Group and The Financial Times. The justice collected between $15,000 and $50,000 last year in dividends thanks to his stock holdings in that company.

Breyer enjoyed a windfall last summer when he sold his stock in Amgen, Inc., the pharmaceutical company that was party in a case that came before the Supreme Court in its most recent term. In late September, just a month after he realized between $15,000 and $50,000 in gains by selling his Amgen holdings, the court docket noted that Breyer was no longer recused from proceedings related to the case.

Investing in China

Also notable is Breyer’s holdings in Tai Shan Fund which invests in tech companies in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan and is part of a Boston-based capital management firm led by investor Thomas Clafflin, according to a Bloomberg report.

Roberts has invested heavily in technology and telecommunications companies — some of which have had business before the high court. He also owns a mix of bonds, retirement accounts, mutual funds and shared ownership of a cottage in County Limerick, Ireland.

The top justice owns up to a total of $750,000 in shares of Time Warner, Microsoft and Texas Instruments and up to $200,000 in T-Mobile and Sirius XM Radio stock, according to his report.

Roberts recused himself from a patent dispute involving Microsoft, which the software giant lost in a unanimous 8-0 decision in 2011.

As the Center for Public Integrity reported last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s disclosure is notable for the nearly $2 million she received in book advances and promotion for her memoir, My Beloved World, published by Knopf Doubleday.

One of Sotomayor’s most valuable assets is her former New York City residence, now a rental property valued between $1 million and $5 million, though she carries a mortgage on the property. Unlike most of her colleagues on the bench, Sotomayor reported a handful of liabilities in her disclosure, including between $250,000 and $500,000 for the rental. Her debts for four credit cards were each less than $15,000.

Scalia reported a debt of less than $15,000 for a loan on a life insurance policy.

Scalia also reported receiving between $5,000 and $15,000 in rent for a property he owns in Charlottesville, Va. His report also shows that he has investments in gold-related securities totaling between $80,000 and $215,000.

Scalia reported earning $26,500 in 2012 for teaching at five different universities, including John Marshall Law School and the University of Southern California. Scalia also reported receiving nearly $64,000 in book royalties. Last year, the justice co-authored Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts with legal scholar Bryan Gardner.

Well-traveled justices

Scalia traveled frequently in 2012. In the “Reimbursement” section of his financial disclosure, he reports 28 trips to various schools and organizations to deliver speeches and lectures.

In most cases, the justice was provided or reimbursed for transportation, food and lodging. (Federal officials are not required to report how much they were reimbursed, either in exact amounts or in dollar ranges.) In September and October, Scalia gave speeches and lectures at five events hosted by the Federalist Society, a conservative nonprofit that advocates reform of the legal system.”  [Read more]

________________________________________________________________________

So, if you are wondering if another crash on Wall Street might have any impact on the US Supreme Court – just take a gander at the financial disclosure statements linked above.

Reblogged from Justice League:

Reblogged from Justice League:

Reblogged from Justice League:

Excerpt:

"Beginning in 2009, I regularly spoke to people who had received HAMP Trial Period Plans, made their trial payments, and who were calling to inquire about the status of their expected permanent loan modification. I also saw records showing that Bank of America employees had told people that documents had not been received when, in fact, the computer system showed that Bank of America had received the documents.

Read more… 100 more words

Prof. Campbell explains what has happened in the traditional sense and how Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. participated in part of the scheme. He also discusses how and why the homeowners were not intentionally at fault.

In this one-hour video, Attorney John E. Campbell explains the main aspects of the mortgage crisis that has devastated the U.S. housing market and the economy. Watch the video and then let’s discuss securitization in a little more detail below.

Robert Janes has previously written a  book called “Fighting The Foreclosure Machine” and has a website with the same name, with great newsletters contained therein.  It is all about the UCC and the material is in regard to making the banks prove who can enforce the Note.

This is fabulous information and used in a lot of Quiet Title actions and Oppositions to Motions for Summary Judgments.  Judges are starting to listen to these arguments which is to put a stop to the fabrication of documents and fraud stemming from the “foreclosure machine.”

ShellGame-MERS: Contrived Confusion

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., (“MERS”) is a big problem for the foreclosure machine. Its problem is your opportunity. Learn why this is so and how to use the presence of MERS to your advantage.

ShellGame-MERS: Contrived Confusion is by the author of Fighting The Foreclosure Machine. Like the book, this paper is a plain-language legal treatise. You and your attorney can use it to help your judge make the correct decision. [CLICK HERE TO ORDER]

What you will find in this paper:

• Relevant history of “MERS”
• What MERS is and is not.
• How it has been misrepresented to courts.
• How to introduce your judge to the real MERS.
• Why ShellGame-MERS is the better name for it.
• Why the mere presence of ShellGame-MERS in the mortgage is a serious barrier to foreclosure.
• Examples of how to draft complaints and answers in cases involving MERS.
• Examples of discovery requests when MERS is involved.
• Methodology for challenging and discrediting claimed foreclosure rights premised on anything done in the name of MERS.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE: this paper provides information, not legal advice. Each person’s circumstances and facts are unique. You and your legal advisor must determine how, if at all, this information might benefit you.

Every foreclosure defense attorney and judge hearing these cases should read this paper and research the issues and symptoms of the “MERS Blur” disease. Documents substantiating the paper can be found in the footnotes and many are accessible on http://www.doctelportal.com in the LIBRARY under the MERS tab.

Whether or not you are in foreclosure – these issues affect you. The foreclosure machine is a “land grab” much like the takeover of Hawai’i. We’re about to lose our rights to own properties in the most egregious and aggressive elimination of our due process protection and destruction of our Constitution.

Lili‘uokalani was the last queen of Hawai‘i. Born in 1838, she lived through the nearly complete economic transformation of the islands. Lucrative sugar plantations (like the banks and the elite) gradually subsumed the majority of the land, owned almost exclusively by white planters, dubbed the “Sugar Kings.” Hawai‘i became a prize in the contest between America, Britain, and France, each seeking to expand their military and commercial influence in the Pacific.

The monarchy (like our individual states) had become a figurehead, victim to manipulation from the wealthy sugar plantation owners (Wall Street). Lili‘uokalani was determined to enact a constitution to reinstate the monarchy’s power but was outmaneuvered by the U.S. government. The annexation of Hawai‘i had begun, ushering in a new century of American imperialism. This is exactly what is happening to homeowners across the United States – and it will happen to you if you don’t watch out!

The takeover of Hawaii is a disturbing and dramatic story depicted with a cast of characters driven by greed, desperation, and miscalculation… Sound familiar? How the queen lost her kingdom says as much about America and its new era of overseas expansion as it does about Hawaii. [Source: Lost Kingdom: Hawaii's Last Queen, the Sugar Kings and America's First Imperial Adventure].

Now, the “land grab” has come to mainland America in a foreclosure machine meant to make a society of leasehold renters… Why? Because it appears Wall Street and the government are without enough capital to sustain themselves and they need the land as assets – yours, mine and our family lands. In 1993, 100 years after the overthrow, the U.S. government issued an “Apology Resolution” to the people of Hawaii. The apology did nothing to guarantee the basic rights of indigenous Hawaiians, who continue to struggle against the colonial legacy of oppression. Is this what we want to happen 100 years from now – after it is over? After the United States is no longer a composition of individual states – but one huge land mass owned and controlled by only Wall Street, the elite and the Washington, DC government?

You need to seriously ask yourself – are you willing to allow your state to be consumed by a fraudulent foreclosure machine calculated with the intent and purpose to eliminate personal ownership in the land – so they can frack, strip the minerals, water and air rights out from under us?!

If you doubt their intentions read the news propaganda [CLICK HERE] and the patents [CLICK HERE].  See the patents in DeadlyClear’s REMIC Armageddon on the Horizon? You will see Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is a significant instrument necessary in the land grab.

Morgan Stanley doesn’t see this shift to rentership as a temporary waypoint while the country sorts out its housing problems; it sees this as a fundamental shift in how the United States will define itself into the future.

“America is moving away from a home ownership society and towards a rentership society,” the company says in its 2011 report. Of course it is if the Wall Street elite have anything to do with it, given the foreclosure machine, the fraudulent use of the MERS Blur Gang and history itself.

Bottom-line is that the states must wake the hell up. Wake up your legislators and your state courts. Encourage them to read of Robert Janes ebook ShellGame-MERS: Contrived Confusion. Make it the topic of your conversations at community meetings and among friends and family. If you doubt how serious the land grab situation is – just ask any Hawaiian. Their land was taken away – and yes, they got some of it returned where they can lease it for 100 years – and then its over … no more theirs. Do you think they have a reason to be angry? Well, that is exactly what is happening with every fraudulent foreclosure.

What can you do? You can read ShellGame-MERS: Contrived Confusion and work as hard as possible to have every single MERS decision overturned. And if your legislators are not in agreement with you it’s time to replace them in the next election. CLICK HERE to download now:

More DeadlyClear posts on the MERS Blur Gang subject:

• MERS – TOO MANY DEAD DUCKS
• THE 3 STOOGES OF MERS – DISORDER IN THE COURT
• AG Jack Conway Calls MERS a Ghost and a Front – Files a Lawsuit Against MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.
• “MERS is not a “holder” under the plain language of the statute,” says the Supreme Court of the State of Washington
• Ratigan on Delaware Fights MERS® – “even where Washington has failed to do so”
• COMPLAINT | STATE OF DELAWARE v. MERSCORP INC. Go Go Beau!
• MERS vs. MERScorp – Looks Like They are One-in-the-Same
• HYPOTHETICAL LIEN THEORY LIVES – Bye Bye MERS!
• MERS Causes Banksters’ Nightmare to Continue

Many thanks to KHanks, GCaranchini, DKrieger and ShellGame-MERS author Robert Janes for bringing this ebook to Deadlyclear’s attention.

Click here for How To Win in Court

Whether or not you are represented by an attorney understanding the legal system is an asset.  The more you learn, the less likely you are to be taken advantage of or scammed.  Knowledge is power!

Reblogged from Justice League:

David Reiss writes: “Brad Borden and I have warned that an unanticipated tax consequence of the sloppy mortgage origination practices that characterized the boom is that MBS pools may fail to qualify as REMICs.  This would have massively negative tax consequences for MBS investors and should trigger lawsuits against the professionals who structured these transactions. Courts deciding upstream and downstream cases have not focused on this issue because it is typically not relevant to the dispute between the parties.

Seems that is changing. Bankruptcy Judge Isgur (S.D. Tex.) issued an opinion in In re: Saldivar, Case No. 11-1-0689 (June 5, 2013)) which found, for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, that “under New York law, assignment of the Saldivars’ Note after the start up day [of the REMIC] is void ab initio.  As such, none of the Saldivars’ claims” challenging the validity of the assignment of their mortgage to the REMIC trust  “will be dismissed for lack of standing.” (8) [Yessiree! Judge Isgur gets the picture. It takes a good deal of intellect and guts to adjudicate the truth these days. DC Ed.]

If this case holds up on appeal, it will have a massive impact on many purported REMICs which had sloppy practices for transferring mortgages to the trusts. That is a big “if,” as the case relies upon Erobobo for its take on the relevant NY law. Erobobo, a NY trial court opinion, itself reached a controversial result and is hardly the last word on NY trust law. The Court also acknowledges that additional evidence may be proffered relating to a subsequent ratification of the conveyance of the mortgage, but for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the homeowners have met their burden.

For those few REMIC geeks out there, it is worth quoting from the opinion at length (everyone else can stop reading now):

“The Notice of Default indicates that the original creditor is Deutsche Bank, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-6. The Trust is a New York common law trust created through a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “PSA”). Under the PSA, loans were purportedly pooled into a trust and converted into mortgage-backed securities. The PSA provides a closing date for the Trust of October 25, 2004. As set forth below, this was the  date on which all assets were required to be deposited into the Trust. The PSA provides that New York law governs the acquisition of mortgage assets for the Trust.

The Trust was formed as a REMIC trust. Under the REMIC provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) the closing date of the Trust is also the startup day for the Trust. The closing date/startup day is significant because all assets of the Trust were to be transferred to the Trust on or before the closing date to ensure that the Trust received its REMIC status. The IRC provides in pertinent part that:

“Except as provided in section 860G(d)(2), ‘if any  amount is contributed to a REMIC after the startup day, there is hereby imposed a tax for the taxable year of the REMIC in which the contribution is received equal to 100 percent of the amount of such contribution.”

26 U.S.C. § 860G(d)(1).

A trust’s ability to transact is restricted to the  actions authorized by its trust documents. The Saldivars allege that here, the Trust documents permit only one specific method of transfer to the Trust, set forth in § 2.01 of the PSA. Section 2.01 requires the Depositor to provide the Trustee with the original Mortgage Note, endorsed in blank or endorsed with the following: “Pay to the order of Deutsche Bank, as Trustee under the applicable agreement, without recourse.” All prior and intervening endorsements must show a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the Trustee.

Under New York Estates Powers and Trusts Law § 7-2.1(c), property must be registered in the name of the trustee for a particular trust in order for transfer to the trustee to be effective. Trust property cannot be held with incomplete endorsements and assignments that do not indicate that the property is held in trust  by a trustee for a specific beneficiary trust.

The Saldivars allege that the Note was not transferred to the Trust until 2011, resulting in an invalid assignment of the Note to the Trust. The Saldivars allege that this defect means that Deutsche Bank and Chase are not valid Note Holders.

The Court agreed, at least while “accepting all well-pleaded facts as true.”” Read more…
__________________________________________________________________

It takes a great deal of intellect and patience to opine a securitization opinion as it relates to the challenges of home-ownership and title protection. It appears Judge Isgur and his clerks took the time to research and understand the intricacies of the new paradigm shift in mortgage lending. At the turn of the century 13+ years ago, banks intentionally changed the mortgage loan methodology and intent, unbeknownst to the borrowers.

While securitization had been in play for nearly 30 years until the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the banks had been under somewhat control. With Glass-Steagall protection eliminated during the Clinton era and Republican Congress regime – the banks went off the deep end and have yet to be reeled back in by Washington.

However, what has not changed – much to the fraudulent lending atmosphere dismay is STANDING. The Court in Saldivar addresses STANDING quite succinctly:

                              “Standing

     As a threshold matter, the Court must first address Chase and Deutsche Bank’s assertion that the Saldivars lack standing to challenge the validity of the assignment of their mortgage to the Trust.

A. Under New York Trust Law, is an ultra vires act void or merely voidable?

A third party generally lacks standing to challenge the validity of an assignment. Bank of
American Nat’l Assoc. v. Bassman FBT, L.L.C., et al. 981 N.E.2d 1, 7 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). A borrower may however raise a defense to an assignment, if that defense renders the assignment void. Id.

The parties agree that under New York Trust Law the relevant statute provides the following: “If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void.”

Nearly EVERY trust related case is based on New York trust law and will be specifically defined in the trust Pooling and Servicing Agreements (PSA). As found in the Hawaii case Deutsche Bank v. Williams, Defendants may challenge the assignment of mortgage in order to defend the title. Courts are now confronted with facing the fact that these mortgage loans did NOT get assigned to the trusts and documents have been fabricated to hide the fact that the trusts are actually empty.

The banks fell apart BEFORE the majority of homeowners defaulted because the investors STOPPED buying securities  and started suing the banks for misrepresentation and fraud [see THE SUCKER PUNCH]. The homeowners had been promised that they could refinance into fixed loans if they maintained their credit scores and made their payments – it appears this was never meant to happen. All one needs to do is research the patents that the banks filed in the USTPO as they made their paradigm shift a few short years ago – and you’ll see that the intention was driven more toward leasehold than ownership.  ”Land is the first economic hedge for mankind. Land is a place to begin and to try again. Land underlies all and land is limited. As Mark Twain once said, “Buy land. They’ve stopped making it.””

PATENTS – SUMMARY OF (one of )THE INVENTIONs

“In accordance with embodiments of the present invention, systems and methods are provided to structure land sale economics such that a leaseholder gains economic advantage while holding favorable land use rights as well as a right to acquire the underlying land at price that is likely to remain within the leaseholder’s economic reach.” See USPTO Patent - System and method for creating electronic real estate registration [click here for PDF] and its update 2012 version [click here for 2012 USTPO patent]. When the media refers to a “rental society” – they were not kidding:

Borrowers were sucked in and induced by rigged LIBOR rates to buy or refinance mortgages that never intended to pay off principal. As the years passed the patents progressed and the scheme of control to the elite becomes quite apparent…much like the takeover – “overthrow” of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the failed aspect of leasehold. Only now it is focused on America and these banks have gotten us in so financially deep in debt with their unregulated derivatives schemes that properties have become their new gold standard… apparently necessary for Wall Street to back up the banks.

The Court in Saldivar continues: 

 ”N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 7-2.4.The Bassman court holds that despite the plain language of § 7-2.4, under various circumstances a trustee’s ultra vires acts are voidable and not void. Bassman, 981 N.E.2d. at 9. The Bassman court cites New York cases that hold that beneficiaries of a trust can ratify a trustee’s ultra vires acts. See Gregan v. Buchanan, et al, 37 N.Y.S. 83, 85 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1896); see also Hine v. Huntington, et al. 103 N.Y.S. 535, 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907); Birnbaum v. Birnbaum, et al., 503 N.Y.S.2d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). The Bassman court holds that the ability to ratify a trustee’s ultra vires act is equivalent to finding that a trustee’s ultra vires act is merely voidable and not void.”

The Court defines the basis of the law it must follow with regard to the securitized trust:

“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1652, this Court has the duty to apply New York law in accordance with the controlling decision of the highest state court. Royal Bank of Canada v. Trentham Corp., 665 F.2d 515, 516 (5th Cir. 1981). While the Court finds no applicable New York Court of Appeals decision, a recent New York Supreme Court decision is factually similar to the case before the Court. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Erobobo, et al., 2013 WL 1831799 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 29, 2013). In Erobobo, defendants argued that plaintiff (a REMIC trust) was not the owner of the note because plaintiff obtained the note and mortgage after the trust had closed in violation of the terms of the PSA governing the trust, rendering plaintiff’s acquisition of the note void. Id. at *2. The Erobobo court held that under § 7-2.4, any conveyance in contravention of the PSA is void; this meant that acceptance of the note and mortgage by the trustee after the date the trust closed rendered the transfer
void. Id. at 8.”

NY Estate Powers & Trust Laws provide the Rule of Law:

“Based on the Erobobo decision and the plain language of N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 7-2.4, the Court finds that under New York law, assignment of the Saldivars’ Note after the start up day is void ab initio.

[. . . ]

The Saldivars have pled facts sufficient to withstand dismissal on whether the transfer to the Trust was void ab initio. The Saldivars allege that assignment occurred in 2011—several years after the startup day. If this proves true, Chase may not be the owner of the Note.”

Does this give the investors (who were provided numerous warnings of the risk in the Prospectus) another bite of the apple – or will their lack of due diligence to inspect the trust documents, assignments and recordations (that it appears were never processed) cause a spotlight to shine on their finance directors, CEOs and agents? Did they know these loans were NEVER intended to be assigned?

Certainly, pension fund investments needed liquidity in order to make these risky certificate purchases. Was there a promise that the shadow banking and derivative sales would assist in keeping the cash flow certain?

It would appear that if the investors allowed the Trustee the ability to cure its “ultra vires act” that it could appear it was acting in concert with the trust perpetrating frauds upon the mortgagors, not to mention the IRS. The failure to assign the mortgage loans [and specifically the note which could be construed as materially altered under the ramification of securitization] to the trust would appear to have been intentional.

This opens up Pandora’s Box for both the lenders and investors because as the scheme unfolds – and it will… remember the patents (as well as human beings), the potential for conspiracy begins to surface – not only in the context of defrauding the homeowner (rigged LIBOR, etc.), but also who instructed and approved the use of these risky investments and why – will become a focal point. Investor money was pouring into the investment banks – and then it stopped dead in its tracks. There were trickling investments after January 2007 which are suspect at best. So, teaming up with the Trustees who had to know the mortgage loans were not assigned (because pursuant to the PSA it was the trustees’ job to inspect the loan documents) would become a nightmare for the individuals involved in these investment transactions.

It would be much wiser for the investors to sue the depositors and the trustees for the tax liabilities based on failure to assign the mortgage loans to the trusts. Because the peasants are sharpening their skills and wise to the land grab scheme. Maybe it’s time for the pension funds to reconstruct mortgage loans with the homeowners at reduced principals and reasonable interest rate for the damage this has caused – at least they might be able to replenish their pension funds from the monthly mortgage payments… which is more than they’ll ever see from the banks.

BTW – Don’t close down Guantanamo just yet – there may need to be a bit of interrogation of these pension trust fund financial managers, agents and CEOs first.

Special thanks to Deontos, Deb, Shelley, and the core defense teams for their research.

Click here for How To Win in Court

Whether or not you are represented by an attorney understanding the legal system is an asset.  The more you learn, the less likely you are to be taken advantage of or scammed.  Knowledge is power!

It was during that time many banks and pretender lenders failed, including IndyMac Bank, FSB and Washington Mutual aka “WaMu”. Deals were contrived between banks by the FDIC as it stepped in as receiver to peel off assets making Master Purchasing Agreements between parties.

In some cases, like IndyMac and WaMu, these deals were struck before a bank could seek reorganization under bankruptcy protection. These “deals” included sealing documents that it appears pertain to sale agreements and the operations of the banks that probably should have led to a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation – rather than covering up the potential for fraud under court seal of, as it appears, the “Unassigned Records” as in the case of IndyMac.

Sealing pertinent documents relating to the acquisition and operations of a failing bank does not bury the body of fraud and deception. These ugly hammers tend to rise out of the grave and drop right back into the lap of those who tried their darnedest to it cover up.

Such is the case in the WaMu’s JOLLEY v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC decision filed February 11, 2013. Homeowner Plaintiff Scott Call Jolley appealed a lower court decision in the Court of Appeals of California. A major point given to Jolley dealt with a purchase and assumption agreement (Agreement or P&A Agreement) between the FDIC, as receiver for the failed WaMu and JPMorgan Chase. Chase filed a motion for judicial notice that requested “the Court to take judicial notice pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 450-460″ of the “39 page P&A Agreement” stating:

“1. On September 25, 2008, Washington Mutual Bank, _.A. (“WaMu”) was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was named Receiver for WaMu pursuant to its authority under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d). Pursuant to the Purchase and Assumption Agreement between the FDIC as Receiver for WaMu, and Chase, dated September 25, 2008, Chase acquired certain of the assets of WaMu, including all loans and loan commitments of WaMu. A copy of that Purchase and Assumption Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A and can be found on the FDIC’s website at http://www.fdic.gov/about/freedom/Washington_Mutual_P_and _ A.pdf.” The attached copy was 39 pages, including exhibits. No separate points and authorities accompanied Chase’s request for judicial notice.

Jolley filed opposition to the Chase motion. He also objected to the request for judicial notice as to the P&A Agreement, and filed points and authorities supporting his position disputing that the 39-page Agreement was the complete document governing Chase’s purchase of WaMu.

Jolley produced a sworn declaration of Jeffrey Thorne after a deposition [click here for PDF]. Thorne had been a “senior construction loan consultant” with WaMu until July of 2006 and in charge of construction lending in 38 states since May 2005. He was an “asset manager for the FDIC” at the time he signed the declaration (October 2011), and was “intimately familiar with the procedures for taking over a failed bank.”

Thorne claimed there was a longer document that had never been made public and its provision governing assumption of liability was different. Thorne declared under penalty of perjury:

“Pursuant to the public part of the agreement with the FDIC, of which were approximately 36 pages, the balance of the contract and the complete agreement with the FDIC and Chase bank is 118 pages long which has not been made public. I am familiar with this agreement, I read it.”

Only the partial 39 pages of the P&A Agreement appear on the public FDIC website.  The court states in its order: “In November 2011, Jolley began trying to secure a copy of the 118-page agreement referred to in Thorne’s declaration. His counsel requested a copy from the FDIC, and also apparently served a subpoena duces tecum seeking production of it. According to Jolley’s counsel, the FDIC refused to produce the document unless all parties to the litigation signed a confidentiality agreement. On November 9, 2011, six days before the motion was to be heard, Jolley requested that counsel for Chase sign a confidentiality agreement. She refused to do so. On or about November 14, 2011, Jolley filed an ex parte application seeking to continue the motion, to keep discovery open, and to continue the trial date so that further efforts could be made to obtain the longer agreement.”

What would be the purpose of covering up a Purchase Agreement? Unassigned mortgage loan records, maybe? Maybe all of the unassigned mortgage loans allegedly sold to the trusts are noted in the “sealed” records… Oh, what a wicked web we weave – when first we practice to deceive.

Luckily, for Jolley the court recognized the necessity to view the 118-page Purchase Agreement. Maybe that’s because WaMu was notorious for offering the same loans in multiple trusts. Just a random survey of WaMu 2006-2007 trusts [CLICK HERE FOR FULL REPORT] turned up over 500 loans in 2 or more trusts. Matt Taibbi was just scratching the surface on what the SEC wasn’t on top of! [Click here for Madoff and the "Aggressively Clueless" SEC].
Wouldn’t you call fabricated assignments and loans assigned to multiple trusts dancing on the fringe of securities fraud? Hello, SEC????

FDIC SEALS INDYMAC DOCUMENTS TOO!

This story probably wouldn’t be so colorful except for the fact that lack of transparency has become a pattern of the FDIC under the Bair rule and beyond. IndyMac Bank, FSB, the thrift that was seized in mid 2008 after US Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, chairman of Congress’ Joint Economic Committee and the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, released several letters he had sent to regulators, which warned that “the possible collapse of big mortgage lender IndyMac Bancorp Inc. poses significant financial risks to its borrowers and depositors, and regulators may not be ready to intervene to protect them”.  Schumer’s remarks caused people to withdraw their money from the bank and by July 11, 2008, citing liquidity concerns, the FDIC put IndyMac Bank into conservatorship.

The FDIC seized all of the books and records making it difficult for former IndyMac Bancorp CEO Michael Perry to even file bankruptcy. Mr. Perry maintains a blog called NOT TOO BIG TO FAIL detailing events and his personal insight. After reviewing the IndyMac December 2007 10K it appears that had TARP been initiated earlier IndyMac may have easily survived.

The takeover of IndyMac was so swift and secretive that by February 2009 [under Obama] the IndyMac Bancorp bankruptcy Trustee had to file a motion for a 2004 Examination and adversary complaint in order to recover information seized by the uncooperative FDIC. The IndyMac bankruptcy trustee’s Complaint [Click here for Complaint PDF] states in paragraph 14:

“At the time the Bank was seized by the OTS and placed into FDIC receivership, the FDIC gained control of the books and records of both the Bank and the Debtor because those books and records were physically maintained at the Bank. Shortly after the Trustee’s interim appointment, the Trustee learned that the Debtor’s books and records were in the FDIC’s custody, control and possession. The Trustee diligently made various attempts to obtain access to the Debtor’s books and records so as to identify, among other things, the Debtor’s assets and otherwise to investigate the financial affairs of the Debtor. Despite such efforts, the FDIC afforded the Trustee only limited access to the Debtor’s books and records.”

The FDIC wasted no time in disposing of the IndyMac Bank assets. The Trustee’s complaint continues:

“15.  Upon information and belief, on January 2, 2009, the FDIC signed a letter of intent to sell the banking operations of New IndyMac to a thrift holding company, IMB HoldCo LLC, which is controlled by IMB Management Holdings LP. Press releases issued at or around that time indicated that the Transaction was expected to close in late January or early February 2009.

16.   Because (i) the FDIC had not publicly disclosed the letter of intent or documents related to the Transaction, (ii) the Trustee, at that point in time, had only limited access to the Debtor’s books and records and former employees, despite prior requests to obtain access to the same, and (iii) the Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs filed by the Debtor were accompanied by broad disclaimers regarding their incompleteness and potential inaccuracies, the Trustee had no means to precisely identify the assets subject to the Transaction or to evaluate the Debtor’s interest in them. However, the limited documents that were in the possession of the Trustee raised concerns that the FDIC, as Receiver for the Bank and Conservator for New IndyMac, may possess assets of the Debtor and, therefore, property of the Estate.”

Accordingly, the bankruptcy Trustee motioned for, and the court ordered, a 2004 Examination. Despite the Order, the FDIC produced documents subject to production under the Order in an untimely fashion, thereby impeding the review and analysis of them by the Trustee that the 2004 Motion and Order contemplated. Much of the securities and other asset information were sealed.

A common thread throughout the bankruptcy Trustee’s complaint was, “This paragraph redacted pursuant to the Protective Order and the Court’s directive as set forth in footnote 1, supra. (See Ex. 2.).“

“1  On February 23, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court directed the Trustee to file under seal those textual references within the Trustee’s Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Enforcement of the Automatic Stay, Accounting, and Segregation and Sequestration of Proceeds from Sale Pending Determination of Allocation of Proceeds that the Trustee, in good faith, believes are subject to the Stipulated Protective Order Re: Confidentiality and Non-Disclosures entered into by the Parties on January 27, 2009 (the “Protective Order”). The Bankruptcy Court further directed the Trustee to redact any text in the Complaint that the Trustee, in good faith, believes is subject to the Protective Order. Accordingly in furtherance of the Bankruptcy Court’s directive as well as the Protective Order between the Parties, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, which the Trustee has filed under seal, is a complete and unredacted version of this Complaint. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, which the Trustee has filed under seal, is a document that contains the text that the Trustee has redacted from the Complaint in the order in which that text would otherwise have appeared in the Complaint (with references to the relevant paragraphs in the Complaint where the text would otherwise have appeared). With respect to the remaining exhibits, to the extent the Trustee believes, in good faith, an exhibit is subject to the Protective Order, it has filed that exhibit under seal and has noted the same herein.”

As the IndyMac bankruptcy Trustee was trying to sort out assets, the FDIC (Bair) was making a sweetheart deal where IndyMac was bought and transformed into One West Bank by a private equity firm called Dune Capital Management, a  group that includes billionaire George Soros and Dell Inc. founder Michael Dell, who agreed to buy the failed bank for $13.9 billion. The bank’s assets at the beginning of this year (2009) totaled $23.5 billion so they made some BILLION$ immediately at the time of purchase. (Refer to the IndyMac Dec. 2007 10K).

“The OneWest profit was reminiscent of those earned by aggressive investors who paid low prices for assets of numerous savings and loans that failed in the 1980s,” printed the LATimes. “But this time, such profit may make the FDIC a lightning rod for criticism of the government’s efforts to clean up the latest debacle. “It makes you wonder whether the [FDIC] loss is due to the acquirer getting too sweet a deal,” Ely said.”

Apparently, George Soros was quite happy with the deal.  A spokesperson for Priorities USA Action, the super PAC backing President Barack Obama’s reelection, confirmed to The Huffington Post that billionaire investor George Soros has committed $1 million to the PAC. “I fully support the re-election of President Obama,” Mr. Soros said in the email. Wow!

Here again, why all the secrecy and lack of transparency?  

The FDIC / One West IndyMac Master Purchase Agreement deals with “unassigned records” and the way the contract is worded it’s anybody’s guess what all might actually be in there. It appears that the FDIC and OneWest Bank recognized that IndyMac Bank had not made the mortgage loan assignments to the securitized trusts before the trusts closed years earlier. Now, as the securitization mortgage industry was collapsing it appears the FDIC was participating in fabricated Assignments of Mortgages and Deed of Trusts. Why else would the FDIC need to record a LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY [Click here for the LPOA PDF] on July 1, 2010?! Yes, Sheila Bair was still there.

Too much case law to list has established that untimely assignments will not confer standing to these securitized trusts. The Pooling & Servicing Agreement (PSA), requires that the trustee and servicer not do anything to jeopardize the tax-exempt status; PSAs generally state that any transfer after the closing date of the trust is invalid. See DeadlyClear’sThe REMICs Have Failed! [Click here] 

Generally, New York trust law governs the securitized trusts. That does NOT mean that the FDIC has the power to usurp the federal and state trust laws or fabricate documents – as was spelled out in the LPOA:

The LPOA is outrageous because it asserts the power to “fake” assignments, allonges and endorsements that were apparently NOT made at the time the trusts were formed. Do you think the REMICs and investors have a problem? Well, certainly by law and many of the recent court orders – they sure do!

What further compounds this egregious document is that Ralph Malami, a veteran securitization professional at the FDIC as Manager Capital Markets and Resolutions knew or should have known that the trust controlling documents specifically call for endorsements and assignments to be made as part of the original documents at the time the mortgage loan files are transferred to the trust by the Depositor in return for certificates.

In this LPOA Malami agrees that the attached list of attorneys-in-fact may fabricate these documents from June 19, 2010 through June 19, 2011. Unfortunately, they didn’t stick to that either as you will see further below.

And who were these attorneys-in-fact listed in the LPOA? None other than some of our most famous RoboStars! Erica Johnson-Seck, Bryan Bly, Crystal Moore…just to name a few. Smart judges are catching on. New York Judge Shack certainly gets the fact that this fabricated paperwork is fraudulent [Click here for Erica Johnson-Seck / OneWest story]. Just reading the depositions of Bryan Bly and Crystal Moore – it would be difficult to imagine that anyone would legitimately think of these RoboStars as “Attorney-in-Fact” providing valid federal government documents [Click here for more information on Bryan Bly and Crystal Moore].

It is hard to tell how high up this farce goes – but it was under Sheila Bair who left in 2011 and wrote a book.  In her comprehensive new book, Bull by the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street From Wall Street and Wall Street From Itself, Bair recounts her experiences at the FDIC, her frequent run-ins with banking executives, and with officials such as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner in the Obama Administration. It appears from an interview on Beast TV that Bair knew just how deceptive the investment banks had been – and that would have to include the fact that assignments of mortgage loans had not been made to the trusts. Click here to view the interview below with Sheila Bair.

The fabrication of documents continues beyond the expiration date of June 19, 2011. A FDIC assignment was recently made in March 2013. Yes, an assignment of mortgage made 8 years AFTER the 2005 securitized trust closed; and 4 years after the assets and files were sold to OneWest Bank… not to mention 2 years after the LPOA expired (maybe they issued a new one – ah, but why bother?).

The questions now are: Why? Was this a conspiracy? Was this to protect the pension fund investors at the expense of the homeowners? And why were these assignments not made at the time the Trusts were formed? Shadow banking, maybe? Hiding the recordation so the banks could create more derivatives without being caught in public records?

Rep. Marcy Kaptur is right – She said 2 years ago “They Can’t Find The Paper Up There On Wall Street, Make Them Prove They Own Your Loan” (VIDEO)

Quotes…

• “And you’re going to find that they can’t find the paper up there on Wall Street.”

• “Don’t leave your home…because you know what, when those companies say they have your mortgage, unless they have a lawyer who can put his finger on that mortgage, they don’t have that mortgage!”

• “So I say to the American people – you be squatters in your own homes!  Don’t you leave!”

Thank you Deontos, JMack and everyone who helped research for this post.

Click here for How To Win in Court

Whether or not you are represented by an attorney understanding the legal system is an asset.  The more you learn, the less likely you are to be taken advantage of or scammed.  Knowledge is power!

Reblogged from Justice League: