Pump and Dump: When “Lenders” Have No Risk of Loss They Spend Millions Selling Defective Loan Products and Blame Borrowers

“When the check is issued as proceeds of the sale of the foreclosed property it is deposited into the account of the investment bank. It all goes to the investment bank despite the fact that the investment bank has no debt on its books against which to apply the receipt of such proceeds. That debt has long since been sold and is no longer on its books as a risk of loss.”

Source: Pump and Dump: When “Lenders” Have No Risk of Loss They Spend Millions Selling Defective Loan Products and Blame Borrowers

CFPB claims debt collection firm Forster & Garbus robo-sued thousands on behalf of Citibank, Discover, others

Fraud on the courts? Your thoughts?

Justice League

Move over robo-signing…

During the foreclosure crisis, a number of lenders, servicers, law firms, and others engaged in a practice where employees basically rubber-stamped thousands of foreclosure cases without reviewing any of the relevant details.

That practice came to be known as robo-signing.

Now, a new lawsuit from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sheds light on a similar practice that apparently exists within the debt collection industry – let’s call it “robo-suing.”

The CFPB on Friday filed suit against debt collection law firm Forster & Garbus, accusing the New York firm of filing thousands of debt collection lawsuits against borrowers despite allegedly conducting only superficial reviews of the relevant documents before deciding to sue.

According to the CFPB, creditors and debt buyers refer credit card, auto loan, student loan, home equity loan debts, and others to the firm for collection. Among the companies that have used Forster & Garbus…

View original post 80 more words

New Strategies: Request for Comments from Attorneys and Interested Parties

Please address comments suggestions, case law and statutes to the following email address: NeilFGarfield@hotmail.com I am currently looking at a few new strategies. I will briefly outline them here not as recommendations but as possibilities that I think deserve exploration. As part of the collaborative effort of the LivingLies blog started in 2007 I am…

1. RECENT QUOTE: “The document which I signed as a Mortgage was in fact an Initial Intent to Issue Mortgage-Backed Securities using my name, my home, my signature and my reputation as a collateral to sell and resell  myriads of times by all possible companies, without any disclosures to me and without my consent to be sold like a cow.

“Of course nobody disclosed me profits received from selling my home and my private information several times a day; and make millions by trading on my name and reputation.”

 

Source: New Strategies: Request for Comments from Attorneys and Interested Parties

The Big Hoax: Are “Sales” of “Loans” and “Servicing” Real?

References to sales of loans and servicing rights are usually merely false assertions to distract homeowners and lawyers from looking at what is really happened. By accepting the premise that the loan was sold you are accepting that the loan was (a) real and (b) owned by the party who was designated to appear as…

Source: The Big Hoax: Are “Sales” of “Loans” and “Servicing” Real?

Two Foreclosures, One Property, One Owner, Both Claiming Possession of the Original Note, Neither Claiming Ownership of the Debt

“Powell says the case raises an interesting question: Are entities wrongly filing foreclosure suits and collecting on notes they don’t own?”

Originally posted in November, 2008 this illustrates what happens when you destroy notes and then “recreate” them for purposes of claiming you have the original in court. The fact remains that neither of them had the original note because, as the Florida Bankers Association told the Florida legislature, it was industry practice to destroy the…

Source: Two Foreclosures, One Property, One Owner, Both Claiming Possession of the Original Note, Neither Claiming Ownership of the Debt

Whistle BLOWER from McCARTHY Holthus Admits FAKED Title

William WAGENER
Published on May 3, 2019

“We never had original documents.” They were told to create a fake chain of title.

“Polly, admits she used to work for McCarthy – Holthus in San Diego, FABRICATING “Chains-of-Title” it appears, for years, before she read the case law, and realized she was just a cog in the machine robbing American Homeowners of their homes, on behalf of the company, & its attorneys [members of the BAR] who [knowlingly] filed those documents.

And MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) or T.U.M.E.R.S. – she and others had access to, and OMG, this YOU have to hear. But before that, we got a tip that Billie Rene Frances Lillian POWERS, was meeting other “Dis-Possessed” homeowners at the corner of 411 Ive St. [San Diego] to try to reason with those who do the fabrication of CHAIN-of-Titles and motions to steal homes (in Polly’s opinion).”

 

City of Los Angeles to replace Wells Fargo as main banking partner following scandal, stricter rules By: Oscar Flores, FOX 11

“Both moves were in response to the Wells Fargo fake accounts scandal in which approximately 3.4 million accounts were fraudulently created by bank employees who were given aggressive sales goals.” And judges have to even think twice about fraudulent foreclosures?

Justice League

LOS ANGELES, Calif. (FOX 11) – The city of Los Angeles is set to replace Wells Fargo as its main banking partner following the bank’s fake accounts scandal and stricter rules enacted in the aftermath.

The information was made public on Monday after a City Council committee approved a report outlining Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase as the top contenders to replace Wells Fargo.

Union Bank was recommended to continue handling the city’s Neighborhood Council Funding Program.

Read on.

View original post

FDCPA CAN STILL APPLY TO NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES!

The document the servicers are creating is the assignment of deed of trust (much like the assignment of mortgage), which they claim gives them the authority (on behalf of the alleged “lender”) to appoint a substitute trustee to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure. Do you have a contract with the mortgage loan servicer? (Didn’t think so.) However, servicers have Limited Powers of Attorney, which they claim give them the authority to do whatever they want, including wading into the shark-infested waters of violations created under the FDCPA. Strip away their authority under the assignment as void … they’re like “chum in the water”.

Clouded Titles Blog

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is the author of The FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures … and posits the following for educational purposes and for your consideration in the paradigm shift that has now become the focus of thousands of consumers.

I’ve noticed an uptick in the number of pro-bank/pro-debt collector law firm postings regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest narrow ruling in the Obduskey case (out of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals).  I love how these folks like to “pat themselves on the back” for their observations that non-judicial foreclosure proceedings can still be business as usual, despite the caveats their posts now contain.  Why on earth would they post “caveats” to the debt collection industry (which includes law firms like the one Dennis Obduskey filed an FDCPA action against) if they were so sure of themselves in being able to just walk all over borrowers…

View original post 880 more words

Why Accounting Firms and Investment Bankers Should Be Sued

“Instead of no transactions there were hundreds of them for each loan that were hidden from the only true parties in interest — the investors who put up the cash buying bogus mortgage certificates and borrowers who put up their homes and in the process became the unwitting issues of unregulated securities in which the borrowers’ names, signatures, reputations and lives were traded on the open market.”

Source: Why Accounting Firms and Investment Bankers Should Be Sued

Tonight! Sanctions Against U.S. Bank, N.A. Expected

“Plaintiff’s attorneys in this case have avoided for many months on behalf of their Bank or Trust client providing already overdue documents violating previous discovery time frames and associated orders. The Judge in this case is demanding the production of certain documents, and the scheduling and directing of several depositions of Plaintiff-related executives, including executives from Nationstar.”

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show Tonight’s Show Hosted by Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays It’s not so easy to ascertain the name of the Plaintiff in foreclosure cases, where the Plaintiff is named as “U.S. Bank as trustee for XYZ Trust.” But the sanctions that…

Source: Tonight! Sanctions Against U.S. Bank, N.A. Expected