Another bank whistleblower case, this time at Goldman Sachs

Justice League

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) was sued on Thursday by a former managing director who said the Wall Street bank retaliated against him and fired him after he complained about its dealings with an unidentified, “notorious European businessman.”

Christopher Rollins, now chief executive of BTIG Ltd, a London-based unit of investment banking and trading firm BTIG LLC, is seeking at least $50 million plus punitive damages in his complaint filed with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

The 2000 Harvard University graduate accused Goldman and Jim Esposito, promoted this week to global co-head of its trading business, of violating his rights as a whistleblower under the federal Dodd-Frank law, and also accused Goldman of defamation.

“The suit is without merit and we intend to vigorously contest it,” Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally said in an email, responding to a request for comment on behalf of…

View original post 45 more words

Advertisements

U.S. Bank v. Jewel Moore — Learn from Jewel Moore Live How She Was Victimized by the Foreclosure System in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii and What Her Case Teaches Us About the Reforms in the Foreclosure System That Are Desperately Needed

Your Host: Attorney Gary Victor Dubin
with
Co-Host:  Former Hawaii Governor John D. Waihee 

For years, following the Mortgage Crisis of 2008, lenders have been fined by regulators nearly one-half-trillion dollars, if not more, for admittedly submitting fraudulent loan documentation under oath in foreclosure cases in state and federal courts.

And more recently a growing number of state and federal judges have understandably denied lenders summary judgment where their supporting foreclosure documents have either been in violation of the rules of evidence or suspiciously or outright fraudulent.

Yet, despite all such welcome, albeit belated, official leadership, the legal system, including its appellate courts, have woefully lacked Continue reading

Defective Mortgages: There Is Constructive Notice, and Then There Is Inquiry Notice

Bankruptcy-RealEstate-Insights

Kelley v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank (In re Jones), 580 B.R. 916 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2017) –

A chapter 7 trustee sought to avoid a lender’s lien on property of the debtor. The recorded deed of trust was not signed by the borrower since it was missing a signature page. The trustee argued that as a consequence the document was not eligible to be recorded, and thus did not provide constructive notice of the lender’s interests.

View original post 650 more words

Woman has her safety deposit box at BofA emptied out. Bank replies: Hey thanks for the update!

Justice League

ORANGEVALE (CBS13) – A woman says her bank let her safe deposit box vanish. And she’s not the only one.

Susan Nomi says when she went to open her Bank of America safe deposit box of 16 years, the entire box was gone.

That’s where she kept her family’s jewelry and her dad’s coin collection.

“I was in shock; I was just like what happened to my box,” said Nomi.

She says Bank of America can’t explain where her valuables went.

“They don’t have an answer. They don’t have an answer. They say thanks for letting us know,” she says.

Nomi was infuriated, especially considering she is a retired Bank of America employee of 40 years. And she’s not alone. Others have complained that Bank of America drilled their safe deposit boxes without permission or notice.

Wendy Woo says her belongings were taken out of her safe deposit box and…

View original post 14 more words

A Review and Analysis of Some of the Most Noteworthy July 2018 Judicial Decisions

Your Host: Attorney Gary Victor Dubin
with
Co-Host:  Former Hawaii Governor John D. Waihee 

Judges everywhere are beginning to rethink past judicial decisions in the foreclosure area as it becomes more and more evident that fraud and deception have predominated behind the scenes in foreclosure cases nationwide.

This rethinking has led to a growing number of monthly attempts by more and more state and federal court judges, albeit as yet too few, to give more attention to their foreclosure cases.

This past month, for instance, a number of noteworthy judicial decisions both at the trial level and on appeal have been handed down potentially generating new foreclosure defenses in several state and federal jurisdictions that our listeners need to know about and Continue reading

How to Use National Settlements as Part of Foreclosure Defense

About time! Many foreclosure defense attorneys do not take the time to dissect these Settlements and Consent Orders. Certainly, many judges have never thoroughly read them -or there would be more sua sponte Orders. There ought to be ongoing prerequisite classes set up for foreclosure judges and attorneys to dissect and review these government actions. It might slow down the need for appeals. Actually, just following the rule of law would help.

Livinglies's Weblog

Bill Paatalo brought this provision to me attention again. It gives a virtual checklist for discovery:

  1. All DOCUMENTS regarding the National Consent Judgement’s (CONSENT

ORDER) “Settlement Term Sheet (I)(A)(4) which reads as follows:

  1. Servicer shall have standards for qualifications, training and supervision of employees. Servicer shall train and supervise employees who regularly prepare or execute affidavits, sworn statements or Declarations. Each such employee shall sign a certification that he or she has received the training. Servicer shall oversee the training completion to ensure each required employee properly and timely completes such training. Servicer shall maintain written records confirming that each such employee has completed the training and the subjects covered by the training.

Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions…

View original post 190 more words

Tonight! DISAPPEARING LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS on the Neil Garfield Show 6PM EDT With Charles Marshall, Esq. and Bill Paatalo

Livinglies's Weblog

Just the Facts, Ma’am!

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Charles Marshall, California attorney and Bill Paatalo, private investigator, discuss the implications of two Hawaii cases that are mirroring other decisions across the country.

Hawaii Schranz Case

Hawaii St. John Case

The above links go to two recent Hawaii cases dealing with legal standing. The fundamental fact of law is that standing must be ACTUAL NOT PRESUMED.

Specifically the issue is whether the foreclosing party actually had the original note at the time the foreclosure was commenced. Reasserting that standing is jurisdictional and therefore must be proven (with actual facts) present before a party takes any action, the courts here reversed (not for publication) Summary Judgments in favor of U.S. Bank and BONY Melon respectively.

The basis of the ruling is really that summary judgment could not…

View original post 249 more words

The Big Lie.

It’s time for the foreclosure defense arguments to evolve. These contracts are not traditional mortgages. They are, and continue to be, securities transactions without any disclosure to homeowners. Secreted securitization is bad enough; however, hidden rehypothecation, not only from the homeowners but also the courts, is a process of wiping out our national land records and title system – an unprecedented destruction of our liberty.

Banks now want to split the mortgage and wait 20 years until the original contracts become due – so they can assert foreclosure on the property (the securities transaction) while all along risking the collateral in rehypothecation deals. A scheme where they continue to rack up debt with other people’s assets.

Now is the time to put an end to the misery of these disingenuous contracts. They were more than mutual mistake – they were frauds upon the America taxpayers, shareholders and homeowners.

Deadly Clear

Can't cheat an honest manIf you are asking yourself ‘why are judges ruling against homeowners when they know the banks scammed them?’ Then you need to understand a judge’s most basic insight into the human condition is that it is impossible to con an honest man.* It is larceny lurking in the soul of its victim that is preyed upon. What does that mean?

The mortgage deals were too good to be true – but the homeowners believed it to be the truth… because they wanted it to be and it all boils down to making “easy”  M-O-N-E-Y.

View original post 2,021 more words

NY Monroe Case: Default entered against homeowner — CASE DISMISSED on Standing — US Bank Never refiled.

Wow!

Livinglies's Weblog

multiple choice robo-pleading

NO PLEADING: HOMEOWNER WON ANYWAY

I have held off on discussing this case until some time passed. As far as I now know US Bank, like several cases I won, has not refiled for foreclosure. There is a good reason for that. US Bank is not the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is named as a REMIC Trust, for which the attorneys claim that US Bank is the Trustee.

As such the Plaintiff does not own nor have any interest in the loan either as owner or servicer. Hence the named trustee (U.S. Bank) is named but it has nothing to do since the trust is nonexistent and in all events no attempt has ever been made to entrust the subject mortgage into the fiduciary hands of U.S Bank.

And THAT is because the only party with an equitable interest in the debt is a group of investors whose money…

View original post 1,636 more words

Pay Attention! Look at the money trail AFTER the foreclosure sale

It just keeps rollin’ on…

Livinglies's Weblog

My confidence has never been higher that the handling of money after a foreclosure sale will reveal the fraudulent nature of most “foreclosures” initiated not on behalf of the owner of the debt but in spite of the the owner(s) of the debt.

It has long been obvious to me that the money trail is separated from the paper trail practically “at birth” (origination). It is an obvious fact that the owner of the debt is always someone different than the party seeking foreclosure, the alleged servicer of the debt, the alleged trust, and the alleged trustee for a nonexistent trust. When you peek beneath the hood of this scam, you can see it for yourself.

Real case in point: BONY appears as purported trustee of a purported trust. Who did that? The lawyers, not BONY. The foreclosure is allowed and the foreclosure sale takes place. The winning “bid” for…

View original post 693 more words