FORECLOSURE FRAUD …”The Greatest American Bank Robbery” A GREED STORY!

First of all I welcome Wall Street, Florida County Records for stopping by to check out the videos. I am only showing off your Flawless Works of Art! These sure do resemble Monet’s…from far they look perfect…but up close it’s a BIG OL MESS! Unfortunately, for you these were replicated more times than one can count!

The REAL question should be is “What is owed” and “Who is it owed to”?

Wall Street has planned this out to the “T”. Ask yourself after paying a mortgage to a “servicer’, “property manager” who did you really make these payments out to? What happens after the 30 year mortgage is fully paid off? Did you just make payments to someone who DOES NOT own the note? Will the true Note Holder then surface after all these years and file a claim that you never made a payment to them? Did they follow SEC rules & regulations on how they were sold or assigned? If they lost your Note did they report it? where is the proof? Were you informed? DISCLOSURE, DISCLOSURE, DISCLOSURE!

The Reason I began this quest was because at my hearing I was stripped of my Constitution Rights! I saw it coming when 2 separate cases before me came out and I can see it in the attorney’s face as they came out…extremely angry!  So even if I did recite the Florida Statues I would have been kaput! I had no choice…This isn’t about living within your means, this is about Law & Evidence. It’s not my fault I could not refinance because many homes in my area are now worth 50, 60, 70% less of it’s value it was 3 years ago! 

 Banksters skip Jail and collect Billions…

In my case I was not allowed to speak, defend myself from these CRIMINALS…”Pretender Lenders”! Judge (Dale Ross from Broward County) stating “What Difference Does It Make” ? Well lets see how about aiding & abetting FRAUD!

I tried to challenge and all the question of facts I have in possession, my evidence…I saw him look at the paper he is getting ready to sign off…Does not ask me anything. EXCUSE ME! I object Judge….
Judge…They are Robbing My House, they have no standing…Again he said “What Difference Does It make”
Judge…They have absolutely no equitable rights…no INTEREST in my home…“What difference Does It Make”
They never submitted ANY Notes, Assignments, I WAS NEVER SERVED Judge!…I demand to know What is the amount Due and To WHO IT IS DUE TO!! I have conclusive facts that what they are representing is different!
once more “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE”
he said as he rolled his eyes and said “Judgment Granted” stamped & walked off into the sunset of hell!
He never even asked to see any documents she had right there….Because she had none. I had about 800-1000 papers of TRUE HARD FACTS that the Bank was not the REAL Bank!!
In the Judges eyes you owed on a Loan, ANY Loan…ANYONE CAN HAVE YOUR HOUSE… BUT YOU!! He knew I was probing his interest to admit the evidence I had in my files before him…He did not care. I WAS PRE-JUDGED and this is not their JOB! 

Why is it important to have IMPARTIAL JUDGES?
Impartial judges are crucial to making sure the justice system works in our democracy. This way, any person or any organization has a fair chance of getting their side heard.  It allows the common man or woman to have equal footing when challenging the government or big business. It allows organizations or businesses to get a full and fair hearing when they are accused of wrongdoing.  It allows an unpopular position to be heard. Ultimately, impartial judges make sure everyone’s rights are protected as defined by state and federal law and the Constitution. NOT IN MY CASE!

I invite you all stopping by, witness the evidence of what is happening all over the US to families who may not be able to afford legal assistance and have no idea they have been scammed once again… 

BELOW is an embarrassment, for the irresponsible CLERKS OF COURTS to permit this FRAUD to get filed in public records!

Here is a simple example of Cloud in Chain of Title:

What happens when you have totalled a car? It’s issued a Destructive Title
What happens if you drive a Destructive Titled Car? It puts you in a dangerous situation.
What happens if you try to register a car with liens and or a destructive title? You can’t.
what happens if you buy a car with a FORGED VIN #? It’s FRAUD and Taken from you.

What happens when you buy a house in the same as the above? YES YOU CAN w/ all DEFECTS! See for yourself in this next video below. 

http://www.youtube.com/user/DinSFLA

 

The REAL question should be is “What is owed” and “Who is it owed to”?

These Loans are Insured for Defaults NOT for modifications! EXACTLY AS THEY PLANNED FROM DAY 1 You see they collect Insurance via AIG via CORRUPT GOVERNMENT via Tax Payers , sell these homes in a Short Sale (be careful the title may be fraud), After the Short Sale they now come after you for a Deficiency Judgment! Talk about double-triple-quadruple Pay Back!! Here is the sweet deal the FDIC made: FDIC Hurting Distressed Homeowners James McCormack Localism.com As set forth in this FDIC publication, IndyMac Shared-Loss Agreement, the FDIC is making so called “Shared-Loss Agreements” (SLAs) with investors who are willing to purchase the assets of insolvent financial institutions. Without going into all the details, these SLAs basically offer these investors guarantees on huge percentages of any net losses that they may suffer as a result of their investment in the failed financial institution. In this particular case, the FDIC is paying for 80%+ of the net losses of the investor (OneWest Bank) who purchased the assets of IndyMac. Basically, the Net Loss is calculated by taking the current outstanding balance of the mortgage note (at the time of the loan purchase) less the net proceeds of the short sale or foreclosure offer price. The reason this is a problem for financially distressed homeowners is that due to the loss guarantees provided by the FDIC, the investors mentioned above have very little financial risk in the deal. Therefore, they have incentives to take what would normally be a big risk (but isn’t due to their sweet loss guarantees courtesy of the FDIC) such as foreclosing on homeowners to try and squeeze out more profit even when there are feasible alternatives to foreclosure such as short sales and loan modifications. As a result, these investors are making it difficult and even impossible to get loan modifications and short sales approved. In her blog post, Is the FDIC Killing Short Sales, Alexis McGee of Foreclosures.com states that “IndyMac was taken over by the FDIC and sold to OneWest Bank in March/2009. Guess who the investors are behind OneWest? George Soros, Michael Dell, Steve Mnuchin (former Goldman Sachs executive), and John Paulson (hedge-fund billionaire).” She goes on to describe the terms of the SLA. The highlights are below: * The investors purchased all current residential mortgages at 70% of par value (70% of the outstanding loan amounts). * They purchased all current HELOCS at 58% of Par Value. * The FDIC stepped in and guaranteed that for any residential mortgages where OneWest experiences a loss, the FDIC will step in and cover anywhere from 80%-95% of the loss. The loss is calculated using the current outstanding balance of the mortgage note (at the time of the loan purchase), not the amount that OneWest paid for the loan. * For foreclosures, the FDIC picks up 80% of the tab on all of the extra costs associated with a foreclosure (BPO’s, upkeep, utilities/maintenance, legal fees, etc.) Here is an example which shows why this creates a problem for financially distressed homeowners who would like to do a short sale, or obtain a loan modification. Let’s say one of the loans that OneWest purchases has a Current Loan Amount of $500,000. Based on the 70% purchase deal described above, OneWest would have paid $350,000 for this loan. Also, let’s assume that an all cash investor wants to purchase the property via a short sale for net offer price to OneWest of $200,000. Below is the analysis of this situation: * The Net Loss, according to the FDIC calculations, is $500,000 (i.e. the current outstanding balance of the mortgage note at the time of loan purchase) less $200,000 (i.e. the net proceeds of the short sale offer) = $300,000. * Based on this $300,000 Net Loss, the FDIC pays OneWest $240,000 (i.e. 80% of the Net Loss). * One West would then be able to sell the property in question for the short sale Net Offer Price of $200,000 and end up with total revenue of $440,000 ($240,000 + $200,000) for a loan that they paid $350,000 for. Therefore, OneWest will have made a profit of $90,000. The reason that this situation creates a problem for a financially distressed homeowner seeking a short sale is that since the FDIC (per the information above) pays 80% of the losses of foreclosure there is no incentive for OneWest to mess around with a short sale unless they can make much more money. That is why they are demanding absurd short sale settlements and promissory notes from the homeowner. Of course, there is absolutely no incentive to offer a loan modification so that request would be dead on arrival. According to Alexis McGee, “The scary thing is that over 50 banks have Shared Loss Agreements in place with the FDIC. Some of them include: Bank of America (go figure), CitiMortgage, Wells Fargo, etc.” I have to agree. That is truly scary. I can already see the pain and anguish of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of financially distressed homeowners as they are unnecessarily dragged through the foreclosure process. At this point, it becomes readily apparent why OneWest Bank has no intention of conducting loan modifications. Any modification means that OneWest would lose out on all this additional profit. Note: It is not readily apparent as to whether this agreement applies to loans that IndyMac made and Securitized but still Services today. However, I believe that the Agreement does apply to Securitized loans. In that event, OneWest would make even more money through foreclosure because OneWest would keep the “excess” and not pay it to the investor! Pooling And Servicing Agreement When OneWest has been asked about why loan modifications are not being done, they are responding that their Pooling and Servicing Agreements do not allow for loan modifications. Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC has also stated the same. This sounds like a plausible explanation, since few people understand the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.  But… Parties Involved: The TRUSTEE/ CUSTODIAN…….. ….. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL BANK TRUST Here is the”dirty little secret” regarding Indymac and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The parties involved in the Agreement are: HAS NO CUSTODIAN RIGHTS PERIOD! The Sponsor for the Trust was…………Indymac The Originator for the Trust was….Indymac The Seller for the Trust was……………Indymac The Depositor for the Trust was………..you guessed it………….Indymac The Issuing Entity for the Trust was..(drumroll)……Indymac Res. M-Backed Trust, Series XXXX as a common law trust. The Master Servicer for the Trust was……..once again………Indymac In other words, Indymac was the only party involved in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement other than the Ratings Agency who rated these loans as `AAA’ products. To make matters worse, Indymac wrote the Agreement in order to protect itself from liability for these garbage loans. By creating  separate Indymac Corporations — which the Depositor, Sponsor, and other entities were — Indymac created a bankruptcy-remote vehicle that could not come back to them in terms of liability. However, they did not count on certain MBS securities and portfolio loans coming back to bite them and force them under. Now, the questions become: If Indymac was responsible for Securitization at every step in the Process, and was responsible for writing the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, can they be held accountable for the loans that they are foreclosing on? Since Indymac was the Issuing Entity, can they actually modify loans, but refuse to do so because they can make money for OneWest Bank by refusing to do so? Does Indymac have to “buy back” the loan from the Indymac Trust in order to do a loan modification? These are questions that I have no answer for. All I know is that at every step of the way, Indymac was involved in the process, and have taken steps to protect themselves from liability for loans that should never have been made. Loan Modifications As referred to earlier, the Agreement covers all aspects of the Securitization Process. With respect to Loan Modifications, the Agreement for Indymac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007 – AR5, states on Page S-67: Certain Modifications and refinancing The Servicer may modify any Mortgage Loan at the request of the related mortgagor, provided that the Servicer purchases the Mortgage Loan from the issuing entity immediately preceding the modification. Page S-12 states the same “policy”: The servicer is permitted to modify any mortgage loan in lieu of refinancing at the request of the related mortgagor, provided that the servicer purchases the mortgage loan from the issuing entity immediately preceding the modification. In addition, under limited circumstances, the servicer will repurchase certain mortgage loans that experience an early payment default (default in the first three months following origination). See “Servicing of the Mortgage Loans—Certain Modifications and Refinancings” and “Risk Factors—Risks Related To Newly Originated Mortgage Loans and Servicer’s Repurchase Obligation Related to Early Payment Default” in this prospectus supplement. These sections would appear to suggest that the only way that OneWest could modify the loan would be as a result of buying the loan back from the Issuing Trust. However, there may be an out. Page S-12 also states: Required Repurchases, Substitutions or Purchases of Mortgage Loans The seller will make certain representations and warranties relating to the mortgage loans pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement. If with respect to any mortgage loan any of the representations and warranties are breached in any material respect as of the date made, or an uncured material document defect exists, the seller will be obligated to repurchase or substitute for the mortgage loan as further described in this prospectus supplement under “Description of the Certificates—Representations and Warranties Relating to Mortgage Loans” and “—Delivery of Mortgage Loan Documents .” The above section may be the key for litigating attorneys to fight Indymac. If fraud or other issues can be raised that will show a violation of the Representations and Warranties, then this could potentially force Indymac to modify the loan. HAMP At this point, it becomes important to note that Indymac/OneWest signed aboard with the HAMP program in August 2009. Even though they became a part of the program, they are still refusing to do most loan modifications. Instead, they persist in foreclosing on almost all properties. And even when they say that they are attempting to do loan modifications, they are fulfilling all necessary requirements so that they can foreclose the second that they “decide” the homeowner does not meet HAMP requirements, — which, since they can make more money by foreclosing on the property, meets the HAMP requirements for doing what is in the best interests of the “investor”. Why did Indymac even sign up for HAMP, if they have no intention of executing loan modifications?  Clearly, just for appearances. One Final Question It now becomes incumbent upon me to ask one final question. The Shared-Loss Agreement states the following: 2.1 Shared-Loss Arrangement. (a) Loss Mitigation and Consideration of Alternatives. For each Shared-Loss Loan in default or for which a default is reasonably foreseeable, the Purchaser shall undertake, or shall use reasonable best efforts to cause third-party servicers to undertake, reasonable and customary loss mitigation efforts in compliance with the Guidelines and Customary Servicing Procedures. The Purchaser shall document its consideration of foreclosure, loan restructuring (if available), charge-off and short-sale (if a short-sale is a viable option and is proposed to the Purchaser) alternatives and shall select the alternative that is reasonably estimated by the Purchaser to result in the least Loss. The Purchaser shall retain all analyses of the considered alternatives and servicing records and allow the Receiver to inspect them upon reasonable notice. Such agreements are usually considered to be interpreted to the benefit of the homeowner, as with HAMP and other programs. In legalese, it is called “Intent”. What was the “Intent” of the Shared-Loss Agreement? Was the intent to provide OneWest Bank solely with a profitable incentive to take over Indymac Bank? If so, then OneWest has been truly successful in every manner. Or was the intent to offer to OneWest Bank a way to be compensated for losses for foreclosures, but with the primary goal to assist homeowners in trouble? If this was the intent, then OneWest has failed miserably in its actions. And if so, could OneWest be actionable by the Federal Government for fraud? In fact the true “Intent” was to limit losses to the Treasury Department. Each and every loan modification done would save the Treasury, and the tax payer, from 80-95 cents on every dollar. Since, technically, One West would get 5-20 cents of any savings, it should have been an incentive to use foreclosure alternatives. But the reality is  that the quick turnaround on foreclosure seems to give OneWest a better return. As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell). So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers. Conclusion I have presented the story of Indymac/OneWest and what is happening today. But the story does not end with OneWest. There are over 50 different lenders and servicers who have Shared-Loss Agreements executed with the FDIC. Each Agreement offers essentially the same terms. Though other Lenders do not appear to be acting as flagrantly as OneWest, they are all still engaging in the same actions. What is the solution for this problem? For homeowners individually, the most successes are being achieved by borrowers who are getting knowledgeable attorneys who will not just threaten litigation, but are also willing to act and file the necessary lawsuits. That tends to bring OneWest Bank to the table. For the country as a whole, and homeowners in mass, the problem must be brought to the attention of your local Congress Critters. You must hold their feet to the fire. They must know that if they do not respond to what OneWest and other lenders are doing, then they are subject to being voted out of their nice and cushy Congressional Offices. The entire agreement between the FDIC and One West can be found at http://www.fdic.gov/about/freedom/IndyMacSharedLossAgrmt.pdf

A SPECIAL THANKS TO MICHAEL DELL WHO IS AN INVESTOR OF ONEWEST AND FOR PUTTING OUR KIDS COMPUTERS OUT IN THE STREETS!!! …THANK YOU DELL!!