<a href="http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/mandated-national-land-record-audit.html">National Land Records Audit Petition | GoPetition</a>
Those We Look to for Protection
View Larger
Phil Skinner, pskinner@ajc.com
U.S. Attorney Sally Yates (center) announces that ten local police officers have been arrested on corruption charges in a press conference at the Richard B. Russell Federal Building in downtown Atlanta on Tuesday Feb. 12th, 2013.
By Steve Visser
Staff
Federal authorities announced the arrest of 10 metro law enforcement officers Tuesday on charges of arranging protection for a street gang’s drug deals.
“Obviously the breadth of the corruption is very troubling,” said U.S. Attorney Sally Yates . “It is certainly the most (officers) this office has charged in a long time.”
The case began as a street gang investigation by the federal bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, whose undercover agents learned that gangs had officers on the payroll for protection, Yates said. The FBI took command of the public corruption aspects of the case.
At least one officer recommended that the gang use a school parking lot to exchange drugs for cash because trading backpacks there would not look suspicious, Yates said at a 2 p.m. news conference.
The law enforcement officers arrested today were: Atlanta Police Department Officer Kelvin Allen, 42, of Atlanta; DeKalb County Police Department Officers Dennis Duren, 32, of Atlanta and Dorian Williams, 25, of Stone Mountain, Georgia; Forest Park Police Department Sergeants Victor Middlebrook, 44, of Jonesboro, Georgia and Andrew Monroe, 57, of Riverdale, Georgia; MARTA Police Department Officer Marquez Holmes, 45, of Jonesboro, Georgia; Stone Mountain Police Department Officer Denoris Carter, 42, of Lithonia, Georgia, and contract Federal Protective Services Officer Sharon Peters, 43, of Lithonia, Georgia. Agents also arrested two former law enforcement officers: former DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office jail officers Monyette McLaurin, 37, of Atlanta, and Chase Valentine, 44, of Covington, Georgia.
Civilians arrested today were: Shannon Bass, 38, of Atlanta; Elizabeth Coss, 35, of Atlanta; Gregory Lee Harvey, 26, of Stone Mountain, Georgia; Alexander B. Hill, 22, of Ellenwood, Georgia; and Jerry B. Mannery, Jr., 38, of Tucker, Georgia.
Some of the officers were retired and some were active duty. The highest rank was sergeant and the payoffs ranged as high as $7,000 per transaction. Each transaction involved at least five kilograms of cocaine, which carries a 10 year minimum sentence, Yates said.
Officers were involved in multiple transactions, provided escorts to dealers and buyers and offered to provided muscle if necessary to protect their clients, Yates said.
Yates said the investigation is ongoing and declined to say whether more officers would be arrested.
ATF Special Agent in Charge Scott Sweetow would not name the street gang involved but he suggested the public corruption aspects would be more far-ranging.
“I can say this is probably not the last you will be hearing of this case,” he said.
A press release from Yates’ office detailed the following allegations:
DeKalb County Police Department
Between October 2011 and November 2011, DeKalb County Police Officer Dennis Duren, working together with Bass, provided protection for what he and Bass believed were four separate transactions in the Atlanta area that involved multiple kilograms of cocaine. Duren and Bass accepted cash payments totaling $8,800 for these services. During the transactions, Duren was dressed in his DeKalb County Police uniform and carried a gun in a holster on his belt, as he patrolled on foot in the parking lots in which the undercover sales took place. After the first two transactions, Duren allegedly offered to drive his patrol vehicle to future transactions for an additional $800 fee, and afterward received an additional $800 in cash for using his patrol vehicle in the final transaction in November 2011. Duren and Bass are each charged with conspiring to commit extortion by accepting bribe payments and attempted possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. Duren also is charged with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Between January and February 2013, DeKalb County Police Officer Dorian Williams, working together with Mannery and Bass, provided protection for what he and Mannery believed were three separate transactions in the Atlanta area that involved multiple kilograms of cocaine. Williams and Mannery accepted cash payments totaling $18,000 for these services. During the transactions, Williams was dressed in his DeKalb County Police uniform and carried a gun in a holster on his belt, and he patrolled the parking lots in which the undercover sales took place in his DeKalb Police vehicle. During a meeting between the three transactions, Williams allegedly instructed Bass to remove any cocaine from the scene if Williams had to shoot someone during the upcoming sale. In another meeting, Williams suggested that future drug transactions should take place in the parking lot of a local high school during the afternoon, so that the exchange of backpacks containing drugs and money would not look suspicious. Williams and Mannery are each charged with conspiring to commit extortion by accepting bribe payments and attempted possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine.
Stone Mountain Police Department
Between April and September 2012, Stone Mountain Police Officer Denoris Carter, working together with Mannery, provided protection for what he and Mannery believed were five separate transactions in the Atlanta area that involved multiple kilograms of cocaine. For these services, Carter and Mannery accepted cash payments totaling $23,500. For all five transactions, Carter dressed in his Stone Mountain Police uniform. In four of the deals, he arrived in his police cruiser and either patrolled or parked in the parking lots in which the undercover sales took place and watched the transactions. During the final transaction in September 2012, Carter was on foot, displaying a firearm in a holster on his belt, and he walked through the parking lot in which the transaction took place and watched the participants. Finally, during one of the transactions, Carter agreed to escort the purchaser of the sham cocaine in his police vehicle for several miles, until the purchaser reached Highway 78. Carter is charged with conspiring to commit extortion by accepting bribe payments, attempted possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Atlanta Police Department
Between June and August 2012, Atlanta Police officer Kelvin D. Allen, working together with Coss, provided protection for what he and Coss believed were three separate transactions in the Atlanta area that involved multiple kilograms of cocaine. Allen and Coss accepted cash payments totaling $10,500 for their services. For two transactions, Allen dressed in his Atlanta Police uniform and carried a gun in a holster on his belt. Allen patrolled on foot in parking lots in which the undercover sales took place and appeared to be monitoring the transactions. During a meeting after the three transactions, a cooperator gave Allen and Coss each a $1,000 bonus payment in return for protecting the three transactions. Allen and Coss are each charged with conspiring to commit extortion by accepting bribe payments and attempted possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. Allen also is charged with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
MARTA Police Department
Between August and November 2012, MARTA Police Department Officer Marquez Holmes, working together with Coss, provided protection for what he and Coss believed were four separate transactions in the Atlanta area that involved multiple kilograms of cocaine. For these services, Holmes and Coss accepted cash payments totaling $9,000. During the transactions, Holmes was dressed in his MARTA Police uniform and carried a gun in a holster on his belt. In two of the transactions, Holmes patrolled on foot in the parking lots in which the undercover sales took place and monitored the transactions. During the other two deals, Holmes drove to the site in his MARTA police cruiser and parked next to the vehicles in which the undercover drug sale took place. Holmes is charged with conspiring to commit extortion by accepting bribe payments, attempted possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Forest Park Police Department
Between October to December 2012, Forest Park Police Sergeants Victor Middlebrook and Andrew Monroe, sometimes working alone and at other times together, provided protection for what they believed were six separate drug deals in the Atlanta area, all involving multiple kilograms of cocaine. For his services in the first four transactions, Middlebook accepted cash payments totaling $13,800. During these transactions, Middlebrook wore plain clothes, but displayed his badge and a firearm in a holster on his belt. He patrolled on foot in the parking lots nearby the vehicles in which the undercover sales took place and appeared to be monitoring the transactions. For the final two transactions, both Middlebrook and Monroe provided security and were given cash payments totaling $10,400. Middlebrook again monitored the transactions on foot in plain clothes while displaying his badge and gun, while Monroe watched from his vehicle in the parking lot and afterward escorted the purchaser of the sham cocaine for several miles. Middlebrook and Monroe are charged with conspiring to commit extortion by accepting bribe payments and attempted possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine; Middlebrook is also charged with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office
In January 2013, former DeKalb County Sheriff Jail Officer Monyette McLaurin, working together with Harvey, provided protection for what they believed were two separate drug transactions in the Atlanta area that involved multiple kilograms of cocaine. Harvey already had provided security for two undercover drug transactions in December 2012, falsely representing that he was a DeKalb County detention officer and wearing a black shirt with the letters “SHERIFF” printed across the back during the transactions. Harvey then stated that he knew other police officers who wanted to protect drug deals, and in January 2013 he introduced McLaurin as one of these officers. During a meeting to discuss future drug transactions, McLaurin falsely represented that he was a deputy employed by the DeKalb Sheriff’s office, even though his position as a jail officer ended in 2011. McLaurin and Harvey further stated during this meeting that they may need to kill another person who knew that Harvey had protected drug deals, if this person reported the activity to others.
During the two transactions in January 2013, McLaurin was dressed in a DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office uniform with a badge, and he carried a gun in a holster on his belt. He accompanied the undercover seller of the cocaine to pick up the drugs from a warehouse, counted the kilograms the seller received, and stood outside the purchaser’s vehicle during the actual transaction. He further discussed with the seller whether they should agree upon a signal for the seller to indicate that the sale had gone awry, requiring McLaurin to shoot the drug buyer. For their services, McLaurin and Harvey were paid $12,000 in cash. McLaurin and Harvey are each charged with attempted possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Later in January 2013, McLaurin and Harvey introduced a second former DeKalb County Sheriff’s Jail Officer, Chase Valentine, to help provide security for future drug deals. Like McLaurin, Valentine falsely represented himself to be a DeKalb County Sheriff’s Deputy, even though his position as a jail officer ended in 2010. Together with Harvey, Valentine provided security for one undercover drug transaction on January 17, 2013, during which he wore a DeKalb Sheriff’s Office uniform and a pistol in a holster on his belt. During the transaction, Valentine escorted the seller to pick up the sham cocaine, counted the number of kilograms delivered, and stood outside the purchaser’s car during the actual transaction. For these services, Valentine received $6,000 in cash. Valentine is charged with attempted possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Federal Protective Services
In November 2012, Sharon Peters, who was a contract officer for the Federal Protective Services, worked together with Mannery to provide protection for what they believed were two separate transactions in the Atlanta area that involved multiple kilograms of cocaine. For these services, Peters and Mannery accepted cash payments totaling $14,000. For both transactions, Peters parked her vehicle nearby the cars where the sham drugs and money were exchanged, and watched the transactions. Before both transactions, Peters told others that she had her pistol with her in the car. Peters is charged with attempted possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Imposter Clayton County Police Officer
Between December 2012 and January 2013, Alexander B. Hill falsely represented himself to be an officer with the Clayton County Police Department while providing security for what he believed were three separate drug transactions in the Atlanta area that involved multiple kilograms of cocaine. During an initial meeting, Hill wore a uniform that appeared to be from Clayton Police, but during the transactions he wore plain clothes and, for at least the first deal, a badge displayed on his belt. For these services, Hill received payments totaling $9,000 in cash. Hill charged with attempted possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
2012 in review
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 1,900 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 3 years to get that many views.
Lenders, Banksters, Courts, and all you other liars and thieves…
¤
COMES NOW… proceeding in Propria Persona, and respectfully files Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association’s Motion to Dismiss, and shows this Honorable Court the following pertinent facts:
Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) has filed their Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to O.C.G.A.§ 9-11-12(b), and on the claims that Plaintiff is a borrower who defaulted in repayment of his mortgage loan, resulting in the foreclosing on the real property which served as collateral for the loan. Plaintiff contends that had the banking and mortgage industry not been so greedy, they would not have over inflated the values through falsified appraisals on properties; they would not have been telling Borrowers not to worry, they can work out an affordable loan that will get you into that house you always dreamed of, while knowing in the back of their minds, that when the Borrower claims that they believed and relied upon their lenders, and what they had been told; the response would then be that the relationship had been nothing more than creditor – debtor and that you should not have relied upon the lies you had been told, because you are at different ends of the spectrum, with totally different interests. My Grandmother would say that America has gone to hell in a handbag.
We have headed into an era where the foreclosing entities are allowed to forge and falsify documents, because the borrower defaulted on their payments, and they need those documents that they are forging and falsifying in order to foreclose upon that Borrower, and the original documents no longer exist. Plaintiff was of the belief, that if you signed a contract, that the Original contract had to be kept in order for it to be collected upon, simple contract law. As it is in these foreclosure/wrongful foreclosure cases, the only time the documents are referred to contracts, is when the documents are referred to as in the Borrower failed to honor the contract by timely making their payments every month. Any other time, the words contract, does not exist. Should a Borrower mention the word, or words Note or Promissory Note, it is sacrilege and the Borrower is “claiming the show me the note theory”, or “vapor money theory”, which is a cue to the Court to dismiss because Georgia does not have a law that the foreclosing entity has to show you the Note. And then, there are the entities that think that they can talk to, and treat the pro se litigants any way they please.
No one would be in this mess, if Fannie Mae, US Bank,Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Aurora, Litton, Taylor Bean and Whitaker, Cenlar, GMAC, Wachovia, Popular, Countrywide, MERS, and a whole slew of other entities had not gotten greedy, eased the underwriting, slacked off on checking tax forms and employment, and had not lied that the borrowers could afford it, this loan will allow you to buy the home you always wanted.
DOC X IN HOT WATER AGAIN!!!
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL
BILL SCHUETTE FILES CRIMINAL CHARGES
AGAINST FORMER MORTGAGE PROCESSOR
PRESIDENT FOR ROLE IN FRAUDULENT
ROBOSIGNING
http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-164-46849_47203-290350–,00.html
LANSING – Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette today announced he charged Lorraine Brown, former president of mortgage document processor DocX, with racketeering for her alleged role in authorizing the fraudulent signing of mortgage documents filed in Michigan. The felony charge comes as the result
of an ongoing Attorney General investigation into questionable mortgage documentation filed with Michigan’s Register of Deeds offices during the foreclosure crisis.
"Shortcuts like robo-signing are just one piece of the mortgage foreclosure crisis," said Schuette. "Our investigation remains ongoing, and we will bring to justice every lawbreaker we find."
In April 2011, Schuette launched an investigation after county officials across the state reported that they suspected Assignment of Mortgage documents filed in their offices may have been forged. A "60 Minutes" news broadcast had shown that the name "Linda Green" was signed to thousands of mortgage-related documents nationwide, but with many different variations in handwriting. County officials in Michigan reviewed their files and found similar documents, thus raising questions about the authenticity of the documents filed.
As part of his investigation, Schuette reviewed documents filed in Michigan and prepared by DocX, a document processing company located in Georgia. DocX processed mortgage assignments and lien releases for residential lenders and servicers nationwide. Schuette’s investigation revealed that former DocX president Lorraine Brown, 51, of Alpharetta, Georgia, allegedly established and orchestrated a widespread scheme of "robo-signing," a practice in which employees were directed to fraudulently sign another authorized person’s name on mortgage documents in order to execute these documents as quickly as possible.
Internally, DocX identified this practice as "facsimile signing" or "surrogate signing." Schuette alleges that from 2006 through 2009, these improperly executed documents were created and recorded at Brown’s direction. Schuette’s investigation revealed that more than 1,000 unauthorized and improperly executed documents were filed with county registers of deeds throughout Michigan.
Lorraine Brown has been charged with one count of Conducting Criminal Enterprises (Racketeering), a 20-year felony, in Kent County’s 61st District Court. Arrangements are being made for Brown to surrender to Michigan authorities, and arraignment will be scheduled at a later date.
In 2010, DocX suspended operations, halting its work as a mortgage document processor. Schuette noted that while the criminal charges against Brown address her role in the scheme, his office’s overall investigation into robosigning remains ongoing and is not yet complete.
A criminal charge is merely an accusation, and the defendants are
presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
BANK OF AMERICA STRIKES AGAIN!!!
Bank Of America Mortgage Fraud: Feds Sue For Over $1 Billion Alleging Multi-Year Scheme
Posted: 10/24/2012 12:20 pm EDT Updated: 10/25/2012 10:27 am EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/bank-of-america-mortgage-fraud_n_2009791.html
Bank Of America, Bank Of America, Video, Bank Of America Fraud, Business News, Mortgage Fraud, Wells Fargo Lawsuit, Bank Of America Mortgage Fraud, Firsthand, Business News
Federal prosecutors sued Bank of America for $1 billion on Wednesday, alleging that the bank’s former Countrywide unit concocted a mortgage scheme it called the "Hustle" in order to sell thousands of fraudulent and otherwise defective mortgage loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
"In order to increase the speed at which it originated and sold loans … Countrywide eliminated every single checkpoint on loan quality and compensated its employees solely based on the volume of loans originated," the lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal district court, alleges.
This led to "rampant instances of fraud and other serious loan defects," all while Countrywide was telling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy up mortgages for resale, that it had strengthened its lending requirements, the lawsuit claims.
When the loans "predictably" defaulted, Fannie and Freddie, which in 2008 required a massive taxpayer bailout due in large part to the purchase of toxic mortgages, incurred more than $1 billion in losses, the lawsuit alleges.
The mortgage scheme, called the "High Speed Swim Lane" or the "Hustle," for short, continued through 2009, well after Bank of America acquired Countrywide, according to the lawsuit.
In a statement, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara characterized the activity as "spectacularly brazen in scope."
Bank of America did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The government’s lawsuit comes quick on the heels of two other high-profile mortgage fraud cases filed by federal and state law enforcement officials, who have taken fire for not aggressively pursuing those responsible for the financial crisis.
Earlier this month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued Bear Stearns, now a unit of JPMorgan Chase, accusing it of stuffing mortgage bonds with bad loans without informing investors of the risk.
A week later, the Department of Justice sued Wells Fargo, claiming the bank lied about the quality of thousands of loans it certified for a federal insurance program. Both of those cases are pending.
The government’s case also comes after years of allegations by whistle-blowers that Countrywide railroaded borrowers into bad loans and in some cases even fraudulently altered documents so that they would qualify.
One of these whistleblowers, Eileen Foster, told the Center for Public Integrity last year that Countrywide allegedly used scissors, tape and Wite-Out to create fake bank statements, inflated property appraisals and other phony paperwork — and that the company tried to cover it up.
Countrywide was once the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. From 2004 to 2007, it originated more than $1.3 trillion in loans. But the company’s remarkable growth was built on the issuance of subprime mortgages, often to borrowers with bad credit or no ability to repay.
In 2007, though, market growth began to slow and air began to leak out of the housing bubble. The mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which own or control more than half of all loans in the U.S., began to push the lenders to impose stricter limits on underwriting, which is the process of qualifying someone for a home mortgage loan.
But rather than tightening up those standards, Countrywide crafted a new program meant to move more loans through the pipeline more quickly than before, according to internal documents in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that the aim of the Hustle was to have loans "move forward, never backward" and to remove unnecessary "toll gates" slowing down the loan origination process.
For instance, instead of reviewing the loans, Countrywide allegedly assigned critical underwriting tasks to loan processors who were previously considered unqualified even to answer borrower questions. The mortgage company also eliminated previously mandatory checklists that provided instructions on how to do this vital task, the lawsuit says.
"Under the Hustle, such instructions on proper underwriting were considered nothing more than unnecessary forms that would slow the swim lane down," the lawsuit says.
Countrywide put the new program in place in August 2007, just as Fannie and Freddie tightened their repurchase requirements due to escalating default rates. The company also concealed from Fannie and Freddie quality control reports that showed instances of fraud and other defects were "legion," the lawsuit alleges.
Specifically, the lawsuit says Countrywide’s own quality control reports identified defect rates of nearly 40 percent in some months, rates that were 10 times the standard industry defect rate.
One of these loans, which closed on Oct. 12, 2007, was made to a borrower in Tampa. Countrywide sold the loan to Fannie Mae with the promise that it complied with underwriting requirements.
But that’s not what a post-default review of the loan revealed, according to the lawsuit. The mortgage application showed that the borrower, a nurse, earned $8,000 a month, when in fact she earned $4,112 a month. Moreover, the home appraisal misrepresented the size of the home and the decline of home values in the neighborhood, the lawsuit says.
The loan defaulted 12 months after closing. Countrywide’s internal fraud investigator later confirmed fraud in connection with the loan.
The Bank of America lawsuit alleges violations of civil fraud statutes, meaning that potential penalties will be measured in dollar terms, not jail time. It also does not single out any current or former officials at the beleaguered bank or at Countrywide.
Bank of America purchased Countrywide in 2008, a decision that has cost the bank an estimated $40 billion in real-estate losses, legal expenses and settlements with state and federal agencies, the Wall Street Journal recently reported.
DeKalb County Strikes Again!!!
3am Home Eviction in DeKalb Sparks Outrage
Written By: APN STAFF
5-9-2012
By Scott Brown, Special to the Atlanta Progressive News
(APN) DEKALB COUNTY — In the early morning hours of Wednesday, May 02, 2012, over twenty deputies from the Dekalb County Sheriff’s Department, under orders from Sheriff Thomas Brown, drilled the locks and kicked in the doors of the Christine Frazer’s home with guns drawn in order to evict four generations of family members.
Frazer, the homeowner, had fallen behind on her mortgage payments and was foreclosed upon in October 2011.
According to Frazer, her family members, including her 85-year-old mother and 3-year-old grandson, were told by officers to "act like it was a fire drill" and grab what they could and get out.
Frazer said they were not even allowed a shower before being escorted from her home of eighteen years at three in the morning.
She described the event as "literally a nightmare."
Her three dogs were taken to the pound and all of her belongings were put out on the street, which police had completely closed off.
At a press conference in front of her belongings hours after the eviction, Frazer lamented, "I’ve been in this home eighteen years. My daughter was raised here. My husband died here. My grandson came home here. This is my home."
"They came in as if they were executing a warrant to find drugs. It makes no sense,” Frazer’s lawyer, Joshua Davis, said of the eviction.
Sheriff Thomas Brown told Fox 5 television news that he attributed the unusual timing and the large number of officers used in the eviction to the presence of Occupy Atlanta protesters who had been camping in the yard for the past four months in an attempt to prevent what they described as an illegal eviction based on an illegal foreclosure.
Frazer has filed a lawsuit, which is currently pending in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, against the company that foreclosed on her home last October, Investors One Corporation.
Ownership of the mortgage has changed three times in the past six months and, according to Frazer’s lawyer, the chain of title was broken when the previous owner of the mortgage, a bank based in Indiana, failed to uphold their legal obligation to transfer the title, rendering the foreclosure by Investors One Corporation fraudulent.
"There are judges that are in place that could have done a little research, if they’d done a little title search they’d have seen that something in the milk wasn’t clean,” Frazer said.
Frazer, 63, began to fall behind on her mortgage payments after losing her husband and her job in 2009. She has been unable to find a job ever since and is currently on early retirement social security.
Sheriff Brown told Fox 5 he gave the homeowner ample time to reach a settlement with the mortgage holder before serving the eviction notice.
Frazer said she tried to restructure the mortgage, but Investors One Corporation was uncooperative and intent on foreclosure, only offering to reinstate the loan if she was able to pay 20,000 dollars in cash. Currently she has paid over 240,000 dollars on the mortgage on a house currently appraised at only 40,000 dollars.
On Monday, May 07, 2012, in response to the early morning eviction ordered by Sheriff Thomas Brown, Occupy Atlanta held a protest in front of the Dekalb County Sheriff’s office.
At one point, more protesters pulled up in a van full of Frazer’s belongings, and Occupy Atlanta unloaded mattresses, furniture, and bags of other items that deputies had left on the curb nearly one week prior and piled them in front of the doors to the Sheriff’s Office, along with signs reading “Fraudclosure” and “Wall St. criminals are not convicted. The people are evicted.”
Standing before a pile of her belongings in front of the Sheriff’s Office during a press conference, Frazer said, "This is not just about me and my family, this is about families across America."
Frazer is certainly not alone in her struggle to keep her home. According to Corelogic, Inc., a company specializing in financial analysis, over 1.4 million homes in the US are currently in the foreclosure process, and states like Georgia have been ground zero in the housing crisis.
A recent Case-Shiller Home Price Indices report shows Metro Atlanta home prices fell 17.3 percent between February 2011 and February 2012, a fact that is fueling the continuing foreclosure crisis in the state.
Occupy Atlanta has taken up home defense as a tactic for combating what protesters view as unfair and illegal practices by banks and the financial industry as a whole.
Leila Abadir, one of the Occupy Atlanta protesters who had been camping on the lawn at the Frazer household, says the fight is not over. Occupy Atlanta will continue to assist the Frazer family in finding proper housing, she said.
They will also keep working to shed light on what she believes to be unethical and potentially criminal activity on the part of Investors One Corporation.
According to Fox 5, after most of the protesters left the sheriff’s office, police surrounded a remaining protester’s vehicle, which they impounded for possible evidence. They issued two citations to two people for littering and arrested one of them because he did not have identification on him.
Wrongful Foreclosure Complaints
It is truly amazing, the number of wrongful foreclosure complaints that are on the internet. People search around for a complaint to copy and file in the Court, and wallah! That one looks like a winner!
Ever do a google search on "wrongful foreclosure"? Amazingly… there are millions of returns on that phrase.
The other thing that no one considers, is who really puts all those sample complaints on the web? Is every site on the up and up, or do the banks contribute their share with mis-information. It would have to be that way.
I have noticed some of the complaints that have ended up in the Courts, filed by pro se litigants. Obviously, someone put that complaint out there, just so that these people would file it and fail. Like… Well, there is another we won’t have to worry about fighting us in the courts. So who? Who would do such a thing?
Clearly another pro se litigant would not take an unproven complaint and suggest to others that it is a winner.
And God knows, the plethora of bad case law already created from the rulings of federal courts, ESPECIALLY rulings from US District Court or the Northern District of Georgia, with the exception of course of Amy Totenberg’s rulings. Those are actually the only ones worth readings.
If you have a case in front of any other judge in NDGa., why even wait till its over to read the ruling, you know what it will say.
FDIC ($677.4 Billion) Charges Banks With Fraud, Illegal Underwriting Practices « Livinglies’s Weblog
FDIC ($677.4 Billion) Charges Banks With Fraud, Illegal Underwriting Practices
Posted on August 22, 2012 by Neil Garfield
Has Obama Awakened?
Appraisal Fraud Alleged by this Blog
is found to be Centerpiece of this Action
Editor’s Note: The FDIC claims it studied a rough sampling of the securitized loans and alleges more than 60% of the loans packed into each deal contain material untrue or misleading statements.
In a resounding acceptance of the principles enunciated first on this blog, the FDIC, being the best regulator to file the charges, has moved against the big banks and servicers in the false scheme of securitization resulting in trillions in losses to the government, investors and homeowners.
Central to the allegations are that “defendants made untrue statements or omitted important information about such material facts as the loan-to-value ratios of the mortgage loans, the extent to which appraisals of the properties that secured the loans were performed in compliance with professional appraisal standards, the number of borrowers who did not live in the houses that secured their loans (that is, the number of properties that were not primary residences), and the extent to which the entities that made the loans disregarded their own standards in doing so.”
The allegations are so serious that it is unlikely that there will be any slap on the wrist coming out of this. The result of this lawsuit will have a profound impact on the housing market, the financial community and best of all, homeowners who have been using these allegations as defenses for years. It is apparent that the false premises upon which the bogus mortgage bonds were sold, combined with the complete avoidance of the supposed securitization scheme that was “in place,” has prompted this huge lawsuit. It is the tip of an iceberg where the administration is finally bringing the war to the door of the banks and will most likely lead to criminal charges as the cases progress.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. filed three lawsuits against big banks, alleging the lenders misrepresented the quality of securitized loans sold to the now defunct Texas firm, Guaranty Bank.
The FDIC took Austin, Texas-based Guaranty Bank into receivership back in Aug. 2009.
This week, the regulator filed multiple lawsuits in Austin, Texas, suggesting Guaranty suffered major losses from toxic RMBS loans sold and packaged by mega banks and other financial institutions.
Defendants named in the multibillion-dollar lawsuits include Countrywide, JPMorgan Chase ($38.04 0%), Ally Financial, Deutsche Bank Securities ($34.07 0%), Bank of America ($8.190%) and Goldman Sachs ($105.32 0%) among others.
FDIC, on behalf of Guaranty, claims the banks misrepresented loan-to-value ratios, underwriting criteria and appraisal amounts when selling, packaging and underwriting home loans that became collateral for mortgage securities sold to Guaranty.
Specifically, the FDIC alleges the financial firms violated federal and Texas securities laws by failing to fully disclose or truthfully represent the quality of mortgages backing the security certificates.
In the first case, the FDIC accuses Countrywide Securities, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs of playing a role in the packaging, selling or securitization of mortgages sold off to Guaranty Bank for $1.5 billion. The suit says Guaranty Bank acquired 8 certificates in the transaction.
The FDIC claims it studied a rough sampling of the securitized loans and alleges more than 60% of the loans packed into each deal contain material untrue or misleading statements.
The FDIC is suing for an undetermined amount that is no less than $559.7 million in damages.
The bank regulator also sued Ally Securities, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank Securities and JPMorgan Securities among others. In that suit, the regulator claims, the firms were involved in the packaging, underwriting and sale of eight RMBS certificates valued at $1.8 billion.
The FDIC alleged in court records that the “defendants made untrue statements or omitted important information about such material facts as the loan-to-value ratios of the mortgage loans, the extent to which appraisals of the properties that secured the loans were performed in compliance with professional appraisal standards, the number of borrowers who did not live in the houses that secured their loans (that is, the number of properties that were not primary residences), and the extent to which the entities that made the loans disregarded their own standards in doing so.”
In that complaint, the FDIC is asking for at least $900.6 million in damages.
The regulator also sued JPMorgan Securities, Merrill Lynch, RBS Securities and WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., making similar claims about 20 RMBS certificates that Guaranty paid $2.1 billion to acquire. The FDIC is requesting at least $677.4 billion in damages.
FDIC ($677.4 Billion) Charges Banks With Fraud, Illegal Underwriting Practices « Livinglies’s Weblog
Assignment must exist in writing, even if the court says it doesn’t need recording « Livinglies’s Weblog
Editor’s Note:
With Banks and servicers playing fast and loose with the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence and black letter law it well to remember BASIC BLACK LETTER LAW. An assignment without delivery is probably a nullity. An assignment that isn’t even in writing is (a) not proper under most existing laws and (b) requires the allegation of an oral “assignment” to be explained as to why it wasn’t in writing before, just like a lost or destroyed note.
The assignment can only be valid and used if the assignee is capable of accepting it, paying for it and either acceptance is for the assignee or as an authorized agent. The Notice Default does not give the Trustee or even the original mortgagee where there has been an assignment, the right to declare default. Then it becomes the representation of the trustee, who is supposed to be objective and disinterested in the result.
For the Trustee to issue a notice of sale and notice of default on behalf of the supposed beneficiary, means that the trustee is no longer accepting the responsibilities of the trustee to act with due diligence and good faith toward both the trustor and the beneficiary.
Hence the substitution of trustee is an offer which has not and cannot be accepted. Any actions taken by the trustee in a notice of default or any other notice or collection letter is out of bounds. The only reason the banks do this is to hide behind yet another layer of people and entities so when the arrest warrants are issued, they can claim plausible deniability that the wrong procedure was being followed. This is poppycock. The beneficiary supposedly knows whether or not he is the creditor entitled to submit a credit bid at auction based upon the the existence of a properly kept loan receivable account reflected on the CREDITOR’s books.
This is just another example where the banks and servicers have borrowed the identity of the creditor, claimed that said identity is private and privileged, and then used it for their own advantage to the detriment of both the lender-investor and the borrower.
The Old Crows and the Gatekeeper
A conversation with a friend…
I know what you mean about the clerks in your county throwing things out for a small sum…we have, (well one old bird that is left-the other one died), she is no joke, in her 80’s. She will do "favors" for certain people, but they have to be people that are from certain firms, or that have the approval from either the court or the court clerk and master.
Everyone (that is not in the court system) refers to these old ladies as the "old crows", and funny enough the way that the building is designed- the chancery court clerks set off to themselves and it kind of looks like a birds nest, this is referred to as "the crows’ nest". My mother refers to this old hateful old thing as the gate keeper.
Anyway, my mother worked for the city for over 23 years before she took early retirement, and would walk on her lunch breaks. Well, this old crow (the one that is still alive) was also walking and came in behind my mother (I think that she thought that my mom was someone else), but she stated that the chemical that she has to use to "take signatures off of documents" has eaten the skin off of her fingers, and her fingers were so sore that she couldn’t even hold a pen (which explains to me why the chancery courts require the original document and only the original document). Mom stated after she said that, that the old crow looked up and realized that it was my mom and not who she thought. My mom said that the old crow then darted off and that woman never spoke to my mom again. This happened after mom had been there either 12 or 13 years. This old crow avoided my mom like the plague for the next 10-11 years!
New rule allowing Ga. homeowners to halt foreclosures | www.wsbtv.com
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/new-rule-allowing-ga-homeowners-halt-foreclosures/nP4wb/
FORSYTH COUNTY, Ga. —
A metro Atlanta consumer attorney said he has already been able to halt a dozen foreclosures using a new ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals.
The latest case involves a Forsyth County home and lending giant Wells Fargo.
"Having to move out of the dream home that my son and I built is the worst thing I could think of," said homeowner David Stripland.
The recession hit his car dealership around the same time the housing crisis, cutting his home’s value more than 60 percent.
"You can’t sell it, you can’t re-fi, you have to get a modification," said his wife, Paulette.
The Striplands said the process went on for more than a year. They then received a string of foreclosure notices from Wells Fargo.
"Foreclosure. It’s a shame," said Paulette through a stream of tears.
The foreclosure has now been halted, after a recent ruling by the state appellate court.
Wells Fargo does not hold the note. It only services the loan. The note holder is not clearly stated.
The Striplands paid forensic auditors who found the loan has been divided up into dozens of securities sold to investors.
"Once these notes are chopped up and turned into bonds, securities, whatever; who really owns it?" asked their attorney, Bob Thompson.
But the Georgia Court of Appeals ruling in a case involving a Cobb County family and servicers Provident Funding, LLC, ruled homeowners have "a right to know" to whom they actually owe the money, lest they be "misled or confused."
"Even a dog in Georgia has the right to know who’s kicking him," Emory law professor Frank Alexander told Channel 2’s reporting partners at the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
"These big banks and Wall Street have to follow the law of the land, just like I do," said Paulette Stripland.
Channel 2’s Jim Strickland learned just before 5 p.m. Thursday, Wells Fargo had halted the foreclosure.
Thompson said most homeowners in peril should take action on their own.
Call and get it stopped and get yourself some time, because with time most people can work things out," he said.
It is likely Provident will appeal to the state supreme court.
TARP Funds for Housing Relief 90 Percent Unspent, Auditor Says – Bloomberg
Distressed homeowners have received only 10 percent of nearly $46 billion in federal aid since the money was allocated in 2009 under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, a U.S. auditor’s report said today.
Spending on one of President Obama’s main efforts to avert foreclosures, the Home Affordable Modification Program, totaled $3 billion — about 10 percent of the $22.7 billion originally obligated at the end of June, the Special Inspector General for the TARP program said in a quarterly report to Congress. HAMP pays lenders to restructure loans so borrowers can afford them.
The report criticized the Treasury Department’s reaction to an audit of a $7.6 billion aid program for families in states with the largest home-price declines. Of that amount, only $351 million had been spent to assist 43,580 homeowners by the end of June, the report said.
“Taxpayers that fund this program have an absolute right to know what the government’s expectations and goals are for using $7.6 billion in TARP funds,” the report said. “By refusing to set any goals for the programs, Treasury is subject to criticism that it is attempting to avoid accountability.”
One program, which allocates $2.7 billion in TARP funds to encourage lenders to write down or eliminate second liens when refinancing properties insured by the Federal Housing Administration, has not resulted in any removals of second liens, the report said.
The Treasury Department has allocated $8.1 billion for a program to allow borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth to refinance into loans insured by the FHA. Of that, $6.6 million has gone for administrative expenses, and 1,437 borrowers have benefited, the report said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Clea Benson in Washington at:
To contact the editor responsible for this story:Maura Reynolds at
TARP Funds for Housing Relief 90 Percent Unspent, Auditor Says – Bloomberg
Chase is defending 10,000 lawsuits. Find out more and join the party.
May God Help Us All
by Mark Stopa, Florida attorney
Wanna Buy a Government-Foreclosed Home? OK. Just Bring $10,000,000.00
Posted on June 29th, 2012 by Mark Stopa
I’ve often expressed my disgust at how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac frequently pay banks 100% of their judgment amounts in foreclosure cases. It’s an appalling dynamic in foreclosure-world, one where banks often have no incentive to modify mortgages because "our" government will pay the banks in full once the foreclosure is over (and all the banks have to do is convey title to Fannie and Freddie). Incredibly, just when I thought I couldn’t be any more appalled, somehow, my disgust with "our" government reached a new level today.
I have it on good information (directly from someone personally involved) that Fannie and Freddie are selling foreclosed homes in bulk to third-party investors. Not one at a time, not several – dozens – at heavily discounted rates. In other words, many of the homes in Florida and elsewhere that have been foreclosed, with lower and middle-class homeowners thrown onto the streets and title transferred to Fannie or Freddie, are being sold to third-party investors in bulk.
If you think that sounds like an interesting investment opportunity, a chance to purchase a new home after you were foreclosed, let me stop you. Fannie and Freddie aren’t making these investments available to just anyone. To qualify, to even get inside the door to the auction room, you must have at least $10,000,000.00 in assets, and you must be able to prove the existence of those assets via bank statements and the like.
Ten million bucks, just to get in the door.
Is this what America has become? Throwing Americans onto the streets so "our" government pays the banks to foreclose and "our" government sells those houses in bulk at discounted rates to third-party investors with an eight-figure net worth?
Apparently so.
Sigh.
You know what’s arguably even worse? Nobody is even talking about this. No news stories. No media coverage. Nothing. Would you have known about this if Mark Stopa – basically a nobody in the scope of national news and politics – hadn’t blogged about it?
Why such secrecy? Where is the media coverage? Where’s the outrage? Who is running our government, exactly? This is as big an issue as Obamacare – thousands of homeowners getting foreclosed and their homes being sold in bulk to the mega-wealthy. Why is nobody even talking about it? Is America really a land where our government takes houses from the poor and middle class and sells them in bulk at discounted rates to the mega-wealthy – and it does so completely in secret? Does anyone care?
This is why I consider this the biggest post I’ve ever written. This is what is driving the whole foreclosure crisis, and nobody knows about it. Nobody’s even talking about it. Change is not possible without awareness, and right now, all Americans are totally in the dark about this dynamic. Well, all Americans except those who have $10,000,000.00.
May God help us all.
Mark Stopa
Chase is defending 10,000 lawsuits. Find out more and join the party.
U.S. Audit Cites OCC Lapses in Oversight of Foreclosure Process – Bloomberg
U.S. Audit Cites OCC Lapses in Oversight of Foreclosure Process
By Carter Dougherty – Jun 1, 2012 1:50 PM ET
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency underestimated the risks in bank foreclosure practices from 2008 to 2010 and gave examiners a 13-year-old handbook that didn’t address how securitization affects loan documentation, a Treasury Department audit found.
Treasury’s inspector general’s office reviewed the OCC’s work in the years following the onset of the credit crisis. The period was later found to be rife with abusive foreclosure practices including use of fraudulent documentation by servicers. Five major banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM),Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), settled claims from 49 states and the federal government for $25 billion on Feb. 9.
“During this time OCC did not consider foreclosure documentation and processing to be an area of significant risk and, as a result, did not focus examination resources on this function,” Jeffrey Dye, the inspector general’s director of banking audits, wrote in the May 31 report.
In missing what “turned out to be serious foreclosure issues,” the OCC relied too heavily on the banks’ own internal quality-control procedures, he said. The bank programs, in turn, focused on loss mitigation and compliance with investor guidelines, not foreclosure documentation, the report found.
The inspector general also faulted the OCC, the primary federal supervisor for national banks, for failing to update its handbook on mortgage banking examinations for 13 years. The guide didn’t address the effects of securitization or new mortgage products that were at the heart of the housing bust, the report concludes.
Comptroller Thomas Curry told the inspector general in a May 15 letter that the OCC manual will be updated, but stressed that the agency issued supplemental guidance to examiners in 2006 and 2007.
OCC spokesman Robert Garsson declined to comment on the Treasury report.
To contact the reporter on this story: Carter Dougherty in Washington at cdougherty6@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Maura Reynolds at mreynolds34@bloomberg.net
U.S. Audit Cites OCC Lapses in Oversight of Foreclosure Process – Bloomberg
DeBord Report : California is going through another ‘wave’ in foreclosures | 89.3 KPCC
California is going through another ‘wave’ in foreclosures
Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images
A for sale sign is posted in front of house in Glendale. California saw foreclosure starts pick up in June, suggesting that a new wave of defaults is underway.
For the first six months of 2012, foreclosures in California declined from the same period a year earlier. But RealtyTrac, an Irvine-based company that specializes in tracking foreclosures, reports that the state still has the fourth highest foreclosure rate in the nation. In fact, in June, default notices sent to homeowners increased from May. And year-over-year, California’s rate of foreclosure starts increased 18 percent, making it the top state for the month, the first time that California has held that slot since 2005.
I talked to RealtyTrac vice-president Daren Blomquist. He said that states with the worst foreclosure rates have remained consistent during the housing crisis. The top five haven’t moved around a lot: it’s Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, California, and Florida. He noted that the only surprise was that Georgia has moved into the top four and that Florida has slipped.
Foreclosure filings in California fell by about 11 percent in the second quarter of 2012. But in June foreclosure moved up a bit more than 12 percent over May.
Blomquist said we’ve seen this pattern before in California. He calls it a “foreclosure wave” and expects the pattern to continue, as banks cope with the national mortgage settlement that was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown yesterday and avoid flooding the market with foreclosures. Blomquist’s interpretation is that banks will work through their foreclosures gradually, so we’ll see activity ebb and flow.
"Lenders are looking at their loan portfolios and figuring out how many mortgages to set aside for modification," he said. The banks are determining which ones likely won’t qualify and sending out notices of default, the first stage of the foreclosure process, to homeowners.
Regardless of how these waves are paced, the foreclosure crisis isn’t going away any time soon. At the current rate, Blomquist expects it to take until late 2013 or early 2014 before the country’s million-and-half foreclosures are in the rearview mirror.
Follow Matthew DeBord and the DeBord Report on Twitter. And ask Matt questions at Quora.
Tagged: realtytrac, notice of default, foreclosures, california, California
DeBord Report : California is going through another ‘wave’ in foreclosures | 89.3 KPCC
Court of Appeals – ATLaw
http://www.atlawblog.com/2012/06/anybody-else-want-to-be-an-appeals-court-judge/
Archive for the ‘Court of Appeals’ Category
Anybody else want to be an appeals court judge?
3:48 pm, June 26th, 2012
Gov. Nathan Deal’s Judicial Nominating Commission has officially jump-started the process of filling the vacancy on the state Court of Appeals, created by yesterday’s promotion of Judge Keith Blackwell to the state Supreme Court.
The JNC’s notice says, beginning today through Friday, July 6, it will accept applications for the Court of Appeals opening from “any qualified applicant” who did not apply for the Supreme Court vacancy. The six remaining members of the short list for the Supreme Court opening automatically will be on the short list for the Court of Appeals, unless the applicant notifies the JNC he or she doesn’t wish to be considered, the notice says.
Deal spokeswoman Stephanie Mayfield told the Daily Report yesterday that those who applied for the Supreme Court but didn’t make the short list will not be considered for the Court of Appeals opening.
The notice contains the details on what those interested need to do to apply. It says the JNC will schedule interviews of new applicants “to the extent necessary.”
The members of the shortlist passed over in favor of Blackwell are DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Cynthia “C.J.” Becker; Elizabeth “Lisa” Branch, a litigator at Smith, Gambrell & Russell; Michael Brown, co-leader of Alston & Bird’s Government and Internal Investigations Group; Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge William “Billy” Ray Jr.; Macon Superior Court Judge Tilman “Tripp” Self III; and Henry County State Court Chief Judge Ben Studdard III.
Writing last night about the Blackwell appointment and Deal’s new opportunity, conservative lawyer and commentator Carrie Severino wrote for the National Review Online that she hears “great things” about Branch, noting Branch previously worked in the administration of George W. Bush.
Learn more about the Supreme Court finalists here.
Contributor: Alyson M. Palmer in Court of Appeals, Georgia Supreme Court, Judges, Judicial Nominating Commission |
add comment |
share
Hell, all we have to say about the matter, other than the obvious, is thank God Becker didn’t make it. There is no bigger crook at DeKalb County Superior Court, than Judge Cynthia J. Becker. See McDonald and Stegeman v. Georgia Power in DeKalb County Superior Court and see McDonald/Stegeman v. Superior Court, GA Power, et., al., in US District Court.
Encounters with Pro Se Litigants
http://www.atlantatrial.com/encounters-pro-se-litigants/
Encounters with pro se litigants
by Daniel DeWoskin
June 1st, 2011
We have all heard that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. Many of us have had occasion to walk into a courtroom, be it in magistrate, state, or even superior court, only to find that the courtroom is packed with pro se parties waiting to have their matters adjudicated. Watching inexperienced people handle their legal matters can at times be entertaining and at other times extremely frustrating. We observe these parties fumbling with rules regarding cross-examination or the admission of evidence. It is almost always apparent that these people are uncomfortable, intimidated, and unaware of how much they do not know about prosecuting or defending a legal action. Out of necessity, desperation, or perhaps stubbornness, many people still choose to represent themselves in court.
Is it hubris that causes these people, these “fools,” to represent themselves? The fact is that many parties are representing themselves because they could neither find, nor afford, counsel in a particular matter. These situations can be simply tragic. Many times, these persons are out-maneuvered by an attorney because they fail to acknowledge procedure or to understand the application of law to a particular issue. These people may lose their cases solely because their temperament or demeanor has overshadowed the presentation of evidence in their cases. There is not much of a fix to this problem, as the courts cannot take it upon themselves to advise pro se parties lest they cease to be impartial to some extent.
As attorneys, it can be like watching a train wreck. And yet, even watching the least capable pro se parties, I have to give them credit for having the nerve to walk into court, to stand before a group of strangers, and to engage in public speaking for which the outcome may have dire consequences. It is refreshing and impressive when some of these individuals have taken the time to conduct research into their legal issues and patiently wait for certain cues from the court as they advocate for their position. We have all seen these cues ignored at times by the most experienced and knowledgeable attorneys.
I myself have dealt with pro se parties and can say that I have always found it to be troublesome. When dealing with a pro se party, I am always cautious to avoid ever giving legal advice to the other party. I have a duty to my client and my responsibility to zealously represent his or her interests cannot be compromised. I also have a duty to deal fairly and honestly with my opponent. In these situations, it can be challenging to set the right tone so that I do not inadvertently escalate any hostility that may already be present in the litigation. Even by making very deliberate choices as to how I speak with my opponent can backfire, causing more work and headache for everyone involved, including the court.
Any lawyer who has dealt with pro se parties is likely to say that there is some measure of comfort when dealing with represented parties. Pro se parties are always personally involved in the matter at hand and can often have difficulty taking a step back so that they might see their opponents’ arguments for what they are. If these people were not personally involved, they would not deem the matter worth their time or attention in the first place. When both parties are represented by experienced and professional counsel, knowledge of law and courtesy generally help govern the course of litigation. This is quite the contrast between the emotion and intimidation that can be in play in pro se litigation.
There are also times where we as attorneys sit down in a crowded court and have the person seated beside us turn and ask, “Are you an attorney?” This usually means that we are about to be asked if we can answer a quick question that is never quick and never isolated. When I find myself in this position, I usually resort to recommending that the person ask for a continuance and seek counsel, but I am always professional and polite so that I do not seem to be turning my back on them. As opposed to explaining that I need to be paid for my services, which is true, I have found that people respond better when I explain that without a thorough review of the particular facts of both parties and their assertions, I am not able to provide them with a reliable answer.
It is extremely important in our justice system for people to have access to the courts, even when they cannot afford counsel. Our judges do a good job demonstrating patience and appreciation for the rights of pro se parties, and yet I am continually perplexed by how many people will try to handle a complex litigation matter without doing any homework. While I doubt these same people would handle their own dental work, sometimes I just have to wonder.
I am disappointed when I see pro se parties get intimidated by attorneys in court. There are those rare moments when one of these parties, outgunned and out of their element, has done the legwork and prevails in court. If you have never seen this in action, it is something to behold. Recently, I spoke to a young woman who succeeded in defending herself in a civil action. It was rather remarkable. I was impressed by the quality of her research and preparation, and she was impressed by how ignorant and unprepared her attorney counterpart was.
I suppose the takeaway from this encounter was that we should never take our opponents for granted. So, while a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client, there is no substitute for preparation, knowledge of the law and facts, and humility in a court of law. As lawyers, we should try to find the balance between stressing the value of qualified counsel and understanding why people may still choose to represent themselves. Instead of dismissing all these people as foolhardy, perhaps we should first caution them, then suggest where they might find the resources to empower them in their decision. In the end, if they do follow through with the research, it should demonstrate that what we do is unique, precise, and specialized.
As lawyers, we are aware of the dangers of pro se litigation. We know the troubles that lurk in handling matters without knowing the facts, the law, and the applicable procedure. For those who do not know these dangers, we must act as stewards. We may benefit these people and the system in general without giving out free legal advice, but also without treating what we do as beyond the reach of a dedicated individual with something to prove. Once again, many of these individuals do not have a choice, and nobody in our community benefits from a system that breeds intimidation and contempt.
Article appears in the DeKalb Bar Association Newsletter
See Original Article>>
—
Daily Report: Public shut out of Georgia courts
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/PubArticleFriendlyDRO.jsp?id=1202561653020
Public shut out of Georgia courts
R. Robin McDonald
Daily Report
07-03-2012
Judges across Georgia are closing courtrooms to the general public, citing as reasons a lack of space and security concerns.
They are doing so even though the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2010 vacated a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that had upheld the closure of a DeKalb County courtroom and the removal of members of the public during jury voir dire. The U.S. justices said at the time that courtrooms should remain open to the public except in rare circumstances.
Since then, courtroom closures have been challenged in DeKalb, Fulton, Cobb and Towns counties in Georgia’s appellate courts. Two weeks ago, the Southern Center for Human Rights sued the Cordele Judicial Circuit, claiming that its superior court judges are continuing to bar public access to court hearings despite a consent agreement in 2004 that they would stop the practice.
The appellate challenges to closed courtrooms across the state have garnered mixed success, but Judicial Qualifications Commission officials are concerned.
Closing courtrooms, said JQC Chairman John Allen, “could be a violation” of state judicial canons “depending on the set of facts surrounding the closing.”JQC director Jeffrey Davis told the Daily Report that in his work observing judges in action around the state, he is often met at the courtroom doors by local deputies who ask for his credentials and question why he is there.
“I’ve personally experienced the chill that members of the public would feel,” he said. “I’m a lawyer. It’s not that I’m under-dressed for court.”
Once a member of the public has passed through courthouse metal detectors or security at a courthouse entrance, Davis said, “No citizens should be questioned about the reason they are in a public courtroom.”But, he continued, “It seems to be the modus operandi around the state for courts to have deputies who question those who are simply in the court without business before the court. People ought to be able to watch their government in action. And justice which is done in secret—or a feeling by those who are coming to the courthouse that somehow they don’t have a right to be there—chills the public’s ability not only to access the courts but also to have confidence in the judicial system.”
DeKalb County
Last year, DeKalb State Court Judge Barbara Mobley resigned her post to end a JQC ethics investigation that included allegations she had interfered with the public’s access to a public courtroom. Mobley posted signs that restricted access to court hearings and directed court personnel to ask court observers to identify themselves and state their business, “thereby chilling the public’s right to observe matters before the court,” according to the JQC’s report to the Georgia Supreme Court.The Daily Report reported last year that Mobley was one of a number of DeKalb judges who had posted signs on their courtroom doors limiting courtroom access to criminal defendants, their lawyers and alleged victims. The sign on Mobley’s door said, “We do not have space for extra people.”
Allen told the Daily Report last week that after Mobley resigned, he asked the DeKalb judges “to please meet and reconsider their policy of automatically closing their courtrooms as opposed to making a case-by-case decision.”
“Openness of course is such a basic principle of the law in Georgia jurisprudence and U.S. constitutional jurisprudence,” Allen continued. “You erode the confidence in the integrity and fairness of the courts by closing the courts as a matter of course.”
“Ours was just a courtesy call,” he said, “so that the conduct of the court didn’t rise to the level of being egregious.”
Allen said he also reminded the DeKalb bench of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721, which slapped the Georgia Supreme Court for upholding a decision by DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Linda Hunter to close her courtroom during jury selection in a criminal case.
In its ruling vacating the Georgia decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to the voir dire of prospective jurors and that, “Trial courts are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials.”
The decision did allow for exceptions, holding that, “The right to an open trial may give way in certain cases to other rights or interests, such as the accused’s right to a fair trial or the government’s interest in inhibiting disclosure of sensitive information.”
But, it stated, “Such circumstances are rare, however, and the balance of interests must be struck with special care. The party seeking to close a hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make findings adequate to support the closure.”
Last year, DeKalb Chief State Court Chief Judge Wayne Purdom told the Daily Report that he posted signs limiting access to his courtroom on days when he heard jail pleas, when numerous prisoners were in court or on arraignment days when as many as 100 people might need seats. On those days, he said, members of the public were only admitted “by request.”
While acknowledging that courtroom access “is a public right,” Purdom told the Daily Report that “regulation of entrance to the courtroom is a case-by-case situation.”
Purdom also agreed that signs barring entry might have “a little bit of a chilling effect.” But, he continued, “I think there are limited situations where control of access is appropriate, although keeping the public out is not.”Fulton challenges
Last month Atlanta attorney Brian Steel argued before the Georgia Court of Appeals that a judge’s decision to close a Fulton County courtroom had violated a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights.Steel appealed the decision of then-Fulton County Superior Court Judge Marvin Arrington, who in the 2009 rape trial of Corsen Stewart apparently barred the public, including the defendant’s mother, from the courtroom during jury voir dire in a situation nearly identical to the DeKalb closure that led to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Steel, who was not Stewart’s lawyer during the trial, said he took the case on appeal after Stewart’s mother came to see him, told him she had been locked out of the courtroom when attorneys were questioning potential jurors for her son’s case and burst into tears in his office.
In 2010, Steel asked the Georgia Supreme Court to overturn the 2006 Fulton County murder conviction of Travion Reed, basing one argument on Judge Craig Schwall Sr.’s decision to close the courtroom during the testimony of two witnesses. Prosecutors countered that the courtroom’s closure was warranted because the two witnesses in question feared for their safety. A third witness in the case had been shot a short time after the murder, and a fourth witness had been threatened with a screwdriver in an attack that prosecutors claimed was likely linked to the defendant.
At the time, neither Reid nor his attorney objected. That omission proved critical to the Georgia Supreme Court which—three weeks after its decision in Presley was vacated—affirmed Schwall’s decision to bar public access to his courtroom during the testimony.
Steel did not represent Reed at his trial.
In an opinion written by Justice George Carley, the high court held 6-1 that in order to prevail, Reid “must show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s decision not to object to the brief closing of the courtroom. … Indeed, to hold otherwise would encourage defense counsel to manipulate the justice system by intentionally failing to object in order to ensure an automatic reversal on appeal.”
But Chief Justice Carol Hunstein, the lone dissenting vote, countered that, “No reason was articulated to support closing the courtroom” for the two witnesses when “closure was not sought for others who not only might have been, but actually were, placed in peril because of their testimony.”
“The trial court’s findings were clearly inadequate to support closure of the courtroom,” her dissent stated. “Moreover, the trial court failed to consider any alternatives to closure,” she said.
“Although the majority concludes that Reid has not shown prejudice,” Hunstein concluded, “Reid is not required to do so in order to obtain relief for a structural error which was a violation of the public-trial right.”
Steel said last week that “Prejudice is pretty hard to show when you’re closing a courtroom. It’s an almost unobtainable bar that the Supreme Court set.”
Steel said that in the Stewart appeal he argued before the state appellate court on June 13, “I’m challenging the Reid decision. … It’s primed to have a new discussion about it.”Fulton County is not the only place where Steel has challenged closed courtrooms. In 2010, Steel also asked the Court of Appeals to overturn a Towns County defendant’s conviction because the judge moved jury selection to a nearby church and barred the public, including the defendant’s wife and daughter, from attending. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction last March on other grounds without addressing the courtroom closure.
Cordele claims
Last month the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta filed suit against the Cordele Judicial Circuit’s three superior court judges and the sheriffs of Ben Hill and Crisp counties in U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Georgia in Albany, claiming that county court officials are systemically barring the public from criminal court hearings that they say should be open to the public.Stephen Bright, the center’s president and senior counsel, noted that in 2003, as part of a larger civil rights suit on behalf of the county’s indigent defendants, the Southern Center accused circuit officials of restricting public access to the courts. But Bright said the 2003 suit was dismissed in 2004 after circuit officials promised that courtrooms would remain open.
John Pridgen, chief superior court judge of the Cordele Circuit and a defendant in both suits, has called the 2003 allegations “complete fabrications” claiming, “There was never anything inappropriate about what we did then and what we do now.”
Another Cordele Circuit judge noted in a letter filed with the Southern Center’s complaint that the courtroom in the Crisp County Law Enforcement Center is particularly small, with limited seating.
Southern Center attorney Gerry Weber told the Daily Report last month that the center also has received anecdotal evidence that other courtrooms are being closed “in a lot of different places” across the state and is launching an investigation to determine the extent of the problem.
‘Keeps us free’
Courtroom public access issue came to the fore in Cobb County last year, when former Governor Roy Barnes secured the dismissal of an indictment against the CEO of the Cobb EMC because the grand jury presentments were made inside the new courthouse while its doors were locked and deputies barred access via a separate catwalk entrance.The Georgia Court of Appeals upheld the indictment’s dismissal in March, ruling that, “The Georgia Supreme Court has held that any failure to return the indictment in open court is per se injurious to the defendant.”
Former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, who dissented in the state Supreme Court’s Presley decision, said in an interview with the Daily Report that the U.S. Supreme Court opinion vacating Georgia’s Presley decision “made it pretty clear … that you cannot, as a matter of policy, close courtrooms.”
In her dissent in Presley, Sears specifically addressed arguments based on lack of space.“A room that is so small that it cannot accommodate the public,” she wrote, “is a room that is too small to accommodate a constitutional criminal trial.”
But the former chief justice, now a partner at Schiff Hardin, told the Daily Report that judges still may close a courtroom “in very narrow circumstances.” But their reasons for doing so, “have to be well articulated,” she said. “It has to be on a case-by-case basis … It also has to be a last resort.”Sears said she doesn’t belittle judges who struggle with issues of space and security.
“That’s what created the majority in the Presley case,” she said. “It wasn’t that the judges felt you should keep people out. They saw what a problem it was in these tiny courtrooms trying to manage things. You get very sympathetic when a trial judge is trying to … keep things secure.”
The issue, she explained, is one of competing values. But to trump the value of open courtrooms, she said, “would take some effort. … Public access is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. It’s what keeps us free.”
<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/alm.dailyreportonline/;pos=300a;ptype=;tile=2;sz=300×250" target="_blank"> <img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/alm.dailyreportonline/;pos=300a;ptype=;tile=2;sz=300×250?"></a>
Copyright 2012. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
Have You Ever Wondered Why a Judge Rules The Way He Does?
Have you ever, whether proceeding in Propria Persona, or represented by an attorney, why the Judge ruled the way he did. Many times, the ruling will be so obviously against what the law states, but the Judge ruled that way anyway?
Well, if you are in Georgia, and in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, you certainly have had bad rulings. Especially, if you were Propria Persona, or going against a bank. If you were both, forget it.
Now, I am not saying don’t file the suit. You must, you will not be able to live with yourself if you don’t. But once the judge is appointed to you, do a search on that judge. Find out all you can. If it is available, find the financial disclosures. Check over the…
View original post 786 more words
Daily Report: Robin Hood lawyer fights foreclosures with a passion
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/PubArticleFriendlyDRO.jsp?id=1202559725985
‘Robin Hood’ lawyer fights foreclosures with a passion
Katheryn Hayes Tucker
Daily Report
06-18-2012
For 34 years, Robert Thompson Jr. had been a business and labor lawyer — as was his father before him — defending corporations and financial institutions and even serving on several banks’ boards of directors.
But something happened to him two and half years ago that changed his entire practice. Now, he challenges banks and financial institutions in court, accusing them of wrongful foreclosure and outright fraud on behalf of individuals who are a step away from losing their homes.
The turning point for Thompson came at Christmas time, 2009. His mortgage servicer — with whom he had been embroiled in disputes over what he said were misapplied or lost checks, late fees for payments that had been made on time, unnecessary insurance costs and double billings for taxes — moved to foreclose on his home.
"I was a single father with three young children living with me in that house," the silver-haired Thompson said during an interview in his Buckhead Thompson Law Group office filled with books about the financial industry and the economic crisis. "It was very upsetting."
But, he added, "I was the wrong person to pick on about injunctions and bank law."
On Dec. 28, 2009, he went before Fulton County Superior Court Judge John Goger, asking for an order enjoining the mortgage company from proceeding with the foreclosure. The judge’s first question was, "How much do you owe?" Thompson recalled.
"I told him I didn’t owe anything, that my payments had all been made on time, and that in fact they owed me more than $50,000 in overpayments and mystery fees," Thompson recalled.
"Can you prove it?" the judge asked.
Thompson recalled he pointed the judge to canceled checks and FedEx receipts, and the judge granted Thompson’s injunction. Thompson filed a lawsuit against his loan servicer for mortgage fraud and abuse, wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, conversion, misrepresentation, defamation, libel and deceit.
"People started talking about it," Thompson said. "I thought it was just me, but then people started calling saying they had the same problem and wanting to know if I could help them."
Now, Thompson is a man obsessed. And he said he’s had success halting foreclosures — but acknowledged securing such an injunction for a client is only the first step.
Thompson said he still has new clients coming to his office daily. Most don’t have the exact situation as his, where the payments were current but not applied to the account. The biggest percentage, he said, are struggling because of a loss of income and are seeking loan modifications to make payments more manageable, but were told by their mortgage holder they weren’t eligible either because they weren’t behind or far enough behind.
Thompson said being behind on mortgage payments isn’t a requirement of federally funded modification programs. But, on the assumption that it was, he said, his clients missed payments in hopes of qualifying for modifications, then found themselves in foreclosure with their lender refusing to accept more payments. Thompson calls that being "lured into default."
Out of hundreds of cases he’s reviewed in the past two and a half years, he said, there wasn’t a single one where he didn’t find fraud or at least errors in the records. So far, he said, he has not yet been able to say to a homeowner, "I can’t help you because the bank did everything right."
Bank representatives say it’s absurd to suggest banks want to foreclose if there are other options. They admit some paperwork mistakes happen but suggest it’s not right to make those a basis for loan forgiveness.
Meanwhile, Thompson is ordering up forensic audits — at a minimum of $1,000 each — to ferret out problems so that he can go to court to block foreclosures. A forensic auditing company analyzes the loan activity and tracks the transfers of deed and title as the loan has been sold by one financial company to another — and sometimes to several others.
Sometimes, Thompson said, he finds the foreclosing lender has already sold the note and collected the balance, and thus doesn’t have the legal right to foreclose. Often Thompson finds what he calls a "break in the chain of title" because the deed and the note have not been kept together in the transactions, which he said is illegal.
He can’t charge the homeowners the hourly rates he used to bill his corporate clients. Some can hardly pay anything. Occasionally, he said, he just offers free advice on how to fight a foreclosure pro se. Most of the time he negotiates a flat fee varying in amounts according to the work that needs to be done and the client’s ability to pay. "I have to make it affordable or they can’t do it," he said. "But I can’t do it for free."
He is especially busy the week before the first Tuesday of every month, when crowds gather on the courthouse steps for the auctioning of foreclosed homes. This month alone, he went to court for 25 injunctions to stop foreclosures.
Asked how many he won, he said, "All of them. But the injunction is only the first step."
The next step varies, but often includes lawsuits against the lenders or servicers who initiated the foreclosure.
Lender representatives said Thompson’s charges about banks’ motivations don’t make sense.
"Do you really think the lender wants that house back?" asked Mo Thrash, a lobbyist for the Mortgage Bankers Association of Georgia and McCalla Raymer, a law firm with offices in Georgia that represents lenders. "It is absolutely ridiculous to think the lender would want the home back."
Thrash said the conventional wisdom — that the best outcome for the lender is for the homeowner to make all their payments until the loan is paid in full — is still true, maybe more so now because of falling real estate prices and difficulty in selling homes. "I admit mistakes do happen, but I’d be willing to bet that the majority of these cases are a two-way street," he said. "It takes two to tango."
The majority of mortgage banks — 99 percent — are ethical and honest, Thrash added. To suggest otherwise, he said, is "absolutely crazy."
If the personal foreclosure experiences of Thompson and some of his clients are as they described them, "It was a mistake," said J.D. Crowe, senior vice president of Southeast Mortgage of Georgia Inc. and a member of the Mortgage Bankers Association of Georgia Board of Governors.
"If that’s the case, that’s why he won an injunction and will probably win his lawsuit. With the number of foreclosures in the last few years, there’s a lot of paper going back and forth," Crowe said.
But like Thrash, Crowe said it’s "ridiculous" to suggest that a lender would want to foreclose if there were an alternative. "Lenders want to work with borrowers. They don’t want to foreclose," he said.
Crowe also suggested that when homeowners win their foreclosure fights, they usually win on a technicality — a mistake in the paperwork or the separation of the deed and note in the selling of the loan by one financial institution to another. In such cases, if homeowners win damages or loan forgiveness, allowing them to walk away from their mortgage payments, said Crowe, "I think it is unconscionable."
Disbelief, said Thompson, is the biggest challenge he faces in fighting foreclosure fraud. "People who have never suffered through it cannot believe it. It challenges the fundamentals of everything you want to believe about the banks being honest and the government protecting you."
He cited the case of client LaVonda DeWitt, a patent lawyer whose income was reduced because her firm’s revenue dropped. In an interview, she said she contacted her mortgage company to discuss a loan modification so she could lower her payments.
"They said I wasn’t eligible because I still had a job," she said.
Then she was laid off. She called her lender again about the modification and was told she wasn’t eligible because didn’t have a job. She said she was also told she wasn’t eligible unless she was three months behind. She stopped making payments in December 2010. She also filed a complaint with the U.S. Treasury Department over being denied a loan modification. The lender responded with a document she had never seen saying she had been offered a modification and rejected it, but later admitted that claim was a mistake, according to DeWitt. She still wasn’t offered a modification. She received a foreclosure notice in March of this year.
She met with Thompson, who went to court with her to block the sale on the first Tuesday in April. She won the injunction but still wasn’t able to negotiate a loan modification. So, on Thompson’s advice, she filed a lawsuit in federal court.
DeWitt said Thompson reminds her of the fictional Atticus Finch, taking on jobs that other lawyers don’t want.
Another client of Thompson’s, Patricia Sibley, won an injunction a year ago, then filed a lawsuit against the lender for wrongful foreclosure. The suit is pending in the Northern District of Georgia. Sibley and her husband are still in their home — "because of Bob Thompson," she said.
As with DeWitt, Sibley’s suit is based on what Thompson calls "luring into default." When the recession hit and slashed revenue for her advertising company, Sibley said she had to close her business. She and her husband had paid down by half their $950,000 15-year mortgage on their north Atlanta home near the Chattahoochee River, and their payments were current, she said in an interview.
She contacted the lender to ask about changing the terms to lower the payments. Since they still had some income, they felt they could afford the loan if they could spread it back to 30 years. They were told they weren’t eligible for a modification because they weren’t behind. They skipped one payment and called again, but were told they were not far enough behind to be eligible, according to Sibley and the lawsuit. After the third missed payment, they received a foreclosure notice. They tried to talk to the lender’s customer service department many times and offered to pay the loan current and cover fees in return for restructuring, she said, but heard no response.
The house was advertised for foreclosure. The weekend before the first Tuesday in June 2011, cars were driving by the house and stopping to take pictures, Sibley said. It was an experience she said she wouldn’t wish on anyone.
A friend called and said she had a friend who knew someone who might be able to help — Thompson. The friend said, "I have somebody who’s like Robin Hood. He takes from the banks and gives to the poor."
"Not that we’re the poor," Sibley added. But, she said, "I never would have dreamed I’d be in this position."
Sibley’s case is unresolved, but Thompson was able to get an injunction to prevent foreclosure while it’s pending.
McCurdy & Candler, which has offices in Decatur and Atlanta, handled Sibley’s foreclosure for PNC Mortgage, as well as DeWitt’s foreclosure for Chase. Managing partner Sidney Gelernter said the firm couldn’t comment on any pending case or even discuss foreclosures generally. Sibley’s suit is being defended by Ballard Spahr. One of the lawyers working on the case in Atlanta, Christopher Willis, said the firm couldn’t comment on any matter involving any of its clients.
Sibley’s lawsuit is against National City Mortgage Company, National City Bank, PNC Mortgage, Bank of America and unidentified investors. Sibley said she tried repeatedly to find out the identity of the investors who now own the loan — in order to work out payment terms — but PNC, the servicer, wouldn’t tell her.
A spokeswoman for PNC said the company couldn’t comment on any lawsuit. "We do work with customers," said Amy Vargo, noting modification programs described on the PNC website.
In his own personal case, Thompson sued BAC Home Loans Servicing, which is a subsidiary of Bank of America, and Bank of New York Mellon, formerly known as Bank of New York, successor in interest to JP Morgan Chase Bank. Bank of America acquired Countrywide Mortgage Company, which was Thompson’s loan servicer. Thompson’s lawsuit names four companies that owned his note successively. Thompson’s case — which he has withdrawn for now — was defended by Monica Gilroy of Alpharetta’s Dickenson Gilroy, who said she couldn’t discuss it.
The foreclosing firm in Thompson’s case was Shuping, Morse & Ross, based in Riverdale. Neither the managing partner, Sheltan Andrew Shuping Jr., nor the lawyer who handled the foreclosure, Kevin Duda, could be reached for comment.
Thompson’s lawsuit — moved from Fulton Superior Court to federal district court in Atlanta — seeks damages for overpayments and unauthorized fees, harassment and injury to his credit and reputation, naming a figure of $5 million.
Thompson said he has stopped making mortgage payments, and BAC has stopped trying to foreclose. He moved to withdraw his complaint, while keeping the door open to refiling it later, and the judge agreed. He said he believes the courts are evolving in their understanding of foreclosure fraud, and he plans to reinitiate the suit at a time that will be advantageous. For now, he said, "It’s an armed truce."
Thompson’s case in federal court is Thompson v. BAC Home Loans, No. 1:10-CV-3205-TCB.
Sibley’s case in federal court is Sibley v. National City Mortgage Co., No. 1:12-cv-00305-SCJ-JFK.
Daily Report: Robin Hood lawyer fights foreclosures with a passion
Courthouse News Service
GEORGIA ON MY MIND..>..
Tuesday, June 12, 2012Last Update: 7:06 AM PT
Squirrely Ethics in Georgia, Former Exec Says
By IULIA FILIP
ATLANTA (CN) – A former executive claims in court that the Georgia Ethics Commission fired her for trying to investigate a gubernatorial candidate’s violations of campaign finance laws.
Stacey Kalberman claims the chairman of the state ethics commission board, who was the candidate’s appointee, retaliated against her to deter the investigation and promote his political career.
Kalberman sued the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission fka Georgia State Ethics Commission, Executive Secretary Holly LaBerge and Chairman Patrick Millsaps, in Fulton County Superior Court.
The state ethics commission oversees campaign funding and spending of elected officials and lobbyists.
Kalberman was executive secretary of the commission from April 2010 until June 2011, when she says she was "forced out of her job".
As executive secretary, Kalberman managed the commission’s administrative, legal and investigatory functions, including investigations of complaints under the Georgia Campaign Finance Act, according to her complaint.
"Between March and May of 2010, Kalberman became aware of three third-party complaints made against a gubernatorial candidate (the ‘candidate’) concerning his campaign’s compliance with the Georgia Campaign Finance Act," the complaint states.
"The candidate had reappointed Millsaps to his position on the commission.
"The commission’s investigation revealed troubling irregularities with the candidate’s campaign financial disclosures."
After the candidate’s counsel ignored her request for documents, Kalberman says, she prepared draft subpoenas for the commission’s review.
Kalberman says she discussed the subpoenas with Millsaps at least four times and told him that "the candidate’s campaign had possibly violated campaign contribution limits on many occasions." But she says Millsaps asked her to keep the matter in "strict confidence" and refused to sign the subpoenas.
Kalberman claims that in June 2011, less than 3 weeks after she provided the subpoenas to the commissioners, Millsaps asked her to meet him to discuss the commission’s budget.
But instead of discussing the budget, Millsaps told her the commission was cutting her salary by 35 percent and eliminating the position of deputy secretary, filled by Kalberman’s chief investigator, according to the complaint.
"At the June meeting, it was obvious to Kalberman that Millsaps’ sudden ‘budget cut’ was retaliation against her for pursuing the ethics investigation into the candidate," the complaint states. "Kalberman, exhausted from previous weeks of dealing with her mother’s diagnosis of stage IV metastatic breast cancer, became emotional and stated she could not work for the drastic reduction in salary Millsaps proposed.
"At no time did Kalberman resign her employment with the commission."
Kalberman says that though she denied she had resigned, Millsaps sent her an email saying that the commission had accepted her "resignation."
She says Millsaps refused to return her phone calls or further discuss the proposed budget cuts with her.
"Millsaps then began maliciously spreading false rumors to the press and to the public that Kalberman had resigned from her position during the June meeting," the complaint states.
"On June 15, 2011, Kalberman sent a detailed email to Millsaps outlining several alternative plans for restructuring the budget to avoid Millsaps’ proposed cuts.
"Kalberman also indicated in her email that she felt that Millsaps’ alleged ‘budgetary concerns’ were pretextual to hide his real reason for removing Kalberman from her position: to deter the investigation into the candidate. Kalberman made it clear to Millsaps that she planned to proceed with her job duties, which included the investigation.
"Millsaps ignored Kalberman’s overtures to discuss the commission’s budget, leaked Kalberman’s email to the press, and told the press that Kalberman had resigned from her position and that she behaved badly by becoming ‘upset’ at the June meeting. In addition, Millsaps misled the press when he reported he could not really remember if he ever received the candidate’s subpoenas."
Kalberman says the commission enacted Millsaps’ proposed cuts and forced her to resign, claiming her authority had been compromised.
The complaint adds: "Kalberman’s resignation as executive secretary amounted to a constructive termination because the commission, and specifically Millsaps, forced her out of her job and made it clear she would be rendered powerless, amounting to nothing more than a figurehead."
Kalberman says Millsaps’ statements to the press hurt her reputation and prevented her from getting similar ethics-related jobs.
She seeks compensatory and punitive damages for retaliation under the Georgia Whistleblower Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
She is represented by Kimberly Worth with Joyce Thrasher Kaiser & Liss.
OpEdNews – Article: Fukushima Denial/Awareness
Fukushima Denial/Awareness
By carol wolman, MD (about the author)
Become a Fan (1 fan) — Page 1 of 2 page(s)
Dr. Wolman is a psychiatrist who has been working to raise nuclear consciousness for 50 years. See Nuclear Terror and Psychic Numbing By CAROL WOLMAN, MD http://www.counterpunch.org/wolman12082003
Many people don’t recognize the name Fukushima until they are reminded- This is the nuclear power complex that was hit by the earthquake and tsunami last March. Like most people, I assumed the damage was immediate, not too serious in terms of consequences, and well contained.
US Senator Wyden (D- OR) took the trouble to tour the crippled plant this past April, and was alarmed. He found the damage much worse than he expected, and was especially concerned about the spent fuel rods from reactor #4 sitting in a pool 100 feet above the ground, open to the elements, in an unstable building, in an active earthquake zone.
Since his press release, reports and rumors have been flying around the internet. Some scenarios are pretty dire: an earthquake could topple the spent fuel pool, spilling out the water which keeps the rods cool, leading to an unquenchable fire which would spew out 9 times as much radiation as Chernobyl. Or reactor #2, which has a low level of water and some hydrogen buildup, could explode, again releasing huge amounts of radiation. Either of these scenarios could wipe out life in the Northern hemisphere, or on the entire planet, according to Arne Gunderson, a nuclear engineer who supervised the Three Mile Island cleanup. Many others are issuing similar warnings.
Then there’s concern about coriums, the ultra-hot residue of metal and fuel resulting from a nuclear meltdown. Three of the reactors at Fukushima melted down. The coriums are burrowing down into the earth and could possibly hit a layer of steam or methane that would explode and crack the earth’s mantle.
On the other hand, there are reassurances coming out of Japan and the World Health Organization that the amount of radiation released so far isn’t dangerous to health, and that all the reactors and spent fuel pools at Fukushima are under control and stable.
What to believe? How worried should we be? Here in California, we are directly in the path of winds and ocean currents coming from Japan. Information about the state of the reactors and the level of radiation in various places has been hard to come by. For that reason, I’ve launched a petition http://www.change.org/petitions/senators-boxer-and-feinstein-investigate-the-ongoing-danger-from-the-fukushima-nuclear-reactors
The Fukushima complex is owned by the Toyko Electric Energy Company- TEPCO, which has known associations with the Japanese underworld. TEPCO has conducted few inspections of the facility, and is refusing to allow outsiders to inspect. The plant was recently nationalized by the Japanese government, and has been toured by several ministers, who say that the cleanup is good as far as it goes, but always hedge in some way. We can hope for more transparency and more vigorous efforts to take care of the multiple dangers that are ongoing as the government takes charge.
It’s easy to ignore or deny the ongoing danger from Fukushima, for a number of reasons. Japan experienced a triple catastrophe in March 2011- earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdowns. Since the first two were short-lived. self-limiting events, with recovery from both well under way, it’s easy to put Fukushima into the same category. But unlike an earthquake or tsunami, which wreaks havoc and then is finished and done with, a damaged nuclear facility is like a wounded beast- exceedingly dangerous and hard to control. The aftereffects can last for thousands, even millions of years. But unlike earthquakes and floods, radiation cannot be seen, heard, smelled, experienced directly. The effects of cancer, sterility, birth defects, etc often don’t occur until years later. Without an immediate and tangible threat, it’s easy to push the menace of Fukushima out of our consciousness.
We’ve lived with thermonuclear weapons, thousands of them, perched on top of missiles in a number of countries, on hair trigger alert, for 60 odd years. Despite the bitter animosities among nuclear nations, and the occasional hot wars, these devastating weapons have not been detonated, the feared nuclear holocaust which would wipe out life on earth has not occurred, and so we’ve relaxed our vigilance. We’ve come to trust that our species is able to control the genie which was unleashed in 1945. We don’t pay attention to the radioactive dust emitting deadly alpha particles now blowing around the planet from the use of "depleted" uranium weaponry. Similarly, we’ve embraced nuclear energy, ignoring the omnipresent problem of spent nuclear fuel, for which no good means of disposal has yet been found.
There is enormous, but deeply buried fear associated with nuclear disaster. It affects the very stuff of life, the DNA, the basic genetic code for all living beings- animal, vegetable, bacterial. We all have the image of a mushroom cloud tucked away deep in our brain, with lots of rationalizations for ignoring it, and living as if the threat of annihilation was not ever-present. There is deep despair, psychic numbing, a sense of great helplessness and inability to affect the situation. The science is intimidating, the governments and agencies involved seem out of reach, the media is untrustworthy. So the general public uses the strategy of ignoring the problem.
What can we do to empower ourselves and deal realistically with the ongoing threat posed by the Fukushima nuclear disaster?
First, we must look at the urgency. As the NYT puts it: W hether the chances (of disaster) are small or large, changes should be made quickly because of the magnitude of the potential calamity. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/world/asia/concerns-grow-about-spent-fuel-rods-at-damaged-nuclear-plant-in-japan.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
I highly recommend this article, which presents a balanced overview of the situation.
Secondly, we must mobilize public support to force this quick change. The Japanese government seems more intent on reassuring people than on accelerating the cleanup. This is understandable, given the enormous expense required- estimated at $500 BILLION dollars. Japan should ask for international assistance, especially since the entire planet would be affected by another explosion at Fukushima. This step has not been taken, and international pressure is required to bring it about.
Nuclear disaster affects everyone- the 1% as well as the 99%. It does not discriminate on the basis of skin color, religion, political affiliation, neighborhood, sexual orientation, or any of the other variables which tend to divide people. Unlike the threat of nuclear war, the Fukushima situation is nonpartisan, so that national loyalties and ideologies don’t come into play. This should make it easy for people to unite around the threat from the damaged reactors.
What’s needed is for people to overcome denial and become aware. I recommend several measures:
A simple Geiger counter can be had for under $100. The ability to detect increases in radiation oneself rather than relying on biased government or industry sources is empowering. Every neighborhood should have one.
Information IS available, if one searches for it. http://enenews.com is the best website I’ve found for comprehensive, up to the minute news about Fukushima.
We need to make the situation at Fukushima a priority. There are so many issues demanding our attention these days- ecological, humanitarian, political- that it’s hard to put one ahead of the rest. But the level of threat to all living beings posed by the instability at Fukushima is equivalent to a forest fire almost out of control- it must be attended to, NOW.
We need to overcome the social taboo against discussing nuclear threats, and express our concerns- to our family, friends, neighbors, political representatives.
We need to get together and organize to put pressure on the US govenrment, to pressure the Japanese government, to allow outside supervision and assistance. Meetups, town meetings, other events would be helpful.
An independent, ongoing watchdog group is essential, both to monitor the cleanup and to put out warnings if more problems arise. We need to lobby to make this happen. My petition http://www.change.org/petitions/senators-boxer-and-feinstein-investigate-the-ongoing-danger-from-the-fukushima-nuclear-reactors is addressed to the California senators, since California will be heavily affected by any new disaster at Fukushima. Pressure from the US may be the best way to force Japan to bring in international monitoring and assistance.
We have a choice. We can deny the imminent threat posed by the damaged reactors, or we can unite and work together to demand that all possible measures be taken, as quickly as possible, to defuse the danger.
Take action — click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Investigate the ongoing danger to the US from the Fukushima reactorsClick here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
Carol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern California. A lifelong peace activist, she is helping to distribute a Peace Plan for the Holy Land- email her for a copy.
Saint Louis Missouri Inundated By Rampant Animal Abuse Epidemic – 1 WildAss
Saint Louis Missouri Inundated By Rampant Animal Abuse Epidemic
Gang House Is Torture Chamber For Five Brutally Killed Dogs
ST. LOUIS, May 16, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — With rampant, unchecked animal abuse occurring on a daily basis, Saint Louis City has a dark cloud hanging over it that largely remains a secret to the rest of the nation. In a state notorious for puppy mills and lax animal abuse laws, St. Louis continues to stand out among other major metropolitan cities for their unwillingness to dedicate any resources of consequence to combat the rising animal abuse epidemic that plagues the area. Stray Rescue of St. Louis, a companion animal rescue and shelter nonprofit that has been featured on networks like CNN, National Geographic and Animal Planet, arrived at a vacant city house littered with gang graffiti on Tuesday, May 15 to find five dogs savagely tortured and killed.
(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20120516/DC08614)
"I have seen a lot of horrific abuse in the decades I have been rescuing dogs, but I haven’t seen anything this barbaric," said Randy Grim, Founder of Stray Rescue. "It was like a scene from the most shocking horror film, and it will stay with me forever. These dogs truly went through hell."
In the house, rescuers found chains and electrical cords used to restrain and strangle dogs. They found skeletal remains of a dog that had been choked to death, and a trail of dried blood that led to an area where a dog was burned – more than likely alive. Furniture was stacked upon more furniture over the body of another dog that had also been strangled with a cable cord.
The lifeless body of a dog seen through an upstairs window was draped over the windowsill. X-rays, taken by Stray Rescue’s veterinary staff as part of a necropsy report, revealed severe trauma to the larynx. The vet staff believes that this was caused by the abusers positioning the dog on the windowsill and slamming the window down upon him repeatedly, crushing his larynx and killing him. One witness in the area, who wishes to remain anonymous because they are afraid of the gang who committed the abuse, reported a sixth dog who was lynched, having been hung out of a window. This dog has not been recovered.
"It’s terrifying to know that people who are capable of such abuse are running free in our neighborhoods right this moment, and it’s chilling to not know who their next victim will be," said Grim. "Stray Rescue is offering a $5,000 reward to anyone who comes forward with information that leads to the conviction of these abusers."The correlation between animal abuse and violent crime is well documented, and Stray Rescue has been building abuse cases for the city’s Circuit Attorney’s Office for prosecution. The police have been largely unsympathetic to the situation and unresponsive to assisting in the arrests of these dangerous criminals. In fact, St. Louis is one of the few major cities with no dedicated police officers assigned to such cases, and city officials rely heavily on the nonprofit to humanely remove dogs from the streets. In July of 2011, Agent Richie Raheb of the ASPCA’s Humane Law Enforcement Division and star of Animal Planet’s "Animal Precinct" accompanied Grim for a day of rescuing and promptly stated that the areas in St. Louis "were the worst he had ever scene."
Stray Rescue deals with abuse cases in the city daily and is currently working to build a comprehensive case in order to seek arrest for the individual(s) who committed these gruesome crimes.
To honor the deceased dogs that likely never knew anything but terror, Stray Rescue gave them names before having their remains cremated together: Brandy, Schnapps, Frangelico, Grand Marnier, and B&B.
People can help by reading about this abuse story online and then contacting St. Louis Mayor’s Office, the Police Chief Isom, and other St. Louis Officials and express their outrage at this horrific abuse.About Stray Rescue of St. Louis
Stray Rescue’s mission is to lead the way towards making St. Louis a compassionate city where every companion animal knows health, comfort, and affection, and no stray is euthanized merely because he or she has been abandoned, abused, or neglected. As part of our mission, Stray Rescue is out on the streets daily taking a progressive, proactive approach to establishing a permanent resolution to the stray companion animal problem through dedicated rescue efforts, sheltering, community outreach programs, education, collaborations, and the encouragement of responsible pet guardianship.
Contact: Randy Grim, 314.267.0704, randy@strayrescue.org
Jason Schipkowski, 314.740.5224, jason@strayrescue.orgSOURCE Stray Rescue of St. Louis
Saint Louis Missouri Inundated By Rampant Animal Abuse Epidemic – 1 WildAss
Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC | AG Biden Says $25B Settlement Not the End, Securitization Next
AG Biden Says $25B Settlement Not the End, Securitization Next
mortgagenewsdaily.com | May 16, 2012
Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden said recently that the states’ attorneys general need to make it clear that the recent $25 billion settlement with five major banks is the beginning not the end of their enforcement actions. Biden, speaking on MSNBC’s Morning Joe said the savings and loan crisis cost the economy $168 billion and 1,000 people went to jail. "This crisis, which was man made," he said, "cost the economy trillions and I can’t really find anyone who has been held accountable."
Show co-host Willie Geist asked Biden who he was focusing on, who did he think should be in jail? Biden said one area he, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and others are looking at is the securitization aspect, "whether or not there were false securities, mortgage-backed securities, sold to investors. That affects borrowers as well."
He noted that Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster recently indicted DOCX and its CEO Lorraine Brown. This is relevant, Biden said, because this woman has become famous, on 60 Minutes and so forth, because she signed thousands upon thousands of foreclosure affidavits. "Chris Costner indicted her for forgery. That’s the kinds of thing we need to begin to do." He said that investigations need to go beyond robo-signing and that people must be held accountable. "People are angry," he said. "Republicans, Democrats, Tea Partiers and 99 Percenters are all angry that no one has been held accountable for something they know is obviously fraught. And that’s my job as AG."
About Us | Foreclosure Defense Nationwide – Mortgage Foreclosure Help – Free Advice
WILLIAM JEFF BARNES, ESQ.
Jeff is the founder of the Foreclosure Defense Nationwide (FDN) website and blog. His law practice is primarily oriented towards defense of foreclosure actions throughout the United States, with his Firm having represented victims of foreclosure and predatory lending practices with local counsel where required in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Jeff has been a member of the Florida Bar since 1988 and is also a member of the Colorado Bar, first admitted in 1990. Before concentrating full-time on foreclosure defense, he had been previously admitted to practice in several state courts, including the Superior Court for the State of New Jersey (Atlantic City); the Hennepin County Circuit Court (Minnesota); the Norfolk Superior Court (Commonwealth of Massachusetts); the Circuit Civil Court of Walker County, Alabama; and the Superior Court for the State of California (Orange County).
He is also admitted to several Federal Courts, including the United States District Court for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits. Jeff has been previously admitted to practice pro hac vice in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Duluth); the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark); the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming; and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose Division), and is currently admitted pro hac vice to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division); the United States District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland Division); the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington; and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville Division).
Jeff has been admitted pro hac vice to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division (numerous counties, including Atlantic, Ocean, Monmouth, Morris, Glouster, Burlington, and Passaic); the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Plymouth); the Superior Court for Flathead County (Montana); the Superior Court of Coweta County (Georgia); the Superior Court of Washington (Ferry County); the District Court for Kootenai and Bonner Counties (Idaho); Hancock County Superior Court (Indiana); Iowa District Court (Greene County); Kern County Superior Court (California); San Bernadino County Superior Court (California); Washetenaw County (Michigan); Mahoning County (Ohio); Maricopa County Superior Court (Arizona); Pima County Superior Court (Arizona); the Hawaii First District Court (Honolulu); the Hawaii Second District Court (Maui); the Kenosha County Court (Wisconsin); The Superior Court for Washington County, Vermont; the Circuit Courts of Oregon (Clackamas, Multnomah, and Crook Counties); and the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit (Winnebago County, Illinois); all such admissions and applications being in connection with foreclosure defense litigation representing borrowers. Mr. Barnes does not represent any banks, “lenders”, servicers, trustees of securitized mortgage loan trusts, trustee sale companies, or any others who seek to foreclose.
Jeff has spent over twenty-two years litigating throughout the United States in the areas of business tort litigation, contract litigation, insurance litigation (coverage, claims, premium fraud defense, and Unfair and Deceptive Insurance Practices), fraud litigation, real estate litigation, and Administrative proceedings involving defense of chiropractors in disciplinary proceedings, and appeals in deportation proceedings following the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act. His practice includes both trials (jury and non-jury) and appeals at both the state and Federal level, and opposing Proofs of Claim and Stay relief Motions in Bankruptcy proceedings involving foreclosure issues. Jeff has also been a Certified Mediator and Arbitrator certified by the Supreme Court of Florida, and also previously obtained status as a Qualified Neutral in the State of Minnesota.
After graduating from Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania with a degree in Experimental Psychology, Jeff obtained a Master of Science degree in Education and his Juris Doctor (law) degrees from the University of Miami (Florida). Between graduation from college and prior to law school, Jeff was a public and private school teacher in Miami, Florida, having taught elementary, junior, and senior high students, as well as serving as an assistant adjunct professor at Florida International University in the areas of Behavioral Science Statistics and Preventive Law to Master’s and Doctoral candidates. While in law school, Jeff served as a prosecutor in the Office of the State Attorney in Miami, Florida during law school.
FDN handles foreclosure defense matters in both judicial and non-judicial (trustee) jurisdictions and is affiliated with securitized trust auditors and investigators; mortgage loan auditors, certified fraud examiners, and paralegals who conduct a wide-ranging review of mortgage documents to ascertain any violations of Federal lending laws, loan tracking rhrough securitizations, applicable insurances, and other issues. Amortgage loan examination or audit is strongly recommended for anyone seeking to defend a foreclosure action. FDN will provide contact information for an auditor or loan examiner upon request made through our “Contact Us” link.
FDN’s local counsel network currently embraces thirty-nine (39) separate law Firms throughout the United States and continues to grow.
About Us | Foreclosure Defense Nationwide – Mortgage Foreclosure Help – Free Advice
The Securitization Curtain is Lifting in Hawaii! | Deadly Clear
Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction… potentially lethal. -Warren Buffet
The Securitization Curtain is Lifting in Hawaii!
Posted on March 29, 2012 by Deadly Clear
“One of the most important decisions for Borrowers Rights in the history of Hawaii has been made with this decision,” remarked Honolulu attorney Gary Dubin. Honorable Judge J. Michael Seabright of the Hawaii United States District Court, today GRANTED the homeowners’ Motion to Dismiss the case filed against them in federal district court by Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-NC1.
The Williamses (Leigafoalii Tafue Williams and Papu Christopher Williams), who were
represented by Honolulu attorney, James J. Bickerton (Jim), of Bickerton Lee Dang & Sullivan, filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), in which they argue, among other things, that Plaintiff has no standing to foreclose because it has not established that it was validly assigned the Mortgage and Note.
The Court noted that: “Because the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish its standing to bring this action, the court need not reach the Williamses’ other arguments for dismissal.”
Honorable Judge J. Michael Seabright gets it! And his ORDER was detailed. In the Discussion, Judge Seabright notes an argument that homeowners have being trying to persuade the courts (especially at the lower state levels) to grasp: STANDING and JURISDICTION.
“Standing is a requirement grounded in Article III of the United States Constitution, and a defect in standing cannot be waived by the parties. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (US.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,954 (9th Cir. 2011). A litigant must have both constitutional standing and prudential standing for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over the case. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11 (2004). Constitutional standing requires the plaintiff to “show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an ‘injury in fact’ that a favorable judgment will redress.” Id. at 12. In comparison, “prudential standing encompasses the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights.” Id. (citation and quotation signals omitted); see also Oregon v. Legal Servs. Corp., 552 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2009).”
Let’s continue – but we’ll get back to that injury issue later in the post.
The WILLIAMSES’ ORDER continues: “The Williamses factually attack Plaintiff’s 
prudential standing to foreclose, arguing that there is no evidence establishing that Plaintiff was validly assigned the Mortgage and Note on the subject property. The issue of whether Plaintiff was validly assigned the Mortgage and Note is inextricably intertwined with the merits of the Plaintiffs claims seeking to foreclose…”
Of course, this was a New Century Mortgage (Home123) and the Plaintiffs were taking part in a fabricated assignment in 2009 to a 2007 Trust… (that boat had sailed 2 years before because theTrust had long since closed) – but even more compelling in the Motion to Dismiss-Memorandum was the Williamses assertion that New Century aka Home123 was in a liquidating bankruptcy as of August 1, 2008 and they had nothing to assign in January 2009.
Deutsche argued that the Williamses were not parties or beneficiaries to the assignment such that they cannot challenge it… [we’ve heard that before, yeah?]. However, the Judge Seabright clarifies a valid point:
“Plaintiffs argument confuses a borrower’s, as opposed to a lender’s, standing to raise affirmative claims. In Williams v. Rickard, 2011 WL 2116995, at *5 (D. Haw. May 25, 2011), — which involved the same parties in this action and in which Lei Williams asserted affirmative claims against Deutsche Bank – Chief Judge Susan Oki Mollway explained the difference between the two:
“…Standing” is a plaintiff’s requirement, and … Defendants must establish 
“standing” to defend themselves.”“
Judge Seabright continues: ”Deutsche Bank asserts affirmative claims against the Williamses seeking to enforce the Mortgage and Note, and therefore must establish its legal right (i.e., standing) to do so. See, e.g., IndyMac Bank v. Miguel, 117 Haw. 506, 513, 184 P.3d 821, 828 (Haw. App. 2008) (explaining that for standing, a mortgagee must have “a sufficient interest in the Mortgage to have suffered an injury from [the mortgagor’s] default”).”
Attorney Bickerton faced off in court and explained to the Judge in oral argument that the banks didn’t just miss the date to file their assignments or needed to tidy up paperwork, this was a ‘Business model using the loans for overnight lending.’ Bickerton told the Court that if this wasn’t dismissed, his first line of discovery would be geared to uncover the outside financial advantages being derived from the use of the Williamses’ loan.
Understanding the premeditated intentions of these banks, how they pledge, collaterize, swap, sell, lease,and trade these loans that are SUPPOSED to have been in a static trust will open the eyes of lawmakers to the real moral hazard – the fraud upon the homeowners, the courts and the state.
Jim Bickerton profoundly says that, “every foreclosure in the state is a victim of this shadow banking scam.”
James J. Bickerton
Bickerton Lee Dang & Sullivan
Fort St Tower
745 Fort St Ste 801
Honolulu, HI 96813
808-599-3811
Email: bickerton@bsds.com
“Security trusts will no longer be able to hide behind the hocus pocus of the pooling and servicing agreements. The ramifications of this decision are extraordinary,” praises Gary Dubin.
INJURY – Remember that issue from above?
Let’s discuss the trusts. We can see by the assignments that they were not made timely and NY trust laws call them VOID. The REMIC has failed. But maybe the investors ARE getting paid with the behind the scenes shadow banking scheme.
And let’s suppose we can see the trading in the trust is active, numerous investors have already been paid off – where is the “injury”….hmmm?
We’re connecting the dots, people with above average intelligence are realizing, just like Judge Seabright, that there are huge schemes behind the scenes of an everyday mortgage that the borrower never intended to participate in… and eventually we’ll know whether the application for a mortgage started the securitization process before the borrower signed the note making them securities with no disclosure, how many insurance policies were attached to the loans and when (we never agreed to be over insured which would give someone the incentive to “off” us)… it’s coming soon – to a court room near you…
…and the Securitization curtain will be lifting for the big show.
___________________________________________________________________
Details by DeadlyClear
Honorable Judge J. Michael Seabright – Thank you. Mahalo!
This is why he gets the “Gets It” award:
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/04/28/news/story5.html
An assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted several high-profile white-collar criminal cases here is on his way to becoming Hawaii’s fourth full-time federal judge. Michael Seabright: As an assistant U.S. attorney, he put three isle politicians behind bars.
The U.S. Senate voted 98-0 yesterday to confirm J. Michael Seabright as a U.S. district judge for the District of Hawaii. ”I’m very honored to have received that vote,” said Seabright, 46, an assistant U.S. attorney since 1990 and head of the white-collar crime section since 2002.
Image of the Honorable John Michael Seabright from http://www.grainnet.com/articles/usda_cited_by_federal_judge_for_permitting_violations_in_hawaii-36404.html
Bank’s Competition
USDOJ: Loan Officer Pleads Guilty for Role in Mortgage Fraud Scheme That Resulted in More Than $6.5 Million in Losses
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Loan Officer Pleads Guilty for Role in Mortgage Fraud Scheme That Resulted in More Than $6.5 Million in Losses
WASHINGTON – A loan officer for a Florida mortgage company pleaded guilty late yesterday in the Southern District of Florida to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud for his role in a mortgage fraud scheme, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Inspector General David A. Montoya announced today.
Alejandro Curbelo, 32, aka Alex Curbelo, of Miami, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard. Curbelo was indicted and arrested on Jan. 24, 2012.According to court documents, from approximately February 2006 through July 2008, Curbelo was employed as a loan officer for Great Country Mortgage Bankers. In this role, he assisted in the sales and financing of condominium units at two complexes in Florida – Dadeland Place and Pelican Cove on the Bay. The borrowers Curbelo assisted at these two complexes were unqualified to obtain mortgage loans due to insufficient income, high levels of debts and outstanding collections.
Curbelo admitted that he conspired with others to create and submit false and fraudulent Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage loan applications and accompanying documents to a lender on behalf of the unqualified borrowers. Curbelo and others offered the borrowers cash back after closing as an incentive for them to purchase the units. These payments were not disclosed properly during the loan application process. According to court documents, the closing costs were paid on behalf of the borrowers by interstate wire. After the loans closed, the unqualified borrowers failed to meet their monthly mortgage obligations and defaulted on their loans.
According to court documents, when the loans went into foreclosure, HUD, which insured the loans, was required to take title to the units and pay the outstanding loan balances to the lenders. As of the date of the plea agreement, the actual loss related to Curbelo’s conduct that was paid by HUD was more than $6.5 million.
Curbelo is scheduled to be sentenced on June 25, 2012. He faces a maximum prison sentence of 20 years.
This case was investigated by the HUD Office of Inspector General, as participants in the Miami Mortgage Fraud Strike Force. Trial Attorney Mary Ann McCarthy of the Fraud Section in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division is prosecuting the case with assistance from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.
This prosecution is part of efforts under way by the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.For more information on the task force, visit www.StopFraud.gov.
USDOJ: Alabama Real Estate Investor Agrees to Plead Guilty to Conspiracies to Rig Bids and Commit Mail Fraud for the Purchase of Real Estate at Public Foreclosure Auctions
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, April 20, 2012
Alabama Real Estate Investor Agrees to Plead Guilty to Conspiracies to Rig Bids and Commit Mail Fraud for the Purchase of Real Estate at Public Foreclosure Auctions
WASHINGTON – An Alabama real estate investor has agreed to plead guilty and to serve prison time for his role in conspiracies to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in southern Alabama, the Department of Justice announced today. To date, as a result of the ongoing investigation, three individuals and one company have pleaded guilty.
Charges were filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in Mobile, Ala., against Lawrence B. Stacy of Mobile. Stacy was charged with one count of bid rigging and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. According to the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, Stacy has agreed to serve six months in prison. Additionally, Stacy has agreed to pay a $10,000 criminal fine and to cooperate with the department’s ongoing investigation.
According to court documents, Stacy conspired with others not to bid against one another at public real estate foreclosure auctions in southern Alabama. After a designated bidder bought a property at the public auctions, which typically take place at the county courthouse, the conspirators would generally hold a secret, second auction, at which each participant would bid the amount above the public auction price he or she was willing to pay. The highest bidder at the secret, second auction won the property.
Stacy was also charged with conspiring to use the U.S. mail to carry out a scheme to acquire title to rigged foreclosure properties sold at public auctions at artificially suppressed prices, to make and receive payoffs to co-conspirators and to cause financial institutions, homeowners and others with a legal interest in rigged foreclosure properties to receive less than the competitive price for the properties. Stacy participated in the bid-rigging and mail fraud conspiracies from at least as early as May 2002 until at least January 2007.
"The Antitrust Division will continue to pursue vigorously the perpetrators involved in these real estate foreclosure auction schemes,” said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “Those who eliminate competition from the marketplace and prey on the misfortune of others will be held accountable for their actions.”
FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Mobile FBI office, Lewis M. Chapman recognized the perseverance of agents and prosecutors in this complex investigation. Chapman stated, “This investigation sends the message that real estate fraud including antitrust violations will continue to be pursued in these tough economic times, no matter how intricate the scheme.”
Each violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals. The maximum fine for a Sherman Act charge may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victim if either amount is greater than the statutory maximum fine. Each count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine in an amount equal to the greatest of $250,000, twice the gross gain the conspirators derived from the crime or twice the gross loss caused to the victims of the crime by the conspirators.
The investigation into fraud and bid rigging at certain real estate foreclosure auctions in southern Alabama is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s Atlanta Field Office and the FBI’s Mobile Office, with the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Alabama. Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to public real estate foreclosure auctions should contact the Antitrust Division’s Atlanta Field Office at 404-331-7100 or visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm.
Today’s charges are part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency task force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. For more information on the task force, visit www.StopFraud.gov.
The BlackRobed Mafia 