It Never Ceases to Amaze Me, The Stupidity of the Public

I swear!  It never ceases to amaze me, the stupidity of the public.  Everyone sitting around with their fingers in their asses while we are continually nuked!  What the f–k is wrong with people?  Is it Ok that you children’s children will be unrecognizable as humans?  What are you people thinking?

No one gives a shit!  What is going on?  Years ago, when 3-Mile Island was going on, people became afraid of nuclear reactors, and rightfully so.  Now, the horrible scary news about Fukushima, WIPP, and Hanford are just like totally ignored by you people!  Hell, I didn’t have kids, and I am more frantic about the situation than the people with kids, and grandkids.  What the fuck are you people paying attention to?  Nothing?

Yes, I am mad!  Mad as hell!  All the people that protested in the 60’s early 70’s what the hell are yall thinking?  Shit!  You would protest anything and everything, and now, it is suddenly ok to nuke everyone?  What the hell did you grow up to be?  A Senator or Congressman, protected from the radiation on earth?

I tell you what people…  If you don’t get out of your zombie states, and you own little world taking whatever kind of I don’t give a shit pills yall are taking, there won’t be nothing but radiation sickness, damaged genes, and the mutation of all mankind.

I don’t know what to tell yall!  I thought everyone snoozing through Foreclosure Hell was bad enough, but now they are literally killing us with an unseen toxin.  Do you really think you are immune?

Well, you’re not! 

KEEPING AMERICANS IN FEAR

 25 April, 09:05

HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER CLAIMS BOSTON BOMBING WAS A “FALSE FLAG ATTACK”

Hollywood producer claims Boston bombing was a "false flag attack"

Thanks to:      http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_04_25/The-Boston-bombing-was-a-false-flag-attack-Nathan-Folks-7658/
 
Play
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time0:00
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
00:00
 
00:00
Mute

Download audio file

Crisis actors, smoke bombs, fake blood and literal “smoke and mirrors” were all part of what was the false flag terrorist attack called the Boston Marathon Bombing. To anyone who saw the pictures and footage of fake blood, make- up artists and smiling “victims”. It was obvious that something was not right. For those involved in filmmaking and in the know the discrepancies were obvious. We spoke to famous Hollywood filmmaker, producer and director Nathan Folks about why he is certain the Boston Marathon Bombing was a false flag terrorist attack.

Hello, this is John Robles. I’m speaking with Mr. Nathan Folks, he is a well known US based film and TV director and producer. He is also one of the organizers of the Worldwide Wave of Action and a truth seeker. This is part one of a longer interview.

PART 2

Robles: Hello Sir.

Folks: Hi, how are you?

Robles: I’m very well. How are you?

Folks: Very good.

Robles: That’s nice to hear especially after everything you have been through. Now your story is going way-back. It started with the Boston Bombing. If you can tell our listeners a little bit about what you know about that “event” and what has happened to you since.

Folks: Back in 2013 I was watching the events unfold and as a producer, you can pinpoint very specific things that didn’t seem right. And I started to realize that we are watching yet another false flag event unfold. And as I started putting the pieces together I realized that we are up against an environment that is trying to create a fear factor in the media. And the fear factor is to keep us scared and to keep us in fear as long as they can.

And the events that I know to be true, including the “Boston hero” who was a person in my last film, “The prosecution of an American president” and his wife, I started to recognize that this was not an event that was at all 100% true.

Robles: What about this Boston hero? What role did he play?

Folks: He is actually a father that had lost a son in the Iraq War and he was part of our film and a part of the movement, you know, of exposing the truth about Iraq and talking about the things that the Bush Administration did during those years of his administration.

And I was blown away at the fact that he was essentially being used to act in this fake environment, this hyper-reality scene of a terrorism that never happened.

Robles: Now, can you tell us three things here if you could. You used the term “Hyper-Reality” what is that and how is it used? And what is a “Crisis Actor”? Many people may still not know what that is. And if you could, detail for the listeners, some of the things that you saw as far as screens being put up as for the false stages being set up where things were filmed and stuff?

Folks: I will start up by saying that if there was an injury or a death in the event that unfolded my heart goes out to those families. But from the people that I know that were involved, from the people that were in the scenes that we call Hyper-Reality Filmmaking, which is a very common thing you do in the military.

It’s where filmmakers, or people, create a hyper-reality scene so that the military can be well-adjusted to a real scene in Iraq or any other kind of war zone.

This is where these people are actually able to see and feel and help what they think is a real injured person whereas it is really just an amputee that is playing as a crisis actor, and (in this case) a crisis actor being someone that had lost their limbs but a makeup artist has been able to re-enact a bloody scene with “no leg blown off” and this hyper reality scene, so that when we are now on the ground, they actually see and feel like they are in a war zone.

And I’m watching this unfold on the streets of Boston and thinking, one: how were they able to get away with that? And two: watching the edits and the supposedly live television broadcasting we were seeing, it wasn’t “live” at all, it was edited.

Robles: How you know? What did you see? What were the clues you saw?

Folks: Well, there were a lot of things. In live footage you don’t see cuts. You know, cutting from one scene to another and in live footage you don’t have, especially now, this wasn’t in 2013 HD technology, this was in old technology from 2002, because it is grainer and you can’t see the edits as well.

As a filmmaker that what I would do if I was trying to reenact something like that and…

Robles: I’m sorry. Can you be more specific? I didn’t quite follow that. So it was made using old technology?

Folks: It’s using an older technology that is grainer. So you can’t see the very true HD quality and you are watching… If you look back at any old footage from early 2000 or even the 1990s, it is very grainy and when you are watching it on a new technology television with latest plasma and HD and any kind of new technology you can see that it was edited.

Robles: So television stations at that time, they were using modern technology?

Folks: They were definitely using modern technology last year. It’s just when you see pictures from 2013 that were in HD and then you look at clips and cuts of the footage from television, it is very obvious that it was used on purpose.

Robles: Can you tell us a little bit about some of the scenes. I’m sure a lot of people who were interested in what really happened, they saw some of the pictures, for example: the amputee with sticks, apparently sticking out of his legs or something, and blood that looked like paint, I mean, I have seen blood, I worked in a hospital, I know what blood looks like, it’s dark, it’s brownish red and this was this bright red paint. Can you tell us about that?

Folks: I think even more of an obvious situation is that: you get your legs blown off you are not going to be out in front of millions of people celebrating Boston at a hockey game or any type of arena. I think the emotional impact of losing your legs would probably keep you out of the public eye for at least a year. And that was the biggest obvious example to me, but as far as anyone that has been in the paramedics or nursing would know, that if you blow your legs off, you are not supposed to moved.

If someone’s falls here on Wilshire, just falls down, they tell you not to move, they are not supposed to move them. They could have broken a bone or a neck; their spine could be dislocated. You don’t move them and you certainly don’t put them in a wheelchair and run them down the road.

And it is just taking this to a whole different comical level that the fact that they think we all buy this, and that we are all going to sit here and watch it happen over and over again, you know, they have another thing coming. That’s why I joined forces with the Worldwide Wave of Action because you know; the truth has to come out. And people are not going to sit here and watch them make a mockery of ourselves.

Everybody around the world knows Boston Bombing was a joke; everyone in the US has been fed lies and lies after lies and it started in 9-11 and it hasn’t stopped.

Robles: Can you tell us… you sent me some pictures of these screens that you could actually see the road like “moving up”, it was like a mirror or something. Can you tell us about those?

Folks: You mean as far as the 3D… the Green Screen that they used at the Boston Bombing?

Robles: Yeah, can you detail all that?

Folks: From what I understand, they… it looks to me like they used a second street in order to re-enact the scene, over and over, to get it right and by using Green Screen they were able to show the buildings that were actually on Boylston Street and when you use a Green Screen it is a lot like Titanic. In the movie Titanic in 1997 we are watching the film and we are watching this boat sink and we are watching the water fill into the boat and we see people falling off the boat. That is obviously not happening in real life, we are watching it on Green Screen. They are putting a digital layer behind the screen of real action people. And we are watching a boat sink in the background and that is what they did in this example.

They just did it on television. We are watching green screen on television to re-enact a street scene that happened for real, but just a smoke bomb but when they re-enacted the people that were hurt they had to add the blood and the amputees and to put one the makeup.

You can see the person putting makeup on these people the entire scene; I call her “The Woman in Pink”. She has literally got a makeup bag and she is going to each victim, she is not helping them! She is putting make up on them!

So I’m sorry, I’m not fooled and I’m not going to let everyone else be fooled. Someone has to speak out against it. And they can follow me, they can do whatever they want but at the end of the day the truth has to come out some time. They can’t get away with it anymore.

Robles: Now please tell us, you have been persecuted, you have been through hell, I can’t think of any other way to put it. If I can tell our listeners: you contacted me right after it happened and after that a lot of terrible things started happening to you. Can you tell us some of those things?

Folks: Well, obviously, you can’t prove anything because I was very sick. I have never been sick in my life, I have never been in the hospital, but in the days after this event and weeks after this event and me talking about it, I was in the hospital for a total of 22 days over the course of three months.

And they really couldn’t determine what it was and I couldn’t hold water, I couldn’t hold food, it was some type of poison.

I can’t say for sure that I was poisoned by someone but I can say that I had some type of poison that nearly killed me.

And it took me good 3 to 6 months to kind of rehabilitate and get back on my feet and I figured if they are trying to scare me off or they are trying to keep me down from speaking: then it was a good try but it didn’t work.

Robles: Could you tell us what has happened to some other people? There was one guy, he wrote an article, you said, questioning the reality of the Boston Bombing Marathon. And you told me about some other people who had gotten sick as well.

Folks: Yeah, there is a gentlemen that runs a website called “Natural News” and he was coming out with very similar examples that I was during that time. And just now finding out that they wrote an article about how he has gotten sick from the food, he talks about. And they took his article down and re-wrote it in the third person.

And I don’t know if he is even able to speak, but I do know that after finding some of these examples of people that were coming out at same time that I was, that they were sick and poisoned as well, makes me realize that something is going on.

Robles: When you were in the hospital you also told me some other people close to you… (Can you talk about that?) that there were some other people you knew that got sick.

Folks: Yeah, I don’t think I can go into any detail but there were several other people that had gotten sick, and that seems to be part of this coming out. Anyone that has come out about this, got sick or disappeared.

Robles: How many people have disappeared, since then?

Folks: Well, I can say that everybody that reacted to this Boston bombing, the millions and millions of people that came out on the websites, came out about the scene and about the situation, essentially were silenced because there wasn’t a word about it this year. And that just gives me more of a comforting notion that it has been silenced for someone who has gone out and done something to the people that did come out about it…

Robles: You said that Internet before we started, you said that your Internet shut down in the US, it is on lockdown or something…

Folks: I mean strange things like in one day I have a Verizon Wireless Internet and in one day over 200 GB was taken from my service, ran up 35 hundred dollar bill in a 24-hour period. And then when you contact Verizon saying that it is obviously not something that I did, they ignore me and say that I have to pay if I want my service back on. So not many people want to just pay $3,500 for no reason.

Obviously, I never turned my Internet back on. I have been working on different types of Internet on different phones but it was designed to create a situation that I would shutdown. It was a warning probably of some sort. It was so that I would stop speaking about things that I’m knowledgeable about.

Robles: You gave me a good example about Boston False Flag, if someone who did a search on Google. Can you tell us about this false bomb?

Folks: Yeah, it is just that nobody is speaking about the Boston bombing. There is nobody speaking about false flags. And in this country our web searches seem to be completely deleted. You know, during that time I downloaded everything I knew and everything I saw and I have it on hard drive and the fact that all of that is now gone and I have them on hard drive.

Robles: Everything is gone?

Folks: Somebody is trying to take it away, make it disappear. It was very bad; whoever was in charge of the Boston Bombing Campaign did a very lousy job. They need to consult with some real Hollywood producers if they are going to do anything like that again and maybe make sure that they don’t fool the nation in their process because this is absurd.

Robles: They are not very creative in doing the same thing again and again and again.

Folks: They keep getting away with it, they are getting used to be able to get with it and they are getting sloppy and eventually and as this Worldwide Wave of Action is able to expose the truth more and more, I think we are going to stop this evil that is now taking over the US and is trying to keep people in fear and using fear mongering techniques on our media.

CNN and FOX and all these media sources are not telling the truth anymore. They are more interested in talking more about artists like Justin Bieber and Lindsay Lohan going to jail than potential war in Crimea.

I mean, this is, don’t even get me starting on that because I think we all know who is behind the taunting of that situation.

So it is just becoming obvious and even though people are not speaking about it because they are scared off or because they are scared to make a name and come out and talk about it.

This is our time to re-live the 60s, this is my generation’s time to stand up and say “No more!”

And we are not going to sit here and be poisoned and be lied to and listen to this “essentially crap” that they are feeding us in our media, this is not going to happen anymore. We have to stand up and make a change.

Surveillance vans parked outside of Folks’ home.

This is John Robles, you were listening to an interview with Nathan Folks, he is a well-known US film and TV director and producer. He is also the organizer of the Worldwide Wave of Action. You can find the rest of this interview on our website voiceofrussia.com. Thank you very much for listening!

That was the end of part one.

5.83 Billion Against Bank Of America, N.A.

FHFA Settles With BofA for $5.83 Billion Over Countrywide Legacy Loans

http://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news47937/FHFA-Settles-With-BofA-%245.83-Billion-Over-Countrywide-Legacy-Loans?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NMP+Daily%3A+FHFA+Settles+With+BofA+for+%245_83+Billion+Over+Countrywide+Legacy+Loans+and+More+___&utm_campaign=20140327_m119753830_NMP+Daily%3A+FHFA+Settles+With+BofA+for+%245_83+Billion+Over+Countrywide+Legacy+Loans+and+More+___&utm_term=FHFA+Settles+With+BofA+for+_245_83+Billion+Over+Countrywide+Legacy+Loans

FHFA_Logo_04_13_12

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has announced it has reached a settlement in cases involving Bank of America, Countrywide Financial, Merrill Lynch, and certain named individuals totaling approximately $5.83 billion. Bank of America Corporation owns Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. The cases alleged violations of federal and state securities laws in connection with private-label, residential mortgage-backed securities (PLS) purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 2005 and 2007. Allegations of common law fraud were made in the Countrywide and Merrill Lynch cases.

The Agreement provides for an aggregate payment of approximately $9.33 billion by Bank of America that includes the litigation resolution as well as a purchase of securities by Bank of America from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“FHFA has acted under its statutory mandate to recover losses incurred by the companies and American taxpayers and has concluded that this resolution represents a reasonable and prudent settlement of these cases,” said FHFA Director Melvin L. Watt. “This settlement also represents an important step in helping restore stability to our broader mortgage market and moving to bring back the role of private firms in providing mortgage credit. Many potential homeowners will benefit from increasing certainty in the marketplace and that is very much the direction we should be taking.”

Of the 18 PLS suits filed in 2011, FHFA now has claims remaining in seven suits against various institutions and remains committed to satisfactory resolution of these pending actions.

The settlement agreement regarding private label securities claims between FHFA and Bank of America involves the following cases: Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 11 Civ. 6195 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.); Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Countrywide Financial Corp., et al., No. 12 Civ. 1059 (MRP) (C.D. Cal.); Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et al., No. 11 Civ. 6202 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.); as well as one Merrill Lynch security in Federal Housing Finance Agency v. First Horizon National Corp., No. 11 Civ. 6193 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.).

Whistleblower Michael Winston Screwed By the Appeals Court

POLICY: LAW

http://washingtonexaminer.com/a-whistleblowers-worst-nightmare/article/2546069

A whistleblower’s worst nightmare

BY DIANE DIMOND | MARCH 21, 2014 AT 2:52 PM

TOPICS: 2007 HOUSING CRISIS WHISTLEBLOWERS LAW

Photo – Sadly, there is not enough space here to tell you the entire 7-year saga of whistleblower Michael Winston, but the bottom line is this: He got royally screwed by the California judicial system.

Sadly, there is not enough space here to tell you the entire 7-year saga of whistleblower Michael…

Justice is supposed to be blind. But what happens when it turns out to be blind, deaf and dumb?

Sadly, there is not enough space here to tell you the entire 7-year saga of whistleblower Michael Winston, but the bottom line is this: He got royally screwed by the California judicial system.

Winston, 62, is a mild-mannered Ph.D. and a veteran leadership executive who has held top jobs at elite corporations such as McDonnell Douglas, Motorola and Merrill Lynch. After taking time off to nurse his ailing parents, Winston was recruited by Countrywide Financial to help polish their corporate Image. He was quickly promoted — twice — and had a team of 200 employees.

It’s almost unheard of for a top-tier executive turning whistleblower, but that’s what Winston became after he noticed many of his staff were sickened by noxious air in their Simi Valley, California, office. When the company failed to fix the problem, Winston picked up the phone and called Cal-OSHA to investigate. Retaliation was immediate. Winston’s budget was cut and most of his staff was reassigned.

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!

Several months later, Winston says he refused Countrywide’s request to travel to New York and, basically, lie to the credit ratings agency Moody’s about corporate structure and practices. That was the death knell for Winston’s stellar 30-year-long career.

When Countrywide was bought out by Bank of America in 2008 — following Countrywide’s widely reported lead role in the sub-prime mortgage fiasco that caused the collapse of the U.S. housing market — Winston was out of a job.

In early 2011, after a month-long trial, a jury overwhelmingly found that Winston had been wrongfully terminated and awarded him nearly $4 million. Lawyers for Bank of America (which had assumed all Countrywide liabilities) immediately asked the judge to overturn the verdict. Judge Bert Gennon Jr. denied the request saying, “There was a great deal of evidence that was provided to the jury in making their decision, and they went about it very carefully.” Winston and his lawyer maintain they won despite repeated and egregious perjury by the opposition.

Winston never saw a dime of his award, and nearly two years later, B of A appealed. In February 2013, the Court of Appeal issued a stunning reversal of the verdict. The court declared Winston had failed to make his case.

“This never happens … this isn’t legal,” Cliff Palefsky, a top employment lawyer in San Francisco told me during a phone conversation. “The appeals court is not supposed to go back and cherry-pick through the evidence the way this court did. And if there is any doubt about a case, they are legally bound to uphold the jury’s verdict.”

None of the legal eagles I spoke to could explain why the Court of Appeal would do such an apparently radical thing.

The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection group in D.C., has been watching the Winston case closely. Senior Counsel Richard Condit says he believes the appeal judge wrongly “nullified” the jury’s determination.

“This case is vitally important,” Condit told me on the phone. “Seeing what happened to Winston, who will ever want to come forward and reveal what they know about corporate wrongdoings?” GAP and various legal academicians are trying to figure out a way to get Winston’s case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

There have been whispers about the possible malpractice of Winston’s trial lawyer failing to file crucial documents that might have satisfied the appeal court’s questions. His appellate lawyer didn’t even tell him when the appeals court was hearing the case and Winston was out of town. The LA District Attorney and the Sheriff’s Department refused to follow up on evidence that Countrywide witnesses, including founder Angelo Mozilo, had blatantly committed perjury on the stand. Some court watchers speak of the, “unholy alliance” between big corporations and the justice system in California.

Winston, who says he spent $600,000 on legal fees, further depleted his savings by appealing to the California Supreme Court. That court refused to hear his case.

During one of our many hours-long phone conversations, Winston told me, “So, here I sit,” the whistleblower. The good guy loses. And the bad guys, officials at the corporation that cheated and lied and nearly caused the collapse of the U.S. economy — win.”

There’s a lot of talk out of Washington these days about “economic equality.” But seven years have passed since the housing crisis and the feds have not prosecuted one key executive from any of the financial giants that helped fuel the economic crash. Too big to fail — and too big to jail, I guess.

Bank of America has spent upward of $50 billion in legal fees, litigation costs and fines cleaning up the Countrywide mess. Their latest projections indicate they’ll spend billions more before it’s over. To my mind, a stiff prison sentence for the top dogs who orchestrated the original mortgage schemes would go much further than agreeing that they pay hefty fines. That’s no deterrent to others since they all have lots of money.

A recent email I got from Michael Winston, a proud man who has been unemployed for four years, said: “I have just received (a) court order mandating that I pay to Bank of America over $100,000.00 for their court costs. This will be in all ways — financial, emotional, physical and spiritual — painful.”

If a top-tier executive can’t prevail blowing the whistle on a corrupt company, if the feds fail to pursue prison terms, and if a jury’s verdict can be over-turned without the opportunity to appeal — what kind of signal does that send to the dishonest?

You know the answer. We’re telling them it is OK to put profit above everything else. We’re telling them to continue their illegal behaviors because there will be no prison time for them. At worst, they may only have to part with a slice of their ill-gotten gains.

This is not the way the justice system is supposed to work.

 

DIANE DIMOND, a Washington Examiner columnist, is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.

Chase Bets Lives!

JPMorgan Chase Bets $10.4 Billion on the Early Death of Workers

Monday, March 24, 2014 11:07

(Before It’s News)

Families of young JPMorgan Chase workers who have experienced tragic deaths over the past four months, have been kept in the dark on many details, including the fact that the bank most likely held a life insurance policy on their loved one – payable to itself. Banks in the U.S., as well as other corporations, are allowed to make multi-billion dollar wagers that their profits from life insurance policies on employees will outstrip the cost of paying premiums and other fees. Early deaths help those wagers pay off.

According to the December 31, 2013 financial filing known as the Call Report that JPMorgan made with Federal regulators, it has tied up $10.4 billion in illiquid, long term bets on the death of a large segment of its employees.

The program is known among regulators as Bank Owned Life Insurance or BOLI. Federal regulators specifically exempted BOLI in passing the final version of the Volcker Rule in December of last year which disallowed most proprietary trading or betting for the house. Regulators stated in the rule that “Rather, these accounts permit the banking entity to effectively hedge and cover costs of providing benefits to employees through insurance policies related to key employees.” We have italicized the word “key” because regulators know very well from financial filings that the country’s mega banks are not just insuring key employees but a broad-base of their employees.

Read more

Source: http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/jpmorgan-chase-bets-10-4-billion-early-death-workers/

Hearsay on Hearsay Livinglies Neil Garfield

 

Hearsay on Hearsay: Bank Professional Witnesses Using Business Records Exception as Shield from Truth

by Neil Garfield

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/hearsay-on-hearsay-bank-professional-witnesses-using-business-records-exception-as-shield-from-truth/

Wells Fargo Manual “Blueprint for Fraud”

Well that didn’t take long. Like the revelations concerning Urban Lending Solutions and Bank of America, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the the intermediary banks were hell bent for foreclosure regardless of what was best for the investors or the borrowers. This included, fraud, fabrication, unauthorized documents and signatures, perjury and outright theft of money and identities. I understand the agreement between the Bush administration and the large banks. And I understand the reason why the Obama administration continued to honor the agreements reached between the Bush administration and the large banks. They didn’t have a clue. And they were relying on Wall Street to report on its own behavior. But I’m sure the agreement did not even contemplate the actual crimes committed. I think it is time for US attorneys and the Atty. Gen. of each state to revisit the issue of prosecution of the major Wall Street banks.

With the passage of time we have all had an opportunity to examine the theory of “too big to fail.” As applied, this theory has prevented prosecutions for criminal acts. But more importantly it is allowing and promoting those crimes to be covered up and new crimes to be committed in and out of the court system. A quick review of the current strategy utilized in foreclosure reveals that nearly all foreclosures are based on false assumptions, no facts,  and a blind desire for expediency that  sacrifices access to the courts and due process. The losers are the pension funds that mistakenly invested into this scheme and the borrowers who were used as pawns in a gargantuan Ponzi scheme that literally exceeded all the money in the world.

Let’s look at one of the fundamental strategies of the banks. Remember that the investment banks were merely intermediaries who were supposedly functioning as broker-dealers. As in any securities transaction, the investor places in order and is responsible for payment to the broker-dealer. The broker-dealer tenders payment to the seller. The seller either issues the securities (if it is an issuer) or delivers the securities. The bank takes the money from the investors and doesn’t deliver it to an issuer or seller, but instead uses the money for its own purposes, this is not merely breach of contract —  it is fraud.

And that is exactly what the investors, insurers, government guarantors and other parties have alleged in dozens of lawsuits and hundreds of claims. Large banks have avoided judgment based on these allegations by settling the cases and claims for hundreds of billions of dollars because that is only a fraction of the money they diverted from investors and continue to divert. This continued  diversion is accomplished, among other ways, through the process of foreclosure. I would argue that the lawsuits filed by government-sponsored entities are evidence of an administrative finding of fact that closes the burden of proof to be shifted to the cloud of participants who assert that they are part of a scheme of securitization when in fact they were part of a Ponzi scheme.

This cloud of participants is managed in part by LPS in Jacksonville. If you are really looking for the source of documentation and the choice of plaintiff or forecloser, this would be a good place to start. You will notice that in both judicial and non-judicial settings, there is a single party designated as the apparent creditor. But where the homeowner is proactive and brings suit against multiple entities each of whom have made a claim relating to the alleged loan, the banks stick with presenting a single witness who is “familiar with the business records.” That phrase has been specifically rejected in most jurisdictions as proving the personal knowledge necessary for a finding that the witness is competent to testify or to authenticate documents that will be introduced in evidence. Those records are hearsay and they lack the legal foundation for introduction and acceptance into evidence in the record.

So even where the lawsuit is initiated by “the cloud” and even where they allege that the plaintiff is the servicer and even where they allege that the plaintiff is a trust, the witness presented at trial is a professional witness hired by the servicer. Except for very recent cases, lawyers for the homeowner have ignored the issue of whether the professional witness is truly competent,  and especially why the court should even be listening to a professional witness from the servicer when it is hearing nothing from the creditor. The business records which are proffered to the court as being complete are nothing of the sort. There documents prepared for trial which is specifically excluded from evidence under the hearsay rule and an exception to the business records exception.

Lately Chase has been dancing around these issues by first asserting that it is the owner of a loan by virtue of the merger with Washington Mutual. As the case progresses Chase admits that it is a servicer. Later they often state that the investor is Fannie Mae. This is an interesting assertion which depends upon complete ignorance by opposing counsel for the homeowner and the same ignorance on the part of the judge. Fannie Mae is not and never has been a lender. It is a guarantor, whose liability arises after the loss has been completely established following the foreclosure sale and liquidation to a third-party. It is also a master trustee for securitized trusts. To say that Fannie Mae is the owner of the alleged loan is an admission that the originator never loaned any money and that therefore the note and mortgage are invalid. It is also intentional obfuscation of the rights of the investors and trusts.

The multiple positions of Chase is representative of most other cases regardless of the name used for the identification of the alleged plaintiff, who probably doesn’t even know the action exists. That is why I suggested some years ago that a challenge to the right to represent the alleged plaintiff would be both appropriate and desirable. The usual answer is that the attorney represents all interested parties. This cannot be true because there is an obvious conflict of interest between the servicer, the trust, the guarantor, the trustee, and the broker-dealer that so far has never been named. Lawsuits filed by trust beneficiaries, guarantors, FDIC and insurers demonstrate this conflict of interest with great clarity.

I wonder if you should point out that if Chase was the Servicer, how could they not know who they were paying? As Servicer their role was to collect payments and send them to the creditor. If the witness or nonexistent verifier was truly familiar with the records, the account would show a debit to the account for payment to Fannie Mae or the securitized trust that was the actual source of funds for either the origination or acquisition of loans. And why would they not have shown that?  The reason is that no such payment was made. If any payment was made it was to the investors in the trust that lies behind the Fannie Mae curtain.

And if the “investor” had in fact received loss sharing payment from the FDIC, insurance or other sources how would the witness have known about that? Of course they don’t know because they have nothing to do with observing the accounts of the actual creditor. And while I agree that only actual payments as opposed to hypothetical payments should be taken into account when computing the principal balance and applicable interest on the loan, the existence of terms and conditions that might allow or require those hypothetical payments are sufficient to guarantee the right to discovery as to whether or not they were paid or if the right to payment has already accrued.

I think the argument about personal knowledge of the witness can be strengthened. The witness is an employee of Chase — not WAMU and not Fannie Mae. The PAA is completely silent about  the loans. Most of the loans were subjected to securitization anyway so WAMU couldn’t have “owned” them at any point in the false trail of securitization. If Chase is alleging that Fannie Mae in the “investor” then you have a second reason to say that both the servicing rights and the right to payment of principal, interest or monthly payments in doubt as to the intermediary banks in the cloud. So her testimony was hearsay on hearsay without any recognizable exception. She didn’t say she was custodian of records for anyone. She didn’t say how she had personal knowledge of Chase records, and she made no effort to even suggest she had any personal knowledge of the records of Fannie and WAMU — which is exactly the point of your lawsuit or defense.
 

If the Defendant/Appellee’s argument were to be accepted, any one of several defendants could deny allegations made against all the defendants individually just by producing a professional witness who would submit self-serving sworn affidavits from only one of the defendants. The result would thus benefit some of the “represented parties” at the expense of others.

Their position is absurd and the court should not be used and abused in furtherance of what is at best a shady history of the loan. The homeowner challenges them to give her the accurate information concerning ownership and balance, failing which there was no basis for a claim of encumbrance against her property. The court, using improper reasoning and assumptions, essentially concludes that since someone was the “lender” the Plaintiff had no cause of action and could not prove her case even if she had a cause of action. If the trial court is affirmed, Pandora’s box will be opened using this pattern of court conduct and Judge rulings as precedent not only in foreclosure actions, disputes over all types of loans, but virtually all tort actions and most contract actions.

Specifically it will open up a new area of moral hazard that is already filled with debris, to wit: debt collectors will attempt to insert themselves in the collection of money that is actually due to an existing creditor who has not sold the debt to the collector. As long as the debt collector moves quickly, and the debtor is unsophisticated, the case with the debt collector will be settled at the expense of the actual creditor. This will lead to protracted litigation as to the authority of the debt collector and the liability of the debtor as well as the validity of any settlement.

Foreclosure Hell, Keeps on Rollin

     Foreclosure filings were reported on 124,419 U.S. properties in January 2014, an 8 percent increase from December but still down 18 percent from January 2013.  Foreclosure filings were reported on 1,361,795 U.S. properties in 2013, down 26 percent from 2012 and down 53 percent from the peak of 2.9 million properties with foreclosure filings in 2010.  But still, 9.3 million U.S. residential properties were deeply underwater representing 19 percent of all properties with a mortgage in December 2013, down from 10.7 million homes underwater in September 2013.[1] 

            In 2006 there were 1,215,304 foreclosures, 545,000 foreclosure filings and 268,532 Home Repossessions.  By 2007 foreclosures had almost doubled – up to 2,203,295 with 1,260,000 foreclosure filings and 489,000 Home Repossessions.  2008 saw an even further increase to 3,019,482 foreclosures, 2,350,000 Foreclosure filings and 679,000 Home Repossessions.  In 20093,457,643 foreclosures, 2,920,000 foreclosure filings, and 945,000 Home Repossessions.  2010:  3,843,548 foreclosures, 3,500,000 foreclosure filings, and 1,125,000 Home Repossessions.  2011:  3,920,418 foreclosures, 3,580,000 foreclosure filings, and 1,147,000 Home Repossessions.  Then January to September 20121,616,427 foreclosures 1,382,000 foreclosure filings and 572,844 Repossessions.  The remainder of 2012 – September through December saw an additional 2,300,000 foreclosures, 2,100,000 foreclosure filings and 700,000 Repossessions.  In other words, from 2006 through 2012, there were a total of  21,576,117 foreclosures; 17,637,000 foreclosure filings; 5,926,376 Home Repossessions.  The foreclosures added to the repossessions is equal to:  27,502,493[2].  The numbers are staggering.

            Many of the homes have been wrongfully foreclosed upon, where either the party had not been in default, or the foreclosing party lacked standing to foreclose.  It has become almost as lawless as the wildwest, or comparable to a shark feeding frenzy.


[1] All of the foreclosure figures came from RealtyTrac:  http://www.realtytrac.com/content/foreclosure-market-report

[2] http://www.statisticbrain.com/home-foreclosure-statistics/                                                                 Statistic Verification  Source: RealtyTrac, Federal Reserve, Equifax

Neil Garfield’s Living Lies Weblog, Keeping You Informed!

New post on Livinglies’s Weblog

 
 

Fannie and Freddie Demand $6 Billion for Sale of “Faulty Mortgage Bonds”

by Neil Garfield

You read the news on one settlement after another, it sounds like the pound of flesh is being exacted from the culprits again and again. This time the FHFA, as owner of Fannie and Freddie, is going for a settlement with Bank of America for sale of “faulty mortgage bonds.” And most people sit back and think that justice is being done. It isn’t. $6 Billion is window dressing on a liability that is at least 100 times that amount. And stock analysts take comfort that the legal problems for the banks has basically been discounted already. It hasn’t.

For practitioners who defend mortgage foreclosures, you must dig a little deeper. The term “faulty mortgage bonds” is a euphemism. Look at the complaints there filed. When they are filed by agencies it means that after investigation they have arrived at the conclusion that something was. very wrong with the sale of mortgage bonds. That is an administrative finding that concluded there was at least probable cause for finding that the mortgage bonds were defective and potentially were criminal.

So what does “defective” or “faulty” mean? Neither the media nor the press releases from the agencies or the banks tell us what was wrong with the bonds. But if you look at the complaints of the agencies, they tell you what they mean. If you look at the investor lawsuits you see that they are alleging that the notes and mortgages were “unenforceable.” Both the agencies and the investors filed complaints alleging that the mortgage bonds were a farce, sham or in other words, a PONZI Scheme.

Why is that important to foreclosure defense? Digging deeper you will find what I have been reporting on this blog. The investors money was not used to fund the REMIC trusts. The unfunded trusts never had the money to buy or fund the origination of bonds. The notes and mortgages were never sold to the Trusts even though “assignments” were executed and shown in court. The assignments themselves were either backdated or violated the 90 day cutoff that under applicable law (the laws of the State of New York) are VOID and not voidable.

What to do? File Freedom of Information Act requests for the findings, allegations and names of investigators for the agency that were involved in the agency action. Take their deposition. Get documents. Find put what mortgages were looked at and which bond series were involved. Get a list of the mortgages and the bonds that were examined. Get the findings on each mortgage and each mortgage bond. Use the the investor allegations as lender admissions admissions in court — that the notes and mortgages are unenforceable.

There is a disconnect between what is going on at the top of the sham securitization chain and what went on in sham mortgage originations and sham sales of loans. They never happened in the real world, no matter how much paper you throw at it.

And that just doesn’t apply to mortgages in default — it applies to all mortgages, which is why all the mortgages that currently exist, and most of the deeds that show ownership of the property have clouded and probably “defective” and “faulty” titles. It’s clear logic that the government and the banks are seeking to avoid, to wit: that if the way in which the money was raised to fund the loans or purchase the loans were defective, then it follows that there are defects in the chain of title and the money trail that were obviously not disclosed, as per the requirements of TILA and Reg Z.

And when you keep digging in discovery you will find out that your client has some clear remedies to collect the profits and compensation paid to undisclosed recipients arising out of the closing of the “loan.” These are offsets to the amount claimed as due. If the loan was not funded by the Trust, then the false paper trail used by the banks in foreclosure is subject to successful attack. If the loans were in fact funded directly by the trust complying with the REMIC provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, then the payee on the note and the mortgagee on the mortgage would be the trust — or if the loan was actually purchased, the Trust would have issued money to the seller (something that never happened).

And lastly, for now, let us look at the capital structure of these banks. A substantial portion of their capital derives from assets in the form of mortgage bonds. This is the most blatant lie of all of them. No underwriter buys the securities issued by the company seeking financing through an offering to investors. It is an oxymoron. The whole purpose of the underwriter was to create securities that would be appealing to investors. The securities are only issued when you have a buyer for them, and then the investor is the owner of the security — in this case mortgage bonds.

The bonds are not issued to the investment bank as an asset of the investment bank. But they ARE issued to the investment bank in “street name.” That is merely to facilitate trading and delivery of certificates which in most cases in the mortgage bond market don’t exist. The issuance in street name does not mean the banks own the mortgage bonds any more than when you a stock and the title is issued in street name mean that you have loaned or gifted the investment to the investment bank.

If you follow the logic of the investment bank then the deposits of money by depository customers could be claimed as assets — without the required entry in the liabilities section of the balance sheet because every dollar on deposit is a liability to pay those monies on demand, which is why checking accounts are referred to as demand deposits.

Hence the “asset” has been entered on the investment bank balance sheet without the corresponding liability on the other side of their balance sheet. And THAT remains that under cover of Federal Reserve purchase of these bonds from the banks, who don’t own the bonds, the value of the bonds is 100 cents on the dollar and the owner is the bank — a living lies fundamental. When the illusion collapses, the banks are coming down with it. You can only go so far lying to the public and the investment community. Eventually the reality is these banks are underfunded, under capitalized and still being propped up by quantitative easing disguised as the purchase of mortgage bonds at the rate of $85 Billion per month.

We need to be preparing for the collapse of the illusion and get the other financial institutions — 7,000 community and regional banks and credit unions — ready to take on the changes caused by the absence of the so-called major banks who are really fictitious entities without a foundation related to economic reality. The backbone is already available — electronic funds transfer is as available to the smallest bank as it is to the largest. It is an outright lie that we need the TBTF banks. They have failed and cannot recover because of the enormity of the lies they told the world. It’s over.

JP Morgan and Chase Co. to Be Hit With Fines

Mortgage group concerned about payment structures for fines 

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/10/08/mortgage-group-concerned-about-payment-structures?t=litigation 

Group says large banks have the option to leverage loans they don’t own in order to settle violations

BY CHRIS DIMARCO

October 8, 2013 • Reprints 

While the Department of Justice (DOJ) and J.P. Morgan and Chase Co. have still yet to reach a settlement to resolve a number of pending probes, investors are concerned that they could be unfairly required to shoulder the burden the banks pay out. 

A group of mortgage bond investors has penned a letter to the DOJ, asking it to prevent any bank from using mortgage-backed security adjustments to pay fines. They did not directly imply that the settlement they were talking about stemmed from the ongoing discussions between JP and the DOJ, but raised concerns surrounding settlements with any major bank. 

The group, the Association of Mortgage Investors (AMI), represents about 25 individuals and controls about $56 billion in assets under its organization. In the letter, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the group’s executive director Chris Katopis says, “Parties sued by the government or third-parties should not be able to settle with assets that they do not own, namely other people’s money.” 

As of last week, J.P. Morgan and the DOJ had yet to come to agreement terms that would end a series of investigations pending for the bank. Settlement figures as high as $11 billion have been kicked around, according to individuals close to the case, although no official word has been made. According to speculation, $7 billion of that total would be paid out in fines, with an additional $4 billion going towards relief for struggling homeowners. 

The Association of Mortgage Investors is said to be posturing proactively because of previous mortgage settlements made this year. In these settlements, banks could receive partial settlement credit if they reduced loan-balances. However, many of the mortgages they reduced balances on were managed by investors, and therefore not technically owned by the banks. 

There has been little news out of the J.P. Morgan talks outside of speculation, and it is not known if the Department of Justice is considering the type of payment structure the AMI is fearful of in their talks.

Garfield on Stopa’s Courage and Court’s Bias

Attorney Mark Stopa Shows Guts Confronting Appellate Court Bias                          Posted on October 4, 2013 by Neil Garfield 

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/attorney-mark-stopa-shows-guts-confronting-appellate-court-bias/ 

I have just received a copy of a daring and tempestuous motion for rehearing en banc filed by the winner of the appeal. The homeowner won because of precedent, law and common sense; but the court didn’t like their own decision and certified an absurd question to the Florida Supreme Court. The question was whether the Plaintiff in a foreclosure case needs to have standing at the commencement of the action. Whether it is jurisdictional or not (I think it is clearly jurisdictional) Stopa is both right on the law and right on his challenge to the Court on the grounds of BIAS.

The concurring opinion of the court actually says that the court is ruling for the homeowner because it must — but asserts that it is leading to a result that fails to expedite cases where the outcome of the inevitable foreclosure is never in doubt. In other words, the appellate court has officially taken the position that we know before we look at a foreclosure case that the bank should win and the homeowner should lose. The entire court should be recused for bias that they have put in writing. What homeowner can bring an action or defend an action where the outcome desired by the courts in that district have already decided that homeowners are deadbeats and their defenses are quite literally a waste of time? Under the rules, the Court should not hear the the motion for rehearing en banc, should vacate that part of the decision that sets up the rube certified question, and the justices who participated must be recused from hearing further appeals on foreclosure cases. 

Lest their be any mistake, and without any attempt to step on the toes of Stopa’s courageous brief on an appeal he already won, I wish to piggy back on his brief and expand certain points. The problem here might be the subject of a federal due process action against the state. Judges who have already decided foreclosure or mortgage litigation cases before they even see them are not fit to hear them. It IS that simple.

The question here was stated as the issue of standing at the commencement of the lawsuit. Does the bank need to have a claim before it files it? The question is so absurd that it is difficult to address without a joke. But this is not funny. The courts have rapidly evolved into a position that expedited decisions are better than fair decisions. There is NOTHING in the law that supports that position and thousands of cases that say the opposite is true under our system of law. Any judge who leans the other way should be recused or taken off the bench entirely. 

In lay terms, the Appellate Court’s certified question would allow anyone who thinks they might have a claim in the future to file the lawsuit now. And the Court believes this will relieve the clogged court calendars. If this matter is taken seriously and the Supreme Court accepts the certified question for serious review it will merely by acceptance be making a statement that makes it possible for all kinds of claims that anticipate an injury. 

It is bad enough that judges appear to be ignoring the requirement that there must be an allegation that a loan was made by the originating party and that the Plaintiff actually bought the loan. This was an obvious requirement that was consistently required in pleading until the courts were clogged with mortgage litigation, at which point the court system tilted far past due process and said that if the borrower stopped paying there were no conditions under which the borrower could win the case. 

It is bad enough that Judges appear to be ignoring the requirement that the allegation that the Plaintiff will suffer financial damage unless relief is granted. This was an obvious requirement that was consistently required in pleading until the mortgage meltdown. 

Why is this important? Because the facts will show that lenders consistently violated basic and advanced protections that have been federal and State law for decades. These violations more often than not produced an unenforceable loan — as pointed out in law suits by federal and state regulators, and as pointed out by the lawsuits of investors who were real lenders who are screwed each time the court enters foreclosure judgment in favor of the bank instead of the investor lenders. 

It is not the fault of borrowers that this mess was created. It is the fault of Wall Street Bankers who were working a scheme to defraud investors by diverting the real transaction and making it appear that the banks were principals in the loan transaction when in fact they were never real parties in interest. Nobody would seriously argue that this eliminates the debt. But why are we enforcing that debt with completely defective mortgage instruments in a process that confirms the fraud and ratifies it to the damage of investors who put up the money in the first place? The courts have made a choice that is unavailable in our system of law. 

This is also judicial laziness. If these justices want to weigh in on the mortgage mess, then they should have the facts and not the stories put forward by Wall Street that have been proven to be pure fiction, fabrication, lies and perjury. That the Court ignores what is plainly documented in hundreds of thousands of defective mortgage transactions and the behavior of banks that resulted in “strangers to the transaction” being awarded title to property — that presents sufficient grounds to challenge any court in the system on grounds of bias and due process. If ever we had a mass hysteria for prejudging cases, this is it. 

Neil Garfield | October 4, 2013 at 9:26 am | Tags: bias, Mark Stopa, motion for rehearing en banc, recusal, removal of judge, standing | Categories: CORRUPTION, Eviction, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, politics, securities fraud, Servicer | URL: http://wp.me/p7SnH-5GX

From DeadlyClear’s Blog

http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/jpmorgan-chase-beaten-by-beaton-pro-se-hallelujah/

 

JPMorgan Chase Beaten by Beaton, Pro Se! Hallelujah!

Posted on March 29, 2013

beaten by a girlPro Se Plaintiff Deborah Beaton filed a Complaint against JPMorgan Chase wherein Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (“NWTS”) joined in a Motion to Dismiss with Chase. In her Second Amended Complaint (SAC), Beaton alleges three causes of action:

  • (1) Violation of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) against NWTS,
  • (2) Incomplete Indorsement/Chain of Title, and
  • (3) violations of the Washington Deed of Trust Act (“DTA”).

USDC Honorable Richard A. Jones gave Beaton her causes of action (1) and (2) against the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss… and the beat goes on!

slapIn their normal “too big to get slapped down” modus operandi, Northwest Trustee Services filed additional paperwork well beyond the local rule limits…probably thinking the Judge wouldn’t notice. However, Judge Jones noted in his Order (click for order),

“Allowing NWTS to join in Chase’s motion and provide additional briefing would result in a combined brief of 35 pages. This would violate this District’s Local Rules. NWTS did not file a separate motion or request leave to file an over-length brief, and the court will not treat NWTS’s joinder as a separate motion since it did not follow the requisite procedures regarding noting dates. Accordingly, the court has disregarded all argument beyond the 24-page limit of the opening brief (i.e., page 8 through 15 of NWTS’s motion), and beyond the 12-page limit of the reply (i.e., page 7 through 9).”

wamujpg-063393b01f591f63_largePer the Order, in August 2008, Beaton executed a promissory note for $271,950.00, payable to the order of Washington Mutual Bank, FA (“WaMu”), which was secured by a deed of trust. The deed of trust lists WaMu as “lender,” the lender as “beneficiary,” and Ticor Title Company as “trustee.” The Court also footnoted its Judicial Notice:

“The Court generally may not consider material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). However, where documents are referenced extensively in the complaint, form the basis of plaintiffs’ claim, or are subject to judicial notice, the Court may consider those documents in the context of a motion to dismiss. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2003). In its prior order, the court took judicial notice of the following exhibits attached to Exhibits 1 (Statutory Warranty Deed), 2 (Note), 3 (Deed of Trust), 5 (Sept. 25, 2008 agreement between FDIC and Chase), 6 (Appointment of Successor Trustee), 7 (Notice of Trustee Sale), 8 & 9 (various publicly recorded instruments/documents by Beaton) because they are publicly recorded documents not reasonably subject to dispute. Chase appears to rely on these same documents in its motion. Additionally, plaintiff incorporates by reference a “Notice of Default” in her SAC. NWTS has attached the Notice of Default as Exhibit 4, and plaintiff does not dispute its authenticity or accuracy. The court takes judicial notice of these documents. The court has disregarded plaintiff’s “Affidavit of Civil Rights Violations Committed” because it is not subject to judicial notice.”

FDCPA – Fair Debt Collection

excellent

Excellent work by a Pro Se. Although the Court footnoted that the “plaintiff does not dispute” theauthenticity or accuracy of the Notice of Default, clearly she did as in the Order later stated on page 3 where Judge Jones points out:

“Beaton alleges that WaMu may have transferred or negotiated the note prior to September 25, 2008, and that it remains undetermined if Chase is in fact the actual beneficiary. On November 14, 2010, NWTS, as Chase’s “duly authorized agent,” sent Beaton a “Notice of Default,” in which NWTS advised that if Beaton disputes the debt or any portion of the debt, it will request that the creditor obtain verification of the debt and mail it to her. Beaton alleges that by letter, she disputed the debt and requested validation, and that NWTS failed to comply with the FDCPA.

The Order continues, “[F]or a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).”

The Court then describes in detail the definition of a “debt collector”…

no-short-cuts“To the extent that Chase acquired Beaton’s loan in 2008 before she defaulted, it falls within the section 1692a(6)(F) exemption of “debt collector.” NWTS was appointed as successor trustee on November 29, 2010. However, Beaton had been in default since approximately July 1, 2010. Accordingly, NWTS does not fall within the same exemption. Beaton alleges that the identity of the “Note Bearer/Creditor remains unknown[,]” that it remains undetermined if Chase is the actual beneficiary pursuant to RCW 61.24.005(2), and that NWTS violated FDCPA and damaged the Plaintiff by foreclosing her property.

Liberally construed, the court finds that Beaton has plausibly alleged that NWTS attempted to collect on a debt that may not have been owed to Chase, which may have violated the FDCPA. See McDonald II, 2013 WL 858178 at *12 (“At the time [NWTS began the foreclosure process], NWTS had not been appointed successor trustee and was not acting on behalf of the entity that had actual physical possession of the note: it therefore lacked the right to effect dispossession of plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff has established that NWTS violated § 1692f(6)(A) of the FDCPA.”); Michelson v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, Case No. C11-1445MJP, 2012 WL 3240241, *5 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2012) (“NWTS and RCO may have violated the FDCPA because they did not yet have confirmation of Chase’s right to possess the property, and thus may have violated § 1692f(6)(A)”).

Accordingly, Beaton’s FDCPA claim may proceed against NWTS.

DTA (Deed of Trust Act)

the-law-office-sign“The DTA regulates mortgage transactions in which a lender issuing a promissory note or other debt instrument to a borrower can secure the debt via a deed of trust. Bain v. Metro. Mortgage Group, Inc., 285 P.3d 34, 38 (Wash. 2012). The borrower becomes the grantor of the deed of trust and the lender becomes the beneficiary of the deed of trust. Id. A trustee holds title to the property in trust for the lender. Id. If the borrower defaults on the loan, the trustee “may usually foreclose the deed of trust and sell the property without judicial supervision.” Id. Because the DTA “dispenses with many protections commonly enjoyed by borrowers under judicial foreclosures, lenders must strictly comply with the statutes and courts must strictly construe the statutes in the borrower’s favor.” Albice v. Premier Mortgage Servs., Inc., 276 P.3d 1277, 1281 (Wash. 2012).

Among the statutory protections requiring strict compliance are the “requisites to a trustee’s sale” enumerated at RCW § 61.24.030. Albice, 276 P.3d at 1281, 1282 (“Without statutory authority, any action taken is invalid.”); see also Schroeder v. Excelsior Mgmt. Group, LLC, No. 86433-1, 2013 WL 791863, *8 (Wash. Feb. 28, 2013). Trustees must also strictly comply with the sale procedures itemized at RCW § 61.24.040. Albice, 276 P.3d at 1282.

Beaton’s SAC places several DTA requirements at issue. Plaintiff alleges that Chase and NWTS materially violated the DTA by providing a defective beneficiary declaration, a defective notice of default, a defective notice of trustee’s sale, defective appointment of successor trustee, and a defective trustee’s deed. Plaintiff alleges that all of the “defects” are for the same reasons that the beneficiary declaration is defective.

The DTA requires the trustee to “have proof that the beneficiary is the owner of any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust.” RCW § 61.24.030(7)(a); see also Bain, 285 P.3d at 39 (citing trustee’s statutory obligation to obtain proof of beneficiary’s ownership of the note as element of its duty to the grantor of the deed of trust). Defendants complain that courts across the country, including federal courts in Washington, have rejected “show-me-the-note” arguments like Beaton’s. This court recently suggested that in the wake of Bain, it is time to retire the reductive “show-me-the-note” meme, at least in cases arising under Washington law. Knecht v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co., Case No. C12-1575RAJ. In Washington, proof that the beneficiary holds the note secured by a deed of trust is a statutory requisite to a trustee’s sale. RCW § 61.24.030(7)(a).” [DC Ed. “Should be that way in every state.”]

wow!“Defendants direct the court to a beneficiary declaration which provides: “JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank fka Washington Mutual Bank, FA is the actual holder of the promissory note or other obligation evidencing the above-referenced loan or has requisite authority under RCW 62A.3-301 to enforce said obligation.” Even if the declaration is properly subject to judicial notice, the Washington Supreme Court has made a clear pronouncement of strict compliance with statutory provisions of the DTA. According to the declaration, Chase could be a nonholder in possession or a person not in possession who is entitled to enforce the instrument (see RCW § 62A.3-301), neither of which is proof that “the beneficiary is the owner of any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust.” RCW § 61.24.030(7)(a).”

The Court clearly opines:
“If Chase was not the holder of the note, it did not have the authority to appoint NWTS as a successor trustee, and NWTS did not have authority to initiate foreclosure proceedings without knowledge of the beneficiary as required by RCW 61.24.030(7). This would result in a material violation of the DTA. Accordingly, Beaton has plausibly alleged a violation of the DTA that survives dismissal.

Let's go“IV. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Chase’s motion. The Clerk is ORDERED to enter an amended case schedule with a trial date of January 6, 2014.”   Let’s buy tickets! Thank you Shelley for the heads up.

page divider

Click here for How To Win in Court

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

JURISDICTIONARY

 Facing foreclosure? CLICK HERE.

Banner-(468-x-60)1