Mortgage Fraud IS LOOSING

Foreclosure Cases are WINNNING!!!
Guys you will need to sign up. But is free and easy. This site is showing the good guys are fighting back. … PASS THIS AROUND!!!
Search for These cases: 07CV2282, 07CV2532, 07CV2560, 07CV2602, 07CV2631, 07CV2638, 07CV2681, 07CV2695, 07CV2920, 07CV2930, 07CV2949, 07CV2950, 07CV3000, 07CV3029,
=================================================
On December 27, 2007,Federal Judge John D. HOLSCHUH, of the Southern District of Ohio (Eastern DIvision) Dismissed an Additional Fourteen Mortgage Foreclosures due to the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate requisite standing to bring the action in Federal COurt. Judge HOLSCHUH’s action followed earlier rulings in October and November by three other Ohio Federal Judges, who had dismissed at least sixty-six (66) cases without prejudice due to the failure of plainitffs to demonstrate that they owned the mortgages at the inception of the Federal Court foreclosure actions.
Judge HOLSCHUH’s dismissal order was a follow-up to a previous show cause order he enterred on November 27, 2007, ordering the plaintiff’s lawyer to file a memorandum of law showing cause while these cases should not be dismissed. Judge HOLSHUH’s earlier show cause order was reported within LEXIS-NEXIS at:
In re Foreclosure Cases, Case Nos. 07-cv-166, 07-cv-190, 07-cv-226, 07-cv-279, 07-cv-423, 07-cv-534, 07-cv-536, 07-cv-642, 07-cv-670, 07-cv-706, 07-cv-714, 07-cv-727, 07-cv-731, 07-cv-963, 07-cv-999, 07-cv-1047, 07-cv-1091, 07-cv-1119, 07-cv-1150, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90812, November 27, 2007, Decided, November 27, 2007, Filed. [Judge John D. HOLSCHUH]
The militancy of Ohio Federal COurts in demanding that plaintiff’s show minimal standing by demonstrating actual ownership of the mortgages they are seeking to foreclose was first shown by Judge Christopher A. BOYKO in an order handed down on October 31, 2007, dismissing fourteen cases where plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK had filed assignments showing that it acquired interest in the mortgages AFTER the commencement of the suit. On November 14, 2007, Judge Kathleen M. O’MALLEY, also like Judge BOYKO of the Northern District (Eastern Division), handed down an order dismissing thirty-two (32) additional cases. The very next day (November 15, 2007), Judge Thomas M. ROSE, of the Southern District (Western Division) dismissed an additional twenty (20) cases.
With Judge HOLSHUH’s ruling, the BOYKO rationale seems to have now been embraced by four federal judges from two districts and both the Eastern and Western Division of the Southern District.
ALL three previous Ohio decisions are shown in the Legal Lounge at http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/lounge.html . See particularly, Judge BOYKO’s original Order (See http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche%20Bank%20Foreclosures%20Dismissed.pdf ). Hopefully, the webmaster will ADD Judge HOLSCHUH’s well reasoned decision, as well.
Attorney Peter L. Mehler, of Reimer, Lorber & Arnovitz Co., L.P.A., asserts within his USFN (a network of foreclosure plaintiff attorneys) article “OH: Federal Court Dismisses FCs en Masse for Lack of Standing” ( http://www.usfn.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=8348&SECTION=Article_Library&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm ) that the BOYKO ruling has resulted in the dismissal of “well over 100 pending cases”. It is unclear what the basis is for this assertion, but it certainly SEEMS plausible. The three key orders cited above reflected bulk dismissals of cases brought by the SAME plaintiffs and seemingly the SAME attorney. It stands to reason that other dismissals of single cases wouldn’t have made the news. Moreover, it may very well be that plaintiffs realizing that they failed to meet the standing threashold may have taken a voluntary non-suit rather than incur the wrath of these Federal Judges and just await dismissal.
There ARE some published indications that at least Judge ROSE has enterred other orders to show cause since November 15, 2007:
HSBC Bank United States v. Rayford, Case No. 3:07-CV-428, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86215 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86214, November 21, 2007, Decided, November 21, 2007, Filed. [Judge Thomas M. ROSE]
NovaStar Mortg., Inc. v. Riley, Case No. 3:07-CV-397, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR , November 21, 2007, Decided, November 21, 2007, Filed. [Judge Thomas M. ROSE]
NovaStar Mortg. v. Grooms, Case No. 3:07-CV-395, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THETHE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86216, November 21, 2007, Decided, November 21, 2007, Filed. [Judge Thomas M. ROSE]
There is admittedly a bit of a LEXIS reporting lag, so there may be some other show cause orders or dismissals that just haven’t been yet reported.
Trying to identify ALL of the federal cases DISMISSED as a consequence of the standing issue is challenging without reference to the names or parties or the cause numbers. WITH such information, the dismissal orders would presumably all be avilable through PACER.
*
Judge ROSE’s bulk dismissal order has also been published through LEXIS-NEXIS:
In re Foreclosure Cases, CASE NO. 3:07CV043, 07CV049, 07CV085, 07CV138, 07CV237, 07CV240, 07CV246, 07CV248, 07CV257, 07CV286, 07CV304, 07CV312, 07CV317, 07CV343, 07CV353, 07CV360, 07CV386, 07CV389, 07CV390, 07CV433, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84569, November 15, 2007, Decided, November 15, 2007, Filed [Judge THomas M. ROSE]
Similarly, Judge BOYKO’s dismissal order is also available through LEXIS-NEXIS:
In re Foreclosure Cases, CASE NO. NO.1:07CV2282, 07CV2532, 07CV2560, 07CV2602, 07CV2631, 07CV2638, 07CV2681, 07CV2695, 07CV2920, 07CV2930, 07CV2949, 07CV2950, 07CV3000, 07CV3029, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84011, October 31, 2007, Decided, October 31, 2007, Filed. [Judge Christopher A. BOYKO]
*
Gretchen MORGENSON, of the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com), has reported the previous three Ohio federal court orders. Several Forum participants have cited Ms. MORGENSON’s articles in previous posts. The NY Times usually makes stories available online for FREE for thirty days. Thereafter, the stories are available in the fee-based Times Archive. Those not already familiar with this issue might want to review:
“Dubious Fees Hit Borrowers in Foreclosures”
By Gretchen MORGENSON
New York Times
November 6, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/06mortgage.html
“Foreclosures Hit a Snag for Lenders”
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
New York Times
November 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/business/15lend.html
“Judge Demands Documentation in Foreclosures”
By Gretchen MORGENSON
NY Times
Nov. 17, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/business/17lend.html
It is unclear whether a fourth federal judge embracing the BOYKO reasoning is still national news.
*
As is well known to regular participants of the MS Fraud Forum, these Ohio federal court decisions have been the subject of spirited discussion. Several of the more spirited discussion threads are shown below:
“Judge halts foreclosures” http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2348972
“Another 27 foreclosures tossed-Boyko ruling cited”
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2299367
“Ohio case might add to lender problems, Foreclosures blocked; ownership documents not produced in court”
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2297748
“Major win in Ohio proves Nye’s arguments and contentions were right on target”
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2288900
“The mess that Boyko made-a not so complimentary analysis” http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2321439
Bear in mind that this is NOT an exhaustive list of references to the BOYKO, ROSE and O’MALLEY Decisions. For a more comprehensive list of topical posts, use the MS Fraud Forum SEARCH facility with intuitive keywords like “BOYKO”, “O’MALLEY” and/or “ROSE”.
* * *
I am inclined to believe that the embrace of the BOYKO ruling by other federal judges reflects its likely durability and sustainability of that decision.
William A. Roper, Jr.
Posted 12/29/07 #2
I seem to be UNABLE to UPLOAD Judge John D. HOLSCHUH’s orders as these are Adobe Acrobat documents. If the webmaster contacts me, I will e-mail copies to post in the Legal Lounge.
In the interim, anyone desiring to have a copy of these orders should simply e-mail me.
Gary Wait
Posted 12/29/07 #3
The door is now being kicked wide open for the potential law suits against those that have already lost their home, or substantial amounts of money by lawyers working on the behalf of lenders that failed to do “Due Diligence” in researching their clients foreclosure!!
Secondly, Servicers that have not and could not, demonstrate their “Rights” under the mortgage or note contract to close could now see a flood of “Damage Claims” against them as well as their legal counsel’s.
When these courts find out that the very mortgages that were foreclosed upon are still being carried as “Performing Loans” as in the case’s of Litton Loan and CBASS who is going to go to jail for the “Frauds upon the Courts”? and Fraud against the damaged property owners?
I can tell you that time is on our side! As the more we learn of the Manufactured Foreclosure’s the deeper we will be able to go into corporations and their officers and directors. Many of you know I have said this several years ago, but with each passing day, more is learned of the network of property fraud.
These Courts have demonstrated their “Independence” by there brave decisions to go against the “Establishments” of the past that so many have come to expect as they proceeded into courts.
To those lawyers that drafted documents on behalf of their clients that were or are now in foreclosure a whole new area of legal malpractice, and negligence has been exposed. From the money laundering, etc.
A good new day is dawning! Happy New Year! 

Bank account login scams...

Watch out for these kind of scams. They want your account numbers and security login info... FYI: I don't have a Regions bank account. Request to Update Account
Dear Valued Member, During our usual security enhancement protocol, we observed multiple login attempt error while login in to your online banking account. We have believed that someone other than you is trying to access your account for security reasons, we have temporarily suspend your account and your access to online banking and will be restricted if you fail to update. To get started : > Log on to https://securebank.regions.com/login.aspx
Sincerely,
Regions Online Banking
Service email This is a service email from Regions Financial Corporation. Please note that you may receive service emails periodically, whether or not you have elected to receive promotional emails. Contacting Us Please do not reply to this email. If you have a question about your account, please log in to Regions Online Banking and send a secure message. Or, you may call us at 1-800-REGIONS (734-4667). Privacy and Security Regions values your privacy and security. To read our privacy and security policies please visit our website. Regions Bank 1900 5th Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203 © 2013 Regions Bank | Equal Housing Lender | Member FDIC | 1-800-REGIONS

HOME OWNERS SUE BANKS AND OFFSHORE HAVENS.

Home Owners Sue All Bank Servicers and Their Offshore Havens; US Attorneys General Jump On The Lieborgate Bandwagon; 900,000+ Lawsuits To Follow, And What Happens Next?

Date:


Fri, 13 Jul 2012 07:10:06 -0500

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/home-owners-across-the-nation-sue-all-bank-servicers-and-their-offshore-havens-spire-law-officially-announces-filing-of-landmark-lawsuit-2012-04-23

Home Owners Across the Nation Sue All Bank Servicers and Their Offshore   Havens; Spire Law Officially Announces Filing of Landmark Lawsuit


Largest International Money Laundering Network in History Formed During   Obama Administration; U.S. Banks' Theft of Home Owners' Money Laundered   Through Cayman Islands, Isle of Man and Numerous Offshore-Based Affiliates




NEW YORK, NY, Apr 23, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- In a lawsuit alleged   to involve the largest money laundering network in United States history,   Spire Law Group, LLP -- on behalf of home owners across the Country -- has   filed a mass tort action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Kings.   Home owners across the country have sued every major bank servicer and their   subsidiaries -- formed in countries known as havens for money laundering such   as the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, Luxembourg and Malaysia -- alleging   that while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan   modifications for home owners, it was privately ratifying the formation of   these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State   and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign   companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank,   Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole   hundreds of millions of dollars of home owners' money during the last decade   and then laundered it through offshore companies. The complaint, Index No.   500827, was filed by Spire Law Group, LLP, and several of the Firm's   affiliates and partners across the United States.


Far from being ambiguous, this is a complaint that "names names." Indeed,   the lawsuit identifies specific companies and the offshore countries used in   this enormous money laundering scheme. Federally Chartered Banks' theft of   money and their utilization of offshore tax haven subsidiaries represent   potential FDIC violations, violations of New York law, and countless other   legal wrongdoings under state and federal law.


"The laundering of trillions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money -- and the   wrongful taking of the homes of those taxpayers -- was known by the   Administration and expressly supported by it. Evidence uncovered by the   plaintiffs revealed that the Administration ignored its own agencies' reports   -- and reports from the Department of Homeland Security -- about this   situation, dating as far back as 2010. Worse, the Administration purported to   endorse a 'national bank settlement' without disclosing or having any public   discourse whatsoever about the thousands of foreign tax havens now wholly   owned by our nation's banks. Fortunately, no home owner is bound to enter into   this fraudulent bank settlement," stated Eric J. Wittenberg of Columbus, Ohio   -- a noted trial lawyer, author and student of US history -- on behalf of   plaintiffs in the case.


The suing home owners reveal how deeply they were defrauded by bank and   governmental corruption -- and are suing for conversion, larceny, fraud, and   for violations of other provisions of New York state law committed by these   financial institutions and their offshore counterparts.


This lawsuit explains why loans were, in general, rarely modified after   2009. It explains why the entire bank crisis worsened, crippling the economy   of the United States and stripping countless home owners of their piece of the   American dream. It is indeed a fact that the Administration has spent far more   money stopping bank investigations, than they have investigating them. When   the Administration's agencies (like the FDIC) blew the whistle, their reports   were ignored.


The case is styled Abeel v. Bank of America, etc., et al. -- and includes   such entities as ML Banderia Cayman BRL Inc., ML Whitby Luxembourg S.A.R.L.   and J.P Morgan Asset Management Luxembourg S.A. -- as well as hundreds of   other obscure offshore entities somehow "owned" by federally chartered banks   and formed "under the nose" of the Administration and the FDIC.


Commenting further on the case, Mr. Wittenberg stated: "As if it is not bad   enough that banks collect money and do not credit it to homeowners' accounts,   and as if it is not bad enough that those banks then foreclose when they know   they do not have a legally enforceable interest in the realty, we now learn   that they have been operating under unbridled free reign given by the   Administration and some states' Attorneys General in formulating this   international money laundering network. Now that the light of day has been   shined on it, I believe we can all rest assured that the beginning of the end   of the bank crisis has arrived."


All United States home owners may have the right to bring a lawsuit of this   kind if they paid money to a national bank servicer during the years 2003   through 2009.


One lawyer impacted by the corruption -- Mitchell J. Stein, who formerly   represented the FDIC, the RTC and the FSLIC during the Savings and Loan   scandal of the 1990s, and who predicted all of the foregoing in open court two   years ago -- commented: "Two years ago, I remarked in open court to a Los   Angeles Superior Court Judge, as well as to legislators including Senator   Dianne Feinstein's office during a multitude of in-person meetings, that the   ongoing violations of the Patriot Act by these financial institutions was   outrageous and a breach of the public trust of unprecedented proportions,"   said Stein.


"The size and scope of this misconduct -- stretching to far-away islands   never before having standing as approved United States Bank affiliates -- is   remarkable and emblematic of what we have seen," he continued. "The bank   crisis represents the height of corruption and brazen behavior where our   historically trusted financial institutions have no qualms about breaking the   law, because they have the Administration behind them. Banks do well enough   when they operate lawfully without needing to be permitted to operate as   criminal enterprises that steal money from United States citizens."


Additional plaintiffs' counsel Nicholas M. Moccia commented: "Having been   in the trenches of the bank crisis for years, I always knew that the   misconduct was being conducted by a network. When I started litigating against   banks, however, I could have never imagined that it would be this extensive. I   look forward to taking discovery of these thousands of obscure foreign   entities and to obtaining for homeowners their constitutionally entitled   injuries for this international ring of theft and deception."


Comments were requested from the Attorney Generals' offices in NY, CA, NV,   and MA and the White House, but no comment was provided.


About Spire Law Group


Spire Law Group, LLP is a national law firm whose motto is "the public   should be protected -- at all costs -- from corruption in whatever form it   presents itself." The Firm is comprised of lawyers nationally with more than   250-years of experience in a span of matters ranging from representing large   corporations and wealthy individuals, to also representing the masses. The   Firm is at the front lines litigating against government officials, banks,   defunct loan pools, and now the very offshore entities where the corruption   was enabled and perpetrated.

        
        Contact: 
        James N. Fiedler, Esq. 
        Managing Partner 



[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-attorneys-general-jump-lieborgate-bandwagon-900000-lawsuits-follow


US Attorneys General Jump On The Lieborgate Bandwagon;   900,000+ Lawsuits To Follow, And What Happens Next?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on   07/11/2012 21:00 -0400


The   second Barclays announced its $450 million Libor settlement, it was all over -   the lawyers smelled not only blood, but what may be the biggest plaintiff   feeding frenzy of all time. Which is why it was only a matter of time:   "State attorneys general are jumping into the widening scandal over   whether banks tried to manipulate benchmark international lending rates, a   move that could open a new front against the top global banks. A   handful of state attorneys general said they are looking into whether they   have jurisdiction over the banks, and are starting preliminary discussions to   determine what kind of impact the conduct involving the Libor rate may have   had in their states."


From   Reuters:



"Our     office is aware of the allegations around the manipulation of the Libor, and     we are working with other state agencies to determine whether Massachusetts     has suffered any losses as a result," a spokesman for Massachusetts Attorney     General Martha Coakley said. A spokesman for Florida Attorney General Pam     Bondi said his office is aware of the recent settlement reached by British     bank Barclays with U.S. and UK authorities and "will look at the case to the     extent that our office might have any jurisdiction in the matter."





A     spokeswoman for the Massachusetts transportation authority, MassDOT, said     the agency "is actively investigating its portfolio for the purpose of     determining if it was underpaid on its bonds due to the brewing Libor     situation," as are many other issuers of debt whose rate is governed by     Libor.





Lawyers     for several states have had early discussions about whether they might pool     investigative resources and launch a broader, multi-state effort, but no     formal consortium has been established yet, people familiar with the     discussions said. New York might be expected to lead such an effort, since     most of the banks' U.S. operations are based there. A spokesman for the New     York attorney general declined comment on whether the issue is being looked     at.





Some     municipalities, including the city of Baltimore, and funds including the     Frankfurt-based Metzler Investment GmbH, which manages 47 billion euros ($59     billion) in assets, have already sued more than a dozen banks, arguing they     were bilked of potentially billions of dollars.


How   many potential lawsuits are we talking about here? Quite a bit in fact as the   FT   explains:



There     are at least 900,000 outstanding US home loans indexed to Libor that were     originated from 2005 to 2009, the period the key lending gauge may     have been rigged, investigators have said. Those mortgages carry an     unpaid principal balance of $275bn, according to the Office of the     Comptroller of the Currency, a bank regulator.


Also,   as explained here before, not only is this a legal bonanza, but it will be a   political feast for the Congressional circus to earn numerous C-SPAN brownie   points.



“I     think the US government should be just as aggressive in getting to the     bottom of this scandal as the United Kingdom has been,” said Senator Sherrod     Brown, chair of the bank regulatory subcommittee on the Senate banking     committee. 


“This     was not isolated to London, but affected tens of millions of investors,     borrowers and taxpayers in our country as well,” Mr Brown   added.


What   does the above mean?


1)   Starting today and going forward, there will be numerous essays, "analyses"   and white papers, all of which will try to estimate (some on a paid basis) the   damages and impact of the Libor manipulation that took place at least in the   period under discussion 2005-2009. All of these will be absolutely   wrong, as nobody has any clear idea of how the   cumulative impact of the Libor rate, which may have been pushed below either   lower or higher depending on how it suited a given BBA-member bank, over a   period of years will have impacted hundreds of trillions in partially   offsetting notional securities. Therefore, while one day it may have led to   impairments, another day it would benefit the end-holder of a given   interest-rate sensitive product. But they will try. And the bigger the number,   the better, which leads us to...


2)   The lawyers will crawl out of the woodwork like worms after a torrential   downpour, and will all be willing to work on contingency, telling potential   clients they are owed thousands, nay, millions based on such and such   analysis. All they need is to have held a mortgage, or a credit card, or any   variable interest liability in the 4 years in question. And to sign the dotted   line.


3)   The resulting lawsuits, most of which in class action format, will be of   gargantuan proportions, simply to encourage settlement, as ongoing litigation   will easily destroy the financial system. The litigation reserves at the TBTF   banks will explode and will cause years of EPS writedowns. But at least they   will be one-time charges, so the stocks don't get crushed too much.   That said, forget any growth out of the banking sector, and certainly the 16   BBA member banks, all of whom are about to be sued to smithereens in civil   suits as more and more banks step up and settle to avoid criminal   prosecution.


4)   The biggest irony is that the torrent of upcoming suits will be in effect   targeting none other than the Fed. Because while banks which all were   massively levered to even a one basis point move in Libor were very sensitive   to the smallest variations in 3 month USD libor, end-clients who did not have   this leverage were far less impaired. But that doesn't matter: after all the   same clients were impaired through gross borderline criminal negligence which   is all that matters in a court of law (assuming the honorable judge John   Roberts is not presiding pro hac vice). Thus the entity that will be sued by   proxy is the Federal Reserve, whose Federal Funds rate is really the setter   for the baseline Libor rate. Note the chart below which shows that over the   past decade, the 3M USD Libor and the Fed Funds rate were virtually   interchangeable:


Yet   while it was the Fed's decisions at the bottom of it all, unless someone   implicates the Fed or the BOE further, both will get away scott free: after   all what they do is public policy, for the public good and to defend their   various appointed mandates. And neither pushed banks to manipulate their rates   (even if both were well aware there was gambling going on here), or so they   claim, even when presented with evidence to the contrary.


What   will really happen, is that the private banks, having been bailed out by the   central banks at the taxpayers' dime, will now serve as a buffer to protect   these same institutions from rising popular anger, not just at Lieborgate, but   Robosigning, Robosettlement, CDOs, rehypothecation, High Frequency Trading,   toxic assets marked-to-unicorns, the end of Mark-to-Market, ZIRP, NIRP, expert   networks, insider trading, MF Global, and countless other examples of what   happens when financial fraud is let loose with no fear of consequence in a   Bernanke Put world.


As   a result, the status quo will literally buy itself a few more years as it   delays the tipping point by any means necessary, in the process kicking back a   little to politicians, lawyers, and the general public in exchange for a few   years of subpar earnings for bank shareholders that should have been wiped out   back in 2008 anyway. And everyone will be happy.


That's   how Lieborgate will play   out.

Average:  4.916665

How bankers get you with a home loan.

Subject: FW: Your House Loan in a Nutshell.


At your convenience, please read the article for an accurate accounting of what a home loan is and how it may differ considerably from your presumptions of the way banking and lending are routinely conducted.  Your realtor and your banker may never be the same after digesting the process that is taken for granted because it's too complicated or too hard to understand.  Here, the attorney's court transcript clearly outlines the fraud, and there is no statute of limitations for fraud!


"Fraud vitiates the most solemn of contracts ab initio"


David
Readers,


It's all in National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly case.  It's still on Internet.  Let me share with you a banking experience that stunned me about six years ago.  I went into Umpqua Bank in Medford, Oregon to cash my compensation check.  It was on a Saturday, very laid back day; and the male teller who usually waited on me recognized me and said that he would help me in a center-of-the-room station.  So, we met there.  I handed him my $1000.00 check to cash and he began writing his part of the transaction.  As he was writing, he was summoned to an emergency phone call.  I told him to take it, I wasn't in a hurry.  Just accommodating those who would serve me without question.  He was gone it seemed like forever.  Only one other busy woman in the bank.  I leaned over the counter just stretching in boredom and happened to see the banking deposit slip he was making out and it said, $60,000.00?  I was stunned in suspicion?  I thought he was going to give me 60K.  Feeling like a bank robber, I just kept my mouth shut when he returned and he finished writing and the slip was out far enough that I saw what he was writing: He then put down $1000.00 withdrawal from the 60K?  He signed it and handed me $1000.00?








So, what happened in essence is this: somewhere there's an account or many accounts up in my name, social security number, corporate USA account, or maybe all of the named and more set up in my name; and Umpqua Bank, for its services, withdrew/deposited 60K in their bank for the transaction and gave me $1000.00 of the transaction? 








Perhaps someone with 'banking' transaction knowledge can share with us and let us know just what took place!  I'm very interested in that!








Thank you,


~Eagleinflight             
Very interesting article.


YOUR HOUSE LOAN IN A NUT SHELL     !!!!!!!!


Banking FRAUD In America ADMITTED IN COURT Date: Tue, 24 Jan     2012 16:15:28 +0000


Banking in America


This is an       actual court transcript - an interview with a banker, who is under oath,       about a foreclosure. The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn       in. The plaintiff's (borrower's) attorney asked the banker the routine       questions concerning the banker's education and background. Then this       conversation followed:


The attorney asked the banker,       "What is court exhibit A?"


The banker responded by saying,       "This is a promissory note."


The attorney then asked, "Is       there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the       defendant?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Do you       believe the agreement includes a lender and a       borrower?"


The banker responded by saying,       "Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower."


The attorney asked, "What do       you believe the agreement is?"


The banker quickly responded,       saying, " We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a       check."


The attorney asked, "Does this       agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or       money within the agreement?"


The banker responded by saying,       "Sure it does."


The attorney asked, `"According       to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written       agreement?"


The banker responded by saying,       "The lender loaned the borrower a $50,000 check. The borrower got the       money and the house and has not repaid the money."


The attorney       noted that the banker never said that the bank received the promissory       note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. He asked,       "Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand       this written agreement?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Do you       believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the       right to enforce payment from the borrower?"


The banker said, "Absolutely we       own it and legally have the right to collect the       money."


The attorney asked, "Does the       $50,000 note have actual cash value of $50,000? Actual cash value means       the promissory note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the ordinary course of       business."


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "According       to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value       must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally       fulfill the agreement and legally own the promissory       note?"


The banker said,       "$50,000."


The attorney asked, "According       to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank       refuses to loan the borrower $50,000 actual cash value, would the bank or       borrower own the promissory note?"


The banker said,       "The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the       money. The bank gave the borrower a check and that is how       the borrower financed the purchase of the house."


The attorney asked, "Do you       believe that the borrower agreed to provide       the bank with $50,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the       $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay       the bank back $50,000 plus interest?"


The banker said,       "No. If the borrower provided the $50,000 to fund the check,       there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge       interest on money it never loaned."


The attorney asked, "If this       happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note       and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal       payments?"


The banker said, "I am not a       lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions."

The attorney asked, "Is it bank policy that when a borrower       receives a $50,000 bank loan, the bank receives $50,000 actual cash value       from the borrower, that this gives value to a $50,000 bank loan check, and       this check is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower       must repay?"


The banker said, "I do not know       the bookkeeping entries." 


The attorney said, "I am asking       you if this is the policy."


The banker responded, "I do not       recall."


The attorneyagain asked, "Do you       believe the agreement between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith       provides the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which is used to fund       a $50,000 bank loan check back to himself which he is then required to       repay plus interest back to the same       bank?"


The banker said, " I am not a       lawyer."


The attorney said, "Did you not       say earlier that an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand       this written agreement?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney handed the bank       loan agreement marked "Exhibit B" to the banker. He said, "Is there       anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing       where the borrower gave the bank authorization or permission for the bank       to receive $50,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the       $50,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $50,000       plus interest?"


The banker said,       "No."


The lawyer asked, "If the borrower provided the bank with actual       cash value of $50,000 which the bank used to fund the $50,000 check and       returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in       your opinion, did the bank loan $50,000 to the       borrower?"


The banker said,       "No."


The attorney asked, "If a bank customer provides actual cash value       of $50,000 to the bank and the bank returns $50,000 actual cash value back       to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $50,000 for       $50,000."


The banker replied,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Did the       agreement call for an exchange of $50,000 swapped for $50,000, or did it       call for a $50,000 loan?"


The banker said, "A $50,000       loan."


The attorney asked, "Is the       bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks       grant loans."


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "What are       the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the       Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?" The attorney handed the       banker FED publicationModern Money Mechanics, marked "Exhibit       C".


The banker said, "The promissory note is       recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is       created. Then we issue a check from the new deposit back to the       borrower."


The attorney asked, "Is this       not a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000?"


The banker said, "This is the       standard way to do it."


The attorney said, "Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange       of $50,000 actual cash value for $50,000 actual cash value? If the note       funded the check, must they not both have equal       value?"


The banker then pleaded the Fifth       Amendment.


The attorney asked, "If the       bank's deposits (liabilities) increase, do the bank's assets increase by       an asset that has actual cash value?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Is there       any exception?"


The banker said, "Not that I       know of."


The attorney asked, "If the       bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank's books having       actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer       of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?"


The banker thought for a moment       and said, "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Is it the       bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new       liability?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney said, "Does the       promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank       loan check?"


The banker said       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Does this bookkeeping       entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank       loan check?"


The banker said, "Yes, the bank president told us to do       it this way." 


The attorney asked, "How much       actual cash value did the bank       loan to obtain the promissory       note?"


The banker said,       "Nothing."


The attorney asked, "How much actual cash value did the bank receive       from the borrower?"


The banker said,       "$50,000."


The attorney said, "Is it true       you received $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly       payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or       other depositors' money to obtain the promissory note in the first       place? Is it true that the borrower financed the       whole transaction?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Are you       telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $50,000 actual cash value       for free and that the banker returned the actual cash value back to the       same person as a bank loan?"


The banker said, "I was not       there when the borrower agreed to the loan."


The attorney asked, "Do the standard FED publications show the       bank receives actual cash value from the borrower for free and that the       bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank       loan?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney said, "Do you       believe the bank does this without the borrower's knowledge or written       permission or authorization?" 


The banker said,       "No."


The attorney asked, "To the       best of your knowledge, is there written       permission or authorization for the bank to transfer $50,000 of actual       cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for       free?


The banker said,       "No."


"Does the creation of the new       note payable (now a bank asset) allow the bank to use this $50,000 actual       cash value to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower,       forcing the borrower to pay the bank $50,000 plus interest?       "


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney said, "If the bank       transferred $50,000 actual cash value (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes Payable)       from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the       bank loan anything of value to the borrower?"


The banker said, "No." He knew       that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash,       check, or promissory note) to fund a check.


The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to first transfer the       actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount       of the alleged loan?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The       attorney asked, "Does the bank pay IRS tax on the actual cash value       transferred from the alleged borrower to the       bank?"


The banker answered, "No, because the       actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to       the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not       taxable."


The attorney asked, "If a loan       is forgiven, is it taxable?"


The banker agreed by saying,       "Yes."


The       attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value       that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a       loan from the bank to the alleged       borrower?"


"Yes", the banker replied.       


The attorney said, "You never       pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower       and keep as the bank's property?"


"No. No tax is paid." said the       crying banker.


The attorney asked, "When the       lender receives the actual cash value (the promissory note) from the       alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is       the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent       of legal tender or other depositors' money?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Are you       telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note       (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors' money or       legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds       deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from       the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same       person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to       obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this       right? I give you the equivalent of $50,000, you return the funds back to       me, and I have to repay you $50,000 plus       interest? Do you think I am       stupid?"


In a       shaking voice the banker cried, saying, "All the banks are doing this.       Congress allows this."


The attorney quickly responded,       "Does Congress allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false and       misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorization, and       without the alleged borrower's knowledge to transfer actual cash value       from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a       loan?"


The banker said, "But the       borrower got a check and the house."


The attorney said, "Is it true or false that the actual cash value       that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower       and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for       free?"


"It is true", said the       banker.


The attorney asked, "Is it the       bank's policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to       the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank's property, which they       loan out as bank loans?"


The banker, showing tears of       regret that he had been caught, confessed, "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Was it the       bank's intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return       the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan?"


The banker said, "Yes." He knew       he had to say yes because of the bank policy.


The attorney asked, "Do you       believe that it was the borrower's intent to fund his own bank loan       check?"


The banker answered, "I was not       there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower's       mind."


The attorney asked, "If a       lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the       money, do you believe the lender is damaged?"


The banker thought. If he said       no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said       yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank       of which the bank never repaid. The banker answered, "If a loan is not       repaid, the lender is damaged."


The attorney asked, "Is it the       bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund       the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the       borrower?"


The banker said, "The bank       returns the funds."


The attorney asked, "Was the       actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as       a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to       the borrower?"


The banker said, "As a       loan."


The attorney asked, "How did       the bank get the borrower's money for free?"


The banker said, "That is how       it works."Regards,


Bollingbrooke Institute


Website http://www.bollingbrookeinstitute.org
Email:       info@bollingbrookeinstitute.org