Open Letter to Sheila C. Bair of the FDIC from Lynn Szymoniak (60 Minutes) RE Compensation for Foreclosure Fraud

Not quite sure if anyone that was a victim of foreclosure fraud would ever want to own a home again, but for the ones that would, this is a pretty decent proposal…


 April 16, 2011

Sheila C. Bair, Chairwoman, FDIC
550 17th Street, NW, Room 6028
Washington, D.C. 20429

Re: Fixed-Rate, Low-Rate Mortgages As An Element of  Compensation for Foreclosure Fraud

Dear Chairwoman Bair:

I write to you regarding fraud by banks in foreclosures.  I previously wrote to you in January, 2010, regarding massive foreclosure fraud.

I am the woman who was featured on the 60 Minutes segment on April 3, 2011 on foreclosure fraud. That segment brought the wrath of Deutsche Bank and American Home Mortgage Servicing down upon me, but I have no regrets. You were also interviewed by Scott Pelley in this segment.

One proposal you recommend for holding the banks accountable for frauds and abuses in foreclosures is to create a fund to make reparations to victims.   I support such a fund. An inquiry into whether the victims have been compensated is a traditional part of white collar criminal law.  Such compensation is not made, of course, in place of criminal sanctions, but as an important part of such sanctions.

The fraud is so pervasive that twenty or thirty billion dollars will not begin to compensate the victims, and the banks certainly know this, even as they are setting aside as little as one to two billion for such relief.

I am writing to suggest to you that real compensation will include the opportunity for victims to have another mortgage.

Many victims of foreclosure fraud have been left with ruined finances, no credit and deficiency judgments.  A one-time cash payout will not repair this damage.

The banks need to be required to offer victims of foreclosure fraud  fixed rate, low-rate (3%  – 4%) traditional 30-year mortgages, with a 5% down payment.

Such relief should be offered in every case where the lenders have filed forged and fabricated documents in official county records and court cases.

This relief should also be offered wherever a mortgage payment was incorrectly “adjusted” by mortgage servicers, including the tens of thousands of cases where the servicers attempted to justify their actions as a permitted increase in the escrow fund for taxes or insurance.

Such relief should also be offered wherever banks foreclosed while telling homeowners they were considering their eligibility for HAMP.

Such relief should also be offered wherever banks “lost” the homeowners’ HAMP applications and supporting documents three or more times.

Many victims of foreclosure fraud sold their homes, often at a loss, to avoid foreclosure.  These victims also need to be compensated. These homeowners were very regularly told that mortgage-backed trusts owned their mortgages and would foreclose, even as the bank trustees knew that the documents demonstrating such ownership, the properly endorsed notes and assigned mortgages, were never held by the trusts.

Not every victim would choose another mortgage because many individuals will never trust another bank. There will, however, be tens of thousands of victims who are willing to become homeowners again.

Communities with a 40% rate of abandoned, vacant homes would benefit from such relief.  County and state budgets would also benefit.

Please consider mortgage availability as an integral part of any plan to compensate victims of foreclosure fraud.

Please call upon me if I can be of assistance.

Yours truly,

Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq. (



Letter to FDIC

104 Responses to “Open Letter to Sheila C. Bair of the FDIC from Lynn Szymoniak (60 Minutes) RE Compensation for Foreclosure Fraud”
  1. richard@lattitude30N says:

    Dear Linda: I think your letter was a brilliant attempt to recover lost funds..BUT..I truly believe you are shooting too low.Late last year I heard a broadcast of the Florida Freedom Forum on UF public radio FM 89.1 and at that meeting a UF Law School Professor Emeritus Fletcher Baldwin received a Lifetime Achievement Award.Ironically Wachovia/Wells Fargo Bank had been convicted that day of money laundering $376 billion in Mexican drug cartel money( the subsequent fine was $110 million )…no one was imprisoned nor personally sentenced. He stated, that on the FDIC books is a rule that requires the FDIC to rescind the charter of any bank who is found in a court of law to have been convicted of a felony!!!!!!! A little research is needed and Prof. Baldwin has so far refused to reply to my email on this subject. Imprison of a felony ( sentence of 5 years and a fine of <5 years) is imposed when someone is a ware that a felony is committed and does not inform authorities…best of all Clouded Title by David Krieger..regards, R

  2. marilyn lane says:

    I pressed in Community Federal s & L v Fields so many citations there and one leads to another citation to another citation etc etc Ivent or John or Tim has to read this

    I am not an attorney but from what I gather a note, a mortage ., anything entered into by a bank prohibited by the Constitution is illegal.

    …a have a notation on a citation of a case I looked at when I was in Federal Court case here
    .. a bank can lend it money, but not its credit
    First National Bank of Tallalpoosa V Monroe

    I was reading reading reading all night my mind is tired.

  3. marilyn lane says:

    to I vent and John McCormick

    I found some good info about what I vent is talking about

    A Bank cannot lend its credit but can only lend their Money and all Loans of credit are Ultra Vires.

    …Act is ultra vires when corporation is without authority to perform it under any circumstances or for any purpose.
    By doctrine of ultra vires a contract made by corporation beyond the scope if its corporate powers is unlawful
    Community Fed S & L., v Field 126 F 2nd 705

    …when a contract is once declared ultra vires the fact that it is executed does not validate it, nor can it be ratified, so as to make it the basis of suit or action, nor does the doctrine of estoppel apply
    F & PR Richmond 133 Se 888: 144 SE 501 151 Va 195

    • Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty - Foe of Tyranny says:


      Ultra vires is an interesting doctrine. Do the cases you’ve cited speak directly to the lending of credit by banks being ultra vires, or are you extending that doctrine to the practice of banks yourself?

    • marilyn lane says:

      To Stupendous

      From the Title of the case it looks like a bank case

      Community Federal Savings & Loan v. Field

      and on the other I don’t know what F & PR Richmond

  4. marilyn lane says:

    to Stupendous man, John McCormick and I vent

    Any judge with all his marbles knows that Shay’s Rebellion is the incident that gave birth to our Constitution. History is repeating itself and the Constitution was written prepared for that.

    In 1997 when the bank hid four of my checks and the State Court refused to acknowledge that, I filed a Secus Federal Petition upon Federal Question to rule on:
    1.Can a bank create their own money in direct prohibition to Art 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of the Constitution?
    2.Can a bank ignore the Federal mandated 30 day Notice?

    The Hon. Louis L Stannton read my Petition, accepted it for filing and when Judge Stanton sent me to the Federal Clerk to pay my fee and get a docket number I demanded a jury trial.

    Shortly thereafter, Judge Stanton wrote his first orders and made a directive that I make a written demand upon the bank for a money settlement. I did that.

    The attorneys for the bank stalled. They were in a panic. She wants a free house and money too!!!

    I was only in Federal Court for three months when Judge Stanton abruptly remanded the case back to State Court. There is no way that Judge Stanton understood my Petition when he accepted it and un-understood it when he remands it. Judge Stanton did not lose his marbles in three months. It was politics.

    When you demand a jury trial it is the jury that has to agree, disagree, dismiss or remand to state court, not
    the judge.

    That is what you are up against not the law. The law is one your side It’s the politics.

    The very heart of what the Constitution was written to prevent – …no state shall coin money, nor emit bills of credit… is what is over taking the Constitution.

    If our own Judges make war with the Constitution our country is in a downward spiral. But I believe the Judges if they haven’t, are starting to see what is happening to our country, when this fake money issued have invaded their pensions. There is nothing like something hitting home that makes someone pay attention.

    As for I vent, it is easier to read and get the message when it is written in lower case and not caps but

    • Marilyn,
      I am indeed, in agreement ,with you that the courts are not on the level, and they do not act for the people. My case lasted several months before some law student (can’t believe that it could be the judge) wrote an order that did not address the question but lent credence to a position that was invented for me by opposing council. My choice not to appeal was based upon economic necessity rather than abdication of position.
      I still cannot see how a sanction against a state(art one sec ten) can be interpreted to include a private citizen or banking institution. (invention of money) However, I am so glad that you brought up that section of the constitution. It goes on to say that a state cannot allow any other medium save gold or silver to serve as payment of debt. “make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;”. It seems to follow that if I owe the bank an amount tallied in FED reserve notes, I could not repay but for gold or silver. At what exchange rate? If it is illegal for me to repay debt with debt instruments, then is there is no practical way to repay? So glad that you brought this up!

      BTW Shays is a great cause to bring up in relation to our present situation. It was also a reaction to thieving European bankers!

      • marilyn lane says:

        Not being an attorney I did research my own way which included looking up the meaning of every single word in a court rule to make sure I got it right. So I accumulated alot of information in my head that had nothing to do with my case. If my memory serves me right I remember the issue of
        “fraud against the court” where if an officier of the court (a judge, a law clerk etc ) committed fraud there was no latches to that case and so no statute of limitations. I have to find out where in ;my head I have that information.

        Meanwhile about settlement, : I think if someone is not your agent they are not allowed to settle for “you” they have no standing.”

        Rosa Park started a movement all by herself. I think I vent has already started a movement. He is our Paul Rivere i always thought that I vent was a girl. Either way I vent is telling us how we are getting ambushed. Now that we are all starting to see the bigger picture we have to get more organized.

  5. marilyn lane says:

    to John McCormick

    go get some of that Mickey mouse money different states are making and try to pay your bank back and see what happens?

    • Marilyn,
      You are entirely correct that the bank does not have to accept other, alternative script. The question had to do with the legality of bank “invented money” and its relative legality. For a bank to give you or anyone else credit is not the same as acting “Ultra Vires” or in common English, “beyond their authority.
      You may be surprised to learn that they are not required to accept FED printed “legal tender” in all situations either” Justice Marshall was entirely correct in his faith in the doctrine. However, there are many other factors here. If one finds that either the USC or CFR prohibits certain acts by the bank or, that the charter for the bank is not being adhered to, or that the bank is afoul of some other regulation, then we may have a case of “ultra Vires” Other than a non applicable quote form the Constitution, you stated no specific law or regulation that we could base an argument upon. I personally like the the thought that they may be acting beyond their authority, but would like to hear more specifics and learn another effective position to hold. Thanks for starting the thread!

  6. marilyn lane says:

    Stupendous man

    Article 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of our Constitiution again.
    …no State shall coin money, nor emit bills of credit…

    Do you know what that means?

    A bank cannot lend its credit but can only lend their money and all loans of credit are “Ultra Vires”

    Justice Marshall wrote, the doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporation within legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of th
    eir corporate charter, and it probably is not invoked too often. Zinc, Carbonate Co.V First National Bank , American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank

    Art i Para 10 Cl 1 has never been taken out of our Constitution. So what is the difference how old it is?

    If there ever was a time our Constitution should be adhered to it is Now in times of uncertainty. This mortgage and financial mess has been brought on by Banks lending their credit. Its time for every Judge in every State to pay attention to Article 1 Para 10 Cl.1

    counterfeit money passes as good till someone discovers that it is counterfeit.

    • Doesn’t the constitution speak for itself? The prohibition is against the ( STATES )(“coining”) money. The STATES are, in fact, free to print any medium of exchange that they see fit, as are private parties. Are we forgetting the “green stamps” and other promotional scripts? A simple search of the net will reveal a half dozen alternate currencies in use today in the United States.
      Check out=

      • marilyn lane says:

        Since the States do not have the Right to coin money, emit bills of credit … the corporations under them do not have it .

        What law has given these banks the right to use their credit as LAWFUL money. None. Congress never gave them the right . The banks are collecting interest on money that doesn’t exist.
        What the banks are doing is unlawful.

        If on one day all the people who are given checks by the bank, went to the banks that day to redeem them, the bank would have to shut its doors.

        Those mickey mouse monies you tallk about is not lawful money. Any anyone who collects interest on fake money or credit is guilty of usury.

    • Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty - Foe of Tyranny says:

      Yes, I know what that means.

      I have a copy of my state, and our federal, constitutions nearby. Less than arms length away actually. I refer to them frequently. I order ten (10) copies every month from my local legislative research commission and they fill my order for free. I then pass them out to ANYONE that is willing to accept them. I have raised the “constitutional consciousness” in my rural county. How much is debatable, but at least folks are provided an easy opportunity to read these seminal documents and begin to gain an understanding of them. There are at least a few that have become quite interested in applying the constitution/s, the authorities granted by them, as well as the limits and disabilities imposed by them, in the present context. Rather eye opening for them.

      I am well acquainted with Article 1, Section 10. I’m also acquainted with Article 1, Section 8 (they dovetail together nicely). Additionally I’ve done significant reading and study of our monetary system, both current and historical, for the past ten (10) years. While I’m far from being a constitutional, or monetary, scholar I am a devoted student. My grasp of our monetary system exceeds that of most people.

      Still I would not go into court basing ANY of my arguments on what I know of our monetary system. Other than the decision mentioned previously in this thread, the Scott County MN case of First National Bank of Montgomery v Daly, from December of 1968, I am not aware of even one other recent case in which the “vapor money theory” has been argued successfully. I have no interest in putting forth an argument which practically guarantees I will have my hat handed to me. ALL of my chips are in this hand and winning is my most important goal (though not the only one I have). I am interested in putting forth arguments the court will hear, and arguments I can prove. Frequently you must have the former before you’re afforded an opportunity at the latter.

      The California Fed. Dist. Court I provided yesterday summed up quite well the courts current views on this. Did you read that case? Did you note how many recent and similar cases were cited within that case? Did you note the completely unambiguous language the court used to express its opinion?

      At this point it has taken me 3.5 years of very hard work to have the erroneous lower court decision of 2008 that granted summary judgment to plaintiff overturned on appeal. I expect to be litigating several more years. I DO have some solid arguments, and intend to press them. These are arguments the court WILL hear, and that I believe I can prove to the satisfaction of a jury of my peers. While this is an emerging area of the law, and I am willing to incorporate newer successful arguments as they emerge (if they fit the circumstances of my case), I am also clear that as a pro se litigant I have significant enough hurdles in the courtroom without putting forth arguments the court will not hear at all.

      If someone were to step forward and make an articulate argument in regard to our monetary system, and actually win the case in a superior court, I’d be the first to congratulate them. I might also be the first to follow them. But that isn’t a trail I am willing to blaze. I feel being the “lone voice in the wilderness” in foreclosure defense in my state is already enough of a burden for me to carry.

      The only person I can think of that MIGHT be able to argue and win on this issue is Ed Vieira. If you haven’t already seen or read any of his book “Pieces of Eight” I highly recommend it. It is out of print but there are used copies available. Kind of pricey though. The last time I looked, about a month ago, the least expensive copy I found was $350.00. I wonder if they would accept silver coin?

  7. MARIO KENNY says:

    I was logged into my lawyers account by mistake, sorry.

  8. I am a homeowner, I live in Miami and my case was dismissed, I fought for 4 long yrs, I bled on the battlefield with people like Lynn and many people like her. I do not fight my fellow fighters, they are on my side. I save my fights for the Plaintiff, where were you people when people like Lynn needed help and support? where were you all just 6 months ago? I won my house and I still suffer from the stress that has destroyed many good people. I am still fighting and providing support to people who need support. I met Lynn once and spoke to her twice on the phone, she has worked very hard to help herself and many people and she has a long way to go still, so I think I need to help her and many like her, as their loss is my loss and their gain is my gain, the more fighters I help, the better protected I would become. People lost their homes because they did not have good fortune and were not correct in their strategy, its not my doing, I supported my lawyers and helped them all I could, its the house stupid

  9. I don’t see any efficacy in the firefight (old tech term), but have to agree that I am suspicious. Why come to terms with an enemy who has laid waste to most of the known world?
    Wall Street is celebrating it’s victory in the US the same way they did after laying waste to the peso and plundering Mexico in the 90’s.
    Folks! There are 500+ Trillion (with a T) worth of derivatives out there in a world whose total assets are +-100- trillion. They are a weapon used to plunder at will.
    Again Please read the Dodd –Frank wall street bill!

Leave a Reply