Fraudclosure | Sunny Sheu Murdered? Judicial Corruption Activist Dead Weeks After Posting Video About His Fears

Sunny Sheu Killed After Reporting Death Threat from Foreclosure Judge Joseph Golia


“Since his death last summer, associates of Sun Ming Sheu, an activist fighting alleged judicial corruption in New York, remain convinced that he was murdered and that police aren’t aggressively investigating his death because of a coverup.”

Now this is terrifying…

Sunny Sheu has been fighting judicial corruption since his home was stolen by mortgage fraud allegedly aided and abetted by Judge Joseph Golia of Queens.

Sunny was kidnapped, intimidated and threatened by two NYPD detectives at the Queens DA bureau. He was told by the detectives that if he took his case to the media or filed a complaint against Golia he would be killed.

Sunny was told by the Captain of the 109th pct that the cops detained him because he had put a letter in Golia’s mailbox, proving it was Golia that ordered the illegal detention.

Later, Sunny uncovered evidence of misrepresentations on Golia’s financial disclosure statements and on Thursday, June 24, 2010 he announced that he had evidence sufficient to have Golia arrested.

Two days later Sunny was found dead with trauma to the head, according to the Medical examiner that performed the autopsy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItS1XpnY4kk

Two months ago, Sunny made the above video, stating that if any harm came to him, Golia should be the main suspect.

Sunny also wrote a letter to FBI agent Rachel Rojas, asking for witness protection. Obviously his request was ignored.

Sunny Sheu was a champion of justice for us all, and a true hero. May his death not be in vain.

Rest in peace, Sunny

“Hi my name is Sunny Sheu. I have filed a complaint to the FBI and the New York State Unified Court Ehics Committee about Judge Joseph Golia [who] falsified his financial disclosure statement. And I have submitted evidence to the FBI recently. [The] FBI sent me [a] copy of the evidence that I sent to the FBI.

And today, April 9th, the Unified Court ethics director, Janice Howard, she called me [that] Judge Joseph Golia already amended his Financial disclosure statement. This means my evidence is true. At least that he was forced to amend (misrepresentations) on his financial disclosure statement.

For the security issues, for the security concerns, I make this recording, that if anything wrong goes to me, it should be come from Judge Golia and his people because before I had been kidnapped by his people, and threatened and intimidated by his people not to file a complaint against Judge Golia.

So I make this recording for safety. For protection. If anything wrong please go to Judge Golia and his people.

Thank you very much.”

From the BlackStarNews:

Was Sunny Sheu, Foe Of Judicial Corruption, Murdered?

The Background Story
Sheu’s ordeal began over 10 years ago when a bank representative knocked on his door and said he was there to inspect the house for its new owner. The problem was that Sheu had never sold the house. It turns out that someone had forged critical documents and used them to illegally sell the property.

Sheu alerted all relevant authorities; including the police, the bank that held the mortgage, and the title insurer of the property. Eventually the parties involved in forging the documents were prosecuted, pleaded guilty to forgery, and went to jail.

Sheu hoped that with all the evidence in his favor, the matter would be quickly resolved–it was actually only the beginning of his nightmare.

But Centex Home Equity, the bank that held the original mortgage, acted as if the fraudulent sale had been legitimate, ignoring all the documentation submitted by Sheu regarding the fraud, including the police report he’d filed.

Centex filed a lawsuit on December 12, 2001, against Sheu in State Supreme Court, in Queens County. The bank wanted a default judgment on the property and foreclosure, claiming that the “new owners” were delinquent on mortgage payments.  In reality, of course, there was never any legal “new owner”.

The Centex case against Sheu went before Judge Golia, in Queens County. Sheu said he was stunned when Judge Golia also ignored the obvious fact that the “sale” had been fraudulent, which would obviate the claim against him. Instead of immediately restoring Sheu’s rightful ownership, he said, Golia allowed the lawsuit to proceed, eventually leading to the foreclosure of Shue’s home.

Worse yet, the judge let the case drag out for 10 years, with numerous postponements, in essence milking Sheu of all his resources. At some point, Sheu could no longer afford attorney fees and he had to represent himself.

Clearly, simple discovery— examination of documents by the court- would have proven the fraud in the alleged property sale, but Golia never allowed this fundamental judicial procedure to take place, despite Sheu’s numerous appeals, he said.

For 10 grueling years, Sheu said, he was consistently denied the opportunity to present evidentiary documentation proving that the fraud had taken place and that Centex had no right to foreclose on his home.

Sheu’s home was first foreclosed on January 28, 2005 and Centex “bought” the property for $1,000 from Amy Cheng, a pseudonymous fraudster involved in the fictitious sale. “How can you buy property from someone who does not exist?” Sheu had asked me, when I first started writing about his case.

Sheu also wrote Centex executive, Gerry King and New York State Chief Administrative Judge –now Chief Judge– Jonathan Lippman, complaining about Judge Golia’s conduct and accusing the judge of “discrimination” and “bias.”

Sheu demanded that Golia recuse himself from the case; the judge refused.

Sheu was persistent, writing to numerous elected public officials and filing an appeal against the foreclosure. Aware that he had notified various elected officials about what he claimed were the “biased” rulings, Sheu said, Judge Golia eventually reversed his own earlier decision and the initial foreclosure was rescinded, records showed.

Still, the judge refused to restore ownership of the property to Sheu.

Golia was so adamant to deprive him of justice, Sheu contended, that he came up with a remarkable decision. Golia now ruled that even though Sheu’s home had been illegally sold years earlier, since Centex had already paid off the mortgage, the bank now owned the property under a doctrine known as “Equitable Subrogation.”

“How can equitable subrogation apply to stolen property?” Sheu said, in an interview with The Black Star News, referring to the fraudulent sale. “This means if I have a lot of money, like Centex, I can pay off anybody’s mortgage anywhere without their permission and then take possession of their home and kick them out?”

Sheu continued to spar with Judge Golia. Finally, early in 2010, his property was foreclosed on again, this time conclusively.

Be sure to read this article in its entirety here…

And be careful out there…

~

4closureFraud.org

h/t Tim

Comments
73 Responses to “Fraudclosure | Sunny Sheu Murdered? Judicial Corruption Activist Dead Weeks After Posting Video About His Fears”
  1. Dear Attorney General Biden,
    The letters, below, from my colleague, Ms. Andrea Silverthorne to you and, SEC’s McKessey, summarize the extent to which Banks and REITs committed wholesale real estate fraud and tax evasion by illegally foreclosing on REIT owned properties without the Banks being named as agents of the REITs, which would have been illegal in any case.
    Please let me know if you need background on this issue.
    Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
    Respectfully,
    Robert Bostick
    1301 S. Arlington Ridge Rd
    Arl. Va 22202
    October 26, 2011
    Dear Attorney General Biden,
    In February of 2008, I began to notice appraisers were using duress sales to determine market value and when I questioned the tactic as going outside the bounds of property valuation as it had always existed, I was told that the appraiser was addressing the bank’s risk management. Bank risk management was a term that I was familiar with; however, prior to the time I began to question appraisers use of duress sales as a valuation that could be counted, bank risk management only was defined in terms of the borrower’s credit credentials and the condition of the property. Now I was told it had been expanded to the likelihood of foreclosure and duress sales in the area.
    Doubting the veracity of the appraiser’s statement I sent an email to a well known head of an appraisal firm asking him if appraisal standards had changed; you never could count duress sales in an appraisal before; the county even coded them differently and did not count them toward their assessments. His answer did not address my question and I left it at that.
    The year 2008 also brought a new term into my real estate lexicon and that was the term ‘short sale’. Deed in lieu of foreclosure or a sale of a property while in the process of foreclosure was a scenario I had dealt with, including during the days when we dealt with the Resolution Trust Company, but you were never allowed to sell below the loan value and even had to pay a per diem interest until the day of closing. The reason the sales price could not go below the loan amount- I was told- was that the RTC had a fiduciary to the REIT investor and he could not sell below the debt. You are getting the same argument from banks who are dealing with home owners on modification. They will adjust the interest rate the time of the loan; they will tack on missed payments and defer payments, but they will not make an adjustment to the loan value because of their fiduciary to the “investor.”
    As the 2008 year progressed, my curiosity as to the legal mechanism of selling a property to an investor- when the bank would not adjust the loan value for the home owner-for so much less than the loan value, whether before or after foreclosure, and then counting it as value against a future arms length sale, continued to grow, but I did nothing to investigate what was transpiring until I opened my Miami Herald newspaper to see a graph on South Florida property values. The graph showed a leveling off of values in 2005, slight dips down and then up as 2008 approached. The first quarter of 2008 showed a substantial increase in value and then the line went straight down like lemmings off a cliff.
    I got on my computer and visited http://www.appraisalfoundation.org and found that appraisal standards had indeed changed. You may visit this site to see any of the information I will discuss. It was created and authorized by Congress in 1987 and was a direct result of a desire to standardize the appraisal practice in light of the fall out from the S&L Scandal
    In 2005 the Departure Rule was eliminated and in its place the Scope of Work Rule was made to take its place. The main ingredients to this new rule were its provision that an appraisal could be used for the intended use of the client and that an appraiser must conduct the appraisal as his peers would. This last provision: “When in Rome do as the Romans do.” was the were-with-all of American property destruction. It will take a case by case determination of every appraisal done using duress sales to see just exactly how it was accomplished; however appraisal sites and blogs have a major clue. On the front end of the real estate cycle appraisers were manipulated to get values up, post communally with threats not to use them or give they work. On the flip side of the cycle appraisers not doing what the bank wanted were in addition to getting on “do not use” list were also facing complaints to their State governing authorities. The concept of “intended use was certainly around before the change because their were considerations to consider such as what value was being looked for, cost replacement; income; liquidation for a bankruptcy procedure, but known of these use consideration incorporated a change in the basic premise of appraisal’s non use of duress sales in appraisal practice.
    In 2008, The Supplemental Standards Rule was eliminated. On its face this change and its explanation would appear logical; however, this rule had in part dictated that the appraiser follow applicable local laws and regulations. If I may digress here, it is important to understand the weight of USPAP. They have no weight or legal effect at all, unless USPAP is adopted by a state. The Judicial Exception Rule furthers the power of the state by providing for the possibility for the state to adopt USPAP and then override it in part with local legislation. It is my personal opinion that this Rule was deleted to shore up the effect of the next change.
    The next 2008 change was the elimination of Statement 10. I will quote from the Foundations education materials what the purpose and weight of a statement is:
    “Statements on Appraisal Standards (SMT) are authorized by the by-laws of The
    Appraisal Foundation and are specifically for the purpose of clarification,
    Interpretation, explanation, or elaboration of the Uniform Standards of
    Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Statements have the full weight of a
    Standards Rule . . . .” (The bolding on the last sentence was added by me.). This
    took the requirement to follow regulation down more than a few pegs. The title
    of Statement 10 was: Assignments for Use by a Federally Insured Depository
    Institution in a Federally Related Transaction.
    Statement 10 which was a part of USPAP was replaced by a new Advisory: Advisory Opinion 30: Appraisal for Use by a Federally Regulated Financial Institution. The Appraisal Foundation Board’s Appraisal Standards Board has this to say about the weight of an advisory opinion: The ASB issues guidelines in the form of Advisory Opinions, USPAP frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) (This is a new feature instituted by the AFB in 2008 to be redone every two years.), and monthly questions and responses. These communications do not establish new Standards or interpreting existing Standards and are not a part of USPAP.
    They illustrate the applicability of standards in specific situation and offer advice from the ASB for the resolution of appraisal issues and problems. (Again, the bolding was added by me).
    This last change would combine with the other changes I have described and a 2006 change to the Foundation’s Preamble to set up the devaluation of trillions of dollars in American property value, and this is how they did it.
    In the USPAP explanation of the logic for the elimination of Statement 10, therefore watering down the mandate for following Appraisal rules of the governing document in Federally Related Transactions, they said:
    “The Statement did not distinguish between laws (such as FIRREA, regulations and guidelines (such as the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines, resulting in confusion for both Appraisers and users of Appraisal services.
    An interagency relationship would be a bank and its secondary lender. If there is no new loan they can ask for an “Evaluation” rather than an Appraisal. As so long as the agency requesting the “Evaluation does not request an opinion of value the Appraiser can do a valuation service which then does not come under USPAP guidelines or any other legal appraisal parameter or law., and if told by the bank that their intended use was their risk management, specifically the risk of foreclosure in the area, he could do it with the appraisal standard changes. Statement ten focused on the FIRREA definition of market value. What would have been needed to follow if Statement 10 had not been standing in its way?
    I have enclosed another graph of the power set up on the appraisal process. The first graph I sent you delineated the Appraisal Subcommittees controls and influences over the Foundation, the Appraisal Standards Board, and implementation of USPAP in the states. It included HUD, but if you look at this second graph of what authority stands above the first; it is the same members of the Appraisal Subcommittee, sans HUD. By law, FIRREA to be precise, the Federal Reserve and the other members included by law in the chart have the complete authority to monitor and direct the Foundation and the Standards Board exactly how to conduct and structure appraisal practice.
    The reason Statement ten elimination freed up the appraiser was the following, FIRREA was created at the same time as the Foundation and it dictated that a specific definition of value be used in all Federal transactions: the legal definition of market value pursuant to Title XI of the Financial Institutions reform, recovery and enforcement ACT FIRREA) of 1989 for a Federally Funded Transaction follows.
    “Market value means the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specific date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
    buyer and seller are typically motivated;
    both parties are well informed or well advised and acting in what they consider their own best interest;
    a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
    payment is made in terms of cash in US dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and
    the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.
    This definition rules out all duress sales being counted as market value, as they are defined in Appraisal practice as non arm’s length made under haste and duress.
    There was one more thing necessary to make sure that American property values could be lowered to a point the federally related loans could be dumped at any cost. USPAP appraisal Standard 1, demands that all three types of value Market value, Cost replacement and the Income value be ascertained before a decision on the best one to be used could be made and the previous Fannie Mae Appraisal form had a place to state those values; they were removed.
    I have one property valued at 260 thousand dollars when I bought it, that is now being offered on a short sale at 45 thousand, a price very close to land value and tens of times below what replacement cost would be. There was an obvious meeting of the minds of the organizations that controlled the role of property value and its determination, before the extent of the fraud and double selling of loans became know to the public.
    The IRS was even solicited to adopt the 2008 final USPAP rule changes as their criteria. The rules were changed, the appraisers brought in line with their “peers”; the short sales began; they were used to set up foreclosure evaluation prices for the market, the devaluation ball was rolling and all that was left was to pick up the phone and call the media and get them to report duress sales as value and to predict astronomical further downward devaluation.
    Moody’s was the candidate and they picked up the phone and the rest is sad history for the landscape of the United States of America. My local paper was a virtual weapon of mass destruction for South Florida property values, quoting the now discredited Moody’s all the way to the bottom
    Real estate was the tensel strength of the nation, as the appraisal practices course work states, unlike the stock market, it is not readably liquid, and is called an inefficient asset. When the market dies there are no buyers to take the market down. Real estate does not go down in value; it only stagnates in line with demand and also in line with declining preference of a neighborhood, given a house is kept up physically from depreciation.
    This is easily provable by historically tracing property valuation county by county, nation wide.
    I have given you facts, but if I were to venture a guess and theory as to why the Federal Reserve, et al, had to prepare for massive property devaluation, I would say the clue could be found in the fact that Colonial Bank was found to have sold their loans twice. I would venture to guess that prior to the credit crash of 2008, it was discovered that there were many more securities then there were loans to collateralize them, and they had to find a way to rescue the foreign investors’ dollar, so the American tax payer bailed out criminals and then suffered further, while their property got hocked at 10 cents on the dollars to cover the rest, and yes this would mean that the REITS were kept silent on the missing collateral by a promise to do so.
    If you have any questions or need any further substantiation, please do not hesitate to ask.
    Sincerely,
    Andrea Silverthorne
    andthorne@aol.com
    2. Letter to McKessy
    This letter to SEC’s McKessey summarizes the extent to which Banks and REITs committed wholesale real estate fraud and tax evasion by illegally foreclosing on REIT owned properties without being named as agents of the REITs, which would have been illegal in any case.
    Please let me know if you need background on this issue.
    Thanks,
    Robert Bostick
    1301 S. Arlington Ridge Rd
    Arl. Va 22202
    October 26, 2011
    To: SEC, Sean McKessey
    Chief Office of the Whistleblower
    100 F Street NE
    Mail Stop 5971
    Washington D.C. 20549
    From: Andrea Silverthorne
    Hollywood, Fl.
    Dear Mr. McKessey,
    I have been a licensed real estate professional for 40 years this coming February. I was around during the ‘Savings and Loan Scandal’ of the 80’s, when the government formed the Resolution Trust Company to handle all the foreclosures. None of them were handled by banks.
    I remembered handling the sale of those properties for my buyers. No short sales were allowed; you could not sell the property for less than the mortgage amount, because of the RTC fiduciary responsibility to the REIT; you could not put it on the market for less than the market price; and the foreclosure itself, or any other foreclosure, or duress sale, could not be counted in an evaluation, under the guidelines of the FIRREA, which the RTC was obligated to follow.
    In January 2008, after a becalmed market of three years, values were actually beginning to go up in the area of South Florida, until appraisers began counting duress sales- for the first time- as value in interbank evaluations as opposed to formal appraisals.
    By the fall of 2008, values in my area had fallen almost 40%. Values in South Florida had never fallen before. That is because when the market dies, there are no buyers to take the market down. And duress sales were not counted as value, including by the tax assessors of all the Florida counties and all state governments in the country. That changed only 2 years ago under great pressure from the public.
    Florida is not the only state to experience first time ever losses. I read in the New York Times that the tax role in New Jersey had not gone down since World War II.
    I searched your EDGAR database in 2008 to find that no bank was registered as a Trustee for an REIT, but I did not know why at that time.
    I have now researched the difference in this current financial debacle and the 1980 Savings and Loan crises and I have found the following:
    1. The history of the REIT, which came into being during the last days of the Eisenhower Administration, began with banks in charge of their business. The REITS fought for and won the right to take that away from the banks and become their own managers. In fact it was made against the law for a bank to manage the business of an REIT.
    2. There are Internal Revenue statues that govern the conduct and management of REITS. Statutes 856-859 on the IRS code state that an REIT must be self managed or managed by a Trustee.
    3. SEC rules say if the REIT names a trustee, then the REIT must register the Trustee’s name with the IRS.
    4. The IRS Statues go on to say that a securitized mortgage owned by an REIT must not exit the REIT unless it is paid off, refinanced or retired by a sale payoff. It may not be sold before it is foreclosed.
    5. Short sales are called prohibited transactions. You can abrogate the REIT by doing more than a small number of them, and that small number must offer its proceeds to the IRS as taxation.
    6. REITS must have a formal appraisal on their owned properties, under FIRREA guidelines.
    7. Formal appraisals do not allow the use of duress sales, REIT properties must be assessed under IRS guidelines also.
    8. REITS cannot be a financial institution or an insurance company.
    It is quite clear to me that the banks are handling the business of REITS illegally, and it must be with the full knowledge of the REITS and the SEC. After all, we are talking about sophisticated knowledgeable people who know the rules. The same must be true of the Senate Finance Committee members and those government organizations whose business it is to know the rules.
    I would like you to investigate this clear criminal activity of the banks. They are impersonating the owner of a real piece of property in their foreclosure actions aimed at millions of American’s.
    They have devalued American property illegally to the tune of trillions of dollars and they have depleted state coffers that supply people with the education of their children; the well being of state infrastructure and the safety of its people. And the REITS are just as guilty for sitting back and allowing the banks to perpetrate crimes in their names.
    Mr. McKessey, as a long time real estate professional: I know that the REIT’S value is not tied to the borrower or the loan. It is tied to the value of the property. As long as the value is maintained, then the sale of a property and the pay off of a loan is assured. Of course this would be viable given the ability to finance a property.
    My personal opinion is that the only way to bet against the loan is to assure a way to manipulate property values downward, and it was done with the aid of changes in appraisal rules and illegal bank to bank valuations instead of appraisals on property they did not own. The “Valuation Board” that went onto effect for a short time in 2009 was an attempt to make it continue legally.
    It was not the subprime that tanked the market. It was the yanking of the subprime that tanked the market. The subprime was but conventional financing with FHA credit, no more and no less if you take away the murky LIBOR index and the lenders that told people: “Don’t worry you can refinance.” The rates were the same at the time of the debacle, had the subprime not been yanked all would have been fine. The market had already cooled for investment buyers on its own in 2005. The prices of the property and rentals that could be obtained went out of season, but the first and second home market continued to thrive until they yanked financing.
    The new Obama mortgage refinancing plan sounds a lot like a subprime comeback to me.
    You really must investigate the banks; the REITS and your own organization. I would like to see the RTC resurrected. Impersonating the owner of a real piece of property is a crime. The banks are making corn pone out of the law and the US Constitution. They do not have any standing to pursue a foreclosure. And anyone in the know, knows it. This is ruining the good reputation of the country.
    Finally, the REITS have, I believe from reading the statutes, created a great tax liability for themselves, which is now delinquent, by allowing this charade to continue.
    If you can tell me why I am not right about this Mr. McKessey, please do. I would love to believe that the country’s financial elite are not crooks, who sold many more pieces of loans than actually existed and have been allowed by your organization to make the country suffer terribly to cover up their wrong doing.
    If you need the timeline on appraisal changes, let me know.
    Sincerely,
    Andrea Silverthorne
    andthorne@aol.com

  2. bobo mcfadden says:

    Its not the home they wanted its the land beneath it. look deeper.

    • citizenaware? says:

      interesting comment, never really thought of that but you are probably on the “money”! Food for thought most definitely. Thank you, we are becoming more and more aware with the help of our brothers and sisters

      • Tim Bryant says:

        I agree. This is so disturbing, in so many ways, that it needs to be investigated for the truth. That may mean that we are the ones digging deeper, and publicly disclosing the facts hidden from the public. I am pressing Eric Schneiderman to re-address this murder. He was not interested when Sunny was alive, maybe he now has a change of heart, given his current stance investigating the foreclosure fraud.

        If anyone HAS or knows of anyone, who has more info about this, please post it.

    • Tim Bryant says:

      The articles state he lived in Flushing, but does not state where in Flushing. Any info on that?

    • citizenaware says:

      from about.com
      Flushing defines north-central Queens. The historic neighborhood core is the largest urban center in the borough, and it’s the wealthiest and the largest Chinatown in New York City. Since the economic blight of the 1970s, Flushing has changed dramatically. Increasingly prosperous Chinese and Korean communities have grown to be the dominant groups. The downtown, a transportation hub, is now the busiest shopping district in Queens, with big money pinned to planned real estate developments.

Leave a Reply