38 Questions | As Mortgage Settlement Deal Nears, Nevada AG Raises Important Concerns

As Mortgage Settlement Deal Nears, Nevada AG Raises Important Concerns

As the Obama administration, state attorneys general and the nation’s biggest banks close in on a settlement over allegations of widespread mortgage fraud, Nevada’s attorney general is pushing back with concerns and questions. Meanwhile a Feb. 3 deadline looms for states to declare whether they are joining the settlement.

In a letter emailed Monday to federal officials and obtained by The Huffington Post, Nevada’s attorney general, Catherine Cortez Masto, asked 38 questions referencing a variety of concerns, including fears that states would play second fiddle to the federal government in making decisions. She also questioned if the states would lose their ability to pursue certain types of lawsuits against banks and whether the states would get their fair share of the housing assistance for their borrowers.

In her letter, Masto asked, “What would happen if all of the state attorney general representatives had one view and the federal agencies disagreed.”

Rest from the Huffington Post here…

Copy of Masto’s letter below…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

Masto Letter

Comments
10 Responses to “38 Questions | As Mortgage Settlement Deal Nears, Nevada AG Raises Important Concerns”
  1. Fed Up In Mass. says:

    Any Attorney General who signs off on this might as well kiss their careers goodbye!!!!

    GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. lvent says:

    Uh Gee wiz?..Looks like maybe the Banks… DID NOT FILE this MANDATORY FORM…FORM 4 with the SEC everytime there was a change in BENEFICIAL INTEREST??? http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/form4data.pdf
    or how about Schedule K-1 with the IRS…SO MANY PARTNERSHIPS…SO MUCH FRAUD!!
    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1065sk1.pdf

  3. Fury says:

    we need more AGs to do what Masto has done.
    she is sticking up for the crime victims and filing criminal charges against the wrong-doers.

  4. lvent says:

    The crooks want it all! Nothing for anyone else…they want the crumbs too and no jail time!

  5. William says:

    CRIME-FRAUD EXCEPTION
    ‘There is no privilege under this article [dealing with attorney-client privilege] if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or a fraud.’ California Evidence Code section 956
    Where the entire attorney-client relationship is embarked upon in furtherance of criminal activity, and the relationship is permeated by criminal activity and the client takes an active part in it, the crime-fraud exception is satisfied notwithstanding that it may have been the attorney who originally conscripted the client for the illegal purpose. In re Impounded Case (Law Firm) (1989) 879 F.2d 1211, 1213-14.
    In order to establish the crime-fraud exception to the privilege, ‘the party opposing the privilege must establish a prima facie case of fraud. [T]he party must also establish a reasonable relationship between the fraud and the attorney-client communication.’ Cunningham v. Connecticut Mut. Life. Ins. (S.D.Cal. 1994) 845 F.Supp. 1403, 1412
    http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c180.htm

  6. William says:

    The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege. An interesting question is the level of proof necessary to invoke the crime-fraud exception. The prima facie test to overcome the attorney-client privilege was established in Clark where the Supreme Court wrote that to drive the privilege away under the crime-fraud exception, there must be “prima facie evidence that it has some foundation in fact. When that evidence is supplied, the seal of secrecy is broken.”
    http://www.taxlitigator.com/articles/168364.htm

  7. To tell the Truth says:

    And how will all this affect the homeowner who will file for Quiet Title or try title as is sometimes referred to or adversed possession? What if homeowners in foreclosure go tomorrow and start filing suits against the banks? What if…what if…this is so bad…so very unfair and so very immoral and so wrong of the government and AGs to even consider such a negotiation settlement….the 38 questions are good questions and they also reveal a lot of what has been in the discussion…which is not good at all…

Leave a Reply