Abigail Field | The Mortgage Settlement Lets Banks Systematically Overcharge You And Wrongly Take Your Home

The Mortgage Settlement Lets Banks Systematically Overcharge You And Wrongly Take Your Home

On my first read through of the consent agreements the bailed-out bankers (B.O.Bs), the Feds and the States I saw much as had been promised. One thing I hadn’t seen coming, however, was that the B.O.Bs would now be allowed to systematically overcharge borrowers and steal their homes. Seriously. Who cares about $1 million or $5 million penalties if horrible damage can be inflicted without punishment?

To see what I’m talking about, you need to look at Exhibit E-1. (It’s in all the consent agreements; here’s Chase’s.) Exhibit E-1 is a 14 page table titled “Servicing Standards Quarterly Compliance Metrics.” That is, it’s a table that details what, precisely, will be monitored to make sure that the B.O.Bs are meeting the very pretty servicing standards detailed in Exhibit A (again part of all the agreements.)

Note: You may want to print out table E-1 while reading this, or at least keep it open in another browser window or something.

Now, the table doesn’t come right out and say, we, the federal and state governments of the United States of America do hereby bless the institutionalization of servicer abuse, but it should. To understand why, you need to keep your eye on how the table’s columns are defined. For money issues, the critical columns are C “Loan Level Tolerance for Error” and D “Threshold Error Rate.” Later I’ll talk about the problems in Column F, the “Test Questions.”

Read the rest here…

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
13 Responses to “Abigail Field | The Mortgage Settlement Lets Banks Systematically Overcharge You And Wrongly Take Your Home”
  1. We The People must take action. I like what Igor said regarding the suit against all attorneys associated in fraudclosures ect.

    • Igor says:

      David, sue and prosecute the lawyers involved in not just the foreclosure act, but the act of the whole process, lending, etc. Look at the case of the VA Loan fraud. Lawyers were apparently involved at the front end of this fraud. They were involved in the perpetration AND the cover-up. We must make sure that those involved in gaming the system for their own personal gain (self dealers) are sued and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No stone unturned.

  2. To Tell The Truth says:

    I am still thinking that this agreement is not legal…and that we should have had a moratorium if we wanted the Ag’s to speak on our behalf…it does not benefit me at all…there is something not right about this agreement…to settle to cover actual breaking of our laws and not by due process of taking these banks and co. to court …there has to be something in the law to overturn this. Also, I did not see that it took away my individual right to pursue due process for my own case….your thoughts.

  3. To Tell The Truth says:

    Send this to all the Ag’s and let them know what they actually agreed to do…that they were tricked (giving them the benefit of the doubt) into agreeing to this…making the situation worse….

  4. Igor says:

    If the banks sold the ‘loans’ to the ‘trusts’ how are the banks foreclosing and not the trusts? If the banks are operating as servicers/proxies for the trusts, why are the banks getting any money, other then as a servicers of the government money? It seems the penalties the banks pay need to go to the defrauded home owners and the trust investors. Correct?

    • Igor says:

      And, all the money the banks get from the government are acutallydue to the trust investors as well. The bansk were already OVER compensated for their loans, but the trusts who payed thme for the loans in the securities markets. How are the banks due one dime? Is it that the banks payed trillions on counterfeit loans laundered by and through the loan brokers? and the trust investors are taking a huge loss? OR somehow are the investors getting reimbursed via some type of insurance? and the insurance is being defrauded? then how is the insurance carrier being payed to underwrite this loss? Where is thee money coming from, and going? Its being laundered in a most complex and concealed manner. There is no way to know what is really going on. It was posted not long ago, that the total money in al trusts was about 67 billion dollars. Now, this is a paulty number compared to what we are dealing with. Is it likely that the TRILLIONS of dollars represents the COUNTERFEIT MULTI-PLEDGED LOANS? and not the legitimate loans?

      • Igor says:

        Ponzifying the Ponzi. The banks were already OVER compensated for their loans, buy the trusts who payed them for all the loans by the trusts in the securities markets.
        It was posted not long ago, that the total of all loans in all trusts was about 67 billion dollars. Now, this is a paulty number compared to what we are dealing with.Is it likely that the TRILLIONS of dollars represents the COUNTERFEIT MULTI-PLEDGED LOANS? and not the legitimate loans?
        The only thing to come of this cover up is the destruction evidence, directly and through further ‘ponzification’ of the ponzi

      • lvent says:

        The FED was overcompensated exponentially starting at the ORIGINATION…they never had any skin in the game…because the U.S. TREASURY lent the FED THE U.S. TAXPAYERS MONEY..! That is why the FED had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

  5. Heather says:

    okay. the mortgage settlement is awful. The question is what can we do about it?

    • Gene says:

      I agree with Heather. We must do something about this. 4closurefraud, attorneys that have blogs, hamlet, etc. have been the sources of “must-have” information, but are limited without “us” spreading the word. We have to activate others, let everyone know we all are affected. How do we do this?

      Activists have made great strides and we need a model to emulate. Come on folks, before this piece of junk “settlement” does more damage…

      • Igor says:

        SUE THE LAWYERS! AS ACCESSORIES TO, BEFORE AND AFTER THE FACT: (The entire attorney-client relationships were embarked upon in furtherance of criminal activity, and the relationship are permeated by criminal activity and the lawyers have taken 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

      • Igor says:

        SUE/PROSECUTE THE LAWYERS! AS ACCESSORIES TO, BEFORE AND AFTER THE FACT: COMPEL THEM TO DISCLOSE EVERYTHING ABOUT THEIR RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE Everything on EVERYONE. (The entire attorney-client relationships were embarked upon in furtherance of criminal activity, and the relationship are permeated by criminal activity and the lawyers have taken 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

      • lvent says:

        That would not be hard to do Igor considering the fact that there are no legal assignments and there is no prima facie evidence. If they cant produce the legal documents than that is all of the evidence that is needed.

Leave a Reply