Well why don’t you just roll out the red carpet for the Banksters?
Or is it a trick to get em here and cuff em?
Attorney General Requests Meetings with Mortgage Lenders to Discuss Integrity of the Foreclosure Process
Attorney General Bill McCollum today sent letters to Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, GMAC, PNC Financial Group and Litton Loan Servicing requesting meetings to discuss ways to promptly and effectively redeem the integrity of the foreclosure process.
Source: Florida Attorney General
~
4closureFraud.org
~
McCollum Foreclosure Fraud Letters to Banksters
Quiet Title Actions … for every mortgage in MERS, both RESIDENTIAL and COMMERCIAL. No exceptions.
And no opposition from the banksters. May they rot in bankruptcy!
Stupid Question: Are any regulators, consumer advocates or defense attorneys invited to this meeting to assist in their “efforts to come up with a creative solution to resorte Floridians’ faith in the judicial foreclosure process as well as maintain the viability and marketability of real property titles in Florida”
Who’s paying for these “creative solutions”? McCollum, please don’t sell us out!
The The FL AG invite the ICE law firm in FL or any of the other great law firms fighting for the consumers and several of the Pro se litigants in Florida. If we are going to fix this mess we all have to be at the table. The fraudsters have demonstrated they only care about their quarterly results and how to steal more homes.
Clearing the foreclosure backlog by throwing a few million more American families into the street is not the linchpin to economic recovery. That is the way to crush the economy.
Injustice takes away the incentive to invest in productive endeavors. Protecting consumers from being victimized by criminals is the key to recovery and prosperity.
The banks should bear the losses associated with their criminal conduct, not their victims and not the taxpayers. That is the law, and you know it. People are pulling their deposits out of the corrupt banks, so they will fail either way.
Do you really want to ruin the lives of millions of Americans who believed that they could trust the government to protect them from criminals and ruin the economy or do you want to restore faith in government and the justice system? If so, present the evidence that you have to the Statewide Grand Jury and seek indictments and forfeitures of the assets obtained illegally by the criminal bankers and their minions.
Actually I think we need to go even farther. In my own humble opinion we need an organized and authorized group of people, knowledgeable of the events, to undertake the HUGE task of going back through all the foreclosures, pick a time frame, and at every courthouse in every county of every state, and start identifying all of the foreclosures that should not have been allowed to happen in the first place. At the same time, we need discern just how these individuals can be made whole again. That is the purpose of the Law.
I propose that the Govt. actually start hiring people for these positions, giving those who have been fighting their own foreclosures preference to any others in the hiring, for reason not only of their advanced knowledge of the situation but also because they have felt the pain personally and tried to deal with the issues legally and in a manner that is becoming to a good citizen of this Country.
I propose that the Govt go back and institute yet another TARP like fund to pay these people and when all is said and done, that the “Bill” for it all be paid for by the perpetrators of these frauds out of the own personal wealth and the wealth gathered by themselves and their institutions and in fines and penalties levied against them.
I think only then will the rest of the world once again look at the model of the US as one in which they again would want to recreate for themselves and the countries in which they live.
Remember? The United States of America. One Nation, Under God, with Liberty and Justice for all.
Here’s the REAL isue that needs to be addressed – as I recently wrote my mortgage compan,edited for privacy, -:
9/7/2010
In Re Mortgage # xxxxxxxxx
Dear Mr. Hughes,
This is in response in re your 8/27/2010 letter (copy enclosed). While your referenced letter claims to respond to my correspondence previously sent to you and to xxx Mortgage, Inc., you did not in any way provide the response I asked for. In fact, your response caused me to wonder whether you actually even examined what I sent, as your letter was nothing more than diversion and lies, and actually NO ONE from xxx Mortgage, Inc., including you, has ever ONCE responded to any of my correspondence in ANY of the detail both requested and REQUIRED of xxx Mortgage. Inc.
You were presented with complete information that described the true nature of my transaction engaged in with xxx Mortgage, Inc. and a detailed response has been repeatedly requested but to date, nothing requested has been forthcoming. Nor have I received a single response to my demand to inspect the original promissory note nor the original deed of trust, signed by both parties, as such presentation is required of you by law. Mailing me computerized copies is simply diversion and does NOT respond to my demands whatsoever, and for you to write that it does is idiocy.
As you have, to date, failed to answer the totality of my correspondence to xxx Mortgage, Inc.in any requested fashion, the facts presented in my correspondence still remain stipulated by you as fact. You and xxx Mortgage, Inc. were told that the only proper way to answer my questions and charges was with a rebuttal that rebuts, point by point, each of the questions and allegations affirmed in my correspondence I provided to you for an answer.
“Indeed, no more than (affidavits) are necessary to make the prima facie case.”
United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d, 526 (7th Cir. 1981), Cert Denied, 50 U.S. L.W.2169, S. Ct. March 22, (1982).
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading”,
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297 (1977).
In the alleged loan arrangements I entered into, I find that there is no proof of any value being received by me. This was also very clearly spelled out in my correspondence to you.
Please provide copies of original bookkeeping entries, certified by a CPA or auditor for your company, from the inception of the alleged loan.
Can you show any evidence of any consideration being given to me? If so, can you warrant to the validity of that evidence under penalty of perjury, regarding the alleged loan in question? While I may have been led to believe, at the time I signed papers that I thought encompassed a standard home loan, that I actually did borrow funds, I cannot find any evidence that I really borrowed anything at all.
Were any of xxx Mortgage, Inc.’s assets put at risk in the alleged loan made to me? If so, will you please show me the bookkeeping entries for the alleged loan, certified by a CPA or auditor, which would show that? If xxx Mortgage, Inc. truly did provide a loan to me, call reports for the period beginning with the alleged loan might also indicate any risk on the part of xxx Mortgage, Inc. The deposit slip for the note associated with the alleged loan would also be illuminating as to the true nature of the transaction. By the same token, the order authorizing the withdrawal of funds from the note deposit account, or evidence of the insurance policy on the note associated with thalleged loan, might suggest something else.
If xxx Mortgage, Inc. did make a loan of its money or credit, and if xxx Mortgage, Inc. carried an ongoing risk of loss to have made the loan, your bookkeeping entries would certainly show it. I believe, as shown in my correspondence to you, that your bookkeeping entries would reveal that I am not indebted to anyone at all.
At the time of the transaction, xxx Mortgage, Inc. knew that they were required, by Title 12, U.S.C. Section 1831n(2) (A), to adhere to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Within GAAP, there is a principle, called the Matching Priciple, which works as follows: When a bank or mortgage company accepts cash, checks, negotiable instruments, promissory notes, or some other similar instrument from a customer, and deposits or records the instrument(s) as an asset, the bank or mortgage company must record an offsetting liability that matches the asset the bank or mortgage company accepted from the customer. When this is done, the offsetting liability shows that the bank or mortgage company owes the customer the money that it accepted from the customer.
Officials at xxx Mortgage, Inc. were knowledgeable of the fact that its bookkeeping entries will show that I am the true creditor in this matter and that xxx Mortgage, Inc. is the true debtor. So, for obvious reasons, you have no interest in producing documentation showing accurate bookkeeping entries regarding this alleged loan. To me, it is obvious why you respond as you do and why you do not want it to be made known that xxx Mortgage, Inc. could not loan to me their own assets, the funds of their depositors, or their own credit.
Title 12 U.S.C. Section 24, Paragraph 75, confers upon a bank or mortgage company the power to lend its money, but not its credit. This is further backed by the following court decisions…
In the case of Norton Grocery Co. v. People’s Nat. Bank of Abingdon, Va., 144 S.E. 501, the Court held “National banks may lend their money, but not their credit, and are not eleemosynary institutions.”
In the case of Federal Intermediate Credit Bank of Omaha v. L’Herisson, 33 F.2d 841, 847, “A national bank, even though solvent, cannot lend its credit to another.”
In the case of Farmers and Miners Bank v. Blufield National Bank, 11 F.2d 83, 271 U.S. 669, the Court held, “A national bank has no power to lend its credit by becoming surety, endorser, or guarantor for another.” See also First Nat. Bankof Tallapoosa et. All v. Monroe, 69 S.E. 1123,1124, and Merchants Bank v. Baird, 160 F.642, 645.
In the case of Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank 94 F. 925, the Court held, “A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation.”
In the case of National Bank of Commerce v. Atkinson, 55 F. 465,471, the Court held, “There is no doubt but what the law is that a national bank cannot loan its credit or become an accommodation endorser.” See also Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens’ Nat. Bank of Union, 130 S.E. 758, 759.
For review, Mr. Hughes, the following is what I believe xxx Mortgage, Inc. and you know about the true nature of my transaction that I entered into on the day I signed the papers used in this transaction.
Officials at xxx Mortgage, Inc. knew that it needed my signed application and note as funding instruments of the transaction.
Officials at xxx Mortgage, Inc. knew that in my transaction, xxx Mortgage, Inc. risked absolutely none of its assets.
Officials at xxx Mortgage, Inc. knew that xxx Mortgage, Inc. was using the note that I signed as a means of “raising” an asset to itself in its bookkeeping entries and then used the face value of the note (called “principal”) to fund the transaction and then falsely referred to the transaction as a loan when, in fact, nothing of the kind actually occurred.
Officials at xxx Mortgage, Inc. knew that xxx Mortgage, Inc. was, then charging me interest under the false premise that xxx Mortgage, Inc. had provided me with a loan in the universally understood definition of the term “loan”.
Officials at xxx Mortgage, Inc. also knew that I was never made aware of these facts; that I had to figure all of this out on my own … which I have.
I further believe that the above five facts equally apply to you, Mr. Hughes.
The book entries of xxx Mortgage, Inc. will show that I am owed the face amount of the note in question, plus interest, and I believe you know this… which is why you sent the uninformative response you did dated 8/27/2010 and why xxx Mortgage, Inc. will fight , and obfuscate, and distract, and delay, and deny, and deflect, and do whatever it feels it needs to do, long before xxx Mortgage, Inc. and you will admit any of this. I believe xxx Mortgage, Inc. knows that the note was fraudulently obtained by them, as it was used in a way that was not disclosed to me. Officials at xxx Mortgage, Inc. know that this entire transaction was voided due to lack of consideration and that xxx Mortgage, Inc. benefited from the knowledge that I was not aware of these facts.
In light of the above, I have grounds for a lawsuit against xxx Mortgage, Inc. under RICO as provided in USC Title 18. Your response to this letter will determine whether you and xxx Mortgage, Inc. will be included in any further legal action against the parties to this illegal debt.
If you and xxx Mortgage, Inc. are going to maintain that I am fabricating these facts, I make a very simple, reasonable request: show me the documentation that overcomes what I’ve presented here and what I have already sent to you and to xxx Mortgage, Inc.
Copies of a note and deed of trust prove nothing at all. Show me some proof that I actually obtained a real loan. Show me that xxx Mortgage, Inc. did not merely use, as the funding source of the transaction, the monetized proceeds of the note that I provided to xxx Mortgage, Inc.
Please do the right thing, Mr. Hughes, and provide the validating documentation I am asking for. If you do not do so, I will take your non-compliance as your consent for me to proceed with all actions necessary to protect my interests.
Additionally, Mr. Hughes, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practicea Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, 1692 Et Seq., this letter also constitutes timely written legal notice to xxx Mortgage, Inc. that I, xxx xxxxx, decline to pay the referenced erroneously purported debt unless and until xxx Mortgage, Inc.
1. satisfactorally validates purported debt;
2. validates that purported debt does NOT constitute fraud;
3. produces completely a valid, complete, and detailed response as requested and demanded herein.
And until all the requirements of this letter and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act have been met by xxx Mortgage, Inc. in full and until xxx Mortgage, Inc.’s claims are validated in fact, case law, and evidence, xxx Mortgage, Inc. has no legal jurisdiction to continue any collection activity on the purported debt that xxx Mortgage, Inc. alleges xxx xxxxx owes xxx Mortgage, Inc.
This is NOT xxx xxxxx’s refusal to pay a lawful debt, but xxx xxxxx IS hereby:
1. disputing the validity of the alleged debt;
2. disputing that purported debt does NOT constitute fraud;
3. demanding that xxx Mortgage Inc. produce the genuine original Promissory Note as signed by both parties and all related documents and answers/rebuts this letter in toto plus answers/rebuts all of xxx xxxxx’s previous correspondence, allegations, questions, and demands in full detail as stipulated by law.
This is constructive notice that, absent the validation of xxx Mortgage, Inc.’s claims and response by a qualified, authorized bank official of xxx Mortgage, Inc. within 10 days,
xxx Mortgage, Inc. must cease and desist any and all collection activity and is prohibited from contacting xxx xxxxx other than through the mail, and xxx Mortgage, Inc is specifically prohibited from contacting xxx xxxxx by telephone, in person, or in public.
Further, xxx Mortgage, Inc. is prohibited from contacting xxx xxxxx’s bank;
And xxx Mortgage, Inc. is prohibited from contacting any other third party regarding xxx xxxxx, as each and every attempted contact as forbidden above is in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and will constitute harassment and defamation of character and will subject xxx Mortgage, Inc. and/or board, and any and all agents in his/her/their individual capacities, who take part in such harassment, and defamation, for a liability for actual damages, as well as statutory damages of $1,000,000 for each and every violation.
Further, if I am forced to file charges against xxx Mortgage Inc. or any individual employees of xxx Mortgage, Inc. due to xxx Mortgage, Inc.’s refusal
to respond, then I will demand that xxx Mortgage, Inc. marks the subject erroneous purported debt “Satisfied” and “Paid in Full” on the county records books and refunds each and every monthly payment (principal and interest) which I may have inadvertently made toward said fraudulent purported debt; and require xxx Mortgage, Inc’s return of my genuine original blue ink signature affixed upon the genuine original documents that may exist pertaining to the subject erroneous purported debt.
Sincerely,
All this foreclosure stuff is just the tip of the iceberg…
Any ideas about this bigger issue of the fraud and non-disclosure at closing?
this letter is amazing….I am trying to put together a letter to PNC right now and your post has given me a great deal of info. thanks for sharing….
I know a way…. make it legal to bring firearms into the Court for foreclosure proceedings! Yep, I think that’d do it.
Do not trust BILL McCOLLUM……the invitation letter is not to bring them to Florida and show them all the “evidence of fraud” his office has found……this invitation letter will do the oppossite…..they will all sit down and discuss the logistic of fixing the problem in benefit of the banks and loan servicing companies that also owned by these banks…..if you dont believe me, go to his website and read the agrement his office reacehd with Wells Fargo…….is all about promises….wells fargo promises to work with affected borrowers….and promisses to modify loans……..bs……wells fargo WILL NOT work with the borrowers, WILL NOT modify any loan in borrowers benefit…….
It is time for Mr. McCollum and all Circuit and Federal Judges to stop listening to the plaintiffs and it is time for them to stop behaving and acting like an employee of the Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Office and stop following their instructions such as: Your Honor, sign this Summary Judgment of Foreclosure….Sign this Order of Sale….We have complied with all legal requirements in Florida to forclose and you must sign these docs….
It is time that Mr. McCollum and all Circuit and Federal Judges start listening to us the borrowers. Start listening to. “WE THE PEOPLE.”….and start REVERSING / VACATING / CANCELLING all Foreclosure Judgments they signed wihtout the plaintiffs having the proper paperwork….by plaintiffs obtaining these judgements by submitting FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTATION, (Affidavits, Assignments of Mortgage0, by lying to the Courts…….
One ORDER Vacating Judgments obtained by the the 4 law firms under investigation and by plaintiffs like BOA, COUNTRYWIDE, DEUTSCH BANK, US BANK, HSBC……and all these major investors that bought all these loans, after they were in default and benefited from the illegal foreclosures
THIS IS WHAT WE NEED!!!!!
Mauricio Lacayo