Tuesday, August 30, 2011


DAVID SHANYFELT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 11-11803. Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

August 25, 2011.

Before WILSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.


David Shanyfelt appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his complaint against Wachovia Mortgage FSB, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and McCalla Raymer LLC/McCalla Raymer, Esq. After Shanyfelt filed his complaint in a Georgia court, Wachovia removed the action to the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The district court sua sponte dismissed Shanyfelt's complaint after he failed to comply with an order to provide a more definite statement of his claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Shanyfelt argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court should have sua sponte remanded the complaint to state court because Shanyfelt and McCalla Raymer are both citizens of Georgia. Shanyfelt also argues, for the first time, that the defendants committed fraud by submitting fraudulent documents to the district court and to the state courts. We affirm.

Wachovia, Wells Fargo, Mortgage Registration, and McCalla argue that Shanyfelt waived "all of [his] arguments" by failing to present them to the district court, but we disagree in part. Although we will not consider "`arguments not raised in the district court and raised for the first time in an appeal,'" Access Now, Inc., v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Walker v. Jones, 10 F.3d 1569, 1572 (11th Cir. 1994)), "[a] litigant generally may raise a court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at any time in the same civil action, even initially at the highest appellate instance," Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455, 124 S.Ct. 906, 915 (2004). We decline to consider Shanyfelt's arguments about fraud, but we address his argument about subject-matter jurisdiction.

The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain Shanyfelt's complaint based on diversity of citizenship. A district court has diversity jurisdiction when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Although Shanyfelt argues that both he and McCalla Raymer are citizens of Georgia, Shanyfelt never served McCalla Raymer with a summons and complaint while the action was pending in the district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring service within 120 after complaint is filed). Wachovia mentioned that failure to serve McCalla Raymer in its notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (allowing removal based on "parties in interest [who are] properly joined and served"). The district court was entitled to entertain Shanyfelt's complaint without regard to the citizenship of McCalla Raymer.

The dismissal of Shanyfelt's complaint is AFFIRMED.


Matt Stoller: Power Politics –
What Eric Schneiderman Reveals
About Obama

By Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. He is the former Senior Policy Advisor to Rep. Alan Grayson. You can reach him at stoller (at) gmail.com or follow him on Twitter at @matthewstoller

A lot of people have asked why New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is going after the banks as aggressively as he is. It’s almost unbelievable that one lone elected official, who happens to have powerful legal tools at his disposal, is doing something that no one with any serious degree of power has done. So what is the secret? What kind of machinations is he undertaking that no one else has been able to do?

I’ve known Schneiderman for a few years, back when he was a state Senator working to reform the Rockefeller drug laws. And my answer to this question is pretty simple. He wants to. That’s it. Eric Schneiderman is investigating the banks because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. So he’s doing it. This guy has thought about his politics. He wrote an article about how he sees politics in 2008 in the Nation, and in his inaugural speech as NY AG he talked about the need to restore faith in both public and private institutions. Free will still counts for something, apparently.

In all the absurdly stupid punditry, the simple application of free will to our elected officials goes missing. Yeah, Obama got money from Wall Street. But Obama is choosing to pursue a policy of foreclosures and bank bailouts not because of any grand corporate scheme. He just wants to. He thinks it’s the right thing to do, and he’s doing it. If you don’t think it’s the right thing to do, then you shouldn’t be disappointed in him any more than you might have been disappointed in Bush. Obama is not trying to do the opposite of what he’s doing, he’s not repeatedly suckered by Republicans, and he isn’t naive or stupid. Obama is simply doing what he thinks is right. So is Eric Schneiderman. So is Tom Miller. So are any number of elected officials out there.

In positions of power, the best expression I heard is that “up there the air is thin”. That is, you have enormous latitude, if you want to use it. Power can be wielded creatively and effectively on behalf of whatever it is the wielder wants. Now of course there are constraints, plenty of them. Smart politicians spend their time working to maximize the constraints they want to impose and weakening the ones they want to overcome. But the basic Reaganite liberal argument defending supplication towards Obama these days is that Obama is “disappointing”. In this line of thought, powerful corporate interests and Republicans are preventing him from enacting what his real agenda would be were he unfettered by this mean machine. Eric Schneiderman, who is in a far less powerful position as New York Attorney General, shows that this is utter hogwash. Obama is who he is, and anyone who thinks otherwise is selling something.

The banking system is really at the heart of our politics, which is why it’s such a great test of one’s political theory of change. I’ve been following the foreclosure fraud story for a few years now, because it’s the tail end of a massive economy-wide fraud scheme that started as early as 2003. The securitization chain failure can’t be put back in the bottle, the housing system it collapsed is simply too big to bail. So elites keep trying to patch this up the way they have everything else. It isn’t working. And their scheme has been obvious and obviously dishonest. Along with Obama (who I criticized as empty as early as 2004, ratcheting this up to dishonest and authoritarian by 2006-2007), I pointed out that Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller was engaged in serious bad faith only a few months after the negotiations started.

I’m no genius, I just listened to what these people actually said and did. Obama mocks the idea that he is an honest politician, overtly, lying about NAFTA and FISA very early on in power. Miller lied to activists about being willing to put bankers in jail, and then said he was negotiating with banks in secret. It was overt. For Miller, as with Obama, few people really picked up on the lies until recently. Iowa activists who heckled Miller got it, as did Naked Capitalism readers. Now it’s becoming more and more obvious. That’s just how it is, I suppose, people in the establishment are paid to not notice corruption until the harsh glare is too bright.

The crazy thing is that robosigning is apparently still going on. Right now, the “settlement” talks are the equivalent of law enforcement negotiating with a serial killer over whether he’ll get a parking ticket, even as he continually sprays bullets into the neighborhood. Even having these “settlement” talks when the actual crimes haven’t been investigated or a complaint hasn’t been registered should be example enough that this process is rigged as badly as Dodd-Frank. It should not be a surprise that the administration is putting pressure on Eric Schneiderman, that Tom Miller is kicking him out of the club house. That’s who these people are. It’s what they believe in. Just as it should not be a surprise, though it is laudable, that Schneiderman isn’t knuckling under to the administration. I suspect he probably is laughing at the idiocy of Miller’s pressure tactic. I mean, this is a guy going up some of the most powerful entities in the United States: Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America, the New York Fed, etc. And the Iowa Attorney General isn’t going let him on conference calls? Mmmkay.

When you look closely at most significant areas of government, it becomes clear that the President and his administration are enormously powerful actors who get a lot done. Handing over our national wealth to the banks and to China is not nothing. These people are reorganizing the economy and the political system so that there are no constraints on the oligarchical interests that fund and pay them. That is their goal, it has been their goal from day one (or even before that), and anyone who says otherwise is just wrong or deluding him or herself. Obama spoke at the founding of Robert Rubin’s Hamilton Institute, and his first, and most important by far policy initiative, was his whipping for TARP, a policy that was signed by Bush but could not have passed without Obama getting his party in line. That was his goal, and he’s still pursuing it. The numerous “what happened to Obama” wailing editorials overlook the consistency of his policy agenda, which stretches back years at this point.

If someone worked or works for the Obama administration, or the Department of Justice, or any other executive branch agency, they need to remember their service as a mark of shame for the rest of their lives. Remembering how they participated in this example of how to govern is literally the least they could do for the damage they have caused. I would leave out the small number of people who are there to overtly prevent as much damage as possible, and those who resign or are fired in protest.

For the rest of the Democratic Party, well, reality is just beginning to intrude into the fantasy-land of partisans, even though the 2010 loss should have delivered a searing wake-up call to the failure Obama’s policy agenda. From 2006-2008, the Bush administration’s failures crashed down upon conservatives, and they in many ways could not cope. But their intellectual collapse was bailed out by Obama. Faux liberals are seeing their grand experiment in tatters, though right now they can only admit to feeling disappointed because the recognition that they have been swindled is far too painful. And the recognition for many of the professionals is even more difficult, because they must recognize that they have helped swindle many others and acknowledge the debt they have incurred to their victims. The signs of coming betrayal were there, but in the end it all comes down to judging people based on what they do and who they choose as opponents. And this Democratic partisans did not do, choosing instead a comfortable delusional fantasy-land where foreclosures don’t matter and theft enabled by Obama (and Clinton before him) doesn’t matter.

Eric Schneiderman’s willingness to go after the banks and stand up to the corruption of the Bush and Obama administrations should be a reminder to all of us of this. We have free will. He is doing the right thing for no other reason than because he wants to, because he believes in it. He is going to face serious consequences for this, very nasty stuff. Eliot Spitzer was taken down and his name dragged through mud because of who he took on. Paying ugly costs for standing up is routine, unfortunately, in modern America. And the least powerful among us face far worse consequences than politicians who are embarrassed. But integrity exists, and Schneiderman is showing that free will can be exercised in its service. This fact is true of many people, not just Schneiderman; Bill McKibbin, Jane Hamsher, Dan Choi and others just got arrested in front of the White House to register dissent. So next time someone tells you that you have no choice but to support one of the two branches of the banking party, just remember, you also have free will. And the only person who can take that away from you, is you.

Topics: Banana republic, Guest Post, Legal, Politics, Real estate

Email This Post Posted by Yves Smith at 5:15 am

No Comments » Links to this post


Program extended
to help homeowners at risk of foreclosure

Posted: Aug 29, 2011 1:32 PM
Updated: Aug 29, 2011 4:58 PM
By Chris Oberholtz, Multimedia Producer - email

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has reopened the application process for the Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program to give homeowners at risk of foreclosure more time to apply for the program.

The original application deadline was July 27.

HUD estimates that resources will be available to reach more struggling homeowners and will accept applications submissions through Sept. 15.

Congress provided $1 billion to HUD, as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, to implement the Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program.

"Through the Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program the Obama Administration is continuing our strong commitment to help keep families in their homes during tough economic times," said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. "Working with our community partners across the nation through NeighborWorks America, we are pleased to launch this program today in 27 states and Puerto Rico to help families keep their homes while looking for work or recovering from illness."

The program will assist homeowners who have experienced a reduction in income and are at risk of foreclosure caused by involuntary unemployment, underemployment, because of economic conditions or a medical condition.

HUD allocated more than $49 million to fund this emergency loan program in Missouri.

Under EHLP program guidelines eligible homeowners can qualify for an interest-free loan that pays a portion of their monthly mortgage for up to two years, or up to $50,000, whichever comes first.

The EHLP program will pay a portion of an approved applicant's monthly mortgage, including missed mortgage payments or past-due charges including principal, interest, taxes, insurances, and attorney fees. EHLP is expected to aid up to 30,000 distressed borrowers, with an average loan of approximately $35,000.

Homeowners are encouraged to visit www.FindEHLP.org to find out more information.

Copyright 2011 KCTV. All rights reserved.

Monday, August 29, 2011


Lawsuit over promised $1 houses in Camden's Lanning Square could drag on another year

August 25, 2011By Claudia Vargas, Inquirer Staff Writer

  • Former tenant Shelley McCullough said a Camden Townhouses manager told her if she stayed in her Royden Street home (second from corner) for at least 10 years, she could buy it for $1.

After seven months of meetings and at least two settlement conferences with a judge, lawyers involved in a federal lawsuit in Camden over promised $1 homes are still at odds, leaving prospective homeowners to wait what could be another year for a resolution.
What started as an effort by local leaders, including the Rev. Al Stewart and Cooper University Hospital board chairman George E. Norcross III, to foster an amicable solution instead led to a squabble behind closed doors.
The lawsuit alleges that the developer of Camden Townhouses II, Israel Roizman, deceived low-income tenants and denied them their right to homeownership.
Roizman, of Lafayette Hill, signed agreements with the city and state in 1992 to buy and rehabilitate 91 units - including 41 single-family houses - in the Lanning Square area for $175,000.
Under the plan, Roizman was to collect subsidized rent from the tenants and, 15 years later, the tenants would have the option to buy the units for $1 each.
It has been 19 years, and the prospective homeowners are still waiting for their promised $1 homes. Some are still in the units, others have moved out, and at least one has bought a house elsewhere.
Last week, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider held a three-hour settlement conference with about 10 lawyers representing the 15 tenant-plaintiffs - all women - and some of the 23 defendants, including state and city agencies, named in the suit.
But the meeting did not provide any answers for the tenants, three of whom sat outside the judge's chambers while the lawyers conferred.
The conference was closed to reporters. None of the lawyers could discuss it because the judge had all parties sign a confidentiality agreement.
One of the complexities in the case, according to Roizman's attorney, Leon J. Sokol, is that the developer owes $7 million in mortgage loans on the properties. The tenants, he said, would have to pay that off if they acquired the properties.
Attorneys for the tenants dispute that.
If a settlement is not reached, the judge could send the case to trial, stretching the outcome to more than a year from now, said Geoffrey V. Seay, one of the lawyers representing the tenants.
"They were promised to purchase their home for $1 after 15 years. That's what they want," Seay said.
After a Jan. 2 Inquirer article highlighting the delay in transferring the houses, Norcross, the influential Democratic leader, organized a meeting involving Roizman, city and state officials, and community leaders.
Norcross proposed that the Cooper Foundation, the hospital's charitable arm, work with the St. Joseph's Carpenter Society, an East Camden nonprofit redevelopment group, to help gain the transfer of properties to the tenants.
Cooper's stake in the deal is that homeownership brings stability to the hospital's neighborhood, said Cooper Foundation president Susan Bass Levin, a former mayor of Cherry Hill. Bass Levin, as a former commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, is named as a defendant in the tenants' lawsuit.
A week after the Jan. 11 meeting at Cooper, Seay and fellow Philadelphia lawyer Joseph Green II filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on behalf of the 15 women.
Among the group's claims in the suit are breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceptive practices, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Sokol said last week that Roizman was willing to keep his promise of $1 homes, but that the legal complications beyond his client's control needed to be sorted out first.
Officials at the New Jersey Housing Mortgage Financing Agency, which issued several of the mortgage loans to Roizman and which is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, declined to comment for this article, citing the pending litigation.
"We're happy to go forward with the $1 deal," Sokol said. Roizman "doesn't have the legal ability to determine who qualifies."
Sokol said the "most sensible approach" would be to turn over the project to St. Joseph's.
"They have experience in qualifying first-time homeowners, counseling people in homeownership," he said.
But St. Joseph's executive director Pilar Hogan Closkey said the society would not get involved until the lawsuit was resolved.
Sokol said the lawsuit had frozen the transfer process. Seay disagreed.
"They have a history of playing that game, of saying, 'We just need something else,' " Seay said.
He said it was discriminatory to suggest that a nonprofit agency was needed to provide homeownership counseling to the women, who are single, low-income African Americans and Latinas.
The women are already used to paying rent and utility bills, he said.
Sokol warned that the prospective homeowners would also have to assume rising property-tax bills.
"Whether or not they can [pay taxes], that's not our issue," Seay said. "That doesn't preclude them from owning."
Hogan Closkey said she understood that the state was not willing to forgive the mortgages.
Roizman still owns the development and still receives monthly subsidies from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to supplement the rent he receives from tenants.
The area has risen in value tremendously since Roizman acquired the properties. One of the corner units at Broadway and Line Street is valued at $125,000, compared with $19,000 two years ago. The Cooper Rowan Medical School is being built a few blocks away.
In 1993, Shelley McCullough, 42, became the first tenant in one of the houses, in the 500 block of Royden Street.
She recalled that during her pre-move-in orientation, the Camden Townhouses housing manager told her and other new tenants what a great deal they had, that if they remained in their units for at least 10 years they would be able to buy them for $1.
In 2003, she moved out because her salary as a clerk for the state Division of Youth and Family Services was not enough to pay the rent of more than $700.
McCullough was able to get a loan and bought a house in Cramer Hill. Even if she does not end up qualifying for her $1 home, she hopes that Roizman keeps his promise and that the lawsuit sets an example.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Home / News
7:52 pm | August 29, 2011

'Wells Fargo Bank' Phishing Calls Hit Area

POSTED: 4:24 pm PDT August 29, 2011
AAAText Size
The Oregon Department of Justice Consumer Hotline has received a surge of complaints about telephone calls claiming to be from Wells Fargo Bank. The caller is telling consumers that their debit cards are locked and that they should provide their debit card number to bank security. This is a phishing scam -- and it hit the High Desert Monday.

Oregon Attorney General John Kroger reminded Oregonians that legitimate financial institutions will never ask you for debit card, bank account or social security numbers, or for sensitive information, like your username or password, over the phone or by email.

• Never respond to phone calls or emails soliciting personal information. If you suspect it might be legitimate, pick-up the phone and call the company to confirm.

• Do not click on any links embedded in phishing emails. They may contain viruses or malware designed to steal your personal information.

• Make sure your computer has up to date anti-virus software.

The Attorney General's Consumer Hotline received nine complaints since late last week from the Portland area and the Willamette Valley about this scam, a significant number of calls for such a short period of time -- and many Central Oregonians reported getting similar calls Monday. Bank officials said they had been getting numerous calls about the scammers.

Anyone who believes they have been approached by a scammer should contact the Oregon Department of Justice at 1-877-877-9392 or www.oregonattorneygeneral.gov

Enhanced by Zemanta





“The banks don’t care whether you made your payments or not. They want your house. They don’t care if someone else made your payments. They want your house. They don’t care if you qualify for modification. They want your house. They don’t want the money from a short-sale.  They want your house. They don’t want the money from a workout in an out of court settlement. They want your house. They don’t want the money from mediation. They want your house. They don’t care if you paid cash for your house. They want your house. They don’t care if you never missed a payment in your life. They want your house. This is the same thing as writing a check for the purchase of a TV and the bank claiming the TV is theirs. But the Courts don’t care. They want to give away your house.” — NEIL GARFIELD
EDITOR’S NOTE: SMITH IS RIGHT WHEN HE REFERS TO AN ORGY OF STEALING. THE SCALE IS UNPRECEDENTED. In the name of a doctrine that does not actually exist Judges are using “Did you make your payments?” (see Mandleman Matters) to deliver a free house to bank and non-bank institutions as though there was no question about the end result, so why delay it?.
The principle is very simple. If you stop making payments on your car, that doesn’t allow ME to repossess it. Yet that is what the courts are doing. You might have one of many reasons for not making a payment, not the least of which is NO PAYMENT IS DUE.
The banks don’t care whether you made your payments or not. They want your house. They don’t care if someone else made your payments. They want your house. They don’t care if you qualify for modification. They want your house. They don’t want the money from a short-sale.  They want your house. They don’t want the money from a workout in an out of court settlement. They want your house. They don’t want the money from mediation. They want your house. They don’t care if you paid cash for your house. They want your house. They don’t care if you never missed a payment in your life. They want your house. This is the same thing as writing a check for the purchase of a TV and the bank claiming the TV is theirs. But the Courts don’t care. They want to give away your house.
The reason is simple: if they get money they are obligated to report it to investors and pay it to them. If they get the house, they can bury what is left of the value of the house is absurd, illegal and fraudulent charges until the value of the house tot he investor/lender is zero.

How Chase Ruined Lives of People Who Paid Off Their Mortgages

Matt Taibbi, in giving a well deserved thrashing to the banking industry’s Tokyo Rose, aka New York Fed director Kathryn Wylde, said:
[S]tealing is pretty much the worst thing that a bank can do — and these banks just finished the longest and most orgiastic campaign of stealing in the history of money.
Once you read the allegations in the cases included in this post, I strongly suspect you will agree that the “ruining lives” in the headline is not an exaggeration. And as important, these two cases, with very similar fact sets, also suggest that these abuses are not mere “mistakes”. These are clearly well established practices that Chase can’t be bothered to clean up, since cleaning them up costs money and letting them continue is more profitable.
Both cases took place in Alabama. In both cases, the borrowers had made every mortgage payment on time. One was a couple with three children, the Barnetts. The second is a widow, Besty Barlow, but her husband was still alive when this ugly saga started.
In both cases, the house burned down, The borrowers both had homeowners’ insurance. In the case of the Barnetts, they promptly notified Chase, their servicer, and made one mortgage payment post the fire. Both the homeowners and the insurer, State Farm, called Chase to get a ten day payoff amount. They were told not to make the next payment, since it would be included in the payoff amount. State Farm sent as check as instructed, asked that the mortgage be paid off, and Chase cashed the check.
But Chase did not pay off the mortgage. It put the funds in a suspense account The Barnetts found out the mortgage had not been paid off on their own, and called Chase to get the matter corrected. Chase then proceeded to harass the Barnetts for payment, calling at home and at work. Chase then ‘fessed up that they had the money, and asked the wife, April, to send a fax instructing them to make the payoff. They didn’t, called to pressure her again, and claimed they never got the fax. April repeated the process as instructed a second time (to a different number).
Chase continued to call demanding payment and then sent a letter stating that Fannie had refused the payoff due to “past due” amounts. Chase wanted an additional $8000, which consisted of fees that were not warranted and were due solely to the failure to pay off the mortgage with the money they had.
Around this time, April, who was over four months pregnant, miscarried, and she believes the miscarriage was as a result of the stress created by Chase. And this is far from the end of the mess: the “foreclosure” was reported to the credit bureaus, which meant the Barnetts, who have three children, which has thrown a big wrench into their efforts to get back on a normal footing (more ugly details in the filing).
The Barlow case is just as ugly. Here, Chase refused to give a payoff amount, both to the adjustor and later to the Barlow’s counsel. Chase instructed the Barlows not to make a June 2010 payment and next month started harassing the Barlows, calling as many as six times a day. They continued to makes these calls even when told to stop, which is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Barlows finally got a payoff amount, the insurer sent a check for more than the amount due, and Chase rejected the payment (both via check and via the online payment system). When they finally accepted the payment, they put it in a suspense account and continued their demands for payment and threats to foreclose. A local law firm initiated foreclosure proceedings, which included running an ad in the local papers, which was humiliating. Chase reported the foreclosure to credit bureaus, which led banks to close nearly all of Mrs. Barlow’s credit cards. Mr. Barlow died of a heart attack. Even though the widow retained counsel and the local law firm said the foreclosure had been cancelled, the debt collectors continued to call Mrs. Barlow about her mortgage even though Chase knew she was represented by counsel. And to add insult to injury, Chase has force-place insurance of $2,317 on her vacant lot and wants to be paid for it too.
In Alabama, wrongful foreclosure, by statute, is treble damages. Recent cases have awarded much bigger multiples. Both cases allege grounds for damages in addition to wrongful foreclosures. Alabama also recognizes emotional distress as a cause for damages when a home is at stake.

These are not “mistakes”. This conduct can only be described as evil.

Chase was given multiple opportunities to correct the error and couldn’t be bothered. And the fact that this happened in two cases in a relative short time proximity (one house burned down in May 2010, the other in June) and in both cases, the funds were put in suspense account, suggests that this is policy (houses burning down and insurers making payoffs are hardly extraordinary events).
In other words, this is the banking version of exploding Pintos. Ford did not fix the defect in its fuel tank design because they figured it would cost less to pay out the damages on claims for death and dismemberment than fix the design flaw. Similarly, Chase evidently figures it can bulldoze people, extract more fees from them by engaging in conduct that is unquestionably against the law (see the cases for details), and maybe once in a while it gets caught and has to write a big check.
It is also revealing that the only time Chase has bowed and scraped before authority and moved quickly to clean up its act in the mortgage servicing arena is in the case of wrongful military foreclosures. The banking lobby apparently has not made serious inroads into the military-industrial complex.
Where, pray tell, is the OCC? Clearly, that’s a rhetorical question, since the OCC seems to regard regulation as unwarranted interference with the banks’ right to loot. But the persistent and willful nature of Chase’s misconduct reveals that the OCC is effectively a criminal co-conspirator of the banks. The OCC is responsible for operational supervision, and the failure to see and correct this (at best) gross incompetence is prima facie evidence of a “see no evil” policy.
Email This Post Email This Post Posted by Yves Smith at 1:44 am

One Response

  1. “But the Courts don’t care. They want to give away your house.”
    From going to the state, district & BK courts and watching what has transpired in the last 2 years I would have to agree 100% with this.

Enhanced by Zemanta


If you would like to receive information on how you might avoid the foreclosure of your home, please e-mail me your name, address, and phone number. Someone from our office will be in touch right away to assist you. With Warm Regards, Kelly L. Hansen, HOMEOWNERS HELPING HOMEOWNERS, ctsmyhon@yahoo.com
Be happy, healthy and prosperous, but most of all, be blessed.
Kelly L. Hansen's photo.

Kelly L. Hansen

Jurisdictionary® just click on the link
Make Sure Your Attorney Is Working For You!
Kelly L. Hansen
33605 W. 88th Street
De Soto, KS 66018
913-269-0399 Phone
888-881-2349 Fax