Arizona endangered wolves still on the brink

The Wolf Preservation Blog

Arizona Map

Wolf-relocation project struggles as lobos fall prey to guns and cars…

By Brandon Loomis The Republic  |  azcentral.com, Sat May 25, 2013 11:25 PM

“ALPINE — A brown-streaked wolf — named Ernesta by her admiring captors — bounded from a crate and onto Arizona soil. She carries in her womb the newest hopes for a rare native species that is struggling to regain a footing in the Southwest.

Her government-sponsored April 25 relocation with her mate, from New Mexico’s Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge to a mountain south of Alpine, was the first in the state for a captive-bred pair of Mexican gray wolves in more than four years.

The last time a new canine couple sniffed freedom in these mountains, in fall 2008, they didn’t last the winter. Someone shot the female almost immediately, and the male disappeared by February.

“It’s a tough life for wolves in the wild,” Endangered…

View original post 1,751 more words

Advertisements

From Matt Weidner in Florida Foreclosure Hell

A COURT ACTUALLY MADE A BANK FOLLOW THE LAW AND ITS OWN RULES!

KABOOM! Non-Compliance With Pooling And Servicing Agreement (PSA) Voids Assignment of Mortgage….

Posted by: | on May 8, 2013

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2013/05/kaboom-non-compliance-with-pooling-and-servicing-agreement-psa-voids-assignment-of-mortgage/

Down here in Florida Foreclosure Courts, we are treated to a constant, steady, nearly impenetrable wall of,

“Fraud in Foreclosure Doesn’t Matter at All!”

and

“Banks Can Ignore All Laws, All Rules, All Foreclosure Processes And Still Take Your Home”

and a recent favorite

“Banks Can Spit In The Face of The Attorneys General And Ignore Their Absurd National Mortgage Settlement”

But up in New York, a court reached a stunning result…..

A COURT ACTUALLY MADE A BANK FOLLOW THE LAW AND ITS OWN RULES!

The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned fromthe Depositor to the Trust, is therefore void as in being in contravention of the PSA. The evidence submitted by Defendant that the note was acquired after the closing date and that assignment was not made by the Depositor, is sufficient to raise questions [*10]of fact as to Whether the Plaintiff owns the note and mortgage, and precludes granting Plaintiff summary judgment.

The assignment of the note and the mortgage which affected the transfer was dated July
16, 2008, however, pursuant to the terms of the PSA the trust closed on November 14, 2006.

Section 9.02 of the PSA specifically prohibits the acquisition of any asset for a REMIC
part of the fund after the closing date unless the party permitting the acquisition and the
NIMS (net interest margin securities) Insurer have received an Opinion letter from counsel, atthe party’s expense, that the acceptance of the asset will not affect the REMIC’s status. No such letter has been provided to show compliance with the requirements of the PSA.Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the trustee had authority to acquire the note and mortgage herein after the trust had closed.

Since the trustee acquired the subject note and mortgage after the closing date, the
trustee’s act in acquiring them exceeded its authority and violated the terms of the trust.The acquisition of a mortgage after 90 days is not a mere technicality but a material violation of
the trust’s terms, which jeopardizes the trust’s REMIC status.

Section 9.01(f) of the PSA provides that neither the Trustee, the Servicer or Holder of
the Certificates shall cause any REMIC formed under the PSA, by action or omission, to
endanger the status of the REMIC or cause any imposition of tax upon the REMIC.

Since the trust was organized as a REMIC, the investors received certain tax benefits on
the income that passed through the trust to them. Section 26 U.S.C.A. § 860D(a)(4) defines a REMIC as an entity that
as of the close of the 3rd month beginning after the startup day and at all times thereafter,
substantially all of the assets of which consist of qualified mortgages and permitted
investments.

From Our Friends at 4closureFraud.org

CIFG ASSURANCE NORTH AMERICA, INC., V. GOLDMAN SACHS: GOLDMAN SACHS MUST FACE FRAUD CLAIMS FROM INSURER

Posted by 4closureFraud on May 8, 2013 · Leave a Comment

Court

GOLDMAN SACHS MUST FACE FRAUD CLAIMS FROM INSURER

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) must face fraud claims brought by CIFG Assurance North America (CADEGA.UL) over insurance it provided for $275 million in mortgage-backed securities, a New York state appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

CIFG claimed in a 2011 lawsuit that the investment bank fraudulently induced it to provide insurance for a portfolio of more than 6,000 subprime residential mortgages by concealing the shoddy quality of the loans.

A trial judge in Manhattan threw out that claim last year, ruling that CIFG would have uncovered the alleged misrepresentations had it performed proper due diligence.

The New York State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, First Department, reversed on Tuesday, finding that CIFG had done enough by having an outside consultant analyze the loans.

“There is a question of fact as to whether plaintiff reasonably relied on defendants’ representations,” a five-judge panel wrote in a unanimous decision.

Rest here…

~

4closureFraud.org

From Living Lies Important Info On Banks!

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/new-york-getting-ready-to-prosecute-banks-for-violations-of-settlement/

 

New York Getting Ready to Prosecute Banks for Violations of Settlement

Posted on May 7, 2013 by Neil Garfield
At the end of the day everyone knows everything. If you start with the premise that the securitization of debt was a farce and that the necessary element of the false securitization of mortgage loans was the foreclosure of those loans, then you move one step closer to understanding the mortgage and foreclosure mess and a giant step forward to understanding and implementing a solution. All the actions, statements and myths promulgated by the Wall Street banks become clear, including their violation of every consent decree,order and settlement they ever made with respect to mortgage loans.
Attorney General Schneiderman of New York seems to understand this and he is taking the mega banks to task for violating a settlement that looks like pennies on the dollar. He doesn’t care why they violated the $26 Billion settlement but he is taking action for their consistent violation of the settlement. But I care about the reason and so should you. The reason is nothing less than the obvious: the mega banks expose themselves to liability that far exceeds the terms of the settlement.
In any normal circumstances when a big company enters into a settlement that amounts to pennies on the dollar, the company rushes to make the settlement final by paying the money and performing the actions required in the agreement. Thus they commit illegal acts and get away with it by entering into an agreement that looks big but doesn’t put them out of business. They are nothing but anxious to put the settlement behind them.
So why are the mega banks refusing to abide by a $26 billion settlement on a multi- trillion theft? The answer by pure logic and my sources is that if the banks actually performed on the material portions of the agreement they risk going out of business. Why?
The answer is arithmetic. The purpose of the settlement was to stop illegal foreclosure practices and compensate those who lost their homes in illegal Foreclosures (as opposed to simply reversing the Foreclosures and starting over again which is what any court of law would require if there was an admission that the documents and claims in foreclosure were false).
Arithmetic is the answer. Without Foreclosures, the banks cannot support their claim of failure of the mortgages. If the loans are reinstated then the “sales” of loans and mortgage bonds become immediately subject to an accounting and to payback to investors who bought empty bogus bonds issued by a trust that existed in name only. If the loans must be considered performing loans because of any of the reasons contained in those multistage settlements, consent decrees,orders and agency settlements, then the banks must reimburse the insurers, buyers and counter-parties on hedge products like credit default swaps.
Thus satisfactions the settlement agreement exposes the banks to a reduction in their tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 capital such that the reality and empty underbelly of the banksia displayed for all to see. Those banks and are not nearly as big as they say they are and must be resolved by the FDIC because they actually do not have the minimum capital requirements that all banks must have to continue operations. That is why the Brown bill in the U.S. Senate is dead on right.
If the Foreclosures were invalid there is only one way to correct them, just like any title problem. Correct the defect In Title by reversing the foreclosure or get an affidavit from the homeowner joining in some correction of the corrupted title resulting from fake Foreclosures.
With trillions in liability at stake of course the banks are violating the settlement agreements and consent decrees. All they can do is try to control state and federal action by providing photo opportunities and planted articles around the media to make people feel good. But neither the housing market nor the economy will get the stimulus necessary for a full recovery until the truth is addressed instead of pretending you can fix this mortgage and foreclosure mess with Tiny settlements and promises that nobody intends to keep.

Eric Schneiderman: Banks Have ‘Confidence’ That Law Enforcement Is Not Taking Violations ‘Seriously’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/eric-schneiderman-banks_n_3226992.html

 

DeadlyClear Posted Another Great Story!

JPMorgan Chase Beaten by Beaton, Pro Se! Hallelujah!

http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/jpmorgan-chase-beaten-by-beaton-pro-se-hallelujah/

Posted on March 29, 2013

beaten by a girlPro Se Plaintiff Deborah Beaton filed a Complaint against JPMorgan Chase wherein Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (“NWTS”) joined in a Motion to Dismiss with Chase. In her Second Amended Complaint (SAC), Beaton alleges three causes of action:

  • (1) Violation of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) against NWTS,
  • (2) Incomplete Indorsement/Chain of Title, and
  • (3) violations of the Washington Deed of Trust Act (“DTA”).

USDC Honorable Richard A. Jones gave Beaton her causes of action (1) and (2) against the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss… and the beat goes on!

slapIn their normal “too big to get slapped down” modus operandi, Northwest Trustee Services filed additional paperwork well beyond the local rule limits…probably thinking the Judge wouldn’t notice. However, Judge Jones noted in his Order (click for order),

“Allowing NWTS to join in Chase’s motion and provide additional briefing would result in a combined brief of 35 pages. This would violate this District’s Local Rules. NWTS did not file a separate motion or request leave to file an over-length brief, and the court will not treat NWTS’s joinder as a separate motion since it did not follow the requisite procedures regarding noting dates. Accordingly, the court has disregarded all argument beyond the 24-page limit of the opening brief (i.e., page 8 through 15 of NWTS’s motion), and beyond the 12-page limit of the reply (i.e., page 7 through 9).”

wamujpg-063393b01f591f63_largePer the Order, in August 2008, Beaton executed a promissory note for $271,950.00, payable to the order of Washington Mutual Bank, FA (“WaMu”), which was secured by a deed of trust. The deed of trust lists WaMu as “lender,” the lender as “beneficiary,” and Ticor Title Company as “trustee.” The Court also footnoted its Judicial Notice:

“The Court generally may not consider material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). However, where documents are referenced extensively in the complaint, form the basis of plaintiffs’ claim, or are subject to judicial notice, the Court may consider those documents in the context of a motion to dismiss. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2003). In its prior order, the court took judicial notice of the following exhibits attached to Exhibits 1 (Statutory Warranty Deed), 2 (Note), 3 (Deed of Trust), 5 (Sept. 25, 2008 agreement between FDIC and Chase), 6 (Appointment of Successor Trustee), 7 (Notice of Trustee Sale), 8 & 9 (various publicly recorded instruments/documents by Beaton) because they are publicly recorded documents not reasonably subject to dispute. Chase appears to rely on these same documents in its motion. Additionally, plaintiff incorporates by reference a “Notice of Default” in her SAC. NWTS has attached the Notice of Default as Exhibit 4, and plaintiff does not dispute its authenticity or accuracy. The court takes judicial notice of these documents. The court has disregarded plaintiff’s “Affidavit of Civil Rights Violations Committed” because it is not subject to judicial notice.”

FDCPA – Fair Debt Collection

excellent

Excellent work by a Pro Se. Although the Court footnoted that the “plaintiff does not dispute” theauthenticity or accuracy of the Notice of Default, clearly she did as in the Order later stated on page 3 where Judge Jones points out:

“Beaton alleges that WaMu may have transferred or negotiated the note prior to September 25, 2008, and that it remains undetermined if Chase is in fact the actual beneficiary. On November 14, 2010, NWTS, as Chase’s “duly authorized agent,” sent Beaton a “Notice of Default,” in which NWTS advised that if Beaton disputes the debt or any portion of the debt, it will request that the creditor obtain verification of the debt and mail it to her. Beaton alleges that by letter, she disputed the debt and requested validation, and that NWTS failed to comply with the FDCPA.

The Order continues, “[F]or a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).”

The Court then describes in detail the definition of a “debt collector”…

no-short-cuts“To the extent that Chase acquired Beaton’s loan in 2008 before she defaulted, it falls within the section 1692a(6)(F) exemption of “debt collector.” NWTS was appointed as successor trustee on November 29, 2010. However, Beaton had been in default since approximately July 1, 2010. Accordingly, NWTS does not fall within the same exemption. Beaton alleges that the identity of the “Note Bearer/Creditor remains unknown[,]” that it remains undetermined if Chase is the actual beneficiary pursuant to RCW 61.24.005(2), and that NWTS violated FDCPA and damaged the Plaintiff by foreclosing her property.

Liberally construed, the court finds that Beaton has plausibly alleged that NWTS attempted to collect on a debt that may not have been owed to Chase, which may have violated the FDCPA. See McDonald II, 2013 WL 858178 at *12 (“At the time [NWTS began the foreclosure process], NWTS had not been appointed successor trustee and was not acting on behalf of the entity that had actual physical possession of the note: it therefore lacked the right to effect dispossession of plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff has established that NWTS violated § 1692f(6)(A) of the FDCPA.”); Michelson v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, Case No. C11-1445MJP, 2012 WL 3240241, *5 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2012) (“NWTS and RCO may have violated the FDCPA because they did not yet have confirmation of Chase’s right to possess the property, and thus may have violated § 1692f(6)(A)”).

Accordingly, Beaton’s FDCPA claim may proceed against NWTS.

DTA (Deed of Trust Act)

the-law-office-sign“The DTA regulates mortgage transactions in which a lender issuing a promissory note or other debt instrument to a borrower can secure the debt via a deed of trust. Bain v. Metro. Mortgage Group, Inc., 285 P.3d 34, 38 (Wash. 2012). The borrower becomes the grantor of the deed of trust and the lender becomes the beneficiary of the deed of trust. Id. A trustee holds title to the property in trust for the lender. Id. If the borrower defaults on the loan, the trustee “may usually foreclose the deed of trust and sell the property without judicial supervision.” Id. Because the DTA “dispenses with many protections commonly enjoyed by borrowers under judicial foreclosures, lenders must strictly comply with the statutes and courts must strictly construe the statutes in the borrower’s favor.” Albice v. Premier Mortgage Servs., Inc., 276 P.3d 1277, 1281 (Wash. 2012).

Among the statutory protections requiring strict compliance are the “requisites to a trustee’s sale” enumerated at RCW § 61.24.030. Albice, 276 P.3d at 1281, 1282 (“Without statutory authority, any action taken is invalid.”); see also Schroeder v. Excelsior Mgmt. Group, LLC, No. 86433-1, 2013 WL 791863, *8 (Wash. Feb. 28, 2013). Trustees must also strictly comply with the sale procedures itemized at RCW § 61.24.040. Albice, 276 P.3d at 1282.

Beaton’s SAC places several DTA requirements at issue. Plaintiff alleges that Chase and NWTS materially violated the DTA by providing a defective beneficiary declaration, a defective notice of default, a defective notice of trustee’s sale, defective appointment of successor trustee, and a defective trustee’s deed. Plaintiff alleges that all of the “defects” are for the same reasons that the beneficiary declaration is defective.

The DTA requires the trustee to “have proof that the beneficiary is the owner of any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust.” RCW § 61.24.030(7)(a); see also Bain, 285 P.3d at 39 (citing trustee’s statutory obligation to obtain proof of beneficiary’s ownership of the note as element of its duty to the grantor of the deed of trust). Defendants complain that courts across the country, including federal courts in Washington, have rejected “show-me-the-note” arguments like Beaton’s. This court recently suggested that in the wake of Bain, it is time to retire the reductive “show-me-the-note” meme, at least in cases arising under Washington law. Knecht v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co., Case No. C12-1575RAJ. In Washington, proof that the beneficiary holds the note secured by a deed of trust is a statutory requisite to a trustee’s sale. RCW § 61.24.030(7)(a).” [DC Ed. “Should be that way in every state.”]

wow!“Defendants direct the court to a beneficiary declaration which provides: “JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank fka Washington Mutual Bank, FA is the actual holder of the promissory note or other obligation evidencing the above-referenced loan or has requisite authority under RCW 62A.3-301 to enforce said obligation.” Even if the declaration is properly subject to judicial notice, the Washington Supreme Court has made a clear pronouncement of strict compliance with statutory provisions of the DTA. According to the declaration, Chase could be a nonholder in possession or a person not in possession who is entitled to enforce the instrument (see RCW § 62A.3-301), neither of which is proof that “the beneficiary is the owner of any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust.” RCW § 61.24.030(7)(a).”

The Court clearly opines:
“If Chase was not the holder of the note, it did not have the authority to appoint NWTS as a successor trustee, and NWTS did not have authority to initiate foreclosure proceedings without knowledge of the beneficiary as required by RCW 61.24.030(7). This would result in a material violation of the DTA. Accordingly, Beaton has plausibly alleged a violation of the DTA that survives dismissal.

Let's go“IV. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Chase’s motion. The Clerk is ORDERED to enter an amended case schedule with a trial date of January 6, 2014.”   Let’s buy tickets! Thank you Shelley for the heads up.

page divider

Click here for How To Win in Court

Heard it Through the Grapevine

 

I recently learned that in Forsyth County Georgia, an investigation has begun on the crooked foreclosure mill attorneys in Georgia.  YEA!!!

Wow, there has been continual violations of Georgia’s real property laws ever since Foreclosure Hell began, and should it be proven that these attorneys, signing their names as every bank’s employees, which we know they aren’t maybe the tides will be turning!!!

CURTIS HERTEL JR: INGHAM COURTS OVERTURN FANNIE MAE EVICTIONS OF COUNTY HOMEOWNERS Posted by 4closureFraud on April 19, 2013 ·

CURTIS HERTEL JR: INGHAM COURTS OVERTURN FANNIE MAE EVICTIONS OF COUNTY HOMEOWNERS

Posted by 4closureFraud on April 19, 2013 · 1 Comment

FannieMayhem

INGHAM COURTS OVERTURN FANNIE MAE EVICTIONS OF COUNTY HOMEOWNERS

Ingham County Register of Deeds Curtis Hertel Jr. praised two recent court decisions against mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Ingham County that will overturn the eviction of local residents from their homes, while offering similar hope for citizens across Michigan.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been shamelessly manipulating our state’s property laws for years at the expense of innocent citizens,” Hertel Jr. said. “They continue to try and exempt themselves from important local and state taxes by claiming a government exemption, but have continued to foreclose on individuals and families using procedures that are only available to private corporations. I’m thrilled that we now the opportunity to protect our residents from future deceitful foreclosure practices.”

Hertel Jr. has been pleading for the courts to clarify Fannie Mae’s status, as it has positioned itself as a government agency to avoid taxes, but also as a private organization in order to avoid foreclosure regulation. The cases were won against mortgage giant Fannie Mae – one in Ingham County Circuit Court, the other in its District Court.

One of the cases is now being sent to the Michigan Court of Appeals and has the potential to change the way that thousands of foreclosures are handled throughout Michigan. The court case specifically addressesforeclosures that are executed by Fannie Mae, the federally-controlled mortgage corporation that has foreclosed on thousands of Michigan residents since the housing crisis began in 2007.

Both of the overturned evictions were residents who called in to Hertel’s Foreclosure Fraud Hotline, a service he arranged with help from the Ingham County Commissioners. The purpose of the hotline is to obtain legal assistance for citizens who are facing illegal foreclosures, but cannot afford representation. The hotline is active – Ingham County residents may call 517-676-7210 to leave their information.

SOURCE: Curtis Hertel – Ingham County Register of Deeds

~

4closureFraud.org