Wonderful Story, Thanks Whitewolfpack!

From:  http://www.whitewolfpack.com/2014/07/heroic-pit-bull-saves-deaf-boy-from.html?showComment=1405682028244#c1564072031171231199

Heroic Pit Bull saves deaf boy from house fire (VIDEO)

 

Ace the Pit Bull is being hailed as a hero after he alerted a sleeping deaf boy that the house was on fire.

Thirteen-year-old Nick Lamb was at home alone and was sleeping when Ace jumped on his bed.

“My dog licked my face and woke me up,” Nick told WISH-TV Indianapolis. “I was like, ‘Stop it! What? You want to be fed?’ I thought he wanted to be fed or go outside.”

But Ace wouldn’t stop licking Nick and that’s when he noticed the house was full of smoke.

“I couldn’t hear anything because I had my cochlear implants off. … My dog Ace smelled it,” said Nick. Nick grabbed one of his implants and without any shoes he went downstairs with Ace. Nick and Ace navigated to the back door through the smoke and fire.

The blaze destroyed the family’s home, but firefighters were able to rescue the cat stuck inside. The family home was a total loss, but the family is incredibly grateful that Ace saved Nick’s life.
Source

VIDEO 

 

Responses to “Heroic Pit Bull saves deaf boy from house fire (VIDEO)”

  1. nootkabear says:

    Pits have proven to be great search and rescue animals. The people being rescued, are usually scared to death when they see the Pit, but the animal did wonderful job, and the people should just get over their fears. Pits have had a bad rap!

Write a comment

LivingLies’ Neil Garfield Post on Fannie and Freddie

New post on Livinglies’s Weblog

 

Fannie and Freddie Demand $6 Billion for Sale of “Faulty Mortgage Bonds”

by Neil Garfield

You read the news on one settlement after another, it sounds like the pound of flesh is being exacted from the culprits again and again. This time the FHFA, as owner of Fannie and Freddie, is going for a settlement with Bank of America for sale of “faulty mortgage bonds.” And most people sit back and think that justice is being done. It isn’t. $6 Billion is window dressing on a liability that is at least 100 times that amount. And stock analysts take comfort that the legal problems for the banks has basically been discounted already. It hasn’t.

For practitioners who defend mortgage foreclosures, you must dig a little deeper. The term “faulty mortgage bonds” is a euphemism. Look at the complaints there filed. When they are filed by agencies it means that after investigation they have arrived at the conclusion that something was. very wrong with the sale of mortgage bonds. That is an administrative finding that concluded there was at least probable cause for finding that the mortgage bonds were defective and potentially were criminal.

So what does “defective” or “faulty” mean? Neither the media nor the press releases from the agencies or the banks tell us what was wrong with the bonds. But if you look at the complaints of the agencies, they tell you what they mean. If you look at the investor lawsuits you see that they are alleging that the notes and mortgages were “unenforceable.” Both the agencies and the investors filed complaints alleging that the mortgage bonds were a farce, sham or in other words, a PONZI Scheme.

Why is that important to foreclosure defense? Digging deeper you will find what I have been reporting on this blog. The investors money was not used to fund the REMIC trusts. The unfunded trusts never had the money to buy or fund the origination of bonds. The notes and mortgages were never sold to the Trusts even though “assignments” were executed and shown in court. The assignments themselves were either backdated or violated the 90 day cutoff that under applicable law (the laws of the State of New York) are VOID and not voidable.

What to do? File Freedom of Information Act requests for the findings, allegations and names of investigators for the agency that were involved in the agency action. Take their deposition. Get documents. Find put what mortgages were looked at and which bond series were involved. Get a list of the mortgages and the bonds that were examined. Get the findings on each mortgage and each mortgage bond. Use the the investor allegations as lender admissions admissions in court — that the notes and mortgages are unenforceable.

There is a disconnect between what is going on at the top of the sham securitization chain and what went on in sham mortgage originations and sham sales of loans. They never happened in the real world, no matter how much paper you throw at it.

And that just doesn’t apply to mortgages in default — it applies to all mortgages, which is why all the mortgages that currently exist, and most of the deeds that show ownership of the property have clouded and probably “defective” and “faulty” titles. It’s clear logic that the government and the banks are seeking to avoid, to wit: that if the way in which the money was raised to fund the loans or purchase the loans were defective, then it follows that there are defects in the chain of title and the money trail that were obviously not disclosed, as per the requirements of TILA and Reg Z.

And when you keep digging in discovery you will find out that your client has some clear remedies to collect the profits and compensation paid to undisclosed recipients arising out of the closing of the “loan.” These are offsets to the amount claimed as due. If the loan was not funded by the Trust, then the false paper trail used by the banks in foreclosure is subject to successful attack. If the loans were in fact funded directly by the trust complying with the REMIC provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, then the payee on the note and the mortgagee on the mortgage would be the trust — or if the loan was actually purchased, the Trust would have issued money to the seller (something that never happened).

And lastly, for now, let us look at the capital structure of these banks. A substantial portion of their capital derives from assets in the form of mortgage bonds. This is the most blatant lie of all of them. No underwriter buys the securities issued by the company seeking financing through an offering to investors. It is an oxymoron. The whole purpose of the underwriter was to create securities that would be appealing to investors. The securities are only issued when you have a buyer for them, and then the investor is the owner of the security — in this case mortgage bonds.

The bonds are not issued to the investment bank as an asset of the investment bank. But they ARE issued to the investment bank in “street name.” That is merely to facilitate trading and delivery of certificates which in most cases in the mortgage bond market don’t exist. The issuance in street name does not mean the banks own the mortgage bonds any more than when you a stock and the title is issued in street name mean that you have loaned or gifted the investment to the investment bank.

If you follow the logic of the investment bank then the deposits of money by depository customers could be claimed as assets — without the required entry in the liabilities section of the balance sheet because every dollar on deposit is a liability to pay those monies on demand, which is why checking accounts are referred to as demand deposits.

Hence the “asset” has been entered on the investment bank balance sheet without the corresponding liability on the other side of their balance sheet. And THAT remains that under cover of Federal Reserve purchase of these bonds from the banks, who don’t own the bonds, the value of the bonds is 100 cents on the dollar and the owner is the bank — a living lies fundamental. When the illusion collapses, the banks are coming down with it. You can only go so far lying to the public and the investment community. Eventually the reality is these banks are underfunded, under capitalized and still being propped up by quantitative easing disguised as the purchase of mortgage bonds at the rate of $85 Billion per month.

We need to be preparing for the collapse of the illusion and get the other financial institutions — 7,000 community and regional banks and credit unions — ready to take on the changes caused by the absence of the so-called major banks who are really fictitious entities without a foundation related to economic reality. The backbone is already available — electronic funds transfer is as available to the smallest bank as it is to the largest. It is an outright lie that we need the TBTF banks. They have failed and cannot recover because of the enormity of the lies they told the world. It’s over.

Great News From Jessica Dye

Unbelievably: Another Bombshell revelation.      Another case has emerged to our attention involving a Bank of America Whistleblower.   Gregory Mackler  filed a Qui Tam case on behalf of all those who were foreclosed upon while eligible for modifications which were required if a homeowner qualified, but denied so that the bank could maximize profit.     This time a former employee blew the whistle on purposeful, malicious denials of modifications while the bank was reporting to the federal government complete direct lies about participation levels in HAMP.      This whistle blower pocketed 14million.     READ THIS FROM REUTERS….  Seems like the whistleblowers should be coming out of the woodwork.

 

By Jessica Dye

NEW YORK, March 7 (Reuters) – Bank of America NA prevented homeowners from receiving mortgage-loan modifications under a federal program in order to avoid millions of dollars in losses while benefitting from financial incentives for participating in the program, according to a complaint unsealed in federal court Wednesday.

The suit is the second whistle blower complaint unsealed so far with apparent ties to the $1 billion False Claims Act settlement announced by Bank of America and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York on February 9.

The Bank of America settlement is also part of the sweeping $25 billion agreement reached between state and federal authorities.

Final settlement documents have yet to be filed in the BoA settlement, which the U.S. Attorney’s Office said was the largest ever False Claims Act payout related to mortgage fraud.

The settlement resolved claims that Bank of America’s Countywide Financial subsidiaries defrauded the Federal Housing Administration by inflating appraisals used for government-insured home loans, as well as claims involving the Home Affordable Modification Program, a federal program to help American homeowners facing foreclosure.

The complaint unsealed Wednesday was filed by whistleblower Gregory Mackler, a Colorado resident who said he worked alongside Bank of America executives while an employee at Urban Lending Solutions, a company to which Bank of America contracted some of its HAMP work.

While working at Urban Lending, Mackler said he saw BofA and its loan servicing subsidiary, BAC Homes Loans Servicing LP, implement “business practices designed to intentionally prevent scores of eligible homeowners from becoming eligible or staying eligible for permanent HAMP modification.”

The bank and its agents routinely pretended to have lost homeowners’ documents, failed to credit payments during trial modifications and intentionally misled homeowners about their eligibility for the program, the complaint alleged.

BoA let through just enough HAMP modifications to avert suspicion and allay congressional critics, while not enough to incur any substantial losses to its own bottom line, according to the complaint.

“In other words, BoA has had it both ways. BoA has continued to maximize the value of its mortgage portfolio with anti-HAMP modification practices and managed to make money by committing fraud on homeowner,” the lawsuit said.

A lawyer for Mackler could neither confirm nor deny that the complaint was tied to the settlement. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office and a representative for Bank of America declined to comment.

In February, a whistleblower complaint was unsealed from Kyle Lagow, a former employee in a Countrywide appraisal unit which detailed allegations of Countrywide’s “corrupt underwriting and appraisal process.” Bank of America purchased Countywide in June 2008.

Under the False Claims Act, successful whistleblower complaints can earn that whistleblower up to 25 percent of the settlement amount.

According to the docket, the U.S. Department of Justice has until March 16 to decide whether to intervene in both the Mackler and Lagow case. The case is United States of America v. Bank of America NA et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, no. 11-3270.
 
 
 
If you have not already, please sign our petition to audit the National Land Record at: www.Landtegrity.com
 
 
Best, 
 
 
Chloe Williams
540.341.1481 (office)
202.841.2306 (cell)

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 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

 

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

 

UPL ADVISORY OPINION

FINAL VERSION
277 Ga. 472
In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: November 10, 2003
S03U1451. IN RE UPL ADVISORY OPINION 2003-2.
PER CURIAM.
We granted the State Bar of Georgia’s petition for discretionary review to consider the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law that the preparation and execution of a deed of conveyance on behalf of another and facilitation of its execution by anyone other than a duly licensed Georgia attorney constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. UPL Advisory Opinion No. 2003-2 (April 22, 2003). 1 See State Bar Rule 14-9.1 (g) (3) (authorizing this Court to grant petition for discretionary review or review an opinion on its own motion). Because we agree with the UPL Standing Committee that only a licensed Georgia attorney may prepare or facilitate the execution of a deed of conveyance, we approve UPL Advisory Opinion 2003-2. It is well established that this Court has the inherent and exclusive authority to govern the practice of law in Georgia, including jurisdiction over the unlicensed practice of law. Eckles v. Atlanta Tech. Group, 267 Ga. 801, 804 (2) (485 SE2d 22) (1997). See also GRECAA v. Omni Title Services, Ga. (Case No. S03A1030, decided 11/* /03); Huber v. State, 234 Ga. 357, 359 (216 SE2d 73) (1975); State Bar Rule 14-1.1. In this regard, we have issued formal advisory opinions which confirmed that a lawyer cannot delegate responsibility
for the closing of a real estate transaction to a non-lawyer and required the physical presence of an attorney for the preparation and execution of a deed of conveyance

*1 State Bar Rule 14-9.1 (b) empowers the Standing Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law to address inquiries regarding the unauthorized practice of law.

(including, but not limited to, a warranty deed, limited warranty deed, quitclaim deed, security deed, and deed to secure debt). In other words, we have consistently held that it is the unauthorized practice of law for someone other than a duly-licensed Georgia attorney to close a real estate transaction or to prepare or facilitate the execution of such deed(s) for the benefit of a seller, borrower, or lender. See, e.g., Formal Advisory Op. No. 86-5 (86-R9) (May 12, 1989); Formal Advisory Op. No. 00-3 (Feb. 11, 2000).
The proponents of lay conveyancing, *2 or witness-only closings, *3 urge this Court to overturn UPL Advisory Opinion 2003-2 because, they contend, requiring the services of Georgia lawyers for real estate closings and the execution of deeds of conveyances needlessly harms the public interest by increasing price and decreasing choice for consumers. Recognizing that adherence to the public interest is “the foremost obligation of the practitioner,” First Bank & Trust v. Zagoria, 250 Ga. 844, 845 (302 SE2d 674) (1983), as it distinguishes a professional service from a purely commercial enterprise, we continue to believe that the public interest is best protected when a licensed Georgia attorney, trained to recognize the rights at issue during a property conveyance, oversees the entire transaction. If the attorney fails in his or her responsibility in the closing, the

*2 “Lay conveyancing,” authorized by statute in some states, is generally defined as the practice by which non-lawyers close real estate transactions, provide settlement services, or select, prepare and complete certain real estate closing documents. See Va. Code. Ann. §§ 6.1-2.19 (2003) (consumer protection statute uthorizing lay settlement services); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-35-125 (2002) (recognizing authority of nonlawyers to close real estate transactions); Minn. Stat. §§ 481.02 (2002) (exempting non-lawyer real estate closings from statutory definition of unauthorized practice of law). In Georgia, non-lawyers may conduct pro se those transactions set out in OCGA § 15-19-50 and to which they are a party.                                                     *3  “Witness-only closings” occur when notaries, signing agents and other individuals who are not a party to the real estate closing preside “over the execution of the deeds of conveyance and other closing documents, but purport to do so merely as a witness and notary, not as someone who is practicing law.” UPL Advisory Opinion 2003-2, p.5.

attorney may be held accountable through a malpractice or bar disciplinary action. In
contrast, the public has little or no recourse if a non-lawyer fails to close the transaction
properly. It is thus clear that true protection of the public interest in Georgia requires that an attorney licensed in Georgia participate in the real estate transaction.

Although it is within this Court’s exclusive authority to determine the scope of the practice of law, we note that since at least 1932 it has been the statutory policy in the State of Georgia that only attorneys properly licensed in Georgia are authorized to close real estate transactions. See OCGA § 15-19-50 (practice of law includes conveyancing, preparation of legal instruments of all kinds whereby legal right is secured, rendering of opinions as to the validity or invalidity of titles to real or personal property, and giving of any legal advice). See also Georgia Bar Association v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., 222 Ga. 657 (151 SE2d 718) (1966). Although the language of this statute does not control the practice of law in Georgia, we find it is “in aid of the judiciary in the performance of its functions,” Huber, 234 Ga. at 360, and is consistent with our holding that only an attorney duly licensed in this State can prepare and facilitate the execution of a deed of conveyance. This policy was enacted and continues to exist for the benefit of the public and we are unpersuaded that the time has come to change the policy with regard to lay conveyances or witness-only closings. Accordingly, we hereby approve UPL Advisory Opinion 2003-2.

UPL Advisory Opinion approved. All the Justices concur.
Decided November 10, 2003 – Reconsideration denied December 12, 2003.