Big Banks Save Billions As Homeowners Suffer, Internal Federal Report By CFPB Finds | National Association of Consumer Advocates

Big Banks Save Billions As Homeowners Suffer, Internal Federal Report By CFPB Finds National Association of Consumer Advocates Release Date: March 28, 2011 Source: Shahien Nasiripour, The Huffington Post NEW YORK -- The nation's five largest mortgage firms have saved more than $20 billion since the housing crisis began in 2007 by taking shortcuts in processing troubled borrowers' home loans, according to a confidential presentation prepared for state attorneys general by the nascent consumer bureau inside the Treasury Department. That estimate suggests large banks have reaped tremendous benefits from under-serving distressed homeowners, a complaint frequent enough among borrowers that federal regulators have begun to acknowledge the industry's fundamental shortcomings. The dollar figure also provides a basis for regulators' internal discussions regarding how best to penalize Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial in a settlement of wide-ranging allegations of wrongful and occasionally illegal foreclosures. People involved in the talks say some regulators want to levy a $5 billion penalty on the five firms, while others seek as much as $30 billion, with most of the money going toward reducing troubled homeowners' mortgage payments and lowering loan balances for underwater borrowers, those who owe more on their home than it's worth. Even the highest of those figures, however, pales in comparison to the likely cost of reducing mortgage principal for the three million homeowners some federal agencies hope to reach. Lowering loan balances for that many underwater borrowers who owe less than $1.15 for every dollar their home is worth would cost as much as $135 billion, according to the internal presentation, dated Feb. 14, obtained by The Huffington Post. But perhaps most important to some lawmakers in Washington, the mere existence of the report suggests a much deeper link between the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, led by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, and the 50 state attorneys general who are leading the nationwide probe into the five firms' improper foreclosure practices, a development sure to anger Republicans in Congress and a banking industry intent on diminishing the fledgling CFPB's legitimacy by questioning its authority to act before it's officially launched in July. Earlier this month, Warren told the House Financial Services Committee, under intense questioning, that her agency has provided limited assistance to the various state and federal agencies involved in the industry probes. At one point, she was asked whether she made any recommendations regarding proposed penalties. She replied that her agency has only provided "advice." A representative of the consumer agency declined to comment on the presentation, citing the law enforcement nature of the federal investigation into the mortgage industry's leading firms. The seven-page presentation begins by stating that a deal to settle claims of improper foreclosures "provides the potential for broad reform." In it, the consumer agency outlines possibilities offered by the settlement -- a minimum number of mortgage modifications, a boost to the housing market -- and how it could reform the industry going forward so that investors in home loans and the borrowers who owe them would be able to resolve situations in which borrowers fall behind on their payments without the complications of a large mortgage company acting in its own interest. The presentation also details how much certain firms likely saved in lieu of making the necessary loan-processing adjustments as delinquencies and foreclosures rose. Bank of America, for example, has saved more than $6 billion since 2007 by not upgrading its procedures or hiring more workers, according to the report. Wells Fargo saved about as much, with JPMorgan close behind. Citigroup and Ally bring the total saved to nearly $25 billion. The presentation adds that the under-investment far exceeds the proposed $5 billion penalty that has been on the table. People familiar with the matter say the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency wants to fine the industry less than $5 billion. The alleged shortchanging of homeowners has prolonged the housing market's woes, experts say, because distressed homeowners who are prime candidates to have their payments reduced aren't getting loan modifications and lenders are taking up to two years to seize borrowers' homes. The average borrower in foreclosure has been delinquent for 537 days before actually being evicted, up from 319 days in January 2009, according to Lender Processing Services, a data provider. The prolonged housing pain has manifested itself in various ways. Purchases of new U.S. homes dropped last month to the slowest pace on record, according to the Commerce Department. Prices declined to the lowest level since 2003, according to the National Association of Realtors. About 6.9 million homeowners were either delinquent or in foreclosure proceedings through February, according to LPS. A penalty of about $25 billion -- based on mortgage servicing costs avoided -- would have "little effect" on the five firms' capital levels, according to the presentation, since the five banks collectively hold about $500 billion in tangible common equity, the highest form of capital. Those numbers notwithstanding, banks and Republicans in Congress have complained that such a large penalty would have a disproportionate impact on bank balance sheets, hurting their ability to lend or pay dividends to investors. The presentation adds that given the extent of negative equity -- underwater homeowners owe $751 billion more than their homes are worth, according to data provider CoreLogic -- "we have gravitated towards settlement solutions that enable asset liquidity and cast a wide net." The solution is an emphasis on reducing mortgage debt and enabling short sales, thus allowing borrowers to refinance into more affordable loans or to sell their homes and move on. Top Federal Reserve officials and other economists have pointed to the large numbers of underwater homeowners as being one of the reasons behind high unemployment, as underwater homeowners are unable to move to where the jobs are. More than 23 percent of homeowners with a mortgage are underwater, according to CoreLogic. The proposed settlement, as envisioned by the consumer agency, could reduce loan balances for up to three million homeowners. If mortgage firms targeted their efforts at reducing mortgage debt for three million homeowners who owe as much as their homes are worth or have less than 5 percent equity, the total cost would be $41.8 billion, according to estimates cited in the presentation. If firms lowered total mortgage debt for three million homeowners who are underwater by as much as 15 percent and brought them to 5 percent equity, that would cost more than $135 billion, according to the presentation. That would include reducing second mortgages and home equity lines of credit. In its presentation, the consumer agency said the new program, titled "Principal Reduction Mandate," could be "meaningfully additive to HAMP" -- the Home Affordable Modification Program, the Obama administration's primary mortgage modification effort. The CFPB estimates that there are about 12 million U.S. homeowners underwater, most of whom are not delinquent, according to its presentation. Of those, nine million would be eligible for this new principal-reduction scheme born from the foreclosure deal. The new initiative would then "mandate" three million permanent modifications. News of the level of the consumer agency's involvement in the state investigation would likely be welcomed by consumer and homeowner advocates, who have long complained of the lack of attention paid to distressed borrowers by federal bank regulators like the OCC and the Federal Reserve. But Republicans will pounce on the news, creating yet another distraction for a fledgling bureau that was the centerpiece of the Obama administration's efforts to reform the financial industry in the wake of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, the banking industry will likely celebrate government infighting as attention is diverted away from allegations of bank wrongdoing and towards the level of involvement of Elizabeth Warren, a fierce consumer advocate and the principal original proponent of an agency solely dedicated to protecting borrowers from abusive lenders. Warren is standing up the agency on an interim basis. It formally launches in July, at which point it will need a Senate-confirmed director in order to carry out its full authority. One of those areas will be how mortgage firms process home loans for distressed borrowers. A spokeswoman for JPMorgan Chase declined to comment. Spokespeople for the other four banks were not immediately available for comment. Read the presentation attached.

Lawless America - Corruption Exposed in the Federal Courts

Lawless America - Corruption Exposed in the Federal Courts

More people forgo lawyers, represent themselves | ajc.com

More people forgo lawyers, represent themselves  | ajc.com

If they get any more fuller of BS than what they already are, I will die. Why the hell doesn't the media post the true problem with pro se litigants (not all are idiots and waste time and resources).

Our Legal Filings

As a Pro Se litigant, it is often difficult to know or understand what a Motion, Objection, etc. is supposed to look like. So, what I have done is uploaded to two different websites some of the legal filings we have filed in Probate, State, Superior, District, Court of Appeals of GA, US Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Courts.

Feel free to check out the filings, they are very useful and informative. Feel free to use the case law, it has all been checked and is what it says. Feel free to contact us should you have any questions.

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND... WE ARE NOT ATTORNEYS, WE DO NOT GIVE LEGAL ADIVCE!
We supply this information only as information in hopes of a better United States and in hopes of combatting the corruption within the legal system and courts!

Go to: http://www.docstoc.com/profile/NootkabearMcDonald

Superior Court Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit

Ya know...

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of corruption at Superior Court Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit.

Now Judge Becker, the same Judge that we have a case against in Federal Court, and who refuses to recuse from the Superior Court case, has set a Summary Judgment hearing for GA Power.

Because she is defendant in a case in federal court along with GA Power and two of the attorneys representing them in the Superior Court case, she cannot legally preside over the Superior Court case. She refuses to recuse.

How in the hell is anyone to have a fair and impartial tribunal in that Court system? The day after she was properly served with Summons and Complaint, she dismissed with prejudice our case against GA Power leaving only their counterclaim.

This is truly a sign of the done deal syndrome!

DeKalb Superior Court Judge Mark Anthony Scott

Keep in mind, Judge Scott has had an Appeal and Void Judgment in front of him for over three years. He set it for Jury Trial that was to begin January 26, 2009. He failed to send Notice of trial to any of the parties.

Monday, January 26, 2009 in a wheelchair, I attended a “Jury Trial” calendar call in Superior Court before Judge Mark Anthony Scott for an Appeal from Probate Court, which was filed three years ago. When my name was called I responded; Judge asked if I was ready for trial, I responded that I was. Judge asked if I was proceeding Pro Se, I responded that I was. Judge asked if I was represented by counsel, I responded that No, I am proceeding Pro Se. The Judge asked me two more times if I was represented, and/or if I was proceeding Pro Se, I responded that I am proceeding Pro Se both times.

The clerk, very quietly spoke to the Judge. The Judge stated that there are “technical difficulties” in the file. I asked what the technical difficulties are. The Judge, very irritated stated to the Bailiff “take him out back!” I stated to the Judge: “All I did was ask what the difficulties are”; Judge responded: “I didn’t like your tone of voice!”; I responded: “I am in constant pain, I wasn’t rude”; Judge said: “Why didn’t you tell me that to begin with, I was having you arrested for contempt!”; I said nothing. The Judge then said: “Bailiffs take him out of my Courtroom!”

At that point the Bailiffs, one grabbing the handles of my wheelchair physically removed me from the courtroom. I waited outside approximately 30 minutes, decided I should go in case this Judge decided to have me arrested for contempt. I have heard nothing sense.

Judicial Corruption

I don't know about the rest of yall, but I have had about enough of the corruption within the Judicial System. I see that it's not just in Georgia, but all over the whole country.

It's just a damn shame that the greatest country in the world is riddled with such corruption and apparently everyone knows it and nothing is done about it.

A friend of mine has a site: http://www.cajc.com Citizens against Judicial Corruption. He pointed out to me a blog on this site: http://www.judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com

I guess this is one way to fight back. There still has to be more.

If anyone else (I'm not speaking of attorneys, or law students, I am speaking of those of us forced to fight for our Rights in the Courts as Pro Se litigants) if anyone else has ever sat back and read case after case after case for caselaw, it is obvious that what is going on goes against everything our country was created for. The Supreme Court in many cases goes through and analyzes what it was that the "framers intended" when they made laws.

I can tell you.... the framers did not intend justice to be only for the rich, only for those who can afford attorneys, only for friends and family of Judges. They never intended the Judges to be bias/prejudice and treat litigants without dignity, to treat them as idiots, to humiliate them.

We have studied the law diligently for four years now. No, not at college, but studied in the same way one would study in college. We are not idiots, and we will not quit, we will not go away!