Daily Archives: July 4, 2014

Couple charges civil rights abuses in Nationstar suit

SANDY LAKE TOWNSHIP — A Sandy Lake Township couple has filed a federal lawsuit alleging a local judge and a sheriff’s deputy violated their civil rights when the wife was physically removed from a courtroom.

Raymond S. and Rebecca A. Crimone, 2917 Sandy Lake Grove City Road, said Mercer County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert G. Yeatts and deputy Anthony Tedesco violated their rights to free speech and against unlawful searches and seizures.

The charges are part of a much larger lawsuit that takes aim at mortgage companies, law firms and officials involved in the foreclosure of the mortgage of their home.

Nationstar Mortgage filed a foreclosure complaint Oct. 16 in Mercer County Common Pleas Court, alleging the Crimones defaulted on their 2004 mortgage and owe about $127,000.

Read on.

What Would the Founders Think of the U.S. Today?

It’s the Fourth of July, and the day that the nation pauses to watch hot dog eating competitions and set many things on fire. It’s also the day for celebrating the birth of America, and patriotism abounds. But many people are wrapping themselves in the flag every day, in a way that has to have our nation’s founders cocking their eyebrows a bit. After all, when they fought for a free, independent country, was this what they were bargaining for?

Yes, according to many conservatives, who seem to think they have a direct line to the founding fathers. Despite the recognized historical religious ambivalence of most of the early founders, today’s politicians are obsessed with forcing the U.S. into a biblically based government that has never in actuality existed.

We’ve come a long way in the 238 years since the Declaration of Independence was signed. Some may even say we’ve gone too far. Former Senator and potential GOP presidential nominee Rick Santorum may believe so. In a recent television interview he opined that maybe it’s better to only allow some people to vote than give the right to everyone, harkening back to the days where only white, male property owners had the ability to decide on the direction of the country.
Read on.

Rick Santorum needs to re-read and re-read the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence since this is 4th of July because he is beyond backwards. In fact, I encourage him to watch the 1972 musical movie, 1776. Here is an interesting quote concerning the anti-slavery clause in the Declaration of Independence and the response of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.  Art imitates life:

[on the anti-slavery clause]

John Adams: That little paper there deals with freedom for Americans!

Edward Rutledge: Oh, really. Mr. Adams is now calling our black slaves “Americans!” Are they, now?

John Adams: Yes, they are. They are people, and they are here. If there’s any other requirement, I haven’t heard it.

Edward Rutledge: They are here, yes, but they are not people sir, they are property.

Thomas Jefferson: No, sir they are people who are being treated as property! I tell you, the rights of human nature are deeply wounded by this infamous practice!

Edward Rutledge: Then see to your own wounds Mr. Jefferson, for you are a practitioner are you not?

Thomas Jefferson: I have already resolved to release my slaves.

Edward Rutledge: Oh. Then I’m sorry, for you’ve also resolved the ruination of your own personal economy.

John Adams: Economy. Always economy. There’s more to this than a filthy purse-string, Rutledge! It is an offense against man and God!

Hopkins: It’s a stinking business, Eddie, a stinking business!

Edward Rutledge: Is it really now, Mr. Hopkins? Then what’s that I smell floating down from the North? Could it be the aroma of hy-pocrisy? For who holds the other end of that filthy purse-string, Mr. Adams? Our northern brethren are feeling a bit tender toward our black slaves. They don’t keep slaves! Oh, no. But they are willing to be considerable carriers of slaves to others. They’re willin’! For the shillin’.

Oh, and here is an interesting quote from the movie about Congress by John Adams:

John Adams: I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God, I have had this Congress! For ten years, King George and his Parliament have gulled, cullied, and diddled these colonies with their illegal taxes! Stamp Acts, Townshend Acts, Sugar Acts, Tea Acts! And when we dared stand up like men, they have stopped our trade, seized our ships, blockaded our ports, burned our towns, and spilled our BLOOD! And still, this Congress refuses to grant ANY of my proposals on independence, even so much as the courtesty of open debate! Good God, what in hell are you waiting for?

Sounds just like our current Congress: Won’t give the common courtesy of an open debate on issues that matters in the country.

 

Happy 4th of July!

By popular demand.. Freedom by Paul McCartney

KABOOM!!! BANK OF AMERICA V. GREENLEAF | MAINE SUP. CT – MERS DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ASSIGN A MORTGAGE IN MAINE

[¶15] As in Saunders, despite the language in Greenleaf’s mortgage that suggests otherwise, Greenleaf’s mortgage did not, as a matter of law, grant to MERS any right to foreclose on the property. Rather, the mortgage conveyed to MERS only the right to record the mortgage as nominee for the lender, RMS. There is also no evidence in the record purporting to demonstrate that MERS acquired any authority with respect to Greenleaf’s mortgage by any means other than that defined in the mortgage itself. [¶16] When MERS then assigned its interest in the mortgage to BAC, it granted to BAC only what MERS possessed—the right to record the mortgage as nominee—because MERS could not have granted to another person or entity any greater interest in the mortgage than that enjoyed by MERS. See Sturtevant v. Town of Winthrop, 1999 ME 84, ¶ 11 n.4, 732 A.2d 264 (stating that “an assignee has no greater rights than his assignor”); Arey v. Hall, 81 Me. 17, 22, 16 A. 302 (1888) (“[T]he assignee can have no greater right . . . than the assignor.”).

Here is the court document. Click here.

Investor Alert: Ocwen Financial Corp (NYSE:OCN) faces Investigation for Investors

The Shareholders Foundation announces that an investigation for investors, who currently hold NYSE:OCN shares, was launched over potential breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and directors of Ocwen Financial Corp.

Investors who purchased shares of Ocwen Financial Corp (NYSE:OCN) have certain optionsand should contact the Shareholders Foundation at mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1(858) 779 – 1554.

The investigation by a law firm concerns, among other things, whether certain OcwenFinancial officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties and caused damage to the company and its shareholders.

Read on.

JPMorgan Said to Have Unwittingly Helped BNP’s Transfers

lol Well, Jamie better get some rest for 4th of July because here is another headache for him. You notice that no bank execs gone to jail for U.S. sanctions.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)unwittingly helped BNP Paribas SA (BNP) violate U.S. sanctions as the French bank hid billions of dollars in transactions involving Sudan and Cuba, according to court documents and people with knowledge of the matter.

BNP Paribas turned to JPMorgan on the basis of legal advice from Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, said two people who asked not be named because the identities of the bank and the law firm haven’t been disclosed. The Paris-based bank relied on a legal memo that suggested using a U.S. bank might protect it from sanctions penalties, according to the statement of facts filed by prosecutors in New York.

JPMorgan is referred to as “U.S. Bank 1” while Cleary Gottlieb is identified as “U.S. Law Firm 1” in the court filings, the people said. Cleary Gottlieb later said such transactions may be illegal. Neither JPMorgan nor Cleary Gottlieb are accused of wrongdoing.

Read on.