Daily Archives: August 20, 2014

John Morgan to editor: Jamie Dimon is not the new J.P. Morgan

Dear Editor: I’m a longtime admirer of Dave Zweifel, but when he says in his article “How the GOP has changed for the worse,” that “Jamie Dimon is the new J.P. Morgan,” I must offer a friendly demurrer.

J.P. Morgan was not one of the robber barons. He was an honest, compassionate and colorful character who happened to have a knack for making money. He gave much of it to hospitals, schools and museums. When he died, he was president of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

When one of his lovers, before he was married, got engaged, he gave her a generous check as a wedding gift.

After the panic of 1907, he organized a syndicate of bankers to rescue the economy from collapse, using the government’s own deposits in the banks.

My favorite story about him is the time a visiting clergyman didn’t have time to get to the train station. Morgan told him, “Don’t worry, the train runs right behind my estate. We’ll just go flag it down.” When the conductor learned why his train had been stopped, he informed Morgan in colorful language that that sort of thing was not done. “Who do you think you are?” the conductor asked. “Well, I’m J.P. Morgan, and I happen to own this railroad.” “Well, I don’t give damn! You may own the railroad, but you don’t know anything about trains.” J.P. replied, “You’re absolutely right, sir. I assure you it will never happen again.”

John Morgan


Source: The Cap Times

My commentary: Jamie Dimon never owned J.P. Morgan. Dimon is just an overpaid job holder. John Piermont Morgan owned J. P Morgan. And here is footnote in Wikipedia of who took over the company after Mr. Morgan’s death:

His son, J. P. Morgan, Jr., took over the business at his father’s death, but was never as influential. As required by the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act, the “House of Morgan” became three entities: J.P. Morgan & Co., which later became Morgan Guaranty Trust; Morgan Stanley, an investment house; and Morgan Grenfell in London, an overseas securities house. 


H/T to 4closurefraud.org. Cross-posted from The Law Offices of Evan M. Rosen:

Just recently finished up a trial in Broward County, Florida.  The Plaintiff’s witness was very qualified, at something, as an employee for 8 years with Seterus, only I’m not sure at what….

After a lengthy cross on her general background and “qualifications” in which relevance objections started to be sustained, Plaintiff goes to move the note into evidence.  I offer to stipulate to the note coming in if Plaintiff agrees to stipulate that the original was first filed in this case on 2/26/14.  Suit was filed on 12/27/11.  Opposing counsel agrees.  The Plaintiff then asked background questions on the note.  I object relevance, cumulative, we can let the evidence speak for itself.  Sustained.

Next, copy of mortgage, I stipulate to its admission into evidence.

Then, letter from Seterus showing servicing transfer to them on 9/1/11.  I offer to stipulate that the letter comes in as evidence ONLY that there was a serving transfer on that date (alleged breach was 5/1/11 and again, suit was filed on 12/27/11) and that nothing in this stipulation should be construed by the court as establishing whether or not the witness is a record custodian or other qualified witness.  Opposing Counsel agrees, I repeat our stipulation to the court and we proceed.  Seterus “hello letter” in.

After that, opposing counsel starts to ask about how the loan was transferred and boarded. I object on relevance making the argument that this has nothing to do with the business records exception to hearsay – all that matters is how records are made and kept.  SUSTAINED!

Next up, a Power of Attorney (POA) purporting to grant Seterus authority to do any foreclosure related activity for FNMA. I ask to voir dire and I start with my usual 10 background questions and then ask 11 very specific and detailed questions which then lead to my objecting based on hearsay and authentication.  I then go through my lengthy six step argument handing the judge numerous cases and citing Ehrhardt along the way.  Objection SUSTAINED – POA OUT!



Bank Of America Agrees Record $17bn Settlement

Bank of America has agreed to a record $17bn (£10.2bn) settlement over its sale of mortgage-backed securities in the lead up to the 2008 financial crisis.

The bank will pay $10bn in cash and provide consumer relief valued at $7bn, officials familiar with the deal told the AP news agency.

The settlement is the largest arising from the economic meltdown during which millions of Americans lost their homes to foreclosure.

It also marks the largest settlement in the history of corporate America.

The agreement with federal and state authorities requires that the bank acknowledge that it made misrepresentations about the quality of its residential mortgage-backed securities, officials said.


Read on.

Countrywide’s Mozilo Said to Face U.S. Suit Over Loans

It should be jail time for Mozilo and not just lawsuits!!!

Countrywide Financial Corp. co-founderAngelo Mozilo hasn’t escaped the wrath of prosecutors for his company’s role in inflating the U.S housing bubble that preceded the financial crisis.

More than 12 months after a deadline passed to file criminal charges, U.S. attorneys in Los Angeles are preparing a civil lawsuit against Mozilo and as many as 10 other former Countrywide employees, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

The government is making a last ditch-effort to hold him accountable for the excesses of the past decade’s subprime-mortgage boom, using a 25-year-old law that has helped the Justice Department win billions of dollars from Wall Street banks, said the people, who weren’t authorized to discuss the case publicly.

Until now, the harshest penalty imposed on Mozilo, 75, has been a $67.5 million accord with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from 2010 to resolve allegations that he misled Countrywide investors. He earned $535 million from 1999 to 2008, according to compensation-research firm Equilar Inc. The size of the sanction in the SEC case, in which Mozilo didn’t admit or deny wrongdoing, compared with his pay has fueled public anger that financial executives walked away from the housing bust enriched and mostly unscathed.

Read on.

5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirms MERS authority to assign mortgage

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmedMERSCORP Holdings’ authority to assign the mortgage lien as its basis for affirming the dismissal of a wrongful foreclosure lawsuit.

In Reece v. U.S. Bank National Association, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his wrongful foreclosure suit, claiming, among other things, that the recorded security instrument “constituted a fraudulent claim against real property because MERS never acquired a security interest in the mortgage properties, and therefore, the recording denominating MERS as a beneficiary of the security instruments are fraudulent.”

The plaintiff went on to allege that the bank lacked standing when it foreclosed on his property because MERS lacked the ability to assign the Deed of Trust.

The Fifth Circuit Court based part of its opinion on its previous ruling in Golden v. Wells Fargo Bank, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the fraudulent lien statute of the Texas code by failing to plead facts sufficient to show that the Bank intended to cause injury by its use of an assignment.

Further, the standing claim was precluded by Fifth Circuit precedent, when it stated, “Our Court has expressly recognized that MERS may assign a deed of trust to a third party and that such assignments confer the new assignee standing to non-judicially foreclose on property associated with that particular deed of trust” in its ruling.


Read on.

American companies looking to escape Uncle Sam

Le Monde (translated in English):

In the United States, the term Uncle Sam refers to the IRS.

When we look at the problem of tax evasion, the American situation deserves attention. It is not fraud … but shortfall for the United States Treasury. But this rétiscence Treasury is legitimate?

Pay when repatriated

U.S. tax authorities, otherwise so quick to attack their citizens in Switzerland or elsewhere, or to use foreign banks as tax officer, before they have an opportunity they would understand this is all the more ironic that the principle of universal taxation applies to American taxpayers, but not businesses.

Indeed, it is only when foreign profits are repatriated to the United States to become taxable. Clearly, foreign profits beyond Uncle Sam. Companies use this mechanism perfectly legally. Cash American companies outside the United States are estimated at $ 2,500 billion. They can, without taxation, use them to their international activities.But these funds are lost to the American economy.

For example, Apple has cash to 25 billion, had to borrow money to pay a dividend, it is cheaper to pay interest as repatriating cash and see taxed. Microsoft has $ 80 billion in cash.

All this is not new as there are countries such as Ireland, where corporation tax is 10%, why these benefits would they charge for the year in the United States?

Invest and relocate?

This would be an academic debate whether the new fashionable idea was not for American companies to acquire companies abroad, and make the parent group, the American subsidiary seeing now taxed only on profits in the United States. This is what we call here the “inversion”.

This is the failed attempt to Astra Zeneca acquisition by American Pfizer is behind this unrest. The ineffable US Treasury Secretary, Jack Lee, wrote to the Senate asking it to ban these operations and appeals to economic patriotism businesses.Incompetence or complicity? Electoral calculation? This phenomenon is not new, but it seems to worry the White House. Obama speaks of “economic deserters.” There is no perfect answer to this threat.


BofA Accused of Rolling USA for $900 Million

(CN) – Bank of America falsely certified that its home modification loans complied with federal laws in order to reap more than $907 million in government incentive payments, a man claims in a qui tam lawsuit in Federal Court.
Michael J. Fisher, of Southlake, Texas, says in his False Claims Act lawsuit that he worked for four years – 2008 through 2012 – assisting attorneys in securing mortgage loan modification for their homeowner clients.
The complaint was filed under seal in March in Manhattan Federal Court and unsealed this month.
Fisher claims to have reviewed hundreds of loan modification contracts from Bank of America and other lenders. He says he noticed a pattern of violations of the Truth in Lending Act.
Specifically, he claims, Bank of America consistently failed to inform the borrowers of their right to rescind their request for a loan modification.
Section 1635 of the TILA “requires notice of the borrower’s right to rescind consumer credit transactions in which a security interest is retained or acquired in property that will be the borrower’s principal dwelling, until midnight of the third business day after consummation of the transaction or delivery of the TILA rescission forms, whichever is later,” the complaint states.
It continues: “Written acknowledgement of any required TILA disclosure creates only a rebuttable presumption of delivery. Refinancings with no new advances, but the same creditor and secured by the same property, and certain other transactions are exempted from the rescission provisions.” (Citations omitted.)
Fischer adds: “The actionable conduct alleged as unlawful herein involves transactions which were not exempted from the rescission provisions.”

Read on.