Earlier this week, Mother Jones reported that Donald Trump’s loans from the German-based Deutsche Bank—totaling at least $100 million and possibly much more—would pose a significant conflict of interest, should Trump, the GOP’s presumptive nominee, become president. After all, the bank was recently caught manipulating markets around the world (and had to pay $2.5 billion in fines), and it has tried to evade US laws aimed at curtailing risky financial shenanigans and has attempted to influence the US government via lobbying.

Richard Painter, an attorney who teaches at the University of Minnesota and who was the chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007, noted that Trump’s relationship with the overseas financial giant was disturbing: “Having a president who owes a lot of money to banks, particularly when it’s on negotiable terms—it puts them at the mercy of the banks and the banks are at the…

The Neil Garfield Show Tonight! 6 pm EST

——–THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER——–

Click in to tune in The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

By William Hudson

Tonight Attorney James Randy Ackley returns to the Neil Garfield Show and will continue the conversation about adhesion contracts he touched on during the  April 29, 2016. broadcast.  During the show, Ackley discussed raising issues of unconscionability in regards to defending against foreclosure.

Unconscionable or oppressive loans are all too common. Take for example, a borrower with limited income who refinances his $1.5 million dollar loan, only to default after five monthly payments. A Notice of Default is subsequently recorded, followed by a Notice of Trustee’s Sale and finally a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is recorded just shy of one…

DAUGHERTY v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC

U.S. District Courtcase number 5:14-cv-24506

BECKLEY – A Wood County man will receive more than $2.5 million after a federal jury said a mortgage service company didn’t investigate his repeated disputes of his credit report.

A federal jury on May 23 awarded $6,128.39 in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages to David M. Daugherty of Vienna. He had sued Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and EquifaxInformation Services LLC in Raleigh County in 2014. The defendants had the case removed to federal court.

After a six-day trial before Judge Irene Berger, the jury ruled in favor of Daugherty, saying Ocwen willfully violated the Fair Credit and Reporting Act. One component of that act requires that a company investigate all disputes. Daugherty had filed several disputes with Ocwen after receiving Equifax credit reports showing him behind on his mortgage payment.

More here…

By David Dayen, Author of Chain of Title and winner of the Studs Terkel Prize via Vice

http://www.vice.com/read/what-happened-when-the-fbi-investigated-foreclosure-fraud-in-florida

Six years ago, FBI agents in Jacksonville, Florida, wrote a memo to their bosses in Washington, DC, that could have unraveled the largest consumer fraud in American history. It went to the heart of the shady mortgage industry that precipitated the financial crisis, and the case promised to involve nearly every major bank in the country, honing in on the despicable practice of using bogus documents to illegally kick people out of their homes.

But despite impaneling a grand jury, calling in dozens of agents and forensic examiners, doing 75 interviews, issuing hundreds of subpoenas, and reviewing millions of documents, the criminal investigation resulted in just one conviction. And that convict—Lorraine Brown, CEO of the third-party company DocX that facilitated the fraud scheme—was sent to prison for duping the banks.

Thanks to…

California Trend: The Truth Matters

By Attorney Charles Marshall, Southern California

Time to provide some of the backstory to how the recent breakthrough decision of Gieseke v. Bank of America came about. Of course it goes back to Yvanova (February 2016). This blog has addressed that decision on many occasions. And then there is Keshtgar v. U.S. Bank (April 2016). I’ve blogged a bit about that decision as well.

Between those two cases, back in early March, the case of Lundy v. Selene Finance became relevant. Unlike the two California Supreme Court decisions of Yvanova and Keshtgar, Lundy it is a U.S. District Court case (Northern District of California), and moving forward as I write this on several causes of action at the trial level- including quiet title and wrongful foreclosure.

One Jon Tigar is the presiding judge in Lundy. He issued an order to show cause in early March…

Wells Fargo- We will NEVER Fabricate or Robosign Another Foreclosure Document- We Promise.

By William Hudson

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/banking/article79826477.html

Wells Fargo agreed to pay a $70 million penalty to end its five-year battle to settle claims over fraudulent foreclosure practices in the wake of the financial crisis- yet, Wells Fargo is continuing the same foreclosure practices they claim to have halted- while our elected officials pretend that Wells is in compliance with the National Mortgage Settlement.  Banks create the illusion of ownership and compliance while government creates the illusion of enforcement- the homeowner is doomed.  The parasitic relationship between banking and government is destroying the fabric of America.

Five years ago, Wells Fargo and other banks settled allegations that they’d fraudulently endorsed and fabricated legal papers used in home foreclosures and last year, the OCC imposed restrictions on Wells Fargo and the usual culprits because they hadn’t met settlement demands.  Yet these…

by William Hudson

When borrower credit requirements are lowered, housing prices rise in response.  Flat wages and an employment market composed of part-time jobs paying minimum wage should inhibit home ownership- but, alas, Wells Fargo has a solution!  In fact- it’s the same solution they had back in the early 200s when they gave out loans to unqualified buyers, knowing the loans would fail, and then bet against their own investments- while knowing future government (tax payer) subsidies would fund any claims of “loss”.  It was one of the most perfectly orchestrated criminal schemes ever perpetuated on the American public- that continues to this day.

The second wave of the market crash has now appeared on the horizon and with a slow down in the real estate market- the Fed and the Banks must again resort to drastic measures to incentivize prospective buyers into the market. The nation’s largest lender,

“The issue really boils down to the question of whether we are going to apply simple direct rules that favor nobody in particular (blind justice — remember that?) or if the Courts are going to create monumental complexity and uncertainty under their past “Theory of Everything,” to wit: let the banks keep coming back until they win. This theory obviously ignores completely the doctrine of Finality and further construes due process in a way that will come back to bite the courts.”

see http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2016/05/24/hsbc-v-clark-moore-ny-sc-as-this-action-is-time-barred-it-cannot-be-commenced-again-and-the-controversy-has-therefore-reached-an-ultimate-outcome/
So we have a very simple case with a very simple conclusion on the issue of statute of limitations. The premise is simple — what you do, in a legal sense, always matters if it is relevant. There is nothing more relevant than an alleged lender sending a notice of delinquency followed by a notice of acceleration informing the “borrower” that their debt is now due…

  California Foreclosure Justice

Click in to tune in to:  The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, Tonight at 6 pm EST Thursday.

The legal landscape is changing in California.  After a foreclosure drought, Yvanova opened a floodgate of new decisions that bolster a homeowner’s right to challenge a fraudulent foreclosure pre- and post-sale.

Joining us tonight on the Neil Garfield Show is San Diego attorney Charles Marshall who had a case vacated in Gieseke v. Bank ofAmerica, when BOA won on summarily without having to provide an oral argument based on a lack of standing.  The case was remanded the case back to District Court where it will be reconsidered. Gieseke Remand Order 5 20 16 from 9th Circuit.

Charles will discuss Gieseke in regards to the recent California Yvanova and Keshtgar decisions.
Marshall Law
Attorney Charles Marshall
415 Laurel Street, Suite 405 San…