Dedicated To Victims Of Banking and Mortgage Crimes

I've been in this WAR 30+ Years and I assure you The COPS and KORTS, FBI, DOJ and the ORAL OFFICE are as Dirty as Dirty Gets .....  JBW



Largest International Money Laundering Network in History Formed During Obama Administration; U.S. Banks' Theft of Home Owners' Money Laundered Through Cayman Islands, Isle of Man and Numerous Offshore-Based Affiliates

NEW YORK, NY, Apr 23, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- In a lawsuit alleged to involve the largest money laundering network in United States history, Spire Law Group, LLP -- on behalf of home owners across the Country -- has filed a mass tort action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Kings. Home owners across the country have sued every major bank servicer and their subsidiaries -- formed in countries known as havens for money laundering such as the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, Luxembourg and Malaysia -- alleging that while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners, it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole hundreds of millions of dollars of home owners' money during the last decade and then laundered it through offshore companies. The complaint, Index No. 500827, was filed by Spire Law Group, LLP, and several of the Firm's affiliates and partners across the United States.

Far from being ambiguous, this is a complaint that "names names." Indeed, the lawsuit identifies specific companies and the offshore countries used in this enormous money laundering scheme. Federally Chartered Banks' theft of money and their utilization of offshore tax haven subsidiaries represent potential FDIC violations, violations of New York law, and countless other legal wrongdoings under state and federal law.

"The laundering of trillions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money -- and the wrongful taking of the homes of those taxpayers -- was known by the Administration and expressly supported by it. Evidence uncovered by the plaintiffs revealed that the Administration ignored its own agencies' reports -- and reports from the Department of Homeland Security -- about this situation, dating as far back as 2010. Worse, the Administration purported to endorse a 'national bank settlement' without disclosing or having any public discourse whatsoever about the thousands of foreign tax havens now wholly owned by our nation's banks. Fortunately, no home owner is bound to enter into this fraudulent bank settlement," stated Eric J. Wittenberg of Columbus, Ohio -- a noted trial lawyer, author and student of US history -- on behalf of plaintiffs in the case.

The suing home owners reveal how deeply they were defrauded by bank and governmental corruption -- and are suing for conversion, larceny, fraud, and for violations of other provisions of New York state law committed by these financial institutions and their offshore counterparts.

This lawsuit explains why loans were, in general, rarely modified after 2009. It explains why the entire bank crisis worsened, crippling the economy of the United States and stripping countless home owners of their piece of the American dream. It is indeed a fact that the Administration has spent far more money stopping bank investigations, than they have investigating them. When the Administration's agencies (like the FDIC) blew the whistle, their reports were ignored.

The case is styled Abeel v. Bank of America, etc., et al. -- and includes such entities as ML Banderia Cayman BRL Inc., ML Whitby Luxembourg S.A.R.L. and J.P Morgan Asset Management Luxembourg S.A. -- as well as hundreds of other obscure offshore entities somehow "owned" by federally chartered banks and formed "under the nose" of the Administration and the FDIC.

Commenting further on the case, Mr. Wittenberg stated: "As if it is not bad enough that banks collect money and do not credit it to homeowners' accounts, and as if it is not bad enough that those banks then foreclose when they know they do not have a legally enforceable interest in the realty, we now learn that they have been operating under unbridled free reign given by the Administration and some states' Attorneys General in formulating this international money laundering network. Now that the light of day has been shined on it, I believe we can all rest assured that the beginning of the end of the bank crisis has arrived."

All United States home owners may have the right to bring a lawsuit of this kind if they paid money to a national bank servicer during the years 2003 through 2009.

One lawyer impacted by the corruption -- Mitchell J. Stein, who formerly represented the FDIC, the RTC and the FSLIC during the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1990s, and who predicted all of the foregoing in open court two years ago -- commented: "Two years ago, I remarked in open court to a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, as well as to legislators including Senator Dianne Feinstein's office during a multitude of in-person meetings, that the ongoing violations of the Patriot Act by these financial institutions was outrageous and a breach of the public trust of unprecedented proportions," said Stein.

"The size and scope of this misconduct -- stretching to far-away islands never before having standing as approved United States Bank affiliates -- is remarkable and emblematic of what we have seen," he continued. "The bank crisis represents the height of corruption and brazen behavior where our historically trusted financial institutions have no qualms about breaking the law, because they have the Administration behind them. Banks do well enough when they operate lawfully without needing to be permitted to operate as criminal enterprises that steal money from United States citizens."

Additional plaintiffs' counsel Nicholas M. Moccia commented: "Having been in the trenches of the bank crisis for years, I always knew that the misconduct was being conducted by a network. When I started litigating against banks, however, I could have never imagined that it would be this extensive. I look forward to taking discovery of these thousands of obscure foreign entities and to obtaining for homeowners their constitutionally entitled injuries for this international ring of theft and deception."

Comments were requested from the Attorney Generals' offices in NY, CA, NV, and MA and the White House, but no comment was provided.

About Spire Law Group

Spire Law Group, LLP is a national law firm whose motto is "the public should be protected -- at all costs -- from corruption in whatever form it presents itself." The Firm is comprised of lawyers nationally with more than 250-years of experience in a span of matters ranging from representing large corporations and wealthy individuals, to also representing the masses. The Firm is at the front lines litigating against government officials, banks, defunct loan pools, and now the very offshore entities where the corruption was enabled and perpetrated.

       
        Contact:
        James N. Fiedler, Esq.
        Managing Partner
        Spire Law Group, LLP
        877-475-2448
        Email Contact
        
        
        



In a Common Effort With
For The American Family, Small Businesses and the American Farmer
To ALL  The  Children and  Their Moms and Pops 
If we pursue the wrong route, we may well be confronted with an unmanageable  
crisis.  
We cannot rebuild the US housing finance system until we deal with the legacy problems
from our old system, 
and these are problems that are best addressed sooner, before an irreversible 
crisis, then it is too late ...

Cause No 12-361 was originally filed on March 12, 2012 ...
The Settlement being announced BEFORE the Filing of the Case ... seem a little odd   



NOTE :  It has been suggested by many that this Intervention Application can be Copied and Filed in the DC Federal District Court by as many people as believe they need to STOP the settlement. IF It were me doing this I would think adding a few paragraphs that appertain to or apply to others who might as well Intervene would be a smart way to proceed.  If Judge Collyer gets hundreds even thousands of Interventions .....  well I'm guessing the Settlement will Be Vastly Improved and Likely Stopped all together requireing a Full Trial on the Merits of this HISTORIC CASE. 

U. S. District Court  ( Judge Rosemary M Collyer's Court Unit )
for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Rule 24 The People's Court Rule

One Nation with Equal Protection and Due Process, The Rule Of Law For ALL

In The United States District Court
District Of Columbia, Washington DC
Judge Colliers Court Unit
 
The United States Of America                                                            Civil Case No 12-361
50 States  Attorney Generals Et Al

VS
 
Wellsfargo Bank,  JP Morgan Chase, Ally/GMAC, Citi Bank,  ET AL
The Complete List Of Defendants is listed near the end of this site )

Bank of America: 1-877-488-7814
Citi: 1-866-272-4749
Chase: 1-866-372-6901
Ally (formerly GMAC): 1-800-766-4622
Wells Fargo: 1-800-288-3212
 
Notice of Intent To Intervene as a Matter Of Right
Federal Rule Civil Procedure 24
Victims Intervention of Right
 
To The Honorable Judge of Said Court ... Judge Collier
 
1     Recently (March 12th , 2012)  the US DOJ,,,  Eric Holder , his Assistant Attorneys and 49 State Attorney Generals filed an Original Complaint for a littany of unlawful / fraudulent  and deceptive conduct Including Document Fraud, Land / Real Estate / Mortgage Frauds and Predatory Foreclosures using Fraudulent and in many cases Counterfeit Documentation.  False Signatures altered and back dated Notarizations and Falsified Jurats associated with Illegal Foreclosures involving as many as 65 Million Subprime and other wise Deceptive, Misleading and Fraudulent Mortgage Loans.  Said conduct has been ongoing for 25 years + even longer.
 
2      COMPLAINTS OF FORECLOSURES FAIL TO INCLUDE THE NOTE ... Rule of civil procedure generally require that a compliant based on a writing include, as  an attachment, a copy of a writing.  In a foreclosure action, this means that both the note and the mortgage and any assignments of either must be attached.  Beyond the rules of civil procedure requirement, these  documents are also necessary as an evidentiary matter to establish that the plaintiff has standing to bring the foreclosure .  Millions of Foreclosures have been effected without proving the existance of an actual wet ink agreements Many not proving any actual defaults or that Foreclosing Parties were Lawfully in Possession of Legal Assignments or actually possessed  Legal Standing  to foreclose.  Only Legitimate Real Parties in Interest with BONIFIED AND VERIFIED Standing with Proper and In Order Legal Documentation have Lawful Standing to proceed in a Foreclosure Action see  http://www.bing.com/search?q=Standing+To+Foreclose&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=standing+to+foreclose&sc=2-21&sp=-1&sk= 
From Hawaii to Alabama to Rhode Island, Texas, Florida etc., etc, Et Al  American Property Law Under the US Constitution MANDATES Strict Compliance With the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution and the States Constitutions Equal Protection and Due Process provisions SEE.  http://www.deanmostofi.com/?p=1373 see also http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Standing.html see also http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/the-securitization-curtain-is-lifting-in-hawaii/  

Standing is a requirement grounded in Article III of the United States Constitution, and a defect in standing cannot be waived by the parties. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (US.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,954 (9th Cir. 2011). A litigant must have both constitutional standing and prudential standing for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over the case. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11 (2004). Constitutional standing requires the plaintiff to “show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an ‘injury in fact’ that a favorable judgment will redress.” Id. at 12. In comparison, “prudential standing encompasses the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights.” Id. (citation and quotation signals omitted); see also Oregon v. Legal Servs. Corp., 552 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2009).”

3.     The compensation to those Families that have been defrauded in these loans and been subjected to the Feloniouis Criminal Foreclosures On Their Homes  .... Intervenors would Specifically argue that the Up to $1.500 maybe $2,000 compensation / damages to be awarded them is Ridiculously and Wholly Inadequate.

4.    The Provisions to allow these Defendants to Provide Principle Reductions and Modified Mortgage Contracts to Victims of schemes wherein these Banks DO NOT HOLD Lawful Interests in assignments of mortgages obtain in many many instances from transactions with the MERS System and other Bundled Securities transactions ... does NOT effectively provide that these defenfdants disgorge Themselves and declare Null and Void .... Millions of Mortgage Assignments they can NOT Prove they Lawfully have any interest in.  Millions of assignments are simply Unlawful and as a Matter of Law  VOID.
 
5.    In That this case was originally filed on March 12th 2012  Please Consider this as a timely Notice of Intent To Intervene Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 .  The Millions of victims of these Illegal conspiracies, Frauds and RICO activity, Strongly and Vehemently Object to the Manner of the Settlement and would Argue the Attorneys who should be aggressively litigating this unprecedented case simply are NOT properly and fully representing the US Taxpayers nor the victims of These schemes.

6.    The Banks’ unlawful conduct has resulted in injury to millions of citizens of the States who have had home loans serviced by the Banks.  The harm sustained by such citizens includes payment of improper fees and charges, unreasonably high mortgage payments, unaffordable mortgages, and loss of homes. 

7.    The financial firms engaged in the wrongful conduct described  herein violated the protections afforded servicemembers by the SCRA and 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 521, 527 and 533 and constituted a pattern or practice of violation.

8.    The service members affected by such wrongful conduct suffered damages and are aggrieved persons under the SCRA.

9.    The financial firms engaged in the wrongful conduct described herein acted intentionally, willfully, and/or in disregard of the rights of the affected service members

10.   What is Fraud?  Any intentional deception designed to deprive the a person unlawfully of something of value or to secure from the United States for an individual a benefit, privilege, allowance, or consideration to which he or she is not entitled. Deceit, trickery, or breach of confidence, used to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. Any illegal act that causes Citizens to lose money or property.  See  http://www.bing.com/searchq=Deed+Recorders+Robo+Signing+Fake+Papers+Fraud+&go=&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=deed+recorders+robo+signing+fake+papers+fraud+&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=

 
I.
Lawful Grounds and Precedent Laws Allowing The Intervention by the Victims
 
‎1 ... Intervention Is allowed to further the Public's Interest in the Outcome of Litigation that may as a practical matter affect the interests they possess in any given matter as in the Massive Frauds and Illegal Foreclosures associated with the 50 State Settlement against the Five Big Banks Et Al.  Individuals that have been victimized and incurred damages as a result of fraudulent practices, ROBO Signing of Collection Actions or Foreclosure Court Filings that have been cheated or lost their homes in an unlawful foreclosure receiving a meager $1500 up to $2000 in damages are NOT being adequately compensated nor represented by the USDOJ or the States Attorney Generals. 
 
2 ... The fact is the Taxpayers will be directly subsidizing this absurd Settlement Agreement and as of this date The States Nor The DOJ will even allow the taxpayers or the Victims to see the settlement terms as allegedly announced as We Have A Settlement by the government. Intervention in these matters is allowed under the US Constitution , The States Constitutions and as a matter of Federal Law. The idea that $1500 or Maybe $2000 will come anywhere near adequately compensating victims for Out Of Pocket Losses or Damages is quit simply Absurd.

       A.  Provisions of this Settlement Agreement Fail to Address the Deceptive and Unconscionable Nature of Foreclosures by these Defendants and others that rely upon Assignments of  Mortgages that were NOT lawfully completed throughout the States and Millions of Such Assignments were processed through the MERS Electronic Deed Registration System .  Said transactions are horribly wrought with fraud, incomplete execution of Notarized Conveyance Instruments, ROBO Signed Assigments and Conveyances and in many many many cases the Mortgages have been many many times Counterfeited and Multiple Claims against individual interests are being asserted against the same ALBEIT Unlawful and Incomplete   -  VOID Assignments and Securitizations.   

Aug 18, 2011 PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) - Rhode Island's new federal judge makes a decision that could affect dozens of Rhode Islanders facing foreclosure.

Judge John McConnell, Junior has ordered the bulk of mortgage foreclosure cases in before Rhode Island's U.S. District Court to be put on hold, and for banks to try and negotiate with homeowners.  

See  http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/providence/providence-federal-judge-puts-rhode-island-foreclosure-cases-on-hold  


       B.   The integrity of Millions of Conveyances as many as 62 Million transactions and many Millions more wrought with fraud and criminally orchestrated endorsements,  ROBO SIGNING and outright forgeries involve Millions of Felonies.  Deed Recorders Offices all across America are reporting in mass of such racketeering and conspiracies to unlawfully engage in the sales and transfers of Billions of Dollars worth of Counterfeit Assignments.
 
See Wright Miller Kane 3rd (2007) at Sec 1921 and Wright Miller Kane 3rd (2007) Sec. 1922 pgs. 630-632
 
3... It is obvious that no limitation on constitutional procedural Due Process rights and historic equitable rights will be permitted; in intervention under Rule 24(a) (2) 
 
a ... http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/ACRule24.htm
 
b ... http://www.law.com/jsp/decisionstate.jsp?id=1191575000063
 
c ... http://caselaw.jp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=414&page=538
 
4 ... First, intervention is designed to permit non-parties to be able to litigate the underlying case.Thus, potential intervenors file “complaints in intervention,” setting out the claims that they wish to litigate against the defendant which they believe are not being adequately advanced by the named plaintiffs.
 
a ... http://www.citizen.org/litigation/briefs/class_action/articles.cfm?ID=6652
 
b ... http://www.cacn.net/applications/oscr/deliverdocument.asp?cited=407310
 
c ... http://www.nae.net/militarypdf/NAE%20Motion%20to%20/intervene.pdf
 
d ... http://vis.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0719Sp.txt
 
5 ... ANY denial of a motion to intervene as is being filed herein would be a final appealable order. See McKay v. Hoyison, 614 F.2d.899,903 (3d Cir.1980:Pennsylvania v. Rizzo, 530F.2d 501, 504 (3d Cir), cert denied sub nom. Fir Officers union v Pennsylvania, 426 U.S. 921 (1976)
 
6 ... Rule 24 (a) (3) as amended in 1948 provided for intervention of right where the applicant established that he would be adversely affected by the outcome of the action. See Formulabs Inc. v Hartley Pen Co.,275F.2d 52 (9th Cir. 1960) This development was quite natural, for Rule 24(a)(3) was unduly restricted.If an absentee would be substantially affected in a practical sense by the determination made in an action, he should, as a general rule, be entitled to intervene, and his right to do so should not depend on whether there is a fund to be distributed or otherwise disposed of, Intervention of right is here seen to be a kind of counterpart to Rule19 (a) (2) (i) on joinder of persons needed for a just adjudication: where, upon motion to a party in an action, an absentee should be joined so that he may protect his interest which as a practical matter may be substantially impaired by the disposition of the action. , he ought to have a right to intervene in the action on his own motion. See Louisell & Hazard, Pleading and Procedure: State and Federal 749-50 (1962)
 
7... The general purpose of original Rule 24 (a)(2) was to entitle an absentee, purportedly represented by a party, to intervene in the action if he could establish with fair probability the representation is probably inadequate. Then whom on action is being prosecuted, defended, by trustee, a beneficiary of the trust should have a right to intervene if he can show that the trustee’s representation of his interest probably is inadequate: similarly a member of a class should have the right to intervene in a class action, if he can show the inadequacy of the representation of his interest by the representative parties before the court.
 
8... Original Rule 24(a)(2), however, made it a condition of intervention that “the applicant is or may be bound by a judgment in the action” and this created difficulty with intervention in class actions. If the “bound” language was read literally in a sense of res judicata, it could defeat intervention in some meritorious cases. A member of a class to whom a judgment in a class action extended by it’s terms ( see Rule 23(c)(3) as amended) might be entitled to show in a later action, when the judgment in the class action was claimed to operate as res judicata against him, that the “representative” in the class action had not in fact adequately represented him. If he could make this showing, the class action judgement might be held not to bind him. (See Hansbury v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940) ) If a class member sought to intervene in the class action proper, while it was still pending, on the grounds of inadequacy of representation, he could be met with the argument: if the representation was in fact inadequate, he would not be “bound” by the judgment, when it was subsequently asserted against him as res judicata, hence he was not entitled to intervene: if the representation was, in fact, adequate, there was no occasion or ground for intervention. ( see Sam Fox Publishing Co v United States, 366 U.S., 683,(1961): of Sutphen Estate Inc. v United States, 342 U.S. 19(1951). The reasoning might be linguistically justified by original Rule 24(a)(2); but it could lead to poor results. Compare the discussion in International M & I corp v Von Clemm, 301 F.2d 387 (2d Cir 1962); Atlantic Refining Co. v Standard Oil Co., 304 F2.d 387 (D.C. Cir. 1962) 

Rule 24. Intervention | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | LII / Legal ... www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_24

Compare the discussion in International M. & I. CorpvVon Clemm301 F.2d 857 (2d Cir1962); Atlantic Refining Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 304 F.2d 387 (D.C.Cir ...
 
A class member who claims that his “representative” does not adequately represent him, and is able to establish that proposition with sufficient probability should not be put to the risk of having a judgment entered in the action which by it terms extends to him, and be obliged to test th validity of the judgment as applied to his interest by a later collateral attack. Rather, he should as a general rule, be entitled to intervene in the action.
 
9 ... The amendment provides that an applicant is entitled to intervene in an action when his position is comparable to that of a person under Rule 19(a)(2)(i), as amended, unless his interest is already adequately represented in the action by existing parties. The Rule 19(a) (2) (i) criterion imports practical considerations, and the deletion of the “bound” language similarly frees the rule from undue preoccupation with strict considerations of res judicata.
 
10 ... The representation whose adequacy comes into question under the amended rule is not confined to formal representation like that provided by a trustee for his beneficiary or a representative party in a class action for a member of the class. A Party to an action may provide practical representation to the absentee seeking intervention although no such formal relationship exists between them and the adequacy of this practical representation will then have to be weighed. See International M&I Corp. v Von Clemm, and Atlantic Refining v Stabdard Oil Co., both supra; Wolpe v. Poretsy, 144 F2d 505 (D.C. Cir. 1944) cert. denied, 323 U.S. 777 (1944); cf. Ford Motor Co. v. Bisanz Bros., 249 F2d (8th Cir. 1957); and generally, Annot. 84 A.L.R.2d 1412 (1961).

II. 
The Banks’ Unfair, Deceptive, 
and Unlawful Servicing Processes

1.  Under the States’ consumer protection laws, the Banks are prohibited from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices with respect to consumers.

2.   In the course of their conduct, management and oversight of loan servicing in the Plaintiff States, the Banks have engaged in a pattern of unfair and deceptive practices.  

3.   The Banks’ unfair and deceptive practices in the discharge of their loan servicing activities, include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. failing to timely and accurately apply payments made by borrowers and failing to maintain accurate account statements;

b. charging excessive or improper fees for default-related services;

c. failing to properly oversee third party vendors involved in servicing activities on behalf of the Banks;

d. imposing force-placed insurance without properly notifying the borrowers and when borrowers already had adequate coverage;

e. providing borrowers false or misleading information in response to borrower complaints; and

f. failing to maintain appropriate staffing, training, and quality control systems.

III. 
The Banks’ Unfair, Deceptive, and Unlawful Loan 
Modification and Loss Mitigation Processes

1.  Under the States’ consumer protection laws, the Banks are prohibited from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices with respect to consumers.

2. Pursuant to HUD regulations and FHA guidance, FHA-approved mortgage lenders and their servicers are required to engage in loss-mitigation efforts to avoid the foreclosure of HUD-insured single family residential 
mortgages.  E.g., 24 C.F.R. § 203.500 et seq.; Mortgagee Letter 2008-07 (“Treble Damages for Failure to Engage in Loss Mitigation”) (Sept. 26, 2008); Mortgagee Letter 1996-25 (“Existing Alternatives to Foreclosure -- Loss Mitigation”) (May 8, 1996).  Thus, when acting as a servicer, the Banks were required to refrain 
from foreclosing on any FHA insured mortgage where a default could be addressed by modifying the terms of the mortgage or other less-costly alternativesto foreclosure were available.

3. Under the Treasury’s various rescue and stimulus programs, the Banks received monetary incentives from the Federal government in exchange for the commitment to make efforts to modify defaulting borrowers’ single family residential mortgages.  See, e.g., Making Home Affordable Handbook v.1.0, ch. 
13 (“Incentive Compensation”) (Aug. 19, 2010).  Under the programs, the Banks agreed to fulfill requirements set forth in program guidelines and servicer participation agreements.

4.  Each of the Banks regularly conducts or manages loan modifications on behalf of the entities that hold the loans and mortgages and that hired the Banks as servicers.

5.  In the course of their servicing and oversight of mortgage loans, the Banks violated federal laws, program requirements and contractual requirements governing loss mitigation and State Deceptive Practices and Anti Fraud Consumer Protection and Banking Laws.

6. In the course of their conduct, management and oversight of loan modifications in the plaintiff States, the Banks have engaged in a pattern of unfair and deceptive practices.
  
7.  The Banks’ failure to discharge their required loan modification obligations, and related unfair and deceptive practices, include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. failing to perform proper loan modification underwriting;
 
b. failing to gather or losing loan modification application documentation and other paper work; 

c. failing to provide adequate staffing to implement programs; 

d. failing to adequately train staff responsible for loan modifications; 

e. failing to establish adequate processes for loan modifications; 

f. allowing borrowers to stay in trial modifications for excessive time periods; 

g. wrongfully denying modification applications; 

h. failing to respond to borrower inquiries; 

i. providing false or misleading information to consumers while referring loans to foreclosure during the loan modification application process;
 
j. providing false or misleading information to consumers while initiating foreclosures where the borrower was in good faith actively pursuing a loss mitigation alternative offered by the Bank;

k. providing false or misleading information to consumers while scheduling and conducting foreclosure sales during the loan application process and during trial loan modification periods; 

l. misrepresenting to borrowers that loss mitigation programs would provide relief from the initiation of foreclosure or further foreclosure efforts;

m. failing to provide accurate and timely information to borrowers who are in need of, and eligible for, loss mitigation services, including loan modifications;

n. falsely advising borrowers that they must be at least 60 days delinquent in loan payments to qualify for a loan modification;

o. miscalculating borrowers’ eligibility for loan modification programs and improperly denying loan modification relief to eligible borrowers;

p. misleading borrowers by representing that loan modification applications will be handled promptly when Banks regularly fail to act on loan modifications in a timely manner;

q. failing to properly process borrowers’ applications for loan modifications, including failing to account for documents submitted by borrowers and failing to respond to borrowers’ reasonable requests for 
information and assistance;

r. failing to assign adequate staff resources with sufficient training to handle the demand from distressed borrowers; 

s. misleading borrowers by providing false or deceptive reasons for denial of loan modifications.

t. enticed homeowners to reenter contracts and agreements based upon false and misleading information when the original contracts and those having been assigned were unlawful, against public policy and void in fact and as a matter of law .... furthering the original frauds and committing additional and separate fraudulent acts.

IV.
Wrongful Conduct Related to Foreclosures

1. Under the States’ consumer protection laws, the Banks are prohibited from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices with respect to consumers. As a general rule all foreclosure complaints are facially defective and 
should be dismissed if they  fail to attach the original note. Cases lacking certain proof of all parties seeking to foreclose are real parties in interest with lawful standing to bring such actions ALL SAID CASES are unlawful.

2.  FHA regulations and guidance and HAMP and other MHA servicer participation agreements establish requirements to be followed in the foreclosure of single family residential mortgages that are FHA insured, or where the servicer conducting the foreclosure is an MHA participant.  

3.  Each of the Banks regularly conducts or manages foreclosures on behalf of entities that hold mortgage loans and have contracted with the Bank to service such loans. 

4.  In the course of their conduct, management, and oversight of foreclosures, the Banks violated FHA and MHA foreclosure requirements.

5.  In the course of their conduct, management, and oversight of foreclosures in the plaintiff States, the Banks have engaged in a pattern of unfair and deceptive practices. 

4.  The Banks’ failure to follow appropriate foreclosure procedures, and related unfair and deceptive practices include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. failing to properly identify the foreclosing party;

b. charging improper fees related to foreclosures;

c. preparing, executing, notarizing or presenting false and misleading documents, filing false and misleading documents with courts and government agencies, or otherwise using false or misleading documents as part of the foreclosure process (including, but not limited to, affidavits, declarations, certifications, substitutions of trustees, and assignments);

d. preparing, executing, or filing affidavits in foreclosure proceedings without personal knowledge of the assertions in the affidavits and without review of any information or documentation to verify the assertions in such affidavits.  This practice of repeated false attestation of information in affidavits is popularly known as “robosigning.”  Where third parties engaged in robosigning on behalf of the Banks, they did so 
with the knowledge and approval of the Banks; 

e. executing and filing affidavits in foreclosure proceedings that were not properly notarized in accordance with applicable state law;

f. misrepresenting the identity, office, or legal status of the affiant executing foreclosure-related documents;

g. inappropriately charging servicing, document creation, recordation and other costs and expenses related to foreclosures; and

h. inappropriately dual-tracking foreclosure and loan modification activities, and failing to communicate with borrowers with respect to foreclosure activities.

i.   COUNTERFEIT AND ALTERED DOCUMENTS AND NOTARY FRAUD the most disturbing problem that has appeared in the forc;osures of many cases handled by these Defendants foreclosure cases is evidence of counterfeit or altered documents and false notarizations. some examples, in which multiple copies of the “true original note” are filed in the same case, with variations in  the “true original note;” including signatures 
on note allonges that have clearly been affixed to documents via Photoshop; “blue ink” notarizations that appear in blank ink; counterfeit notary seals; backdated notarizations of documents issued before the notary had his or her commission; and  assignments that include the words “bogus assignee for intervening asmts, whose address is  LEFT BLANK or Incomplete.

V.
The Banks’ Origination Misconduct

1. Unfair and Deceptive Origination Practices

a. Under the States’ consumer protection laws, the Banks are prohibited from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices with respect to consumers.

b. . Each of the Banks regularly originates mortgage loans.
 
c. In the course of their origination of mortgage loans in the Plaintiff States, the Banks have engaged in a pattern of unfair and deceptive practices.  Among other consequences, these practices caused borrowers in the Plaintiff States to enter into unaffordable mortgage loans that led to increased foreclosures 
in the States.

d. Banks and Mortgage Companies are prohibited from using Race, Gender or Handicap as a grounds to discriminate or deny credit to Minorities, The Handicapped or those of Sexual or Marriage Status.

VI.
Banks and Servicers / Sub Contractors / Counsel 
Guilty of Racketeering, Conspiracy, Common Law Fraud, Wire Fraud, Mail Fraud
Criminal and Civil Fraud Violations of All State and Federal Laws

Use of The Nations Internet Net Back Bone and International Computer Communications

1.  In connection with all the 50 States Complaints and the United States and it's Agencies and Representatives ..... Extremely widespread Felonious Conduct on the part of these Defendants Individually and Collectively to manifest and further the above mentioned Civil Frauds and Criminal Acts .... involved a Common Nexus and Cumulative Efforts to Defraud Millions of US Citizens, Businesses, The States and the United States Government.

2.  Said activity is violative of  18 USC CHAPTER 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
 
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.

3.  (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
4.   The Unlawful Conduct of these Defendants violates the Anti Deception, Anti Fraud, Anti Unconscionable provisions of All 50 States Deceptive Trade Laws and Constitutes Interstate in Fact International Conspiracy to defraud Millions of Victims within and without the United States.
5.  The Universal Declaration on Human Rights to which the United states is a Signatory Guarantees to victims of Fraud and Deceptive Practices, Racketeering FULL PROTECTION under US Constitutional Provisions of Equal Protection and Due Process of the Laws and to Special Protections Afforded to Individuals and Families especially when such matters effect the Family Home.

 
Wherefore Premises Considered .....  The Victims of These Schemes and The Illegal Foreclosures respectfully herein assert their RIGHTS to Intervene per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and as follows;

A. Each and every victim of these crimes requests equitable relief to include recovery of Legal Costs and Expenses associated with protecting their property and legal / Constitutional / Human Rights

B.  Those unlawfully cheated for their Homes an amount NOT LESS THAN $25,000 per incident to include ACTUAL DAMAGES.

C.  Actual and Punitive Damages

D.  Full Relief from continued victimization including the REPUDIATION and VOIDING of ALL Illegally Obtained Contracts and Lien Assignments.

E.  That the Deeds to their Properties be delivered to them and that ALL Clouds affecting the Titles to their properties be QUIETED and Forever Exempt from further challanges or collections being sought by these Defendants, Their Agents or Contractors.

F.  Recovery of All further and equitable relief to which they are Morally, Ethically  and Lawfully Entitled to Receive.

G.  Temporary Injuctive Relief barring violations as described herein by said defendants and upon final trial on the Merits permanent injunctions should issue providing for $1,000,000,00 Fines for each occurrence.

H.  Judgment against the Defendants, injunctive relief to restrain the Banks from further unlawful conduct; an order requiring disgorgement of unlawful gains obtained by the Banks as a result of their unlawful conduct; restitution or other remedial relief to compensate individual victims of the Banks’ unlawful conduct; civil penalties; and attorney fees and costs of investigation.

I.   Declaratory and injunctive relief, as appropriate, and an award of damages to be paid to each identifiable victim of the Defendants’ 

J.  All practices which denied loans to the Handicapped, Racial Minorities or Persons Such as Single Parents, Or The Basis of Sexual Preference or Marital Status should be made whole through remedial mandates as provided for by Law.


Respectfully Submitted


 
National Victims Coalition

 
and .......  Many Many Many More Intervenors to Come


Certificate Of Service

This is to certify that a Copy of this Intervention has on this day                    , 2012 been delivered to each Party by Serving them at the Addresses previously provided to this Honorable Court as follows


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  
555 4th
Street, NW 
Washington, DC  20530 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA,  
501 Washington Avenue 
Montgomery, AL  36130 

THE STATE OF ALASKA,  
1031 W. 4th
Avenue, Ste. 200 
Anchorage, AK  99501 

THE STATE OF ARIZONA,  
1275 W. Washington 
Phoenix, AZ  85007 

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS,  
323 Center Street, Suite 200 
Little Rock, Arkansas  72201 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,  
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Ste. 14500 
San Francisco, CA 94102-7007 

THE STATE OF COLORADO,  
1525 Sherman Street – 7th
Floor 
Denver, Colorado 80203 

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 
55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 
Hartford, CT  06141-0120 

THE STATE OF DELAWARE,  
820 N. French Street
Wilmington, DE  19801 

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,  
3507 E. Frontage Road 
Suite 325 
Tamp, FL 33607 

THE STATE OF GEORGIA,  
40 Capitol Square, S.W.  
Atlanta, Georgia 30334  

THE STATE OF HAWAII,  
425 Queen Street 
Honolulu, Hawaii  96813 

THE STATE OF IDAHO,  
700 W. Jefferson St. 
P.O. Box 83720 
Boise, ID 83720-0010 

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,  
500 South Second Street 
Springfield, IL 62706 

THE STATE OF INDIANA,  
302 West Washington St., IGCS 5th Floor 
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 

THE STATE OF IOWA,  
1305 E. Walnut St. 
Des Moines, IA 50319 

THE STATE OF KANSAS,  
120 SW 10th Avenue, 2nd Floor 
Topeka, KS 66612 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,  
State Capitol, Suite 118 
700 Capital Avenue 
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-3449 

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,  
1185 N. Third Street 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana  70802 

THE STATE OF MAINE,  
Burton Cross Office Building, 6th Floor 
111 Sewall Street 
Augusta, Maine 04330 

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,  
200 Saint Paul Place 
Baltimore, MD  21202 

THE COMMONWEALTH  
OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108 

THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,  
525 W. Ottawa Street 
PO Box 30755 
Lansing, MI 48909 

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA,  
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1200 
St. Paul, MN 55101-2130 

THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,  
Post Office Box 22947 
Jackson, MS  39225-2947 

THE STATE OF MISSOURI,  
PO Box 899 
Jefferson City, MO  65102 

THE STATE OF MONTANA,  
215 N. Sanders 
Helena MT 59624 

THE STATE OF NEBRASKA,  
2115 State Capitol 
Lincoln, NE 68509-8920 

THE STATE OF NEVADA,  
100 North Carson Street 
Carson City, Nevada  89701 

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,  
33 Capitol Street 
Concord, New Hampshire 03301 

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY,  
124 Halsey Street – 5th Floor 
P.O. Box 45029 
Newark, New Jersey 07101 

THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO,  
PO Drawer 1508 
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508 

THE STATE OF NEW YORK,  
120 Broadway 
New York, NY 10271 

THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,  
P. O. Box 629 
Raleigh, NC 27602 

THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,  
Gateway Professional Center  
1050 E Interstate Ave, Ste. 200 
Bismarck, ND  58503-5574 

THE STATE OF OHIO,  
30 E. Broad St., 14th Floor  
Columbus, OH 43215 

THE STATE OF OREGON,  
1515 SW 5th Avenue, Ste. 410 
Portland, OR 97201 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
16th Floor, Strawberry Square 
Harrisburg, PA  17120 

THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND,  
150 South Main Street 
Providence, RI 02903 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,  
1000 Assembly Street, Room 519 
Columbia, SC 29201 

THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,  
1302 E. Highway 14, Suite 1 
Pierre, SD 57501 

THE STATE OF TENNESSEE,  
425 Fifth Avenue North 
Nashville, TN 37243-3400 
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,  
401 E. Franklin Avenue, Suite 530 
El Paso, Texas 79901 

THE STATE OF UTAH,  
350 North State Street, #230 
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2320 

THE STATE OF VERMONT,  
109 State Street 
Montpelier, Vermont  05609 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,  
900 East Main Street )
Richmond, Virginia 23219 )

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,  
1250 Pacific Avenue, Suite 105  
PO Box 2317 
Tacoma, WA 98402-4411  

THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,  
State Capitol, Room 26E 
Charleston, WV  25305-0220 

THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, 
Post Office Box 7857 
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857 

THE STATE OF WYOMING, and 
123 State Capitol Bldg 
200 W. 24th  
Cheyenne, WY 82002 

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 
441 Fourth Street, N.W., Suite 600-S 
Washington, DC  20001 

Plaintiffs,  

v. 

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 
Corporate Center 100 
100 North Tyron Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255 

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,  
100 North Tyron Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255 

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP f/k/a  
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS 
SERVICING, LP, 
4500 Park Grenada 
Calabasas, California 91302-1613 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 
4500 Park Grenada 
Calabasas, California  91302 

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 
4500 Park Grenada 
Calabasas, California  91302 

COUNTRYWIDE MORTGAGE 
VENTURES, LLC, 
4500 Park Grenada 
Calabasas, California 91302-1613 

COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB, 
100 North Tryon Street 
Charlotte, NC  282002 

CITIGROUP INC.,  
399 Park Ave. 
New York, New York 10022-4614 

CITIBANK, N.A.,  
399 Park Ave. 
New York, New York 10022-4617 

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,  
1000 Technology Drive 
O’Fallon, Missouri  63368 

J.P. MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY, 
270 Park Avenue 
New York, New York 10017 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 
1111 Polaris Parkway 
Columbus, OH  43240 

RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC,  
1100 Virginia Drive 
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania  19034 

ALLY FINANCIAL, INC.,  
200 Renaissance Center 
P.O. Box 200 
Detroit, Michigan  48265 

GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, 
1100 Virginia Drive 
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania  19034 

GMAC RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CO. LLC 
8400 Normandale Lake Boulevard 
Minneapolis, Minnesota  55437 

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY,  
420 Montgomery Street Front  
San Francisco, CA 94104-1205 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 
One Home Campus 
Des Moines, IA  50328 

Defendants

References and Groups

Rule 24 Intervention


A pdf affecting a great number of cases in Washington State a good primer

See the Amended list of Defendants there seems to be many more than FIVE ??

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 
Corporate Center 100 
100 North Tyron Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255 

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,  
100 North Tyron Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255 

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP f/k/a  
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS 
SERVICING, LP, 
4500 Park Grenada 
Calabasas, California 91302-1613 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 
4500 Park Grenada 
Calabasas, California  91302 

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
4500 Park Grenada 
Calabasas, California  91302 

COUNTRYWIDE MORTGAGE 
VENTURES, LLC, 
4500 Park Grenada 
Calabasas, California 91302-1613 

COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB, 
100 North Tryon Street 
Charlotte, NC  282002 

CITIGROUP INC.,  
399 Park Ave. 
New York, New York 10022-4614 

CITIBANK, N.A.,  
399 Park Ave. 
New York, New York 10022-4617 

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,  
1000 Technology Drive 
O’Fallon, Missouri  63368 

J.P. MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY, 
270 Park Avenue 
New York, New York 10017 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 
1111 Polaris Parkway 
Columbus, OH  43240 

RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC, 
1100 Virginia Drive 
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania  19034 

ALLY FINANCIAL, INC.,  
200 Renaissance Center 
P.O. Box 200 
Detroit, Michigan  48265 

GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, 
1100 Virginia Drive 
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania  19034 

GMAC RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CO. LLC 
8400 Normandale Lake Boulevard 
Minneapolis, Minnesota  55437 

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY,  
420 Montgomery Street Front  
San Francisco, CA 94104-1205 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 
One Home Campus 
Des Moines, IA  50328

ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO 
Support and ASSIST 


Please Join Us with your Support at
The National Victims Coalition  

Please Let Us Know Of All Groups and Individuals 
That Desire To Fight Together ...  This Historic Cause
Thank You 






ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO 
Support and ASSIST