Monday, November 28, 2011

The Mortgage Law Group Helps Investigate Wrongful Foreclosures

Press Releases

The Mortgage Law Group Helps Investigate Wrongful Foreclosures

PrintFont | Size: 
0
The Mortgage Law Group has a team of dedicated attorneys prepared to investigate foreclosures involving "bad banks and servicers" currently being targeted by the Fed.
Chicago, IL (PRWEB) November 23, 2011
The federal government is starting to take actions against "bad banks and servicers" for mismanaging and taking shortcuts in the foreclosure process. Special attention is being paid to Litton Loan and Ocwen Financial Corporation, who have handled numerous loans which went into foreclosure amidst suspicious circumstances following the housing crisis of 2008. The Mortgage Law Group, a nationwide consumer protection law firm with specialized expertise in this field, is currently helping homeowners investigate whether they have been wronged by these loan servicers.   
"If your loan has been serviced by Litton Loan or Ocwen Financial Corporation, then The Mortgage Law Group can help," said Colin Banyon, The Mortgage Law Group's Foreclosure Defense Attorney.
The Federal Reserve recently sanctioned Goldman Sachs, forcing the investment banking giant to obtain a third-party review of foreclosure proceedings mishandled by its former Litton Loan Servicing subsidiary. The Mortgage Law Group can help investigate "whether your lender or servicer has attempted to wrongfully foreclose on your loan, has engaged in robo-signing, or has in anyway mishandled the foreclosure process," said Banyon. "We are here to help you."
The nationwide law firm of The Mortgage Law Group has an experienced network of attorneys prepared to help those who have been wronged in the foreclosure process investigate and fight for their rights. For more information about The Mortgage Law Group's services, visitwww.themortgagelawgroup.com.
About The Mortgage Law Group:
The Mortgage Law Group is one of the most sophisticated consumer protection law firms nationwide. They've helped thousands of consumers save their homes and restore their lives. With offices located throughout the country, the firm's goal is to deliver outstanding service from highly qualified mortgage relief attorneys.
###

For the original version on PRWeb visit: www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2011/11/prweb8985231.htm


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/11/23/prweb8985231.DTL#ixzz1f24TXSEn
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Ron Paul - civil liberty's last hope - from RT.COM Russia Today

Ron Paul - civil liberty's last hope

Get short URL 
email story to a friend print version
Published: 23 November, 2011, 21:25
Republican presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Ron Paul
Republican presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Ron Paul
TRENDS:US Election 2012
TAGS: Election, Politics, Terrorism, War

Profile Muslims. Bring on the drones. Did we learn anything else from last night’s GOP debate on CNN? Well, once again, it appears as if Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to protect the liberties of Americans.
Speaking from DAR Constitution Hall in Washington DC Tuesday night, Paul and his peers discussed the topics of national security and foreign policy. While it’s been no secret that some of the more hawkish candidates are crazy for increasing defense spending and upping the American military presence overseas, Texas Congressman Ron Paul once again managed to separate himself from the rest of the pack by coming off as perhaps the only candidate truly committed to keeping liberty and freedom in place for Americans.
Right from the get-go, Paul used the allotted time to introduce himself to the audience by saying that the issues on hand last night were of great importance to the country. According to the congressman, America’s wars — which he deemed “needless” and “unnecessary” — not just add to the deficit of the country but also undermine the prosperity and liberty of America.
Perhaps most detrimental to those ways of American life, however, is the Patriot Act. While Newt Gingrich rallied to extend the legislation longer and Rick Perry and Herman Cain also offered their support for the controversial bill, Paul put himself apart from his fellow candidates by condemning the act.
“I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty,” Paul said. “I'm concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack . . . Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally, it's a crime and we should deal with it.” Paul added, however, that the framers of the Constitution warned the country not to “sacrifice liberty for security,” yet “Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security.”
“I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights,” added Paul, to which the candidate was met with a round of applause.
According to former House speaker Newt Gingrich, however, there can be a happy medium where Americans only lose some of those liberties.
“We'll try to find that balancing act between our individual liberties and security,” said Gingrich.
While Paul went on to say that that establishing such a tyrannical regime over the American people could be an efficient way of curbing crime, it would also be a great way to end freedom.
“You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state,” Paul said. “So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms.”
According to other candidates, however, those sacrifices are necessary for the protection against terrorism, something they made out to be a constant threat. “The terrorists have one objective that some people don't seem to get. They want to kill all of us,” said Herman Cain. To handle that threat, Cain proposed that “we should use every mean possible to kill them first or identify them first.”
Cain neglected to specify what he did actually want to do first — kill suspected terrorists or identify them — but others made it clear that in-depth analyses of alleged terrorists wasn’t really necessary for the safety and security of American citizens. Instead, rather, the government should just go after Muslims.
When quizzed by moderator Wolf Blitzer on how to deal with ethnic profiling, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said that such a practice was crucial in the War on Terror, and that the government should not just continue to profile people, but specifically go after Muslims.
“The folks that are most likely to be committing these crimes,” Santorum suggested should be the target of profiling.“Obviously Muslims would be someone you’d look at, absolutely.”
Similarly, Cain proposed what he called “targeted identification.” While he would not come out and say that Muslims specifically need to be profiled (although he has attacked them in the press repeatedly), he did declare that “If you take a look at the people who have tried to kill us, it would be easier to figure out exactly what that identification profile looked like.”
To Paul, however, none of these tactics for a war on terror seem like an appropriate response.
“That's digging a hole for ourselves,” said Paul. “What if they look like Timothy McVeigh? You know, he was a pretty tough criminal.”
“I think we're using too much carelessness in the use of words that we're at war. I don't remember voting on — on a declared — declaration of war. Oh, we're against terrorism. And terrorism is a tactic. It isn't a person. It isn't a people. So this is a very careless use of words. What about this? Sacrifice liberties because there are terrorists? You're the judge and the jury? No, they're suspects.”
Paul added that the executive powers established through the Patriot Act and other War on Terror legislation has made American citizens “vulnerable to assassination,” hinting at the reason execution of two US men with alleged al-Qaeda ties that were killed by drone strikes overseas.
The War on Terror isn’t the only unnecessary according to Paul, either. Responding to Texas Governor Rick Perry’s support of the War on Drugs, Paul said, “That’s another war we ought to cancel . . . And that’s where the violence is coming from.”
“I think the federal war on drugs is a total failure.”
“So the drug war is out of control,” added Paul. “I fear the drug war because it undermines our civil liberties. It magnifies our problems on the borders. We spend — like, over the last 40 years, $1 trillion on this war. And believe me, the kids can still get the drugs. It just hasn't worked.”
 +100  (106 votes)
BACK TO TOP
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Foreclosure Talks Push Ahead Absent California - From WSJ


MORE IN BUSINESS »

By RUTH SIMON And NICK TIMIRAOS

Bank representatives and government officials are working on a broad settlement of most state and federal foreclosure-practices investigations that could move forward without the participation of California, long considered a key to any deal, people familiar with the negotiations said.
FORECLOSE
Associated Press
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris
The terms of the deal remain fluid. Banks have proposed a deal excluding California that would carry a value of $18.5 billion, though the final outcome remains uncertain, people familiar with the discussion said.
Negotiators are continuing to make a push to persuade California to join a settlement valued at $25 billion among federal officials, state attorneys general and the nation's five largest mortgage servicers: Ally Financial Inc., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. The talks center on the banks' use of "robo-signing," in which employees approved legal documents without proper review, and other questionable foreclosure practices.
The dollar value would include the value of principal write-downs, interest-rate reductions and other benefits to homeowners as well as cash penalties.
But negotiators now are discussing how to structure an agreement if California remains on the sidelines. Until recently, it seemed unlikely that a settlement would be possible without the participation of California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris. She left the discussions in late September, calling the deal then on the table inadequate. The state accounted for 13.1% of all mortgages outstanding at the end of September and 10.8% of all loans in foreclosure, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.
"Our position remains the same. We are focused on securing maximum relief and lasting reform for California homeowners," said Shum Preston, a representative for Ms. Harris.
Attorneys general in several other states, including Delaware, Massachusetts, Nevada and New York, also have raised questions about the potential settlement.
Participants on both sides are eager to reach a resolution after months of discussion. Administration officials have viewed the foreclosure settlement as a chance to break the foreclosure logjam, increase the number of reductions in loan principal and provide other assistance to homeowners. Banks, meanwhile, would like to reassure investors and put questions related to foreclosure practices behind them.
Any deal would require banks to use a portion of the penalties to modify mortgages by writing down loan balances, among other actions. In exchange, banks would be released from legal claims tied to servicing delinquent mortgages as well as certain mortgage-origination practices. Government officials still would be able to move forward with other legal claims, including those stemming from the packaging of loans into securities.
The discussions have turned in recent days to crafting a formula to determine how any settlement is scaled depending on which states opt out of the deal. Officials have discussed limiting the amount of loans that could be written down or refinanced in states that don't join the settlement, people familiar with the matter said, in order to provide a stronger incentive for states to join. States that don't join the settlement wouldn't receive any of the funds that will go directly to the states, nor will borrowers in those states receive cash payments for which they might otherwise be eligible, these people said. If California doesn't sign on, the state would lose billions of dollars in potential benefits, the people said.
The participation of California isn't the only item still on the negotiating table. The two sides still must agree on the choice of a monitor, who will be charged with ensuring that banks comply with the settlement, people familiar with the discussions said.
Following the departure of Ms. Harris from the talks, the price tag of a settlement rose by at least $5 billion and negotiators came up with a plan to help certain "underwater" borrowers, those who owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth, to get refinancing assistance.
California has more than two million underwater borrowers, more than any other state, according to CoreLogic.
The refinancing plan will remain in the deal even if California doesn't because it is attractive to other states that have seen large home-price declines, the people said.
Ms. Harris has come under pressure from labor and progressive groups seeking to extract greater penalties from banks for alleged mortgage-related wrongdoing.
Last week, her office issued subpoenas to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled mortgage companies, according to people familiar with the matter.
The subpoenas asked the firms to provide responses to about 50 different inquiries, according to these people, including demographic information about borrowers who have missed payments and who have received loan modifications, among other items.
The state also requested information on foreclosed properties owned by the firms, including any evidence of unpaid taxes or drug abuse on vacant properties.
Representatives of Fannie, Freddie, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates the firms, declined to comment.
Ms. Harris has a limited ability to bring legal claims related to originations and servicing practices if she decides not to agree to the foreclosure deal, people familiar with the negotiations said.
The statute for filing cases related to loan originations is four years in California, meaning any legal action could cover mortgages originated only in 2007 and after. California allows foreclosures to proceed through a nonjudicial process, limiting the state's ability to argue that banks lied to the courts, these people said.
Separately, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency on Tuesday released a broad summary of the actions financial firms have taken this year to overhaul foreclosure practices. Bank regulators also posted copies of the agreements between banks and thrifts and the consulting firms, which include Clayton Services LLC, Ernst & Young LLP, PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP and Promontory Financial Group LLC, that have been hired to review millions of foreclosure files for potential defects.
—Alan Zibel and Maya Jackson Randall contributed to this article.
Write to Ruth Simon at ruth.simon@wsj.com and Nick Timiraos atnick.timiraos@wsj.com
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)