ROBERT ERNEST BRANDT, 42, a former Kirkland attorney and escrow officer, was convicted in U.S. District Court in Seattle yesterday of conspiracy and four counts of wire fraud. The jury deliberated approximately one day following an eight-day trial. When sentenced by U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones on June 25, 2010, BRANDT faces up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
The federal case was indicted in June of 2008, as part of Operation Malicious Mortgage, and the overall investigation was conducted jointly with the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions, the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, and the Kirkland Police Department.
According to records in the case and testimony at trial, over a dozen people, including BRANDT, were linked to an extensive mortgage fraud scheme operating in 2004 and 2005. Those who have already pleaded guilty in the scheme include a former bank employee, mortgage brokers, as well as the owner of shell companies involved in “flipping” dozens of properties as part of the fraud.
Ten members of the scheme were charged, six in federal and four in state court. All of the charged defendants pleaded guilty except for BRANDT. A number of the charged co-conspirators testified at trial. These included William Anderson, 49, of Bellevue, who worked at the same escrow company as BRANDT and operated some of the shell companies involved in the purchases. Anderson admitted conspiring with BRANDT and Mustafa “Marc” Khosraw, 48, a real estate agent and mortgage broker; Kristyn Jupiter Moss, 40, a branch manager for Viking Bank; Zachary Joseph Namie, 32, a loan officer with a mortgage company; and Patrick Williams, (prosecuted in state court) who recruited straw buyers, found properties, and provided false employment verifications to the lenders.
The conspirators would identify houses and would use shell companies or third parties to purchase the homes. At the same time they recruited “straw buyers” who would enter into a purchase agreement to buy the same home from the conspirators at an inflated price (a “flip”). The conspirators assisted the straw buyers with phony paperwork for the home loans, making it appear that they were qualified for the mortgage loans and planned to occupy the houses. Members of the conspiracy allegedly falsified numerous documents including appraisals, verifications of deposits, employment verification and closing documents. In fact, the conspirators simply split the proceeds from the fraudulent mortgages, and the straw buyers defaulted on the loans after pocketing as much as $20,000 for their fee. The homes were foreclosed and financial institutions and mortgage lenders suffered substantial losses, estimated to exceed $7 million dollars.
For his part, BRANDT ran a company called “Escrow Authority,” that closed all of the sales of the flipped properties. He permitted other members of the scheme to use money out of his lawyer’s trust account to acquire properties. The same properties were then quickly resold to straw buyers for significantly higher prices, and fraudulent loans were obtained to finance the fictitious resales. BRANDT also helped create shell companies used as part of the scheme, and signed off on fraudulent settlement statements (HUD forms) provided to lenders that failed to disclose the fraudulent nature of the transactions. BRANDT was disbarred in 2006, after the Washington State Bar Association concluded he had allowed the improper use of his client trust account in the mortgage fraud scheme, and had improperly engaged in transactions in which he had a conflict of interest.
In asking the jury to find BRANDT guilty, Assistant United States Attorney Vince Lombardi urged jurors to do two things: “follow the money;” and evaluate the lies BRANDT told under oath to try to cover up his role in the scheme.
The case was investigated by the FBI, the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions (DFI), and the Kirkland Police Department.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Vincent T. Lombardi and Nicholas W. Brown.
For additional information please contact Emily Langlie, Public Affairs Officer for the United States Attorney’s Office, at (206) 553-4110. For more information on Operation Malicious Mortgage, please review the Department of Justice Website at http://www.usdoj.gov.

TRENTON, NJ—Barry Kantrowitz, 62, of Wayside, N.J., admitted today that he fraudulently concealed $82,100 in cash from a trustee appointed by the United States Bankruptcy Court, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced.
Kantrowitz entered his guilty plea, to an Information charging him with one count of fraudulent concealment of assets from a United States Bankruptcy Trustee, before United States District Judge Joel A. Pisano in Trenton federal court.
According to the documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
Kantrowitz admitted that from February 2007 to March 2008, he held and concealed quantities of cash belonging to Solomon Dwek that were part of Dwek’s bankruptcy estate. Kantrowitz met Dwek on three separate occasions to give him cash, intending to conceal the monies from the trustee appointed to preside over Dwek’s bankruptcy proceeding. On March 13, 2007, Kantrowitz hid a plastic bag containing $75,100 in cash behind air conditioning units of Kantrowitz’s business office in Oakhurst, N.J. During two other meetings— held on September 12, 2007, and March 21, 2008, at prearranged locations in Monmouth County, N.J.—Kantrowitz delivered envelopes containing $5,000 and $2,000 in cash, respectively, to Dwek. Dwek, who was cooperating with the federal government at the time, secretly made consensual recordings of his meetings with Kantrowitz.
The charge to which Kantrowitz pleaded guilty carries a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Sentencing is scheduled for February 23, 2011.
U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael B. Ward, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea. He also thanked the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Luis A. Valentin, for its assistance in the investigation.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Gramiccioni of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Special Prosecutions Division in Newark.
Defense counsel: Joseph A. Hayden, Esq., Roseland, N.J.

The lifting of the major banks’ “foreclosure moratoriums” — which had been instituted to stem the outcry over massive fraud in the processing of foreclosure documents — demonstrates the necessity for the working class to launch a struggle to win a genuine two-year moratorium on foreclosures and evictions predicated on the premise that housing is a fundamental human right.

With the federal government having essentially nationalized the mortgage industry, the president has the authority to implement such a moratorium through executive action.

Bank of America on Oct. 18 announced its intent to resume foreclosures in the 23 states which have judicial foreclosures. BOA had suspended foreclosures in those states on Oct. 1 due to revelations of fraud in the processing of foreclosure documents. BOA also announced it would resume foreclosures in a few weeks in the remaining 27 states. This move will likely encourage JP Morgan Chase and GMAC, who had similarly suspended foreclosures in the 23 judicial foreclosure states, to resume taking people’s homes. (New York Times, Oct. 18)

Barbara J. Desoer, president of Bank of America Home Loans, stated, “We did a thorough review of the process and we found the facts underlying the decision to foreclose have been accurate. We paused while we were doing that, and now we’re moving forward.”

While even bourgeois commentators treated this announcement with the cynicism and derision it deserved, Bank of America was emboldened to make this move with the backing of the federal government.

From the onset of the exposure of massive bank fraud, the Obama administration has opposed any calls for a national moratorium on foreclosures. When David Axlerod, President Barack Obama’s chief advisor, appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Oct. 10, he came out against a national moratorium. He was followed by Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, who published an article Oct. 17 in the Huffington Post that also rejected calls for a national moratorium, saying it would hurt the economy.

Billions for banks

Bank of America noted that the major holders of its mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had been consulted during the review and had signed off on the decision to resume foreclosures. Of 14 million mortgages BOA services, one-half of them — worth $2.1 trillion — are owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant mortgage holding companies controlled by the U.S. Treasury. (NYT, Oct. 18)

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were formerly government-sponsored enterprises, private corporations chartered by the federal government to give them enhanced standing to buy or back up mortgage loans.

However, in July 2008 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the federal government due to massive losses they incurred as a result of the record rise in foreclosures caused by the fraudulent and predatory lending practices of the banks. The federal government placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in trusteeship under the Federal Housing Finance Administration, guaranteeing up to $200 billion in federal tax dollars to back up their loans. That figure was raised to $400 billion, and is now uncapped.

According to a June 3, 2009, statement by FHFA Director James Lockhart, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own or guarantee 56 percent of single-family mortgages worth $5.4 trillion in the U.S. When combined with the Federal Housing Administration, the federal government backs or issues a whopping 75 percent of the country’s mortgages. (Associated Press, Sept. 9, 2008)

What this means is that when a borrower goes into foreclosure, the bank which made the loan gets paid off at the loan’s full value by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. In addition, the government pays the bank to process the foreclosure. Then the government takes over the home, evicts the homeowner and any tenants, places the home on the market, and sells it at a fraction of the loan’s value.

The difference in what the government paid the bank for the loan, and what the home sells for after foreclosure and eviction, is paid for by taxpayers. That arrangement amounts to a silent bailout of the banks.

For example, a home several doors from where this writer lives in Detroit sold for $137,000 in 2001. The home was then foreclosed and the loan was taken over by Fannie Mae. The home is now being listed by Fannie Mae for $31,000. The $99,000 difference between the $130,000 still owed on the home for which the bank received full value, and the $31,000 for which Fannie Mae is selling the home, is paid for out of taxpayer funds.

This bailout to the banks, which occurs with virtually every foreclosure, has already amounted to $145 billion.

While the FHFA estimated that the total cost of this bailout will be $221 to $363 billion, in 2009 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would require $389 billion in federal subsidies through 2019. (Bloomberg News, Oct. 21)

Barclays Capital Inc. analysts put the price tag as high as $500 billion, and Sean Egan, president of Egan-Jones Ratings Co., estimated that the total taxpayer bailout to the banks through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will total $1 trillion. (BN, June 13)

These figures do not include the additional hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies on FHA-backed loans.

Still-soaring foreclosures, no relief for homeowners

The Obama administration has announced modest loan modification programs to help homeowners, such as the Home Affordable Modification Program, in exchange for this continued massive bailout.

HAMP and other programs are supposed to be mandatory for the banks. But the banks do not comply to help homeowners in any significant way. The government relies on the banks themselves to carry out these modifications, and the federal government and most courts have refused to enforce any sanctions for refusal to perform them.

With the banks knowing they will be getting paid full value on the loans after foreclosure, the banks have little incentive to modify loans and have sabotaged HAMP and led to the program’s virtual collapse. As of August less than one-sixth of the 3 million homeowners who were supposed to be helped have received loan modifications, and the number of borrowers being offered trial modifications has drastically declined. (NYT, Aug. 20)

It was recently exposed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are using the same law firms that prepared the fraudulent documents for the major banks in their processing of foreclosures and evictions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sanctioning loan servicers if they do not toss people out of their homes within a short period of time. (NYT, Aug. 22)

Obama: Issue moratorium now!

Today the foreclosure crisis continues to intensify. An estimated 2.8 million foreclosures are projected across the U.S. during 2010, with foreclosures totaling 9 million for the years 2009 to 2012. The total lost home-equity wealth due to foreclosures is expected to be $1.9 trillion for the years 2009 to 2012. (Center for Responsible Lending, Aug. 20)

Foreclosures and evictions are a direct product of persistent high unemployment. Of the 1 million homeowners who received foreclosure counseling through the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program, 58 percent listed unemployment as the main reason for default. (HousingWire, June 1)

With the federal government controlling or backing the vast majority of mortgage loans, President Obama has the clear authority to implement a two-year moratorium on foreclosures and foreclosure-related evictions through an executive order.

A moratorium would let homeowners and tenants remain in their homes, stabilize communities and allow time to develop a long-term solution to this crisis. Then home loans could be restored to their proper value and housing for all guaranteed.

We must fight each foreclosure and eviction and begin implementing such a moratorium through direct action. During the Depression of the 1930s, move-ins reversed many evictions and led to foreclosure moratoriums being enacted in 25 states, which were upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What is needed is for the working class to launch a mass struggle to win this demand. It’s time to fight to reverse the government policies which place the well-being of the financial institutions ahead of the welfare of the people.

Jerry Goldberg is an anti-foreclosure attorney and a leader in the Detroit-based Moratorium NOW! Coalition to Stop Foreclosures, Evictions and Utility Shutoffs. Articles copyright 1995-2010 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

* Analysis of available law enforcement and industry resources indicates that the top ten mortgage fraud areas are California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Utah. Other areas significantly affected by mortgage fraud include Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
* There is a strong correlation between mortgage fraud and loans which result in default and foreclosure.

Emerging Schemes

* Recent statistics suggest that escalating foreclosures provide criminals with the opportunity to exploit and defraud vulnerable homeowners seeking financial guidance.
* Perpetrators are exploiting the home equity line of credit (HELOC) application process to conduct mortgage fraud, check fraud, and potentially money laundering-related activity.

FBI and Industry Respond to Escalating Mortgage Fraud

* The FBI is proactively working with the mortgage industry in an effort to curb mortgage fraud crimes. The FBI signed a memorandum of agreement with the MBA to promote the FBI’s Mortgage Fraud Warning Notice.

Introduction

The Prieston Group, a risk management solutions provider that administers an insurance product covering losses due to fraud and misrepresentation, calculated that losses attributed to mortgage fraud will most likely reach $4.2 billion for 2006. This figure does not take into account another estimated $1.2 billion spent on fraud prevention tools. – The Prieston Group, 2006 Data, 16 February 2007,and 2 April 2007.

Mortgage Fraud is defined as the intentional misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission by an applicant or other interested parties, relied on by a lender or underwriter to provide funding for, to purchase, or to insure a mortgage loan. Although no central repository collects all mortgage fraud complaints, statistics from multiple sources indicate that mortgage fraud is on the rise. Some industry explanations for this increase point to recent high mortgage loan origination volumes that strained quality control efforts, the persistent desire of mortgage lenders to hasten the mortgage loan process, the escalation of home prices in recent years, and the introduction of non-traditional loans which contain fewer quality control restraints such as low documentation and no documentation loans1.

Mortgage loan fraud is divided into two categories: fraud for property and fraud for profit. Fraud for property/housing entails minor misrepresentations by the applicant solely for the purpose of purchasing a property for a primary residence. This scheme usually involves a single loan. Although applicants may embellish income and conceal debt, their intent is to repay the loan. Fraud for profit, however, often involves multiple loans and elaborate schemes perpetrated to gain illicit proceeds from property sales. It is this second category that is of most concern to law enforcement and the mortgage industry. Gross misrepresentations concerning appraisals and loan documents are common in fraud for profit schemes and participants are frequently paid for their participation. Recent events likely resulted in an increase in mortgage fraud as higher housing prices tempted borrowers to commit fraud for property in order to qualify for a mortgage loan. Also, mortgage fraud perpetrators likely seized the opportunity to take advantage of the relaxed lending practices to commit fraud for profit.

The most common form of mortgage fraud is illegal property flipping which entails false appraisals and other fraudulent loan documents (see figure 1). Combating mortgage fraud effectively requires the cooperation of law enforcement and industry entities. No single regulatory agency is charged with monitoring this crime. The FBI, Department of Housing and Urban Development-Office of Inspector General (HUD-OIG), Internal Revenue Service, Postal Inspection Service, and state and local agencies are among those investigating mortgage fraud.

Mortgage fraud is a relatively low-risk, high-yield criminal activity that tempts many. However, according a May 2006 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) report, finance-related occupations, including accountants, mortgage brokers, and lenders, were the most common suspect occupations associated with reported mortgage fraud2. Perpetrators in these occupations are familiar with the mortgage loan process and therefore know how to exploit vulnerabilities in the system.

Victims of mortgage fraud may include borrowers, mortgage industry entities, and those living in the neighborhoods affected by mortgage fraud. Lenders are plagued with high foreclosure costs, broker commissions, reappraisals, attorney fees, rehabilitation costs, and other related expenses when a mortgage fraud is committed3. As properties affected by mortgage fraud are sold at artificially inflated prices, properties in surrounding neighborhoods also become artificially inflated. When property values increase, property taxes increase as well. Legitimate homeowners also find it difficult to sell their homes as surrounding properties affected by fraud deteriorate.

During boom periods, high mortgage loan volume impacts expedited quality control efforts which often focus on production. Therefore, perpetrators may submit loans based on fraudulent information anticipating that the bogus information will be overlooked. On the other hand, loan officers, brokers, and others in the industry are paid by commission and may be tempted to approve questionable loans when the housing market is down to maintain current levels of income.

Analysis of mortgage originations indicates a decrease in demand. As a result of the declining housing market, mortgage fraud perpetrators may take advantage of eager loan originators attempting to generate loans for commission. Mortgage loan originations, including purchases and refinances declined during 2006 across the United States. The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) estimates that mortgage loan originations will reach $2.28 trillion during 2007 (see figure 2)4. According to an MBA December 2006 report, total home sales during 2006 decreased by approximately 10 percent from 2005 sales. New home sales declined by 17 percent and existing home sales dipped by 8 percent. In response to a decrease in demand for housing, builders reduced single-family starts (through November 2006) which were 14 percent lower than during the same time period in 2005. The MBA estimates that the oversupply of housing will continue to affect new home construction, home sales, and home prices until mid-20075.

Top Areas for Mortgage Fraud

Data was compiled and analyzed from law enforcement and industry sources to determine those areas of the country most affected by mortgage fraud during 2006. Information from the FBI, HUD-OIG, FinCEN, Mortgage Asset Research Institute (MARI), Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), RealtyTrac Inc. (foreclosure statistics), and Radian Guaranty Inc., indicate that the top ten mortgage fraud areas for 2006 were California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Utah. Other areas significantly affected by mortgage fraud include Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia (see figure 3).

Analysis of available information indicates that mortgage fraud is most concentrated in the north central region of the United States. The north central region is followed by the southeast and west regions.

Regional analysis of FBI pending mortgage fraud-related investigations as of FY 2006 reveals that the north central region of the United States led the nation with the most pending investigations. The north central region was followed by the southeast, west, south central, and northeast, respectively (see figure 4).

The aggregate amount of ARM loans containing fraudulent misrepresentations is unknown. However, since mortgage fraud perpetrators hope to inflate the value of their properties and quickly sell them, they would likely gravitate towards mortgage loans that offered low and short-term interest rates such as those offered by ARMs.

Delinquency, Default, and Foreclosure: Potential Fraud Indicators

Mortgage loans based on fraudulent information usually result in delinquency, default, or foreclosure in a bear market. According to the MBA, both delinquency and foreclosures rates increased during 2006 and were largely concentrated in adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) loans, especially sub-prime ARMs. This is partly attributable to the recent rise in interest rates, placing a strain on ARMs borrowers6.

BasePoint Analytics, a fraud analytics company, analyzed more than 3 million loans and found that between 30 and 70 percent of early payment defaults (EPDs) are linked to significant misrepresentations in the original loan applications7. Radian Guaranty, Inc. is a leading provider of mortgage insurance which protects lenders against loan default. Of the top ten states Radian Guaranty Inc. ranked highest for mortgage fraud, seven of them also ranked in the company’s top ten for EPDs. This suggests that EPDs are a good mortgage fraud indicator.

During 2006 there were more than 1.2 million foreclosure filings nationally, which represents a 42 percent increase from 2005 figures. The foreclosure rate for 2006 was one foreclosure filing for every 92 households8. Foreclosures for 2006 surpassed foreclosures for 2005 during every month of the year9.

Foreclosure Fraud

Recent statistics suggest that escalating foreclosures provide criminals with the opportunity to exploit and defraud vulnerable homeowners seeking financial guidance. The perpetrators convince homeowners that they can save their homes from foreclosure through deed transfers and the payment of up-front fees. This “foreclosure rescue” often involves a manipulated deed process that results in the preparation of forged deeds. In extreme instances, perpetrators may sell the home or secure a second loan without the homeowners’ knowledge, stripping the property’s equity for personal enrichment.

While foreclosure scams vary, they may be used in combination with other fraudulent schemes. For instance, perpetrators may view foreclosure-rescue scams as a new method for fraudulently acquiring properties to facilitate illegal property-flipping and equity-skimming.

Home Equity Lines of Credit

According to a DOJ press release, Mi Su Yi and her husband, Paul Amorello, were sentenced in California in July 2006 for operating a $3 million bust-out scheme involving business lines of credit and HELOCs. The couple accessed lines of credit that had been obtained by others and paid the balances with worthless checks. They subsequently withdrew cash from the lines of credit before the checks were returned for insufficient funds. The couple laundered their proceeds through bank accounts opened under three false identities. In an attempt to avoid detection, the couple deposited cash amounts of less than $10,000 into these accounts. -US DOJ, “New Jersey Residents Sentenced to Prison for Running a $3 Million ‘Bust-Out’ Scheme,” Press Release, 25 July 2006, available at http://www.usdoj.gov

Individuals and criminal groups are exploiting the home equity line of credit (HELOC) application process to conduct multiple-funding mortgage fraud schemes, check fraud schemes, and potentially money laundering-related activity. HELOCs differ from standard home equity loans because the homeowner may borrow against the line of credit over a period of time using a checkbook or credit card. HELOCs are aggressively marketed by lenders as an easy, fast, and inexpensive means to obtain funds. HELOC funds are normally withdrawn on an as-needed basis to conduct home repairs or to pay bills, but fraud perpetrators may withdraw the entire amount within a short time period. Lenders typically focus on property equity prior to funding HELOCs. As such, many lenders do not demand a full property appraisal or a full property title search.

Perpetrators apply for multiple HELOCs to different lending institutions for a single property within a short time period. Prior to providing the funding, lenders conduct searches to determine if the property is encumbered by a lien. However, liens on a property may not be recorded for several days or months and thus cannot be immediately verified. Consequently, lenders do not discover that they hold a third, fourth, or fifth lien on a property (rather than the expected second lien) until later. The money obtained from the multiple HELOCs totals more than the original property purchase price, exceeding the out-of-pocket expenses incurred to secure the property.

Perpetrators conducting check fraud schemes may manipulate HELOC accounts and cause lenders to incur losses. For example, a perpetrator secures a HELOC and withdraws the entire allotted amount. A fraudulent check is then used to pay the balance owed on the HELOC. However, the perpetrator quickly withdraws the check amount from the HELOC before the bank realizes the check is worthless. When the check is returned for insufficient funds, the line of credit surpasses its maximum limit and the lender experiences a loss. HELOC accounts have also been used in common check frauds where perpetrators stole HELOC checks, fraudulently completed them, and deposited the funds into their own personal accounts.

HELOCs may also be used as a means of depositing and withdrawing laundered proceeds to further conceal the original funding source. As long as withdrawals from the HELOC do not exceed the line of credit limit, payments deposited into the account may be withdrawn later.

FBI and Industry Respond to Escalating Mortgage Fraud

The FBI is proactively working with the mortgage industry in an effort to curb mortgage fraud crimes. On March 8, 2007, the FBI signed a memorandum of agreement with the MBA to promote the FBI’s Mortgage Fraud Warning Notice. The Notice states that it is illegal to make any false statement regarding income, assets, debt or matters of identification, or to willfully inflate property value to influence the action of a financial institution. Under the agreement, the MBA and the FBI will make the notice available to mortgage lenders to use voluntarily as a means of educating consumers and mortgage professionals of the penalties and consequences of mortgage fraud.10

The scope of foreclosure fraud may not be limited to GMAC and not just to JPMorgan Chase; it may be every bank you can think of, including mortgages held by government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Any bank whose foreclosures have been handled by a law firm specializing in foreclosure services — a “foreclosure mill” — may be affected.

A paralegal at the foreclosure mill of David Stern gave a deposition to Florida’s Attorney General Bill McCollum’s office indicating that virtually every affidavit, assignment or other sworn document coming out of that firm is faked.

It’s over 100 pages, and it will curl your hair. Two thousand foreclosure files were processed each day by just this one firm and the entire lot appears to have been a sham. Go read the transcript for yourself. If this happened at one foreclosure mill, it’s hard to believe this wasn’t happening at all the other foreclosure mills.

Ohio’s attorney general is suing for $25,000 in fines for each fraudulent affidavit; at this rate, he could solve his state’s budget gap.

By the way, Florida’s assistant attorneys general conducted a very nice line of questioning; Mr. McCollum owes them a pat on the back. The states of Ohio and Florida are showing how it’s done, the rest of you states’ attorneys general and U.S. Attorneys need to get on the stick.

By: Cynthia Kouril