Comes now the Defendants, one by one, and ask this suit to be dismissed, based on a pile of scholarly research and legal precedent. Not remarked is the Dodd-Frank Financial Institution Reform, Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2012, legislated to reorganize the financial heart of this country, and define and prohibit abusive behavior that was acceptable in the past, with tragic effect on most of us Americans who live on Main Street, but is acceptable no longer. We buy houses, cars, education, football tickets, tacos, shoes, computers, airline tickets, cruises…pay taxes, pave roads, build rail lines and airports, provide for the national defense with our money and our lives, and employ public servants to manage social issues of general benefit. Not cited is the Consent Judgment between Ocwen and all 50 State Attorneys General, including Texas (Case 1:13-cv-02025-RMC, Document 12, filed 02/26/14, page 56 of 65), promulgated in a rare cooperative effort to publish in easy to understand terms how we expect the mortgage processing business to proceed in Texas, and in the other 45 states. It follows the National Mortgage Settlement (www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com), marking the end of five years of negotiations with the full weight of the federal government enforcement agencies deployed against the five major banks in this arena and ending abusive practice as we all know it. In FY2013 we spent 55 million prosecuting this industry, and have so far recovered >$80 billion in consent judgments, none yet from these defendants. Some, a pittance, is even earmarked for restitution. We’ve also published a Settlement Term Sheet, a litany of standards (Exhibit A: Case 1:13-cv-02025-RMC, Document 12-1, filed 02/26/14, page 2 of 47 ff.), describing previously abusive practices, now forbidden. We’re not going to accept continuation of this consumer abuse, just because we’ve always done it that way. PHH and BBDFTE are properly summoned before this court, and before this jury, to present their story. Perhaps they are already in accord with the recommended Servicing Standards Quarterly Compliance Metrics (Case 1:13-cv-02025-RMC, Document 12-4, filed 02/26/14, page 17 of 38 ff.), and are currently providing services of inestimable value to the community. They will very likely ask to be dismissed again, before the jury retires to deliberate. Let us reconsider then. The legislature has spoken with a plan. The executive branch has responded with an enforcement initiative. Yet there remain a few loose ends, needing to be addressed individually or severally, by a jury of their peers. Let us proceed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author
Archives
August 2017
Categories |
- PLUNDERATION
- Contact Us
- Blog
- Files
- Our Prayer
- Exhibit P-1
- Exhibit P-2
- Exhibit P-3
- Exhibit P-4
- Exhibit P-5
- Exhibit P-6
- Exhibit P-7
- Exhibit P-8
- Exhibit 8.01
- Exhibit P-9
- Exhibit P-10
- Exhibit P-11
- INSIDE JOB
- Joseph A Smith
- Jury
- Class Members
- Litigation
- The Rules
- USCA 5th
- SCOTUS
- Amici
- PHH AtHome
- BDFTE AtHome
- CTSLink
- LOOT
- Mary's Page
Proudly powered by Weebly