The nominee for becoming Secretary of Treasury, the man who follows legislation and other close connected to business in the United States. Should be worrying how he has done his businesses in the past. The California courts and Attorney General tried in 2013 to create a case on the public filings of the OneWest bank and their Foreclosure practices, which got stifled by the possibility to hide liabilities through certain fixed laws that OneWest used.
OneWest did it to not get scrutiny and the Attorney General tried get them on the docket, but the working paper was the only one showing, together with what was collected from one County in the State of California. Steve Mnuchin knew about this very well, as he got the profits from the acts of malicious and defrauding citizens, using false pretence to buy properties and selling for subsidiaries.
“This $2.4 billion figure should not be confused with the $2.3 billion that CIT Group received from the US Government under TARP in 2008. When CIT filed bankruptcy in 2009, the $2.3 billion became a free gift from taxpayers, never to be repaid. Total government subsidy between the two banks is almost $5 billion, yet both banks claim they are prepared to merge and become a Systemically Important Financial Institution if the proposed merger is approved by the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency”(CRC, 2015).
“Since March 2009, OneWest has foreclosed on approximately 35,000 California homes and initiated foreclosures of approximately 45,000 more. In April 2011, OneWest agreed to the Office of Thrift Supervision’s (OTS) entry of a Consent Order. The Order included findings that OneWest recorded documents that were not properly notarized, initiated non-judicial foreclosures without proper authority, failed to devote sufficient resources to ensure proper administration and oversight of its foreclosures process, and failed to sufficiently oversee vendors” (DOJ, P: 4, 2013).
“Finally, in the review of the 300 OneWest loan files obtained from LPS, we found that 21 files evidenced unlawful conduct by OneWest. Those 21 files (7 percent of those reviewed) contained falsely dated instruments executed by OneWest, substitutions of trustee in which OneWest falsely stated that it was beneficiary under an applicable deed of trust when it was not, or both. This unlawful conduct occurred throughout the state, concentrated primarily in Southern California. The 21 files related to homes in the nine following counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Placer, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Barbara and Ventura” (DOJ, P: 9, 2013).
“The Investigation has uncovered evidence of unlawful credit bidding, a type of misconduct that is not squarely addressed by either the National Mortgage Settlement or the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights. As detailed below, unlawful credit bidding occurs when a party other than the foreclosing beneficiary uses of the credit reflected by the deed of trust to take title to the home, when it is not legally entitled to do so. This means than other bidders at the auction (perhaps in some cases the borrowers and/or their families) are unfairly disadvantaged in the bidding process and that cities and counties throughout the state lost documentary transfer tax revenue” (DOJ, P: 11, 2013).
“OneWest undertook critical steps in the foreclosure process when it lacked the authority to do so. OneWest falsely asserted that its subsidiaries and the trustees for the mortgage-backed securities trusts had authority to conduct critical steps in the foreclosures process when they did not. This misconduct related to three common steps in the foreclosure process, each governed by statute: (1) credit bidding; (2) payment of or claim of exemption from documentary transfer tax; and (3) execution of SOTs” (DOJ, P: 18, 2013).
“To date, we have located five examples of such examples of such misconduct from public records, and we believe that many of the 86 examples of recorded substitutions of trustee (SOTs) executed in OneWest’s name bearing dates prior to date that OneWest began operations are likely to have been executed without authority (the entity purporting to sign them did not exist on the date the assignment purportedly took place). Similarly, in the review of 175 completed OneWest foreclosures in Alameda County, we found 10 unlawful substitutions of trustee” (DOJ, P: 20, 2013).
“In response, we will argue that: (1) it is undisputed that conflict preemption applies after July 2011; and (2) that complaint seeks to hold OneWest accountable for types of misconduct that were outside the scope of OTS’s claimed field preemtion because they involve criminal and civil code statutes which only incidentally affect the lending operations of federal savings associations” (DOJ, P: 23, 2013).
“We recommend that the Attorney General authorize use to file a civil enforcement against OneWest” (DOJ, P:26, 2013).
“OneWest also made false statements concerning its own status as beneficiary, as well as the beneficial status of others. These statements were made in a variety of contexts, including the context of the trustee’s sale bidding process and in the avoidance of transfer taxes” (County of Alameda, P: 4).
This was only what we’re reported by two single reports earlier in the recent years, but there been questioning about the merger for OneWest with another Bank. Therefore the reality of their ways of foreclosure should have stopped and should have been looked into, as the malpractice for a quick profit. The profits of the OneWest bank we’re earned in a very disgraceful way:
“After foreclosing on almost 8,000 homes here in LA County, how can OneWest Bank say with a straight face that they’ve been a good community partner or that this merger is going to somehow help our communities?” Kinlaw said in a statement. “Foreclosing on families meant billions in profits for the billionaire owners of OneWest, but it came at the expense of families who were thrown out of their homes.” (…) “Stein said the coalition is composing a letter that will ask the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice to conduct a fair housing and fair lending investigation into OneWest’s lending practices” (Smith, 2015).
So there wasn’t only the Attorney General of California who knew there was malpractice and unlawful activity from the OneWest on their practices on the foreclosing of their properties to secure more funds. As they bought into funds with loans and defunct debt that could give the bank property as collateral and resell the properties for more profits, especially if they fixed the contracts and back-dates so the home-owners could be sealed off or resold in subsidiary of the OneWest.
So with the knowledge of these actions, these vulture capitalists shouldn’t be running the Administration. The Administration should make sure these men and woman doesn’t get power. Because their loose, laisses-faire economic regime might loosen the regulations and will lead to more quick profits, but hurt the bottom-line, the public! Trump Administration will favour possible vultures and people who do anything to earn bucks, with no concern of the outcome for the average families and the working-class, the ones that initially got them in power. That the ironic part is the ones that exhausted and gave way for the Administration is the ones that will suffer for the economic programmes from the coming term of presidency.
Steve Mnuchin has only been in business to get wealth, by any means; his business savvy way of OneWest proves the way of use all ways to gain profits. OneWest proves that they didn’t care about how they earned their profits on foreclosures, even if they twisted documents and their ways of buying titles. As long as this is known the vulture of Mnuschin should be known and not be put away in some chamber. Instead it should be questioned if he is fit to be Secretary of Treasury and be a part of the Administration at all! Peace.
California Reinvestment Coalition (CRC) – ‘Fact Sheet: OneWest Bank Expected to Receive Over $2.4 billion from the FDIC’ (12.04.2015)
State of California Vs OneWest, FSB, Federal Saving Bank and DOES – Complaint for Civil Penalties, Permanent Injunction, and other equitable relief – County of Alameda
Department of Justice – MoU: ‘Executive Summery – Request for Authorization File Action against OneWest Bank, FSB OneWest Investigation (SF2012105513) – 18.01.2013
Smith, Kevin – ‘Coalition seeks investigation of OneWest foreclosures’ (09.05.2015) link: http://www.sgvtribune.com/business/20150609/coalition-seeks-investigation-of-onewest-foreclosures
The Judicial Service Commission has this afternoon received the report of the Special Committee set up on 27th January 2016 to inquire into the allegation of bribery against Hon Mr. Justice Phillip K. Tunoi.
The Commission has deliberated upon and adopted the report.
The Commission is satisfied that from the totality of the material and information presented before it there was inappropriate interaction and communication between the Hon. Mr. Justice Phillip K. Tunoi and agents of a litigant in a matter pending before the Supreme Court. This in the opinion of the Commission amounts to gross misconduct and misbehavior, sufficient to warrant the establishment of a tribunal to further investigate the matter.
Secondly, as to whether or not there is material to suggest that a bribe was given to the Hon. Mr. Justice Phillip K. Tunoi on 27.8.2014 in order to influence the decision in Supreme Court Election Petition No 18/2014 Evans Odhiambo Kidero & 4 Others -Vs- Ferdinand Waititu Ndungu & 4 others to favour the Petitioner, the Commission is satisfied that this is an issue that requires further investigation by the said tribunal.
Arising from the foregoing, the Commission is satisfied that a Prima Facie case of gross misconduct and misbehaviour has been disclosed against the Hon. Mr. Justice Phillip K. Tunoi.
The Judicial Service Commission shall therefore recommend to his Excellency the President that a tribunal be established to investigate the matter.
Dated at Nairobi this 5th day of February, 2016.
HON. DR. WILLY MUTUNGA, D.Jur, SC, EGH, SEGH
CHAIR, JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION
It’s this part of the year again. I had several post on budget allocations and the new Petroleum concerns during the FY 2014/2015. Now it’s the start of the FY 2015/2016. It’s time to look at some of the documents that I have gotten and address them properly. I wonder sometimes why I am lucky and getting them. But since I do get them, I have the power to pin-point and question certain Acts and legislation. I will cut out today the most important and questioning pieces of words and law from the Acts of Supplements No. 2. – 6. March 2015: ACT3- The Public Finance Management Act, 2015. I could have taken with more and asked more are about certain propositions here.
Hope you’ll find this findings interesting:
If you don’t have any questions and wondering what this really means as well for the citizens of Uganda. The way about the ‘Classified Expenditure’, ‘the Petroleum Fund’ and the way the money will be used from the ‘Petroleum Revenue’. If that isn’t a tasty dish for you think about. Then I don’t know what to serve you. This a plate full of heavy beef. If you don’t wonder yourself. You should read it again. And ask yourself. What are they really doing and how can they do this this way, without being really questioned? Peace.