American Loan Audits
Forensic Loan Audits, Mortgage Compliance Audits

Home   Purchase an Audit   Laws Broken

Did a Securitization Trust
Purchse Your Note Directly?
Fraud to Get a Trust Deed for a Security?
FDIC Agreements Pay More
for Short Sales & Foreclosures
Many Banks Failed Because
After Securitization Failed
They weren't able to Lend

Judges' Conflict in Interest?

Can that Judge Evict you, so his Pension Fund makes more money?
In California, the Pension Fund for Judges entering office after 1994 is
heavily invested in Mortgage Backed Securities, including Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
the very companies that are evicting the people from their homes.
Isn't that a Conflict in Interest?

In Los Angeles County, California, the Judges actually have 3 Pension Funds:
1 supervised by CalPERS from the State of California, and
2 Pensions from the County of Los Angeles, which many view as a Bribe,
because the Judges are only supposed to be paid by the State of California.

The State Pension Invested in Mortgage Backed Securities

California Annual Investment & Financial Reports

California Annual Investment & Financial Reports list all the holdings for each year.
The 2010 Report lists the juicy details of all the Bank holdings and Mortgage-Backed Securities Holdings.
Holdings of Mortgage-Backed Securities, Pages 50 to 78:
Banc America, Bear Sterns, CHL (Coutnrywide), Citigroup, Countrywide, CWALT, CWABS, Credit Suisse, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac (almost 20 pages), GMAC, Ginnie Mae, Indymac, JPMorgan Chase, Lehmann, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, WaMu, Wells Fargo.

California Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports

The California Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports give even more juicy details.

Here's the 2010 CAFR

Watch a Video describing L.A. Complaints Filed

Some Articles about it

Los Angeles County gives 2 more Pensions, plus Cafeteria Benefits, etc
L.A. County never loses in Court - I wonder why?
Attorney Richard Fine spent 1-1/2 years in jail without a conviction,
because he refused to back down.

Metropolitan News-Enterprise 2009 article
CNN: Ex-lawyer jailed 14 months, but not charged with a crime
LA Times: Lawyer abruptly freed from jail CNN video of attorney Richard Fine held in coercive confinement: Why jail Fine? You be the judge Former LA Attorney Richard Fine Jailed Indefinitely
LA Times: U.S. Supreme Court won't hear jailed L.A. lawyer's contempt of court case
Free Republic: Richard Fine’s Judicial Lynching Judicial Revenge, The State Bar & The Private Attorney General Richard I. Fine, Ph.d.

Attorney Jailed Denied Rights for Exposing Judicial Corruption, Richard Fine California

Why Won't the ACLU Help Jailed Attorney Richard Fine?


Attorney Richard Fine is out of JAIL 11-2010 .. At last

Judges Must Disclose Interest over $1500 - CCP 170.5

Dr. Shirley Moore on Corruption
"Los Angeles, April 21- in notice to Deputy Clerk of the US Supreme Court Gary Kemp, Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles County resident and founder of Human Rights Alert, asked that Chief Justice Robert act pursuant to the Code of Conduct of US Judges, and secure the integrity of US Supreme Court docket in Application of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827). "
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department employed unverified and unvalidated online public access system (OPAS) and unvalidated case management system (CMS) to present the false pretense that Richard Fine (1824367) was arrested and booked at and by the authority of the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro. · The Los Angeles Superior Court, where Mr Fine was in fact arrested, likewise employed unverified and unvalidated OPAS and unvalidated CMS, to present the false pretense of a March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt against Richard Fine in Marina v LA County (BS109420). In fact, such March 4, 2009 Judgment was never adequately verified by a judge, was never authenticated, and was never entered by the Los Angeles Superior Court as an honest valid and effectual Court Judgment. · The US District Court, Los Angeles, where Mr Fine filed a habeas corpus petition Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), likewise employed unverified and unvalidated OPAS and unvalidated CMS, to present the false pretense of June 29, 2009 Judgment denying the habeas corpus petition. In fact, new records (NEFs - Notices of Electronic Filings) from the US District Court case discovered by Dr Zernik and specifically referenced in his filings with the US Supreme Court, [5] showed that the US District Court never authenticated such June 29, 2009 Judgment and never adequately noticed and served it on Richard Fine. · The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, falsely presented a June 30, 2009 Denial of Richard Fine’s Petition - Fine v Sheriff (09- 71692), and a February 12, 2010 Mandate from the Appeal - Fine v Sheriff (09- 09-56073) both were never adequately served, noticed or entered as valid records by the Courts. Accordingly, Dr Zernik’s April 20, 2010 papers filed with the US Supreme Court asked claimed that there was never any valid record as foundation for the imprisonment of Richard Fine, and that Richard Fine was therefore entitled to his immediate release. In addition, Dr Zernik requested that the US Supreme Court issue a mandate to lower courts to establish their OPASs and CMSs as validated systems in the Local Rules of Court, as required by law.
Additionally, speaks about Corporate Thugs and the Mentality of Wall Street

So, What Can You Do?

We suggest:
1) get a Forensic Loan Audit to Find How the Lender Violated the Law.
2) get a Non Profit to suggest Short Sale to a Buyer you Know.
3) consider hiring a Lawyer to prepare and file a complaint.
Call Jim at (562) 867-3230 or (at ) ,
for a FREE Evaluation for your Situation.

Relevant Books:

Video On Demand:

Structured Finance and Collateralized Debt Obligations:
New Developments in Cash and Synthetic Securitization
Just Published late 2008

Powered By: WebCasa Internet Dialup Zero Out Debts James Krage websites Clay Healing - world's best clay
American Loan Audits .com - Loan Audits for Less
Site created by Jim Krage of and J.K. Enterprises
() for more information
We can audit your loan documents for less.
85% of Lenders violated laws in the loan documents - audits can show it.