Robert Marley 18 Lakeview Drive Lynnfield, MA 01940 781-844-3044 Marley0685@comcast.net Massachusetts Division of Banks, 1000 Washington St.

, 10th Floor, Boston, MA 02118 617-956-1510 dob.comments@state.ma.us Dated: August 30, 2012 Sent VIA e-mail RE: August 29, 2012 Public Hearing Held Pursuant to Chapter 194 of the Acts of 2012, An Act Preventing Unnecessary and Unlawful Foreclosures Dear Commissioner Cotney: I thank you again for listening to me on August 29, 2012 during the public hearing. As I said, I have a complete understanding related to the Financial Industries skullduggery that took place starting in the mid-1990s to present and the Ponzi scheme that is asset backed securitization. With that said, it is my hope that some new protections will be provided for the citizens of Massachusetts and violation of those protections will have consequences. I am not at war with banks that held their paper and refused to participate in the frenzy that was the mortgage backed securities debacle. The Division of Banks oversees mortgage lenders and brokers, debt collectors among others doing business in this Commonwealth. This very Division issued an advisory letter to the banks in 1997,instructing the banks not to issue the toxic loans that fill the securitized pools however, without penalties if they did. The problem here is that there are no consequences for the Banksters, and they operate with impunity and we, the people, feel as though we live in a lawless nation. That the laws are only applicable to the little guy, and not the affluent. Something is terribly wrong when the banks and their lawyers commit fraud every day related to foreclosures without repercussions. Accordingly, here we are and you have the opportunity to create serious ramifications for the fraudsters.
1

G.L. c. 266 35A has been on the books for over two years and not one of the criminals has been indicted under that statute. Why enact the law if no one will enforce it? When you create the new CMR, the last sections must read, a violation of these provisions is a violation of M.G.L. c. 266 35A. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, conveyed through the Fourteenth Amendment to the states, is ripe for argument. Whereas, the notice provisions under M.G.L., has been held to satisfy the due process clause, however, under the present state of affairs, the pervasive, outrageous and blatant fraud perpetrated by the Schemers in Foreclosure Gate, the notice provisions and our protections have been relegated to nullities and it is time to revisit the issue. Clearly evidenced, in our non-judicial foreclosure state, no due process currently exists. You have the opportunity to bridge that gap now. The following language must be included in all notices including the notice of default. Further, all Notices must be signed by a real person, a breathing, living, human being, an individual who will be held responsible for his/her actions. The Notices must be signed Under the Pains and Penalties of Perjury and if not validly signed, the notice is defective and void and it must be deemed the foreclosing partys failure to sign the notices, is a violation of the above statute. Plainly Stated, Effective immediately: 1) Under oath, the foreclosing entity must name the owner of the Note and Mortgage (the mortgagee). 2) If not the owner moving to foreclose, a statement under oath that the one moving to foreclose a mortgage under the terms of the mortgage contract and the power of sale provisions in that contract, is the agent for the mortgagee with proof of the agency relationship. 3) A statement under oath, whether or not the mortgage loan has been securitized; if the Mortgage Loan was securitized, they must name the Trustee and the Trust and it shall be included in the notice. If it is a private Trust, then access shall be provided to the Trust documents and all distribution reports. 4) If the Mortgage Loan was securitized and purportedly repurchased from the trust, then a statement under oath, alluding to that fact. 5) A statement under oath, that the foreclosing entity is in possession of the original wet ink Note and Mortgage and all intervening original wet ink assignments of both the Note and the Mortgage and that they contain valid indorsements and were executed in accordance with the statutes of fraud. 6) Attached to the notice must be a certified copy of the Note, Mortgage, and all assignments from the first assignee to the last and every entity in between pleading under oath that the copies are copies of the originals.
2

7) The following language Must be included in every Notice; as the borrower, you have the right to demand viewing of the original wet ink documents, and may examine those documents forthwith. If the Homeowner believes the documents have been tampered with or altered, then before a judge, justice of the peace, or a notary, a copy of the purported original documents shall be made, the parties shall agree in writing that they are the original documents, the copies shall be certified, and the homeowner shall send the purported originals for a forensic examination, preserving the chain of evidence, by way of the witness above to a designated examiner. This minimum requirement is not burdensome nor should this division entertain any such notion or argument in light of the fact that an unlawful foreclosure has devastating effects on the homeowner, their family and society as a whole; there is no greater protection under our constitution than our property rights. Moreover, in light of the pervasive fraud perpetrated nationwide, the borrower should be entitled to no less. I respectfully submit this letter and speak from a knowledgeable mind when I say, that if the Division of Banks, as the overseer and regulator of banks doing business in this state, were not to adopt what I have outlined here, then it is evidence to the citizens of this Commonwealth, that the ones given the privilege to protect the citizenry from those it oversees, have no such intent, and that the Banksters will be given reign to continue with the rape and pillage of the Massachusetts Citizen through outright fraud. I do not advocate that those who have the legal right (authority) to foreclose a mortgage, under the terms of the Mortgage contract, should not, when all else fails. However, I am adamantly opposed to the wrongdoers who would foreclose a mortgage to cover-up their initial fraud without any legal right to do so. The most egregious aspect of what Wall Street and the banks have done is this: when the criminals went to Congress to beg our tax dollars to save themselves from their own wrongdoing, and Congress gave them our money, the very people who saved them from certain collapse, they would now destroy with the money we gave them. The Banks have been given every opportunity to mitigate the harm they have caused society and they have turned every one of those opportunities into mockeries including all the settlements they have entered into over the past six years, including many in this state. Let us not lose sight of the fact that these criminals destroyed the global economy and set into motion an unemployment rate that pales in comparison to the great depression. Millions of American Citizens lost their money and their jobs because
3

of what the banks did. One single Ponzi scheme, unheralded in the annals of the world, brought the world to its knees and had that not happened, people would still have jobs and would be able to pay their bills. The citizens of this country did not create this calamity, the banks did. Therefore, even those whom have mortgages that were not securitized, must be given consideration and compensation since they are not responsible for their predicament. When I say Compensation, I mean as it relates to appraisal fraud, which was the catalyst that sent everything in our economy into the stratosphere. In calculating the NPV, the first step must be an immediate reduction in principal to reflect what the mortgage should have been but not for appraisal fraud. Use the Case-Shiller Report as a guide to make a correction in the principal reduction before the appraisal fraud began in 1998-99. I am available for further discussion and if there are going to be further discussions with the bank representatives behind closed doors as was indicated at the public hearing, then I respectfully request that I be invited to participate so that the people of this Commonwealth have a voice behind that closed door. I was disturbed to hear that the bankers had the ear of the Division of Banks prior to the public hearing without one such as myself present to refute the rhetoric of the bank representatives. I was also disturbed to hear all the discussion at the public hearing as it related to the verification of a borrowers income in relation to a modification when in fact, no consideration was given to such verification when all these toxic loans issued. The hypocrisy is outrageous; most banks did not care if the borrower had the ability to pay the exotic, toxic loans when they issued them however, now when they must give some type of relief, they would use this tactic to deny said relief. The first verification must be that of the banks, since the only one that can make a legal, binding agreement or settlement would be the Mortgagee, the owner of both, the Note and Mortgage. Nothing else shall suffice. No true correction can take place unless the real parties in interest are sitting at the table. In a securitized mortgage loan, who would those parties be? The Investor and the Mortgagor who have been intentionally hidden from each other in deal, and all else were but bit players and intermediaries in this Ponzi scheme hustling for a fee. Notwithstanding, the two shall never meet. The Schemers have nothing invested, nothing to lose and no money in the deals. In all securitized loans, the Notes have been fraudulently raised and were obtained by a gaming scheme. Under Massachusetts Law, a Note obtained in a gaming scheme is void. See M.G.L. c. 137 3.

Notes, bills, bonds, mortgages or other securities or conveyances the whole or part of the consideration of which is money or goods won by gaming .or any other game, or by betting on the sides or hands of persons gaming, or for repaying or reimbursing money knowingly lent or advanced for gaming or betting, but not including gaming conducted pursuant to chapter 23K, or lent and advanced at the time and place of such gaming or betting to a person so gaming or betting, shall be void as between the parties thereto, and as to all persons except such as hold or claim under them in good faith and without notice of the illegality of the consideration. (Emphasis added) Kindly keep me informed as to what will/will not be promulgated under the new CMR and allow me further discussions related to any proposed promulgations. Thank you for your consideration and your attention to this matter. I have attached herewith my Matt Brief for your perusal and some insight.

Respectfully submitted /s/Robert Marley _______________________ Robert Marley