HOW I WAS DEFRAUDED BY:
LITTON LOAN BACKED BY GOLDMAN SACHS, HSBC, et. al.

HSBC & GOLDMAN SACHS ESTABLISHED POSITION

The stage was set to facilitate this pattern of fraud about 7 years before it began. Goldman Sachs was at the beginning, and at the end, of a circuitous path creating “arms-length” between Litton Loan and Goldman Sachs. This allowed Goldman Sachs to review Litton Loan and observe this performance years before they acquired Litton. Goldman Sachs was an advisor to Radian when Radian acquired Enhance Financial Services Group Inc. (Litton’s parent at the time); a few transactions and years later Goldman acquired Litton Loan from C-Bass (see Proof Hearing AND NJ Appeal AND Response to Motions AND Case Docs).

While the moves of Litton Loan were taking place, HSBC was making acquisitions that would position them to setup and profit from homes to be stolen (fraudulent foreclosures). HSBC acquired 2 major U.S. Banks – Marine Midland Bank $33B established in 1850 and Republic National Bank of New York $39.49B established in 1966 (see Case Docs). This allowed HSBC to benefit from Marine Midland’s 134 years of goodwill and the global network and deep pockets of Republic’s late founder, global financier Edmond Safra (died Dec. 3, 1999). HSBC, the underwriter of the Petitioner’s mortgage, denied responsibility when the Petitioner notified them of massive administrative errors. HSBC denied responsibility. Several years later HSBC was paying the legal fees for all defendants (see 2nd Appeal). This is probably because the mortgage is carried as an asset on HSBC books. Acknowledging the errors and resulting damages to this Petitioner will set a precedent for other mortgage holders to collect damages from HSBC and all firms responsible. The responsible firms should pay for what they have done including damages for evading responsibility for at least 11 years (see Predatory Legal Tactics).

MULTIPLE FIRMS, GROWING FRAUDULENT BALANCE

In and Out Mortgage Fraud: 4 changes in 4 years (see mortgage timeline ). The mortgage administration firms – Litton Loan, Fremont Investment & Loan [SEC filings 6/18/08 & 11/17/06 ] and Ocwen – used the same tactics to steal equity and homes as gas retailers and distributors used in the 1980’s to evade taxes. The gas companies did not pay taxes and went out of business. The Internal Revenue Service could not collect from a non-existent company. Mortgage servicing firms are illegally increasing the principal balance of homeowner’s mortgages, selling the mortgages to another company, then, they go out of business. The homeowner can pursue the current mortgage administrator but cannot pursue the firm that initiated the fraud and went out of business.

Litton Loan purchased the Petitioner’s mortgage and she refinanced with Fremont Investment and Loan to get it out of Litton’s hands. Litton Loan was recognized as one of the top 2 worst mortgage companies at the time. Shortly after the Petitioner moved her mortgage to Fremont, the FDIC put Fremont out of business (see cease and desist order ). The Petitioner’s mortgage ended up back with Litton Loan. Litton Loan scammed the Petitioner to keep the note with them, so she sued. After serving Goldman Sachs (owner of Litton Loan) with a legal complaint, just a few weeks later Goldman Sachs sold Litton Loan to Ocwen. That was 4 changes of admnistrators in 4 years. Ocwen has sold off many mortgages and 17,000 of their mortgages were frozen (see article ). The Petitioner’s mortgage may likely remain with Ocwen until this case is won and it is dismissed. The overwhelming legal attention from homeowners as well as Federal and State governments is probably the only reason that Litton Loan and Ocwen are still in business, barely. Many of their assets, however, appear to have been sold off since this Petitioner began her legal effort. Despite liquidating and moving assets, the defendants collectively have more than enough to pay the Petitioner’s damages.

The mortgage fraud and foreclosure blocked the Petitioner from paying off her 1983 mortgage in 2010. . Worse, it began a series of cascading damages that caused the Petitioner’s firm to lose hundreds of millions in Federal task orders alone, and drove her to become dependent on public assistance.

In addition to In and Out Fraud, the defendants employed Bait and Switch and other subversive tactics. [see Federal Complaint , Case 2 ] Also, promised not to foreclose (see Oct. 2009 letter). For example, Litton Loan presented several reasons for the Petitioner to remain with them including the backing of their parent at the time, Goldman Sachs (see Predatory Legal Tactics ). Litton Loan required additional money to process the modification; however, they provided additional written confirmation and assured the Petitioner that the modification would be quickly processed. The Petitioner was assured the modification would be completed before the clearance investigation would be completed.

CASCADING, EXPLOSIVE DAMAGES

The Petitioner presented the defendants with a construction of amortizations of mortgage on her property, supported with mortgage documents that prove that Litton Loan and Fremont Investment and Loan fraudulently added 547% to the principal, increasing it by $208,00 The Petitioner purchased this property in 1983 for about $88,000.

The stress imposed by the defendants’ action during the years or fraud, and again during this protracted litigation effort, has had life threatening impacts on the Petitioner’s health. Due to the uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act and our country’s health system and HIPPA protected information presented during her deposition; the Petitioner is guarding her health information. Health details will be presented by witnesses.

Defendants used scam, fraud, foreclosure and defamation (see Response to Motion ) to block the Petitioner’s opportunities for jobs with the Federal government, public and private firms, as well as contracts for her firm. The Petitioner founded her business in 1986. It has been he primary source of income since 1993. A firm can seldom be awarded conracts, or receive affordable financing, when a principal has bad credit. A foreclosure usually closes the door to credit.

At least $270M in task orders on GSA Schedules that were lost. ( Proof Hearing Motion ). The GSA Schedules were hard earned, requiring many, many years of hard work and financial sacrifices (see Cost of GSA Schedule ). That is why less than 1% of all US businesses hold GSA Schedules (see Case Docs ).

Damages exceed the loss of Federal task orders (see Proof Hearing Motion ). Government revenue is not the only loss. The Petitioner generated income and revenue in the private sector since 1979. Damages also include health expense as well as pain and suffering. The cascading effects of the defendants’ actions are detailed in the case documents (see Motion-Default ).

TOP NOTCH EXPERTISE & CORROBORATION

Petitioner is highly qualified to identify, understand, assess and explain what the defendants have done. She serves as an Arbitrator Chair for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA); holds a MBA in Finance and Economics from Northwestern University’s Kellogg Graduate School of Management; also holds PgMP, PMP and ITIL credentials; and has 38 years post graduate experience with recognized expertise in finance, operations and information technology. Public commendations may be found at http://www.VeronicaWilliams.com on several sites connected to that site.

The Petitioner’s witnesses include employees and vendors of the defendants, esteemed industry leaders, medical personnel, Federal, State and local leaders and citizens (see list). For their protection, contact information is not provided for the witnesses. Petitioner will only present witnesses essential to win her case, and those who are still available by the time we get to trial.

We in the industry recognize what these defendants have done (see Proof Hearing Motion ). The defendants’ financial impact has been catastrophic. The Defendants “effectively” acknowledge their actions in last year’s settlements with the U.S. Department of Justice (see HSBC & Goldman Sachs ). Yet, their fines have been woefully insignificant (see Case Docs ).

SCOTUS CAN LEAD IN DISCOURAGING FINANCIAL FRAUD

This summary provides Federal and State Authorities with justification and resolution to make an undeniable dent in financial fraud. There are good employees at the defendant firms who would welcome steps to help restore integrity to the process and the honor of their jobs. Please grant the Petitioner the due process to which she is entitled that allows a jury trial so that problems can be exposed and resolutions will be implemented. The Petitioner deserves a trial before a jury of her peers. Our country and its citizens deserve to understand the fraud and improprieties that will be exposed during trial.