RE: Federal Testimony offered by Richard M.

Ashton on April 11, 2013 There is great significance for the Foreclosure Defense Industry in this testimony offered to the US Senate, this morning. Richard M. Ashton was deposed in front of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection. In his testimony, he offered views on the current state of the Banking Industry as it relates to Foreclosure. In this collection of documents, we’ve included the actual Testimony and an additional informational document that we use in our Chain of Title Analysis. Every Attorney should pay attention to this testimony as it offers a SERIOUS dagger in the heart of the Banking Industry. Below, you will see an excerpt from his Testimony and how his testimony is damaging to the banking industry: “At the outset, it might be helpful to point out that regulated banking organizations routinely choose to retain consultants for a variety of purposes apart from any supervisory directive by regulators to do so. Banking organizations decide to retain consultants because these firms can provide specialized expertise, familiarity with industry best practices, a more objective perspective, and staffing resources that the regulated organizations do not have internally. In this respect, reliance on consultants can significantly contribute to the overall efficient governance and management of these organizations as well as to their safe and sound operation and their compliance with supervisory expectations and legal requirements.” First, let’s take a look at the highlighted sections of this passage: “Familiarity with Industry Best Practices” – Should be translated as Standard Operating Procedure for the Banking Industry. “In this respect, reliance on consultants can significantly contribute to the overall efficient governance and management of these organizations as well as to their safe and sound operation and their compliance with supervisory expectations and legal requirements.” – This shows that the role of the Consultant is to inform the Banking Institution of their role in remaining compliant with Statutory Requirements of Law. Now, let’s take a look at language from USA v. Hibernia Bank: “Hibernia's reliance on commercial custom is misplaced. Commercial custom does not apply where the U.C.C. provides otherwise. See U.C.C. Sec. 1-103; also U.C.C. Sec. 3-104, Official Comment 2 ("[A] writing cannot be made a negotiable instrument within this Article by contract or by conduct.") Moreover, it would be inequitable to apply the banking industry's unilateral "custom" to a maker, such as the Army, that is unaware of or may not recognize such a custom.” “Commercial custom does not apply where the U.C.C. provides otherwise” – Commercial Custom should also be translated as Standard Operating Procedure.

(888) 491 – 3741 info@mortgagecomplianceinvestigators.com

So, in conclusion: The bank cannot claim ignorance of law or claim that “This is how we have done this for years” (The PSA falls under SOP, NOT Statutory Requirements of Law). If the Statutory Requirements of law regarding the Conveyance Process of Mortgage Loans are not followed, we have clear violations of the Statutory Requirements of Law. This is something that is address in EVERY Chain of Title Analysis that MCI completes. There is a huge importance to the documents that are contained within this Collection. If you have any questions or would like to speak with someone regarding a Foreclosure Defense case, please contact our office at 888-491-3741 or shoot us an email at Info@mortgagecomplianceinvestigators.com. Thank you for taking the time to read through these documents and as always, make today a great day! MCI

(888) 491 – 3741 info@mortgagecomplianceinvestigators.com