How NAMFS Members Made Billions of Dollars in Unreported Income

As The NFN Three Push To Hide Data With RMS Many Are Questioning The True Debt Owed By Jack Jaffa And Whether They Should 1099 NAMFS Members

For years, National Association of Mortgage Field Services (NAMFS) members have been pocketing tens of millions of dollars, per quarter, by and through a process known generally as chargebacks. Chargebacks are the process of seizing funds alleged to be owed for improper services rendered or, in many cases, simply lacking photo support. The truly illegal activity, above and beyond the suprious nature of most of these claims, is that the funds are seized from separate and distinct pools of money due to Minority Females and Labor which have nothing to do with the allegations. Ironically, Counsel retained by Assurant Field Asset Services (Assurant), Alston & Byrd, in 2009, wrote a large piece discussing back charges — the legal term which the Mortgage Field Services Industry bastardized. The legal article states clearly that these items are ripe and justiciable for litigation.

[…] what evidence does a contractor need to present to enable it to back charge a contractor?

Chargebacks, as applied by NAMFS members, are completely illegal and violate multiple state and federal laws including violating the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. To say that chargebacks are arbitrary and capricious is putting it mildly. Here is how a chargeback is justified by Safeguard Properties,

Chargeback for : HAZARD CLAIM REPAIR Work Order # [Redacted] with Chargeback Issued:  Amount: $29,937.50

Reason for Chargeback: failed to complete work completely/correctly
Work Order # with Chargeback Issued [Redacted]

“Failed to complete work completely/correctly.” Are you fucking shitting me?! Someone needs to be taken out in the alley and have the shit kicked out of them! The salient fact is that chargebacks, like the one above, are often issued YEARS after the fact. What this means is that after multiple inspectors, vendor managers, and ultimately the Client have approved the work and issued payments, NAMFS members set up a scenario to illegally seize funds from Minority Females and Labor without Due Process of Law. In fact, the final arbiter of the matter is the very company whom is seizing the funds themselves! Think about that, for just a moment, the very entity whom is seizing your money; the very entity whom has a vested interest in determining your fault, is the entity whom determines whether or not they are correct. And the very Master Services Agreement (MSA) which exists between the Order Mill and the Independent Contractor states that the Contractor has no legal right to petition the Courts for review.

An owner or general contractor will have the “burden of proof” to prove their damages against a defaulting subcontractor. If they fail to put on sufficient proof, they will lose in a court of law, even if it is clear that the subcontractor did default. Of course, the burden of proof is really only relevant in a court trial. In negotiations, a debtor owner or general contractor has a tremendous advantage against a creditor subcontractor or supplier. The debtor has possession of all the labor and material and possession of all the money. The creditor is often forced to make considerable accommodation in negotiating the exact amount of back charges, because of this leverage.

Burden of proof appears to be something which NAMFS members, long ago, decided no longer applied. Fact of the matter is that these chargebacks have several other illegal characteristics. First, the work issued generally has an embedded discount added in. These discounts violate the Copeland Anti Kickback Act which reads clearly,

Whoever, by force, intimidation, or threat of procuring dismissal from employment, or by any other manner whatsoever induces any person employed in the construction, prosecution, completion or repair of any public building, public work, or building or work financed in whole or in part by loans or grants from the United States, to give up any part of the compensation to which he is entitled under his contract of employment, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Second, the chargeback is generally doubled with respect to the fact that the Order Mills additionally charge Minority Females and Labor to allegedly redo the work — and no evidence of such happening is ever presented to the aggrieved party. Those receiving chargebacks are never given the opportunity to — and wait for it because you will love this — verify that someone else has gone out and done the work that the victim has already performed.

Millions upon millions of dollars are fleeced each and every year from Minority Females and Labor in this manner. And those monies are both unreported and undocumented. And for the first time in history the Involuntary Bankruptcy of Jack Jaffa’s National Field Network was poised to reveal this. Granted, the monies owed by Jaffa to victims are easily discerned; however, the ability to lay claim to the illegal chargebacks are being silenced by David Shaver, lawyer for the NFN Three.

Chargebacks are an insidious way to steal money legally owed to Minority Females and Labor, plain and simple. In fact, there is no similar standing in law which comes even close to justifying them. This is the norm, not the exception. And while not every chargeback is upon FHA insured properties, many are. We reached out to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development for comment and were told,

HUD’s Mortgagee Compliance Management (MCM) contractor can and does adjust payouts of current claims to recoup monies for HUD when pre-conveyance services were not performed.  However, this typically happens within the first month after title conveyance.  I’ve never seen any go back 2 years.

Wow. No chargebacks ever seen going back past 30 days from HUD? So, how is it that we have NAMFS members stating that HUD is ordering them going back for years?! First, let me set the stage. There are NO appeals of Chargebacks with Wells Fargo. Here is how it is worded,

The Mortgage Company will not accept any new/missing documentation or information on this matter, so the following chargeback is their final decision.

And if you really want to see how bad it is, here is how National Field Representatives (NFR) put it,

From: Hank Cossingham [mailto:hcossingham@nfronline.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:04 AM
To: [Redacted]
Cc: Pamela Bohanan <pbohanan@nfronline.com>; Jen Rouleau <jrouleau@nfronline.com>
Subject: [Redacted]

This is how they, Wells, have handled it right along.

They typically chargeback when they are doing the claim to the investor which can be held up for many reasons and for extended periods of time.  2 months to 4+ years…   In their eyes an overcharge is an overcharge and needs to be corrected.  This is prevalent with Wells but possible with any of the customers that NFR has.

Hank

When pressed on how chargebacks come in and requesting proof of such, NFR replied,

Hi Hank,

I have conferred with Shelby and here is our best explanation of how we receive our charge backs.

What we get from WF are spreadsheets containing hundreds of records/data with either a bill back or adjustment, which we then research and dispute or agree with if warranted.  There is no specific individual document, like a HUD Demand letter specific to an loan, that we could send. We have never had this request before and these spreadsheets can not be sent to the rep as there is nothing listed that tells the rep which record is theirs, as the spreadsheets do not contain addresses or our unique account numbers, they only contain invoice number and loan numbers and lots of other data specific to WF and NFR.  Also there is nothing that shows, to the rep, that it came from WF as it comes to us in an email as an Excel document attachment.

Shelby suggests that you may want to go to Brad to see if there is anything, he can think of, that could be sent to the reps to be able to prove to them NFR was indeed charged back by WF.

We COULD provide the text from the BillBack reason from WF.  It is not on letterhead but included in a cell in a (disgustingly) much larger spreadsheet.  I do not think that will satisfy a contractor as we could have simply written it.

Foreclosurepedia went to HUD, on this specific challenge and HUD stated that the property in question was, in fact, a HUD property, but they never initiated any chargeback upon it,

I spoke with [Redacted] in NSC relative to this property on [Redacted], and there is no evidence that the MCM initiated claims against the Mortgagee for reimbursement of overallowables on this case.  Our typical process is that the FSM reports the conditions both on the HIPR and generates a Work Order Notice (WON) that goes to the GTR.  If approved, the WON then goes to the MCM contractor for adjustment of future claims to assess the chargeback for unallowables that were previously approved, but not properly completed.  We’re not seeing any evidence of a WON or adjustment referencing the property address/Case ID. It sounds like you have a pretty long laundry list of properties with similar chargebacks being assessed by the Mortgagee to the pre-conveyance servicer.  I can likely talk NSC into doing some random sampling off the list, without going through the FOIA process.  However, as you can imagine, it would be quite time consuming to try and go through thousands of properties/cases.  What do you think would be a reasonable number from your perspective to determine whether or not the pre-conveyance chargebacks were related to actions by HUD?

While I am not a lawyer, this sounds like pretty straight forward fraud. It sounds like theft. And if you are going to collectively do it as a matter of rote under the umbrella of a non profit trade association like NAMFS, it is a conspiracy that crosses state lines, using electronic means, in the furtherance of artifices and schemes. To that point, Eric Miller, NAMFS Executive Director, attempted to sue me several years ago, for advocating that Minority Females and Labor should defend themselves from this collective involuntary servitude. He felt that to challenge NAMFS members at their homes, places of business, and in public was illegal. His lawyer finally issued a retraction; however, here is how Representative Maxine Waters recommends people like NAMFS be handled,

For these members of his Cabinet who remain and try to defend him they’re not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they’re not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store, the people are going to turn on them, they’re going to protest, they’re going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the president ‘no I can’t hang with you, this is wrong this is unconscionable and we can’t keep doing this to children[,]”

Miller, whose OVER ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLAR SALARY consumes OVER EIGHTY EIGHT PERCENT of all NAMFS member dues, is finally having his chickens come home to roost. And Miller is in a world of shit. Unable to get new Membership and the current NAMFS members incapable of recruiting Minority Females or Labor to screw over, all are turning to a ramped up cycle of illegal chargebacks.

Search

Contract Opportunities

You must be logged in to post a comment Login