Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Banks to federal government six months ago: We promise to review every single foreclosure case we've filed and fix any errors or improper filings. Banks now: This is too hard, how about we just cut a check for $8 billion and call it a day hmm?   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, direct payments, OCC, SunTrust, mortgage modifications, Comptroller of the Currency, state attorney general, loan servicing, subprime mortgage crisis  
•       •       •

1079 clicks; posted to Business » on 08 Jan 2013 at 4:11 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-08 02:24:59 PM  
The US Government has built its entire economic system on a basic premise of making it as easy as possible for businesses to operate in a fair and open market.  As a result, what we - as consumers - view as "fair" is frequently subjugated.  This may suck balls, but it is the price we pay for having a system that has promoted the greatest economy the world has ever known.  Get over it.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-08 02:51:52 PM  

Lucky LaRue: The US Government has built its entire economic system on a basic premise of making it as easy as possible for businesses to operate in a fair and open market.  As a result, what we - as consumers - view as "fair" is frequently subjugated.  This may suck balls, but it is the price we pay for having a system that has promoted the greatest economy the world has ever known.  Get over it.


"Rampant foreclosure fraud" is "fair and open" to you?

i don't even know how to mock that.
 
2013-01-08 03:49:08 PM  

vpb: Lucky LaRue: The US Government has built its entire economic system on a basic premise of making it as easy as possible for businesses to operate in a fair and open market.  As a result, what we - as consumers - view as "fair" is frequently subjugated.  This may suck balls, but it is the price we pay for having a system that has promoted the greatest economy the world has ever known.  Get over it.

"Rampant foreclosure fraud" is "fair and open" to you?

i don't even know how to mock that.


Like that.
 
2013-01-08 04:06:26 PM  

Lucky LaRue: The US Government has built its entire economic system on a basic premise of making it as easy as possible for businesses to operate in a fair and open market.  As a result, what we - as consumers - view as "fair" is frequently subjugated.  This may suck balls, but it is the price we pay for having a system that has promoted the greatest economy the world has ever known.  Get over it.


Not sure if serious.  If you consider our system of misc. tax breaks and subsidies a free market, you better go study up on "free market".
 
2013-01-08 04:18:32 PM  

Lucky LaRue: The US Government has built its entire economic system on a basic premise of making it as easy as possible for businesses to operate in a fair and open market.  As a result, what we - as consumers - view as "fair" is frequently subjugated.  This may suck balls, but it is the price we pay for having a system that has promoted the greatest economy the world has ever known.  Get over it.


The united states economic enivronment is about as "fair and open market" as the CCCP was "communism".
 
2013-01-08 04:28:42 PM  
Student: Okay, I have to re-take a test after school. What should I do?

Parent: Look, you can't just do the math in your head. You have to show your work. It keeps you from doing things wrong and makes it so you can check your work.

Student: Okay, I promise to show my work.

Parent: Promise?

Student: Promise!

* one math test later *

Student: Waa! I got a D on my math test.

Parent: Well, let's see

[Looks at paper]

Parent: You didn't show any of your work! We talked about this!

Student: It took too long and I wanted to get home to watch Gilmore Girls.

Parent: Well, then I guess you're going to lose your TV privileges.

Student: No! I don't wanna! Can I just give you five dollars?

Parent: I make that much in ten minutes at work. Besides, where'd you get that money?

Student: FIVE WHOLE DOLLARS.

Parent: [sigh] Okay. Go watch your TV. [aside] Wretched kid. I don't know what else to do.

Student: Thanks! [aside] Haha, stupid. Thanks Carl, your lunch money got me my Gilmore Girls.
 
2013-01-08 04:34:09 PM  

imashark: Student: Okay, I have to re-take a test after school. What should I do?

Parent: Look, you can't just do the math in your head. You have to show your work. It keeps you from doing things wrong and makes it so you can check your work.

Student: Okay, I promise to show my work.

Parent: Promise?

Student: Promise!

* one math test later *

Student: Waa! I got a D on my math test.

Parent: Well, let's see

[Looks at paper]

Parent: You didn't show any of your work! We talked about this!

Student: It took too long and I wanted to get home to watch Gilmore Girls.

Parent: Well, then I guess you're going to lose your TV privileges.

Student: No! I don't wanna! Can I just give you five dollars?

Parent: I make that much in ten minutes at work. Besides, where'd you get that money?

Student: FIVE WHOLE DOLLARS.

Parent: [sigh] Okay. Go watch your TV. [aside] Wretched kid. I don't know what else to do.

Student: Thanks! [aside] Haha, stupid. Thanks Carl, your lunch money got me my Gilmore Girls.


wtf?
 
2013-01-08 04:38:01 PM  

Brontes: imashark: Student: Okay, I have to re-take a test after school. What should I do?

Parent: Look, you can't just do the math in your head. You have to show your work. It keeps you from doing things wrong and makes it so you can check your work.

Student: Okay, I promise to show my work.

Parent: Promise?

Student: Promise!

* one math test later *

Student: Waa! I got a D on my math test.

Parent: Well, let's see

[Looks at paper]

Parent: You didn't show any of your work! We talked about this!

Student: It took too long and I wanted to get home to watch Gilmore Girls.

Parent: Well, then I guess you're going to lose your TV privileges.

Student: No! I don't wanna! Can I just give you five dollars?

Parent: I make that much in ten minutes at work. Besides, where'd you get that money?

Student: FIVE WHOLE DOLLARS.

Parent: [sigh] Okay. Go watch your TV. [aside] Wretched kid. I don't know what else to do.

Student: Thanks! [aside] Haha, stupid. Thanks Carl, your lunch money got me my Gilmore Girls.

wtf?


See now, the Student is a Corporation, and the Parent is the Government! How else are we to raise good, healthy corporations if we let them watch TV and give them free money. Or something like that.
 
2013-01-08 04:48:34 PM  

Senor_Hat: See now, the Student is a Corporation, and the Parent is the Government! How else are we to raise good, healthy corporations if we let them watch TV and give them free money. Or something like that.


Sam: Did you hear about the crash over in the Analogies department?

Duke: Yeah, took down all three of their servers.

Sam: Seriously, Joe said the printers were coming up with things about ducks painting Renoirs.

Duke: What the hell does that have to do with the Government and the banks?

Sam: To hell if I know.

Duke: Wait, Joe just sent me another text. Now the printers are spitting out something about students not doing their homework to watch Gilmore Girls.

Sam: Gilmore Girls?

Duke: Man, they really need to fix this computer issue. Last week, the Metaphor department went down and we ended up with entire reams about some guy named Fartbongo.

Sam: Sounds like a jive musician.
 
2013-01-08 04:50:26 PM  
How about we dust off that old quaint concept of tossing people guilty of fraud into prison even if those guilty are rich and powerful?

These banks were caught red handed submitting fraudulent foreclosure documents in the courts of all 50 states. This wasn't "flawed paperwork" this was fraudulent paperwork with forged signatures.

The mass media has gone out of it's way to make it seem like this wasn't fraud by using terms like "flawed paperwork" instead of fraudulent paperwork and "robosigning" instead of forged signatures.

Take a look at just how rampant this fraud actually was:

If you're foreclosing on somebody's house, you are required by law to have a collection of paperwork showing the journey of that mortgage note from the moment of issuance to the present. You should see the originating lender (a firm like Countrywide) selling the loan to the next entity in the chain (perhaps Goldman Sachs) to the next (maybe JP Morgan), with the actual note being transferred each time. But in fact, almost no bank currently foreclosing on homeowners has a reliable record of who owns the loan; in some cases, they have even intentionally shredded the actual mortgage notes. That's where the robo-signers come in. To create the appearance of paperwork where none exists, the banks drag in these pimply entry-level types - an infamous example is GMAC's notorious robo-signer Jeffrey Stephan, who appears online looking like an age-advanced photo of Beavis or Butt-Head - and get them to sign thousands of documents a month attesting to the banks' proper ownership of the mortgages.

This isn't some rare goof-up by a low-level cubicle slave: Virtually every case of foreclosure in this country involves some form of screwed-up paperwork. "I would say it's pretty close to 100 percent," says Kowalski. An attorney for Jacksonville Area Legal Aid tells me that out of the hundreds of cases she has handled, fewer than five involved no phony paperwork. "The fraud is the norm," she says.

Kowalski's current case before Judge Soud is a perfect example. The Jacksonville couple he represents are being sued for delinquent payments, but the case against them has already been dismissed once before. The first time around, the plaintiff, Bank of New York Mellon, wrote in Paragraph 8 that "plaintiff owns and holds the note" on the house belonging to the couple. But in Paragraph 3 of the same complaint, the bank reported that the note was "lost or destroyed," while in Paragraph 4 it attests that "plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain possession of the promissory note because its whereabouts cannot be determined."

The bank, in other words, tried to claim on paper, in court, that it both lost the note and had it, at the same time. Moreover, it claimed that it had included a copy of the note in the file, which it did - the only problem being that the note (a) was not properly endorsed, and (b) was payable not to Bank of New York but to someone else, a company called Novastar.

Now, months after its first pass at foreclosure was dismissed, the bank has refiled the case - and what do you know, it suddenly found the note. And this time, somehow, the note has the proper stamps. "There's a stamp that did not appear on the note that was originally filed," Kowalski tells the judge. (This business about the stamps is hilarious. "You can get them very cheap online," says Chip Parker, an attorney who defends homeowners in Jacksonville.)

The bank's new set of papers also traces ownership of the loan from the original lender, Novastar, to JP Morgan and then to Bank of New York. The bank, in other words, is trying to push through a completely new set of documents in its attempts to foreclose on Kowalski's clients.

There's only one problem: The dates of the transfers are completely farked. According to the documents, JP Morgan transferred the mortgage to Bank of New York on December 9th, 2008. But according to the same documents, JP Morgan didn't even receive the mortgage from Novastar until February 2nd, 2009 - two months after it had supposedly passed the note along to Bank of New York. Such rank incompetence at doctoring legal paperwork is typical of foreclosure actions, where the fraud is laid out in ink in ways that make it impossible for anyone but an overburdened, half-asleep judge to miss. "That's my point about all of this," Kowalski tells me later. "If you're going to lie to me, at least lie well."

The dates aren't the only thing screwy about the new documents submitted by Bank of New York. Having failed in its earlier attempt to claim that it actually had the mortgage note, the bank now tries an all-of-the-above tactic. "Plaintiff owns and holds the note," it claims, "or is a person entitled to enforce the note."

Soud sighs. For Kessler, the plaintiff's lawyer, to come before him with such sloppy documents and make this preposterous argument - that his client either is or is not the note-holder - well, that puts His Honor in a tough spot. The entire concept is a legal absurdity, and he can't sign off on it. With an expression of something very like regret, the judge tells Kessler, "I'm going to have to go ahead and accept [Kowalski's] argument."

Now, one might think that after a bank makes multiple attempts to push phony documents through a courtroom, a judge might be pissed off enough to simply rule against that plaintiff for good. As I witness in court all morning, the defense never gets more than one chance to screw up. But the banks get to keep filing their foreclosures over and over again, no matter how atrocious and deceitful their paperwork is.

Thus, when Soud tells Kessler that he's dismissing the case, he hastens to add: "Of course, I'm not going to dismiss with prejudice." With an emphasis on the words "of course."

Instead, Soud gives Kessler 25 days to come up with better paperwork. Kowalski fully expects the bank to come back with new documents telling a whole new story of the note's ownership. "What they're going to do, I would predict, is produce a note and say Bank of New York is not the original note-holder, but merely the servicer," he says.

This is the dirty secret of the rocket docket: The whole system is set up to enable lenders to commit fraud over and over again, until they figure out a way to reduce the stink enough so some judge like Soud can sign off on the scam. "If the court finds for the defendant, the plaintiffs just refile," says Parker, the local attorney.

Why won't the Obama administration prosecute anyone for this massive nationwide fraud? The simple answer is that the Democrats are just as owned by the rich as the Republicans, and it's well past time that we stop pretending otherwise.
 
2013-01-08 04:52:48 PM  

Senor_Hat: Brontes: imashark: Student: Okay, I have to re-take a test after school. What should I do?

Parent: Look, you can't just do the math in your head. You have to show your work. It keeps you from doing things wrong and makes it so you can check your work.

Student: Okay, I promise to show my work.

Parent: Promise?

Student: Promise!

* one math test later *

Student: Waa! I got a D on my math test.

Parent: Well, let's see

[Looks at paper]

Parent: You didn't show any of your work! We talked about this!

Student: It took too long and I wanted to get home to watch Gilmore Girls.

Parent: Well, then I guess you're going to lose your TV privileges.

Student: No! I don't wanna! Can I just give you five dollars?

Parent: I make that much in ten minutes at work. Besides, where'd you get that money?

Student: FIVE WHOLE DOLLARS.

Parent: [sigh] Okay. Go watch your TV. [aside] Wretched kid. I don't know what else to do.

Student: Thanks! [aside] Haha, stupid. Thanks Carl, your lunch money got me my Gilmore Girls.

wtf?

See now, the Student is a Corporation, and the Parent is the Government! How else are we to raise good, healthy corporations if we let them watch TV and give them free money. Or something like that.


You forgot that Carl is the tax payer who was shaken down for the $5 that paid the government.
 
2013-01-08 05:10:40 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: You forgot that Carl is the tax payer who was shaken down for the $5 that paid the government.


Sam: Say, doesn't Joe usually work in the Righteous Indignation department?

Duke: Yeah, why?

Sam: Why is he talking about a crash in Analogies?

Duke: I think he said he had to fill in for Anita. Something about a court appearance and her and her husband's mortgage. Why?

Sam: Well it occurs to me that Joe might not be the best to gauge whether or not something coming out Analogies is broken or not.

Duke: Sam, we've had this discussion. Its not like they have trained penguins doing the work. It's a computer algorithm tuned by moderators. There should always be a predictable output. The mods choose a headline, and wait for something to come out from that department. Analogies, Righteous Indignation, Metaphor, Troll...

Sam: Yeah, yeah, all in the name of getting more hits. And more discussion. More hits = more discussion.

Duke: Yep. Which means, more money.

Sam: Then, why Gilmore Girls?

Duke: Isn't that the show where everyone stands around talking a lot?

Sam: I think so. I've only seen, like, an episode.

Duke: Maybe they had its wires crossed with the Blunt Truth department.

Sam: What?

Duke: Well, you know, Banks are awfully fond of standing around talking about nothing a whole lot. So are governments. Maybe that's why there's a Gilmore Girls reference.

Sam: Seems fishy to me.

Duke: Hell, call someone from technical. They'll take a look.

Sam: You sure that's okay? Shouldn't Joe call technical?

Duke: You and I both know that Joe will stand around and breath fire about the system being broken forever before he actually does something about it.

Sam: Really.

Duke: Alright, what's technical's number...
 
2013-01-08 05:18:08 PM  
Duke: Okay, I'm calling technical (dials phone)

Tech: Hello, Technical. Have you tried turning it off and on again?
 
2013-01-08 05:25:26 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Senor_Hat: Brontes: imashark: Student: Okay, I have to re-take a test after school. What should I do?

Parent: Look, you can't just do the math in your head. You have to show your work. It keeps you from doing things wrong and makes it so you can check your work.

Student: Okay, I promise to show my work.

Parent: Promise?

Student: Promise!

* one math test later *

Student: Waa! I got a D on my math test.

Parent: Well, let's see

[Looks at paper]

Parent: You didn't show any of your work! We talked about this!

Student: It took too long and I wanted to get home to watch Gilmore Girls.

Parent: Well, then I guess you're going to lose your TV privileges.

Student: No! I don't wanna! Can I just give you five dollars?

Parent: I make that much in ten minutes at work. Besides, where'd you get that money?

Student: FIVE WHOLE DOLLARS.

Parent: [sigh] Okay. Go watch your TV. [aside] Wretched kid. I don't know what else to do.

Student: Thanks! [aside] Haha, stupid. Thanks Carl, your lunch money got me my Gilmore Girls.

wtf?

See now, the Student is a Corporation, and the Parent is the Government! How else are we to raise good, healthy corporations if we let them watch TV and give them free money. Or something like that.

You forgot that Carl is the tax payer who was shaken down for the $5 that paid the government.


Oh yeah and Carl is not in the house, Carl is never in the house.
 
2013-01-08 06:09:27 PM  

wingnut396: Duke: Okay, I'm calling technical (dials phone)

Tech: Hello, Technical. Have you tried turning it off and on again?


Duke: Okay, here we go. 210. [Dials and waits] Hello Technical? Yes, this is Duke in General. Yeah, I got a message from someone filling in over at Analogies that their system might be down.

[Pause]

Duke: What? No, I don't have the authority to turn it off and on.

[Pause]

Duke: Isn't that your job?

[Pause]

Duke: Yeah, well... wait, is this Technical? What? Damnit, George! [Slams the phone down]

Sam: What happened?

Duke: I dialed Ironic True Impersonation instead of Technical. Morons, they love playing practical jokes. Should have been... 310. There we go. [Dials]

Sam: I always liked their humor.

Duke: Yeah well, you don't ever have to deal... hello? Yes, Technical? ...Yes, this is Duke in General. We got a message from someone filling in at Analogies that their system might be down.

[Pause]

Duke: [Sigh] No, I can't turn it off and turn it on.

[Pause]

Duke: Well you'd have to clear it with Analogies first, right?

[Pause]

Duke: Okay. Yeah, sure call her.

[Pause]

Duke: Yeah, fine, it's on me. If I'm right... [Pauses, then looks at the phone. Slams it down.]

Sam: What happened?

Duke: He's clearing it with Causette.

Sam: Shiat.

Duke: Yeah, well... I'd rather him do that then get reamed later when we find out Causette was preparing an intricate analogy about the justice department. The bimbo will probably yell at me anyway. Why they made her a moderator, I'll never know.

Sam: [Pause] Uh, Duke?

Duke: I mean seriously, she's looks like she should be working street corners. Why is it that...

Sam: Duke!

Duke: What?

Sam: I think the filter's broken.

Duke: What?

Sam: Our conversation is being recorded and read out the system.

Duke: [Panicked typing]

Sam: Duke, it's too late.

Duke: [Pregnant pause]...fark.
 
2013-01-08 06:30:56 PM  

BullBearMS: How about we dust off that old quaint concept of tossing people guilty of fraud into prison even if those guilty are rich and powerful?

These banks were caught red handed submitting fraudulent foreclosure documents in the courts of all 50 states. This wasn't "flawed paperwork" this was fraudulent paperwork with forged signatures.

The mass media has gone out of it's way to make it seem like this wasn't fraud by using terms like "flawed paperwork" instead of fraudulent paperwork and "robosigning" instead of forged signatures.

Take a look at just how rampant this fraud actually was:

If you're foreclosing on somebody's house, you are required by law to have a collection of paperwork showing the journey of that mortgage note from the moment of issuance to the present. You should see the originating lender (a firm like Countrywide) selling the loan to the next entity in the chain (perhaps Goldman Sachs) to the next (maybe JP Morgan), with the actual note being transferred each time. But in fact, almost no bank currently foreclosing on homeowners has a reliable record of who owns the loan; in some cases, they have even intentionally shredded the actual mortgage notes. That's where the robo-signers come in. To create the appearance of paperwork where none exists, the banks drag in these pimply entry-level types - an infamous example is GMAC's notorious robo-signer Jeffrey Stephan, who appears online looking like an age-advanced photo of Beavis or Butt-Head - and get them to sign thousands of documents a month attesting to the banks' proper ownership of the mortgages.

This isn't some rare goof-up by a low-level cubicle slave: Virtually every case of foreclosure in this country involves some form of screwed-up paperwork. "I would say it's pretty close to 100 percent," says Kowalski. An attorney for Jacksonville Area Legal Aid tells me that out of the hundreds of cases she has handled, fewer than five involved no phony paperwork. "The fraud is the norm," she says.

Kowal ...


The thing with this is, the argument made here is: "The banks paperwork sucks so my client should get a free house."

So the paperwork sucks. It wouldn't be an issue if you just paid your mortgage on time (ignoring the occassional total screw up when they foreclose on the wrong house, etc.).
 
2013-01-08 06:41:27 PM  
Spire Law Group to Banksters: pay the People back their 43 trillion.

Link
 
2013-01-08 07:03:01 PM  
WTF do banks do to earn their money again?

It sure isnt safekeeping savings.

It sure isnt providing realistic interest rates.

It sure isnt Customer Service!!!
 
2013-01-08 07:07:50 PM  

Geotpf: The thing with this is, the argument made here is: "The banks paperwork sucks so my client should get a free house."

So the paperwork sucks. It wouldn't be an issue if you just paid your mortgage on time (ignoring the occassional total screw up when they foreclose on the wrong house, etc.).


Yeah, but here's the problem with that thinking: if a customer has so much as a dotted I out of place, the banks will usually push it to the limit to see that they recover their money. The point is that the the "paperwork" (contracts) is the thing enforced by the Constitution. Saying that the onus of the mortgage lies with the mortgage payer is ridiculous, especially when you think of the vastly imbalanced power between an individual mortgage payer and a corporation.

If you're saying that the non-fraudulent paperwork doesn't matter, you might as well throw out the Constitution and bring in the RECON-STITUTION. After all, its just a piece of paperwork.

Sam: IS IT FIXED?

Duke: I'm TRYING! I don't want to get fired! [Pause] Damn! Now we're in italics!
 
2013-01-08 07:07:59 PM  

Heraclitus: WTF do banks do to earn their money again?

It sure isnt safekeeping savings.

It sure isnt providing realistic interest rates.

It sure isnt Customer Service!!!


Falling out of the right vagina is the best career move you could ever make.
 
2013-01-08 07:08:50 PM  

Geotpf: The thing with this is, the argument made here is: "The banks paperwork sucks so my client should get a free house."

So the paperwork sucks. It wouldn't be an issue if you just paid your mortgage on time (ignoring the occassional total screw up when they foreclose on the wrong house, etc.).


The thing with this is, if you repeatedly commit fraud in court and present forged documents as proof of ownership, you don't own the property.
So the judge grants the people living there title free and clear through adverse possession.

/That's one way to force big banks to get their houses in order.
//Not to mention it's a way to get rough justice for the practice of originating and profiting from fraudulent federally-subsidized mortgage loans.
 
2013-01-08 07:18:30 PM  

Geotpf: So the paperwork sucks.


The paperwork does not "suck" it is completely fraudulent from top to bottom, because the banks threw away the documentation on the fraudulent loans they (as a group) made, fraudulently packaged into AAA rated "investments", and pawned off on others, chiefly retirement funds based on false representations of the contents of those "investments".

Fraud built on fraud, built on yet more fraud.

According to the law, if you don't have the real paperwork, you are not the real owner and are not entitled to foreclose on jack shiat. Sounds like a very expensive farkup on the part of the banks, but that does not change the law. (Gee, destroying the evidence from your fraudulent practices wasn't so bright after all)

Fraud is a felony offense, and it was committed by the banks wholesale in every state in the union.

The Obama administration has been working overtime to cover all this up, because they are no better than Republicans when it comes to serving the interests of the obscenely wealthy.
 
2013-01-08 07:24:25 PM  

BullBearMS: Geotpf: So the paperwork sucks.

The paperwork does not "suck" it is completely fraudulent from top to bottom, because the banks threw away the documentation on the fraudulent loans they (as a group) made, fraudulently packaged into AAA rated "investments", and pawned off on others, chiefly retirement funds based on false representations of the contents of those "investments".

Fraud built on fraud, built on yet more fraud.

According to the law, if you don't have the real paperwork, you are not the real owner and are not entitled to foreclose on jack shiat. Sounds like a very expensive farkup on the part of the banks, but that does not change the law. (Gee, destroying the evidence from your fraudulent practices wasn't so bright after all)

Fraud is a felony offense, and it was committed by the banks wholesale in every state in the union.

The Obama administration has been working overtime to cover all this up, because they are no better than Republicans when it comes to serving the interests of the obscenely wealthy.


Uh, wow. I can't believe I'm agreeing with you for the most part.

I'm not sure the Obama administration's expressed goal is to protect the interests of the obscenely wealthy, but that is the net effect their inaction is having.
 
2013-01-08 07:37:40 PM  

imashark: I'm not sure the Obama administration's expressed goal is to protect the interests of the obscenely wealthy, but that is the net effect their inaction is having.


It's adorable that people are so unwilling to admit that the obscenely wealthy own both parties.

Do you remember what happened when knowledge of all these fraudulent foreclosures became public knowledge?

A bill that homeowners advocates warn will make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors is awaiting President Barack Obama's signature after it quietly zoomed through the Senate last week.

The timing raised eyebrows, coming during a rising furor over improper affidavits and other filings in foreclosure actions by large mortgage processors such as GMAC, JPMorgan and Bank of America.

The legislation could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents.

After languishing for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill passed the Senate with lightning speed and with hardly any public awareness of the bill's existence on September 27, the day before the Senate recessed for midterm election campaign.

The bill's approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn't acted on it.

The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent.

in an unusual display of bipartisanship, Senator Jeff Sessions, the committee's senior Republican, also helped to engineer the Senate's unanimous consent for the bill.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told Reuters in an interview that the law would weaken protection of homeowners by requiring many states to accept lower standards for notarizations.

She said it was "suspicious" that the law unexpectedly passed just as the mortgage industry is facing possible big costs from having filed false or improperly notarized documents.


When is the last time you saw the Senate pass anything that doesn't fark over everyone who isn't paying them enormous bribes unanimously?

Of course, after what they were trying to sneak through became public, they had to quickly back down, but the Obama administration worked tirelessly behind the scenes to shut down any effort to prosecute these crimes at the Federal or State level.

A power play is underway in the foreclosure arena, according to the New York Times.

On the one side is Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General, who is conducting his own investigation into the era of securitizations - the practice of chopping up assets like mortgages and converting them into saleable securities - that led up to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.

On the other side is the Obama administration, the banks, and all the other state attorneys general.

This second camp has cooked up a deal that would allow the banks to walk away with just a seriously discounted fine from a generation of fraud that led to millions of people losing their homes.

The idea behind this federally-guided "settlement" is to concentrate and centralize all the legal exposure accrued by this generation of grotesque banker corruption in one place, put one single price tag on it that everyone can live with, and then stuff the details into a titanium canister before shooting it into deep space.

This is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with cost certainty, so that they know exactly how much they'll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline.

This deal will also submarine efforts by both defrauded investors in MBS and unfairly foreclosed-upon homeowners and borrowers to obtain any kind of relief in the civil court system.


They were eventually successful in shutting down all criminal prosecutions at both the State and the Federal level.
 
2013-01-08 08:11:06 PM  
With all the $billions these banks have been paying out in fines and settlements they must be doing well because you know this money is only a small percentage of their profits.
 
2013-01-08 10:25:51 PM  
Loosely translated: if we did what you wanted, then we'd have to pay out a LOT more than $8B, but we are REALLY hoping you'll take the bait and call it good.
 
2013-01-09 12:33:54 AM  
Is there a guy at Rolling Stone that makes Cliff's Notes versions of their articles? I mean, I agree with the author and such but throw me some bullet points or an abstract...anything! Just no more wall of wailing text please.
 
2013-01-09 01:51:50 AM  

Lucky LaRue: The US Government has built its entire economic system on a basic premise of making it as easy as possible for businesses to operate in a fair and open market.  As a result, what we - as consumers - view as "fair" is frequently subjugated.  This may suck balls, but it is the price we pay for having a system that has promoted the greatest economy the world has ever known.  Get over it.


Trolling: How it's Done by Lucky LaRue. Simon & Schuster, $29.99
 
2013-01-09 02:07:44 AM  

Insatiable Jesus: Spire Law Group to Banksters: pay the People back their 43 trillion.

Link


It would also be fun to take mortgages away from them (click Video Playlist)
 
2013-01-09 02:11:57 AM  
Wittenberg Dropout

Is there a guy at Rolling Stone that makes Cliff's Notes versions of their articles? I mean, I agree with the author and such but throw me some bullet points or an abstract...anything! Just no more wall of wailing text please.

Actually, Taibbi's 1/4/13, 5 page article is as close to `bullet pointed' as it gets:

Link

Otherwise, it's the full court press FCIC report (600+ pages and tens of hours of vid of the hearings on cspan): Link

Just google: `MERS lawsuits' (that is good for a start).

It's a farking mess is the long and short of it. There is no such thing as `deregulation' there is only `rergulation' by those who can buy it.
 
2013-01-09 08:42:12 AM  
I'm sorry we illegally took your house. Here is $500 to $800 to compensate you.
 
2013-01-09 09:47:38 AM  
Hopefully they look into that mortgage settlement in the first place. Eligibility for a no fee re-fi requires the same bank to own AND service your mortgage. Chase owned and serviced mine until a week before the signing when mysteriously it was sold to Wells Fargo.

Hmm 2 banks involved in the suit swapping mortgages to get out of having to re-fi underwater loans to lower rates? No chance that would happen right?
 
2013-01-09 10:33:35 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: You forgot that Carl is the tax payer who was shaken down for the $5 that paid the government.


Which wouldn't have happened if he just stayed in the damn house.
 
2013-01-09 10:34:40 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Slaves2Darkness:

Oh yeah and Carl is not in the house, Carl is never in the house.


homerdoh.jpeg
 
2013-01-09 10:50:40 AM  

Lucky LaRue: This may suck balls, but it is the price we pay for having a system that has promoted the greatest economy the world has ever known.  Get over it.


By your own admission, "the greatest economy the world has ever known" "sucks balls." One would think that that would be an indication that improvement is needed, if one's head was not rammed up their ass so far that they can lick their tonsils.
 
2013-01-09 11:25:56 AM  

CheatCommando: one's head was not rammed up their ass so far that they can lick their tonsils.


Uh, wow. Do you mind if I steal this in the future?
 
2013-01-09 11:35:34 AM  
"Math is hard."
 
2013-01-09 11:42:04 AM  

imashark: CheatCommando: one's head was not rammed up their ass so far that they can lick their tonsils.

Uh, wow. Do you mind if I steal this in the future?


Feel free.
 
2013-01-09 11:44:27 AM  

CheatCommando: Lucky LaRue: This may suck balls, but it is the price we pay for having a system that has promoted the greatest economy the world has ever known.  Get over it.

By your own admission, "the greatest economy the world has ever known" "sucks balls." One would think that that would be an indication that improvement is needed, if one's head was not rammed up their ass so far that they can lick their tonsils.


I'll leave the fight to ruin America's economy and destoy its standard of living to you.  I am too busy participating in our economic progress to tilt windmills.
 
2013-01-09 11:50:25 AM  

Lucky LaRue: CheatCommando: Lucky LaRue: This may suck balls, but it is the price we pay for having a system that has promoted the greatest economy the world has ever known.  Get over it.

By your own admission, "the greatest economy the world has ever known" "sucks balls." One would think that that would be an indication that improvement is needed, if one's head was not rammed up their ass so far that they can lick their tonsils.

I'll leave the fight to ruin America's economy and destoy its standard of living to you.  I am too busy participating in our economic progress to tilt windmills.


Damn your dental work must be expensive. That's one hell of a colonoscope they need for the exam.
 
2013-01-09 12:51:58 PM  

CheatCommando: Lucky LaRue: CheatCommando: Lucky LaRue: This may suck balls, but it is the price we pay for having a system that has promoted the greatest economy the world has ever known.  Get over it.

By your own admission, "the greatest economy the world has ever known" "sucks balls." One would think that that would be an indication that improvement is needed, if one's head was not rammed up their ass so far that they can lick their tonsils.

I'll leave the fight to ruin America's economy and destoy its standard of living to you.  I am too busy participating in our economic progress to tilt windmills.

Damn your dental work must be expensive. That's one hell of a colonoscope they need for the exam.


i1122.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 01:43:08 PM  
while it's probably very demanding for the bank to investigate all of their improper foreclosures, I bet it's more likely that they have investigated and found out they're going to be liable for a whole lot more shiat. that's why they want to pay to make it go away. the banking industry really dropped the ball recently, and I think we're only halfway into the disaster.

/ expect some new legislation on the matter, we're only in round one.
// but, in 5 years, the US will be fine. then, a new bubble will arise and in a decade we will be in the same place as we are today. big whoop.
 
2013-01-09 05:07:24 PM  

BullBearMS: Geotpf: So the paperwork sucks.

The paperwork does not "suck" it is completely fraudulent from top to bottom, because the banks threw away the documentation on the fraudulent loans they (as a group) made, fraudulently packaged into AAA rated "investments", and pawned off on others, chiefly retirement funds based on false representations of the contents of those "investments".

Fraud built on fraud, built on yet more fraud.

According to the law, if you don't have the real paperwork, you are not the real owner and are not entitled to foreclose on jack shiat. Sounds like a very expensive farkup on the part of the banks, but that does not change the law. (Gee, destroying the evidence from your fraudulent practices wasn't so bright after all)

Fraud is a felony offense, and it was committed by the banks wholesale in every state in the union.

The Obama administration has been working overtime to cover all this up, because they are no better than Republicans when it comes to serving the interests of the obscenely wealthy.


So, free houses for everybody. Gotcha.

Yeah, I understand that the paperwork was bullshiat, but free houses for everybody isn't the solution.
 
2013-01-09 06:51:41 PM  

Geotpf: BullBearMS: Geotpf: So the paperwork sucks.

The paperwork does not "suck" it is completely fraudulent from top to bottom, because the banks threw away the documentation on the fraudulent loans they (as a group) made, fraudulently packaged into AAA rated "investments", and pawned off on others, chiefly retirement funds based on false representations of the contents of those "investments".

Fraud built on fraud, built on yet more fraud.

According to the law, if you don't have the real paperwork, you are not the real owner and are not entitled to foreclose on jack shiat. Sounds like a very expensive farkup on the part of the banks, but that does not change the law. (Gee, destroying the evidence from your fraudulent practices wasn't so bright after all)

Fraud is a felony offense, and it was committed by the banks wholesale in every state in the union.

The Obama administration has been working overtime to cover all this up, because they are no better than Republicans when it comes to serving the interests of the obscenely wealthy.

So, free houses for everybody. Gotcha.

Yeah, I understand that the paperwork was bullshiat, but free houses for everybody isn't the solution.


The paperwork wasn't bullshiat. It wasn't "flawed". It was fraudulent sworn testimony submitted directly to the courts.

In every single case, it was a felony offense.

Quit trying to change the subject. The banks committed a massive number of felony offenses and nobody is being prosecuted.

That doesn't even bring into account all the other fraud involved with selling the mortgages, packaging them into AAA investments, and then pawning them off on investors through false representations of the quality of those investments.
 
2013-01-09 10:32:19 PM  
I wonder if one of the major reasons businesses aren't investing and creating jobs is because the banks have been sitting on vast amounts of capital waiting for the other shoe to drop from the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and other quasi-legal foreclosures? If so, these billions might mean that vast mountain of capital will find its way into the economy at long last and may allow the US to resume pro-employment growth, assuming the Republicans do not destroy the economy in the way that conservative, anti-Keynesian financial chicanery has destroyed the economies of Europe.

Cross your fingers! Pray if you've got 'em!
 
2013-01-10 10:54:10 AM  
So this means that I can claim to have a lein on your home. When asked to prove it before I send you packing, I can basically ask the judge to trust me?
 
2013-01-10 10:57:08 AM  

BetterMetalSnake: So this means that I can claim to have a lein on your home. When asked to prove it before I send you packing, I can basically ask the judge to trust me?


Only if you incorporate as a bank and repeatedly forge and clumsily manufacture documents to support your claim.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report