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.

(Opposing Views)   Bank robber's official defense: "Since the banks had been bailed out and the people had not, I was going to confiscate money from US Bank in Jackson, Wyoming, and redistribute it to the poor and homeless in America. And that's what I did"   (opposingviews.com) divider line 196
    More: Spiffy, Wyoming, Corey Donaldson, U.S. District, bank robbery, branch manager, homeless  
•       •       •

8744 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2013 at 5:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-01 11:07:49 PM

another cultural observer: Sorry.


You seem insincere.   :  )
 
2013-05-01 11:20:28 PM

bunner: another cultural observer: Sorry.

You seem insincere.   :  )


It was a befuddled Englishman's "sorry", not a used car salesman's "sorry"
 
2013-05-01 11:22:46 PM

PunGent: FTA  "Last week, a U.S. District judge told Donaldson he could not argue before the jury that his actions were justified."

I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer...did this guy just get a solid issue for appeal?


I'm pretty sure there is no such crime as "justifiable bank robbery." Its not like he HAD to rob the bank or his life would have been in danger. Self-righteousness has never been a legitimate defense in court.
 
2013-05-01 11:26:21 PM

jndisharif: PunGent: FTA  "Last week, a U.S. District judge told Donaldson he could not argue before the jury that his actions were justified."

I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer...did this guy just get a solid issue for appeal?

I'm pretty sure there is no such crime as "justifiable bank robbery." Its not like he HAD to rob the bank or his life would have been in danger. Self-righteousness has never been a legitimate defense in court.


Had he robbed the bank under duress, then he would have a legally cognizable defense.  If some guy had a gun to this robber's wife's head, and said "go rob that bank or I will murder your wife".....he'd be free and clear assuming he could prove it.
 
2013-05-01 11:28:35 PM

another cultural observer: bunner: another cultural observer: Sorry.

You seem insincere.   :  )

It was a befuddled Englishman's "sorry", not a used car salesman's "sorry"


Context is important, I agree.  Nothing to be befuddled about, really.  He premise I have stated is quite simply that codified theft on a large scale is quite often excused, supported and a granted privilege of those who have access to large financial constructs while penny ante mooks get nailed to a tree.  I'm sort of against both approaches because they're both illegal and designed to deprive people of their property and capital.  And when I see Lehman Bros. execs in stocks, I shall find a modicum of equilibrium in our  criminal justice system.
 
2013-05-01 11:29:17 PM

timujin: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!

Isn't this stealing from the government? Aren't these funds FDIC insured?



Brilliant. And where do you think the government gets the money to insure the funds? From the magic money hole in Washington DC?
 
2013-05-01 11:34:49 PM

jndisharif: From the magic money hole in Washington DC?


I don't know if that's where they get it from, however, it is quite obviously where they put it all.
 
2013-05-01 11:40:06 PM

jndisharif: timujin: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!

Isn't this stealing from the government? Aren't these funds FDIC insured?


Brilliant. And where do you think the government gets the money to insure the funds? From the magic money hole in Washington DC?


He made sure to only steal from bank accounts containing amounts above the FDIC limit, in order to spare the taxpayers.  Otherwise it'd be kind of pointless.  "I'm robbing this bank to give the money back to the taxpayers, who will collectively repay the banks with their own money.  Or I might give it to a tax-coster, who is already being financed by the taxpayers but he needs a little bit more money."
 
2013-05-01 11:42:53 PM

Matthew Keene: The sad thing is that 140K is a mere burp to the bank.


A burp?  Naw.  A burp might actually be felt.  Whereas this guy actually did something, unlike OWS, what he did might make a footnote in a quarterly report to the bank president.
 
2013-05-01 11:54:59 PM
This guy is no hero or Robin Hood, though I certainly do not think he is any more of a crook than a lot of bankers and our Senators.

That being said, bad things can happen anytime you wave a gun around. Even if your gun is empty and you never have any intention of harming anyone, you are escalating the situiaton and frightening people. That can cause bad things. It's like speeding in a school zone. Even if you're sober, undestracted and a great driver, you're just asking for trouble. Tempting the fates as the anciet Greeks would say.
 
2013-05-02 12:17:49 AM

jndisharif: timujin: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!

Isn't this stealing from the government? Aren't these funds FDIC insured?


Brilliant. And where do you think the government gets the money to insure the funds? From the magic money hole in Washington DC?


I wasn't making a judgement about whether or not it was sensible, only questioning whether FDIC insurance extended to bank robberies.  It doesn't, this would have been paid out by the banks private insurer.
 
2013-05-02 12:55:57 AM
"The people" do get bailed out plenty of times. It's called "welfare".
 
2013-05-02 12:58:12 AM

B.L.Z. Bub: "The people" do get bailed out plenty of times. It's called "welfare".


Really?  Go on.  Let's chat about welfare and scale and who gets what and why.
 
2013-05-02 01:00:09 AM

super_grass: Communist_Manifesto: Tatsuma: Treygreen13: I'm sure the glowing praise of the anonymous internet cellar-dwellers will comfort this guy as he prepares to go to jail for a decade.

Seriously everyone who posted things like that have to be basically cellar-dwellers with very little impact on society, this is a beyond farked-up mentality to have.

The reason people don't have a problem with stealing from banks is because the banks may have farked up the entire world economy and caused a lot of grief/harm to people. It's called comeuppance and since no governmental authority has done jack shiat to provide said comeuppance, people will tend to look the other way when shiat like this happens regardless if this guys motives were exactly as he said they were. It may not be right, the people at that bank in Wyoming probably had nothing to do with the actions of the bank at large, but I can at least understand both robbing it and being okay with the guy doing it.

This is why I'm okay with people redirecting their anger towards Obama for screwups.

More often than not it's congress, but he's a symbol of government and government has been helping corporations screw us over for the longest time.

THANKS, OBUMMER!


A big THIS is why I blame Obama, and Bush before him. Both have had the power to direct their Justice Dept. to prosecute whatever they so desire to the ends of the Earth, their failure to do so implicates them as well.
 
2013-05-02 01:05:16 AM

shiattynick: Both have had the power to direct their Justice Dept. to prosecute whatever they so desire to the ends of the Earth, their failure to do so implicates them as well.


So, the "a few bad cops" indicts the ones who ignore them, too" metric works all the way up the chain?
 
2013-05-02 01:27:27 AM

bunner: shiattynick: Both have had the power to direct their Justice Dept. to prosecute whatever they so desire to the ends of the Earth, their failure to do so implicates them as well.

So, the "a few bad cops" indicts the ones who ignore them, too" metric works all the way up the chain?


Ignore them is far too lenient, if it were just ignore them I might give it a pass. Enable and shield them from prosecution is what has happened, and that gets no pass from me.
 
2013-05-02 01:37:57 AM

shiattynick: Ignore them is far too lenient, if it were just ignore them I might give it a pass. Enable and shield them from prosecution is what has happened, and that gets no pass from me.


Nor from me.  However,much to their benefit if not ours, they seem to have managed to print their own.  If you make the laws and print the money, you pretty much get to sh*t anywhere you please.
 
2013-05-02 01:41:02 AM
Regardless of our alleged progress towards a civilized society, the landscape is still largely the roaring and scowling of carnivorous beasts plopping their malodorous scat along the traveled paths as a warning to the smaller animals to tread lightly, and not stick their noses too far out of their warrens.
 
2013-05-02 02:04:06 AM
Living up to his ancestors standards.
 
2013-05-02 03:00:36 AM
You can't steal from a thief.

Not guilty!
 
2013-05-02 03:56:35 AM
I am going to have to join the crowd who are asking WTF is up with the instructions about not discussing motives. That seems wrong. I'm not a lawyer, though. Any lawyers got an explanation for this?

Tatsuma: I've spent most of the last two years away from fark


You've logged in your alt a mighty damn lot.
 
2013-05-02 07:03:02 AM

unlikely: I am going to have to join the crowd who are asking WTF is up with the instructions about not discussing motives. That seems wrong. I'm not a lawyer, though. Any lawyers got an explanation for this?


Motive is not a defense at trial.  Motive can be a mitigating factor at the sentencing phase.

"Yes, I stole the bread."
"Guilty."
"But I did it to feed my family."
"Sentence suspended."

Prosecutors discuss motive to remove doubt.  "Why would he do such a thing?"
 
2013-05-02 08:27:06 AM

Tatsuma: links136: It's kinda like when prison guards look the other way while jail-mates beat the shiat out of child molesters. They had it coming.

No, no it's not. It's not the same thing at all.


Actually, it is.

Better yet, it's like the tacit approval of Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison, rape and murder in the cell block that guards will not try particularly hard to stop and which will never get investigated beyond, "who did it?!  All right all you suspects in solitary for a while!"

It's a situation where organizations which have consistently avoided any punishment for systemic criminal or unethical behaviors and received what our sense of justice considers insufficient punishment (often none at all).  It's not right, from a reasoned perspective, and it's questionable from an ethical perspective, but it grabs the attention of emotional appeal like unattended steak draws the attention of your dog.

Realistically, there is a logical argument that "examples need to be made" of the criminal behaviors of the financial industry.  Some execs need to do a perp-walk, some exceedingly wealthy need to see up-close and personal that yes, there ARE laws and there ARE consequences.  A bank robber getting off while the money is returned AND insured AND possibly some is "creatively positioned"(stolen) by the banks is not going to be that.

So no, the people above alternating between "let 'im go!" and "hang the bankers up by their entrails!" are wrong, but you would be wise to understand the emotional reasoning behind it.  It's why we still listen to you after you've gone on "Genocide yay!" tears and frothed about things that got your pathos going.   You don't have to agree to understand.

Also you come off as defending the banks and the bankers, probably not your intent but it's still what you sound like.
 
2013-05-02 08:42:16 AM

OgreMagi: Tatsuma: Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this

phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?

Ned Stark: Acquit.

ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.

Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.

If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument.  Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated.



Well, that's pure horseshiat.
 
2013-05-02 09:02:44 AM

keypusher: OgreMagi: Tatsuma: Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this

phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?

Ned Stark: Acquit.

ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.

Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.

If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument.  Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated.


Well, that's pure horseshiat.


No, no, it's true. I read it in a fark thread.
 
2013-05-02 10:37:28 AM

jso2897: I always thought Jews were a minority - don't they own ALL the banks?


They dont own all of them but they are trying their hardest.  Recently obtained the banks of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.  Venezuela, Syria and Iran are next, atleast according to PNAC.
 
2013-05-02 11:59:44 AM

Tatsuma: Gangbangers in America is are responsible for the death of lots of innocents. If I have a relative who dies in a drone strikedrive-by, can I just walk up to any American gang-banger and shoot him in the head? After all, it might not be this individual who is responsible, but well he's in a group responsible for most of these crimes.


FTFY
 
2013-05-02 12:03:35 PM

TelemonianAjax: Tatsuma: Gangbangers in America is are responsible for the death of lots of innocents. If I have a relative who dies in a drone strikedrive-by, can I just walk up to any American gang-banger and shoot him in the head? After all, it might not be this individual who is responsible, but well he's in a group responsible for most of these crimes.

FTFY

Guess I should clarify: I mean to say that perhaps if there were no drone strikes or bank-led global catastrophes, people would not feel the urge to pick up a gun and look for their own retributions.  Barring that, perhaps a legal system that would allow for the swift and transparent application of justice to ensure the victims are made whole and faith in the system can be validated.

However, drone strikes and bank-led global catastrophes are happening, and no one is being held accountable for them.  The people making these decisions are getting away scott free, thus giving rise to stuff like this.
 
2013-05-02 12:06:26 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument. Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated.


Well, that's pure horseshiat.

No, no, it's true. I read it in a fark thread.


Hell, look at the most recent example:

The bank also moved money for organizations linked to Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, and for Russian gangsters; helped countries like Iran, the Sudan and North Korea evade sanctions; and, in between helping murderers and terrorists and rogue states, aided countless common tax cheats in hiding their cash.

"They violated every goddamn law in the book," says Jack Blum, an attorney and former Senate investigator who headed a major bribery investigation against Lockheed in the 1970s that led to the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. "They took every imaginable form of illegal and illicit business."

That nobody from the bank went to jail or paid a dollar in individual fines is nothing new in this era of financial crisis. What is different about this settlement is that the Justice Department, for the first time, admitted why it decided to go soft on this particular kind of criminal. It was worried that anything more than a wrist slap for HSBC might undermine the world economy. "Had the U.S. authorities decided to press criminal charges," said Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer at a press conference to announce the settlement, "HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S., the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized."

Banks are literally not even being prosecuted for money laundering for terrorists.
 
2013-05-02 12:10:17 PM
BullBearMS:

That is the worst thing I have ever read in my life.
g33kp0rn.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-02 01:24:22 PM

TelemonianAjax: BullBearMS:

That is the worst thing I have ever read in my life.
[g33kp0rn.files.wordpress.com image 640x400]


Hell, read about what became of the revelation that the banks were systematically using completely fraudulent documents to foreclose on people's homes in all 50 states of the nation.

Spoiler: Instead of prosecutors and the FBI investigating criminal wrongdoing, regulators allowed the banks pay contractors at "independent" firms $20,000 per case to review the files looking for evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Oddly, the "independent" firms making all the money claimed they saw very little evidence of wrongdoing at JP Morgan Chase, while an investigation by HUD found that nearly every Chase file they examined was completely farked.

Meanwhile, nobody was prosecuted for felony level fraud.

The homeowners who had their homes fraudulently taken from them? Some of them got like $300 bucks for their trouble while those "independent" contractors got $20,000.

Seems legit.
 
2013-05-02 01:31:37 PM

Tatsuma: This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.


Robbing a bank is certainly better than some of the things you favor, like committing war crimes against civilians.  At least the bank didn't literally lose an arm and a leg.
 
2013-05-02 01:48:26 PM
BullBearMS:

I'm afraid that someday Matt Tiabbi will be the equivalent of this guy.

WHAT DID I farkING SAY WOULD farkING HAPPEN!?!?
 
2013-05-02 01:59:39 PM

Tatsuma: Actual bank are merely entities, it's the people who control the banks who did all of these things.


Not according to the Supreme Court.
 
2013-05-02 02:44:12 PM

keypusher: If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument. Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated.


Well, that's pure horseshiat.


If it's horseshiat, you should be able to list the names of the big money guys who got investigated.  Maybe you can even find a name of one who went to trial, or was fined, or jailed.  I'll settle for anything that wasn't just another corporate handout.
 
2013-05-02 03:02:19 PM

TelemonianAjax: BullBearMS:

I'm afraid that someday Matt Tiabbi will be the equivalent of this guy.

WHAT DID I farkING SAY WOULD farkING HAPPEN!?!?


Well, Frontline on PBS has been asking the question, "Why haven't any of the fraudulent bankers been prosecuted" as well.

This documentary shows the insiders laying out the facts of the intentional, highly profitable fraud at the root of the financial crisis and the Government's intentional decision not to prosecute their wealthy donor friends in the banking industry.

However, the fact that most of the media always refers to "taking people's homes from them with fraudulent sworn documents submitted to the courts", "robosigning" instead of outright fraud tells you how important the rare journalist like Taibbi who tells the truth about what is going on has become.
 
2013-05-02 05:59:19 PM

Tatsuma: Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this

phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?

Ned Stark: Acquit.

ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.

Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.


More to the point:  The banks won't be out one thin dime on this guy's behalf.  Federal deposit insurance will see that every penny stolen will be reimbursed by the Federal government.  So this jackhole didn't steal from "teh ebil bankers", he stole from us taxpayers.
 
2013-05-02 06:19:29 PM

BullBearMS: TelemonianAjax: BullBearMS:

I'm afraid that someday Matt Tiabbi will be the equivalent of this guy.

WHAT DID I farkING SAY WOULD farkING HAPPEN!?!?

Well, Frontline on PBS has been asking the question, "Why haven't any of the fraudulent bankers been prosecuted" as well.

This documentary shows the insiders laying out the facts of the intentional, highly profitable fraud at the root of the financial crisis and the Government's intentional decision not to prosecute their wealthy donor friends in the banking industry.

However, the fact that most of the media always refers to "taking people's homes from them with fraudulent sworn documents submitted to the courts", "robosigning" instead of outright fraud tells you how important the rare journalist like Taibbi who tells the truth about what is going on has become.


Only idiots believe Matt Taibbi. He is a biased hack, who knows he can fool idiots.

The reason people only got $300 in foreclosure checks is because the reason they were foreclosed was because they were 10 farking months late on their mortgage payments. Those very few who were actually not behind on payments got much more in the settlement, and rightfully so.

The reason that very few people have gone to jail is because very few crimes were committed.

You can puke up all the links you want, voice your theories that Obama is part of some grand conspiracy, but the fact of the matter is that there just wasn't as much fraud as you desperately want to believe.
 
2013-05-02 06:49:08 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: The reason that very few people have gone to jail is because very few crimes were committed.


Fraud is a felony offense every single time the banks submit false documents to steal someone's home and it occurred in every single state of the union with great regularity.

Not one single banker has faced criminal prosecution for their fraud.

Their firm just pays a fine that is a tiny fraction of what their fraud brought in and don't even have to admit guilt.

It's a very obvious two tier system of justice where the rich commit any crime they like without penalty and the poor are put away for life for relatively minor offenses.

Senator Warren (D-Mass.) grills officials from the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency about why HSBC wasn't criminally prosecuted and shut down in the U.S. Nor were any individuals from HSBC charged with any crimes, despite the bank confessing to laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and rogue regimes like Iran and Libya repeatedly. Despite being caught red handed and ordered to stop doing so time after time.

Meanwhile...

Roy Brown, 54, robbed the Capital One bank in Shreveport, Louisiana in December 2007. A teller handed Brown three stacks of bills but he only took a single $100 bill and returned the remaining money back to her. He said that he was homeless and hungry and left the bank.

The next day he surrendered to the police voluntarily and told them that his mother didn't raise him that way. In Caddo District Court, he pleaded guilty. The judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison for first degree robbery.
 
2013-05-02 07:13:10 PM

BullBearMS: Debeo Summa Credo: The reason that very few people have gone to jail is because very few crimes were committed.

Fraud is a felony offense every single time the banks submit false documents to steal someone's home and it occurred in every single state of the union with great regularity.

Not one single banker has faced criminal prosecution for their fraud.

Their firm just pays a fine that is a tiny fraction of what their fraud brought in and don't even have to admit guilt.

It's a very obvious two tier system of justice where the rich commit any crime they like without penalty and the poor are put away for life for relatively minor offenses.

Senator Warren (D-Mass.) grills officials from the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency about why HSBC wasn't criminally prosecuted and shut down in the U.S. Nor were any individuals from HSBC charged with any crimes, despite the bank confessing to laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and rogue regimes like Iran and Libya repeatedly. Despite being caught red handed and ordered to stop doing so time after time.

Meanwhile...

Roy Brown, 54, robbed the Capital One bank in Shreveport, Louisiana in December 2007. A teller handed Brown three stacks of bills but he only took a single $100 bill and returned the remaining money back to her. He said that he was homeless and hungry and left the bank.

The next day he surrendered to the police voluntarily and told them that his mother didn't raise him that way. In Caddo District Court, he pleaded guilty. The judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison for first degree robbery.


This is why I have lost all respect for our justice system.  It's not just a loss of respect.  I now feel absolute contempt for it.
 
2013-05-02 07:18:45 PM

BullBearMS: Debeo Summa Credo: The reason that very few people have gone to jail is because very few crimes were committed.

Fraud is a felony offense every single time the banks submit false documents to steal someone's home and it occurred in every single state of the union with great regularity.

Not one single banker has faced criminal prosecution for their fraud.

Their firm just pays a fine that is a tiny fraction of what their fraud brought in and don't even have to admit guilt.

It's a very obvious two tier system of justice where the rich commit any crime they like without penalty and the poor are put away for life for relatively minor offenses.

Senator Warren (D-Mass.) grills officials from the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency about why HSBC wasn't criminally prosecuted and shut down in the U.S. Nor were any individuals from HSBC charged with any crimes, despite the bank confessing to laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and rogue regimes like Iran and Libya repeatedly. Despite being caught red handed and ordered to stop doing so time after time.

Meanwhile...

Roy Brown, 54, robbed the Capital One bank in Shreveport, Louisiana in December 2007. A teller handed Brown three stacks of bills but he only took a single $100 bill and returned the remaining money back to her. He said that he was homeless and hungry and left the bank.

The next day he surrendered to the police voluntarily and told them that his mother didn't raise him that way. In Caddo District Court, he pleaded guilty. The judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison for first degree robbery.


What do you think the game was with the supposedly "stolen houses". Please explain to me, using realistic numbers, how a bank would increase its profitability by foreclosing on a home, during a housing crash, when the borrower was actually paying his mortgage.
 
2013-05-02 07:58:02 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: What do you think the game was with the supposedly "stolen houses". Please explain to me, using realistic numbers, how a bank would increase its profitability by foreclosing on a home, during a housing crash, when the borrower was actually paying his mortgage.


Could you be a more obvious shill for the banks if you tried?

Nobody is complaining about home foreclosures where the banks followed the laws.

It's when the foreclosures involve submitting fraudulent documents directly to the courts time and time again, yet nobody gets prosecuted that piss people off.

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.

Fraudulent foreclosure documents submitted directly to judges over and over and over, yet nobody is prosecuted for fraud the courts can't help but notice?

Sounds legit.
 
2013-05-02 08:20:05 PM

BullBearMS: Fraudulent foreclosure documents submitted directly to judges over and over and over, yet nobody is prosecuted for fraud the courts can't help but notice?


I'm wondering why judges are not just tolerating this kind of activity, but also facilitating it.  One mistake, ok.  It happens.  But to allow such obvious fraud to be repeated is something that should have a judge removed from the bench.
 
2013-05-02 08:22:10 PM
The man is a hero.
 
2013-05-02 08:28:57 PM

OgreMagi: BullBearMS: Fraudulent foreclosure documents submitted directly to judges over and over and over, yet nobody is prosecuted for fraud the courts can't help but notice?

I'm wondering why judges are not just tolerating this kind of activity, but also facilitating it.  One mistake, ok.  It happens.  But to allow such obvious fraud to be repeated is something that should have a judge removed from the bench.


Interestingly, that particular judge was brought out of retirement by the local Florida politicians just to handle foreclosure proceedings in as speedy a manner as possible. They called it the "rocket docket".

I wonder how politicians could have possibly selected a judge so friendly to the interests of their wealthy donor friends?
 
2013-05-02 08:40:50 PM

BullBearMS: OgreMagi: BullBearMS: Fraudulent foreclosure documents submitted directly to judges over and over and over, yet nobody is prosecuted for fraud the courts can't help but notice?

I'm wondering why judges are not just tolerating this kind of activity, but also facilitating it.  One mistake, ok.  It happens.  But to allow such obvious fraud to be repeated is something that should have a judge removed from the bench.

Interestingly, that particular judge was brought out of retirement by the local Florida politicians just to handle foreclosure proceedings in as speedy a manner as possible. They called it the "rocket docket".

I wonder how politicians could have possibly selected a judge so friendly to the interests of their wealthy donor friends?


Ah.  That explains everything.  I repeat, I have lost all respect for our justice system.
 
Displayed 46 of 196 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report