COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary SEE LIVINGLIES LITIGATION SUPPORT AT LUMINAQ.COM


EDITOR’S COMMENT: There is little doubt amongst economists and financial experts that the repeal of Glass Steagel opened the door to a replay of 1929 and that of course is exactly what happened. Even the most unsophisticated person understands that if you allow banks to mix their depository functions (which are based on safety, trust and an aversion to risk) with the investment bank functions of underwriting securities, trading in currency and derivatives you have essentially unlocked the henhouse and every predator of every sort is going to trot in, steal the eggs, eat the chickens and maybe take parts of the hen-house with them.

So it ought to come as no surprise that European bank regulators are seeking to reimpose the old rules that stopped banks in their tracks and make them choose between the business of fiduciary — keeping deposits safe —- or broker engaging in risky trading for themselves and their customers. And indeed that is no surprise in Europe. But it comes as a message of “socialism” and other  fear-mongering words when discussed here in the U.S.

Let’s get real. The real story is that common people who work for a living having been getting the shaft ever since we started fiddling with the regulatory rules and accounting standards. We know what worked for us but it wasn’t working well enough for big business and big banks (in the sense that the rest of us still had some money left). They figured it was their god-given right and duty to remove every last dime of wealth from the middle class and poor. And in a perverted sort of way, they are right. That is their job— to make as much money as possible and distribute wealth in their own direction and away from everyone else. That is why you need a referee on the ball field, so bully’s don’t start making their own rules and preventing injury to the people who came to see the came.

Europe apparently still has some power over the banks so they are considering doing battle to reinstate at least some of the old rules that kept our money safe from being stolen and used for risky trades. Here in the good old USA, that is a battle that apparently is not even being discussed. Let’s take out our crystal ball. Who is going to win in the economic marketplace — the place where bullies are allowed to make their own rules or the place where referees are out in the playground and ball fields keeping the bullies in check, at least a little? The winner by a knockout in the USA narrative is big business and big banks. The losers are the homeless (many of which are illegally dispossessed of their own homes), the middle class whose wealth is either negative or getting there day of by day and increasing number of people falling below the poverty level.

Europe is going to impose some rules and wind down some of the megabanks, allowing for competitive financial services and allowing for real commerce to be promoted. The USA is headed down a path where if there is any money left anywhere — in government coffers, consumers pockets, investments in real estate or otherwise — that money is headed for the accounts of only the largest banks and businesses which will result in outlandish compensation to management who never was at risk as to their own liberty or wealth.

What will American Society look like in 3 years when we have gutted the last of the middle class wealth, educational money, the last of the safety nets, and the last of the control over our own sovereignty? Is everyone ready to be ruled by European nations because a group of thieves on Wall Street won’t let go? Are we ready to colonized again by Europe or China?

Battle Starts Over British Bank Rules


As Wall Street banks fight to fend off further regulation, the battle in Britain over how best to manage financial institutions considered too big to fail is just beginning.

On Monday, a volley will be fired at the country’s politically and economically powerful financial sector by a government-backed commission, which is expected to propose that Britain’s largest banks take steps to separate their trading and deposit-taking functions. That goes further than the financial reforms signed into law in the United States last summer, which do not draw as clear a line between speculative trading and more traditional banking services.

The proposals from the panel, the Independent Commission on Banking, will not be definitive; the commission is to produce a final recommendation to the government in September. But its expected recommendations on how to handle the systemic risks that large banks pose to the health of the economy represent a more direct challenge for British banks than the Dodd-Frank financial reform rules have been for American institutions.

While British regulators are expected to propose that banks make structural changes to defuse the threat from institutions considered too big to fail, their counterparts in Washington have focused on putting in place shock absorbers to mitigate the effects of another financial crisis. These American rules include making banks hold more capital to cushion unexpected losses and giving new legal powers for regulators to help failing financial institutions unwind in a way that does not threaten the entire system.

Despite all the complaints from Wall Street about Dodd-Frank, several British institutions have hinted that they might move their base of operations to New York from London. By contrast, the veiled threats by American banks that they might go elsewhere, voiced when the Dodd-Frank legislation was being debated, never gained traction.

Last week, Robert E. Diamond Jr., the chief executive of Barclays, issued a full-throated defense of keeping risky investment banking and safe deposit-taking under the same roof.

“It’s the model,” he said, “that’s enabled us to build a bank that’s diversified by business, by geography, by customers and by funding sources.”

But leaders of the commission have already called into question the argument — a core maxim of international banking — that universal banks like Barclays in Britain and Bank of America in the United States provide a public benefit because of their size, diverse range of services and ability to attract low-cost capital.

“In this regard,” John Vickers, a former chief economist for the Bank of England who is chairman of the banking commission, said during a speech this year, “it seems quite hard to identify and quantify real efficiencies as distinct from purely private gains.”

Mr. Vickers’s tone may be more subtle than the one used by the country’s chief bank critic, the Bank of England governor, Mervyn A. King, in arguing that banks in Britain are still too large for the country’s good. But the broader message is clear: the drive for profits in large banks surpasses the drive for efficiencies, resulting in actions that continue to pose a systemic risk to the national and global economy.

With the British banking sector much larger as a share of the national economy than its United States counterpart, it is no surprise that the debate has been more pointed in Britain than in Washington. The three largest British diversified banks — HSBC, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland — have assets that exceed Britain’s total economic output. At the same time, the government has majority stakes in R.B.S., and Lloyd’s, another large financial institution.

“This is a midsize country with an oversized bank system,” said Peter Hahn, a former investment banker at Citigroup who teaches finance at the Cass Business School in London. “We need to figure out a scalable bank system for the taxpayer to back.”

The most far-reaching proposal under consideration by Mr. Vickers’s panel would separate, or ring fence, the deposit-taking areas of the banks from their investment banking activities. The commission is not considering requiring banks to separate into independent companies, as happened in the United States in the Depression, but to operate as distinct subsidiaries with their own balance sheets belonging to a broader holding company.

That proposal, which would make it considerably more expensive to raise capital for investment banking, would be much more painful for Britain’s banks than the so-called Volcker Rule in the United States.

Under the United States approach, originally advocated in a stronger form by Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman who served as an adviser to President Obama, banks’ freedom to trade with their own capital and manage hedge funds would be limited. But they would still be able to borrow money economically because their balance sheets would remain unified.

American regulators have been grappling with how to apply the Volcker Rule, and intense lobbying has been taking place. Banks would still be allowed to trade to serve customers — but not to speculate. Telling the two apart can be difficult, and banks have been hoping for clear dividing lines so they would know just how far they can go.

But some banks have spun off large trading operations, and American regulators have accepted that there will still be banks that are too large to fail. Efforts to define just what additional rules they will face are still in their infancy.

For some experts in Britain, the approach in the United States is simply not strong enough.

“In the end, you just can’t regulate these banks — they have too much money and too many lawyers,” said Andrew Hilton, the director of CSFI in London, a financial services research group. “We should be prepared to split the casino bank from the utility bank.”

After successfully diluting the toughest elements of the Volcker Rule before it passed, the banking lobbyists are now putting their effort into other parts of the Dodd-Frank law that could cut into profits at their lucrative consumer banking businesses.

Banks want to reverse, or at least delay, the adoption of new interchange regulations, which would cap what banks charge retailers to process debit card transactions. Last year, those fees totaled more than $20 billion.

The secondary target of banks is the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency that will oversee nearly all consumer financial activity once it is up and running in July. Republicans in the House — whose most prominent local constituents are often community bankers — have introduced bills to cut back the bureau’s authority over mortgage loans and other consumer products.

Floyd Norris and Edward Wyatt contributed reporting.

13 Responses

  1. Looking for an article, excellent essay actually, about Bank fraud, and the illegalities of lending money on borrowed money, and how a Bank has to have a certain amount before it lends out, etc. It was an amazing article, very specific, informative, with many examples, and and now that I have some time to read it again, cannot find it. can anyone help me here?
    Thanks in advance.

  2. […] View the original article here Tags:BONUSES, EQUALS, EXECUTIVE, PROFIT. This entry was posted on Friday, April 29th, 2011 at 11:25 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site. You can . « Signed, sealed & delivered mortgage fraud Bill Leave a comment Name (required) […]

  3. […] View the original article here LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

  4. this law firm says it has filed a mass- joinder lawsuit against B of A. they state through this website :, that they are still accepting new clients.

    they charge $5,000 upfront for a retainer, and claim that each homeowner in a mass- joinder suit get’s a seperate settlement. they say it will be a new mortgage balance that is 70 % of market value, and a new fixed interest rate of appx 3 to 4 %. they also state that once i am in the suit, my pending foreclosure will be stopped indefinitely as part of their agreement w/ B of A.
    there was a posting on living lies a couple of months ago about it, and someone at livinglies said let us know if you use this firm and what it is like. that is what i wanted to know also, if anyone has joined this or any other mass – joinder suit, and if so , what is their opinion. from what i read today on living lies, it seems u suggest a mass-joinder does not have much of a chance at success.
    any info would be appreciated, thank you , Darrell

  5. What is a constant source of disbelief on my part, and trust me, I’m well aware of the fact that I’m a rube who just fell off the turnip truck hard onto Main Street USA’s asphalt, all butt skinned, is the disconnect between what Wall Street expects these days, and what Main Street has been used to for 30 years.

    We were never targeted by programs that would determine that a payment due from the East coast would probably be received late if issued by a West coast address, and, conversely, that a payment due from the West coast would serve the banksters better if it were sent from the East coast. That’s down right deceptive!

    Back in the goold old days, payments due on the first of the month were never fed through computer algorithm programs that calculated various payments to be late if thet were sent out on certain dates, such as how weekends and holidays affect payments. Happy Holidays. You owe much more than you thought!

    I’d pay what little cash I have left to sit in a deposition with any CEO of a major lendor and be able to ask, “Why?”

    OK. I know that initial question is just a rant and is way too wide open, but it’s the most major offense that needs answering. I’ll narrow it down….

    “Mr. Dimon…. why would you or yours think it’s alright to write mortgages that hid the true nature of the lender, and instantly if not sooner securitized the note, leaving the mortgage back with Mers to hold onto like a theif in the night, then never delivering the note to the trust, all the while pretending to modify the loan, knowing full well that you not only had no intention to, but that you couldn’t, BECAUSE IT WOULD SHOW UP IN THE CHAIN OF TITLE!

    Then, while telling the homeowner that they finally qualified after nine months of brow sweat and faxing of docs, that they need to leave….their home’s been sold!

    Dimon, Blankfein, Angelo, Paulson, Geithner all of them as far as I’m concerned are a total waste of humanities time. We should simply expell them from society. Tell them that they simply don’t belong here any longer, that their behaviour is unbefitting….not unlike excusing a child from a sandbox.

    Screw these guys. We’d all be better off without them. SCUM.

  6. Is this another scam?

    Principal Reduction Consultants, LLC
    Secretary of State of Virginia ID: A050252

    Status Secretary of State Only Applied 4/5/11

    About Principal Reduction Consultants (PRC)

    Our firm grew out of Legal Forensic Auditors, LLC, a forensic mortgage auditing shop in Warrenton Virginia. We have performed over 900 mortgage audits and used this information to stop foreclosures, negotiate beneficial Mortgage modifications and put its clients into programs that involve a reduction in the principal balance of their mortgage. In developing relationships with foreclosure defense Law firms and consultants nationwide we are priveledged to see a variety of tactics used to best defend the needs and promote the objectives of distressed homeowners. When Jeff Greenberg, who is our founder and the managing partner went to Del-Mar California to obtain his certification as a certified Forensic Mortgage Auditor he met another entrepreneur who was moving along the same path but who had become extremely familiar with government subsidies earmarked for giving relief to distressed homeowners.

    After studying the model, Mr Greenberg and his partner Marc Deppe felt that it was imperative to employ the technique for its clients and decided to found PRC- dedicated to negotiating Principal Reductions for distressed homeowners who are underwater and in subprime or predatory mortgages.

    The concept is fairly simple and elegant and allows the bank to capture the government subsidy by reducing principal rather than foreclosing. Please call 540-341-1481 or email

  7. Nothing in Government Happens by Accident:

    Physics plays important role for energy of the “SPIN” creates “Momentum to Foreclose.”

    Without energy over 24 months, Principal Reduction Consultants, LLC secure principal reductions including Bank of America.

    A few CPAs that have negotiated 334 principal reductions over 24 months.

    Many (3) or more of these principal reductions are 40-60 % of initial face principal value of the notes
    or re-casting of these loans after applying all of the insurances!

    The fuel? Lenders looking for least resistance and shortest distance to hitting loss share insurance funds$$.

    80% of the loss created by selling the home as REO and subtracting this sale price from the face value of the note creates an absolute loss and is paid by the FDIC or some other government or CDS insurance loss subsidy.

    ‘Sharktales’ of former Presidents Clinton & Bush’s administration are allowed to purchase failed banks with borrowed money guaranteed to create massive returns by the US Government.

    Why would Congress ignore recasting subprime predatorial notes at 90% NPV also allows the banks to receive subsidies for the losses.

    Keep their homes and pay more affordable mortgages and stem the huge flow of inventory or REO onto the market

  8. I do not see how this fraud can continue without the U.S. going under. Business with mega banks is going to collapse, because they are all crooks. Europe is trying to bring in more regulation of the banks, and we need to do it, too. Bring back Glass-Steagall–we need to separate the risky business from the legit business in the banks.

  9. the judges in lee county are robo-judges in cohort with robo- foreclosure mills attorney.

    i think these robo-judges should also be prosecuted for not doing their job. talking about immunity, these judges should not be given immunity because they did not perform their duties as judges. once judges are unwilling to do their duties their immunity is compromise.

  10. The ACLU Lawsuit and What It says about the State of “Our” Court System

    It is critically important that everyone in this country read the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union this week. (Click Here For Lawsuit)

    Reading the entire lawsuit is important, but even more important is to read the emails between court officials that are attached as an appendix to the lawsuit. (Click Here For Emails)

    I expect that any American with a basic understanding of our system of government would understand just how damming and profound the allegations in the lawsuit are, but it is perhaps more important to read the actual emails that are incorporated into the lawsuit. Don’t just rely upon the allegations contained in the lawsuit, don’t just rely on the ACLU’s interpretation of the facts, read the emails for yourself and ask whether these emails represent the kind of fairness and justice that you think we are entitled to under the Florida and United States Constitution.

    It is a mistake to diminish the significance of this lawsuit because “it’s only Lee County”. No, that’s wrong. While the allegations contained within the suit may be particular to that area, we all must understand that we have a responsibility and duty to police what is happening in courtrooms all across this country. Our courts have been co-opted by the corporations and business interests that run this country now, a fact that is clearly illustrated by the ACLU lawsuit. If you can’t quite understand the full significance of the allegations contained within the suit, have a read of the following blog for more perspective:

    Firedog Lake

  11. ACLU Challenges Lack of Due Process Protection in Florida 20th Judicial ” Foreclosure Courts’

    The ACLU Foundation on Thusday will File a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland, Florida requesting the
    Court Review and rules on the process and procedures used in the “Foreclosure Courts’ in the 20th Judicial Circuit of Florida (Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Henry and Lee Counties),

    Full story and Writ of Certiorari at

  12. Anybody up for an Online petition?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: