Taibbi: BRING CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST GOLDMAN SACHS

SEE ENTIRE ARTICLE IN ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE

The People vs. Goldman Sachs

A Senate committee has laid out the evidence. Now the Justice Department should bring criminal charges

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein tesifies before the Senate in April 2010
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
By Matt Taibbi
May 11, 2011 9:30 AM ET

They weren’t murderers or anything; they had merely stolen more money than most people can rationally conceive of, from their own customers, in a few blinks of an eye. But then they went one step further. They came to Washington, took an oath before Congress, and lied about it.

Thanks to an extraordinary investigative effort by a Senate subcommittee that unilaterally decided to take up the burden the criminal justice system has repeatedly refused to shoulder, we now know exactly what Goldman Sachs executives like Lloyd Blankfein and Daniel Sparks lied about. We know exactly how they and other top Goldman executives, including David Viniar and Thomas Montag, defrauded their clients. America has been waiting for a case to bring against Wall Street. Here it is, and the evidence has been gift-wrapped and left at the doorstep of federal prosecutors, evidence that doesn’t leave much doubt: Goldman Sachs should stand trial.

This article appears in the May 26, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone. The issue is available now on newsstands and will appear in the online archive May 13.

The great and powerful Oz of Wall Street was not the only target of Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, the 650-page report just released by the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, alongside Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Their unusually scathing bipartisan report also includes case studies of Washington Mutual and Deutsche Bank, providing a panoramic portrait of a bubble era that produced the most destructive crime spree in our history — “a million fraud cases a year” is how one former regulator puts it. But the mountain of evidence collected against Goldman by Levin’s small, 15-desk office of investigators — details of gross, baldfaced fraud delivered up in such quantities as to almost serve as a kind of sarcastic challenge to the curiously impassive Justice Department — stands as the most important symbol of Wall Street’s aristocratic impunity and prosecutorial immunity produced since the crash of 2008.

Photo Gallery: How Goldman top dogs defrauded their clients and lied to Congress

To date, there has been only one successful prosecution of a financial big fish from the mortgage bubble, and that was Lee Farkas, a Florida lender who was just convicted on a smorgasbord of fraud charges and now faces life in prison. But Farkas, sadly, is just an exception proving the rule: Like Bernie Madoff, his comically excessive crime spree (which involved such lunacies as kiting checks to his own bank and selling loans that didn’t exist) was almost completely unconnected to the systematic corruption that led to the crisis. What’s more, many of the earlier criminals in the chain of corruption — from subprime lenders like Countrywide, who herded old ladies and ghetto families into bad loans, to rapacious banks like Washington Mutual, who pawned off fraudulent mortgages on investors — wound up going belly up, sunk by their own greed.

Read Matt Taibbi on Goldman Sachs, the ‘great vampire squid’

But Goldman, as the Levin report makes clear, remains an ascendant company precisely because it used its canny perception of an upcoming disaster (one which it helped create, incidentally) as an opportunity to enrich itself, not only at the expense of clients but ultimately, through the bailouts and the collateral damage of the wrecked economy, at the expense of society. The bank seemed to count on the unwillingness or inability of federal regulators to stop them — and when called to Washington last year to explain their behavior, Goldman executives brazenly misled Congress, apparently confident that their perjury would carry no serious consequences. Thus, while much of the Levin report describes past history, the Goldman section describes an ongoing? crime — a powerful, well-connected firm, with the ear of the president and the Treasury, that appears to have conquered the entire regulatory structure and stands now on the precipice of officially getting away with one of the biggest financial crimes in history.

Read Taibbi’s 2010 piece on how bailed-out banks are recreating the conditions for a crash

Defenders of Goldman have been quick to insist that while the bank may have had a few ethical slips here and there, its only real offense was being too good at making money. We now know, unequivocally, that this is bullshit. Goldman isn’t a pudgy housewife who broke her diet with a few Nilla Wafers between meals — it’s an advanced-stage, 1,100-pound medical emergency who hasn’t left his apartment in six years, and is found by paramedics buried up to his eyes in cupcake wrappers and pizza boxes. If the evidence in the Levin report is ignored, then Goldman will have achieved a kind of corrupt-enterprise nirvana. Caught, but still free: above the law.

48 Responses

  1. HECK no, ANONYMOUS—not YOU!!! You’re my friend! So sorry, I thought it was obvious who I was referring to…

  2. carie

    Hope you are not referring to me. Do not have to be here — only here because — I care. My goal — the truth.

  3. wow…sour grapes and jealousy…

  4. Name-calling — real professional.

    What we have is invalid mortgage — “without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation”

    Satisfaction of paid debt?? Never — never had the right CURRENT creditor.

    Cannot substitute an old party for a new one — if not the right parties.. That is why the mods – even today – are invalid.

    But, I have nothing to “sell” — unbiased. Others — that is their business — modifying collection rights for investors.

    He who shouts loudest and hardest —

  5. M.Soliman- while I can see your strict accounting standards are at odds with ANONYMOUS’ take on the subject(s) at hand, I would play the devil’s advocate and propose the following; If, as you have stated, original “loans” never left the original lender’s books, then what would a subsequent ‘refinancing’ consist of, regardless of who the next broker was? And, when you look at a satisfaction piece, who was it satisfied by? Or was it satisfied at all? And how do you prove, apart from the document, that it was satisfied? The lenders structured these loans so that as the rates reset, the borrowers would fall further and further behind, default, and be foreclosed. We aren’t supposed to be asking these questions, yet here we are. I haven’t read any case law where the lender/originator/servicer/broker marched into court and willingly produced all their accounting ledgers, spreadsheets, computer files, and the all-important remittance ledger, have you? It appears to me that the loans don’t exist, from a chain-of-title viewpoint, which is why every single document produced by the foreclosing entity is fabricated, forged, backdated, and illegally notarized. This week’s FHA charges against the big 5 banks allege that the notes were paid by both insurance and FHA, which we all knew anyway. If they were paid, (twice) then what are the remaining borrowers paying on? “You can’t collect the same debt twice”. Please comment, and I would further appreciate if you could cite SEC accounting charges which were brought against firms and settled, same with FDIC, OTS, DOJ. etc. Thanks.

  6. MERS !

    Want the insider facts on MERS …really ?

    A loan orginated by a lender is a XXXX term asset . Its like XXX or a XXX equivalent . After XXX months the loan is a LHFT .. .classified as a long term XXXX . Thats not good

    MERS is the . . . ..forget it

  7. Anonymous

    The “mortgage” — as to subprime loans —- was NEVER a mortgage. It was never even a loan- as by accounting standards. It was a modification of default debt.

    Are you insane? A modification like a new loan is a “novation” Please – any attorneys want to jump in.

    Satisfaction of a debt is paid in full fool. You cannot enforce a lien whereby the deed is a companion to the note. If they can enter a credit bid – where is the credit coming from – equity in the home JO.

    The debt collectors are foreclosing on a cyber-loan and it may not sway a Judge but it will defeat a power of sale like i have on 20 occasions

    Your not qualified to comment and then lure people into sales like Oprah .

  8. Crowd manipulation differs from propaganda although they may reinforce one another to produce a desired result. If propaganda is “the consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea or group”,[2]

    Cubed 2 -K I hear you brother. Anonymous writes about things i spoke to years ago and low and behold the readers say – How good is this- how articulate you are Anonymous. You’re always so clear and concise.

    Please – grow up $#$holes!

    This is wrong and I get manipulative calls every week and people that writes in foolishness – why.

    They know how to get a crowd excited. I said before and will say again – what i know defeats the lender in court. There are things only an insider can know and i am not letting it out on this site to ruin cases for others.

    Everyone should call it a day here and move on. This is the soap opera prime time fools show.

  9. NEIL

    WHY- TWO YEARS OF HELPING PEOPLE WITH OVER 20 WINS IN COURT YOU NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED . WHY NEIL ? QUIET TITLE NEIL – $500,000 SETTLEMENT AND DECESION WITH PREJUDICE

    YOU CREATED THE WEB SITES AND HATE MAIL AND THE BBB SITE – FOR A COMPANY THAT NEVER SERVICED A LOAN – EVER.

    AS LONG AS YOUR GOING TO LET THIS THING HAPPEN, PLANTS AND FOOLS ENCOURAGED TO TRY AND DEFAME ME ….WELL.

    CAN WE TALK ABOUT YOUR PARTNER THAT CALLED ME NEIL LAST YEAR …..CAN WE TALK ABOUT YOUR REAL TRACK RECORD …

    HOW ABOUT THOSE ATTORNEYS THAT “GET IT”!

    .HOW ABOUT THE LAST ASSOCIATE THAT HELPED START LIVINGLIES – LAST MINUTE…WHY? –

    AND THEN THE CREDIT CARDS NEIL – PEOPLE ARE CANCELING THEIR OWN CARDS , NEIL – WHY – ….

    AND MY CLEINTS NEIL – YOU TOOK MY CLIENTS – AND YOU MADE THEM EXPERTS. ITS ONE THING TO DEFAME ME BUT . . . ..

    AFTER YOU TAKE MY CLEINTS AND MAKE THEM EXPERTS.

    THESE EXPERTS ARE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR GODS SAKE…NO INSTITUTIONAL LENDING EXPERIENCE – NOT A DAY … FILE A BK AND BE AN EXPERT NEIL

    THIS IS NOT RIGHT NEIL – THESE PEOPLE WRITING ARE LIVINGLIES FOLLOWERS …AND DEFENDING WHAT — SIX , SEVEN EIGHT HOMES WITH CASH OUT . .. AND YOUR CALLING THE LENDER A SHAM – CRIMINAL AND PRETENDER LENDER.

    BUY A HOME EVERY MONTH LIKE MS. MAS OR DO AN ABBY AND LEVER A HOME FREE AND CLEAR . . AND LIVE OFF THE RENTS OR LENDERS KINDNESS……..AND COME TO THIS SITE TO GET ADVICE ON HOW TO SCREW A LENDER.

    REAL GOOD NEIL –

  10. Bill McAuliffe

    Bank of America, NA was/is a distressed debt buyer. Changing names?? No. Just reorganizing. But, once reorganized under NA — under OCC control.
    What more favorable treatment can you get??

  11. Anyone know what B of A is up to in changing their name from BAC Home Loans Servicing L.P. to Bank of America N.A.? I know Recontrust N.A. was the subsidiary that was involved in most of their foreclosure activity. Are they just trying to create a legal means to get you to sign on the “bottom Line”.?

  12. @ Louie Hammer,

    I am not M.Soliman you speak of. it is clear. you have reading diificulty issue that needs to be address since you cannot distinguished by username. I suggest pick up a copy of hook on phonics.it might improve your reading capability as well straighten out the childish behaviour you present on this website.

  13. Boo hoo hoo, Mr. Soliman. What a cry baby.

  14. @ louie hammer,

    your comment resembles exactly like what this site is saying for the last 3 years via misrepresentation.
    listen well and listen good. You will only hear it once.
    “Never judge a book by it’s cover until youve read the details.” You may troll away now. Peace

  15. M.Solimans BBB record in the city of Los Angeles.
    Personal experience I would suggest looking elswhere for an expert witness.http://www.la.bbb.org/Business-Report/Nationwide-Loan-Services-100072153

  16. I believe that most people have heard the commentaries from multiple sources, TV, Newspapers, and Internet websites of the left and right, “both reporting the same info, just different takes on what it means and will lead to” about Goldman.
    My mother used to say, “The Truth will stand, when the worlds on fire” and that’s true, but in the meantime the power of prosecution lay with our FED controlled government.
    The Academy Award winning documentary “Inside Job” shows what happened and is still happening on Wall Street. YouTube did have the full movie version downloaded, but it was pulled
    “”INSIDE JOB” … (FULL MOVIE)”
    This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Sony Pictures Movies & Shows.
    I am sure it is available at low cost, and needs to be viewed by all Americans, and should be shown in every High School in the United States, because it’s their future they stole.
    The maker of this film, upon receiving the award, said that “That 3 years after a horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that is wrong”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffHFjlqIzKE&feature=related

    So the judges know, the AGs know, and thanks to the Internet websites like this one, you know.

    So as for me. I have already went over to the window and screamed “I AM MAD AS HELL, AND I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!”
    I urge everyone to view this documentary, write letter’s/e-mails to your bought off representatives. Have a revolution party at your “in foreclosure home”, and show the neighbors why your life and theirs have been affected by this scam.

  17. EDITORIAL
    Will the Banks Finally Have to Answer?
    Published: May 17, 2011
    RECOMMEND
    TWITTER
    SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
    PRINT
    REPRINTS
    SHARE

    At long last, there may be a serious investigation into the mortgage mess — the kind that results in clarity as well as big fines and maybe even accountability.

    Gretchen Morgenson reported in The Times on Tuesday that Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, wants to discuss mortgage operations during the housing bubble with executives of Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. He has also requested documents and information from the banks, examined material given to his predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, and studied issues raised in lawsuits against the banks.

    Mr. Schneiderman would not comment on the investigation. What is needed is a broad inquiry into how banks inflated the housing bubble, profiting as it expanded and getting bailed out when it burst — leaving investors and homeowners devastated.

    Any serious investigation must take a close look at “securitization” — the pooling of thousands of home loans into securities that were sold to investors the world over. Three years after it all imploded — and even after Congress vowed to get answers and names — Americans still don’t have answers to vitally important questions.

    Topping the list: Did the big banks know (if not, why not?) that billions in loans and related securities were destined to fail? Did they intentionally mislead investors and insurers or were they just incompetent?

    An investigation must also figure out the extent of wrongdoing in Wall Street practices that fed the securitization pipeline. By extending credit to mortgage lenders, Wall Street allowed them to make loans far longer than they otherwise could have. Did Wall Street purposely inflate the bubble when it enabled loans to uncreditworthy borrowers for unreasonably priced homes?

    All indications are that last year’s robo-signing scandal, in which banks were found to have filed false court documents in foreclosure cases, was just the tip of an iceberg. A growing body of Congressional testimony, academic research, court cases and other evidence suggests pervasive defects, and potentially vast lawbreaking, in the securitization and foreclosure process.

    It has also been suggested that federal and state officials have ignored or played down allegations of widespread illegality, a charge that is all too easy to believe. A recent federal investigation into banks’ foreclosure abuses ended with a wrist slap. Talks between state attorneys general and banks over those abuses appear hamstrung, in part, by the apparent failure of state officials to do a thorough investigation on which to base demands for meaningful reforms and stiff penalties.

    It is critical that someone stand up and say “no” to allegations that go unexamined, to wrongdoing without redress. Mr. Schneiderman, it’s up to you.

  18. saveamericaone

    As to subprime — these were NOT mortgage loans. And, not valid MBS.

    Unjust Enrichment?? Mild compared to fraud, fraud, and more fraud.

  19. What About “Unjust Enrichment” will the Courts deny recovery of consumers harmed?

    Will the doctrine of unjust enrichment govern the many situations where the litigants have no contractual relationship with the LENDER who sold the loans to their contractor?

    When the ‘Lender’ (Underwriter) approved selling the loans to a third party all are in contractural relationships taking with intent real estate they are not a beneficiary of?

    The law finds an implied promise to pay for:

    Emergency services one does not request and tries not to pay for ‘implied promise to pay’

    Will we find in the Agreements we can’t see more ‘intent’ in writing that the beneficiary of the payments of insurance and unjust enrichments perfectly acceptable?

    Unjust enrichment is the appropriate remedy for parties who have entered a legally enforceable contract, but where performance by one party exceeds the precise requirements of the agreement.

    What about consumer retail mortgages where property taken by deceptive acts, with intent, to allow a third party to take possession of the property in a larcenous manner?

    Example: One day, a consumer is solicited by an employee of a ‘Wells Fargo Home Mortgage’ storefront in 2006? That employee is presented in the advertising of the public domain to be an employee of a national bank.

    The Wells Fargo employee promises the consumer they want to be the consumer’s financial professional for life, does not disclose they are not an employee of a national bank, are not a licensed financial professional, have inappropriately misrepresented themselves and are an employee of an agency & special-purpose vehicle who are rewarded for getting consumer property into the pipleline to become part of the Asset Backed Securities sold by their Master Servicer and Parent Company. This same employee continues to provide guidance on how to improve credit rating and invest consumer’s only asset in an inappropriate manner in the best interests of the Parent.

    The Consumer calls back one day asking for a car loan on a car they own to cover a short-term need for cash. Here fax back the credit authoritization. Before you know it there is an 80/20 financial product sold as a national bank association mortgage, by a Wells Fargo bank employee, forced upon the consumer and presented nto as a CMBS and RMBS and ABS rather a mortgage loan, with promises that such transaction will benefit consumer, perfect credit with promise of refinancing back into one mortgage in two-three years.

    Who lacked clean hands?

    A general equitable principle that no person should be allowed to profit at another’s expense without making restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained.

    Although the unjust enrichment doctrine is sometimes referred to as a quasi-contractual remedy, unjust enrichment is not based on an express contract. Instead, litigants normally resort to the remedy of unjust enrichment when they have no written or verbal contract to support their claim for relief. In such instances litigants ask a court to find a contractual relationship that is implied in law, a fictitious relationship created by courts to do justice in a particular case.

    Unjust enrichment has three elements. First, the plaintiff must have provided the defendant with something of value while expecting compensation in return. Second, the defendant must have acknowledged, accepted, and benefited from whatever the plaintiff provided. Third, the plaintiff must show that it would be inequitable or Unconscionable for the defendant to enjoy the benefit of the plaintiff’s actions without paying for it. A court will closely examine the facts of each case before awarding this remedy and will deny claims for unjust enrichment that frustrate public policy or violate the law.

    In some circumstances unjust enrichment is the appropriate remedy when a formally executed agreement has been ruled unenforceable due to incapacity, mistake, impossibility of performance, or the Statute of Frauds.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unjust+enrichment

  20. “Paid” is not “Paid” — in the debt collection industry. Biggest industry across the globe.

  21. Off topic:

    Florida 17th Circuit Court Judge Vic Tobin resigned as of June 30, 2011 to join the law offices of Marshall Watson in Florida (alleged to be one of the worst foreclosure mills here in Florida).

    What in the world is wrong with our society…….What a disgrace.

    You can see the information on Matt Weinder’s law blog

  22. Not going to attack or discuss any party here. NOT my style. Will say things are happening — that is not being posted here.

    My point below was only to encourage others to branch out from status quo. Joni Brit, says it well — “We are getting so caught up in the Sherlock Holmes destination of our mortgage, we could be losing the forest through the trees. ”

    I not interested in any opinion about me. They know nothing about me. Only here to help — and have to be able to take it.

  23. Ocwen Loan Servicing is currently being investigated by the FTC, Anyone wanting to file a compliant with the FTC about Ocwen should send a letter to:

    Joel Winston associate director

    Federal Trade Commission

    600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

    Washington, DC 20580

    (202) 326-2222

    http://www.ftc.gov

    Joel Winston, associate director of the FTC, confirmed the probe and said agency officials are “looking at more than one potential target” as part of their mortgage-servicing investigation. He declined to identify any other companies being scrutinized by the FTC.

  24. say,

    Bonnie & Cylde were actually heroes, don’t you think?

    Long live billie the Kid.

  25. ok Maher Soliman, is it not

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_manipulation

    ???????

    You worked in this industry.

    Neil Garfield, so did you.

    Explain LUCY.

  26. ok, solimanski: check it out:

    http://www.msfraud.org/

    “FDIC’s Bair: Millions of Foreclosures Could Be ‘Infected’
    Wolfgang wrote:What you folks have missed is that, in cases of Indentures and “securitized mortgages” sold into trust pools, the Wall Street entities that did this ALSO purchased “insurance” in the form of “credit-default swaps” on the pools.
    When the “Obligor” on the “Note” (to the extent it can even be identified) fails to remit for three months (remember banks telling homeowners they had to miss 3 payments to qualify for a loan mod), the Trustee of the Trust demands payment of the entire principal from the insurer (which is why AIG and Radian Insurance went bust). As these contracts were “non-recourse,” i.e. without subrogation onto the Note, the payment did not require that the “Note” be handed over to the insurer.
    So what happens? The “note” is fully paid (by the insurer), but is not stamped “Paid.” So the Wall Street hustlers then set up some subsidiary outfit (for example, DLJ Mortgage Capital, a paper front for Credit Suisse) and dump the “Note” in there, and then go file a foreclosure, representing to the Court that the Note is not paid. In fact, the Note is fully paid – just not by the homeowner.
    So what? It matters not under the U.C.C. who pays the Note: you, your rich uncle, your church group, whatever: “Paid” is still “Paid.”
    The guys who are laughing literally at the Bank are the guys who foreclose and flip the house, stuff the fresh cash into big bonus checks for themselves, and collect twice on the same Note. Sometimes, they have figured out how to collect THREE TIMES on the same Note.
    Why did all this happen? Because some really smart guys a decade ago decided to go work on Wall Street at Goldman Sachs et al instead of going into some intellectual pursuit, say chemistry research or physics. In the old days, only the “C” students went to work for banks; they were too dull to figure out these intricate scams. Now the “A” guys go, forget their morals, and screw the system.
    Society’s answer: PUT THEM IN JAIL.”

  27. No , I am not making a persnal attack. Its when this site takes my clients like Dan E and then makes them experts. ..has he saved his own home yet ?

    Feel the pain . . . .The guys in BK for how long?

  28. We are getting so caught up in the Sherlock Holmes destination of our mortgage, we could be losing the forest through the trees…

    This is what I call the America Moron . Talking about being lost …..while they write a person called ANONYMOUS

    This site has to realize somthing very important – If you dish it out – then stand tall and take it. Check out what MS Fraud is saying about Livinglies – Wow! Really?

  29. http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/17/matt-taibbijosh-rosner/

    Okay—this is a link to Matt Taibbi on the Eliot Spitzer show TODAY—talking about the Wall Street FRAUD—but when you click on the link you get “Sorry…what you are looking for is not there…”

    Hmmmmmm…I think the “powers that be” didn’t like the show???? Maybe it will show up later??? We’ll see…

  30. to Anonymous, I understand what you are saying, and agree with your point 100%. We are getting so caught up in the Sherlock Holmes destination of our mortgage, we could be losing the forest through the trees. We Trusted and we were taken advantage of and that is the most basic of basics!!!! That is the essence of our Judicial system and what is what created for. Thanks

  31. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manipulation

    2. to negotiate, control, or influence (something or someone) cleverly, skilfully, or deviously

  32. “influence the desires of a crowd in order to direct its behavior toward a specific action”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_manipulation

    PLEASE ENTER IN THE TIME FACTOR, IT TAKES SOME TIME TO MANIPULATE THE CROWD, YOUR HOME BUYERS AND REFINANCIERS AND SUCKER NEWBIE INVESTORS BECAUSE THE MARKET IS HOT WANABEES GET RICH SMART GUYS, INFO COMMERCIALS & FLIP THAT HOUSE.

  33. “Their unusually scathing bipartisan report also includes case studies of Washington Mutual and Deutsche Bank, providing a panoramic portrait of a bubble era that produced the most destructive crime spree in our history — “a million fraud cases a year” is how one former regulator puts it.”

    “bubble era”

    DON’T YOU YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IS HOW IT IS DONE. Create bubbles in the financial markets so as to reap the money going up, and then reap the money going down. THAT IS WALL STREET & now BANKS since Glass-Stegal revoked. That is manipulation. .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_manipulation

  34. Anonymous:

    Thank you – well done.

  35. Sorry, ANONYMOUS, I got a little too excited—thanks for all your help—take care—God speed!

  36. Have to stop the “paid” argument. It will NOT win in courts. Agree— have been Paid by insurance — and also by debt buyer “investor” purchase. This does not mean debt does not exist.

    It does mean that foreclosures are fraudulent — and that origination was fraudulent. And, that all we have before us are collections rights that are fraudulent and can be discharged in BK– never mind court itself. And, that origination is subject to fraud.

    The “mortgage” — as to subprime loans —- was NEVER a mortgage. It was never even a loan- as by accounting standards. It was a modification of default debt.

    Unless we start focusing where we should be focusing — we will continue to be caught in a mouse trap.

    Winding down here — will continue as I see necessary. But, working outside — and will not jeopardize.

    If we continue an approach that an insurance company — or investor default debt buyer – paid bogus security MBS investors — we will get nowhere. Get nowhere in courts.

    It is time to expose the origination fraud — what happened prior to – and at — subprime refinance origination fraud — and what happened subsequently by fraudulent foreclosure.

    It is time to move on from old arguments and focus on the real fraud.

    I have been waiting for this to be exposed here — and I am just not seeing what should be exposed.

    If it were — believe we would be in a different place.

  37. I’ll never forget the look on Blankfein’s face when all this was going down in the fall of 2008…total FEAR…or hemorrhoids…or both?

  38. Thanks, iPhone!! Of course I meant “Taibbi!”.

  39. Mr. Tabby certainly has a way with words. He sums up the state of the banks in this entire mortgage hijack–“caught but still free.”.

  40. Homes are being foreclosed on whose mortgage/loan has already been paid off—so WTF?

  41. The beginning of the end for Wall Street – let’s see what their clients have to say about this. They did not want to accept it when Goldman was first required to pay 500 million – but now after they managed to salvage the Company, they will be in the soup all over again.

    The people have spoken – particularly those on this cite and of course the best of the best – Neil.

  42. Love this part…
    Goldman isn’t a pudgy housewife who broke her diet with a few Nilla Wafers between meals — it’s an advanced-stage, 1,100-pound medical emergency who hasn’t left his apartment in six years, and is found by paramedics buried up to his eyes in cupcake wrappers and pizza boxes.

  43. When I see it I’ll believe it.Not because TBTF but because TCSTP;to chicken shit to pursue.Thats the key issues here and not one thing more.Great article by Matt.Keep up the good work.

  44. Florida Appellate Review – More Evidence of Changing Winds in Florida Foreclosure Appeals

    ——————————————————————————–
    More Evidence of Changing Winds in Florida Foreclosure Appeals

    Posted: 16 May 2011 01:52 PM PDT

    Defendants in Florida foreclosure cases are getting help from District Courts of Appeal not only in Miami and West Palm Beach, but in Daytona Beach and Tallahassee as well.

    As I noted in an earlier post, the 3rd DCA and 4th DCA’s recent decisions in foreclosure cases such as Jade Winds and Arsali are cause for optimism for South Florida foreclosure defense lawyers and their clients. Those appellate courts have made it known that they will reverse foreclosure judgments, like any other judgment, when due process has been disregarded, or a trial court has granted judgment based on lawyers’ assertions that have no evidentiary support in the record.

    It turns out that the 3rd and 4th DCAs aren’t the only appellate courts that are cracking down on such procedural lapses in foreclosure cases.

    In recent weeks, the 5th DCA has issued two separate published decisions reversing judgments of foreclosure due to insufficient notice. And both the 5th DCA and the 1st DCA have recently released published opinions reversing foreclosure judgments due to insufficient evidence of the plaintiff’s standing, i.e., its right to foreclose on the property at issue.

    Taken together, these decisions are powerful evidence that Florida’s appellate courts are increasingly receptive to foreclosure defendants’ complaints that some trial courts are not holding foreclosure plaintiffs to the requirements of Florida Civil Procedure – and perhaps that they are also paying attention to the widely reported improprieties in the mortgage lending industry.

    More details below.

    Two Decisions Finding Insufficient Evidence of Notice Service

    The 5th DCA’s most recent foreclosure decision, Silva v. BAC Loans Servicing, L.P. No. 5D10-3511 (released May 6, 2011), deals with substituted service under Florida Statutes Section 48.031. The trial court had refused to set aside a default judgment of foreclosure in favor of a lender.

    The 5th DCA emphasized that the plaintiff “has the burden to prove the validity of service of process” and voided the trial court’s judgment for lack of that proof. While the plaintiff said that process had been served on a person residing on the property, the 5th DCA observed that there was evidence indicating that that the property owner neither resided on the property, nor had any idea who the person was that was supposedly served.

    A few weeks earlier, in Ciolli v. City of Palm Bay, the 5th DCA reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a city seeking to foreclose on a property lien resulting from a code enforcement proceeding. Ciolli , like Silva, turned on the plaintiff’s failure to provide evidence that notice requirements were observed.
    The twist in Ciolli was that the foreclosing party failed to provide proper notice not of the foreclosure case itself, but of the code enforcement proceedings in which the city obtained the lien on which it foreclosed. The 5th DCA refused to accept the city’s proffer of a receipt showing that something to the defendant around the time of the enforcement hearing as evidence of service, without evidence of the contents of the mailing.

    And it refused to preclude the defendant from challenging the validity of the underlying order even though years had passed and the deadline for appealing that order had come and gone long ago. Although the homeowner didn’t timely appeal, the court explained, that omission may have resulted from the city’s failure to notify him of the order, as the city did not provide sufficient evidence to show that he was ever served with the order.

    The city did produce a certificate of service stating that the order was “furnished by mail to Respondent and/or Respondent’s authorized counsel,” but that certificate did not raise the general presumption that evidence that a letter was mailed is evidence that it was received.
    In a conclusion that may have implications far beyond the realm of foreclosure litigation, the 5th DCA held that this presumption does not arrive unless there is specific evidence of the address to which the document was sent, and that the address was correct.

    Two Decisions Emphasizing That Standing Must be Proven, Not Merely Alleged

    In a decision released on April 8, 2011, Khan v. Bank of America, N.A., No.5D10-3288, the 5th DCA reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a foreclosing bank due to a lack of evidence of the plaintiff’s standing to sue.

    The bank in Khan alleged that it was the holder of the defendant’s note and mortgage, and attached a copy of the note to its complaint. But the note it attached said the defendant was indebted to another entity, not the plaintiff.
    The 5th DCA faulted the trial court for granting summary judgment based on mere allegations that the plaintiff was the holder of the note, when the documents it submitted contradicted those allegations.

    The 1st DCA reached a similar conclusion in Villanueva v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. 1D10-5380 (released May 4, 2011). Like the 5th DCA, it found that the trial court had improperly granted summary judgment when there were fact issues as to whether the plaintiff bank was the proper party to foreclose on the property. Indeed, on appeal even the bank admitted as much.

    Despite the glut of foreclosure cases pending in many Florida counties, Florida’s appellate courts appear to be sending a message to trial courts that clearing up their backlogged dockets cannot be undertaken in a way that sacrifices litigants’ procedural rights

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: