BOA SCREWING INVESTORS IN LATEST DEAL

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

DEAL TRIES TO “FORECLOSE” ON INVESTORS THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE DEAL

EDITOR’S NOTE: At least they are consistent. BOA, in another attempt to use complexity to hoodwink investors and borrowers alike, has fashioned a “settlement” that is in actuality a cover-up for hundreds of billions of dollars in false assets on its balance sheet and liabilities that could reach into the trillions. They just don’t get it. Investors by definition have money. The megabanks may have drained all the resources available to homeowners but they didn’t get all the investors’ money. They have clout and they are using it.

In the end, the ONLY way out for BOA et al is to get a signature from the homeowners in at least 80 million transactions that have corrupted the title system in all 50 states. Without that signature, which is going to cost BOA untold billions of dollars, it will not be possible to sustain the foreclosures past, present and future and it will not be possible to sustain transfers of title or satisfactions of mortgage either.

Bank of America’s Mortgage Deal Questioned

By

Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, has asked for information about the $8.5 billion settlement agreed to late last month by Bank of America and representatives of 22 large investment firms holding soured mortgage securities, indicating that he may intervene to challenge the deal.

Letters sent by Mr. Schneiderman’s office to the firms that agreed to the settlement point to concerns by the attorney general that the deal may have been struck without full participation by all investors who would be affected by its terms. The letters, obtained by The New York Times, were sent to BlackRock Financial Management, Metropolitan Life Insurance, Pimco, Goldman Sachs Asset Management and 18 other parties, asking for information “regarding participation by both your firm and clients” in the settlement.

A spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman declined to comment. But this request for information is part of a broad investigation that he has begun into all aspects of the mortgage bundling process that has led to billions of losses for investors.

The proposed Bank of America settlement covers 530 mortgage pools issued by Countrywide Financial, the lender purchased by the bank in a distress sale in 2008. But the investment firms that agreed to the deal held interests in only about one-quarter of those pools, leading some investors to question its fairness. Furthermore, the proposed settlement does not allow investors who do not like its terms to opt out and bring their own suits against Bank of America. Any outstanding claims against the bank by investors who hold any of these securities would be extinguished under the deal.

The agreement could also speed up the foreclosure process, pushing more delinquent borrowers out of homes more quickly.

The terms of the proposed settlement appear to be favorable to Bank of America. Given that the unpaid principal amount of the mortgages covered by the settlement is $174 billion, the $8.5 billion to be paid by Bank of America represents just under 5 cents on the dollar. On June 29, when the deal was announced, Bank of America’s shares closed almost 3 percent higher.

A final court hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for Nov. 17. One investor, Walnut Place L.L.C., has already objected to the terms of the settlement in filings made last week with the court. Earlier this year, Walnut Place sued Bank of America, contending that many of the loans in the pools it invested in breached the underwriting characteristics and other representations made by Countrywide when it sold the pools. Under the terms of the Bank of America deal, this lawsuit will not be viable.

In objecting to the deal, lawyers for Walnut Place argued that the Bank of America settlement was negotiated in secret by Bank of New York Mellon, trustee for the Countrywide mortgage pools. As negotiator, Bank of New York Mellon was also conflicted, Walnut Place contends, because Bank of America has agreed to cover all the trustee’s costs and liabilities related to the settlement.

“It is very unusual, to say the least, for a trustee that says it is representing the interests of the beneficiaries of a trust, to demand and obtain an indemnity from the very party that is adverse to that trust and its beneficiaries,” lawyers for Walnut Place wrote in its filing.

David J. Grais, a lawyer at Grais & Ellsworth who represents Walnut Place, declined to comment. A spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon declined to comment. But in its legal filings the bank maintained that Bank of America was required to reimburse legal costs under the terms of the original mortgage pools.

Additional questions about the terms of the settlement were raised by Representative Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat. In a July 8 letter to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants, Mr. Miller asked whether the regulator would join other investors objecting to the deal. He said the concerns of some investors that Bank of New York Mellon and Bank of America had refused to provide “information necessary to determine adequacy of the settlement.” For example, investors have been unable to review loan files to assess how many of the mortgages in the pools satisfied the characteristics and representations promised to investors who bought into them, Mr. Miller noted. “Independent investigations show that perhaps two-thirds of the mortgages did not comply with the representations and warranties,” he wrote.

31 Responses

  1. Given the financial crisis in which our nation finds itself — given the access and the power of the financial intuitions’ hold, enabling them to play events to come to their own advantage — would it not be better to have one of our own in the White House who understands the game? Who is on our side, and by virtue of her position and knowledge can stare down all the entreaties for special treatment because she inherently understands that this nation cannot flourish, nor overcome the obstacles that lie ahead and maintain its dignity if we do not all together play by the same set of rules?

    Sheila Bair may not know it yet, but we need not only her kind, we need her to become our president. Her persona, her values, her experience would be a rare and welcome gift to the nation!
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/america-needs-a-president_b_898047.html

    See the master of the conspiracy if such a thing is possible.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/fbi-news-corp-investigation_n_898653.html

  2. It IS a “patriotic act” to NOT GIVE YOUR MONEY TO CRIMINALS…actually, it’s a “righteous human act”…

  3. There’s a hundred dollars in the kitty. Some jerkies took – read stole – 80 dollars and stock piled it away, out of circulation. The U.S. Government has obligations of 50.00. It printed some money because it felt it had to, because the 80.00 the jerkies took out of the kitty really belonged to someone else. The jerkies had to give some to the people they owed to people who were not at the table and the payment to which would not put any money back in the kitty. The jerkies had paid themselves a lot of money and owed a lot more than they had in their own kitties.
    One way or another, the 80. of the 100.00 in the kitty is all that’s left on the table. The government printed money, but it left the table, too, and by and large went to prop up the jerkies at the table who were unfortunately holding or perceived to be holding up the legs to the table. The other players are like what the heck.
    So the government made some programs dispensing money to keep the other players at the table because they are necessary. (HAMP) Problem is, they once again gave it to the perceived leg-holding players who don’t want to use it for the other players which would put some money back in the kitty.

    The other players aren’t being given any of the second round of printed money. So they’re still not contributing to the game and those contributions are needed, also, to keep the table up. Not only that, but it’s causing the other player’s chairs to fall apart. So the other players are righteously torked, and the government still only has 20.00 to pay 50.00 worth of obligations. The printed money has helped a little to keep the table up, but it’s still threatening to collapse because most of that money never made it to the table.It did keep the legs a little steadier. So now the government is still trying to figure out where to make cuts to pay 50.00 with 20.00.

    The government should have kept a better eye, or even AN eye, on the activities of the perceived chair holders, but didn’t, and allowed them to get the 80.00 out of the kitty. They can’t or won’t make the pch’s return any part of the 80.00. Chances are, because the pch’s created more obligations than they had assets to pay and paid themselves a large percentage of that 80.00 in outrageous and unconscionable bonuses, and that’s the crime part I, they don’t have that much of the 80.00 left. They were able to meet some of their own obligations, apparently created at some heinous rate of 30 dollars owed for every 1 dollar in assets. They used the printed money courtesy of the government to pay off some of the 30 to 1 debt. There was a 3rd group at the table who got fleeced by the pch’s, too. They’re going after the pch’s, but their own recovery is falling way short of the 80.00, and way short percentage wise. They might be bringing 10.00 of the 80.00 back to the table, if they don’t just hang on to it, too.

    So the government is still stuck to figure out how to pay 50 with 20. As for the second round of printed money, the government needs to take it back, and disburse it to the players for whom it was printed. Those HAMP funds need to be recovered. But because of the securitization scams, even if the government did take the funds back, it would take a hell of an unravelling to determine who owns those stinking notes to buy to modify. Maybe the government knew this and that’s why they left it to the banksters to fashion some ‘modification’.

    Years of runaway spending, non-governance, and unfair taxation for the wealthy had to have contributed to the government’s current economic
    impossibility. ( And when I think of all the money spent on one war or another, it makes my blood boil . And I haven’t forgotten about the 400. toilet seats and the no-bid contracts.)

    The American homeowner, the working class, the backbone of our economy, the group which makes all things possible, is left to dangle in the wind. And now we have the prospect of more cuts which will further negatively impact our lives and our abilities to meet our own obligations.

    I stopped paying two credit cards, something four years ago I wouldn’t even have considered. They raised my rate, after years of faithful payments, to 30%. I’m not going to argue about it – I’m just not paying.
    I have no moral qualms about it, not even about the principle, which it would take me years to get to at 30%. They may have given me an opt-out, but I was too busy scrambling to save what was left of my portfolio thanks to them and trying to save my home to notice. Sooner or later, they will get some collection agency after me. Good luck, boys. These credit cards are held by banksters involved in all this baloney and fraud. They’re not using my 30% to perpetuate this fraud. I might even go so far as to see it as a patriotic act not to pay them.

  4. National Mortgage News
    Featured Story

    B of A’s Settlement Puts Subcontractor Incentives to the Test
    By Jeff Horwitz

    When Bank of America Corp. said it would unload the servicing of its most troubled Countrywide mortgages as part of a proposed settlement with bondholders, the surprise wasn’t that investors doubted the bank could do the job.

    —————–

  5. cubed2k

    They tell you Fannie Mae is creditor — but, they really mean that Fannie WAS the creditor. They do not tell you that Fannie is no longer the creditor. Oldest trick in the book as to debt collection — give the borrower the name of original creditor — do not tell them who is current creditor.

    It is possible Fannie is still creditor — but, very unlikely.

  6. @cubed2k, I think it’s the old servicer who is actually supposed to tell you about the new servicer, but they stopped following that rule a whole long time ago.

  7. @neidermeyer – don’t have any cases for you – sorry – but almost
    certain you got that right based on the fact that “a contract does not survive a closing”. Seems like the same rule would apply between the contracts.

  8. Sorry ,, off topic … but I need a bit of help …

    I need Illinois case law where a contract signed at closing supercedes prior sales contracts … preferably 2 or 3 cases

    Situation is an auction sale with one set of conditions on the sale and a similar but non-identical document presented at closing …

    I need a good simple Motion Summary Judgement with a demand for damages to use as a model … loss of use of the building due to this ridiculous suit.

    I tell you … the fun never ends …. this ridiculousness has been going on for over a year now.

    If anyone can help I’d really appreciate it … you can e:mail me directly brian_tracy AT cfl.rr.com

    THANKS !!

  9. This case will be a crucial case for international investors….

    http://www.housingwire.com/2011/07/13/court-keeps-chinese-banks-fraud-suit-against-morgan-stanley-alive

  10. Anonymous,

    agreed.

    “But, the main question is — what is the government doing for homeowners who were the REAL victims of the fraud?????? Nothing.”

    But not agreed from the headlines and media, here is what the gov’t is doing – go for a home mod, walk, deed in lieu, short sale.

    Now it’s being turned into debt collector confusion. You owe on a debt. Pay or get out and lose your collateral . The fight is really not to reduce principle, no way jose.

    Lets see, I ask my servicer to give me proof that they are the servicer for my loan that is owned by Fannie Mae, that they are the holder in due course. I get a no answer.

    Let’s see, in a simple example. I borrow $1000 from my neighbor, she says I can pay her back $200 for 6 months, she makes $200 profit. I agree. 3 payments go by, 3 months. I now get a letter from Joe who lives in New York. I live in California. My neighbor moved on emergency. Joe sends me a letter and says he bought your debt from your neighbor. Just pay me the $200 for the next 3 months. I pay Joe $200 for 3 months.

    6 months goes by, I get a letter from my neighbor – say you still owe me $600. Can you pay me now?

  11. Goldman Sachs?!? where did they pop out from? How much u wanna bet they’re the ones constructing this whole deal?

  12. What investors?? The ones who already got paid by swaps??? The ones who invested in mezzanine tranches that were entitled to nothing if “trigger-event” of swaps occurred??? WHAT INVESTORS???? What did they invest in???

    Not to lighten this post — excellent confrontation by a Congresswoman to Bernanke today on same subject.

    The Federal Reserve?? They do not know what cash flows are even coming on trusts — if any at all. Trustees?? Role is gone. Check out the tranches and Swaps in Maiden Lane.

    Blackrock?? distressed debt buyer.

    But, the main question is — what is the government doing for homeowners who were the REAL victims of the fraud?????? Nothing.

    Investors — legally as by precedent — rarely stand a chance in court — due diligence precludes recovery. Settlement is just to shut down discovery and evidence of fraud upon the homeowners. Investors just have powerful attorneys.

    And, who was the Congressman, today, who proclaimed that foreclosures must go through — at all costs???? What state was he from???

  13. Wonder how much ‘FNF’ dba Landamerica fka Lawyers TItle Corp Commonwealth, Transamerica, Transnation, ….(BOA 1 of the11 banks of the ‘CREDIT FACILITY) paying of the $8.7 BILLION?

    http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/cochrane-is-boa-the-source-of-financing-for-lawyers-title-corporation/

  14. usedkarguy,

    “They continue to kick people out of their homes claiming that they are not required to follow Utah law. We intend to put a stop to that.”

    GOOD

    Hawaii, now Utah. Only 48 to go.

    Now if we can get them to create state banks, why the people can tell BoA, JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and the rest of them to go stick it:

    …………………./´¯/)
    ………………..,/¯../
    ………………./…./
    …………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
    ………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
    ……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
    ………\……………..’…../
    ……….”…\………. _.·´
    …………\…………..(
    …………..\………….\…
    ……………\………….\…
    …………….\………….\…

  15. OS – Has anyone seen the signature of a Stephen B for MERS in relationship to Aurora Loan Services? No chance of getting the rest of that last name – it’s signed as well as printed in hyroglyphics.

  16. Mumford West & Snow Bring New Class Action Against Lawyers for Bank of America and ReconTrust One Month After Utah Attorney General Warned of Legal Action
    Email PDF Print .Salt Lake City, UT (PRWEB) July 08, 2011

    The Salt Lake City-based law firm Mumford West & Snow, LLC , today announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against the lawyers for Bank of America and its wholly own subsidiary ReconTrust, N.A. for conducting thousands of unauthorized foreclosures in the state. The lawsuit, filed in Utah’s Third Judicial District, is the latest development in an intense, ongoing legal battle in a state where the Utah legislature has recently enacted new civil penalties to assist aggrieved homeowners fighting illegal foreclosures and Utah’s Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, publicly announced that ReconTrust was not in compliance with Utah law.

    Lead counsel Marcus R. Mumford explained, “These parties have demonstrated a long standing pattern of illegal activity in taking thousands of homes from Utah homeowners in unauthorized foreclosures. They continue to kick people out of their homes claiming that they are not required to follow Utah law. We intend to put a stop to that.”

    The lawsuit, Case No. 110409402 now before Utah Third District Judge Andrew H. Stone, is the first class action suit filed after the recently enacted changes to Utah law. Attorney Tyson B. Snow explains, “We recently met with the Utah Attorney General’s office on this issue and it is our understanding that one of the purposes of the new law is to encourage this very type of lawsuit.” Mumford West & Snow attorneys also intend to seek a statewide restraining order and a preliminary injunction prohibiting the named defendants from conducting any additional foreclosure sales within the state.

    Utah’s new law awards $2,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, and attorney’s fees to homeowners who have been subject to an unauthorized foreclosure conducted by “unauthorized persons.” According to the lawsuit, in the past month, ReconTrust has foreclosed on approximately 200 properties and currently has more than 800 foreclosure sales scheduled in the coming months. The newly filed lawsuit also alleges that lawyers for Bank of America and ReconTrust violate Utah law each time they conduct these foreclosure sales. Utah homeowners who have been foreclosed on by ReconTrust or who may currently be facing a wrongful foreclosure can contact Mumford West & Snow through the firms website.
    Mumford West & Snow is a Salt Lake City based firm that specializes in representing entrepreneurs, businessmen, executives and individual clients, in Utah and around the country, in complex civil and criminal litigation. The firm handles both defense work and plaintiff’s litigation for clients ranging from individuals and small enterprises to major corporations.

    Mumford West & Snow has been called “one of Salt Lake City’s leading new firms in high-profile litigation.”

    If you’d like more information about this release, or to schedule an interview with an attorney at Mumford West & Snow, please call 801-599-0020 or email contact(at)mumfordwest(dot)com.

  17. Mumford West & Snow Bring New Class Action Against Lawyers for Bank of America and ReconTrust One Month After Utah Attorney warned of legal action.

    July 08, 2011

    The Salt Lake City-based law firm Mumford West & Snow, LLC , today announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against the lawyers for Bank of America and its wholly own subsidiary ReconTrust, N.A. for conducting thousands of unauthorized foreclosures in the state. The lawsuit, filed in Utah’s Third Judicial District, is the latest development in an intense, ongoing legal battle in a state where the Utah legislature has recently enacted new civil penalties to assist aggrieved homeowners fighting illegal foreclosures and Utah’s Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, publicly announced that ReconTrust was not in compliance with Utah law.

    Lead counsel Marcus R. Mumford explained, “These parties have demonstrated a long standing pattern of illegal activity in taking thousands of homes from Utah homeowners in unauthorized foreclosures. They continue to kick people out of their homes claiming that they are not required to follow Utah law. We intend to put a stop to that.”

    The lawsuit, Case No. 110409402 now before Utah Third District Judge Andrew H. Stone, is the first class action suit filed after the recently enacted changes to Utah law. Attorney Tyson B. Snow explains, “We recently met with the Utah Attorney General’s office on this issue and it is our understanding that one of the purposes of the new law is to encourage this very type of lawsuit.” Mumford West & Snow attorneys also intend to seek a statewide restraining order and a preliminary injunction prohibiting the named defendants from conducting any additional foreclosure sales within the state.

    Utah’s new law awards $2,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, and attorney’s fees to homeowners who have been subject to an unauthorized foreclosure conducted by “unauthorized persons.” According to the lawsuit, in the past month, ReconTrust has foreclosed on approximately 200 properties and currently has more than 800 foreclosure sales scheduled in the coming months. The newly filed lawsuit also alleges that lawyers for Bank of America and ReconTrust violate Utah law each time they conduct these foreclosure sales. Utah homeowners who have been foreclosed on by ReconTrust or who may currently be facing a wrongful foreclosure can contact Mumford West & Snow through the firms website at http://www.mumfordwest.com

    Mumford West & Snow (http://www.mumfordwest.com) is a Salt Lake City based firm that specializes in representing entrepreneurs, businessmen, executives and individual clients, in Utah and around the country, in complex civil and criminal litigation. The firm handles both defense work and plaintiff’s litigation for clients ranging from individuals and small enterprises to major corporations.

    Mumford West & Snow has been called “one of Salt Lake City’s leading new firms in high-profile litigation.”

    If you’d like more information about this release, or to schedule an interview with an attorney at Mumford West & Snow, please call 801-599-0020 or email contact(at)mumfordwest(dot)com.

  18. Cant they put this BOA out of its misery already before it takes the rest of us both the investor and borrower and the rest of the United States down with it?

    Enough is Enough. They are gonna take us all down.

  19. Schneiderman may be overstepping his bounds a little here. It’s an agreed settlement between corporations, not the citizens he’s supposed to be looking out for in NY.

  20. I’m with Stan. No signatures here either.

  21. What happened in Indonesia (crony capitalism,etc.), is happening here…this is from Wikipedia:

    “While Sukarno devoted his energy for domestic and international politics, the economy of Indonesia was neglected and deteriorated rapidly. The government printed money to finance its military expenditures, resulting in hyperinflation exceeding 600% per annum in 1964-1965. Smuggling and collapse of export plantation sectors deprived the government of much-needed foreign exchange income. Consequently, the government was unable to service massive foreign debts it accumulated from both Western and Communist bloc countries. Most of the government budget was spent on the military, resulting in deterioration of infrastructure such as roads, railways, ports, and other public facilities. Deteriorating transportation infrastructure and poor harvests caused food shortages in many places. The small industrial sector languished and only produced at 20% capacity due to lack of investment.
    Sukarno himself was contemptous to macroeconomics, and was unable and unwilling to provide practical solutions to the poor economic condition of the country. Instead, Sukarno produced more ideological conceptions such as Trisakti: political sovereignty, economic self-sufficiency, and cultural independence. He advocated Indonesians to be “standing on their own feet” (berdikari) and reach economic self-sufficiency, free from foreign influence.”

    SCARY.

  22. @ cubed 2k,

    As to the price of oil and the fear premium, and how the elite have stripped us per Stiglitz, just listen to the absurdity in this spin from last year’s oil spill:

    Wall Street Journal:

    Annie Lowrey notes a J.P. Morgan Chase analysis suggesting the BP spill will actually raise the country’s GDP, at least in the short term. “Cleaning up the spill will likely be enough to slightly offset the negative impact of all this on GDP, J.P. Morgan said,” summarizes Luca Di Leo. “The bank cites estimates of 4,000 unemployed people hired for the cleanup efforts, which some reports have said could be worth between $3 and $6 billion.”

    Entire eco-systems lost, if not forever, at the very least for generations. And their thoughts turn to $$$. What a sickness.

    And as to the Murdoch story and the absence and utter failure of the MSM, did you ever hear even once last year as the gulf was undergoing death by oil, the fact that JP Morgan is the majority owner in BP? It would seem that that little fact is one of those things we don’t need to know, and they choose not to tell us. Screw them all.

  23. […] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, […]

  24. I as a homeowner that BOA lost the title to my property when Countrywide issued the loan WILL never sign of to correct BOA’s mistakes. Supossedly I owe BOA $300K on a property that is worth $100K
    Stan
    Wis and Fla

  25. Murdoch
    A reader post on: http://leahmcgrathgoodman.com/2011/07/13/oh-roop-it-didnt-have-to-be-this-way/#respond
    Scared in US. | July 13, 2011 at 8:16 am |
    Post Host Goodman stated: “If the rising-star, take-no-prisoners Murdoch of yesteryear had faced the ailing Murdoch of today, we have no doubt what he would have done. Shown no mercy”.
    The reader spost follows and seems to possibly address many questions I have seen raised by the Living Lies comments. By way of background for US readers, the news of the last week is that a score of government officials, including the Press Director to the current prime Minister, numerous Scotland Yard investigators, and Murdoch newspaper employees high and low have been arrested in a widening scandal involving illegal wiretaps of cell-phones, office breakins, credit card identity thefts , and bribery–all apparently aimed at manipulating the conduct of senior UK investigators and politicians.
    Murdoch controls Fox News, Wall Street Journal and numerous other global newspapers—and broadcast television. The question is: “Why would this “business model” not apply here where his reach includes control over such figures as Palin, and who knows how many other US politicians and regulators. Is this the missing piece of the puzzle that has left us all wondering why the US elected and appointed officials seem to always jump the wrong way when it comes to protection of citizens’ rights in favor of financial interests? The disclosures of illegal surveillance and staff bribery on even the Royal family and a series of Prime Ministers is truly shocking. After all this disclosure, the only thing more surprising is that there is no hue and cry in the US where Murdoch’s reach is even longer? Is it that US politicians and regulators are so much more “clean” than UKs? Or that what Murdoch countenances in the UK never could cross the Atlantic Ocean—even thought the execs transfer with frequency? Maybe cell-phones and credit cards and bribery do not work the same in the Western Hemisphere?
    The reader posting from the Goodman site follows; If you readers wonder about this as I do please re-publish this mini-expose.
    “Finally. we start to see the extent of this [Murdoch news] perversion. About 6 months ago, I took to reading Financial Times after decades of following WSJ. I had begun to question the even-handedness of WSJ in the wake of the Murdoch acquisition –not because I was suspicious of Murdoch but simply because the coverage seemed one-sided. Bad news was suppressed —RA RA buy buy. As recently as this past weekend an article espoused the wonders of China growth while the prior day NYT disclosed the massive debt bubble supporting it–one concrete example.
    Over the past few years I also became more and more displeased by the disintegration of the televised US news services. There really is none. No balanced reporting. No Walter Cronkites left. The supposed news channels had deteriorated to MSNBC left wing ra ra or Fox’ right wing ra ra ENTERTAINMENT.–not news. Not that entertaining either.
    Then we hit the financial meltdown when apparent government misconduct and/or blundering, non-disclosure, etc seemed the rule of the day rather than investigation and outing apparent manipulated financial fraud. A true need for the 4th Estate [ie the FREE Press]–but none exists as it now appears.
    Simultaneously we see the Elliot Spitzers and less known Ohio AG Mark Dann, and maybe even Rangel start to take on the governmental investigations needed, and we see them almost immediately go down in flames on fairly insignificant albeit dumb personal screw ups that somehow became widely known and trumpteted more aggressively that the vital public functions they were attempting to serve.
    Now we see the UK original Murdoch business model exposed in scope –at least so far. a But aside from the unscrupulous digging which is sort of associated with investigative journalsim –but on steroids, there is the far more frightening implication of systematic widespread intimidation of politicians and investigators.
    So far the focus once again is on little fish–lowly UK policemen. A good start–but this vampire squid reach extends far beyond that little corner of tabloid journalism. As I noted above, my sense has been that the US news media has also deteriorated into tabloid journalism and the spectre of a wisespread Murdoch “business model” based on illegal invasive intrusion into personal foibles for the apparent purpose of intimidation of investigators and politicians seems unlikely to have been limited to the UK or one aggressive woman editor.
    A better term to be contemplating as I wonder day by day “Why no cry for inquiry in the US?” suggests some of the the nastier terms: blackmail, extortion, subornation of testimony, manipulation of markets –I could go on. It is not so much the devices employed to gather the news–which I could sort of excuse as aggressive journalism–it is the purpose and use of that information that is the real abomination. If this were a left wing operation that just disclosed who was sleeping with whom–it would be simple tabloid journalism,. but Murdoch had his hands on nearly the entire crop of Republican presidential hopefuls. Bad enough the free press exposure–that was scary, but when we add the prospect of systematic manipulation of information to intimidate if not blackmail members of both the US and UK governments that is another thing–an inexcusable damning thing.
    Now, the apparent forgetfulness of people like Fed reserve Greenspan–his inability to understand fairly obvious financial improprieties starts to take an ominous tone. Explanations of misconduct that seemed as if scripted by Fox right wing talking heads and editors now take on a new light–maybe they werein fact scripted by Murdoch’s political machine?
    Why 50 states AGs decide to settle abuses for millions of Americans without investigation, why the reason for Greek government profligacy is not part of the story, etc etc –now one HAS TO WONDER.

    Cellphones and credit cards in the US operate the same as in the UK, so do private investigators—but Murdoch’s political ambitions in the US –are even more intimately connected with the economic destinies of his subscribers and his advertisers. The US $$$$ at stake dwarf the so far tiny $$ involved in the UK. If these people will go so far as has been proven in the UK to sell a few papers, what would this global machine do to control a US election–to control the US Congress–more susceptible to this sort of thing due to the Committee structure of government? What would Murdoch do to own a President of the US? All we know is that his minions exhibited absolutely no sense of boundaries—rules made to be broken to please the top. And along the way, the 4th estate became the most dangerous branch of government in this media age.

  26. and somebody is worried about my now 220,000 dollar house, if I will pay or not.

  27. “Some oil industry observers believe that the market is trading on a “fear premium” of about $1 per gallon of gasoline, spooked by the uncertainty in the Middle East and traders exploiting that fear.”

    http://leahmcgrathgoodman.com/2011/05/01/how-fear-greed-factor-into-the-price-of-gasoline/#more-210

    So there you go, we are paying 1 buck more per gallon of gas so a bunch of men acting like kids can trade in Wall Street.

    Lets see I use 10 gallons per week x $1 = $10 x 52 weeks= $520 paid to Wall Street x 300 million people in USA = 156,000 million.

  28. so who was it that said something like “those that understand the system will benefit while those that do not will not even know they are being robbed”

  29. E Tolle, a new day.

    Been thinking about “code” as in civil code, etc.

    code:

    A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols substituted for other words, letters, etc., esp. for the purposes of secrecy
    – the Americans cracked their diplomatic code
    – sending messages in code

    http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=definition+of+code#hl=en&q=code&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=lMMdTticMJCWsgPtj9mUDA&ved=0CBkQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9d901192acd15181&biw=959&bih=624

    Now when I read such codes I will have a better understanding.

    Thanks so much. I am done with “codes” posting.

  30. “Quote from a great piece in this month’s Vanity Fair, penned by the illustrious Mr. S…

    “Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest. When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth.”

    – Joseph E. Stiglitz, economist and Nobel laureate”

  31. A remarkable stench follows Bank of America wherever it goes, and lingers on everything it touches. The world will be a much better place when it’s put into receivership and parted out. No good can come out of that entity as it’s simply a vehicle of and for fraud. Rid humanity of this blight now, not later.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: