JUDGE RAKOFF CANCELS CITI-SEC SETTLEMENT: WANTS TRUTH ABOUT FINANCIAL MARKETS

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, November 28, 10:24 AM

NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York has struck down a $285 million settlement that Citigroup reached with the Securities and Exchange Commission, citing a need for truth about the financial markets.

Judge Jed Rakoff rejected the settlement Monday. The deal would have imposed penalties on Citigroup even as it allowed the company to deny allegations that it misled investors on a complex mortgage investment. The SEC has accused the bank of betting against the investment in 2007 and making $160 million, while investors lost millions.

The judge wrote that there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth about the financial markets. He set a July 16 trial date for the case.

Messages seeking comment were left with both sides.

E

 

46 Responses

  1. @ jve – If I remember correctly, and this is going back many years now, when I got the warehouse packages together (containing the original note endorsed to the entity which had actually funded by wire to the title company and a certified copy of the deed of trust and I forget what else) after closing, the docs were put in a file folder with acco fasteners. I don’t know if in all this time that procedure changed. If not, the original note would have the holes at the top from the acco fastener.
    I’m guessing they changed this to obscure the original. But on second thought, it may not help to know because criminals could easily
    put acco fastener holes in a forgery, which is an accurate name for a computer generated copy pawned off as an original imo. But I can at least say this: of the notes I’ve actually seen in cases, none fit this description. (And if you copy an original with the holes in it, they show up as black rings.)

  2. MS – you did not take my bait, so I will just ask you outright respondez s’il vous plait about seasoning, and don’t beat me up! Merci.

  3. lets see—–

    I , a bank, lent you some money, which was created from nothing, or fractional reserve system of banks,

    You default.

    I, the bank, get to either right if off as a tax loss, or get to collect insurance money on it………….

    And then I sell all the defaulted accounts to some debt collector. Who purchases the accounts for pennies on the dollar of the amount loaned.

    And then the debt collector purchaser gets to collect from people.

    OK, where is the exchange of product in all this?

    ————————————

    Ok, I the original debtor or borrower, borrowing from the bank some money bought a fan at target stores. It was 40 bucks.

    So I default.

    Why doesn’t the bank take my fan?

    ———————

    The whole system is based on debt. Must have more and more people borrowing……………….if you stop borrowing,,,,,,,,,,the system collapses. That is why……………must keep rolling over the debt. that is why deficits don’t matter. That is why the USA can go into debt forever. But, what sucks is we must pay for it via taxes or some other hidden tax, which is inflation..

  4. look,

    If I lent you1000 bucks. You owe me 1000 bucks. You don’t pay why I get a third party called the courts to decide. Thus we have laws and codes.

    If I lent you 1000 bucks, but I never lent you my money, but created it by writing it in a record book called a ledger, and give you a check so that you can deposit it in another bank (or the same bank) and then get 1000 bucks cash. And if you don’t pay me back, why we have a third party called the courts to decide. And we have laws and codes. Who created those laws and codes. The banks or the federal reserve system. All the laws and codes are based on the federal reserve system of banks. They are not based on what is right or wrong, or moral or just.

    There is no justice with money. It is all codes and laws. Created by banks with the help of the federal reserve system of banks. It’s a system.

  5. Enraged

    “This has never been an economic crisis but rather a FINANCIAL SCANDAL all along. ”

    Yep, they call it a financial crisis. Why, because they stand to lose big time. Why, because they are leveraged on fractional reserve banking. They never lent anybody’s money, it is all leveraged.

    Believe I know and so does the you know who’s.

    Your average american or global public citizen does work and can not leverage his income. He works a job and gets paid for the work performed for so many hours worked at so and so wage. No leverage.

    I traded stocks and had a trading account where I got 10 to 1 leverage.
    This means for $10k on account, I could trade $100k worth of stock. oh believe me if you right in placing a bet, why I made some big money for no effort, no work. But, if I bet wrong, I could get wiped out in one trade. And then owe money to the brokerage outfit. It’s all a numbers game and chances. And the way they move the markets, up and down, one could get wiped out in a flash.

    they, Wall St, have turned everything regarding money into a trading game……………

    But money is supposed to represent the medium in exchange for a product. And money being what everybody will except because another will except it. But nowadays it’s credits and debits,,,,,,,,,not too be confused with debts. They got us in debt, but they want their debits and credits to balance. And we, the people are made to pay via taxes and thus bail outs.

    the Federal reserve System was created by Wall st.

  6. I thought WS’s main purpose for all this noise was getting the proceeds from default etc. insurance.
    Is anyone familiar with this:

    Loans may not be securitized until they have been seasoned for 6 (12?) mos. They may only be monetized or hypothecated. On info & belief, this is an s.e.c. rule and it is hard and fast with NO wiggle room. This means the borrower, and not a third party, must have made timely payments for six months before our loans could be sold into pools and securitized. Wall Street did not want to wait to collect their monster fees and yields on the paper being created at mock speed by B of A, CW, WF, ALS, Citi, etc with their networks of brokers and their own and other originators of A to F paper. Remember, no matter who you got your loan from, including Broker X on the corner, that loan program was created and underwritten by one of the major players
    (which is also why it is such a joke and a farce when they vehemently deny any responsibility in TILA and RESPA claims).

    So instead of waiting until the loans were seasoned, the securitizers, by whatever name, more or less escrowed six months payments (using, no doubt, the megabucks being taken read stolen from pension funds, etc) for pools of loans, interests in which were illegally sold as securities. The source of those six months payment escrows may or may not be relevant – the point is six months were set aside (or allegedly set aside) in WS’s bid to ignore the s.e.c rules on the seasoning requirement. This appears to be one of if not thee reason for the guarantees on the loan payments to the investors for a certain amount of time: Wall Street’s bid to justify fraud.

    Because there was no compliance with strict trust and securitization rules, the investors bought nothing (they couldn’t), though the securitizers were PAID for our loans. According to my source, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. was the first company to be found violating these rules. Being outed, they filed bankruptcy and did not benefit from TARP like all the rest of the recipients of Washington’s largess with our taxpayer dollars and / or from the printing of gazillions of dollars, which one way or another has an impact on our economy. I don’t know this minute what relief against fraud filing bk would or did give Lehman. A crime is a crime and while the individuals responsible lost their lustrous positions and insane production bonuses, they are not in prison.
    Apparently all the houses did this: purported to securitize unseasoned loans with the use of guarantees. Defining rules were not followed with intent and WS intended to fashion its own cure. I hear the gov’t has not gone after these jerkies in any meaningful fashion because if they did, there would be ‘no one left’. Do we care? Whether we care or not, since when is an alleged necessity the basis to prosecute or not? What, single parents aren’t routinely thrown in the slammer?

    What does this mean if true? (and as always, this does not consider the fact that loans didn’t make it into trusts period for other reasons). Our loans are not securitized; the trusts don’t own anything. Who owns our loans? No one. They were paid for / off by the investors whom we do not owe one dime because they legally bought no-thing. We don’t owe the securitizer because the investors paid our notes for us. This last sentence however, is not hard and true, I think, and right now, is beyond my ken. I would think, though, that if c pays b for my note, b has been made whole and no longer has any right to collect from me. Obviously, we care a lot.
    Is this the real reason the banksters will fold before giving us a true accounting of our loans: such accounting would show the loan allegedly securitized prior to its seasoning, which by my understanding is securities fraud, no and’s, if’s or but’s about it?
    I’m told a firm in CA has been very successful for homeowners using this attack.

    Here is a link to Wells Fargo’s arguments against reserve requirements for securitizers contemplated in 2010:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/74198426/Wells-Fargo-Arguments-Re-Safe-Harbor-Amendments

  7. @Enraged 9:03;

    One of the most lucid and succint statements I’ve read yet! You are exactly right. It is WAR and the enemy is outnumbered. When we all stand together, we have enough man power to crush them, and they know it.

    Cubed–your apology gratefully accepted.

  8. Wouldn’t it be disgusting if Rakoff was extorting them and just trying to get more hush money out of the deal?

    ;o

  9. @Cubed,

    We all have our moments… Let’s face it: what has been “visited” upon us is one of the most destructive things ever. I would equal it to a war: people thrown out of their homes and their jobs, houses destroyed, economy in shambles.

    And let’s make no mistakes: when our politician call it “the economic crisis”, this is the biggest lie they ever tell.

    This has never been an economic crisis but rather a FINANCIAL SCANDAL all along. Until it is called by its name, it won’t be properly addressed. Do not accept the “economic crisis” label without reacting. Calling it like it is will go a long way toward getting the right prosecutions.

    Correct systematically anyone who says “economic crisis”.

  10. Nora,

    you are correct. and I apologize. My comments are not really intended towards anybody. other than me I guess.

  11. It is about time the the ponzie scheme be exposed for what it is now that the treasury is protected by the necessity of providing clear title to get the backing of Fannie and Freddy and FHA

    Let the cards fall where they may and start puting these banksters where the belong- aside Madoff – if we could be so lucky as to have real
    American Judges like this one start taking the proper actions, since we have pledged our life liberty and the pursuit of happiness behind the rule of law and their execution of justice. The Judges have been acting like arbitrators instead of administrators of justice, similar to why we have such a bad time getting any Insurer to defend the policy holder, thus making a mockery of liability cases ie easier to settle then fight for what is in the public interest.

  12. Reader – Where is my loan and how do I find my account?

    Really….? Why do you want to know where your account balance is held?

    Why do you want to know where your “ledger” is held in posterity? Why? If your loan was made part of a pooled asset it cannot be shown for ______ reasons.

    It cannot show…anywhere. You sit in fear while resting on a million dollar shot that is once in a life time – and still…you don’t get it. This is not an attack on you or anyone. I feel for you actually. You don’t get it though and the courts do!

    Your loan can never show up if it were securitized into a mortgage loan pool and then ________ to a ________. Why are Livinglies showing people how to find their loan? Ask him as he is a lawyer—I am an accountant.

    Mary can’t wait to help others find their loan. Why I don’t know? But she is a great researcher for sure.

    The Street, associates that I once worked and hung out with are amused for sure. “See – we told you – They don’t get it”….And here where I came to help call me a rip off or a fraud. I know now how very few are aware of what I am saying here.

    If your loan was securitized it was thrown into a homogenized pooled asset. Not pooled assets (Plural) but ASSET (Singular) the last, I mean last, the very last thing you ever want to do is the following:

    • Show me the note
    • QWR
    • Find my loan in public records
    • Discover who the servicer is

    My friends – do you see the frustration ….you loan cannot exist under the liberal accounting rules used to securitize the mortgages into etc etc Okay …enough.

    Look, It….just cannot exist…and still …YOU want to find your Loan ….Why? Or why no one has not come forward and publicly challenged me on this is strange , maybe a testament to the corollary.

    I opine from having traded these assets for 15 Years. You have the evidence …the proof for which “zero” is to a notional value and basis in assets is ….it can be documented for litigant’s attorneys in court . . . before a district or circuit court…And still, I m still here five years later;

    They still do not listen!

    M.Soliman
    Expert. Witness

    Thank you NG for allowing me to still publish here.

  13. Cubed…I already went all cash, buddy. I hate the 1% and I agree that we should starve them out by boycotting their corporations. Epithets are not necessary. BTW, it’s heart attack, not heart “attach”. Boy, will you feel silly when you sober up, for dissing us when we agree with you for the most part. That’s why I never call my husband an idiot: He will say the proof is that he married me. He’s really a smart fella!
    Kill the banks! (not the forum posters)

  14. lets see…………

    who made the rules regarding securitization of credit cards, auto loans, credit cards, mortgage loans?

    Who made those rules?

    And did the American People even know of those rules? Did you even know your credit card debt was sold to investors?
    Did you know your mortgage was funded by investors? Who are they?

    So fuk’in christ already============

    who made the rules??????????/

    The banks and wall street made the rules, which YOU never knew about until it was too late.

    Good Luck.

    Wholly cow, so look up the rules to figure it out. To try to offer up an affirmative defense?

    Holy Cow.

  15. @E.Tolle;

    That makes a lot of sense, thank you. I feel rather stupid now, tho. I worked in the printing industry for 20 years, manually assembling images and making plates from film, and yet I forgot how easy it is for someone (to hide a huge fraud) to create “artwork.”
    I even knew a guy who was a counterfitter! He works at a bank now that he has served his sentence. (kidding!)
    In the old days we called it “paste-up” and did it with T-squares on a light table. Now they do it with plotters and servos–the method has changed but the end result is the same; creating images.
    That bit of testimony from FL.ABA explains everything in connection with the “lost Notes.” Thanks, Jan van Eck, too, for your response. This site is a great place to study stuff they don’t teach in college.

  16. enraged,

    not at all. Bring it on/

  17. @cubed

    Working on that heart attack again?

  18. so their rules, the bankers, are to get you in debt,,,,,,,

    so why not just go all cash.

    It will take awhile, no matter the headlines that consumer credit is up,,,,,,,,,,,,it’;s all make believe,,,,,,,,,,,,

    just go all cash and see what happens…………..the 1% become no longer the 1%.

  19. I said this—————

    We all know what happened?
    The question is how come the powers that be do not change it back to what worked? How Come?
    I’ll answer, because they want the new rules to work and become real, reality.
    —————————————-

    god damn you fuk’in idiots. realize what is happening.

    I can’t be more blunt that that.

    Yes, you are a fuk’in idiot and so was I.

    Let’s argue over rules. Who created the fuk’in rules?????????????/

    Jesus christ already,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    the banks DID…………………

    fuk, listen to the link I listed below of bill still””””””””””

  20. @Jan VAN ECK

    First of all, NORA responded to my post. Read down you yahoo.

    second of all……………we all know why they robo signed signed?

    This is stupid what you are saying, no offense intended.

    The question is not to argue what they did, yes it is obvious.

    So, the question is to how to change the obvious to reality? What was. That was working for us.

    Do you understand?

    We all know what happened?

    The question is how come the powers that be do not change it back to what worked? How Come?

    I’ll answer, because they want the new rules to work and become real, reality.

    And you know the answer.

    And the question or problem becomes how do we, the people change it back to what was good for the People? Why, because it worked. You dumb shit, nobody got ripped off.

    We have got to change the RULES back. INSTEAD of argueing over the present RULES? Or changing present rules, more regulations to keep the changed rules as law. Why.

    Jumping jeepers christ almightly.

  21. I support Bill Still for President. Maybe you should as well. But you decide, you research, you check it out about how money is created and it all boils down to money————–

    Are you r Republican or are you democrat- ? and does it matter? Why wouldn’t best man win who has the best ideas to create, to expand exchange of our products, just like a small or large company.

    this is a link from market-ticker and Karl Denninger

    Please listen and decide for yourself————

    http://storage.denninger.net/audio/Bill-Still-1787.mp3

  22. Responsive to NORA C:

    In some of those (many) cases where the Note cannot be found, and you end up with a “lost note affidavit,” the Note was actually deliberately shredded very soon after its creation. The sequence seems to be thus:
    The borrower signs the Note at the “closing.” [Note that this is a “signing,” not an “execution,” as the signer does not “deliver” the Note to anybody; it is taken away from the signer by another]. The Note is taken away by the fee-based originator posturing as the “lender” (not really his money, but never mind). The Note goes over to some intermediary, likely the entity that is in turn sending it over to the Depositor sham-entity created by the Wall Street firm that is going to turn it over to the Trust that will have certificates peddled. The intermediary electronically scans the Note.
    At this point various electronic copies of the Note start floating about. One copy electronically scoots over to the “Servicer” so that they can start dealing with the payments stream and taxes escrow. Another copy goes electronically to New York. You cannot have “hard copies” floating about because then you will have documents that conflict with each other, as to Indorsements and signatures, and you need to move these very fast (and not be misplaced, mis-filed, or lost), hence the electronic versions. So the “original” gets shredded.
    After playing with these “holographic images” of Notes for some time, and for all anybody knows selling them multiple times in different “Trusts,” at some point it defaults. The credit-default swap insurance policy from MGIC, AMBAC, Radian, or AIG pays off the Note as to principal and interest on the 91st day after “default.” {So who needs the Note? Those policies are without “subrogation,” so the insurer gets no rights to the Note or Mortgage in exchange for the payment}. Except that the borrower (and that local Court, remember that also) has no clue about AIG et al, and does not know a CDS (credit-default) from a hole in the head, and thinks he still owes the (considerable) balance. That is just too tempting. So the Wall Street crowd “sells” the [paid] “Note” that does not even describe the obligation (remember, the Note is not from the true lender, but from some fee-based originator that never loaned his own money; the cash came by wire transfer from some other source, typically the wholesale bank), some chicanery is done to the Note with the notorious “allonge” to try to clean it all up for re-sale, a phony “Assignment” and Substitution of Trustee is filed down at the land records office, and -Presto! – you have a new claimant on the paid Note.
    Except there is no paper Note; that got shredded. Not a problem; the banking industry has a special machine that will re-create the “Note” from the electronic scan. The Machine even has an ingenious servo-driven pen holder, that places “the original signature” complete with blue ink exactly back on the “Note” where it was when it was scanned in the first place! Presto! Instant new Note! Bend, crumple and fold a few times to make the paper look “old,” and it is utterly authentic. Except it is not the one that you signed; it is a re-creation.
    This came to light in a case in Florida where the Notary insisted that the borrower sign the Note in Black Ink, not Blue Ink, as black “photocopied better.” Sure enough, the “bank” lawyers showed up in Court with a “Note” dutifully signed in Blue Ink. Oops.

  23. Nora C., the notes were destroyed purposely to hide the fraud. The head of the Florida ABA admitted this in testimony. Their fraud knows no bounds.

    Listen folks, here’s why it’s vitally important that we all “occupy” our state AGs offices. We need to assure them that we’re watching and that we won’t back down, thus allowing them to sell-out to the banks. This needs to be initiated as civilly as possible, but with the firm resolve to stay on top of their actions. This is from the Citigroup case today where the judge refused to rule for the settlement:

    The stakes are high for Citi. If they admit wrongdoing, that would likely be used against them in many more suits. The bank’s potential exposure is enormous.

    This is a very similar situation to what there is to lose in the settlement talks between the banks/servicers and the AGs. If they settle and everything has the appearance of being all well and good, the first case to land in a courtroom will have the judge hearing the argument that “that was already decided, your honor, and we were found innocent of any wrong doing”….it will make an uphill battle even more of a bloody Everest expedition, with many casualties. Robo-signing, which we all know to be evidence of a mountain of underlying fraud will simply be glossed over as yesterday’s news.

    Offer to help your AGs in any way that you can. Let them know that judges are starting to get it, and stress just how pervasive the criminality is. You might be surprised at how little some of the attorneys working at the AG/DOJ level know about the crimes being committed.

    Print out several of the more cogent articles discussing the fraud and meet, in person, with a rep from your AGs office. This small act repeated many times will only aid in the fight, and will help untold numbers who come after us, and that’s no small number. Make no mistake about it, we are at war, and the more people we can save the better.

  24. Let’s fight over the rules created by the big banks…………..

    boy is that stupid……………….

    why change the rules

  25. yah NORA———-

    don’t you think.

    Doesn’t anybody think.

    l

  26. Do you realize “when you promise to pay” via a loan or credit card or payday loan…………..

    why you are giving up your future. You are giving up your future ability to create and live, why —because you have you pay for something in the past, as time marches on. What ability you have to think it thru, but yet the game is to trap.

    Imagine having no future payments to worry about. Imagine all the money you make, the exchange you do with others. Imagine it is all current. What fun. Everything you make is yours to keep and spend as you wish. No time payments to worry about. Oh what Joy on Earth.

  27. Dear Occupy Wall Street,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,who has the people behind them………………….don’t protest——————-

    WHY CHANGE THE RULES like they did.

    Don’t you think?

    Like Nevada did recently.

    CHANGE THE RULES back to what was good.

  28. @Enraged——————————

    There you go———————–

    It’s all a game to keep the game going and to keep people in the dark and to keep people paying on make believe money issued from the banks and to keep people in debt and to keep people paying and to keep people held down and to keep people under control via fear when in fact ———————–

    THEY KNOW>

    This is called Modern Money Mechanics or Modern Slavery, that would be DEBT SLAVERY or whatever you wish to call it or how many dissertations the expects forward on the airwaves and TV airwaves and printed and electronic media.

    Stay away from the BIG banks, they have corrupted the system like a virus,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,oh those plastic demons,,,,,,,,,,,,,oh those IOU’s, oh those Promise’s to pay………..promises no doubt with some fine print.

    Why can’t we trust each other? Oh but we can. So who is It that insists we can’t trust each other, a handshake,

    Who insists we can’t trust each other?

    Thant would be big global banks who lobby Governments to change the rules at every downturn in their game. Think about it.

    Who changes the rules? It ain’t the PEOPLE. It ain’t joe farmer in China growing Rice. It ain’t Joe small business guy. It ain’t the Wife who changes the rules for finance and accounting and money.

  29. The Note is consistently missing in almost every case. That tells me there is a logical reason behind it, probably something to do with securities laws. If the Notes really were just “in the vault” they’d hurry to produce them, thereby correcting the defect in the foreclosure paperwork. There’s the missing piece of information I wish someone would provide; where’s the real, original, dented-from-my-ball-point-pen, NOTE?

  30. @Cubed,

    ‘Cuz if they did, they would have ab-so-lu-te-ly no excuse left not to investigate and prosecute and… they don’t want to. They want to do their time, collect their paycheck and avoid any possible aggravation for themselves.

    Like 90% of the population…

  31. I mean any idiot can see what I wrote. Why don’t any of the regulatory agencies just do what I wrote above?

    I mean it’s too simple.

    I mean why doesn’t any State AG just go to the note storage facility of the big banks and take a sampling of the blue ink notes.

  32. If somebody of means out there reading this site and has a securitized mortgage loan, or maybe you know of somebody with means who owes on a note,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    why pay off your mortgage and ask to be returned to you your original note. Or before you pay it off in full, ask to see the original blue ink signed note, go look at it, and pay off the note and get it in your hands.

    Here’s that time factor again……….

    Why everybody is researching, and fighting over case law, and Wall St security law,,,,,,,,,,blah, blah, blah………

    Why, why doesn’t some bank like BofA, Citi, JP Morgan say, look here are all the notes, with blue ink signatures……….why come on over to our storage house and take a look……….

    Why can’t that be done………?

  33. U.S. Foreclosure Fraud in a Nutshell, How Average Joe’s Home Was Stolen
    Politics / US HousingNov 28, 2011 – 02:11 AM
    By: LewRockwell
    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31789.html

    Bill Butler writes: The untold story in the foreclosure crisis unfolding across America is that, following a foreclosure perpetrated by one of the October 2008 Bailout Banks (e.g. Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo) Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac suddenly appear as the record owner of Average Joe’s home. These federal government sponsored entities then go into local housing court and get a court order authorizing them to evict Joe. If Joe resists, these supposedly charitable institutions obtain a writ ordering the local sheriff to forcibly remove Joe from his home.

    Newt Gingrich recently admitted to accepting $1.8 million from Freddie Mac ($25,0000 to $30,000 a month during one span of time) for advising this proto-fascist entity. Gingrich claims that he supports Fannie and Freddie because he believes the federal government “should have programs to help low income people acquire the ability to buy homes.” But Fannie and Freddie don’t do this and never have. When government “helps” someone by subsidizing the purchase of something (through easy credit or lower-than-market rates), it makes that something more expensive. Helping someone buy something that is overpriced because of your help is not help. Fannie/Freddie subsidies not only hurt the low income people they intend to help, they hurt everyone by subsidizing, and therefore distorting, the entire housing market. Fannie/Freddie’s charity has now taken a dark turn. Like their Depression-era New Deal predecessor the Regional Agricultural Credit Corp., Fannie/Freddie are now repossessing homes at an increasing and alarming rate.

    Mr. Gingrich either does not understand economics – government subsidies make things more expensive, not less expensive, and therefore hurt their intended beneficiaries – or he is a vain, selfish, and cynical man with no interest in actually helping his neighbor.

    You decide.

    THE OCTOBER 2008 BAILOUT PAID OFF THE HOLDERS OF MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITES AND DERIVATIVE INSUREDS

    The facts indicate that the Federal Reserve “printed” at least 16 trillion dollars as part of the 2008 bailouts. The bigger questions, however, who got it, why and what did the Fed get in return? The Fed doesn’t just print money. It prints money to buy stuff. Most often this is U.S. Treasuries. That changed in October of 2008. In and after October 2008 the Fed printed new money to buy mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that were defaulting at a rapid rate. Want proof? Here is a link to the Federal Reserve balance sheet which shows that the Fed is holding over a trillion dollars in mortgage backed securities that it began acquiring in 2008.

    Why is the Federal Reserve holding all these MBS? Because when “the market” collapsed in September of 2008, what really collapsed is the Fannie/Freddie/Wall Street mortgage “daisy chain” securitization scheme. As increasing numbers of MBS went into default, the purchasers of derivatives (naked insurance contracts betting on MBS default) began filing claims against the insurance writers (e.g. AIG) demanding payment. This started in February 2007 when HSBC Bank announced billions in MBS losses, gained momentum in June of 2007 when Bear Stearns announced $3.8 billion in MBS exposure in just one Bear Stearns fund, and further momentum with the actual collapse of Bear Stears in July and August of 2007. By September of 2008, the Bear Stearns collapse proved to be the canary in the coal mine as the claims on off-balance sheet derivatives became the cascading cross defaults that Alan Greenspan warned could collapse the entire Western financial system.

    Part of what happened in October 2008 is that the Federal Reserve paid AIG’s and others’ derivative obligations to the insureds (pension funds, hedge funds, major banks, foreign banks) who held the naked insurance contracts guaranteeing Average Joe’s payments. To understand this, imagine that a cataclysmic event occurred in the U.S. that destroyed nearly every car in the U.S. and further that Allstate insured all of these cars. That is what happened to AIG. When the housing market collapsed and borrowers began defaulting on their securitized loans, AIG’s derivative obligations exceeded its ability (or willingness) to pay. So the Fed stepped in as the insurer of last resort and bailed out AIG (and probably others). When an insurer pays on a personal property claim, it has “subrogation” rights. This means when it pays it has the right to demand possession of the personal property it insured or seek recovery from those responsible for the loss. In Allstate’s case this is wrecked cars. In the case of AIG and the Fed, it is MBS. That is what the trillions of MBS on the Fed’s balance sheet represent: wrecked cars that Fannie and Freddie are now liquidating for scrap value.

    Thank you Mr. Gingrich. Great advice.

    BUT FANNIE/FREDDIE WASN’T MY LENDER AND WASN’T MY MORTGAGEE, SO HOW CAN THEY TAKE MY HOUSE?

    To understand how it came to be that the Fed has paid Average Joe’s original actual lender (the MBS purchaser) and now Fannie and Freddie are trying to take Joe’s home, you first have to understand some mortgage law and securitization basics.

    The Difference Between Notes and Mortgages

    When you close on the purchase of your home, you sign two important documents. You sign a promissory note that represents your legal obligation to pay. You sign ONE promissory note. You sign ONE promissory note because it is a negotiable instrument, payable “to the order of” the “lender” identified in the promissory note. If you signed two promissory notes on a $300,000 loan from Countrywide, you could end up paying Countrywide (or one of its successors) $600,000.

    At closing you also sign a Mortgage (or a Deed of Trust in Deed of Trust States). You may sign more than one Mortgage. You may sign more than one Mortgage because it does not represent a legal obligation to pay anything. You could sign 50 Mortgages relating to your $300,000 Countrywide loan and it would not change your obligation. A Mortgage is a security instrument. It is security and security only. Without a promissory note, a mortgage is nothing. Nothing.

    You “give” or “grant” a mortgage to your original lender as security for the promise to pay as represented by the promissory note. In real estate law parlance, you “give/grant” the “mortgage” to the “holder” of your “promissory note.”

    If you question my bona fides in commenting on the important distinction between notes and mortgages, I know what I am talking about. I tried and won perhaps the first securitized mortgage lawsuit ever in the country in First National Bank of Elk River v. Independent Mortgage Services, 1996 WL 229236 (Minn. Ct. App. No. DX-95-1919).

    In FNBER v. IMS a mortgage assignee (IMS) claimed the ownership of two mortgages relating to loans (promissory notes) held by my client, the First National Bank of Elk River (FNBER). After a three-day trial where IMS was capably represented by a former partner of the international law firm Dorsey & Whitney, my client prevailed and the Court voided the recorded mortgage assignments to IMS. My client prevailed not because of my great skill but because it had actual, physical custody of the original promissory notes (payable to the order of my client) and had been “servicing” (receiving payments on) the loans for years notwithstanding the recorded assignment of mortgage. The facts at trial showed that IMS rejected the loans because they did not conform to their securitization parameters. In short, IMS, as the “record owner” of the mortgages without any provable connection to the underlying notes, had nothing. FNBER, on the other hand, had promissory notes payable to the order of FNBER but did not have “record title” to the mortgages. FNBER was the winner because its possession of and entitlement to enforce the notes made it the “legal owner” of the mortgages.

    The lesson: if you have record title to a mortgage but cannot show that you have possession of and/or entitlement to enforce the promissory notes that the mortgage secures, you lose.

    This is true for 62 million securitized loans.

    Securitization – The Car That Doesn’t Go In Reverse

    There is nothing per se illegitimate about securitization. The law has for a long time recognized the rights of a noteholder to sell off pro-rata interests in the note. So long as the noteholder remains the noteholder he has the right to exercise rights in a mortgage (take the house) when there is a default on the note. Securitization does not run afoul of traditional real estate and foreclosure law when the mortgage holder can prove his connection to the noteholder.

    But modern securitization doesn’t work this way.

    The “securitization” of a “mortgage loan” today involves multiple parties but the most important parties and documents necessary for evaluating whether a bank has a right to foreclose on a mortgage are:

    (1) the Borrower (Average Joe);

    (2) the Original Lender (Mike’s Baitshop and Mortgages or Bailey Savings & Loan – whoever is across the closing table from Joe);

    (3) the Original Mortgagee (could be Mike’s B&M, but could be anyone, including Fannie’s Creature From the Black Lagoon, the mortgagee “nominee” MERS);

    (4) the “Servicer” of the loan as identified in the PSA (usually a Bank or anyone with “servicer” in its name, the entity to whom Joe makes his payments);

    (5) the mortgage loan “pooling and servicing agreement” (PSA) and the PSA Trust created by the PSA;

    (6) the “PSA Trust” is the “special purpose entity” created by the PSA. The PSA Trust is the heart of the PSA. It holds all securitized notes and mortgages and also sells MBS securities to investors; and

    (7) the “Trustee” of the PSA Trust is the entity responsible for safekeeping of Joe’s promissory note and mortgage and the issuer of MBS.

    The PSA Servicer is essentially the Chief Operating Officer and driver of the PSA. Without the Servicer, the securitization car does not go. The Servicer is the entity to which Joe pays his “mortgage” (really his note, but you get it) every month. When Joe’s loan gets “sold” multiple times, the loan is not actually being sold, the servicing rights are. The Servicer has no right, title or interest in either the promissory note or the mortgage. Any right that the Servicer has to receive money is derived from the PSA. The PSA, not Joe’s Note or Joe’s Mortgage, gives the Servicer the right to take droplets of cash out of Joe’s monthly payments before distributing the remainder to MBS purchasers.

    The PSA Trustee and the sanctity of the PSA Trust are vitally important to the validity of the PSA. The PSA promoters (the usual suspects, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., Merrill, Deutchebank, Barclays, etc.) persuaded MBS purchasers to part with trillions of dollars based on the idea that they would ensure that Joe’s Note would be properly endorsed by every person or entity that touched it after Joe signed it, that they would place Joe’s Note and Joe’s Mortgage in the vault-like PSA Trust and the note and mortgage would remain in the PSA Trust with a green-eyeshade, PSA Trustee diligently safekeeping them for 30 years. Further, the PSA promoters hired law firms to persuade the MBS purchasers that the PSA Trust, which is more than100 percent funded (that is, oversold) by the MBS purchasers, was the real owner of Joe’s Note and Joe’s Mortgage and that the PSA Trust, using other people’s money, had purchased or soon would purchase thousands of similar notes and mortgages in a “true sale” in accordance with FASB 140.

    The PSA does not distribute pool proceeds that can be tracked pro rata to identifiable loans. In this respect, in the wrong hands (e.g. Countrywide’s Angelo Mozilo) PSAs have the potential to operate like a modern “daisy chain” fraud whereby the PSA oversells the loans in the PSA Trust, thus defrauding the MBS investors. The PSA organizers also do not inform Joe at the other end of the chain that they have sold his $300,000 loan for $600,000 and that the payout to the MBS purchasers (and other derivative side-bettors) when Joe defaults is potentially multiples of $300,000.

    The PSA organizers can cover the PSA’s obligations to MBS purchasers through derivatives. Derivatives are like homeowners’ fire insurance that anyone can buy. If everyone in the world can bet that Joe’s home is going to burn down and has no interest in preventing it, odds are that Joe’s home will burn down. This is part of the reason Warren Buffet called derivatives a “financial weapon of mass destruction.” They are an off-balance sheet fiat money multiplier (the Fed stopped reporting the explosive expansion of M3 in 2006 most likely because of derivatives and mortgage loan securitization fraud), and create incentive for fraud. On the other end of the chain, Joe has no idea that the “Lender” across the table from him has no skin in the game and is more than likely receiving a commission for dragging Joe to the table.

    A serious problem with modern securitization is that it destroys “privity.” Privity of contract is the traditional notion that there are two parties to a contract and that only a party to the contract can enforce or renegotiate that contract. Put simply, if A and B have a contract, C cannot enforce B’s rights against A (unless A expressly agrees or C otherwise shows a lawful agency relationship with B). The frustration for Joe is that he cannot find the other party to his transaction. When Joe talks to his “bank” (really his Servicer) and tries to renegotiate his loan, his bank tells him that a mysterious “investor” will not approve. He can’t do this because they don’t exist, have been paid or don’t have the authority to negotiate Joe’s loan.

    Joe’s ultimate “investor” is the Fed, as evidenced by the trillion of MBSs on its balance sheet. Although Fannie/Freddie purportedly now “own” 80 percent of all U.S. “mortgage loans,” Fannie/Freddie are really just the Fed’s repo agents. Joe has no privity relationship with Fannie/Freddie. Fannie, Freddie and the Fed know this. So they are using the Bailout Banks to frontrun the process – the Bailout Bank (who also have no cognizable connection to the note and therefore no privity relationship with Joe) conducts a fraudulent foreclosure by creating a “record title” right to foreclose and, when the fraudulent process is over, hands the bag of stolen loot (Joe’s home) to Fannie and Freddie.

    Record Title and Legal Title

    Virtually all 62 million securitized notes define the “Noteholder” as “anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payment under this Note…” Very few of the holders of securitized mortgages can establish that they both hold (have physical possession of) the note AND are entitled to receive payments on the notes. For whatever reason, if a Bailout Bank has possession of an original note, it is usually endorsed payable to the order of some other (often bankrupt) entity.

    If you are a Bailout Bank and you have physical possession of an original securitized note, proving that you are “entitled to receive payment” on the note is nearly impossible. First, you have to explain how you obtained the note when it should be in the hands of a PSA Trustee and it is not endorsed by the PSA Trustee. Second, even if you can show how you obtained the note, explaining why you are entitled to receive payments when you paid nothing for it and when the Fed may have satisfied your original creditors is a very difficult proposition. Third, because a mortgage is security for payments due to the noteholder and only the noteholder, if you cannot establish legal right to receive payments on the note but have a recorded mortgage all you have is “record” title to the mortgage. You have the “power” to foreclose (because courts trust recorded documents) but not necessarily the legal “right” to foreclose. Think FNBER v. IMS.

    The “robosigner” controversy, reported by 60 Minutes months ago, is a symptom of the banks’ problem with “legal title” versus “record title.” The 60 Minutes reports shows that Bailout Banks are hiring 16 year old, independent contractors from Backwater, Georgia to pose as vice presidents and sign mortgage assignments which they “record” with local county recorders. This is effective in establishing the Bailout Banks’ “record title” to the “mortgage.” Unlike real bank vice presidents subject to Sarbanes-Oxley, Backwater 16-year olds have no reason to ask: “Where is the note?”; “Is my bank the noteholder?”; or “Is my Bank entitled to receive payments on the note?”

    The Federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision agree with this analysis. In April of 2011 the OCC and OTS reprimanded the Bailout Banks for fraudulently foreclosing on millions of Average Joe’s:

    …without always ensuring that the either the promissory note or the mortgage document were properly endorsed or assigned and, if necessary, in the possession of the appropriate party at the appropriate time…

    The OCC and OTS further found that the Bailout Banks “failed to sufficiently oversee outside counsel and other third-party providers handling foreclosure-related services.”

    Finally, Bailout Banks consented to the OCC and OTS spanking by admitting that they have engaged in “unsafe and unsound banking practices.”

    In these “Order and Consent Decrees,” the OCC and the OTS reprimanded all of the usual suspects: Bank of America, Citibank, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, MetLife, MERSCorp, PNC Bank, US Bank, Wells Fargo, Aurora Bank, Everbank, OneWest Bank, IMB HoldCo LLC, and Sovereign Bank.

    Although the OCC and OTS Orders are essentially wrist slaps for what is a massive fraud, these orders at least expose some truth. In response to the OCC Order, the Fannie/Freddie-created Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), changed its rules (see Rule 8) to demand that foreclosing lawyers identify the “noteowner” prior to initiating foreclosure proceedings.

    NEWT’S FANNIE/FREDDIE ENDGAME: PLANTATION USA

    Those of us fighting the banks began to see a disturbing trend starting about a year ago. Fannie and Freddie began showing up claiming title and seeking to evict homeowners from their homes.

    The process works like this, using Bank of America as an example. Average Joe had a securitized loan with Countrywide. Countrywide, which might as well have been run by the Gambino family with expertise in “daisy chain” fraud, never followed the PSA, did not care for the original notes and almost never deposited the original notes in the PSA Trust. Countrywide goes belly up. Bank of America (BOA) takes over Countrywide in perhaps the worst deal in the history of corporate America, acquiring more liabilities than assets. Bank of America realizes that it has acquired a big bag of dung (no notes = no mortgages = big problem) and so sets up an entity called “BAC Home Loans LLP” whose general partner is another BOA entity.

    The purpose of these BOA entities is to execute the liquidation the Countrywide portfolio as quickly as possible and, at the same time, isolate the liability to two small BOA subsidiaries. BOA uses BAC Home Loans LLP to conduct the foreclosure on Joe’s home. BAC Home Loans LLP feeds local foreclosure lawyers phony, robosigned documents that establish an “of record” transfer of the Countrywide mortgage to BAC Home Loans LLP. BAC Home Loans LLP, “purchases” Joe’s home at a Sheriff’s sale by bidding Joe’s debt owed to Countrywide. BAC Home Loans LLP does not have and cannot prove any connection to Joe’s note so BAC Home Loans LLP quickly deeds Joe’s property to Fannie and Freddie.

    When it is time to kick Joe out of his home, Fannie Mae shows up in the eviction action. When compelled to show its cards, Fannie will claim title to Joe’s house via a “quit claim deed” or an assignment of the Sheriff’s Certificate of sale. Adding insult to injury, while Joe may have spent years trying to get BOA to “modify” his loan, and may have begged BOA for the right to pay BOA $1000 a month if only BOA will stop the foreclosure, Fannie now claims that BOA deeded Joe’s property to Fannie for nothing. That right, nothing. All county recorders require that a real estate purchaser claim how much they paid for the property to determine the tax value. Fannie claims on these recorded documents that it paid nothing for Joe’s home and, further, falsely claims that it is exempt because it is a US government agency. It isn’t. It is a government sponsored entity that is currently in conservatorship and run by the US government.

    Great advice Newt.

    CONCLUSION

    It is apparent that the US government is so broke that it will do anything to pay its bills, including stealing Average Joe’s home.

    That’s change that both Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich can believe in.

    APPENDIX

    More and more courts are agreeing that the banks “inside” the PSA do not have legal standing (they have no skin in the game and so cannot show the necessary “injury in fact”), are not “real parties in interest” (they cannot show that they followed the terms of the PSA or are otherwise “entitled to enforce” the note) and that there are real questions of whether any securitized mortgage can ever be properly perfected.

    The banks’ weakness is exposed most often in bankruptcy courts because it is there that they have to show their cards and explain how they claim a legal right, rather than the “of record” right, to foreclose the mortgage. More and more courts are recognizing that, without proof of ownership of the underlying note, holding a mortgage means nothing.

    The most recent crack in the Banks’s position is evidenced by the federal Eight Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in In Re Banks, No. 11-6025 (8th Cir., Sept. 13, 2011). In Banks, a bank attempted to execute a foreclosure within a bankruptcy case. The bank had a note payable to the order of another entity; that is, the foreclosing bank was “Bank C” but had a note payable to the order of “Bank B” and endorsed in blank by Bank B. The bank, Bank C, alleged that, because the note was endorsed in blank and “without recourse,” that it had the right to foreclose. The Court held that this was insufficient to show a sufficient chain of title to the note, reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded for findings regarding when and how Bank C acquired the note.

    See also, In Re Aagard, No. 810-77338-reg (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2011) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/48827432/In-Re-Agard-48750818-US-Bankruptcy-Court-New-York-Memorandum-Decision Judge Grossman slams MERS as lacking standing, working as both principal and agent in same transaction, and exposes MERS’ alleged principal US Bank as unable to produce or provide evidence that it is in fact the holder of the note); In Re Vargas, No. 08-17036SB (Bankr. C.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2008)http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/JudgeBuffordsRuling.pdf (Judge Bufford correctly applied rules of evidence and held that MERS could not establish right to possession of the 83-year old Mr. Vargas’ home through the testimony of a low-level employee who had no foundation to testify about the legal title to the original note); In Re Walker, Bankr. E.D. Cal. No. 10-21656-E-11 (May 20, 2010) http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/mortgage/rickie-walker/066.pdf (holding that neither MERS nor its alleged principal could show that they were “real parties in interest” because neither could provide any evidence of the whereabouts of, much less legal title to, the original note); Landmark v.Kesler, 216 P.2d 158 (Kan. 2009) http://www.scribd.com/doc/51767549/Landmark-vs-Kessler (in this case the Kansas Supreme Court provides the most cogent state court analysis of the problem created by securitization – the “splitting” of the note and the mortgage and the real party in interest and standing problems that the holder of the mortgage has when it cannot also show that it has clean and clear legal title to the note); U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 941 NE 40 (Mass. 2011), (http://www.scribd.com/doc/46472917/U-S-Bank-v-Ibanez-WELLS-FARGO-v-LaRACE-Sjc-Slip-Opinion-1-7 the Massachusetts Supreme Court denied two banks’ attempts to “quiet title” following foreclosure because the banks’ proffered evidence did not show ownership of the mortgages – or for that matter, the notes – prior to the Sheriff’s sale); and Jackson v. MERS, 770 N.W.2d 489 (Minn. 2009) http://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/jackson-v-mortgage-electronic-reg-sys-770-nw2d-487-minn-2009.pdf (this federal-gun-to-the-head – certified question from federal court asking for state court blessing of its already decided ruling – to the Minnesota Supreme Court is most notable for the courageous dissent of NFL Hall of Fame player and only popularly elected Justice Alan Page who opined that MERS should pound sand and obey state recording standards).

    Bill Butler [send him mail] is a Minneapolis attorney and the owner of Butler Liberty Law.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com

  34. Ann you beat me to the punch! I was going to post the same story! Please read this everyone! It is detailed and shows fannie owns the empty loans and they do not exhist. Fannie is using debt collectors to hide behind the scene to steal your house then give it for zero dollars to fannie. The fraud is so bad there is no way they can prove they own the “alleged” debt. The fraud voids the debt. They are all imposters and theives. Very good read please take the time to read it. I am still finding new people on the blog sites that do not know to make sure they answer every imposters letter that they object to their claims of interest, and to prove representation, and prove they have the legal right to collect this alleged debt you do not owe. Dont ignore these letters. They are trying to build a fraudulant foundation that they have the right to collect something that is not theirs to collect. You must answer these letters and make sure you do not in anyway admit to a debt you do not owe. They are alleged debts and let them know you are aware they are an imposter debt collector, a tortfeasor making false claims to collect money not owed them. With unclean hands making false claims in public records to steal property. I am not an attorney but a Pro Se, and am not liable for trying to help you. Pleasec contanct an attorney who gets it.
    User:Tortfeasor – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TortfeasorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to: navigation, search. Tortfeasor – A wrong-doer, one who does wrong; one who commits a trespass or is guilty of …

  35. Good one, Nora!

    I haven’t heard the whistle… Then again, I’m deaf as a door knob.

  36. Dude, da Judge,,,,,,,,,,,,

    I think you need to go back not quite yet 100 years,,,,,,,,,,,,,to find the truth……………..like the biggest hijack in History called the Federal Reserve.

  37. @ANN,

    I don’t know what you do for a living but I love you!

  38. @Enraged,

    Are you sure it’s not a train?

  39. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31789.html
    U.S. Foreclosure Fraud in a Nutshell, How Average Joe’s Home Was Stolen

    More and more courts are agreeing that the banks “inside” the PSA do not have legal standing

    They have no skin in the game and so cannot show the necessary “injury in fact”), are not “real parties in interest” (they cannot show that they followed the terms of the PSA or are otherwise “entitled to enforce” the note) and that there are real questions of whether any securitized mortgage can ever be properly perfected.

    The banks’ weakness is exposed most often in bankruptcy courts because it is there that they have to show their cards and explain how they claim a legal right, rather than the “of record” right, to foreclose the mortgage. More and more courts are recognizing that, without proof of ownership of the underlying note, holding a mortgage means nothing.

    The most recent crack in the Banks’s position is evidenced by the federal Eight Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in In Re Banks, No. 11-6025 (8th Cir., Sept. 13, 2011). In Banks, a bank attempted to execute a foreclosure within a bankruptcy case. The bank had a note payable to the order of another entity; that is, the foreclosing bank was “Bank C” but had a note payable to the order of “Bank B” and endorsed in blank by Bank B. The bank, Bank C, alleged that, because the note was endorsed in blank and “without recourse,” that it had the right to foreclose. The Court held that this was insufficient to show a sufficient chain of title to the note, reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded for findings regarding when and how Bank C acquired the note.

    See also, In Re Aagard, No. 810-77338-reg (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2011) (Judge Grossman slams MERS as lacking standing, working as both principal and agent in same transaction, and exposes MERS’ alleged principal US Bank as unable to produce or provide evidence that it is in fact the holder of the note); In Re Vargas, No. 08-17036SB (Bankr. C.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2008) (Judge Bufford correctly applied rules of evidence and held that MERS could not establish right to possession of the 83-year old Mr. Vargas’ home through the testimony of a low-level employee who had no foundation to testify about the legal title to the original note); In Re Walker, Bankr. E.D. Cal. No. 10-21656-E-11 (May 20, 2010) (holding that neither MERS nor its alleged principal could show that they were “real parties in interest” because neither could provide any evidence of the whereabouts of, much less legal title to, the original note); Landmark v.Kesler, 216 P.2d 158 (Kan. 2009) (in this case the Kansas Supreme Court provides the most cogent state court analysis of the problem created by securitization – the “splitting” of the note and the mortgage and the real party in interest and standing problems that the holder of the mortgage has when it cannot also show that it has clean and clear legal title to the note); U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 941 NE 40 (Mass. 2011), (the Massachusetts Supreme Court denied two banks’ attempts to “quiet title” following foreclosure because the banks’ proffered evidence did not show ownership of the mortgages – or for that matter, the notes – prior to the Sheriff’s sale); and Jackson v. MERS, 770 N.W.2d 489 (Minn. 2009) (this federal-gun-to-the-head – certified question from federal court asking for state court blessing of its already decided ruling – to the Minnesota Supreme Court is most notable for the courageous dissent of NFL Hall of Fame player and only popularly elected Justice Alan Page who opined that MERS should pound sand and obey state recording standards).

  40. A Foot Soldier in the Foreclosure Wars – Matt Weidner, A Mandelman Matters Podcast

    Florida foreclosure defense attorney and controversial blogger, Matt Weidner is in the trenches fighting for the rights of homeowners almost every single day. Trained in large part by April Charney, and practicing in Florida, the major leagues of the foreclosure crisis, Matt has become one of the best known foreclosure fighters in the country, not only because of his work, but also because of his controversial blog, MattWeidnerLaw.com.

    To describe Matt as “passionate” would be the understatement of the decade. Outspoken doesn’t quite do him justice either. He knows in his heart that what’s happening to homeowners at the hands of the banksters today is wrong, but he also knows it’s bad for everyone… the homeowner, the community, the state, the nation and even the world, and he’s dedicated his practice to helping homeowners stand up to the TBTF banks.

    He’s even been talking about running for congress… and if he does, I’m certainly going to do whatever I can to help him get elected. We very much need people like Matt serving in government, so I hope he runs, if not this year then certainly in the future.

    I wanted to have Matt on a podcast so both homeowners and other lawyers would have an opportunity to hear his views on the crisis today, and specifically what he’s seeing in the Florida courts. And sure enough, Matt did not disappoint… he’s just one of those people who can’t beat around the bush.

    So, there’s no reason to delay any further, if you’re not already familiar with Matt Weidner, here’s your chance to hear from one of the most outspoken voices of the foreclosure crisis, and if you already know of Matt from reading his blog… then you’ll love listening to him tell it like it is… on a Mandelman Matters Podcast.

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/11/a-foot-soldier-in-the-foreclosure-wars-matt-weidner-a-mandelman-matters-podcast/

    Just turn up your speakers and click the PLAY button below…

    Podcast.

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/11/a-foot-soldier-in-the-foreclosure-wars-matt-weidner-a-mandelman-matters-podcast/

  41. I want to expand on my point #5 below, about securitization. Neil and others often point out that securitization is not inherently bad, and he and they are probably right, in theory. Just like communism is not bad in theory, it’s just never going to work in reality. Or more to the point, it will work great for a privileged few and be a nightmare for everyone else.

    Securitization is the same way. Theoretically, it’s a good thing because it minimizes or spreads risk. In practice, though, securitization has two big problems: 1) banks HAVE NO RISK because they don’t loan money, they monetize promissory notes, and 2) by spreading around this supposed risk, literally throughout the entire world, suddenly the WHOLE WORLD is at risk if the securitized instruments fail for some reason. That is to say, since the banks are not at risk but are merely pretending to be, there is no incentive for the banks to keep their non-risk to themselves because it’s only by spreading the supposed risk and then betting against it that the astronomical profits can be had. That is, until the people wise up to the scheme, which has been happening for a long time now but the quickening is upon us, and this system of fraud will not be allowed to last very much longer.

  42. Enraged, I’ll let you know after December 5th (341 Meeting).

  43. Bankers didn’t disclose the extent of their borrowing. On Nov. 26, 2008, then-Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis wrote to shareholders that he headed “one of the strongest and most stable major banks in the world.” He didn’t say that his Charlotte, North Carolina-based firm owed the central bank $86 billion that day.

    Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the above should be enough to convict Ken Lewis of securities fraud through lying to investors, right? At least it would in a land where laws are enforced, right?

    Just imaging being handed billions at zero interest or nearly so, then being chauffeured over to the entity who will borrow from you at 2-3% interest. Can you imaging how fast profits build when you’re talking percentage points in billions? While at the same time having investors buy the crap bonds/stocks you’re selling them because you lie about the strength of your firm. And they still want the real estate through fraud….astounding….couldn’t make it up if you tried.

    And yet our so-called representatives are trying to make opaque the criminality as we speak. A pox upon them all!

    http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/bank_notes/2011/11/bloomberg-bank-of-america-received.html

  44. The truth about the financial markets is this:

    1. Money is debt.
    2. Debt is money.
    3. No debt, no money.
    4. Banks are allowed to create debt and call it a “loan” even though they don’t actually lend anything.
    5. Banks “securitize” this debt, which is to say that they get pension funds, investors, even other countries all dependent on this debt.
    6. The debt can never be repaid in full because the interest owed is not created, only the principal is.
    7. This scheme will then inevitably fail.
    8. Rinse and repeat.

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6raTps0zubE&w=560&h=315%5D

  45. Perhaps….but one judge does not a Country abide by. I wish it were so. But let’s keep our chins up and fight the good fight until EVERYONE gets it.

    I hope he imposes criminal charges against these banksters.

  46. I hope everyone realizes that the tide has turned.

    I’ve kept on saying it would but we are now in the middle of it.

    It’s looking bright. The tunnel is looooong, no question about it, but I can see that bright light at the end.

    Can you?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: