The USA: Blessing The Abuse And The Bullies


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


Editor’s Comment: 

Cautiously optimistic in CA

The L.A. Times reports that CA AG Harris has tapped UC Irvine Professor Katie Porter to monitor the mortgage settlement in CA. Normally this would be cause for joy as it is hard to image a better candidate than Professor Porter. She’s smart, she’s knowledgeable, she has been looking at this morass for a long time and she and her close colleagues (such as Professor Adam Levitin) know where the buddies are buried. In addition, the former Elizabeth Warren’s student is a master at working with very large amounts of information, which will be the case here. For a sample of her statistically‑based work see her recently published book “Broke: How Debt Bankrupts the Middle Class”.

But these are not normal times, and hence some are wondering why Professor Porter would accept such a position. So far we can only guess that she may be planning in becoming an eleventh hour mother of all whistleblowers; she may eventually denounce the settlement as unworkable and as the farce that it so far is. We just hope that it won’t be too late by then.

Certainly it is hard to see how, under the current status quo of the settlement, she would be able to ensure that the banks deliver “meaningful relief to California borrowers” (AG Harris’ words), as there is nothing meaningful in the settlement to start with.

Abigail Field, amongst many others, continues to bring us details about the settlement and, well, personally I think that we would have been better off without one. While there are many worrying provisions in that settlement a few really jump out, such as the incredible “error tolerance(s)” therein proposed. Abigail writes:

“Note: You may want to print out table E-1 while reading this, or at least keep it open in another browser window; these metrics are shocking enough you won’t want to take my word for it, you’ll want to verify I’m citing the text correctly.

Now, the table doesn’t come right out and say, we, the federal and state governments of the United States of America do hereby bless the institutionalization of servicer abuse, but it should. To understand why, you need to keep your eye on how the table’s columns are defined. For most issues, the critical columns are C “Loan Level Tolerance for Error” and D “Threshold Error Rate.” Later I’ll talk about the problems in Column F, the “Test Questions.”

When Error Isn’t Error

Loan Level Tolerance for Error, Column C, is defined as:

“Loan Level Tolerance for Error: This represents a threshold beyond which the variance between the actual outcome and the expected outcome on a single test case is deemed reportable” (bold mine; see footnote 1 page E-1-14)

Get that? Any error up to the threshold doesn’t count; it’s not reportable error. Now see footnote 2, which defines “Threshold Error Rate” (Column D):

“Threshold Error Rate: For each metric or outcome tested if the total number of reportable errors as a percentage of the total number of cases tested exceeds this limit then the Servicer will be determined to have failed that metric for the reported period.”

Only “reportable” errors count, and only if enough of those are reported can get a servicer in trouble under the settlement.”

Ms. Field’s post is here (caution: reading it may cause uncontrollable rage): The Mortgage Settlement Lets Banks Systematically Overcharge You And Wrongly Take Your Home

So back to Professor Porter. At this juncture she is probably the only one who really knows why she is getting involved. Certainly as currently proposed (remember, it is not yet final) this “settlement” settles nothing, it adds insult to the injury and certainly will not bring “meaningful relief”.

The L.A. Times article is here:,0,5768422.story


35 Responses

  1. Gotta hand it ol’ Barry Fagan,
    He’s lasted longer than a lot of us have. (maybe that’s because he’s a lawyer).

  2. Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Re: Six Requests for Judicial Notice Concerning Document Fraud, Predatory Lending, Loan Application Fraud, Discovery Act Abuse, and Robo-Signing

  3. Tell Judges point blank, that by stamping their seal of approval on every Fraudclosure they inadvertently seal the the unfortunate fate of their pensions. Because, it’s the end for which they have been abused as the means.

  4. guys when we talk about “follow the money” has any of you found an accountant willing to or that knows how complex this is going to get that can in fact testify to , and, assuming you get into discovery and not knocked out by a barrage of early motions to dismiss, im not being negative im just pointing out the monumental argument we face, need the right basis for argument…hence the “free house” insult keeps coimng up.

  5. John Gault,

    Thans for the info. I was able to get the info about assetwise pretty easily by doing google searches.

    @ Chris,

    I wish I could disagree but you are correct. The documents the banks submit are accepted as fact unless you can prove otherwise.

  6. @ Enraged

    I have asked for a jury trial and nothing less. To be honest here: there are a lot of folks stating what is the truth; however, this is not exactly a defense in court. It always good to vent and purge, as this is very, very draining and time consuming fighting Goliath.

    The hard reality is in most preliminary court hearings, you MUST get to the point and it needs to be compelling. The judge takes any paper from the bank representative as fact. I have never personally witnessed this type of behavior. Try and sell a car that way…the judge will never allow it. The “free house” mentality must be dealt with and the case needs to be reduced to an average person. It is just my opinion, but most here have been in the game so long, we forget the “average Joe” does not know what we know. As some have posted before, if you try and explain this to a stranger they just look at you…that is very telling, as you can get a good sense of how it sounds to someone else. We here know the difference between a default and a deficiency…most folks don’t. That is where the strategy must be clear and concise and do others, not so sophisticated get it…or you will lose, even with a jury!

    My opinion only, having learned the hard way.

  7. @ joann

    The hard reality for me is: the rule of law. If followed, homeowners, with breaches of securitization by not putting loans into pools or trusts, IRS fraud, forgery, defaults for insurance profit/proceeds and lack of ownership, the houses should be given to the homeowner, free and clear. The paperwork generated does not conform, therefore the note is void, by the hands of the pretenders.

    Unfortunately, the judges are not hearing this. Fannie and Freddie own most of our mortgages, they have been paid for by bailouts and insurance and they SHOULD NOT be able to collect more money on something that belongs to the taxpayers, via bailouts and insurance. These notes have been paid-in-full and we, the taxpayers own them outright. The federal government should not be able to foreclose on themselves, the taxpayers, who own Fannie and Freddie, or let pretenders auction them for profit, when they have no investment, no injury presented.

    My last $.02 on the subject

  8. Then, insist on a jury trial and nothing else. It is a right. Claim it.

  9. @ joann

    I get all of it…one thing everyone here must understand. The judge does not care. Most of the time, you will never get to say what you know to be true. The question always is: Have you made your payments? If you say no, the banster gets to steal your home. In most courts, that’s the way it plays out!

    I have read, like you, thousands of pages of documents, Statutes, codes, cases and everything I can find related to my case. We can talk about this endlessly, but you have to get past a default, no matter who created it. So, don’t misunderstand my comments…I definitely get this, but the judges are intolerant and some very ignorant and see a “free house” scenario. Not my thoughts, theirs. I have a different approach and it so far passing the smell test, if you will.

  10. “in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States actions are necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources”

    Yup, like the financial crisis. How about saving people homes, Obama. Now that is a national crisis. Did you miss it?

  11. Hey Nye Lavalle,
    Still supporting Obama?

  12. OFFICIAL: U.S. Now ruled by Dictatorship with latest Executive Order by Obama

  13. The Judge thats been chosen to look over the 50 State Agreement, hahahahahahahahaha, sorry, I couldn’t help myself, it’s laugh, cry or kill something whenever I talk about these agreements. Anyhow, the Judge is a she and I would hope that in holding to form SHE will not see the logic in judicial approval of an agreement that only agrees to agree sometime in the future. The agreement is nothing more than a collection of footnotes and the Banksters demands for complete immunity for past present and future crimes.

    No matter who’s team I was on I wouldn’t want to be the one to put a stamp of approval on such a shit bag of unenforcable dribble and then have it go down in history for all to see.

    WTF are these people doing.. “We’ve reached an agreement.” Then show us an agreement not your notes from the wasted 18 months spent coming up with this crap.

    Started this fight (well, they started it but I’m trying to be the one that ends it) in October of 2006 and I’m pretty beat up by now but every day that I can wake up in my home gives me renewed strength to carry the fight back to them yet one more time.

    Good luck to us all……………


  14. I’m still wondering why the AZ SC relied on the UCC for regulation of a dot, but I haven’t had time to scour AZ statutes re: real property interests (which does not describe a note). Anyone here in AZ who’s looked?

  15. hman – sfr = single family residence
    o/o = owner occupied
    yes, stated income documentation most likely
    1 mo. arm / rate adjustable monthly? (tied to libor most likely)*
    RFC = likely as you said Residential Funding Corp (often used for loans exceeing FNMA / FHLMC loan limits)

    *the one month might have referred to a seasoning requirement, tho I doubt it at one month.
    working on the MTA
    I don’t know about the software and GMAC

  16. Sorry for long posts. Can’t help it. Just feel free to point out anything I get wrong. The quick answer is why bother because the courts ignore everything. Just think we have to keep bothering.

    Both UCC and state statutes require chain of title or chain of transaction of value. Ownership must be acquired from someone with previous ownership. Purchased for value. Previous owners of any mortgage in a trust were the sponsor and then the depositor. Two true “irrevocable” sales occurred or there is no trust. Originator cannot assign to a trust. Servicer cannot assign to a trust. The previous owners were never recorded even though represented and warrented to investors the DOT and the Note were maintained “in recordable form” …. So for a trust to be able to foreclose in non-judicial it isn’t an ADOT from a servicer/originator that does the trick (even though that is working and goes completely unnoticed in an automatic process in non-judicial) the UCC says the trustee for the trust – “secured creditor” (purported) must do a few things…..

    From the “Permanent Editorial Board (“PEB”) for the Uniform Commercial Code issued a Memorandum: “Draft Report of the PEB on the UCC Rules Applicable to the Assignment of Mortgage Notes and to the Ownership and Enforcement of Those Notes and the Mortgages Securing Them”:

    “Article 9 of the UCC provides such a buyer or secured creditor a mechanism by which it can record its interest in the realty records in order to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure. UCC Section 9-607(b) provides that “if necessary to enable a secured party [including the buyer of a mortgage note] to exercise…the right of [its transferor] to enforce a mortgage non-judicially,” the secured party may record in the office in which the mortgage is recorded (i)a copy of the security agreement transferring an interest in the note to the secured party and (ii)the secured party’s sworn affidavit in recordable form stating that default has occurred and that the secured party is entitled to enforce the mortgage non judicially.”

    Entitled to enforce according to UCC means acquired for value from a previous party entitled to enforce – this is not the servicer or the originator when it comes to a trust who is now seeking to foreclose. The trustee for the trust is the real party of interest on behalf of the trust not the servicer or originator.

  17. @chris

    “I have been saying if you haven’t paid the payment, you are in fact in default.”

    There is a difference between delinquent and “in default”. In default means a default has been declared by a beneficiary – a party with a legal right to enforce the power of sale. This is also the only party who can appear in court and declare under oath and penalty of perjury and sworn affadavit that a default has occurred to its interest and that they legitimately purchased the mortgage from a prior owner who also legitimately owned the mortgage if challenged. This can be dug out of the UCC and state statutes in both judicial and non-judicial.

    There is no default to any other. No one else can declare that a default has occurred or the amount that is in default. If you pay a party who is not the beneficiary the debt remains to the beneficiary. If a home is foreclosed by a non-beneficiary the debt remains to the true beneficiary and the title is clouded to the new buyer. See Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, 10880, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (Boston) October 18, 2011 “U.S. Bank’s lack of authority to foreclose at the time it purported to foreclose – is fatal to Bevilacqua’s claim to “own” the property.”

    When a pretender has declared a default, I hope I have the opportunity one day to say to a judge “Your honor I do not deny that I am delinquent. I deny that I am in default because the party who has declared the default (DOT trustee) has named a beneficiary who is not a beneficiary. The purported true beneficiary (as per psa and or ADOT before or after the NOD) has not declared a default has occurred to its interest or produced the amount of default from its first hand records as required by law (see below). The beneficiary is the only party who is harmed by non-payment and therefore is the only party who can declare that a default has occurred to its interest, the amount of the default, or the amount needed to cure the default –or the amount still owing in order to pay it in full and or enforce the power of sale. The party who is seeking to do this now is not authorized to represent the interest of the beneficiary, does not name the beneficiary, (may not even know who that is) and has no access to the first hand records of the beneficiary. The party seeking to foreclose is using third and fourth party servicer and collector computer records that are full of error and amount to hearsay. The servicer is not the beneficiary and the beneficiary named on the NOD is not the beneficiary. Further the purported true beneficiary(as per psa and ADOT) cannot now foreclose because the ADOT was made by a party with no beneficial interest it can sell “For Value Received” or assign to anyone because it never was the previous owner of the mortgage.

    UCC 3-502 says that a note is not dishonored until there is presentment. “Presentment” is defined by the UCC as “a demand to pay the instrument made by a person entitled to enforce an instrument.” “Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making the presentment must 1) exhibit the instrument” (UCC 3-501(B)(2)(a)). Until the proper presentment is made the UCC requires that the “obligation is suspended to the same extent the obligation would be discharged if an amount of money equal to the amount of the instrument were taken, and the following rules apply:…2) In the case of a note, suspension of the obligation continues until dishonor of the note or until it is paid.” (UCC 3-310(b)).

    The borrower is not in default until the lender can exhibit the instrument, proving dishonor.

    There is no default (dishonor of the note) until there is a refusal to pay after the presentment has been made.

    The problem we face in non-judicial DOT states is that many if not all DOT’s contain language that waives the right to presentment. That’s why there are strict recording statutes that should be interpreted strictly and right now “lenders” and courts are ignoring this. California Civil Code 2943 provides a way for the homeowner to demand a beneficiary statement including a copy of the note as it appears today among other things and a payoff statement. Other states must have similar.

    The amount due the purported beneficiary if properly produced from the records of the beneficiary (the bogus ADOT actually now undermines it’s interest and sheds doubt on it’s previous ownership which now requires discovery – the proper recipient of payment is now also in doubt) will be as Neil has pointed out and others perhaps dramatically different than what the servicer records show. There may be no default because the beneficiary has already been paid by others. The purported beneficiary may have released its interest altogether or have been paid substantially in part or full. I don’t think this last point even has to be made (free house). Just ask that the law be followed. What is due who? Identify the current beneficiary who can enforce the power of sale who has standing to foreclose or accept the benefit of payment. They must defend their interest when challenged (they don’t want to do this for what reason?Real party of interest does not wish to do it). No one else is due anything and no one else can sieze a home.

  18. Hman,

    All I know is that it’s a Fannie Mae. I QWR’d everything that moved. Sometimes, it didn’t even have to move to be QWR’d. No answer. Actually, Fannie is always very quiet. She gets the mail but… never a peep out of her.

    I don’t know and by now, it has become a moot point. I’m playing your game. One by one, I’ll sue them, from the last one to the first one until i understand exactly what was what. I don’t give a damn about the house. All I want is answers. And to be paid for doing a job that isn’t mine: track down where banks went wrong because our government sold us out to them and won’t do its job.

  19. Elizabeth Warren is a TRAITOR, she’s now an agent/advocate for AIPAC. I always had a funny feeling about her, especially with her being so buddy-buddy with President (read as Puppet) Obama.

  20. Enraged,

    Do you know what trust your loan was put in? I have been able to find a lot of info just by googling the trust. My servicer told me what trust my loan was in. I paid for a securitization audit from a company that is now at of business. Did not know about this site at the time.

    Anyway, I was able to find out that my trust was listed as one of the ones that the federal housing finance agency is suing for fraud. Although I can not “piggy back” on this lawsuit if it goes favorable it maybe good for me, if I can make it that long.

    Also, able to uncover other parties that have sued the parties representing the trust. Usually the parties suing is on behalf of certificate holders. This is how I have been able to identify some of my investors.

    As far as how to follow the money Idk. I have already sued my originating lender. I have a reason for doing it one by one. Once they are picked off I will go to the next party.

  21. @hman,

    Just trying to use my common sense. So I may very well be wrong but it seems to me that to “follow the money”, you would first need to sue every single entity having had anything to do with your house on something they can’t escape: Tila, Respa (they’re all guilty of violations) and resulting conversion. Just one big lawuit against all of them, starting with the lender and everyone you ever paid afterwards. Then you follow the money through discovery.

    I don’t see any other solution since our government (who knows exactly what happened, where, when, how and by whom or who has the means to find it out) is refusing to do its job for which we are paying its high salaries.

    I asked the same question you’re asking of Nancy Drewe. Never got an answer. I got lambasted alright but… never got the “how to” we all need. Apparently, ND is selling her services. She’s not in the helping business. I know Anonymous gave a few pointers but not enough for me to really find something, especially how to figure out what the trust is if I have a Fannie Mae. And Fannie is unassumingly quiet about the whole bit: not enough the courtesy of an answer.

    We’re all in the same boat: scrambling to find the info we need and government is preventing us from discovering. Makes you wonder…

  22. Anon,

    I’ve seen post hat collection rights were sold but how can you prove this? Not calling you out just want to build as strong of a case as possible. How do you “follow the money”.

    I never got a paid note when I refinanced. If my previous mortgage was paid wheres the note? Also, if the collection rights were sold what would be the purpose of creating a new note? Why wouldn’t they just assign the old one? Maybe because the amounts were different?

    However, when collection rights are sold to a note say for instance a note for $200k. You pay for 10 years and the note gets sold they don’t create a new note just because the amount is different than the original note. They just get the note for $200K assigned to them. (i mean they are supposed too).

    Also, people say follow the money? How do you do this? I got about $100k deposited into my account on a cash out refi. I’m confused because that money came from somewhere? So in a situation like this how does someone follow the money?

  23. Also, I found evidence to but I’m not sure how significant it is. My HUD 1 and DOT match showing my original lender as the “lender”.

    However, the AUS file (not sure what it stand for) shows it was submitted for underwriting through Assestwise. This is a proprietary underwriting software used by GMAC. Also, it states close as RFC, 1 MO, MTA, Cash-Out, SFR, O/O State DOC.

    RFC I believe refers to Residential Funding. It also has the underwriters name on the document. So I believe GMAC was an undisclosed party on my loan?

    Anyone know what RFC,1 MO, MTA, Cash-Out, SFR, O/O Stated Doc Means? I think it is a product offered by RFC. 1 Month, MTA (average?), Cash-out (yup), SFR?, O/O ? State Doc (yes) Even though we didn’t apply for stated. We gave them W2’s. We were never self employeed. What BS. My wifes income wasn’t supposed to be listed but our loan officer advised it was required for compliance. She had only been working for about 3 months after being off work 2 years to raise our child.

    Anyone can help decipher this would be appreciated. Thanks

  24. Subprime borrowers in default (falsely) before they signed the dotted line for a refinance.

    Settlement precludes investigation.

  25. Chris,

    I was in same situation a couple years ago. Over the course of about 4 years an investment property I owned went from a $700 payment to over $1300. The first 2 years I was cash flowing big time but after 2009 the rental market slid. I purchased my investment at the height of the market. I could not compete with investors who was renting similiar homes for hundreds less. I dropped rent 3 times.

    I borrowed money several times from 401k to pay mortgage during vacancy. When I finally got a tenant I was paying about $500 a month out of my own pocket. My original lender was out of business. Servicer said I couldn’t apply for loan mod because I was current. 60 days past due was required to apply. The experience was horrific. The first rule of debt collection is to not negotiate with someone that is current.

    At the end of the Mod they offered me a permenant payment that was higher! The system sets you up to fail so they can cash in on credit default swaps. They don’t care about the depreciated home price because they’re not taking a hit on money they didn’t lend.

  26. @ hman

    I have been saying if you haven’t paid the payment, you are in fact in default. But, I have a couple of questions for you:

    If someone is in default and they have been told the only way to get assistance after they are 45 days late, you NEED to be behind 2-4 months and only then, can you be considered for a modification. Now, that is “in my non-lawyer” opinion, actively advising a homeowner, unsophisticated in this matter, to not pay the payments and assistance will then be available. Is the bank/servicer responsible for this information?

    Next, in my particular case I have found sufficient circumstantial evidence to show my loan was not funded, nor did I originally put it in default…the originator did, two months prior to my closing, as it was insured to get proceeds from a default “insurance policy. Now, if I can eventually prove this…then how does that work?

    Lastly, after doing what I was encouraged to do, then sent a letter of default, with no modification as promised, I tried to pay the arrears and the bankster refused the payment. So, if I made every effort, to do what I was told and then tried to get current…how can judge see that as me being a “deadbeat borrower”?

    The point here: everyone did not go into default intentionally, nor did everyone make no attempt to correct the problem, even with a home under water. Just asking…

  27. @hman

    I think this relates. It was posted on another website and I hope it is all right to copy it here…..

    Phred on February 5, 2012 at 8:43 am (at a different site):

    “Calvo v. HSBC was affirmed by Ca. Supremes on 1/4/12. It seems to sound the death knell on 2932.5.

    But as Sun Tsu observed “… your enemies will bring weapons to you”. Citing Calvo, a borrower may be able to raise the argument that any RJN (request for judicial notice) for recorded assigned documents is moot because the Calvo ruling determines that not all possible transfers of the beneficiary interest are available to the court as a result. Therefore, lender can no longer rely solely on recorded assignments as evidence of possession of beneficiary interest, and standing of lender is automatically questioned unless lender is the same entity shown on the promissory note.

    With an automatic question of standing of Lender as a party of interest, certainly the question of tender to a party over which the court may have no jurisdiction is no longer required.

    The opinion above is from a person who is not an attorney, and should not be construed as legal advice. Pay a bunch of money to consult a REAL attorney, then ask why they didn’t post this comment.

    Posted with the hopes it will fry some judges’ reputations who are obviously on the take by the banksters.”

  28. Also, the “show the note” which may have worked a few years ago in AZ is also dead. Lenders don’t have to show the note as proof unless you can get to discovery and courts have accepted photocopies.

    In a nonjudicial state it is my job to prove they don’t own the mortgage not the other way around. They don’t have to prove anything unless you get to discovery and they will claim the whole time you did not make payments.

    I have even seen judges conclude that even if the party in court is not the correct party to foreclose the homeowner is in default and trustee sale can move forward.

    Seriously it’s tough. Fortunately, I’ve been able to fend these bastards off so far but it’s gonna get ugly.

  29. The biggest obstacle I see where cases are lost are overcoming MERs. The MER’s business model (although fradulent) has been accepted by many states as far as I can tell. In AZ at least courts have opinioned it is a valid beneficiary. It does not split the note and deed. MER’s seems to be the vehicle that allows the “lenders” to get away with theft and commit their lies.

    AZ also follows the opinion that the deed follows the note…so if the note is endorsed correctly than there is no need for a rerecordation of the deed. The supreme court has decided that the rerecordation of a deed is to preserve the creditors interest and give notice to other creditors, not to allow the homeowners to see who owns the mortgage.

    Here’s some quotes from Vasquez/Deutsche (AZ Supreme Court)
    .” The Court could find no logical reason to imply a recording requirement into §33-808 when “§33-817 does not require separate documentation of an assignment of the deed of trust when the secured note is transferred.”

    Although the section states that deeds “shall be recorded,” the court noted that the section did “not impose a recording requirement.” Similarly, the court found that the section did not “suggest that a notice of trustee’s sale on a previously assigned deed of trust is valid only if the assignment was recorded.”

    “Finally, the court dismissed the argument that such a recording of an assignment is necessary to give effect to A.R.S. § 33-807.01, “which requires lenders to ‘explore options’ with borrowers at least thirty days before recording a notice of trustee’s sale.” While the Attorney General argued as amicus curiae that unless so interpreted “homeowners will not know with whom to ‘explore options,’” the Court noted that the statute “requires the lender to contact the homeowner, not the other way around.”

    This is what we are up against! So the question how to you overcome MERs? The servicer serving 2 parties essentially assigns the DOT from itself to itself. I’ve seen the common agent argument and the agency relationship argument but have any of these worked?

    Any new ideas how to overcome MER’s? You can’t really claimed you had no knowledge because they are listed on the DOT that the borrower signed. According to some you don’t want to overcome them? (Maher Soliman) but I don’t understand his reasoning?

  30. @E,Tolle

    “Life is way too short for their usury. Besides, it’s 100% needless. As are they.”

    I so agree. If more people got this (and they will one day I beleive even if it is years from now) this would be ended. We have a situation where everyone at all levels is either mindlessly or mindfully participating in perpetuating it (others forced into perpetuating it just in order to survive as in slavery) and it is easier for all to pay attention to anything else instead.

  31. The likely problem with Katie Porter is the same issue I’ve had on occasion with Adam Levitin. Although he’s to be highly commended for his amicus brief in Eaton and other works that he’s done, he has, on occasion, and especially in some early testimony to Congress painted a picture that was too forgiving on the banks side, imo. I believe Levitin has finally changed, as he’s written about how the game is up….the bank’s attempt at writing the laws to fit their needs is a fail. Too bad the authorities aren’t listening.

    But the real issue here is one that few in academia or economic/government circles would understand….that this really does come down to them or us, as far as securitization goes. TPTB want to own everything; they want to rent us housing, sell us poisoned food, and lease us the sun and the air and the water if they can get by with it. Securitization feeds their view of life….one where we do the work, and they manage everything; incomes….pensions….retirements…..savings….you name it, they want to control it, and profit from it.

    I for one don’t want to live in their world. I also don’t want them in mine. It’s that old physics problem yet again. I don’t want them occupying the same space as myself. They’re greedy assholes, nothing else need be said about them. Life is way too short for their usury. Besides, it’s 100% needless. As are they.

  32. Sounds like she’s been paid off!!!

  33. That “settlement” will not stand the test of constitutionality. Just look at something as ridiculous as Obamacare and how much energy it has generated. This is so much worse, whatever judge signs off on it is assured to be among the first people to lose his job if not a lot more when things blow up.

    No need to worry.

  34. One thing:

    In my life, being a scrappy kind of gal (childhood issues)…if you beat up the largest, strongest bully…people take note and generally, the bully backs off! Just the way it works…

  35. Our United States Government speaks loud and clear:

    The taxpayer’s paid FreddieMac and FannieMae to purchase all your bogus loans bankers, servicers and originators (taxpayers money). Now we will, in the name of the taxpayers, the owners of Fannie and Freddie, foreclose on the paid-for loans (taxpayers defaulted loans) and we will sell them to other taxpayers at a loss, while foreclosing on those same taxpayers who paid for Freddie and Fannie to acquire them, and we’ll fix this mess? Really, how will that work…this is nothing more than another bailout, while selling Federally owned taxpayers property to other taxpayers at deep discounts.

    This all the while the government is saying: it is okay to commit felonies, as long as we get these bum homeowners out, the bad ones…’cause we all know people who make $500.00 a week went out and said: let me buy a house that has a mortgage of $1000.00 per month, even though I cannot pay for it. Is that about right?

    The Federal Government/taxpayers, foreclosing on themselves…HMMMMMMMMMMMMM…everyone get this yet?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: