DO You Want It To Slow Down or to Stop

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm – Whose Lien Is It Anyway?

Real Property, Mortgages, Workouts and Foreclosures in the United States

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Someone sent me a story about a guy who did one of those “California” stops at a stop sign, rolling through at a slightly slower speed than he had been going. A policeman stops him and informs the driver he had not made a full stop. The driver replied that he had made a rolling stop which is the same thing — after all he had slowed down because of the stop sign. The police officer invites him out of the car whereupon the policeman commences beating the driver around the head and body and then says to to the driver “Do you want me to slow down or do you want me to stop?”

The story is funny —sort of — because it makes a point. And I would make the same point about the foreclosures. Do we want a slow down in stealing of property away from people through foreclosures, even short-sales and other delays, or do we just want them to stop. The answer for me is that I want them to stop — except in those cases where the loan was between a normal borrower and a normal lender whose name is properly on the paperwork and who actually loaned the money.

Slowing down the pace of foreclosures because of the presence of forgeries, fabrications and fraud is not the answer. Stopping them and reversing the ones that occurred is the answer. And giving HAMP an actual chance to work (or some other mediated settlement) is the rest of the answer.

These “loans” are between parties who have no documentation as to their positions (the investor/lenders and the homeowner/borrowers) and whose presence was unknown to the other because of cloaks and subterfuge by investment bankers. The chain of documentation refers to a loan from an originator who never loaned a dime and never booked the loan as a receivable on their balance sheet in most cases. And so the entire chain of documents leading up the “securitization” chain are empty documents referring to transactions that never occurred and thus could never result ina perfected security interest in the property.

The solution is what homeowners are offering — converting an undocumented unsecured interest into a documented, secured interest reflecting current economic realities and that will provide the investor/lenders with far greater benefits than foreclosure which leads to ghost towns, bull dozing neighborhoods and other societal problems all for the single purpose of justifying taking every penny as fees for banks, servicers and other parties in the chain, which now, under the April 12 Bulletin from the CFPB, are to be considered just as responsible as banks and servicers.

It should be noted that the homeowners are in most instances offering MORE than the home is worth as the principal due on the note and waiving all other litigation rights.

So do we want it slowed down or stopped. Do we want speed or justice. Do we want the common man to be given back a chance at happiness and prosperity or do we want theft of wealth from the common man to be rewarded with amnesty and further subsidies?

33 Responses

  1. @MariK

    Good for you—God bless. It’s worse than the Wild West out there—lawless and soulless…

  2. @ carie

    Wish it would help others but it’s just been being terrified but stubborn like most of the rest of us.

    There were 4 Motions sent out on a 4-plex that is free-standing with 4 apartments. Crazy !

    One went to Judgment because I was shaking so badly in court and was reassured by Citi’s lawyer that it was not MY apartment, I caved.

    I had 2 different Commissioners and 2 different dates for the remaining 3 apartments, so I filed a Response (not the right thing to do but I do not speak Legalese)

    One, a Commissioner set another date, was really nice, and it was put on an inactive list until July.

    One went through without my being notified and the Deputy Sheriff was on my doorstep 6 days BEFORE I got the Notice. I kept handing him paperwork (through the security door) and he went away.

    One is in Never-neverland. (not re-issued)

    Three of the apts have been papered with harassment stuff (not my apt because they do not have the ___ to put stuff on my door).

    Someone came out twice to change out the locks ( I called Mesa Police stating that they were Trespassing and the hearings had not been held) and they went away.

    Someone suggested requesting a ‘Consolidation’ and a setting aside of the 2 Judgments – and then requesting a ‘Stay’.

    That sounds logical but I cannot find wording or a template, nor do I know if it a Motion or what.

    Even tho’ I am old, angry, and exhausted, (and terrified), I will not give up because this whole thing is just WRONG and Americans should absolutely not be treated this way !

  3. @marik

    What are the specific steps you have taken to stay in your home post-foreclosure? Thanks. (sorry if you have already posted that info…)

  4. Hey, you’all – do you remember the title of this post ?

    Do you want it to slow down or to stop ?

    Enraged – we must have been at different WH sites. If you repost the petition, please let us know how we can sign it. BTW, I’m post-forclosure and fighting to stay in my property.

    BUT, if you want to make George Bush jokes, carp on meaningless topics, and in general, provide ‘diarrhea of the mouth’ to each other, either get a chat room or I’ll find a site that is concerned with the reality of what’s going on and how to help each other.

    Just sayin’

  5. Is it just me or is there something really, really wrong with stock market tumbling down everytime someone sneezes?

    People want stability. That’s all. Stability. They want to be able to buy food when they’re hungry, put gas in their car when they have to go somewhere, have a bed to sleep in at night and a place to call home, have clean water to drink, a job to go to and rest once in a while. And those elementary needs have consistently been obliterated by the insane course to make money, money, more money, just money, money all the time, money for the sake of money.

    And all that money being earned by investors isn’t making one iota of difference for the millions of people out of a job here, there and everywhere or the billions of people who can’t have a decent meal each day. That money isn’t helping clean the oceans and reduce CO2.

    There is actually a class of people sitting behind a monitor all day long… making money, more money, more, more more of it but whose lives are completely void of any humanity. Some of those people have kids. What are they thinking??? That their money will always be good and that there will always be some peon to work the fields and feed those rich kids?


  6. nabdulla-re: Oprah sued by meat industry- although I prefer to stay on point (mostly) regarding this site, alerting readers to the continuing degradation of the rule of law in other aspects of life here in the US is somewhat relevant. So…….There was an indepth article in Vanity Fair regarding the food industry and Oprah’s attack and subsequent lawsuit brought against her. Until reading that article, I had no idea that the food industry had introduced legislation, which was made law, that it was a federal offense to attack the safety of food, or question it. The details are a little foggy in my memory, but that was the gist of it. So if you have reservations about food safety, additives in the food, hormones in the meat or milk, herbicides on the plants, or you wonder how bread can remain ‘fresh’ for months when you remember home-baked bread getting hard as a rock and covered with blue (penicillin) mold after 3 or 4 days, keep it to yourself. If you have reservations about the use of ethylene glycol to stick the sugar/sweetener on pre-sweetened cereal even though ethylene glycol is the base material in automotive antifreeze, don’t mention that either, even if you recall skidrow alcoholics drinking antifreeze and dying as a result. If you look at the signage in the produce departments of supermarkets, noticing that the word ‘fresh’ appears everywhere, but cannot overlook the origins of food produced far,far,away and shipped by freighter, and arriving weeks or longer for your consumption, keep it to yourself. Even if you know that the USDA states that fruits and vegetables lose 75% of their nutritional value 24 hours after picking. After 48 hrs, you may as well eat plastic or foam containers for sustenance. This leads us to locally grown, sustainable ag, but how can we have that, when all the arable land has been converted to housing, where the destruction of the local food supply has been brought about by implicit government guarantees, bailouts, subsidies, and outright fraud? Which brings us back to LivingLies. So it sort of all ties in together.

  7. @Nabdulla,

    Darn! I don’t want to be treated any differently just because I’m not a guy! I actually chuckle at those off-color jokes. Can even throw a couple myself…

    That Perdue guy… First time I saw him on TV, I said: “OMG! He looks like his birds!”. And he did too… And then it got me thinking: did he choose to rear chicken because that was who he was or did he simply become one of them…?

  8. @ Enraged….

    “Enraged, on May 3, 2012 at 4:26 pm said:
    Don’t like Monsanto.
    Don’t like “no fat” that tastes like cardboard. Don’t like sugar in my cheese or my Dijon mustard. Don’t like hormones in my meat. Come to where i live and you’ll see why: people all have a very small head, sunking shoulders, an enormous butt, big thighs and no calves. They look like chickens. They’re turned into chickens. Scares me to death.”

    🙂 🙂 🙂

    Do you remember when they went after Oprah when she tried to expose to the public how they were chopping-up sick and diseased cattle and mixing the meat in as “filler” with the “good meat” saturated with chemicals and steroids??

    Let’s not even get on what they’re doing to the “chicken” nowadays. Remember that old Perdue commercial where the Wife places an “Oven Stuffer Roaster” in from her Husband, he looks at it and says, “That ain’t no chicken”. 🙂

  9. @ Enraged….

    “Enraged, on May 3, 2012 at 12:25 pm said:
    ….I’m telling you, nowadays, people meeting me leave thinking: “She isn’t fully cooked yet. There’s still plenty of room left in that skull…”

    WHAT!! All this time (years) I thought you were a Man!! I don’t WHY I would have thought that. Anyway, Apology LADY. All this time calling you “Dude”, and you never corrected me?? Naturally, I talk to and treat the LA-DIIES a lot different than “Dudes” (yeah). Again, apologies, here’s the six red roses, glass of Moet, let’s CH-ILLL (yes indeed :-)) –

  10. Roman Pino and Tom Ice Destroyed This Country, The Florida Supreme Court Should Send Them Off To The FEMA Camps!
    May 5th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    On Thursday May 10, 2012, the Florida Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the extraordinary case of Roman Pino v. Bank of New York. Make sure to bookmark here to watch the arguments live, and in advance, click here and here and here and here to read all the briefs before hand

    Now to refresh all your memories, Roman Pino was one of those despicable sub human beings who conned a big bank into loaning him a huge sum of money so that he could purchase a big fat mansion that he knew he could never afford and that he knew he never had any intention of paying for. Tom Ice is the unethical foreclosure defense attorney who conspired with Pino, coming up with all kinds of excuses and technicalities that allowed this very bad person to live in his house for free.

    Well, that’s the narrative that comes from the bankster and foreclosure fraud apologists in this war. The truth is Roman Pino was a terribly unsophisticated hard working American who believed in the con and the promises of the banking industry and was conned into taking out a comparatively small loan with unreasonable terms on a perfectly reasonable home in an ethnic neighborhood. When Roman got into trouble financially he tried his best to work things out and found himself stiff armed by the very same banking cartel that has been pounding all of America into bloody submission for years now. Tom Ice is the dedicated foreclosure defense warrior who took this brother in need under his protective wing, showed him and his family the highest values of this calling called the practice of law and promised him that he would protect and defend his family, no matter what it took.

    As Pino’s foreclosure case was pending at the trial court level, Ice’s dedicated and passionate legal staff noticed that things were not at all right with the documents the foreclosure mill had submitted to the trial court. No, not your run of the mill robo signed or forged documents, after all, we all became so desensitized to lies and fraud and forgery in our courtrooms so long ago, that something really blatant would have to stick out in order to make any difference at all. Now think about that again because that’s what this case is really about:


  11. Francois Hollande elected. Europe, the largest economic power, will crumble (in case you didn’t know, USA is the largest economic country but Europe is, indeed, the largest economic power. Until today…)

    Buckle your seatbelts. It’s going to be a really bumpy ride.

    And you thought we had problems…?

  12. Because of the massive fraud—NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO GET OUR MONEY OR OUR HOMES…forget HAMP…it’S FRAUD AFTER FRAUD…come on, Neil…you can do better.

  13. Neil- in “stop or slow down?” you mentioned HAMP yet again. How can an entity modify a loan, of which they are not the lender, the owner, the beneficiary, the holder, the holder in due course? How can these financial instruments be defined as loans? If the borrower refi’d a 200k note, paid 15k fees, got 15k cashout, how can we tell, apart from the 15k cashout, that any other monies actually exchanged hands, and that the prior ‘mortgage’ was satisfied?
    They can’t, plain and simple.
    How about posting a sample HAMP agreement, whereby the homeowner/borrower agrees to forego all their legal rights, and verify that they owe xyz the money? I have never seen one here or elsewhere? Can the HAMP agreement(s) be picked apart, legally, and contested on the basis of fraud? Please comment. Thanks.

  14. (From recent interview)

    According to M. Soliman “this is a classic surety claim as to the nature of a purchase by the surety from the creditor which in anyway exonerate the principal debtor.

    (Q) How do you argue standing in a foreclosure defense?

    Because, the argument for Surety makes sense when considering the transaction functions on the equity side as an assignment of the debt and the securities to the surety.

    (Q) I’m not getting it

    No debt exists where the commercial funding used to originate the mortgage was sold into equity. The mortgage never left the lender and MersCorp, pretender lender and Robo signatures are moot arguments wasting courts time. The assignment is by you under a UCC filing held to common stock at the cutoff date

    (Q) And? The Judges are not listening to the arguments being brought by homeowners

    I have not seen ONE attorney make a decent argument while they waste time arguing real estate law. It’s moot to the under lying issues. Look the surety’s standing before the court prevails absent evidence to the contrary. Therefore the presumption the mortgage transaction held the intention for the benefit of the party constructing the asset backed security with a counter party bank like Duetsche Bank.

    Soliman – Hence the guarantor, you, by way of the promissory note or other debt always will be subrogated to the rights of the creditor to whom the last payment was made.

    The title holder stopped making payments as it is the lender who is in default. Its sad – where few listen and where they engage an expert or pay professionals to tell them what they want to hear.

    I believe the consumer, a debtor, is a surety who is entitled to the benefit of all the securities for the debt. Therefore the parties or entities transacting either from the principal debtor or from the creditor side, with or without notice of the facts are made the title holders responsibilities, and they are bound in equity to hold them for titles benefit.

    Soliman “Again it makes no difference that the surety is entering into a mortgage obligation, where the parties did not rely upon the security, or even know of its existence.”

    S Shafer,

    The NATB

  15. word on the street from foreclosure defense lawyers its gotten busy


    Cash consumers sold to hedge credit risks Federal Reserve Boston places more spin into public domain and its private merchant banks continue selling cash to REMICs

    Fed Report: Mortgage Mess NOT an Inside

    A paper just published by The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston is bound to generate a lot of comment both inside and outside of the mortgage industry. Titled Why Did so Many People Make so Many Ex Post Bad Decisions? The Causes of the Foreclosure Crisis

    FOUNDED 1914 ‘500 TO 1,000’ EMPLOYEES

    Valuation Specialist: Loans, Asset/Mortgage-backed Securities

    Federal Reserve Bank of Boston- Greater Boston Area

    Job Description

    Job Summary:

    Responsible for identifying and analyzing market trends and risks to shape and form policy development, with a focus on credit and capital markets. The role involves consideration of System policies, including those related to Discount Window lending and collateral administration, Payments System Risk policy, and Regulatory Reserves Administration. The incumbent will need to collaborate with the Supervision, Regulation and Credit department in Boston and with other areas of the Federal Reserve System.

    The ideal candidate would possess a strong background in:

    Modeling methodology and/or experience in model-driven pricing and/or valuation of loans and/or ABS/MBS.
    Experience in value-at-risk modeling, scenario analysis, and vetting of model assumptions, inputs, and/or results.
    Fixed income instruments and risk-rating methodology.
    Expert-level knowledge of credit and capital markets.
    Strong financial analysis, problem solving, and decision-making capabilities.
    Strong oral and written communication skills and translating/summarizing quantitative and technical findings for various audiences, including senior management.

    Principal Accountabilities:

    Conduct project-based and ad hoc analysis of emerging issues relative to valuing assets and their impact on policy, assisting senior management in policy development.
    Build and maintain a national network of contacts within the regulatory community as well as industry trade groups and other industry participants to augment industry monitoring and analytical efforts.
    Collaborate and sustain positive working relationships with other business areas including other SR&C units, System personnel, Board staff, and the Research department. Ensure effective communication of relevant information between such contacts and appropriate Reserve Bank management.
    Demonstrate good judgment and well-reasoned decision making in situations that may involve complex issues, public scrutiny, market reactions, and potentially challenging reactions from key constituents.

    Desired Skills & Experience

    Knowledge and experience normally acquired through, or equivalent to, the completion of a Master’s degree and a minimum of 3 – 7 years of job related experience.

    Ability to travel is required.

    Other information:

    This position requires access to confidential supervisory information, access to which is limited to “Protected Individuals” as defined by regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Protected Individuals include, but are not limited to, U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and lawful permanent resident aliens (also known as “green card holders”) who are eligible for and seeking United States citizenship within the requisite timeframes.

    All employees assigned to this position will be subject to an FBI fingerprint and criminal background check and Patriot Act and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) watch list checks at least once every five years.

    Principals only. No agencies please.

    Company Description

    As part of the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston promotes sound growth and financial stability in New England and the nation. The Bank contributes to local communities, the region, and the nation through its high-quality research, regulatory oversight, and financial services, and through its commitment to leadership and innovation.

    Additional Information
    Posted:April 20, 2012Type: Full-time Experience: Mid-Senior level Functions: Finance Industries: Financial Services Job ID:2899076Apply Now
    28 people have applied

    People Who Viewed This Job Also Viewed
    •Credit Analyst, Technology Banking Group at Bridge Bank
    •Research Associate – High Income Debt Securities at Fidelity
    •Portfolio Risk Manager at Litle & Co.
    •Fixed Income Credit Analyst at Citi
    •Consultant at The Corporate Finance Group
    •Senior Research Analyst, Institutional Asset Management at Cerulli Associates
    •Structured Credit Analyst – Fixed Income at Putnam Investments
    •Senior Analyst, Integration at Acadian Asset Management

  17. @Marik,

    If you go to the White House site (which you apparently have), it clearly states that any petition that obtains 25,000 signatures will be considered by Obama. I started one several months ago asking for a moratorium and told everyone to sign it. It never got 25,000 signatures.

    Here is the problem: people who already got foreclosed on and lost the house don’t want to get involved: for them it’s too late. What’s the point?

    People who are in a fight with the bank don’t want to get involved: what if it backfired and played against them?

    People who have filed suit have been strongly advised by their own attorneys not to make waves until their case is settled. And many people at risk haven’t come close enough to losing everything to feel the need to participate.

    That’s America for you. 10 million already lost their house and we can’t find a lousy 25,000 of them to sign a petition. Know why? Human nature. “Nobody was there for me when I went through it. I’ll be damned it I do anything for anyone else!”

    The fight will have to be without the White House. in fact, it will take place in courts via class actions. I was reading last night that class actions have sped up and increased since January 1st. Culminating with that Abeel v. BofA which will take forever to get class action certification. Once it does, they’re going to mushroom.

  18. Two months ago, I wrote to the White House that we needed A MORATORIUM ON FORECLOSURES AND EVICTIONS !
    No answer from that site ! 🙁

    F & E’s MUST stop – a complete halt, while everyone: Federal, State,
    Judicial, Counties – everyone can get on the same page, and figure out just what’s going on and how to best fix, facilitate, rework, reverse… FORECLOSURES

    Our governor, Jan Brewer, is trying to balance an AZ budget by ‘transferring’ $25 million from the fund set up to help pre and post forclosurees to provide MORE PRISON BEDS !

    Why are the people allowing ‘NOTHING TO HAPPEN’ ???

    PLEASE, stop the excess verbiage on this site and let’s figure out which politician, celebrity, or ? to figurehead our fight !

  19. Weeellll, if it wasn’t damned by me, it just slipped by; I certainly meant to damn it, MeDammit!!

  20. Wait a minute. Isn’t NC where the governor (o’Donnell, McDonnell, something Donnell) has been renamed “Vaginal Probe” for his stance on women? Makes sense that this would be happening there…

    For FireDogLake

    To protect Bank of America from inconvenience, Charlotte, North Carolina has directed its police officers to harass and arrest protesters. Unconstitutionally, in my opinion.

    Charlotte Sides With Bank of America Over People

    Charlotte has imposed special rules on a 2 block by 2 block square for 12 hours on Wednesday (May 9) to protect the Bank of America annual shareholder meeting from disruption by protesters. The rules apply to any “Extraordinary Event”, and were adopted nominally for the coming Democratic National Convention and city celebrations such as July 4. While the rules are poorly drafted and I believe facially unconstitutional regardless, imposing them for the BofA meeting seems overwhelmingly so. Extra restrictions for the July 4th celebration in the name of public safety is one thing; it’s an outdoor, public event hosted by the city for the benefit of its citizenry. The Democratic Convention is similarly easy to rationalize, given that the President and other national security targets will be there. But Bank of America’s shareholder meeting?

    This annual corporate event is private, indoors, and part of ordinary corporate business. Worse, law enforcement’s targets aren’t potential Presidential assassins or hooligans with a stash of illegal fireworks; they’re peaceful political protesters. Heck, the protesters will include dissident shareholders and their proxies who have every right to be at the meeting. Besides, BofA will have home field advantage: the meeting’s at its corporate headquarters.

    The recent experience of shareholder protests at Wells Fargo shows Bank of America executives, employees and shareholders are not in danger of anything except inconvenience. Nor did San Francisco police need special powers to handle the situation outside, while Wells handily managed the situation indoors–CEO John Stumpf’s pay package was approved in record time. Why is Charlotte helping BofA?

    Unfettered Police Discretion to Target “Undesirables”

    The establishment has always tried to silence dissent and enforce the social order by policing protesters as “disorderly” undesirables. During African-Americans’ civil rights struggles, Southern cops would arrest protesters using statutes that essentially let them pick their targets at will. The Supreme Court responded by saying unfettered police discretion is unconstitutional.

    Unfortunately, in the ensuing decades, the Supreme Court’s doctrine around political speech has degraded into a blunt weapon for enforcing the social justice status-quo, empowering the establishment to marginalize dissenting voices and magnify corporate speech. For example, protesters get penned into irrelevant, out of the way “Free Speech Zones” and corporations get unlimited freedom to spend money to elect their favorite “representatives.” (One of the banks’ more effective purchases has been Congressman Spencer Bauchus (R-AL), who chairs the House Financial Services Committee and who has publicly said that Washington exists to serve the banks.) In a way, the city’s imposition of the new rules for BofA’s benefit is just a step further down the line toward deploying state power against citizens for corporate benefit.

    How? Well, the rules render anyone near the Bank of America shareholder meeting criminally suspect for normal, harmless activities. As a result the new rules appear to give the police unlimited discretion to stop, frisk, arrest and search people–harass people–for nothing more than officers’ preconceived biases–profiling. Normally “profiling” means “racial profiling”, which is unconstitutionally stopping, frisking and/or searching someone because they’re black, since being black is inherently suspicious to many cops. Since race isn’t a proxy for protester status, what the new rules do is encourage “First Amendment Profiling”–targeting people for looking like protesters.

    Rule Specifics

    (As I detail what’s wrong with the rules, you can read along. The rules are codified in the City’s code at Chapter 15, Article XIV, Section 15-310 and seq. This link is easier to use, however.)

    For example, a person can be arrested for walking his dog near in the prohibited zone. Although this Charlotte blog claims residents needn’t worry, here’s the rule:

    “During the period of time and within the boundaries of an extraordinary event, it shall be unlawful for any person, other than governmental employees in the performance of their duties, to willfully or intentionally possess, carry, control or have immediate access to any of the following:

    …(17) An animal unless specifically allowed under the terms of a [parade permit] or is a service animal used to assist a person with a disability.”

    Maybe the blog is confident the police to “know” who they’re supposed to target, and that residents will be able to walk around unmolested. But that’s the kind of unlimited police discretion that’s unconstitutional.

    Dog walking isn’t the only innocent activity rendered suspect.

    People also can’t possess or have accessible “(5) A backpack, duffle bag, satchel, cooler or other item…” if they have “the intent to conceal weapons or other prohibited items”. Well, unless one’s bag is transparent and nearly empty, a person using it has the intent to “conceal” whatever is inside. So how well that intent requirement limits police discretion to arrest you for having a baghinges on what’s prohibited. Too bad the prohibited items include permanent markers (list of banned items at (4).)

    Permanent markers are so ordinary (see this Google shopping list) and so small that a cop might reasonably believe that anyone with a purse, briefcase or backpack is carrying a concealed permanent marker. That means anyone carrying any kind of bag or container is suspect. Where is the limit on police discretion?

    Specifically, what guides the cop in deciding whether to ask a purse-carrying woman for permission to search her purse? If she says no, what stops him from arresting her? When the wrongdoing is possessing a Sharpie, hat facts could rise to enough suspicion that he doesn’t need to ask to search? Is it enough that she’s dressed like an office worker?

    Also banned are Snapple bottles possessed with bad intent. Specifically, “(6) A glass or breakable container capable of being filled with a flammable or dangerous substance carried with the intent to inflict serious injury to a person or damage to property.” Will a cop think “sure, he’s just drinking the Snapple now, but he’s a protester, young, dressed in black with a pierced nose; looks angry. Maybe he’ll use the empty to make a Molotov cocktail. Better arrest him”?

    Bike helmets are prohibited too, if “(10)…carried or worn with the intent to delay, obstruct or resist the lawful orders of a law enforcement officer”. What does carrying a bike helmet with “the intent to delay…the lawful orders of a law enforcement officer” mean? (“Delay” must be different from “obstruct” or “resist” since all three are prohibited.) Perhaps it targets a woman who inexplicably plans on shoving a bike helmet onto a cop’s face, catcher’s mask style, as soon as he speaks. How should a bicyclist carry a bike helmet so she can convey only lawful intent? By studiously avoiding looking at the cop? Couldn’t that be suspicious too?

    To fully explore the rules’ absurdity, read them at the links above. The bottom line is this: for twelve hours, within a two block buffer zone around BofA headquarters, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina has told its police that any person carrying a purse, backpack, cooler, briefcase, bike helmet, Sharpie, and much else is suspect. If the suspects look like protesters, then Charlotte wants the cops to stop, question, perhaps frisk, perhaps search, and perhaps arrest them.

    These Rules Can’t Be Constitutional

    I’m not reading between the lines; the city’s explicit about targeting protesters. Speaking with station WCNC, the city reassured residents that while they might be stopped and questioned, only protesters would be targeted for punishment:

    CMPD Deputy Chief Harold Medlock said the main benefit to the designation is that it allows police officers to “interact” more with people.

    For example, if a person or group of people walks down the street with [prohibited items], an officer can’t normally do much about it, Medlock said.

    But with the extraordinary events designation, “It gives us the ability to come up and say, ‘Hey, where are you going with this?’” Medlock said. “If they tell us they’re going to the protest, we’ll tell them ‘No, you’re not.’” (bold mine)

    Note: I took out the word “crowbars” and put “[prohibited items]” in, because “crowbars” is misleading. The power exists, and can be used, for far more innocuous items. Deputy Chief Medlock uses “crowbars” to reassure people that the police are limited in sensible ways, when they’re not. For more on how the rules are aimed at protesters, see this Charlotte Observer article. Even the “residents can walk their dogs without fear” blog was clear on the point.

    While I think the new rules are unconstitutionally vague on their face, how could they be constitutional as applied to defend BofA against protesters? Perhaps in the July 4th context Charlotte can claim the rules regulate conduct, not speech, but the fact that on Wednesday cops will targeting protesters as protesters makes it seem the rules are aimed at speech. Worse; they’re aimed at certain speakers.

    If the rules are read as speech regulations, they seem even more clearly unconstitutional. The protesters are all anti-BofA, so isn’t enforcement content-based? Since disorderly conduct, trespass and other statutes could enable arrests for truly problematic protester conduct, how the new rules are “narrowly-tailored”? And what’s the compelling state interest being furthered? We haven’t yet reached the level of corporatism where preventing inconvenience to BofA can be called a compelling state interest.

  21. And just in case someone decided to get offended, “goddamn money” was the perfect epithet under the circumstance. Think about it: if, by now, it isn’t damned by God, i don’t know what is… 🙂

  22. What I’m saying is that the FEMA camps are really starting to make a lot of sense. One of theses days, i might even blurt: “Best goddamn money i ever spent…”

    Then again, I tend to always see the best in everything. Hope i didn’t get it all wrong!

  23. funny!

  24. I did like the stop sign analogy, though!

    Unfortunately, it, combined with the International Court/Bush reference reminded me of a regrettable incident a few years ago where I inadvertantly caused the death of 23 of my closest friends.

    We used to have “theme” halloween parties, where someone would select all of the costumes, turn out the lights, pass them out and not turn the lights back on until all announced they had donned theirs, and then see who could go the longest without their identity being guessed.

    It was my turn to bring costumes and thought it would be funny to give EVERYONE the same costume – Gorge W. Bush.

    Instead of instant laughter, a very odd and unpredictble thing happened…when eveyone saw that they were surrounded by visages of the Barking Chimp, each and every one of them immediately went onto a homocidal rage, ripping each other’s arms and legs off and proceeded to beat themselves to death with them.

    Oh, the humanity….

  25. @enraged

    Ok, so by all of that that you wrote, you are saying that media plays a large role in the mortgage fraud cover-up?


  26. For spring cleaning to be complete, it is said that one should: “Throw away, give away or put away.”

    Since no one wants him and we don’t hate anyone enough to whom give him away, i guess the other alternative will do just fine.

    Targeting Murdoch
    by Stephen Lendman

    Quelle surprise! Britain’s parliament discovered what media critics and people wanting real news and information knew decades ago.

    Murdoch’s world features demagoguery, managed news, scandal, sleaze, and warmongering. He’s the prototypical presstitute famed journalist George Seldes (1890 – 1995) denounced in books like “Lords of the Press.”

    He called them “the most powerful force against the general welfare of the majority of the people.” He exposed their tactics long before Project Censored.

    Major media scoundrels are villainous global pirates. Murdoch’s the worst of the bunch. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) once called Fox News “the most biased name in news….with its extraordinary right-wing tilt.”

    Viewing, it added, is like watching “a Harlem Globetrotters game (knowing) which side is supposed to win.” It’s hard-right, pro-business, pro-war, pro-occupation, anti-populist, sleazy and biased, combined with juiced-up infotainment and junk food news.

    It’s a virtual mouthpiece piece for extremist Republicans. It long ago stopped pretending it’s legitimate. It mocks real journalism. It’s not tolerated on air.

    Famed Chicago columnist Mike Royko (1932- 1997) once said “no self-respecting fish would (want to) be wrapped in a Murdoch paper….”

    Former Fox employees complain about management cooking the facts to make stories acceptable to right-wing audiences. Those unwilling to go along are fired. Former Bush aid Lee Atwater once said Fox boss Roger Ailes operates on “two speeds – attack and destroy.” He also demands programming conform to his views.

    Murdoch’s a force for evil, not good. Heir apparent son James was groomed to succeed him. He currently serves as News Corp. chairman and CEO. He’s part of its scandalous operations like his father.

    At age 82, Rupert nears retirement. It may come sooner than he wishes. James turns 40 in December. Whether he’ll ride out the storm remains to be seen. If he wasn’t Murdoch’s son he’d have been gone long ago.

    On May 1, the London Guardian headlined “Rupert Murdoch ‘not fit’ to lead major international company, MPs conclude,” saying:

    A parliamentary committee declared him “not a fit person” to run a major company. Its report also targeted James. At issue was last year’s News of the World phone-hacking affair.

    Last July, London Guardian writers Nick Davies and Amelia Hill broke the story. Milly Dowler and her family were victimized. Their voicemails were hacked.

    Related police corruption came out. So did information about Murdoch, James, as well as other executives and editors having private meetings with Prime Minister David Cameron never disclosed.

    Observers wondered if father and son would weather the storm. They’re still wondering. Tarnished and exposed, News Corp. retains clout. Readers, viewers, and shareholders will likely decide its future.

    Tuning it out makes it bleak. What UK, US, and other lawmakers decide remains unknown. More on that below.

    Guardian writers said “Labour MPs and the sole Liberal Democrat on the committee, Adrian Sanders, voted together in a bloc of six against the five Conservatives to insert (specific) criticisms of Rupert….and toughen up the remarks about his son James.”

    Other News International (NI) employees got harsher treatment. Language like “complicit” in a cover-up, deliberately withholding vital information, and falsely answering questions was used.

    For his part, Rupert didn’t “take steps to become fully informed about phone hacking.” He “turned a blind eye and exhibited willful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publication.”

    For decades, he’s been known as a hands-on boss. As a result, these accusations bite. The committee concluded that NI’s culture “permeated from the top.” It “speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International.”

    “We conclude, therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.”

    James was described as exhibiting a “lack of curiosity (and) willful ignorance even” when phone-hacking 2009 and 2010 settlement negotiations were ongoing.

    The committee added:

    “We would add to these admissions that as the head of a journalistic enterprise, we are astonished that James Murdoch did not seek more information or ask to see the evidence and counsel’s opinion when he was briefed by Tom Crone and Colin Myler on the Gordon Taylor case.”

    It steered clear of drawing conclusions on evidence about Milly Dowler because of an ongoing police phone hacking investigation. In March 2002, she was abducted and murdered.

    MPs said company executives showed contempt for parliament “in the most blatant fashion.” They willfully tried to obstruct and mislead.

    NI executive chairman Les Hinton was accused of “inexcusably” misleading MPs on his role in authorizing a 243,000 pound Clive Goodman payoff. Convicted of phone hacking, he formerly served as NI’s royal editor.

    “We consider, therefore, that (Hinton) was complicit in the cover-up at (NI), which included making misleading statements and giving a misleading picture to the committee,” MPs said.

    NI’s legal affairs manager Tom Crone and journalist/editor Colin Myler were also accused of deliberately concealing vital information from the committee. In addition, they lied when asked questions.

    Besides unresolved internal NI issues and legal ones, accused executives may be called before parliament to apologize. If so, they’ll be the first ones forced to in half a century.

    In response, they deny all accusations. A News Corp. statement said:

    “News Corporation is carefully reviewing the select committee’s report and will respond shortly. The company fully acknowledges significant wrongdoing at News of the World and apologises to everyone whose privacy was invaded.”

    A more detailed press release added:

    “Hard truths have emerged from the Select Committee Report: that there was serious wrongdoing at the News of the World; that our response to the wrongdoing was too slow and too defensive; and that some of our employees misled the Select Committee in 2009.”

    “News Corporation regrets, however, that the Select Committee’s analysis of the factual record was followed by some commentary that we, and indeed several members of the committee, consider unjustified and highly partisan. These remarks divided the members along party lines.”

    “We have already confronted and have acted on the failings documented in the Report: we have conducted internal reviews of operations at newspapers in the United Kingdom and indeed around the world, far beyond anything asked of us by the Metropolitan Police; we have volunteered any evidence of apparent wrongdoing to the authorities; and, we have instituted sweeping changes in our internal controls and our compliance programs on a world-wide basis, to help ensure that nothing like this ever happens again anywhere at News Corporation.”

    “As we move forward, our goal is to make certain that in every corner of the globe, our company acts in a manner of which our 50,000 employees and hundreds of thousands of shareholders can be justly proud.”

    UK media regulator Ofcom said:

    “We note the publication of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report. Ofcom has a duty under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 to be satisfied that any person holding a broadcasting licence is, and remains, fit and proper to do so.”

    “Ofcom is continuing to assess the evidence – including the new and emerging evidence – that may assist it in discharging these duties.”

    On May 1, the Guardian headlined, “Rupert Murdoch’s Fox broadcast licenses targeted by US ethics group,” saying:

    Citizens for Responsibility in Washington (CREW) wrote FCC chairman Julius Genachowski. It want Murdoch’s television licenses revoked on grounds of character. It cited UK parliament’s committee calling him “not a fit person” to run a major international company.

    CREW director Melanie Sloan said father and son failed the test US media law requires. “If they are not passing the character standard under British law, it seems to me that they are not going to meet (it) in America.”

    FCC regulations require broadcast licenses only given to people of good character who serve the “public interest” and speak with “candor.”

    By that standard, all US, UK, and most other Western media fail the test. FCC officials won’t likely act. US regulatory agencies don’t regulate corporate America. They serve it. Genachowski already suggested he won’t touch this.

    CREW hopes new information will force his hand. It also wants Congress to act. Bipartisan complicity will also steer clear. Murdoch’s safe in America. Britain’s another matter.

    New Corp. owns 39.1% of pay TV giant BSkyB. If Ofcom judges NI “not a fit and proper” owner, it may order Murdoch to sell part or all of his lucrative holding. Shuffling key management and editorial positions may minimize the damage. The rot starts at the top and filters down.

    Policy analyst Michael Pryce-Jones calls the “company in crisis.” It needs to shake things up quickly. Its board should act on a succession plan. Rupert “cannot stay on as CEO and chairman of this company.”

    If James wasn’t his son, he’d have been sacked months ago. Shareholders may have the last word. Readers and viewers can hold them accountable by tuning them out and walking away.

    Imagine the joy of a Murdoch free world. Imagine a better one freed from all scoundrel media. Imagine credible choices replacing them. It’s an idea whose time has come.


  27. STOP. Of course.

    My take on it is that media, while reporting a fair amount of the injustice, still leaves the general population with a vague notion of the realities of the bank criminal behavior. Most people still paying on their bogus mortgages don’t realize that the problem affects them until they are hit with job loss or some other event. Many folks still stand in judgment of those who even miss one payment.

    I just had a friend call me a bit ago stating: “What was the number for that attorney again? My mom just discovered that the bank she is making payments to does not own her loan!”
    I wanted to say, “Duh…” but I didn’t. I told them this two years ago.

    Viewers/readers thus get it in their minds that there are problems with these “loans” but that they are few and isolated cases. Because if there were the massive problems, certainly the criminal activities would have been stopped a long time ago. The problems are so darn widespread they are hard to believe and/or see for most.

    So, since most people don’t see any arrests going on( except for the innocent Occupiers), they think us whistle blower-types are full of hot air…that the problems don’t affect them…that we need to reach bottom…that we are trying to get something for nothing…that we are irresponsible…that we are crying over spilled milk…blah blah blah.

    They see or read about the AG’s/Bank settlement(s) and think it’s all being taken care of.

    If the illegal activities were actually stopped, then perhaps people would wake up sooner.

    No documentation. No loan.
    It’s simple.
    Why should the people compromise their integrity for those who don’t own our paperwork, have violated basic laws, who would not work with us, who continually stab us in the backs, who would do it all over again, who treat us badly and lie to us… Why would anyone re-contract with these clowns?
    What are banks losing??? What have they lost?? Nada.
    How are they damaged?? nada.

    People are motivated by fear of losing and out of ignorance of basic rights and laws. That’s all I can think of.

    Why would people, in their right minds, allow lawbreakers to put them into the position to be accomplices to bank fraud by compromising their integrity a second time? First time, we were innocent and signed papers that they converted into securities. Second time??

    Does not make sense to me.

    In fact, after financial audits show the dollar amounts of gain on our assets, we should be able to send them a bill and they either pay us or RELEASE any notion that they have an interest. They should not even have the right to assert they own anything in the first place without the proof.

    Yeah, how about we come up with new contracts that put banks on the defensive to RELEASE US from their shenanigans!

  28. Hmmm…
    What to make of that?

    From Randomhouse College dictionary:

    “War: a major armed conflit between nations of between organized parties within a state.”
    “Arms: weapons. Any instrument for attack or defense in a fight.”

    So, do wormy attorneys qualify as weapons…?

    Next question: does my friend Jamie qualify as a war criminal? What about his buddies, those Moynihan and cohort? Blankfein? Check! Stumpf? Check. Geithner? Check. Holder? Check!

    Boy Oh boy!This is getting good…!!!

    Obama Rejoins International Criminal Court,
    US No Longer “Rogue” State

    From: Veterans Today

    American War Criminals Now Subject To Laws US Enforces on Others
    by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

    In a surprise move, President Obama signed an executive order rejoining the International Criminal Court, an organization established originally by the United State to enforce international law and punish war criminals.

    The US left the court under Bush in order to protect those responsible for kidnapping, drug running and torture.

    They may now be arrested, even if American office holders or members of the military or CIA, which, oddly enough, many of those responsible for such heinous crimes are.

    Almost all facing prosecution are, curiously enough, members of the Republican Party and are trying to spin a return to freedom and justice as America giving up rights. The only right sacrificed are the rights some of the 1% and key officials had to murder, rape, steal and run drugs.

    They may now be arrested under the same laws that applied to Gaddafi, Saddam and other “war criminals” that America has seen fit to bring to justice.

    A careful read of one of the trickiest documents I have ever seen limits arrests of US elected officials as long as they are in office. Language protecting the military is less clear if not clear at all.
    In doing so, Obama even puts himself at risk but the risk is far higher to Ashcroft, Gonzales, McCain, Lieberman, Bush (all), Cheney and a list of war criminals who may number in the thousands.

    As to how far the ICC is willing to go is questionable. The organization tends to arrest only those of dark skin or targets of American foreign policy.

    Perhaps that will change with the Arab Spring and elections in Europe which has gotten rid of some and may eventually remove nearly all the old leaders, most of whom are potential suspects in war crimes.

    When we see Interpol put the cuffs on McCain and Lieberman and “perp walk” them out of the Senate, we will know we may get America back.

  29. At least at first blush, it sounds like you’re giving up the fight for strict legal accountability and deciding to make a settlement offer, and one which still improperly enriches these assholes – which I find a bit odd considering the worm seems to have turned, to a very large degree, and across the board – even in the courts.

    Personally, I smell blood and see this as the time to bring the fight, not back down.

    Again, just at first blush, and if my premise is correct, taking the fight straight to them and giving them the high hard one in court like they’ve previously been giving us, and at the same time going after the AG’s and legislators that have not done their job would be the most expedient and beneficial method to bring this to a quick halt.

    Creating such an environment and structure for your idea to be implemented would take years and only serve to further drag this thing out, and seemingly only inured to the benefit of those who are profiting from the process.

    What else is new…

  30. The better question is: “Who do we have in this country with the will and the guts to pull it off?” Neil, you mentioned a couple of days ago the need to put in place a strong man.

    I’m still aiting for your answer: who do you have in mind? ‘Cuz i don’t know if you’ve noticed but there ain’t nobody…

  31. What Neil does not comment on is yet one more underlying question: “Just WHO are these people that are working within these corporate entities that are doing all this stealing of property?”

    The answer is perfectly straightforward: they are about 3,000 individuals, virtually all men, all of one group, and all commute in from the suburbs of NYC. Do you know who they are? I do. They do. And they are afraid – of you. I have it one one report that these people are all packing heat, without permits of course, afraid for The Retribution. And they have hired an entire contingent of NYPD to barricade their precinct on Wall Street to turn it into a fortress – the first line of militarized defense against The Retribution.

    If you go back to the 1940’s, when few New Yorkers had autos, the outlying lake resorts – small hotels and cottage compounds in those days – would have signs at the curb, and on the bottom in smaller but red-painted letters was the word “Restricted.” And that was not directed towards blacks, who had no money for autos in those days.

    The progeny of that group were determined that never again would they be locked out of the pattern of wealth in this country, and to ensure that, the 3,000 proceeded to set up criminal enterprises such as securitization in order to vastly enrich themselves at the expense of the goyem. Do they anticipate The Retribution? I leave it to you to figure that one out.

  32. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: attorney workbook, Case/Schiller, derivatives, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, French aristocracy, Gross Domestic Product, home ownership, homeownership low, housing market, housing prices, Mortgage, TBTF, the reason Wall Street exists, Treatise & Practice Manuel Livinglies’s Weblog […]

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: