Editor’s Note: Great article from Truth-Out. See the link below.

While I agree in principle with the idea of eminent domain, and like I said this morning it might be a good idea, I wonder if problems will be solved as efficiently as simply outright seizure of the mortgages because of illegal acts committed.

Efficiency comes into play and will inevitably raise its ugly head if and when eminent domain is first attempted. The city, county or State will have the same problem as the rest of us, including the courts. In eminent domain, the stakeholders must be paid fair market value of what is being seized. Fair market value might be a rather knotty problem as it converges with the issue of the corruption of title.

Who will the government pay? Who are the stakeholders? And if the mortgage is not a valid lien, then what is the value of an unsecured obligation owed to unknown parties some of whom were co-obligors on the total obligation when it was originated?

Yet the prospect of using eminent domain does sound rather appealing as a ground leveler and it puts the burden on the government to first suggest the value, and then switches the burden to the other side. The other side is going to be multiple stakeholders, none of whom can prove a loan receivable account. What then? Perhaps an escrow account, with a window of opportunity to make a claim. I would predict that in places that are home to governments not indebted to banks, there might not be any claimants.

The second hair-splitting problem is whether the government will seize the mortgage and the note or just the mortgage. There is wide divergence of opinion in my own head as to the outcome of that. So I would imagine the issue would be quite thorny in courts across the country.

Then there is the Judge that hears the case, whether he or she is appointed or elected and what type of voting demographics are present. In strong republican areas it is likely the Judge will be less than thrilled at giving the homeowner a bonus and throwing the bonus to parties presenting themselves illegally as stakeholders or creditors.

But the big benefit, as I have mentioned before is that in litigation over the eminent domain (a) the power to do it seems unquestionable and (b) the only issue is value and how the government will finance the purchase of the mortgages. In cases where institution is pitted against institution, reason has prevailed and the law has been applied even in Kansas.

We might yet see the end of this madness. It depends upon whether you will get activated and start writing letters and making calls and organizing others to do the same. Officials are not likely to take this action unless they believe there is strong public support behind it and they are convinced it is the right thing to do. We must continue to be vigilant about moral hazard, as it is quite likely that the banks will attempt to come in through the back door on the financing side of these purchases, screwing things up even further.



106 Responses

  1. 実際には最小のものとして考えることができる化粧品と同じである

  2. @ ivent am signed up how do I find you?

  3. @1ofthemany…..do you visit FH?

  4. @Ivent do you have a contact info you will share, I have seen you in 4closure and felt and live your anger, do you want to communicate?? I will come back and see if you have replied. If so we can move this forward.

  5. Check out this petition America….. http://www.petitiononline.com/ConsViol/petition.html

  6. I should have said, the goldbacked dollar will allow the crooks to put a _complete_ stranglehold on the economy. We need our own currency.

  7. The Republicons are planning on pushing the Gold backed dollar scam reports bloomberg news. That will put a stranglehold on the U.S. economy. We need to stop the bailouts, sue the crooks, we need a referendum on the 2012 ballot to restore the U.S.C. and issue our own currency, U.S. BANK NOTES issued by State banks. Abolish the FED.

  8. We The People need to sue the Federal Reserve Bank, a private bank. They have quintillions of our wealth and other ill gotten gains hidden overseas. The Federal Reserve should never be allowed to borrow another dime of U.S. TAXPAYER money, issue and sell investments in their credit scams, or ever do business in this country ever again. The FED dishonored all of us. They need to be abolished.

  9. E. Tolle… and DC..I agree with both of you. I have been told by the State AG ‘s office there is fraud in every mortgage …and on another occasion that fraud is hard to prove. Well the intent to deceive is criminal and there is proof we were all set up to fail. Ask them for all records pertaining to any relevant Credit Default Swap Certificates, all relevant ledger records, all records regarding any collateralized debt obligations..they need a General Accounting Ledger as well…among many other things. Bottom line…they don’t have them because they committed soo much fraud with our signatures the mortgages are insolvent. The whole “free house” thing is a mind game theory along with “someone ” is owed this money…the people need to be informed that the U.S. Treasury is owed gazillions by the FED because they stole it. Time for the robbery of the people and their whole charade to end. They did way too much damage and their debts are massive and can never be repaid.

  10. I spent many years in association with various govt affairs –legislative activities. Iv seen many nefarious legislative undertakings. it is not uncommon for special interests–usually through trade organizations to pass blatantly unconstitutional statutes. The Due Process clause is a rule that suggests it is irrational to be the only state to facilitate denial of rights—gotta plead it—i dont know how to reopen once the events are done–and thats part of the cynacal legislative design–dont care if its unconstitional if it buys time

  11. @ Ivent, fraud is a really tough argument. CR 9(b) requires dismissal when a complaint fails to plead fraud with particularity. Who-what-when-where-how is a tough sell on a judge who is convinced that you took out a loan and are trying to get a free house, not to mention that he plays golf with the scumbag attorney for [fill in the bank].

    And the mention of securities instantly triggers the “you have no rights to discuss what goes on between the mortgagee and the investor line. Believe me, I know where you’re coming from, and it’s all quite logical, but the state of affairs here isn’t.

    A local attorney who’s persistently been attacking on some of these fronts is up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $235K in sanctions, as well as every major bank and MERS fees awarded as well. And they’re not through with him yet.

    It’s the wild wild midwest.

  12. I should say_ if _you show up to court and know the rules they have to follow the rules.

  13. @ dcbreidenbach, that “case law” I cited is, believe it or not, the MN Supreme Court. And yes, UCC applies, or at least should. So too PSAs. The problem is that due to the MERS statute that I referred to, combined with this opaque Jackson ruling, all the lawyers in MN, and therefore, all the judges as well totally buy into the MERS is the mortgagee and can do as it pleases meme. And then when MERS no longer needs to be the sole mortgagee, it becomes a mere nominee….presto-chango.

    But back to the splitting of the note and deed, I know of no other state that seems to actually embrace that bullshit. As in this pretzel logic, “Thus, Chase was the party entitled to commence a foreclosure by advertisement under Minnesota law, even if the promissory note (and the corresponding equitable interest in the mortgage) had been transferred to someone else.” And further down, “Minnesota law did not require Chase to possess Stein’s promissory note at the time it commenced foreclosure by advertisement….”

    To make matters much worse, everyone here believes, and the courts have backed this belief up, that MERS needs NO principal relationship whatsoever in order to do anything it likes. This is where it gets really crazy, from a different case:

    The Kebassos next argue that the assignment is defective because MERS had no independent authority to assign the mortgage or the note and the assignment was not authorized by the lender. The court disagrees. The mortgage expressly authorizes MERS “to exercise any or all of [Lender’s] interests” and “to take any action required of Lender.” The mortgage does not qualify MERS’ authority or otherwise require that MERS receive express authorization from the lender before acting. Moreover, “as a result of questions raised about the MERS System [authority to act on behalf of its members], the Minnesota Legislature passed an amendment … frequently called ‘the MERS statute.’” The statute provides that:

    An assignment … is sufficient to assign …a mortgage if:

    (1) a mortgage is granted to a mortgagee as
    nominee or agent for a third party identified
    in the mortgage, and the third party’s
    successors and assigns;

    (2) a subsequent assignment … is executed by
    the mortgagee or the third party, its
    successors or assigns; and

    (3) the assignment … is in recordable form.

    Minn. Stat. § 507.413 (emphasis added). The plain language of the statute does not require authorization from the lender before the
    mortgagee can assign the mortgage.

    Can you tell which part of that was written by MERS? Maybe like the whole damned statute? Now going off that piece of tortured language, and knowing what we all know about anyone being able to access MERS database, anyone of the tens of thousands of so-called MERS signers can get into the MERS database and take your home, and you can’t say a damned thing about it, because all rights to contest it have been legislatively reduced to ashes by the MERS bill writing/campaign funding team. And you can’t even get your note voided after foreclosure, as you have no rights to that line of questioning, remember from above? I foresee multiple foreclosures going on for decades on the very same properties. But hey, the judges, the legislators, and the lobbyists all made out like bandits while the getting was good!

    So, when you combine the ridiculous bifurcation acceptance of the judiciary along with the legislative sellout in this statute, you have a extraordinary lack of protections in place for the populace, save for the overpopulated lobby that hangs out in St. Paul with handfuls of cash stuffed in envelopes with lawmakers names penciled on the flaps.

  14. @Dc….they have to follow the FRCP in my state. They have to prove up the chain to be granted the foreclosure. Bayview v Nelson was won in appeals court in 2008. The Judge ruled no assignment is a nullity for the third party debt collector. I am assuming Judges will accept anything as the chain if you don’t know what they are supposed to have. Most Americans don’t even know what a legal assignment looks like. I told the Judge last time I was in court there was no trust agreement attached to the complaint. He seemed shocked at my request. So far the “lender ” has not produced a doc I have requested. The servicer has since sent me a Supreme Court Rule 216 request for me to admit to a debt. I responded I have no knowledge of them and I deny all of their claims. Now they are halling me to court saying they “never” got my response. I have signed proof they did. They won’t return my calls. I am going to file a motion to compel soon….it is up to all of us to make a stand. Their fraud is despicable.

  15. @E. Tolle..What about the fraud in the mortgage contract? There is more to it than the notes. They broke innumerable laws. Foreclosure alone is unconstitutional. The U.S.C says they can only take money in exchange for debt…not property. I agree most people aren’t even showing up to Court or they are going along with the fraudulently induced contract and all of the fraudulent fixes for fraud. What about a Fraud and Deceptive Practices Countercomplaint? There has to be fraud somewhere you can prove like color of title…RICO….uttering forged instruments and counterfeiting of securuties if there is no legal assignment. I heard from a local attorney the most important thing to do is get out of foreclosure court on a technicality. Then you can sue to quiet title. The attorney also said you can appeal a bad ruling by a Judge who is not upholding the rule of law. These are all third party debt collectors who cannot legally take property in exchange for a debt if they can’t prove the original loan was repaid. They can’t, because it wasn’t.

  16. @Ivent

    Im not sure of the details of this case–know nothing about Minnesota law—–however it would seem to me that it would be a due process clause violation to deny the homeowner a procedural route to use the value/proceeds of the mortgage liquidation against the amount owed on the note—-this conlaw issue must be argued up front —i would be joining everybody touching the loan in any way–either note or mortgage—although this procedural cicus is a good policy reason to justify the unified interest—some how that note must be satisfied—

  17. @ET: you cited a minnesota case;
    ““case law establishes that a party can hold legal title (mortgage) to the security instrument without holding an interest in the promissory note.” As a result, “any disputes that arise between the mortgagee holding legal title and the assignee of the promissory note holding equitable title do not affect the status of the mortgagor for purposes of foreclosure by advertisement.”

    I am having a hard time with the concept of satisfaction of note. If PARTY A “holds” the note [I assume Minessota adopted UCC–or is that application gone in the case of residencial real estate. How does one manage to get a note back marked “paid in full”? Is there a statutory requirement that the holder of note be made a party? Is that what the homeowner needs to do –file a complaint naming the mortgagee and the holder of the note—–the homeowner has to ask the collection agency chasing the MERS mortgage who the note-holder is–and join it?

    how does this work ET?

    Does MERS then assume liability if it permits a siezure by the wrong party—then the sleeping holder –or a HDC buyer of junk notes by the pound says “heres my HDC original note–pay me?”

    what does one do? house gone and now somebody wants the deficiency–or the whole thing—–how does a borrower get credit for the house that was taken?

  18. Ivent, Minnesota has one wheel on the road and three in the ditch. Judicially, it’s a creditor’s paradise, where a mother walking down the street with her two kids is handcuffed and thrown in jail for a credit card debt where the vultures who paid pennies for the debt never even served her. This is fact.

    As to mortgages, here’s the court’s take on that:

    Indeed, it is frivolous under Minnesota law, given the unambiguous holding of Jackson v. MERS (Minn. 2009), that Minnesota “case law establishes that a party can hold legal title (mortgage) to the security instrument without holding an interest in the promissory note.” As a result, “any disputes that arise between the mortgagee holding legal title and the assignee of the promissory note holding equitable title do not affect the status of the mortgagor for purposes of foreclosure by advertisement.”

    “….a mortgagee is “entitled to commence a foreclosure by advertisement under Minnesota law, even if the promissory note (and the corresponding equitable interest in the mortgage) had been transferred to someone else.” Can you say bifurcation? Carpenter v. Longan be damned!

    Try getting around that. The FIRE lobby has this place sown up tight. And MERS does really well here, in that MERS was able to ship in their own attorneys to write their very own statute here back in 2004, legitimizing their acts.

    The AG won’t act. MN congress-critters are a laughing stock. Few, if any, are fighting here. It’s a lost cause. Fraudulent assignments rule the day. It’s a feeding frenzy, and borrowers are the chum.

  19. E. Tolle….I saw your comment after I made mine. I realize this is serious, but the judges don’t even want to hear about the note? That is bold faced treason.

  20. @E.Tolle…..pardon me, but you seem rather alloof about that declaration. Do you understand what you are saying? Because it sounds as if you are saying even people who get it are being kicked out of their properties and that is damned serious.

  21. @ Ivent, I’m saying it’s completely out of control, and we need to get it back. If you even mention the note in my state, you’re tossed. It really is that simple, and wrong.

  22. @E Tolle…So you are saying it is a Completely Communist country and we are allowing it?

  23. @ Enraged, you’re forgiven, without prejudice. But I’ll retain the freedom to amend that forgiveness grant after reading your future comments. 🙂

  24. ToLLe,

    As usual, I stand corrected… So much to read all the time and so little to do it! That’s why i can relate to those judges with short attention span…

  25. @ Enraged, that is good news….however, it wasn’t dismissed with prejudice, it was without leave to amend.

    @ Ivent, you make a good claim, but tell it to the judge. They really don’t give a shit and they’ll introduce you to the parking lot in short order, at least where I come from.

  26. I should say the dispute is between the American people and the Federal Reserve though the IMF and other foreign entities latched on to our property like blood sucking leaches by fraudulently investing in Fannie Mae. The FEDERAL RESERVE got paid at the ORIGINATION and never paid back the Treasury. Any transfers or sales after that were improper and illegal. Therefore, because of the Origination Fraud their contracts are null and void and of no legal force or effect.

  27. BTW..The dispute is NOT between the State and the Federal Government. The dispute is between the Federal Government and the so called debtor. The banks committed fraud in OUR NAMES with OUR SIGNATURES….Mayor Emanuel said last week, Chicago will not be participating in seizing mortgages under eminent domain. I read it was Alderman Burke’s big idea. That’s what happens when a politician has power for over 40 years. They believe they are above the law.

  28. @dcbreidenbach…..the title holders of record are all of us. That’s what the property records say. Unless you don’t show up to fight. They don’t have the notes. The only way the foreclosure claimants can prove injury is if the so called debtor confesses to the debt. Presenting a copy of a note with no legal assignment is uttering forged instruments and counterfeiting. If the bank is suing to enforce a note and foreclose on property, if the bank sold (transferred) the note, the bank lost the right to enforce the note as holder. UCC 3-309(a) (2). There are many aspects to this feudalism, such as, there is fraud in every aspect of the contract. There are 2 legal aspects to a signature. The disclosure is as important as the scratching of the signature. “informed validation and attestation of the verity of all of the elements of the transaction.” They did not disclose every aspect of the loan transaction. That is altering of the instrument. That is deception. An attempt to deceive is criminal. We did not sign and agree to those contracts. If someone by false representations, orchestrated a situation where into you enter an agreement without full comprehension of all of the elements involved in the transaction, you are not liable to the provisions of that agreement. Property is not money and it is not lawful to take property in exchange for a debt in the U.S…. NONE of the parties can prove they lent us any money or paid back the Treasury because they didn’t. Therefore, any transfers were and are improper and illegal. That goes for the State, the FED or anyone else. Unless we live in a complete communist country of course.

  29. JG,

    Don’t despair: even if it doesn’t look like it, things are moving in the right direction. I keep saying that when we give the adversaries 30 or 40 years to perfect their con, we have to give ourselves at least that long to undo it. It’s called fairness.

    Here is a good win by Mark Stopa. MSJ won WITH prejudice. The guy is, understandably, gloating. I posted it on another page but LL yanked it out. Maybe Neil wanted to use it for himself…


    The case is Citimortgage v. Pownall – FL 6th circuit court.

  30. fwiw – i meant i haven’t read the pro se win linked by think it was enraged. D/l’d it. Anybody read it yet? We need some good news around here, even if it’s only temporary.
    enraged, I have either lost my touch at research or this is very funky. i wanted to support my assertion that it must be the last, not current, noteowner to command an assgt of the dot. Why i want to do this is because this means it can’t be the trustee of the secn trust, the alleged current noteowner on behalf of the trust, commanding an assgt. Not that they do, anyway, but that’s part of the bankster’s game. I stuck in prior to l995 and got like all of 2 hits. You know if I look after l995 ish all I am going to get is 47 different takes on dots with mers in them which will not address the querry.

  31. @dcb re; eating pension by banks. I got a hint of it around here but read only one article. Didn’t read any more. Don’t want to believe it actually says that. It takes an awful lot of time just to stay abreast, and that doesn’t count the time and effort to pursue challenges to any of it. We need coordination. We need an army. We need something
    before this blog and others like it become the property of the banks. Or maybe they’d like this soda I’m sipping. Maybe they’d like fries with their orders.
    Almost every time I get stoked about a case, it’s not as advertized or if i follow it, it gets overturned. Haven’t read that one yet. Had to put it on my list. Just in here looking for something. But, I did stumble on another article about the FDIC’s THREE suits which was a shot of sunshine. If they settle those cases I swear …Never mind. We need a campaign to see that they don’t’ settle. I hate to keep copping out, but I truly don’t’ have the energy to lead any charges like that if I were
    otherwise capable. I think and I am not kidding that we should take out full page ads in well-circulated publications denouncing any settlements and lack of appropriate criminal charges. We have to be heard. These FDIC suits provide a shot at it. If someone, say someone whose name we rec, like Weidner or Abigail or a few of them working together, and there goes my memory, would write it, I could muster the energy to get the publications worked on and get some other essentials in place. If not now, when?

  32. @IVENT

    You are right: Equity abhors a forfeiture. The exception arises when a thief be caught with loot in hand. So the thief being loaded down with stolen goods for which he can show no proof of purchase, no receipt, no record of payment holds the booty with the names of deceased persons ethed upon the goods. Now he is a thief, and the owner is dead or unknown. What do we do with the thief and his stolen goods?

    The state rightfully siezes them by escheat–which every state does every day now——a cousin of eminent domain.

  33. DCB,

    Didn’t Jamie Dimon just collect $23 millions for having lost billions in the UK? Check the most recent LL post.

  34. @ENRAGED
    “Depositors in other countries raced to pull their money out of Icelandic banks. The government didn’t have the resources for a bailout; the banks failed. The government did guarantee that Icelanders would not lose the money in their savings accounts, but other financial assets — including the many investment funds that the banks offered — plummeted in value, and many ordinary Icelanders lost large sums that they believed were safely invested.”

    as I understand the current state of the law from the Fed 7th Circuit, in the US after this month—banks get priority over widows orphans and grannies—the little guys are officially prey with the hunting season just opened with no bag limit. FDIC considering whether to offer a bounty payable to the lead bank for every person forced into bankruptcy.

    7th Circuit: $312M Loan In Sentinel Bankruptcy Not Obtained Through Fraud
    CHICAGO – A panel of the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 9 ruled that the liquidation trustee in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding of an investment management company failed to show that fraud had been committed in connection with a $312 million loan it obtained from the Bank of New York Mellon (In Re: Sentinel Management Group Inc., No. 11-1123, Chapter 11, 7th Cir.).

    This decision should be seriously shaking the entire investor world–that is the ones who play by the rules. The bad ones get paid out right before the filing ala MF Global. I guess for Corzine, this means he should get the larger chateau

  35. DCB,

    I got my post from fringe. Here is the NY times one, 3 days later. Fringe always comes up with the news ahead of time… Then, if it’s not considered too revolutionary, it may end up being picked up by MSM.


  36. @ENRAGED—–Where did this iceland thing come from? I missed the weekend Financial Times—–mustv been back page or something

  37. We may not do it right away but people learn from example….

    GLOBAL ELITES THROWN OUT OF ICELAND: Iceland Dismantles Corrupt Gov’t Then Arrests All Rothschild Bankers
    June 18th, 2012 | Author: The Meister

    Since the 1900′s the vast majority of the American population has dreamed about saying “NO” to the Unconstitutional, corrupt, Rothschild/Rockefeller banking criminals, but no one has dared to do so. Why? If just half of our Nation, and the “1%”, who pay the majority of the taxes, just said NO MORE! Our Gov’t would literally change over night. Why is it so hard, for some people to understand, that by simply NOT giving your money, to large Corporations, who then send jobs, Intellectual Property, etc. offshore and promote anti-Constitutional rights… You will accomplish more, than if you used violence. In other words… RESEARCH WHERE YOU ARE SENDING EVERY SINGLE PENNY!!! Is that so hard? The truth of the matter is… No one, except the Icelanders, have to been the only culture on the planet to carry out this successfully. Not only have they been successful, at overthrowing the corrupt Gov’t, they’ve drafted a Constitution, that will stop this from happening ever again. That’s not the best part… The best part, is that they have arrested ALL Rothschild/Rockefeller banking puppets, responsible for the Country’s economic Chaos and meltdown.

    Last week 9 people were arrested in London and Reykjavik for their possible responsibility for Iceland’s financial collapse in 2008, a deep crisis which developed into an unprecedented public reaction that is changing the country’s direction.

    It has been a revolution without weapons in Iceland, the country that hosts the world’s oldest democracy (since 930), and whose citizens have managed to effect change by going on demonstrations and banging pots and pans. Why have the rest of the Western countries not even heard about it?

    Pressure from Icelandic citizens’ has managed not only to bring down a government, but also begin the drafting of a new constitution (in process) and is seeking to put in jail those bankers responsible for the financial crisis in the country. As the saying goes, if you ask for things politely it is much easier to get them.

    This quiet revolutionary process has its origins in 2008 when the Icelandic government decided to nationalise the three largest banks, Landsbanki, Kaupthing and Glitnir, whose clients were mainly British, and North and South American.

    After the State took over, the official currency (krona) plummeted and the stock market suspended its activity after a 76% collapse. Iceland was becoming bankrupt and to save the situation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) injected U.S. $ 2,100 million and the Nordic countries helped with another 2,500 million.

    Great little victories of ordinary people

    While banks and local and foreign authorities were desperately seeking economic solutions, the Icelandic people took to the streets and their persistent daily demonstrations outside parliament in Reykjavik prompted the resignation of the conservative Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde and his entire government.

    Citizens demanded, in addition, to convene early elections, and they succeeded. In April a coalition government was elected, formed by the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left Green Movement, headed by a new Prime Minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir.

    Throughout 2009 the Icelandic economy continued to be in a precarious situation (at the end of the year the GDP had dropped by 7%) but, despite this, the Parliament proposed to repay the debt to Britain and the Netherlands with a payment of 3,500 million Euros, a sum to be paid every month by Icelandic families for 15 years at 5.5% interest.

    The move sparked anger again in the Icelanders, who returned to the streets demanding that, at least, that decision was put to a referendum. Another big small victory for the street protests: in March 2010 that vote was held and an overwhelming 93% of the population refused to repay the debt, at least with those conditions.

    This forced the creditors to rethink the deal and improve it, offering 3% interest and payment over 37 years. Not even that was enough. The current president, on seeing that Parliament approved the agreement by a narrow margin, decided last month not to approve it and to call on the Icelandic people to vote in a referendum so that they would have the last word.

    The bankers are fleeing in fear

    Returning to the tense situation in 2010, while the Icelanders were refusing to pay a debt incurred by financial sharks without consultation, the coalition government had launched an investigation to determine legal responsibilities for the fatal economic crisis and had already arrested several bankers and top executives closely linked to high risk operations.

    Interpol, meanwhile, had issued an international arrest warrant against Sigurdur Einarsson, former president of one of the banks. This situation led scared bankers and executives to leave the country en masse.

    In this context of crisis, an assembly was elected to draft a new constitution that would reflect the lessons learned and replace the current one, inspired by the Danish constitution.

    To do this, instead of calling experts and politicians, Iceland decided to appeal directly to the people, after all they have sovereign power over the law. More than 500 Icelanders presented themselves as candidates to participate in this exercise in direct democracy and write a new constitution. 25 of them, without party affiliations, including lawyers, students, journalists, farmers and trade union representatives were elected.

    Among other developments, this constitution will call for the protection, like no other, of freedom of information and expression in the so-called Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, in a bill that aims to make the country a safe haven for investigative journalism and freedom of information, where sources, journalists and Internet providers that host news reporting are protected.

    The people, for once, will decide the future of the country while bankers and politicians witness the transformation of a nation from the sidelines.

  38. We need a referendum on the ballot for the 2012 election to restore the U.S.C. to its original form and issue our own currency. Then we need to elect American Patriots starting at the local level on up.

  39. It’s going to blow… Too many states and countries have lost too much for it not to blow. ToLLe, prepare your hammer and your nails. We’ll need to set up the gallows soon.

    22 Aug 2012 at 9:30 AM
    Opening Bell

    Opening Bell: 08.22.12
    By Dealbreaker

    Public Pension Funds Named To Lead ‘London Whale’ Lawsuit (Bloomberg)
    U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan ruled today that lawsuits against the New York-based bank should be consolidated into a class action. The pension funds allege they lost as much as $52 million because of fraudulent activities by JPMorgan’s London chief investment office. The lead plaintiffs named by Daniels are the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Ohio Public Employee Retirement System, School Employees Retirement System of Ohio, State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund and the Swedish pension fund Sjunde AP-Fonden.

  40. DCB,

    No, no need to apologize, please. I found it funny actually that you would quote something that, definitely, isn’t main street media. It was so… out of character for someone as “by-the-book” as you are. Then again, it tells me that no one trusts anyone anymore, and especially not government and the media. We all resort to seeking information anywhere we can find it except there.

    Sad, sad state of affairs. It will blow. I don’t see any way out. Not anymore.

  41. Right on Ivent. Well said.

    We’d best start thinking about how to oppose every single one of THEIR fixes, because they all just sweep the criminality under the rug, and that just won’t do. Every single criminal act needs to be prosecuted, if it takes until the sun burns out.

  42. May I add the banks sold investments while WE THE PEOPLE held legal title to all property… That is criminal. That is why the Country is not recovering. We keep bailing out these crooks and they keep pocketing our money and property and not paying their debts to US.

  43. Eminent Domain in the case of the State seizing mortgages smells like fascism. It is another fraudulent fix for fraud and a clear attempt to overthrow the rule of law. The rule of law must be upheld Nationwide. If the banks never paid the Treasury back for their loans, and sold investors an empty bag and then collected payments and fees in the form of usury from the American people, they committed heinous criminal acts. They dishonored the American people. Not the State or anyone else deserves a dime. The rule of law must be upheld for all.

  44. Chase has been duping courts and borrowers across the land with their WAMU deal.

    The mortgagors filed suit to, among other things, set aside the foreclosure sale, arguing that JPM failed to satisfy the statutory requirements to foreclose by advertisement because it failed to record evidence of its mortgage interest prior to the sale. The trial court disagreed and, relying on a Michigan Attorney General Opinion, determined that JPM was not required to record its interest before the sale because JPM acquired its interest by operation of law through the FDIC receivership.

    The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and held that there is no exception, for a mortgage interest ,which is acquired by operation of law, to the requirements of M.C.L. 600.3204 that states in part:

    If the party foreclosing a mortgage by advertisement is not the original mortgagee, a record chain of title shall exist prior to the date of sale under section 3216 evidencing the assignment of the mortgage to the party foreclosing the mortgage.

    The appellate court further rejected JPM’s argument that it acquired the mortgage loan “by operation of law” under 12 U.S.C. 1821. While the court found that the FDIC succeeded the interests of the failed institution and acquired WAMU’s mortgage loans by operation of law, JPM simply purchased these mortgage loans after they were transferred to the FDIC by operation of law. Because JPM failed to record evidence of the assignment of the mortgage loan and simply relied upon WAMU’s place in the chain of title, the appellate court found that JPM failed to comply with the statute’s requirements and that the foreclosure sale was void.

  45. JG,

    I’m afraid you’re not misunderstanding because… I understand it as you do: by way of the FDIC, Chase became a debt collector and nothing more and even then, without a complete schedule of the alleged debts, I can see a number of UCC breaches in that transfer that isn’t really a transfer… FDIC did nothing more than what MERS was doing. Except that I expect it to be much, much more difficult to fight since it was with the blessing of congress.

    When government started poking its nose into mortgages, student loans and anything else without keeping control over any of it, the stage was set for disaster!

    Time to completely rethink the role of our government and our laws. otherwise, we are toast. For good!

  46. @JG
    Did you see this latest bank scam of investors. BNY vs pension funds in context of broker diversion of proceeds of cutomer investment accounts–ie I think there were stocks etc that the pensioers thought they held in segregated accounts. This should be the number 1 fear of any small investor–or pensioer–or owner of an IRA. MFGlobal and Perrigrine will likely follow this precedent. Do you know where your money sleeps tonite?


  47. @enraged – a company can transfer loans in bulk, I suppose, and as regarding the notes, pursuant to some article of the UCC or another, I’d hazard. FDIC: “Without assignment”, etc. Okay, but the identification of those loans still remains in question. Whose to say Wamu hadn’t already sold some of the unidentified loans when the FDIC got in the act? Or grabbed a few notes on the way out the door? Or any number of possibilities? If the FDIC itself had a finite list, MAYbe there would be some available reliance on the agreement between the FDIC and JPM. But an affidavit? I must still misunderstand. But that’s okay.

  48. You know, we are all looking at any threat as being internal…….

  49. JG:

    LL won’t allow me to post the link to that assumption agreement. Highlight the title, control C, go on google and control V. You’ll find right away the article from piggy bank.

    Secret FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank 118 Page Purchase and Assumption Agreement for Washington Mutual Bank Uncovered

    FDIC is a whore. Sleeps with anything that moves. Sometimes, it doesn’t even need to move…

  50. Holy Toledo! There is a Wamu support group with all kinds of resources, names, case law, etc! If you were Wamu and became Chase, that’s for you.


  51. JG,

    Here is how the FDIC operated in the Wamu/Chase transfer.

    Read the case on FTBK Inv. II LLC v Mercy Holding LLC at



    On October 7, 2004, the MTL defendants signed a promissory note and mortgage agreement in favor of WaMu for a loan in the amount of $1,275,000 secured by three apartment buildings located at 1408 Bushwick Avenue, 414 Melrose Street, and 145 Montrose Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. The mortgage was registered with the Office of the City Register on January 4, 2005. Plaintiff claims that WaMu held the note and mortgage until it was closed down and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), appointed receiver pursuant to § 11 (c) (2) (A) (ii) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 USC § 1821 [c] [2] [A] [ii]), transferred all of its loans to Chase through a Purchase of Assumption Agreement (the “PAA”) dated September 25, 2008. Under 12 USC § 1821 (d) (2) (G) (i) (II), the FDIC, as receiver of a failed bank, is authorized to “transfer any asset or liability of the institution in default . . . without any approval, assignment, or consent with respect to such transfer.” To prove that the instant note and mortgage were transferred to Chase, Plaintiff relies on an affidavit signed by Robert C. Schoppe, an authorized representative of the FDIC, confirming that “Chase acquired certain of the assets, including all loans and all loan commitments, …”

    RE-PUL-SI-VE!!! I bet it was done over and over. Hopefully, that Jeff Barnes deposition can be used from now on to enlighten judges!

  52. Interesting how there is a pick and choose on this site, very revealing

  53. I would assume that NOAA has been conscripted into the war on drugs and terrorism etc. And it appears they have some sort of a bunch of gun-toters–possibly internal investigation—–i suppose maybe they might bump into some bad guys in the course of doing their routine missions——but its a bit like that raid of a flock of different agencies on the museum in custers last stand park—-where the owner was accused of having illicit eagle feathers —seriously all kinds of outfits —–i attribute it to a surplus of rambo movies and other action movies—and the hard pursuit of funding in competitive times–whenever there is a chance to nab somebody and get publicity for the agency—there is a monetary budget reward—–further if they can catch anybody doing anthing wrong of any seriousness —the agency gets a shot at the contraband by forfeiture—money motivates

  54. JG,

    One of those seething attorneys was saying in the piece he wrote that so long as a case ruling is unpublished, it cannot be used in pleadings. That would explain the deliberate occultism… I should organize myself a tad better and print those things every time I come across them.

  55. @ dcbreidenbach, I believe there would be an acceptable logic for training with the exact same issue of firearm and ammunition as would be used in the field, as these things do exhibit different characteristics, it’s just what in the hell are these guys needing this stuff to begin with? NOAA? Are they expecting unruly salmon migrations? Mass piranha heading north due to climate change?

    And what of social security? What exactly is secure about society having anything whatsoever to do with the various scenarios that come to mind? Maybe TPTB know, as you and I do, that there’s nothing backing the so-called MBS, and euthanasia may be the ticket en masse to save us all from a dire retirement. Kind of like what some do to an old hound. However, a Monty Python clip comes to mind…. “I’m not dead yet! I’m feeling much better, really I am!”

  56. @enraged – I can’t afford Westlaw, use a “lesser”, but I have noticed a palcity of cases in support of this or that or even about this or that, stuff I look for periodically. Just like the SSA and ammo, when I had the thought akin to yours, I thought “nah”……….

  57. enraged – might be good news for people whose loans originated with
    wamu if they can submit or get jud notice of that depo. I do so wonder what is the “FDIC’s affidavit”? Really, like to see it. IS jpm relying on an affidavit for ownership of the loans at issue?! New one on me that an aff would serve as evidence of a transfer. Has anyone seen this document?

  58. @ENRAGED

    You are right—there was a piece on one of the foreclosure sites—see general so and so—–but after seeing the explanations and thinking about it–it seems that perhaps this 82 yr old general is maybe a political front for some vote getters.

    I regret even looking at it—they have traded on this old generals reputation to do fear-mongering. The bullets are typical—the use is rational–the volumes are small comparatively. In these uncertain times it is necessary to listen to all the facts before freaking out.

    I dont know what that piece was doing on a foreclosure site??? Bad Bad–I apologize for repeating it. Stupid of me. I think i was still incensed about revisiting Citibank calling me from India 12 times a day for 4 months over $150 in bogus porn chgs on a closed acct.

  59. @ET
    you said quoring NOAA apparently;
    ” NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen stated that the ammunition is “standard issue for many law enforcement agencies, and it will be used by 63 NOAA enforcement agents in their twice annual target qualifications and training.”

    Im not much of a gun enthusiast frankly, not opposed etc—just dont know, but seems to me that if I were doing target shooting—I would be using the cheapest stuff I could find for that purposes—-are intentionally designed mankillers the kind of ammunition one would normally use for that purpose? Is it cheap? Wouldn’t it be relatively more dangerous in any non-lethal usage? I guess its not a big secret if you can find this stuff—and in the scheme of things–its not really that much munitions—its just that geez—the local social security office is going to have paramilitary lethal capability? Who in that office? Are they gonna have now a couple on duty guards at every govt office? On top of local police–or dont they trust local police? I suppose thats the essence of it—and if we look at it in context of the way things are in Mexico—-well it seems more reasonable. I guess if every citizen has the right to conceal carry this same ammunition or worse—–then its not so extreme to think that govt employees ought to have the ability to prevent themselves being massacred while waiting for a local policeman–who may be under the influence of a cartel. In mexici its a war–cartel vs govt. And weve got that in the US now–the cartel virtually controlled quarterhorse racing results out west—they have a larger presence than we might care to admit. The more I think about it and the amounts –the less freaky it is. Other than as a sad statement on our times.

  60. And here are a number of BK appeal’s decisions nationwide. Some of them are relevant to us, poor folks. Long doc. Worth perusing. Some concern banks’ alleged “secure” interest. I don’t think we know half of what is really going on…


  61. Lately, I have come across a number of defense attorneys seething over the deliberate occultism of very important cases and ruling. This one, apparently, never made it to Westlaw… When you have a sec., key in “foreclosure unpublished decisions”.


    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: Is this case unreal or merely suppressed? If suppressed…. that’s really bad news….
    Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 04:15:14 +0100 (BST)
    From: Charles Lincoln

    I received from Fred Fox and Dan Mack the plain paper copy of this really interesting File-marked August 9, 2010 decision from Duval County, Florida, where a Judge concluded “by clear and convincing evidence that these acts committed by WAMU, Chase and Shapiro & Fishman amount to a knowing deception intended to prevent the defendants from discovery essential to defending the claim” and are therefore fraud. I went to look it up on Westlaw—which records some of the most trivial decisions imaginable, even if unpublished in any reporter—and it wasn’t there. In fact, I could find very little on-line to prove that Hank J. Pocopanni actually existed, but I found enough to convince myself that he does/did. If this opinion, important as it is, is suppressed, it needs to be verified. It is not even admissible, I don’t think, for judicial notice in Duval County Florida if the case is untraceable. Thoughts on this, anyone?
    “Secret Law” is an oxymoronic contradiction in terms: Law, to be “Legal” must be public, accessible to all. If this case can be verified, it needs to be published far and wide, because it is indeed very powerful. Or are we really entering a dark age tunnel where powerful knowledge is available only to a few, and accessible to others not be means of mere literacy (which, of course, includes the WILL to read and learn, i.e. “the WILL to Power”, in Nietzschean terms). If knowledge is available only by cabalistic membership in certain secret societies, then the Darkness of the Darkest phases of the Middle Ages will look like the Sunshine of Golden Age Rome or the High Renaissance by comparison…..

  62. JG, that one’s for you!


    August 21, 2012

    August 21, 2012

    Confirming, under oath and in print what we already suspected: there is no schedule of mortgage loans evidencing what JPM allegedly “purchased” from the FDIC in connection with the failure of WaMu. This is from the sworn deposition testimony of Lawrence Nardi, the operations unit manager and a mortgage officer for JPM, who was previously with WaMu and was picked up by JPM after WaMu’s failure. The 330 page deposition was taken by counsel for the homeowner on May 9, 2012 in the matter of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank v. Waisome, Florida 5th Judicial Circuit Case No. 2009-CA-005717.

    Here is the question and the answer:

    Q: (page 57, beginning at line 19): Okay. The — are you aware of any type of schedule of loans that would have been created to represent the — either the loans that were asset loans or the loans that were serviced by WAMU? Are you — was the — do you know if there is a schedule or database of loans like that?

    A: (page 58, beginning at line 1): I know that there was a schedule contemplated in certain documents related to the purchase. That schedule has never materialized in any form. We’ve looked for it in countless other cases. We’ve never been able to produce it in any previous cases. It would certainly be a wonderful thing to have, but it’s — as far as I know, it doesn’t exist, although it was — it was contemplated in the documents.

    As we all know, JPM has also stated, in a Federal Court filing, that it is NOT the “successor in interest to WaMu.” However, the deposition testimony gets even better as the day went on:

    Q: (beginning at page 260, line 18): Have you ever in your duties of being a loan analyst — a loan operations specialist, have you ever seen an FDIC bill of sale or a receiver’s deed or an assignment of mortgage or an allonge?

    A: (page 260, beginning at line 23): For loans, I’m assuming you’re taling about the WaMu loan that was subject to the purchase here.

    Q: (page 261, line 1): Right.

    A: (page 261, beginning at line 2): No there is no assignments of mortgage. There’s no allonges. There’s no — in the thousands of loans that I have come into contact with that were a part of this purchase, I’ve never once seen an assignment of mortgage. There is simply not — they don’t exist. Or allonges or anything transferring ownership from WAMU to Chase, in other words. Specifically, endorsements and things like that.

    So, JPM allegedly “purchased” mortgage loans from the FDIC out of the WaMu failure, but there is no schedule of what loans were purchased, no assignments, no allonges, no endorsements, nothing that transferred ownership of the loans from WaMu to Chase. However, as we all know, JPM goes around the country touting that it is the “successor in interest to WaMu” (which it has admitted in Federal Court that it is not) and relies on the amorphous “FDIC Affidavit” which, as far as what the “Affidavit” is proffered for, is directly contradicted by the sworn deposition testimony of JPM’s authorized representative WHO WAS FORMERLY WITH WAMU AND WAS PICKED UP BY JPM.

    Fraud on the courts, anyone?

    Jeff Barnes, Esq., http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

  63. Well, wasn’t there a time when banks were shut down or protected to prevent runs on them? Hmmmm…….maybe better stop stalling and get your moolah.

  64. @enraged – no! Not my thing. YOU are better at finding that stuff. I am sticking to my mission. I have a new subchapter, though, which I hope will have some merit and reward and will bring it out as soon as I can.

  65. re: the boston globe article. No one can be surprised, really. Outraged, yes. Surprised, no. After all, MERS entered into the Consent Order and yet allows the unbridled use of its name by members and even others to execute bogus assignments. It’s the same damm thing with a paint job. The members were just foreclosing in MERS’ name before the Consent Order. It is left to the hapless homeowner to try to enforce one damm law or even Consent Order in this country. Seeing red, I am.

  66. Finding that story a bit hard to swallow, I went to Snopes and checked it out. It turns out to be real, and it sounds as if We the People would indeed be the targets that they have in mind. So, ask yourself, why in the world would the Social Security Administration want or need this type of firepower? Then next ask yourself, why in the hell would the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also need to be outfitted as for war, within our own borders?

    A similar invitation for bids to supply 46,000 rounds of hollow point bullets along with 500 paper targets was issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That ammunition is destined for the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which is tasked with protecting fish stocks from depletion, marine mammals from extinction, the livelihoods of commercial fishers, the hobbies of recreational fishers, and the health of seafood consumers.” NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen stated that the ammunition is “standard issue for many law enforcement agencies, and it will be used by 63 NOAA enforcement agents in their twice annual target qualifications and training.”

    My only guess lands at the thought that if the financials and that also means their counterparts in government start to feel overwhelmed by the sentiment turning against them, they’ll be able to back all of those tanks they’re purchasing up against Wall Street and the Capitol and teach us all a lesson….as in “just who the hell do we think we are?”


  67. Mass. lawsuit shows that banks haven’t changed Foreclosure Ways
    “Banks keep marching into court, insisting that their own mortgage liens are sacred, while acting like any protections the law affords homeowners are meaningless.” Truth: The laundry list of felonies committed by the banks VOIDED the liens, the loan became unsecured, and the ability to legally foreclose vanished forever.
    You cannot perfect a lien by uttering forged documents.


    Earlier this year, five of the country’s biggest banks agreed to cough up $25 billion because they’d routinely fleeced their own customers and wreaked tremendous economic havoc along the way. The nationwide foreclosure settlement was an extraordinary moment for JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and GMAC because it brought the banks as close as they’ve ever come to taking ownership of the foreclosure fraud they’ve sewn throughout the housing market. But the foreclosure settlement’s second act, now playing out in a Boston courthouse, shows that the landmark settlement hasn’t actually changed the way the banks think about other people’s homes.

    The banks might be $25 billion lighter, but in Boston, they’re still trying to shrug off the duty to follow foreclosure law.

    The nationwide foreclosure settlement in February landed a heavy blow against the five banks. They walked in hoping to use the settlement as a tool for immunizing themselves against reprisals related to botched foreclosures, but instead of waiving away responsibility for the foreclosure crisis, the settlement forced the five banks to finally commit to ending it.

    The settlement was less about rectifying old foreclosures than it was about preventing new ones. The $2,000 checks that the banks will be mailing to foreclosed homeowners will barely cover the cost of moving out of homes that were taken away from them; the settlement’s real meat is in several billions of dollars in loan modifications for homeowners trying to stay in their homes. The penalty for committing rampant foreclosure fraud was a promise to do the right thing going forward.

    The scene now playing out in Suffolk Superior Court should dispel any notions that the $25 billion settlement altered the way the banks approach foreclosures.

    The banks are fighting hard to roll back a string of Supreme Judicial Court foreclosure decisions that demand that banks follow the law when seizing Massachusetts residents’ homes. In court filings, the banks have claimed that since they had handled foreclosures the way they always had, and because the mortgages they foreclosed on were in default, playing fast and loose with state foreclosure laws didn’t amount to unfair or deceptive conduct. In staking out this ground, the banks are displaying the same attitude Wall Street has adopted since mortgages began exploding five years ago: They’re treating foreclosure laws as trifles that can be papered over after the fact, instead of codes that have to be followed and respected.

    The Suffolk Superior case is what’s left of a lawsuit the state brought against the five banks in December. The suit helped push the banks into signing on to the nationwide foreclosure settlement; that settlement put to rest many of the state’s claims, but left some Massachusetts-specific complaints unanswered. Those complaints stem from a pair of SJC cases from last year that rocked the state’s real estate market. In one, the SJC overturned a pair of foreclosures because the banks didn’t hold the mortgages to the homes they seized until after taking them; the second said banks can’t resell illegally foreclosed homes, as you can’t sell something you never actually owned.

    The SJC held that, since the state doesn’t require judges to sign off on foreclosures, and allows banks to police themselves while foreclosing, the burden is on banks to follow the law. This was enough to cloud the title to thousands of foreclosed properties in Massachusetts, and throw a panic into big banks across the country.

    Banks have recorded 54,564 Massachusetts foreclosures over the past five years by seizing homes first, and lining up the rights to those properties second. Because they rushed through foreclosures, banks have had to turn to defending the indefensible in court. Since the housing crash began, banks in Massachusetts have claimed the right to foreclose on homes they’re not entitled to seize. They’ve tried to excuse the act of selling properties they never legally owned. They’ve even fought the right of a foreclosed homeowner to challenge eviction on the grounds of an illegal foreclosure.

    The banks have lost on all these points. But they keep marching into court, insisting that their own mortgage liens are sacred, while acting like any protections the law affords homeowners are meaningless. It’s the same script they’ve been reading from since the housing bubble blew up, and this year’s $25 billion hit hasn’t been enough to swear them off of it.

    PS: that guy didn’t get the memo on the alleged $25 billion settlement, I guess. Or… his retirement is invested in those banks and he doesn’t want to get too close to the truth.

  68. @DCB,

    Holy smoke! When did you turn wanton on us? Quoting those “fringe” sites all of a sudden!


    Start doing some research: DHS has armed itself to the teeth as well. The only ones who doesn’t get to buy ammunition is… the Post Office!
    I wonder why… Too much practice already?

  69. “A mortgage may be enforced only by or on behalf of a person who is
    entitled to enforce the obligation the mortgage secures.”
    Restatement (Third) of Property, Mortgages, section5.4(c)

    Isn’t this something the AZ SC has ‘overlooked’ in what was that case
    where the SC said may enforce dot with no interest in note?
    When attempting to enforce the rights of another, in addition to the mandates of FRCP 17, the relationship of the party to the one with the rights must be disclosed and evidenced. What I just opined is that in addition to Rule 17 mandates, if party A is attempting to enforce the rights of Party B, party A must disclose and evidence its right to do so (fork over agency agreement, poa).
    By all means rebel. And these days, that includes insisting on application of existing law.

  70. “…this was the result of a large govt stimulus contract.” That was actually my first reaction. I dismissed it as absurd or something….
    Well, I don’t really believe that, but for pete’s sake if it’s true, can’t we produce something the hell that has nothing to do with war? The govt does get somewhat picked on because we beat them up if they order
    a fleet of new cars. Well, that was in times of non-crisis. But they should order a bunch now and hand them out. I’ll take one! Really, though, the point is order something besides war-crap which has to be produced. Guess the rebuild-road thing didn’t get it. New roads were done, though. I spent plenty of time in traffic jams around here.
    No, a govt crisis order will cause its own problems. Factories would
    gear up and then the employees would get laid off. Right? Still better
    with trickle-down and all?
    We need a real demand and we’re not gettin’ any with no jobs and no assets. But I’d still take that car.

  71. A very cynical friend of mine has the best kneejerk reaction: this was the result of a large govt stimulus contract. And the stuff is on its way to the cartels which are the only guys i can think of that need that much ammo—they hose the streets with bullets.And Im sure no self-respecting cartel soldier would be caught dead with anything but hollow-points. Somebody better inventory that stuff daily–if they have it in fact–or itll hit the streets fast— or is that “FAST AND FURIOUS”

    Maybe DHS is going to invade Mexico under some vague provision of NAFTA—–grant citizenship to the whole country.HA HA

  72. @dcb – good Lord! I’m tempted not to believe it. It’s too bizarre. I can’t even believe the SSA would be enpowered to buy ammunition in the first place. I don’t believe it. Even if it were true that civil unrest were forecast in anticipation of oh, a major breakdown or hugely increased demand, surely the SSA would not be the line of defense, not even its own.

  73. re: Buffet – I might change my mind, but just now this sickens me.
    We’ve built an “economy” on speculation of a thing going up or down, being paid or not?
    Imo that certainly undermines efforts and energies spent on seeing that the thing actually retains value or goes up or spending that time and energy on real production, like energy sources, making housing out of mud, anything really. Credit default insurance and swaps and speculation is not production, it’s crap as an economy.
    No wonder we haven’t build efficient cars, say, by now. Apparently a paper shuffle gets a better return. The Buffets of this country need to
    have their egos re-aligned with actual production. I suppose being briiliant and making a billion or 50 on a paper shuffle serves a certain god, but it’s no real legacy. imo.

  74. @JG
    Re Generals wondering:

    By Major General Jerry Curry, USA (Ret.)

    The Social Security Administration (SSA) confirms that it is purchasing 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations in major cities across the U.S. No one has yet said what the purpose of these purchases is, though we are led to believe that they will be used only in an emergency to counteract and control civil unrest. Those against whom the hollow point bullets are to be used — those causing the civil unrest — must be American citizens; since the SSA has never been used overseas to help foreign countries maintain control of their citizens.

    What would be the target of these 174, 000 rounds of hollow point bullets? It can’t simply be to control demonstrators or rioters. Hollow point bullets are so lethal that the Geneva Convention does not allow their use on the battle field in time of war. Hollow point bullets don’t just stop or hurt people, they penetrate the body, spread out, fragment and cause maximum damage to the body’s organs. Death often follows.

    Potentially each hollow nose bullet represents a dead American. If so, why would the U.S. government want the SSA to kill 174,000 of our citizens, even during a time of civil unrest? Or is the purpose to kill 174,000 of the nation’s military and replace them with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) special security forces, forces loyal to the Administration, not to the Constitution?

    All my life I’ve handled firearms. When a young boy growing up on my father’s farm in Pennsylvania Dad’s first rule of firearms training was, “Never point a gun at someone, in fun or otherwise, unless you intend to shoot them. If you shoot someone, shoot to kill.” I’ve never forgotten his admonition. It stayed with me through my Boy Scout training, when I enlisted in the army as a Private to fight in the Korea
    War, during my days as a Ranger and Paratrooper and throughout my thirty-four year military career.

    If this were only a one time order of ammunition, it could easily be dismissed. But there is a pattern here. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has ordered 46,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition. Notice that all of these purchases are for the lethal hollow nose bullets. These bullets are not being purchased and stored for squirrel or coyote hunting. This is serious ammunition manufactured to be used for serious purposes.

    In the war in Iraq, our military forces expended approximately 70 million rounds per year. In March DHS ordered 750 million rounds of hollow point ammunition. It then turned around and ordered an additional 750 million rounds of miscellaneous bullets including some that are capable of penetrating walls. This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen. Is this something we and the Congress should be concerned about? What’s the plan that requires so many dead Americans, even during times of civil unrest? Has Congress and the Administration vetted the plan in public.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/17/who-does-the-government-intend-to-shoot/#ixzz24CVXaQOJ

  75. The other half of the announcement was basically US is overregulated and the banks focus from now on is the feertile fields of the far east and south america ———

    where thugs are respected, no FDCPA–and Bandit can get away with murder—he just cant grasp this hang up that americans have about being physically abused—–whiners—–if you borrow money the lender owns you—must be able to come kick your butt literally –how else can you run a good shylock operation?

    You really cant grasp how bad citi is unless you were unlucky enough to have one of their credit credit cards after the ascension of Bandit—-I had a Citi card for decades—primary card for spending—big fat fees —–then after Indian Bandit comes along——they start adding foreign porno charges to my bill—dispute—[with an Indian collector] —remove chgs —then keep on adding recurrent —no stopping em—cut up card cancel acct of 25 years—-no no no–must pay these foreign porn charges or cant close acct—and keep adding added fees for internatl transactions——25 years as customer—i was called 12-15 times a day for months because i refused to pay $150 of trumped up porno chgs added to my acct months after i cut up the card –months after in tried to close the acct——clearly i was not the customer —the porno ops were——i had to give up and pay the damned 150 because i could no longer use my phone——-anybody who has a citi card is in for it eventually——–it is a corrupt outfit that deserves 3rd world status —

  76. I know very little about Pandit but a few weeks ago, I seem to remember that he publicly made some strange and unheard of noises with his mouth, to the effect that Citi was getting ready “by the end of the year to make a substantial return of capital to shareholders.”

    Then again, I don’t see Soros, Paulson and Buffett jumping to buy shares of Citi… You might be right after all.

  77. Change all over ENRAGED——–Victim’s Bandit Ceo of Citigroup announces “Back to Basics” in FT today—going to restrict bookie operations and refocus on loan sharking, extortion and credit card fraud

  78. he was acting very apprehensive.

    so he blew the whistle—it was suppressed rather than published and james bond visited him—–yeah if you are a whistleblower –only chance you got is to be published so not secret anymore and no beneft to silence you—i wonder what paper he squeled to

  79. @ENRAGED

    “I call those videos an antidote to doom-and-gloom… ”

    HA HA ——this piece of innocence from you made me laugh—this renewable energy stuff is one thing iv been involved with for many years—-look up VEETC —-I wrote it. Among others–before i became sick and weary of corruption. its anti-doom/gloom—–but its also completely fabricated PR to have exactly that effect —–none of this stuff actually works on a commercial scale —except conversion of food to fuel to benefit ADM

    you are right about the banks getting control over oil/products though–thru the offshore mony they have taken over almost the entire pipeline network in the US–mostly since 2007—–also used that TARP money to buy tankers—huge fleets–probably loaded with Iranian oil right now

  80. @ENRAGED

    Tax avoidance using offshore funds–thats the dirty money–started with Vesco—and accumulated—also corp money parked outside tax homes—UK in particular encourages tax evasion that way—as the most crooked country north of kenya

    but the evasion thing is used by the crooks and some on their payroll -guys like that wisconsin president to be——as the reason why the us needs a flat tax on earned income in the us only plus a fat VAT tax on purchases of non-luxury items—–15% tax on babyfood —buy your yacht in bermuda–register it in panama –park it in fla–tax free

    that is the Ryan Plan for 2016

  81. Get your money out. Soros and Paulson are liquidating and buying gold. Buffett is shuffling money around and… liquidating a few things as well. I’d pay attention if I had any investments…

    Buffett’s Move Raises a Red Flag


    A decision by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. to end a large wager on the municipal-bond market is deepening questions from some investors about the risks of buying debt issued by cities, states and other public entities.

    The Omaha, Neb., company recently terminated credit-default swaps insuring $8.25 billion of municipal debt. The termination, disclosed in a quarterly filing with regulators this month, ended five years early a bullish bet that Mr. Buffett made before the financial crisis that more than a dozen U.S. states would keep paying their bills on time, according to a person familiar with the transaction.

  82. Apparently, as soon as it closes on them, the culprits will disappear. Which is a really good thing because, quite frankly, the last thing I want to see is my tax dollars used to room-and-board the few people who destroyed this earth and our future… And see? All it takes is a few days between the accusations and resolutions! Pretty radical and economically sound.

    Suicide of Deloitte Partner Daniel Pirron Linked to Standard Chartered’s Iran Scandal

    August 19th, 2012
    Via: Telegraph:

    The family of a senior partner at Deloitte has called for answers after he apparently committed suicide days after the auditing firm was linked to the Standard Chartered Iran dollar trades scandal.

    Daniel Pirron, a partner in Delloite’s key General Counsel’s office in New York, was found dead in a car park near his home in Trumbull, Connecticut.

    On August 6, Deloitte was accused by the New York Department of Financial Services of aiding Standard Chartered in its “deception” over billions of dollars’ worth of trades involving Iran.

    Mr Pirron apparently took his own life seven days later.

    Deloitte denies the DFS allegations that have led to Standard Chartered agreeing to pay a fine of $340m.
    Speaking publicly for the first time about the incident, Mr Pirron’s brother, Mike, said the family believed the two events were connected and that Daniel Pirron had warned his daughters the day before his death that there was “big trouble” ahead.

    “My brother didn’t discuss the case but he told me they were in big trouble with this case in London,” he said.

    “He was clearly apprehensive about a case that was about to come out. It is just extraordinary, when he was fine, that somebody would take his life.”

    Asked directly if he believed the two events were connected, Mr Pirron said: “The circumstances are just too much of a coincidence.

    “He was in the legal department and I think he was in London. It had to be work related. He told me the company was under pressure over this.”

    The local Fairfield Police have launched an investigation into Mr Pirron’s death and his office in New York has been sealed off.

    Mr Pirron, a leading businessman who owns a construction company in Chicago, said his brother had been acting strangely the day before he shot himself. “He was with his daughter on Sunday and she said he was acting very apprehensive. He kept going to the newsstands, looking for an important story to come out to do with Deloitte,” he said.

    The family has hired a lawyer to try to retrieve his laptop, which Deloitte is not releasing.

  83. @ Jan van Eck.. you have spoken the truth, and again nothing will be done by the very people begin bled from by the leaches, so we do what we can on our own level. Boycott banks, yep that is a good ground floor start..I went to a credit union on the first glimpse of foreclosure, spent what I had to retain a lawyer. Made it through foreclosure but still very under water after eight years of paying and still paying an inflated value on this house. I am only one, you all are many. So yes the wheels move slowly, especially when fighting a large ugly monster yourself, and Yes if we pull together and use our heads collectively we could and would make a very big sound in government to release the slaves. It would only take a few to stop paying mtg (put your pmts in escrow acct to show good faith then go to court collectively with papers in-hand) stop using major banks and so on. You should only own a slave for 7 years then you release as per the written word, I should be free, are any of you free? Alas we are a stupid lazy society it appears, seems the psychobabble has indeed been a success. If there are any taker on doing something to make this grow state by state I am very interested in hearing it, and will check this forum often to see who can stay with the subject and the objective. IF so I am southeast US and would love to do some crunching and attempting to make a movement for a national/global (as stated – Neil’s readers are global) movement. Of course we need people that can bring it together But we need you.We all need to Unite and conquer as we have the power. Just need to use it. Would be great to get some law minded individuals in on this. Any takers shakers or movers out here?

  84. @Niedermeyer,

    Banks got where they are because they were able to appropriate most of the energy sources in the world and play with prices by speculating uncontrollably. Anything showing that we have other means to clean up earth while freeing energy sources outside of bank control is a good thing.

    I call those videos an antidote to doom-and-gloom… Because i don’t know about you but when you read LL day in, day out, my world seems to take a uniform shade of gray i don’t really enjoy. I want to know that people still create, invent and envision a better future for our kids.

  85. Well, here nit is: the more i read and the harder it is for me to find ONE redeeming quality to JPM, B of A and cohort. The good thing though is that not one goes by lately without some MSM article being published about how bad, useless, crooked, dangerous, greedy and what-not banks are. That’s the stuff reforms are made of. We are heading there. Reform. may take a little longer but i can feel it in my bones!

    Wouldn’t hurt for people to send this to their senator, congressman, president and anyone alleged to have some say in the matter… Wouldn’t hurt either to close your goddamn bank account. Otherwise, you’re just being an enabler.


    Offshored Trillions: The Hidden Economy That’s Robbing the World
    By Bruce Watson
    Posted 6:00AM 08/20/12 Posted under: Taxes
    Eduardo Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes. (Getty Images)

    Tax havens are big news in the U.S., but a recent study shows that, when it comes to offshoring cash to dodge taxes, Americans are amateurs. Globally, tax havens are used to hide an estimated $21 trillion, more than the entire U.S. GDP, making it clear that offshored wealth is a truly global problem.

    The idea of parking profits in another country to avoid paying taxes is nothing new — scofflaws as far back as ancient Greece were using havens to cheat the taxman. But in the wake of 2008’s financial meltdown, the practice has increasingly come under fire. Earlier this year, Apple came under attack after it spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in a lobbying push for a “tax holiday” that would enable it to bring some of its offshore profits into the U.S. without paying taxes.

    And corporations aren’t the only entities that use offshore havens to avoid paying taxes: Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has also been criticized for his offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. By far the highest-profile tax dodger recently, however, has been Internet investor Eduardo Saverin, whose 2011 decision to renounce his U.S. citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes on his Facebook windfall resulted in a legislative firestorm.

    In May, Saverin almost singlehandedly inspired a push for a major change in the tax code. As his decision to renounce his citizenship drew headlines, four senators quickly crafted the Ex-PATRIOT Act (Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy), a bill that would punish high-wealth individuals who renounce citizenship to dodge their taxes. To begin with, malefactors such as Saverin would be charged a 30% tax rate on any capital gains earned on U.S. soil; second, they would be barred from re-entry into the U.S.

    While American tax dodgers have drawn an outsized level of attention, they actually account for only a fraction of worldwide tax avoidance. Using information published by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and other monetary groups, the Tax Justice Network (TJN), a British-based policy institute, determined that $21 trillion to $32 trillion in private funds are currently socked away in tax havens. The biggest contributor is China, which has offshored at least $1.2 trillion. Russia, Korea, Brazil and Kuwait round out the top five.

    Although U.S. citizens are small-timer when it comes to offshoring, our banks play a big part in the movement of global wealth to tax havens. TJN statistics suggest that, of the top 10 banks for global offshoring, five — Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan/Chase — are based in the U.S.

    Offshoring is nothing new, but TJN’s recent analysis suggests that it is happening on an almost unimaginable scale. More disturbingly, it’s increasingly becoming clear that this global movement of wealth, which is robbing countries around the world of trillions in tax revenue, is not run by fly-by-night banks run out of sunny Caribbean countries. It is a global business of its own — and American banks are leading the industry.

  86. I would disagree with the article, Neil’s comments, and most of the posters; here’s why. (1) the ability of a community, by means of a Community Development Corporation, to take private property for the use it seems appropriate, including re-selling it to another private entity, was conclusively established in “Kelo v. New London Development Corp.,” the huge donnybrook that erupted in New London, CT over the mass takings of homes by the elitist New London Development Corp., so that the homes could be torn down and the land turned over to Pfizer Pharmaceuticals [545 US 469, 125 S. Ct. 2655, 162 L. Ed. 2d 439 – Supreme Court, 2005 ]. So the City simply seizes the property, and then can sell the property back to the homeowner (or any other person). the city has the absolute authority to conduct this process according to its own dictates, it does not require “bidding” or the like. It is a process of fiat.

    Seizing the property, and thus cleansing the title, is the goal. Who cares about some note and mortgage? Not interesting; let the pretenders go make their claims in some other forum, on their nickel.

    But that does not resolve the problem of bad behavior of banksters, and big banks as institutions. As an aside, I would note that this whole mess ends instantly when Barry sends in a team of US Marshals or Secret Service to some target, be it Goldman or JPMorgan, handcuffs some 20 senior managers, puts them on a bus, drives them to JFK Airport in NY, puts them on the marshal plane, and flies them to Guantanamo, for indefinite detention. They get one phone call the next morning, back to their colleagues, to advise that they are having breakfast with the mujaheddin. The bankster bullshit ends by noon.

    Yet Barry is not going to do that, he does not have the moxy, so it is a fantasy. the alternative is to undo the banks themselves. this is not as difficult as it sounds. There is nothing at all to stop each State and each City in a State from reincorporating itself into a state bank, i.e. “The Bank of Kansas doing business as the State of Kansas.” All receipts to the City or State are now deposited into this new bank, which consists of one room and computer in the basement of Town Hall, instead of at Bank of America (who needs them?). the new Comptroller of the City then goes to the fed Discount Window and says: “Hi, I am the Bank of Kansas City, Kansas, I need to borrow $100 million for new schools (whatever), I have these tax-receipt deposits as cash collateral, we own all these properties as additional collateral, what is your lending rate?” And the Fed guys say, “Today, just for you, then lending rate is 0.0018% on the discount window, so your hundred million will cost you $180,000 a year. have a nice day.”

    So who needs Wall Street and Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to go float your bonds, at enormous expense, when you can get your money effectively free at the discount window? And the answer is: nobody needs those guys. You cut them out of the loop.

    Once you have the stranglehold of these life-sucking octopi cut away, you can start to do serious things. The next step is to remember that these are artifical creatures in a regulated industry, banks cobbled together from dozens of smaller banks. JPMorgan started out as Chemical Bank NY, which bought Chase Manhattan Bank, which merged with JPMorgan Bank, so there is nothing to stop the regulators from seizing these monsters and breaking them up. Nobody does it because they are terrified that they cannot peddle their bonds. But as I have indicated, you don’t really need them, if you have a little imagination.

  87. @ENRAGED ,,

    I don’t get the relevance of the plastic into oil video… it has always been possible,, after all plastics are derived from petroleum… if we can turn solid hydrocarbons (coal) into oil (and it was done on a commercial scale in WW2) then plastic (oil) into oil is childs play.

  88. @ENRAGED
    Geez im just seeing J.Edgar Hoover movie and they start right off depporting a naturalized US citizen for being an anarchist—

  89. so deny the notegenerally–or deny its not your signature–neat trisck–yes they need the homeowner admit its their signature —–basically admitting its the original —–but yes could subpoena but if it were me id say im not qualified to say its my signature–need an fbi report comparing signatures

  90. @enraged – enjoyed the Goldman article. Please tell this eejit what exactly will happen when we boycott the banks.

  91. is inciting people to not pay their debts akin to inciting to riot—-are you a domestic terrorist er? better read carefully the definitions–just a thought

  92. then the criminals are like the trophy fish that’s caught and released

    hey thats catchy–great analogy

  93. @usedkarguy – well, I finished reading it, but won’t be putting it anywhere, except the junk pile or as an example of bench law. I know a little about the rules of evidence (and only a little more than the average bear). I am hard – pressed to figure out how multiple sustained objections could lead to that court’s decision. The courts’ uttered distain for the banks does nothing to negate his ruling. I’m not going to re-read it, but I don’t believe als even moved for admission of those documents (the very ones that were the subject of the sustained objections). Judge’s sway is something else; it’s very powerful. In my lay opinion, this case would get overturned on appeal, but who the sam h has dough for an appeal? The attorney could be said to have fought fairly well, but he might benefit from holding moot court on objections with an evil-knevil character as judge and another as opposing counsel. Knowing some objections is one thing. Getting the knack of impressing them in a courtoom is another – it’s the art of the deal again. I would probably stink at it. Not a speaker. But I was happy to get the transcript for everything except the sorry joke at the end. Well, for anyone interested, the court sustained objections
    which precluded the admission of certain documents and for the objections, there is no evidence the homeowners or another person whose autograph was critical had executed instruments. etc. Yet the court ruled in favor of the bankster. Bench law, this one just more incognito than most which are blatent. What that judge might have done was allow for a retrial, possibly with the bankster able to do what it should have done first time round (first trial is just now practice), and get what they want. That might be the result of a successful appeal and that is a crock of dog doobage if ever there were one. I hope that wouldn’t be the result. Maybe it would just be overturned in the homeowner’s favor. It certainly should be.
    Insert sailor-language here.

  94. and back to the subject, when do we UNITE?? regarding “TIME TO REBEL AGAINST BANK DEATH GRIP ON THE ECONOMY”

  95. @usedkarguy – yippie yiyeah! Just started reading. What a man. Thank you hugely and I’ll say the same to you know who.
    als v homeowner. Trial. Als att ask als’ witness who signed the note. She tries to say “homeowners”. She cannot. It’s hearsay and homeowner attorney Peterson objects on hearsay grounds. The court knows it must sustain the objection and does. yahoo! Ms whatsherface did not witness the homeowners sign the note. She canNOT testify that they signed it = note not evidence of anything in regard to homeowners. Next time, next case, the bankster will simply subpoena the homeowners for trial (be my guess). If answering the question is self-incrimination, must they answer? I suppose they must. I’m no scholar on the 5th amendment and don’t know its application at all in civil matters (v criminal). I read the file, but don’t recall if they homeowners ever admitted a thing. Probably not, unless they wanted to make affirmative defenses. I will likely be posting this transcript on line. Transcripts are so entertaining.

  96. We know what to do and how to do it. Why aren’t we doing it?


    Man Invents Machine To Convert Plastic Into Oil

  97. Here’s what I don’t get: a year or so ago, not one paper would dare write about the banks and denounce their malfeasance. Nowadays, it is common knowledge. Yet, nothing comes out of it. What will it take? Is this simply not part of the plan? Are we all wasting our time and energy rehashing what no one wants to change? Haven’t we proved over and over that it is not the way to go about it? When will a consensus be reached wher5eby each and everyone of us stops paying back loans, credit cards, mortgages, etc. and close his bank account?

    Boycotting works. Boycotting banks will work. What’s taking so long?


    Reining in the ‘banksters’

    By Barry Goldman

    July 29, 2012

    I heard a case some time ago involving a guard at a maximum-security prison. He had been discharged for failing to follow inmate security procedures, and he was appealing his firing. In an effort to get me to understand the environment I was dealing with and the importance of those procedures, prison officials testified about an earlier incident.

    They described how two guards had been escorting a prisoner back to his cell after a shower. The prisoner’s hands were handcuffed behind his back. Procedure called for the guards to put the prisoner in the cell with his hands still handcuffed and close the door. The prisoner was to turn around and present his handcuffs at the slot in the door so the guards could unlock them from the outside. In this case though, each guard thought the other one had the keys to the cuffs.

    It took about 45 seconds for one of the guards to run down the hall, get the keys and run back. That wouldn’t have been a problem if the prisoner had been alone in the cell, but there was another inmate in there. When the man already in the cell realized his cellmate was defenseless, he saw an opportunity. While prisoners in the cells along the hallway shouted encouragement, he beat the handcuffed prisoner’s head against the wall until the guards came in and stopped him. The handcuffed prisoner was pulled from the cell bloody and unconscious.

    I was reminded of that story when I read about the latest wrinkle in the so-called London Whale saga at JPMorgan Chase & Co. According to an article in the New York Times, the New York Fed reassigned nearly all of the 40-odd regulators responsible for JPMorgan in mid-2011 and replaced them with new ones. The idea was to bring in new people with needed expertise, and to get the old ones out to prevent cozy relationships between bankers and their overseers. Good plan. But in the few months it took the new examiners to find their way around, undersupervised JPMorgan traders blew through $5.8 billion making bad bets on derivatives.

    If you worked 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, and you lost a million dollars an hour every hour, it would take you almost three years to lose $5.8 billion. The JPMorgan guys were able to do it in a few months. But they are dedicated and highly trained professionals. No doubt they stay late and work through lunch.

    There was evidence in the prison case that the guards should have seen the assault coming. The two cellmates were from different gangs, with a sworn duty to kill each other whenever they could. But the same could be said of the JPMorgan case. By now we should know enough about derivatives traders to know that left to their own devices, they will blow up anything they touch.

    The problem in both cases comes from the fact that the perpetrators have nothing to lose. The violent prisoner goes up in status among his gangster friends if he bloodies a member of a rival gang, and there is no effective way to punish him. What are they going to do, put him in prison? The reckless derivatives trader goes up in status if he makes money, and if he loses, the worst that will happen is that his employer will “claw back” a few of his millions. If things get really out of hand, the taxpayers will bail out his “too big to fail” bank.

    The answer in both cases is better regulation and supervision. Our society is one that produces both gangsters and “banksters.” They tend to come from different neighborhoods, but we don’t seem to be able to avoid producing either one. They are failures of our civilization. But having produced them, and knowing how much mayhem they can cause, it is inexcusably stupid to leave them unsupervised.

    Barry Goldman is an arbitrator and mediator and the author of “The Science of Settlement: Ideas for Negotiators.”

  98. Neil, its not going to happen. No government will act nor will large institutions change their banking practice. We need the people to act and act consistent with the law of this land. Win will not be difficult if all act in consortium. Challenge those mortgages in Court and do it right. The law permits legitimate challenges. Important, need competent attorneys. Pro Se’s off track and professionals stop exploiting those who need help. Homeowner’s get smart, and think twice before you act. More to come…

  99. *************** JAIL the BANKSTERS including DeMarco ! *****************

    Freddie and Fannie profit from deflates neighborhoods now ghetos
    and keep stolen mortgage payments for those who are honest and continue payment. DeMarco can kiss the A$$ millions of home owners who will get sick of his crap and decide to default of files Chapter 13 .

    The DC mafia who support the the criminals are nothing but spinless cowards sucking hind tit. In America, if you misuse food stamps, and you get caught, there’s a good chance you’ll lose your benefits, and you might even go to jail. If you rip off the Medicare system, commit tax fraud or perpetrate identity theft, federal prosecutors will throw the book at you. But if you’re part of a US Senate and multi-billion dollar enterprise that misleads investors and lies to Congress, then the criminals are like the trophy fish that’s caught and released. You’re off the hook.

  100. What about Fannie and Freddie?? DeMarco??? Anybody???

  101. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/13/us-libor-classactions-idUSBRE87C06120120813

    the litigation is just beginning. They won’t be able to avoid it.

    JohnGault, did you get your stuff today? good reading, I assure you.

  102. yes

  103. The Author writes insightfully re mechansism for exercise of eminent domain:
    “I wonder if problems will be solved as efficiently as simply outright seizure of the mortgages because of illegal acts committed.

    Efficiency comes into play and will inevitably raise its ugly head if and when eminent domain is first attempted”

    The mechanism is dictated by the general concepts laid out as applicable to all foreclosure mechanisms dictated by legislatures, within the legal boundaries of the 5th and then 14th amendments’ Due Process clause of the Constitution of the United States as applied to all states. This is a takeaway from this case of general application.

    The case states clearly that the “beneficiary” ie owner of the debt contract and/or “holder” of negotiable instrument promissory “note” are the potential parties who have legal claims that might be raised in defense to eminent domain and in receipt of distributions of funds in liquidation of those debts. The court noted the effect of fraud if these rules are not recognized and applied. In essence the servicer, collection agency or other intermediaries without the owner-holder’s express POA lacks standing in equity and has a burden of proof vis the original note, if the document is a negotiable instrument subject to UCC. If not the claimant must demonstrate full chain of assignment and assumption of mere contract debt. Under UCC the proof required is an autheticated “original note” or a lost note affidavit supported by affidavit as to how it got lost—plus an indemnity by a surety unrelated to the claimant or servicer etc–ie independent.

    The city must sieze the property without ado based on a reasonable declaration of emergency action for the purpose of imminent public economic and safety hazard. This is easily supported when the current injury to property tax base for the afflicted home and to neighbors. Add to that the opportunities for miscreants of all types for theft or simple vandalism–creation of crackhouses–in ordinary neighborhoods. More police–more courts. The findings of legislative facts need only be reasonable within the overall limitation of imminent necessity. The power may be delegated to a govt agency–city dept to apply consistent with the Ordinance. Is a house in imminent danger? What is the hit on the tax base, what will be the downward pressure on neighboring houses as well as instances of reasonably predictable criminal action: theft, vandalism, insurance fraud, threatening conduct by thugs. This describes the preservers appointed by the collection agencies-servicers. It is close to the point that the mere association with certain named servicers and preservers will qualify the house–the neighborhood.

    Then the municipality delegate requires that the claimants meet the UCC requirements. The use of a Surety assures that a trail of ownership is established to the satisfaction of the surety with specialized knowledge and large and skeptical staff. If the claimant cannot meet the UCC then the claim is forfeit. The note becomes lost or abandoned–it clearly falls to the state under escheat standards laid out in statute. The city owes the state for this forfeiture of title—the amont of the note. The city must hold in trust any proceeds beyond its own cash cost —including maintenance, repairs, community police protection for the forfeited mortgages homes. This latter will be vital to prevent the swift destruction of the lost buildings by the servicers agents–the preservers. Preservers generally keep substantial personal and removable property on certain damned homes as part of the contract consideration.
    The city must make sure the homes are not insured at excessive values by the servicer–who might otherwise destroy the home for insurance proceeds. This is often-overlooked because most writers have greater familiarity with the warm states where sieze and freeeze, followed by insurance claims against the homeowner policy is not part of the recovery process. But there are other ways they can trigger insurance elsewhere. Would the claimant be able to seek and receive payouts bt the federal insurance programs on a lesser standard of proof? Probably get bad publicity quickly. The one thing certain is that the vultures will react with a vengeance–they will pillage the houses and their occupants absent police protection. There is no doubt on this.

    In the end probably as much as half of the chosen properties’ notes will foreit to the state treasurer–without necessarily being valued. The state may enter into a memorandum of understanding with the state to receive the net proceeds–after its own costs—are granted by the state to the municipality. It is workable–so long as these vulture syndicators do not get control.

  104. What I think we might do to help turn this around is concentrate on the rules of evidence in regard to production of the original note. Like see federal rule of evidence 1002 (or find state version of this federal rule) and find cases which support production (go back to cases pre-MERS). The banksters have been willing to do a lot of crazy, illegal, and illegitimate stuff, but IF the law says, as we are looking at, that the note must be marked “paid” or “cancelled” and return it so marked to the payor, will they be so “bold” and crazy?
    IF it’s true that executing an endorsement on a note without disclosing it is done as an agent or poa makes that endorsor liable on the note, and if this is brought to the attention of courts, will it
    help stop this (alleged) practice? Alleged because the agency or poa would have to exist.

    lay opinions, not legal advice

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: