Deutsch and Goldman Lose Bid to Dismiss FHFA Lawsuit for Fraud

What’s the Next Step? Consult with Neil Garfield

For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).


Administrative Process May Provide a Lift to Borrowers

Editor’s Comment: Following on the heals of a similar ruling against JPMorgan Chase, Judge Denise Cote, denied the motion to dismiss the lawsuit of the Federal Housing Finance Agency that overseas Fannie and Freddie.

Simply put the agency is charging the investment banks with intentionally misrepresenting the underwriting standards that were in use during the mortgage meltdown. To put it more simply, the fraud we know that occurred at ground zero (the “closing” table) is being traced up the line to the banks that were pulling the strings and causing the fraud.

The allegations of course are insufficient in and of themselves to use as proof of anything. They are unproven allegations in a civil court suit in Federal Court in Manhattan. BUT there is an interesting argument to be made here that should not be ignored. I did a lot of work in administrative law when I was practicing full-time.

The procedure that any agency follows in filing such a lawsuit is something that should be pointed out when you are making arguments about fraud in the origination or assignments of loans.

In order for an agency to file suit, there must be a “finding” that the facts alleged in the complaint are true. In order for that to happen there must be an investigation and it must be brought before a committee or board for a finding of probable cause.

Normally the finding of probable cause would result in an administrative action brought before a hearing officer that would result in either acquittal of the offending suspect (respondent) or fines, penalties or even revocation of their right to do business with the agency or under the auspices of the agency.

Here the action is brought in civil court which must mean that the findings were strong enough to go beyond probable cause to establish in the findings of the agency that these violations did occur beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, it could be argued, given the structure and process of administrative actions, that the investment banks have already been found by administrative agencies to be fraudulent.

Then you go to the facts alleged and see what those facts were (see article on JPMorgan denial of dismissal for copy of the complaint). Where there are similarities, you can allege the same thing and apply it to the origination of the loan and the so-called assignments and claims of securitization. AND you can say that there has already been an administrative finding that the fraud occurred, which is persuasive authority at a minimum.

In these cases the investment banks are accused of intentionally lying about the underwriting standards used in origination of the loans — something we have been saying here for  years.

That means it was no mistake that they failed to put the name of the real payee on the note and mortgage and it was no mistake that they failed to reference the REMIC or the pooling and servicing agreement which set the terms of repayment, sometimes in direct contradiction to the terms expressed in the note that they induced the borrower to sign. The information was intentionally withheld from the borrower and promptly used with Fannie and Freddie knowing ti was false, as to verifications of value, income viability etc. (see previous post).

In essence the FHFA is saying the same thing that the investors are saying, which is the same thing that the borrowers are saying — these origination documents are worthless scraps of paper replete with deficiencies, lies and misrepresentations, unsupported by consideration and unenforceable.

The defense of the investment banks is that they HAVE been enforcing the notes and mortgages (Deeds of trust). They are saying that since the courts have let most of the cases go to foreclosure, the documents must be valid and enforceable. If improper underwriting standards had been used, or more properly stated, if underwriting standards were ignored, then the borrower would have had a right to rescission, which the courts have largely rejected. It is circular reasoning but it works, for the most part when it is a single homeowner against a big bank.

But when it is institution against institution its not so easy to pull the wool over the judge’s eyes. AND unlike the borrowers, the FHFA is not plagued with guilt over whether they were stupid to begin with and therefore deserve the punishment of taking the largest loss of their lives.

The answer to that is that the banks were only able to “enforce” as a result of the ignorance of the judges, lawyers and borrowers as to the truth behind the facts of each loan origination, assignment etc.

By Jonathan Stempel, Reuters

A U.S. judge rejected bids by Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) and Deutsche Bank AG (DBKGn.DE) to dismiss a federal regulator’s lawsuits accusing them of misleading Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) into buying billions of dollars of risky mortgage debt.

In separate decisions on Monday, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan said the Federal Housing Finance Agency may pursue fraud claims over some of the banks’ representations in offering materials regarding mortgage underwriting standards.

The FHFA had sued over certificates that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, known as government-sponsored enterprises, had bought between September 2005 and October 2007.

Goldman underwrote about $11.1 billion of the certificates, and Deutsche Bank roughly $14.2 billion, the regulator has said.

Michael DuVally, a Goldman spokesman, declined to comment, as did Deutsche Bank spokeswoman Renee Calabro. Trials in both cases are scheduled to begin in September 2014.

Last year, the FHFA filed 18 lawsuits against banks and finance companies over mortgage losses suffered by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on roughly $200 billion of securities.

Cote handles 16 of the lawsuits, and previously refused to dismiss its cases against Bank of America Corp’s (BAC.N) Merrill Lynch unit, JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and UBS AG (UBSN.VX).

In her Deutsche Bank ruling, the judge said that while the offering materials said representations were “preliminary” and “subject to change,” their use suggested that the German bank “fully intended the GSEs to rely on” them.

Meanwhile, Cote rejected what she called Goldman’s “legally dubious” claim not to be liable over prospectus supplements it did not write, saying “it is difficult to square with the fact that the bank’s name is prominently displayed on each.”

She dismissed some claims over representations concerning owner-occupied homes and loan values.

The FHFA became the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after federal regulators seized the mortgage financiers on September 7, 2008.

In May, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $202.3 million in a separate federal probe, in which its MortgageIT unit admitted it had lied to the U.S. government over whether its loans were eligible for federal mortgage insurance.

Cote said it is too soon to decide liability over MortgageIT activity that predated its 2007 takeover by Deutsche Bank.

The cases are Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Deutsche Bank AG et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-06192; and Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Goldman Sachs & Co et al in the same court, No. 11-06198.

(Reporting By Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by John Wallace, Tim Dobbyn and M.D. Golan)

27 Responses

  1. @NEIDER

    Then whenever an Option One sponsored trust is plaintiff it must put up secutity per UCC Art3-309——otherwise makers denied due process via exposure to double claims—-anybody can make a claim based soley on an allegation—option one did not often file loan schedules under art 9 either

    JG and neider

    what should a maker be looking for as proof of ownership of note by option one?–on assumption this info re destruction–ie note lost or destroyed

    how can one claimant prove vs another?

  2. DC, that sounds like what is going on with New Century Mortgage/notes. But if/when confronted, they put you through holy hell and re-adjust to cover all parties buts.

  3. @JG

    The real problem about the endorsed in blank thing is that a bearer bond is owned by even a thief.

    It would be a great scam come to think of it to be an exec at one of those fly by nite originators—-that went bankrupt circa 2007

    go through the asset lists–identify loans likely to default on high price homes-preferably pick up those already in default—report em to the trustees as defaulted——so no more money expected to be received monthly—–steal the bearer paper—–and wait a bit then file

  4. @ALL

    problem with servicer records–is its limited—yes as patrick notes servicer A can state what he knows about his records –including a beginning balance–then to B etc–if needed—but who can authenticate the note? the trustees in the deal behind the servicers—and who else can state they owned the note–that it was IN THE TRUST bringing suit—–the indenture trustee—-not the servicer–unless they are one and same like Wells Fargo frequently is

    the other problem is that the servicers come and go–inde labels anyway–not deep pockets—so if you are preparing to defend against multiple claimants then the indenture truste bank with deep pockets needs to make an affidavit–see ohio schwartzwald case facts

    aff “the note is in our trust xyz” and our trust owns the note” –not complex—-and the big bank then is assuring the fact—failing that look at art 3-309————-re financial assurance

  5. @JG

    actually i think i had e-notarizations in my mind–cal is doing that if im not mistaken–but could be–often am

    lthough its called the UCC not all provisions have been enacted in every state—–im not sure when you state that ucc has enote provisions if thats the Model Act or the actual adopted version–or what year–eg the model act was changed in 2006 to reflect the requirement then added that makers only became liable to the new holder for payments made to an old holder IF THE MAKER WAS GIVEN NOTICE OF THE TRANSFER—–

    not all states have yet adopted this rule—some like louisiana still expect the maker to figure out who the holder is himself—which i think is why we noww have the 2010 rule that the maker must be notified of transfers —to override backward states

    this rule by itself is a good indicator why the UCC is not exactly consumer friendly—so if i were you id be wary of e-commerce—it may be simply good to speed up transactions—-or be an outright opportunity built into the system to facilitate predation of a consumer group–or investor group or both

    change creates advances but also real good opportunities to slip in tricks that only a couple insiders are aware of—–and frankly id be more comfortable about this stuff if i felt that there were cops on the beat that were doing something other than backstabbing each other in turf wars—there just is nobody out there that is both capable and dedicated to prevention of sophisticated frauds—at least not on a career level—-theres no money in it—-the allure of greed and a badly balanced risk-reward system screw up the outcome—

    im a broken record but i think long term the only solution is to pay the career govt guys a lot more—-and increase the tax rates on the super geedy to take the incentive out of abuse—its just too hard to prove fraud

    i just shudder when i see stuff going completely paperless—look at the way MF Global was looted in minutes–seconds——i get regular updates on risks to the electric grid from cyberattack–but so far its speculative–last big shutdown of epic proportions was an errant squirrel in cleveland—–but we are now experiencing flash crashes routinely—-someday you may wake up and find that an algorhythm created by a modern goldfinger wiped out 75% of the wealth on the planet overnight—-and it all landed in a tax haven with no extradition treaties–like switzerland

  6. @dcb – why do you think e-commerce is limited to CAL, if that’s what you meant?
    I don’t understand your first para at all. You described what is going on now – the maker is not informed when a note changes hands and certainly can be paying the wrong party. What’d I miss?

    “Doc” – have you seen It’s a place to create a petition which people may sign there, also.

    @guest – I made ref once not long ago to some muck admitting or it being found that FNMA didn’t look at the garbage it was buying so HE
    and a couple others could get production-based multi-million dollar bonuses. This came out in 2008. It’s the epitome of gross dereliction with willful intent, whatever you get when you add those two. I think he should have gone to jail, had his birthday taken away, had whatever book available thrown at him. I think what was done instead was…..nothing. That was the writing on the wall, or at least one of them for the shape of things to come. I’m pretty sure had I known then what I know now, I’d have gone to the beach and stayed there.

    Courts need to be dispelled of the notion that MERS ‘tracks’ loans. No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t ‘track’ anything. This utility only reflects entries made by members with zero oversight and zero accountability. I’ll bet a dollar to a donut the only entry made is the name of the alleged note owner or alleged holder and nothing else which would define that party as the noteowner or holder. Courts think MERS executes assgts, which it doesn’t, but that’s not the end of the problem. Courts believe that when “MERS” executes an assgt, it has proper factual basis to do so, which is a down right fallacy. And if MERS were anyone’s agent to start with, the only reason to execute an assgt according to the horse itself is if the assignee is a non-member. They must have amended their rules post-Consent Order to allow the members to execute member-to-member assignments for their 25 bucks. The truth is an agent’s interest is already its principal’s. But that’s just distracting. What a whacked deal all that is.
    If the basis for a “MERS” assgt is the member’s voluntary, no-oversight entry only, which even MERS disclaims in its judicially noticeable Disclaimer, I think if courts were informed of the truth, that MERS does NOT track loans, we’d get some traction on the propriety of those assgts on that basis. Well, I suppose our real target just now is the end-of-story right to enforce by parties in alleged poss of bearer notes. It just irks the hey out of me that courts and others buy this bull that MERS, the utility, “tracks” anything. And any truth made known to courts in our favor could help.

  7. @JG
    Whether UCC in Cal allows for it or not really does not cover the various bases of balanced public policy inherent with enotes. UCC is notoriously pro-creditor—-speed of collection is the test of success–not fair results. The pre-2006 UCC was so nasty that the maker was liable if a note was transferred from one holder to another w/o notice to maker—–and maker continued to pay the original holder—the burden fell upon the maker to divine when a transfer occurred…yes

    There are not a lot of consumers represented on the UCC governing board.

    the MBS were issued in enote form——does that make you feel like you should rush out and invest your IRA in those great investment vehicles.
    We hear of and some see duplicated notes—paper ones—-theoretically capable of authentication and at least fingerprinting—GAAP admits auditors cant ordinarily detect fraud. How are Enotes to be monitored and who will enforce against falsification–the possibilitity of fraud is enormous.

    its a great idea—but absent draconian punishment that drives self-enforcement—there will be massive abuses–have been

  8. “HMDA required reporting of applications. Most applications first pass through the GSEs. The GSEs have refused to open records. Not all is filed under the SEC. SEC is only for securities filings. Securities filings are for securities only — securities are pass through of current cash flows — ONLY. It cannot be a security without pass-through of CURRENT cash flows. SEC filings do not mandate HMDA applications. Thus, no one knows what first passes through GSEs. No one knows what prior trust is supposed to paid off by a refinance. No one knows what trust their loan may have been securitized into — prior to the refinance. SEC does require filing of “prepaid” accounts — but, SEC also did not regulate or monitor any REMIC trust that filed a 15D- – which allowed the trust to escape any future filings by the established REMIC. This is called — Deregulation (or no regulation as some would like to call it). In addition, if 15-D is filed — there is no requirement that any Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (MLPA) and accompanying Mortgage Schedule be updated. There is no requirement that the MLPA be executed. There is is requirement that the Mortgage Schedule be updated. Nothing is required to be reported to SEC. Homeowners are left without access to actual and updated documents, and without access as to whether prior loan was paid off to a stipulated trust. HMDA reported data is useless, if GSEs will not divulge.

    End result — most, if not all of subprime refinances and subprime new purchases, are bogus mortgage loans that were falsely presented as a mortgage to homeowners. These were charged-off loans, with only collection rights surviving. How does this affect homeowners??? One, not a mortgage — unsecured debt. Two, valid records as to payoffs, and payoff to prior trust and/or GSE — is unavailable by public documentation. Three, the purchase price for collection right to unsecured debt is undisclosed to borrower. Thus, borrower is unable to ascertain how much a debt buyer paid for collection rights to charged-off debt — and, how that “purchase” price can be “modified” for principal reduction by the distressed debt buyer.

    Finally, security investors are NOT investors in default debt. Subprime was default debt. Security investors, and I will state this over and over, can only invest in CURRENT cash flow pass-through. Security investors CANNOT invest in collection rights — or, for that matter, any mortgage loan itself. They can only invest in pass-through of cash flows. The loan, NOTE, collection rights, remain with the “INVESTOR” — who is NOT the security investor. Under federal law, the “INVESTOR/Creditor” must be disclosed to the homeowner. This information CANNOT be found in SEC documents, and will NOT be produced in courts of law– unless the judge is astute enough to understand the process.

    It is time for deregulation to be repealed. This, I believe will come. In the meantime, unless attorneys understand that all is being withheld in courts, borrowers will remain in limbo — unable to access the documents they need. And, given this, foreclosures will (fraudulently) continue. Attorneys have been so brainwashed on a no-end track, that they fail to look beyond the apparent.

    Number ONE — First, and foremost, separate security investors from junk debt buyer “investors.” They are not the same. To conclude that they are the same, is a huge detriment. And, to conclude that they are the same, sadly, has been the major downfall of many. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.”

  9. I can understand, maybe, why original hard copy notes were destroyed
    if they were first digitalized, i.e., scanned into a database.
    What otherwise is the theory for why notes were destroyed?

    From information at the MBA’s website it appears to me these people engaged in or at least attempted e-commerce, spear-headed by
    MERSCorp, of course. The UCC does address e-notes and e-commerce. The thing, well one, I don’t know is if to qualify as an e-note, a note had to be created as such. In other words, can a hard copy be converted and if so, what is the disposition of the hard copy. I think people would be shocked, certainly informed, by a lot of the material at the MBA’s website.
    Under e-commerce, from what I gather, there is an e-note and it is called the authoritative copy. Someone is designated the controller and has the “key”. As notes are transferred, the controller with the key changes.

  10. @hman

    Allow me to intervene.

    You are on track. The servicer records must be verified by a person with personal and intimate knowledge of those records. If there are three consecutive sales of servicing rights, then three separate persons must come forward and testify as to their intimate and personal knowledge of those three separate records.

    Now keep in mind that the servicer records may not match the exact amount of debt residing on the note owner’s balance sheet ledger and are inherently unreliable. Servicer records only track repayments made from the alleged borrower. There may be other unknown circumstances where the note owner already realized all or a portion of the note’s store of value whereby the value of the note reported on its balance sheet is reduced by an equal amount.

    This is why its important to identify the owner of the commercial paper because without this knowledge, it is impossible to ascertain and testify as to the remaining value of the paper medium as it resides on the owner’s balance sheet. Without intimate and personal knowledge of the note owner’s balance sheet ledger, there is no way to declare somebody experienced default or economic injury because nobody could ascertain the true remaining value of the paper medium.

    The remaining value (if any) of the debt obligation, as evidenced by the paper medium, is the property of the note owner and resides on a balance sheet ledger, not on a servicer’s data dump.

  11. @johngalt ,

    I haven’t read your link yet ,, but for one LARGE lender at least I can positively say that the original notes were destroyed locally and that only virtual copies exist ,, I know the ex branch manager of Option One in Orlando and they never forwarded physical paper anywhere… should be the same for Option One throughout the country …

  12. The author of the article below has a theory of where notes went after closing.
    After closing, the notes went, as we know, generally to the warehouse lender after being endorsed usually in blank. When notes were moved up the chain, the w/h lender issued a new “custodial receipt” to each new owner; the w/h lender remained the custodian, just for diff parties.

    The notes just stayed there. No further endorsements could have been done. If this is what happened, and it makes some sense, there are writings which evidence the sales of these notes. SOMEthing has to establish the sale price, transfer date, etc.
    Pretty informed for 2008:

    This is easy reading.

  13. @aman

    well now the debt collectors in cal can simply go in and gut the places instead of auctioning them–as is the case in midwest judicial foreclosure states—-frankly i think a sale to a flipper is better than destroying the houses as is common in the states where homeowners get a chance to plead an answer before the sheriff throws em in the street

  14. The bad news is all those are vacant—-the good news is that they were rendered uninhabitable by casualty insurance frauds so that there are a lot more billionaires in the us today than before the homes became uninhabiatable—-and we can all enjoy life by living vicariously and watching the “Wealth” channel—–i think the govt should make cable tv a benefit—we can watch people sit in parks and roam about mansions–eat and drink—yacht and travel the world —and feel proud to be in the greatest country on earth—

    sorry–im feeling a bit down–along with the post election stock market–the news today was that bernanke had a bad case of heartburn from drinking too much wine after goldman made him a new offer

  15. @HMAN

    hearsay involves referencing material for the truth of it–so say i was referencing a news article that said some person such as lloyd blankfein was a frauder—the newspaper article would not be admissable under the hearsay rule to prove that lloyd was in fact a frauder—-but if the issue was that he had a bad reputation–then it might be admissable to prove he has a bad reputation

    of course the court could still exclude it if it was ridiculously prejudicial or redundant–its easy to see how that could be the situation if some pro se or atty should attempt to catalogue ALL of the thousands of articles which cast lloyd in a bad light—just the fact that he might be tried and sentenced in the press doesnt make his guilt a fact —-as real world events prove

    you might look at Bank of New York v raftogianis for some discussion of why BNY officers could not attest to business records of deutsche bank–or something like that–take a look

  16. @HMAN
    you said “If the current servicer relies on the previous servicers records wouldn’t that be considered hearsay and could they testify to records that they are not “familiar” with or personal kept track of?”

    Im not stating advice here—-im pretty sure that iv seen cases that suggest strongly that an employee can only attest to records as to which he has personal knowledge—looking at the business records exception to hearsay

    however on the flip side–iv certainly seen affidavits by govt investigators that attest to what they have observed upon examination of business records—-and let me pose a question

    lets say you want to bring into the record info that you have observed on your own credit bureau records—actually not your records but info reported to the credit bureau

    the question involves what the purpose is for which you want to put it on the record–iv seen one interesting case that states that similar info is not appropriate for an affidavit in support of pleadings and the court specifically noted that there were no screen shots attached to the affidavit —suggesting that perhaps one could recount what one has observed in other peoples records if the info observed was available to the court? hard to unravel these hearsay mysteries—thats why i prefer the admin law that says you do your best to establish the fact —and the court weighs the evidence judging it for itself—-rather than a simple yes no —for if one man shall put out the eye of another–eventually the whole world shall be blind—-which is a pretty apt description of our deteriorating justice system in my humble old fool’s opinion

  17. United States imploding from inside: Analyst Says: 18 million homes vacant

  18. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: administrative process, Denise Cote, Deutsch, Fannie, Federal Housing Finance Agency, FHFA, fraud, Freddie, Goldman, JPMorgan, REMIC Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  19. @dcbreidenbach

    Have a question hopefully, you can help out with. Supposing a loan (servicing (debt collecting) was sold from 1 servicer to another.
    If the current servicer relies on the previous servicers records wouldn’t that be considered hearsay and could they testify to records that they are not “familiar” with or personal kept track of?

    I’m wondering if one could object to the “accounting” of the current servicers records and claim current servicer doesn’t have standing to speak about such matters.

    The biggest issue I see is the judges having the homeowners prove they are not in default not the other way around. It would be nice if we could take the accounting testimony away from the servicers.

  20. I think AUTHOR has made a mistake –admin has not determined beyond a reasonable doubt—–just by a preponderance

    the agencies wont take a criminal case because the determination made by the agency to bring the civil suit relies in large part on evidence rules used in admin law—where the extraorinary complex rules of evidence are relaxed

    the basis for tight evidence rules and complex procedures was to equalize matters for individuals facing govt action.—–the stringent rules were meant to balance things out—to help offset the huge advantages of the unlimited govt resources vs the individual

    today the policy is turned on its head—–the debt collectors have huge resources but enjoy the use of extraordinarily complex procedures and rules of evidence to outgun little guys—average small-firm attys must fear going up against giant firms with unlimited rsources—-

    the solution is to shove fc cases into admin style tribunals to give the little guys a chance .

    Today the giant corps demand use of admin tribunals with relaxed procedures and evidentiary rules to calc tax liabilities of billions of dollars under the supposition that substantive facts should not be overwhelmed by procedural gimmicks and quixotic evidence traps.

    Many small office attys and admin attys are able to understand the substantive matters of FC——-even sort out the torturous and bank friendly UCC —-but they cant do it within the environment of procedures and evidence rules designed to obscure real facts—

    The answer to the dilemma–the decline in truth–the loss of due process and justice—is to allow the simplified rules of admin law to apply in FC cases.

    It makes no sense for a debt collector with unlimited resources to avail itself of a host of tricks designed to make the little guy more balanced in a fight against the govt–which was the context and policy reason for the tangled web of rules—-

    today people say often that the system–our lives are ruled by lawyers rather than the rule of law.

    There has been confusion brought to the rule of law by lawyers using procedural ploys to prevent and obscure the rule of law

    I am a 35 year veteran of aadmin law–the purpose of admin law is the adjudication of substantive law based on real facts—the artificial tangles of procedure and evidence are cut as was the gordian knot

    I hear frequently the self-anointed litigators speak of the implied incompetence of those of us who are not litigators—who made a living by applying law to facts without the distortion of procedures and evidence rules whose purpose is to give every advantage to large firms and deep pocketed clients

    these very same litigators shudder at the prospect of facing us on our ground—where facts are all given account—where hearsay may alter the weight given evidence but not result in its complete exclusion

    the arbitrary nature of this single rule is exemplified by agency law—a trial court may review an agency decision on the record–the whole record–including hearsay that is typically allowed in admin cases–since the purpose is to find the truth of the matter—that trial court sits in review of the agency decision–including the hearsay—and will give weight to that hearsay–but if the court had initial jurisdiction over the matter–it would entirely exclude the very same evidence conpletely—with a completely different result likely

    hearsay is not per se incompetent–it goes to the weight–but the typical nonadmin litigator dreams of the devices to prevent the court from even hearing the evidence–irrespective of how compelling it may be—-how competent it may be–how significant to the outcome

    the complaint is often made that the current legal system has been hijacked by and is ruled by litigators —rather than the rule of law

    this is manifest where a bank demands relaxed rules in arguing against the govt in computing the banks tax liability–but demands the most stupifying and distorting rules and pricedures when litigating against a poor family that was subject to systematic predatory lending and debt collection.

    This is wrong at so many levels……

    Coorect the system –put the FC cases in admin cts–give little guys a chance

  21. Thanks christine….that’s exactly what we need to cut off the head of the viper.

  22. Sign the petition to remove money from politics. Best way to use two minutes of your life.

    “In late 2013, we will introduce the Anti-Corruption Act into Congress and get every Congressperson and candidate on the record for or against it, so we know who is corrupt and who isn’t”

    “The American Anti-Corruption Act gives power back to the people. It forces our government to represent us. It means that politicians will follow the will of the people, not just the special interests who fund their elections.”

  23. Agree with guest

  24. Add criminal conspirators to that!

  25. The problem I have with this is Fannie and Freddie are civil conspirators in this mess!

  26. Once again I find Garfield’s conclusions to be highly speculative. I can’t verify anywhere that “Normally the finding of probable cause would result in an administrative action brought before a hearing officer”. It would be interesting to see where Garfield gets his information.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: