How Much Did Banks Pay For The 2008 Financial Crisis? Fines And Settlements Of Over $160 Billion In Past 8 Years

So for an average of $20 Billion per year, the mega banks received an infinite supply of forever stamps — “forever” in the sense that they committed epic fraud and are still doing it. I believe this will be regarded as the most historic blunder in American history committed by three consecutive and diametrically opposed Presidential Administrations with the legislative branches of government and the judicial branch of government complicit or at least falling into the party line. In the end Clinton, Bush#2, and Obama all made the same mistake — thinking that market forces would keep the country and the world safe from the financial equivalent of thermonuclear war.
In return the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury “bailed out” banks that were “too big to fail” — in a total amount that will probably never be known but which most economist and financial analysts agree is in the neighborhood of over $5 trillion, plus allowing the mega banks to keep more than $10 trillion they stole from investors. The bitter irony is that this plan sucked all the juice out of our economy, household wealth and the ability of consumers to spend — which is responsible for 70% of our Gross Domestic Product.

Even more ironic is that the ‘bailout” was not a bailout.” It was extortionate. The banks had no losses. They were SELLING bonds so they couldn’t have suffered a loss from devaluation of the bonds. They were funding loans with investor money so they couldn’t have had losses from loan defaults. And they were writing mortgage documents for loans that did not exist. What they risked losing was future profits they would make if somehow there was someone  with money (i.e., the U.S. Government) who would shore up the unfortunate patsies who wrote insurance on completely worthless bonds, and who were indirectly insuring against defaults on loans that the mega banks had already planned to fail because they were not funding those loans.

In no instance, as far as I can tell, did any of the major policy decisions emerge from a discussion about what was good for the country, which is to say what is good for the common man, woman and child. Adding insult to injury, the people we elected and their appointees who said they knew what was going on, didn’t have a clue. True enough we don’t elect people who are experts in everything, but we do entrust them with the authority and the mandate to find out what they need to know before they do anything.

Incredibly all three administrations and all the Congresses and state legislatures functioned off of cliff notes and 30 minute meetings that consisted of Wall Street people selling the idea of de-regulation on an industry that had repeatedly proven it was untrustworthy and still allowed to promote themselves as banks you can trust. I count 6 times in American History that banks forced us into depression or deep recessions — all caused by pernicious schemes that were too bad to ever succeed. But it was worth it for the big banks because they made far more money than they ever had to give back.

Even more incredible is that it would appear that the two major candidates for the next administration will not change a thing. And THAT is why the vast majority of the American people don’t think either one of them will be good for the country. As long as they start from the assumption that protecting the banks is the same thing as protecting the financial system, which is the same as protecting the American populace. This assumption is patently wrong. Protecting the banks is enabling them to continue their fraudulent behavior which strikes at the unimportant people — i.e., most of the people who live and work in the United States.


 7,000 Community Banks, Savings and Loans, and Credit Unions can weather the storm if the Mega-Banks face consequences for their
crimes against the American people.
The real answer is to start with the proposition that the only correct action is one that is good for the country — which means that all people who live and work here would receive some benefit from the action taken. If that means taking the mega banks down, so be it. There are over 7,000 community banks, savings and loans, and credit unions in this country that all use the exact same IT backbone used by the mega banks.

There is nothing that the mega banks do that cannot be exactly duplicated by all those smaller 7,000 banks. In fact, the smaller banks are geographically closer to borrowers, make better loans and have fewer defaults. As for ATM card access, credit cards etc, any bank can become a co-branded issuer using that existing IT platform and the gateway organizations that control it — if the mega banks were forced to comply with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision stating that access to the internet is and should be treated as a utility.

Starting with the premise that what is good for the common man/woman/child is good for the country, policy would head toward clawback of trillions of dollars across the globe and being able to pay reparations to the dozens of countries who were virtually destroyed by acts of global financial terrorism. It would also lead to the global recognition that the so-called loans were not loans.

Those transactions fell into a gray unsecured area of finance the law in which the homeowner (erroneously called the borrower) received money that came from a party who did not know that they were being cheated. The liability exists — that the homeowner must pay the that portion of the money that was received from specific “investors” (victims) but there is no loan contract where the party funding the transaction and the person taking the money have no agreement and no knowledge of the existence of the other.

Add to that that none of the intermediaries have any contractual authority to do what they did — directly fund loans out of money from pension funds et al — and you have one thing left on the plate, to wit: an unsecured liability that arises only in the event that the injured party(ies) (investors) make an equitable claim against the homeowner (e.g. unjust enrichment).

The idea that only the homeowner should pay for losses on this scheme is absurd and the idea that the banks can continue to sell their “rights” to servicer advances that were not advanced by the servicer but rather out of the investors’ money is absurd on steroids. If that doesn’t motivate anyone, think about this: I know for a fact that all the top Wall Street bankers are laughing nervously at how stupid we are and restating the old adage “Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the stupidity of the American people.” The only reason they are nervous is that they know that all good things come to an end. Jamie Dimon likes to remind people in the first minute of any conversation that he speaks to the very top of political power in this country. Maybe we should give him someone else to talk to.

16 Responses

  1. Illustrations:
    6. Maker issued a mortgage note payable to the order of Payee.42 Payee borrowed money
    from Funder and, to secure Payee’s repayment obligation, Payee and Funder agreed that
    Funder would have a security interest in the note. Simultaneously with the funding of the
    loan, Payee gave possession of the note to Funder. Funder has an attached and

    See also Official Comment 9 to UCC § 9-313 (“New subsections (h) and (i) address the practice of mortgage
    warehouse lenders.”) Possession as contemplated by UCC § 9-313 is also possession for purposes of UCC § 9-203.
    See UCC § 9-203, Comment 4.
    39 UCC §§ 9-203(b)(3)(A)-(B).
    40 As noted in the discussion of Question One, payment by the maker of a negotiable note to the person entitled to
    enforce it discharges the maker’s obligations on the note. UCC § 3-602. This is the case even if the person entitled
    to enforce the note is not its owner. As between the person entitled to enforce the note and the owner of the note,
    the right to the money paid by the maker is determined by the UCC and other applicable law, such as the law of
    contract and the law of restitution, as well as agency law. See, e.g., UCC §§ 3-306 and 9-315(a)(2). As noted in
    comment 3 to UCC § 3-602, “if the original payee of the note transfers ownership of the note to a third party but
    continues to service the obligation, the law of agency might treat payments made to the original payee as payments
    made to the third party.”
    41For cases in which another person claims an interest in the note (whether as a result of another voluntary transfer
    by the debtor or otherwise), reference to Article 9’s rules governing perfection and priority of security interests may
    be required in order to rank order those claims (and, in some cases, determine whether a party has taken the note free
    of competing claims to the note). In the case of notes that are negotiable instruments, the Article 3 concept of
    “holder in due course” (see UCC § 3-302) should be considered as well, because a holder in due course takes its
    rights in an instrument free of competing property claims to it (as well as free of most defenses to obligations on it).
    See UCC §§ 3-305 and 3-306. With respect to determining whether the owner of a note has effectively transferred a
    property interest to a transferee, however, the perfection and priority rules are largely irrelevant. (The application of
    the perfection and priority rules can result in the rights of the transferee either being subordinate to the rights of a
    competing claimant or being extinguished by the rights of the competing claimant. See, e.g., UCC §§ 9-317(b), 9-
    322(a), 9-330(d), and 9-331(a).)
    42 For this Illustration, as well as Illustrations 7-11, the analysis under UCC Article 9 is the same whether the
    mortgage note is negotiable or non-negotiable. This is because, in either case, the mortgage note will qualify as a
    “promissory note” and, therefore, an “instrument” under UCC Article 9. See UCC §§ 9-102(a)(47), (65).
    enforceable security interest in the note. UCC § 9-203(b). This is the case even if
    Payee’s agreement is oral or otherwise not evidenced by an authenticated record. Payee
    is no longer a person entitled to enforce the note (because Payee is no longer in
    possession of it and it has not been lost, stolen, or destroyed). UCC § 3-301. Funder is a
    person entitled to enforce the note if either (i) Payee indorsed the note by blank
    indorsement or by a special indorsement identifying Funder as the person to whom the
    indorsement makes the note payable (because, in such cases, Funder would be the holder
    of the note), or (ii) the delivery of the note from Payee to Funder constitutes a transfer of
    the note under UCC § 3-203 (because, in such case, Funder would be a nonholder in
    possession of the note with the rights of a holder). See also UCC §§ 1-201(b)(21)(A), 3-
    205(a)-(b), and 3-301(i)-(ii).

  2. I still carry with me a tremendous amount shame and guilt – particularly on 4th of July – when everyone would gather at the property my father purchased in 1958 to watch fireworks on Middle River in Baltimore. It took five years and our 401k but Shapiro & Brown finally got my house. A greedy asshole (Greg Dorn) who colluded with an insider at the foreclosure mill now lives in my house and everyone in my family blames me for losing the property. Once Dorn saw my house from the water and knew we were struggling (because someone told him) it was game over. We threw money down a rabbit hole for five years and are still paying our last attorney off. We never had a chance. Writing this makes me cry….


    Looking at this case where the Plaintiff’s injury is not concrete [ think bank/servicer and not one with a modification agreement ] , the court has to find for the Defendant if the Defendant can raise issues.

    I like that they brought up ‘assumption of risk’, as that’s one of the defenses jurisdictionary discusses.

    I’ll give an example, someone goes to a car dealership and purchase a used car sold as is no warranty, and when they drive off the lot and put it on the freeway, it stops, and the cars behind collide with the stopped car on the freeway.

    The one in the car or their family had an ‘assumption of risk’ purchasing a car sold ‘as is’ no warranty; and an putting the car on a freeway before getting it check out by an auto mechanic who could check and verify the durability of specific parts needed for optimal use.

    What this case showed me; showed me; showed me;
    was, as much as people complain about the banks and businesses that use the system to deceptively doing anything to get money/wealth/assets from the people, some of the people want to be able to do the same and will deceptively do what they can to get money/wealth/assets from banks or businesses.

    The Plaintiff could have easily been a board member of CEO of a company and find no issue with what she did to get money out of another.

    If we go to a Republic where everyone is responsible for their self and how they treat another, these same type of people are among us.

    No matter what we call the current or new governing structure, we do not get away from these people who are participating with it on either side of the tracks and desire to have money and will use the legal system to get it even if they do not have a concrete injury-in-fact.

    Thank you Spokeo decision! If people learn how to use that to raise issues in the suits that stole their homes, these things will be reversed.

    I heard, hearsay, and the hearsay said no court case is ever closed.
    After hearing that oral argument a few months back from that attorney that was arguing to reverse that judicial foreclosure that took place six years prior due to fraud on the court, and to see he was ‘heard’; I have reason to believe, the courts will listen to the side that makes the best argument, and if it takes you a while to make a stronger argument to show their best was weak and full of holes, you can be heard to.

    But if you ask someone their opinion, and opinions everyone has, including judges, and they tell you it’s too late, and you do nothing; you can only say nothing happened because you did nothing. You let someone else tell you your reality, and you accepted their idea of your reality as your reality, and of your free will stopped moving in that direction because you gave that power to tell you to do nothing to them.

    Assumption of risk for asking someone else and not taking the responsibility your self to find out what would really happen.

    We all are taking ‘assumption of risk’ in everything we do, or don’t do.

    That woman’s name is part of history for her blatant greed from someone else’s misfortune. She should go look for those people, give them the phone, tell them they can tell the caller to stop calling the number, and tell them they can sue for being harassed with phone calls to the number they once had.

    It is true, they called her number, but they weren’t calling for her.
    She waited on the calls, in fact invited receiving calls to the wrong people, so she has no injury if she’s expecting to be interrupted with unwanted phone calls to people who are not here; during her private time.

    Trespass Unwanted

  4. How to find the doc Neil referred to:

    Look at the first line of this post: showing:

    See here: 160billionbankfee click the word 160billionbankfee

    A link opens that has the title of: 160billionbankfee
    Posted on June 30, 2016 by Neil Garfield
    followed by the link

    160billionbankfee l

    click it.

    It opens a livinglies.files link to a PDF

    The $160 Billion Bank Fee
    What Violation Tracker 2.0 Shows about Penalties Imposed on Major Financial Offenders

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, People, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  5. Please read and print hard copies for me. Also please email a copy of your message to Eric Coakley about the the psycho/emotiional damages and /distress issues and suffering you’ve endured, and for so, so many years. I’ll be ready for p/u at 10 AM tomorrow..

    On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Livingliess Weblog wrote:

    > Neil Garfield posted: ” See here: 160billionbankfee So for an average of > $20 Billion per year, the mega banks received an infinite supply of forever > stamps — “forever” in the sense that they committed epic fraud and are > still doing it. I believe this” >

  6. It will ALL blow again again and this time mush worse, you can see the bubbles amassing in almost every sector: bonds, real estate, student loans, auto loans, stocks, etc etc etc..

  7. FYI:

    Huffington Post:

    Rootstrikers FOIA request reveals coordinated efforts on TPP between Wall Street lobbyists and lead U.S. trade negotiator.

    The TPP’s giveaways to big banks would be a disaster for Wall Street reform. Tell Congress to stop the TPP – and block any attempt to force the TPP through during the “lame duck” session >>

    It’s more clear than ever: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a deal written of, by, and for corporate insiders.
    We recently got the results of a Freedom of Information Act request 5 months in the making. It reveals sickening collusion between Wall Street lobbyists and the top U.S. trade negotiator to fill the TPP with giveaways for big banks.
    As a result, the TPP for the first time contains DRAMATICALLY expanded powers for big banks to attack U.S. laws like Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform.

    Tell Congress: Oppose the disastrous TPP trade deal – and stand up against any attempt to force the bill through during the “lame duck” session!

  8. I am hoping the currency reset has a positive effect for us and not the banks. Disgraceful that this crisis is not any better than it was back in 2008. The MSM hides the foreclosure crisis, but we know it is still here and looking like it will get worse because of HELOC reset. The banksters are still selling terrible mortgages and loans just like it was 2007 all over again. Take down the mega banks.

  9. what will it be about?


    Please join a LYME Facebook conversation Friday, July 1 at 11:30 am EST. ILADS representative, Kenneth Liegner, MD of Pawling, NY, will be joining IDSA and CDC representatives in a live question and answer session on Facebook. This event is sponsored by FOX 5 in NYC.

    Click the following to participate in the converstation:

  11. doesnt anyone notice that NO one from this administration has come to save us. No one has ever seen this before at anytime in america. what happened in the depression? wasnt there price fixing so people would not go into foreclosure? so people could eat??? this is such a crime on us. please please watch the entire series of zeigeist and lets wake up and find out ways to get our lives back. 7 years of fighting i am getting tired

  12. please watch the entire series. lets wake up please

  13. And Jamie Dimon extorts the American people every chance he gets.

  14. THANK YOU NEIL for this very important post! The truth hurts! The American people have been really stupid and continue to hide their heads in the sand. Tom Schauf wrote books in the 90’s about how the banks were planning to seize everyone’s assets… and no one was listening. Bank presidents admitted to Tom that the American people were too stupid to ever figure it out securitization and their big scheme TO STEAL HOUSES, Yes.. how did all the originators go under and cry BK when they never loaned a dime? Its all been carefully planned years in advance. Bernie Madoff must be proud.. Wallstreet has admitted they took what they learned from Bernie to pull off the largest ponzi scheme in our history.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: