Deutsch Slammed with $7 Billion Fine

If they really wanted to provide the relief necessary for homeowners and household wealth and thus bolster the economies of the world, they would take down the the shadow banking marketplace with one simple announcement: that the notes and mortgages were illegal, immoral. and improper, as they were designed not for a loan, but a cover-up of outright theft from investors.

You must read between the lines. Here is Deutsch being punished for “improperly” packing loans. Yet part of the deal is to provide the “borrowers” in those “loans” with modifications or other relief. If the settlement was really about improperly packaging the loans then the relief would go to investors, not the homeowners.

This is a concerted effort to hold back the fury of a population that knows it was screwed by the banks and know that government did nothing to protect them or help them get their lives back.

Listen to the Last Neil Garfield Show at

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

This is a continuing PR campaign to create the illusion of holding the banks accountable; but the real story is that the the debts arising from the receipt of money at “residential loan closings” were never memorialized on any document. Mainstream media refers to “outsize” profits derived from “trading” in “loans” “mortgage bonds” when in fact it was mostly converting stolen money to “trading profits” in fictitious trades where the only record keeping for the “trades” is the buy and sell order, with no corresponding records on the money trail. Analysis of those trades would confirm the fact that most of the trades were either fictitious or premised upon the existence of prior transactions that were nonexistent.

Instead the real purpose of the “closing” procedure was to induce and coerce unsophisticated borrowers into signing a note that created a second liability to a party who had not loaned them any money.

Since the debt and the note were created contemporaneously the homeowner was immediately put into a default upon conclusion of the illusory closing transaction. The merger doctrine that is meant to prevent the two liabilities cannot be used because the note is payable to one party and the debt is payable to another party. The debt and the note cannot merge. The fraudulently induced note should never have been released from the “Closing table” and the mortgage should never have been signed or recorded.

All this is attributable to the national security argument: we can’t tell everyone that the loan documents and the foreclosures are worthless pieces of paper, fabricated, forged and then fraudulently represented in foreclosure proceedings. We must sacrifice the lives and wealth of tens of millions of people in order to let the banks keep their ill-gotten gains and in order to allow the banks to continue their illegal behavior. And the reason for this is national security: if we don’t pretend that what the banks did was real, then the financial system will collapse taking governments, and world order down with the banks who perpetrated the largest economic crime in human history.

I agree that national security trumps individual rights — if the threat is real. I don’t agree the threat is real. We have over 7,000 banks, credit unions and savings banks in this country alone who could pick up the slack caused by the collapse of the major banks (if it came to that). The policy continues to support the banks at the expense of household wealth and thus the country’s future prospects; and all of this is propelled by the ignorance of politicians who are relying upon opinions issued by the same banks who committed these atrocious acts.

And I wonder out loud if the trier of fact, even if it is the judge, should be subject to voir dire examination as to their “instructions” or beliefs concerning the national security implications of failing to enforce foreclosures. In most cases if they answer truthfully it will be apparent that they have prejudged the case and have an insurmountable bias to rule for the banks regardless of the rules of evidence. If they believe that denying foreclosures will undermine national security, then they are in no position to be fair and impartial.


7 Responses

  1. The Federal Reserve Act;
    “This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the president signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed… The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill.”
    — Rep. Charles Lindbergh ( Circa 1913 )

    With that, I can only say the true creditor is revealed in a publication put out by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago titled, “Modern Money Mechanics”. In it, you’ll find out more than you need to know… problem, as everyone states, is how to educate the judges.

  2. I don’t understand how many of these “Financial Institutions” have finally admitted wrongdoing, and paying Billions in “Fines”, yet no one who was harmed by the Economic Collapse from 2006 to, (actually present) have not received a cent. Where is all of this Money going, and for what cause ?

  3. Don’t I know it. I have been involved with Deutsche for more than two years in a foreclosure procedure. We come to court with an arsenal of nuclear weapons of law on our side and the plaintiff shows up with a pea shooter. That little inadequate pea shooter takes out our nuclear arsenal every time as the local “judge” hasn’t the first clue about law, let alone the maze of securitization schemes.

    I am getting ready to file some answering papers and I am going to introduce the Deutsche findings and 7B fine into my answers. We have to keep educating sleepy Jurassic small county judges. I have been trying to get this judges attention for more than five years as I was involved in a previous foreclosure case with Deutsche. After all that time, the judge “still doesn’t get it.” Oh well, there is always the appeals court.

    P.S. By the way, we lost the first case against Deutsche, but we sued for wrongful foreclosure.

  4. This is right on point — after so many years. The loans were placed in default at or near the time of closing. Which means the prior loan was NEVER recorded as paid by borrower. It does not matter that there may have been a fake discharge recorded. It only matters what was recorded and reported internally against the borrower. Now ask yourself, who was the likely investor on the prior loan? Finally, people are getting it. I have known this for years. Yes — tens of millions of people were sacrificed in order to protect the banks. Yes – this protection was not necessary as the banks that were meant to fail should have failed and numerous smaller banks would have picked up the market. Yes – the borrowers are the real victims. Investors were hurt because they could not realize the higher interest rates on portfolios. However, investors are not entitled to high rates of return based upon fraud. Their principal was returned by Swap protection bailout. The borrowers continue to suffer and fight alone in courts that do not comprehend.

    Thank you, Neil, for this. Happy Holidays to all.


  5. Yes. Correct. Yet still the fraud continues !!

  6. Credit Suisse also just “settled” for a billion or two.
    They own SPS, Select Portfolio Servicing in Salt Lake City, formerly Fairbanks. If there is homeowner/borrower “relief” provided
    for in the settlement, then get your letters out to them right away and persevere

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: