Waiting for the Banks to Fail

The Wall Street banks have been largely successful in planting information and disinformation throughout mainstream media, regulatory authorities, legislators, and the judicial system. According to their story they are financially very healthy with expanding income leading to a bright future. If you click on the article below you will see how two internationally known economists think otherwise. Basically it is my opinion that if the information is coming from Wall Street it is probably false. If the information is coming from experts you need to find out what their relationship is with Wall Street banks before you lend them any credibility.

Any observer can easily see how it is getting increasingly difficult for the banks to foreclose on residential and commercial mortgages. This is bringing them closer to the edge of a cliff. When foreclosures start being rejected because the court realizes that it is being used as a tool to strip the investors of both their receivable and their security, the next crash will reach critical mass within a period of weeks. The end result will be that huge amounts of money are going to be owed by the Wall Street banks to insurers, credit default swap counterparties, borrowers, taxpayers and the federal reserve along with anyone else who gave money to the Wall Street banks under the mistaken belief that those banks owned either the mortgage bond or the underlying mortgages. Neither of those assumptions are true.

If I am right about the trajectory of these proceedings then a very substantial amount of what is now reported as assets on the balance sheet of the Wall Street banks will vanish like a puff of smoke. This will put them completely out of balance in terms of the reserve requirements to operate a bank with the presumed size of these megabanks. If this happens there is really no choice. As unthinkable as it might seem (like Detroit declaring bankruptcy) they Wall Street banks would be broken up in accordance with the Dodd Frank law and normal rules of resolution by the FDIC.

For all of the above reasons and more, I keep telling people that each month brings us closer to the time when borrowers prevail more in court than the banks. Judges are required to be skeptical of any new concept or theory. When it becomes obvious to them that the new concept or theory is coming from the banks and not from the borrowers, the court decisions will be substantially in favor of the  borrowers.  The longer you hang in there, the closer you are to getting relief. There are already several programs that are offering a correction of the principal amount due in order to save the property and prevent the foreclosure. These programs are the same programs that were universally rejected only two years ago.

As a lawyer I have noticed that the general attitude of judges has changed from irritation to curiosity. That is a very positive change for the borrowers. When I started this blog it was my belief that eventually this would be resolved, the banks will be held accountable, and the borrowers would get relief. It is obvious that I was wrong on the timing of that and that millions of families were subjected to humiliation and financial ruin. But I still believe that the end of this process is going to occur as a result of developments in the courts.

How a Big Bank Failure Could Unfold

26 Responses

  1. L We r Eunice Gagne 781_588_4030 fax 866_440_6364 From my HTC Sensation 4G on T-Mobile. The first 4G network

  2. Christine said:
    “. Again, as soon as government started pocking its nose into homeownership and pushing a social program onto banks, (FHA, Fannie, Freddie) banks demanded guarantees. FDIC was a start to guarantee banks that there would be no rush run on the money, should the SHTF. Rewriting insurance contracts with government blessing/government-imposed clauses and pushing the deal to include lenders, securities and what not. was the next step.”

    Well, I’m not so sure the govt actually started poking its nose into home ownership by the advent of the Fnma and fhlmc. If F and F providing a perm home for loans originated by others is poking, then they did. It was a valuable service until it got messed up by the abandonment of underwritng guidelines by originators and the willful disregard of that abandonment by mucks at fnma and fhlmc (ones who implemented, say, audit procedures) who avoided audits in favor of large production bonuses and probably
    cronyism.
    Then fnma and fhlmc got on board the securitization train, sold payment streams (or something) and guaranteed them, which guarantee, as I’ve said, I see as an outrage to capitalism and a misappropriation of tax dollars.

    But, yeah, as I said, some in Wash reacted to demands for better deals, in a word, for minorities and those with low income.
    But I don’t know what you mean by the rest of that paragraph. The banks demanded guarantees of what by whom? The banks demanded fnma and fhlmc make those guarantees to the sec’n investors? Grabbing at straws because I don’t know what you mean there. Nor have I gleaned the goal
    of the PATH deal, so if you got it, tell us.

    As to fair Isaac and fico scores, I believe that if someone is going to lend
    money, it’s more than reasonable and necessary to access the likelihood of repayment to any degree that can be determined UNless the doing so violates anything at all, including and foremost the borrower’s rights. If a fico score is not violative, and people don’t like it they can do what you suggested: don’t borrow money. But if they want to do this fico + PATH deal to determine risk and make the loans anyway so they can ultimately bet against repayment, they can kiss my gritz. But again, I don’t understand the PATH deal. I just felt the article was so manipulative, it begged scrutiny, which I tried, but ultimately failed to determine what it is they’re up to and you haven’t cleared up, either. So if you or anyone can, please do for the rest of us.

  3. JG, Fair Isaac is related to credit reports a la credit reporting agencies which have lots of private info about people and their credit. Lots of errors in that info as well. Lots of lawsuits as well against them and the credit bureaus under the FDCPA.

  4. Don’t anybody tell me that moron isn’t beneficial to Garfield somewhere. Mandelman doesn’t put up with crap like that. Nor do Weidner, Barnes, Stopa, Gardner, McCandless, John Wright or any of the other, less known ones who get results.

    Garfield makes his money by the number of posts. Only rational explanation. And the imbecile is probably getting a cut too. Again, only reasonable way to understand i

  5. Elex,

    “Let’s make a deal ….” Let’s not. Tell us again… what do you need a FICO score for?

    1) Credit – Who needs that? Let’s pay cash. And wait until we can.
    2) Job: you know how to do many more things any company will ever hire you for. Become your own and bypass that.
    3) Health insurance: do you really want to be treated by those moribund looking Docs and nurses? When I see a nurse weighing 250 lbs, I really don’t want what he/she wants to sell me.

    Where is that FICO problem again?

  6. JG,

    You’re missing the point, in my opinion.

    “…is that certain groups for years have demanded that underwriting standards be reduced or the government do something the hell to help minorities become homeowners.”

    True. Lending standards were lowered to allow certain people to be allowed to purchase homes. Listen to Pinto being interviewed by Mandelman.

    “As the GSE’s were gov’t sponsored entities, the govt did in fact put underwriting guidelines for home ownership in effect TO THE EXTENT that FNMA and FHLMC would not provide a quick and easy way and place to off-load loans to regain working capital. Similarly, FHA and VA had govt inspired underwriting guidelines if banksters wanted the ben of the insurance or guarantee.”

    True. Again, as soon as government started pocking its nose into homeownership and pushing a social program onto banks, (FHA, Fannie, Freddie) banks demanded guarantees. FDIC was a start to guarantee banks that there would be no rush run on the money, should the SHTF. Rewriting insurance contracts with government blessing/government-imposed clauses and pushing the deal to include lenders, securities and what not. was the next step.

    Originally, banks were banks: there to make money from your money and helping you make some in the process. Nobody forced anyone to deal with banks. You stopped dealing, they went belly up. End of story. Government got involved… half-ass, as usual. Underwriting guidelines tried to accommodate every single lobbyist: bank lobbyist, minority lobbyist, middle-class lobbyist, worker’s lobbyist, Insurance lobbyist, you name it. What government does worse and what it thoroughly fucked up.

    Truman said: “The buck stops here.” And it did. Somewhere down the line, government lost track of its role. It started being… social! And doing… social but it didn’t want to rock the money boat. Fucked up both world, royally!

    Social wasn’t its role 100 years ago. Not its role today. Or… you change the damn constitution once and for all and the land of opportunity collapses.

  7. “Fair Issac was recently bought by a consortium of banks. PATH is the database they need.’
    elex, please tell us more about PATH. You must know more since you’re able to determine that the current owners of the fair isaac ystemnneed it.

  8. I don’t want to bash NG but he’s not getting any results until he makes inroads in getting info in the poss and control of someone else. And he’s not getting that, nor is anyone other than a rarity, until court’s reliance on bearer notes is outed for what it is – not good enough to invoke jurisdiction for lack of injury. His theories of what one would find if one could find something are interesting, maybe even spot on, but he has avoided the determination of what is necessary to get at the material, the guts of his theory. I don’t believe so just now, but that avoidance has, have to admit, struck me as purposeful. What the heck good does it do me to know my 57 Chevy is in your garage if I’m not allowed to open the dang door and if I’m unable to convey to a court why it should allow me to open the garage door?

  9. Your FICO score comes from the name of Fair Issac Credit Organization, a small company (in the 70’s) in NorCal that I was unsuccessful in gaining employment. It is predictive software (written in assembly language then) based on financial and social indicators. It runs against a database of debtors and external financial data to arrive at its predictions. Think the predecessor to the social predictive element in the Dune series that spans generations.

    Fair Issac was recently bought by a consortium of banks. PATH is the database they need.

    Let’s make a deal ….

  10. Elizabeth’s article:
    “Under the current broken system, unaccountable Washington elites have more of a say over who gets a mortgage than your local bank. The current system is a government monopoly run by the same types of Washington bureaucrats who run the IRS. America can do better. Americans deserve better.”

    My first reaction to that was that it’s a load that Wash elite have more to say about who gets a loan than a local bank. On second thought, I’d say that is a decidedly manipulative, incognito way of bashing “affirmative housing”.
    The hidden allegation here, imo, is that certain groups for years have demanded that underwriting standards be reduced or the government do something the hell to help minorities become homeowners. The people in Washington who have responded in such a manner as to change some things or implement some things for the benefit of minority and low-income
    Americans are being called “Washington elites” to give an impression what’s being talked about is 5 (30?) million dollar loans to buddies to buy mansions. Maybe there’s some of that,but not much comparatively Those decisions are someone else’s (the c.e.o of some bank) , whereas the govt has done things to make it easier for low income and minorities to buy homes. Imo, this is what the author or whomever said this is sqwauking about. They don’t’ want those loans made if it means they have to pick up the tab when payments aren’t made. Or, they just don’t want them made.
    Looks to me like they want ECOA, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, tossed on its ear. I dare say some people are outraged that Obama was elected, though I couldn’t even speculate if there’s a connection to whatever the heck is being sold here or my impression they want ECOA tossed.

    As the GSE’s were gov’t sponsored entities, the govt did in fact put underwriting guidelines for home ownership in effect TO THE EXTENT that FNMA and FHLMC would not provide a quick and easy way and place to off-load loans to regain working capital. Similarly, FHA and VA had govt inspired underwriting guidelines if banksters wanted the ben of the insurance or guarantee.
    What this highly manipulative, weird piece or the opinion of anyone else about the government (in the article being called “Washington elite”) setting guidelines for these agencies is the banksters are free to look elsewhere
    to unload or insure loans they originate. I’m not sure exactly what is being proposed in this deal, but to be sure whatever it is is to unshackle the poor banks from the constraints and mandates of all guidelines of the agencies.
    Those guys just don’t’ stop. They F with everything they’ve ever been granted as privilege which allows them to earn (steal, whatever) more money more easily. They get to earn gargantuan amts of dough on temporary lending to borrowers * using other people’s money. Have any idea what the true yield is to them?
    *They can use your money to loan me 200k for a short period (it’s short because they’re going to dump the loan on a GSE – which they’re now touting as WASH elites making policy – say, and recover the money expended which wasn’t theirs, anyway. 2 (5? 10?) points on someone
    else’s money, say. Where can we get some? It must be true – the best way to rob a bank is to own one. I really can’t make out what all is being
    hawked in that article, but since it started off manipulating, I don’t like it.

  11. Our tax money at work… And people who should see a return but don’t keep on paying. If it’s not insanity, I don’t know what is.

    http://realestate.aol.com/blog/on/new-homes-demolished-highland-park-michigan?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl16|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D346348

    New Detroit-Area Homes Demolished as Housing Project Goes Awry
    By Sheree R. Curry | Posted Jul 18th 2013 6:00PM
    39 Comments
    Updated Jul 19th 2013 7:32PM

    The Detroit area remains one of the top 10 metros for foreclosed and vacated homes. Its abandoned residences often become hideouts for drug users and prostitutes, and occasionally scenes of murder. So it’s no wonder that government officials want to simply tear down many of these homes. But in the community of Highland Park, Mich., several of the homes recently demolished were nearly new and never owned after a neighborhood revitalization project turned disastrous. And even the wreckers hired to do the job expressed shock at the waste.

    “The project was supposed to transform a derelict section of Highland Park into a model neighborhood,” reported Detroit TV station WXYZ. But a lot of the homes built just eight years ago are now abandoned, stripped, burned and now being demolished by the state as a part of its “Michigan Blight Elimination Program.”

    Just recently, several homes built this decade were marked for demolition alongside some 60-year-old homes. (See the demolition slideshow below.) “Four houses over, there were abandoned homes more than 30 years old, but they had me come take out a new one,” Bill Koresky, the owner of Able Demolition hired to raze the homes, told AOL Real Estate. “I called the inspector. I said ‘There is no way I can rip these down. There are new doors, new windows. The interior has not even been painted yet.’ ”

    But Koresky says the inspector confirmed that the homes had to come down by order of the state. Not because of mold. Not because of bad soil. Not because of chemical contamination. But, according to news reports, because of alleged mismanagement of funds and poor planning. It turned out that not many people wanted to spend $150,000 on a 1,100-square-foot home in a distressed community. Then at least one of the financiers behind the project in Highland Park — an incorporated city essentially surrounded by Detroit — was charged with conspiracy and money laundering in connection with real estate deals in Ohio. And the state official running HIghland Park’s financial affairs also ran into legal trouble.

    After the 2005 ground-breaking for the new properties in Highland Park — a city that was forced to follow the financial supervision of the state since 1990 — its emergency financial manager was replaced by Art Blackwell, who’s now on probation after pleading guilty to mismanaging funds while serving as the emergency manager. In addition, the construction of the new units was being privately financed by Aryeh Schottenstein of Oak Park, Mich., who was accused of running a house-flipping and money-laundering scheme in Columbus, Ohio, at the same time that he was supposed to be financing the Highland Park project. He pleaded guilty, and in 2009 Schottenstein was sentenced to 42 months in prison and ordered to pay $3,740,173 in restitution to the victim financial institutions.

    As if all that wasn’t enough, WXYZ reported that the properties in the project that were bought and occupied were found by owners to be poorly constructed and subject to flooding. And the recent recession probably didn’t help either.

    So the lesson is, just because you build it, that doesn’t mean buyers will come, or that money from the state and others will continue to flow. But there was enough money for the tear-down. The demolition of 24 homes in Highland Park was being paid for by a $13.8-million grant through the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program, with three-quarters of the money being used to level vacant, dilapidated structures along several streets in the vicinity, reported The Detroit Free Press.

    “Essentially, you and I are paying for the demolition with taxes,” said Koresky in his phone interview with AOL Real Estate. “Parts of the homes at least could have been donated. Given to Habitat for Humanity. Big money was just being thrown away.”

  12. carie said”

    “…Fannie and Freddie—-G­SEs—-could not just sell the Note—on performing loans—- this would be securities fraud to the GSE security investors.”

    Why would selling just the note to investors be securities fraud?

  13. Come to think of it…

    Garfield is remarkably short on results. Any questions?

  14. Don’t anybody tell me that moron isn’t beneficial to Garfield somewhere. Mandelman doesn’t put up with crap like that. Nor do Weidner, Barnes, Stopa, Gardner, McCandless, John Wright or any of the other, less known ones who get results.

    Garfield makes his money by the number of posts. Only rational explanation. And the imbecile is probably getting a cut too. Again, only reasonable way to understand it.

  15. Lies,

    Court ordered means that a judge already decided on it. You can ask for sanctions if the party failed to comply with the order.

    Motion to compel is only a motion. The judge still has to rule on it before it becomes an order.

  16. thank you neil. what inning are we in?

  17. @Lies, Very basically, the Motion to Compel usually precedes the order from the Court but not always.

  18. Hold the presses! What is the path of a bankster’s claim to foreclosure?
    Don’t they first (do they?) send a referal to a local law firm who then hands it over to its local-bud aka the gonna-be appointed sub trustee? When the local-bud/sub’d trustee files the NOD, does he do so on a warranty of sorts from the law firm that it has reviewed what must be reviewed? (imo that doesn’t necessarily vitiate a dot trustee’s duty to investigate and anyway, he is not the client of the lawyer so as to rely on legal advice) But in practice, is that what’s going on? The law firm is the one doing any alleged diligence for non-j foreclosure (read has the servicer’s code key for alleged default figures and gets what? copy of note (unauthenticated) and copy of recorded dot and assgt?

    If that’s true, I wouldn’t hesitate to call someone at that law firm as a witness if I were fighting non-j foreclosure. In non-j, though, the challenge is finding out who the law fiirm was, in which case, you’d have to find out from the sub trustee who that was (either by naming the sub trustee or subpoena or interrogatory or what not) Or pick up the phone?
    Imo, if the reliance for the dot trustee is alleged to be the diligence of the law firm, or even if not, I think, there is no privilege to assert against discovery
    of what the law firm did or received. Well, that’ll take some work, but it’s what i believe in my lay opinion.

  19. I have a question……what is the difference between court ordered discovery that was not produced after a year and motion to compel discovery. seems the same to me.

  20. For the substantive palcity of today’s substitute trustees, non-judicial foreclosure is an abuse of process (that granted by the legislation) and a violation of due process rights which are constitutionally guarantee’d before one may be separated from his property. The palcity is magnified by securitzation and the failure of lenders/beneficiaries to give fair Notice of their interests. (By the time any homeowner today gets that (any alleged) notice, the time is upon him and in some cases, the time has come and gone.)
    Lenders were given the Privilege of non-judicial foreclosure and for a season, it went well. But, today, by the facts above (etc), the borrower’s need to make more and more sophisticated arguments (and in a very short time frame), and thus to exercise his constitutional right to due process has become a wholly untenable if unforeseen consequence of legislating non-judicial foreclosure. No one wants to believe (well, most of us)
    that the legislation meant to create legislation which could and would see the kind of abuses seen today – in fact, abuses that are so inconsistant with one contract- party’s due process rights that they demand repeal.

  21. Both the one-action rule and the security first rules were legislated so that one party to the contract, the borrower, would have some balance for the fact that the other party, the lender / beneficiary, was legislatively being allowed to enforce the contract without oversight of a court, i.e. non-judicial foreclosure. If I remember correctly, and that’s a big if, the borrower is also stripped of his lengthy right of redemption with non-j foreclosure. I just can’t remember today, But we care and should know.

    The trade-offs, the whole deal in fact, the legislation may have legitimately believed they were legislating have been wholly defeated. Non-judicial foreclosure has become a joke. The dot trustee was put in the newly created instrument, a deed of trust ( v. a mortgage) to act as a referee mol in place of a court**, but a non-judicial ref with the ultimate right to enforce the beneficary’s rights upon his duly discharged duty-to-investigate the beneficiary’s claim that the borrower was in default, and thus, the trustee would be appropriately discharging its duties in filing a Notice of Default, a Notice of Sale, and to sell the collateral at his trustee’s sale.
    The dot trustee is not the agent of the lender / beneficiary. If he were, he’d be called an agent, and not a trustee, for one thing. The idea was not to have a third party who is the minion of either of the other two – remember, the dot was formulated to avoid having to go to court, which means there would be no courtroom-judge in the act of non-j foreclosure. The idea of non-j f/c and what was legislated is that a third party was introduced into the collateral instrument who could protect and enforce the rights of the other TWO, not just one of the other two. The legislation, even had it wanted to, which it didn’t, couldn’t have said “here is a dot. This new third guy is the agent of one of the parties, um actually the lender/beneficiary”. The acts of an agent are the acts of its principal.

    So even had they wanted to call or deem the trustee an agent (which they didn’t and which most assuredly wasn’t their intent), they wouldn’t because that would have just meant, because an agent acts for its principal, that a lender / beneficiary could foreclose with no objective oversight whatsoever, in which case, there would be no need for that third party. If the lender / beneficiary could simply play judge and jury and foreclose non-judicially, there is no deed of trust. There’s only a mortgage no longer requiring judicial foreclosure.

    Judicial foreclosure after “MERS” is bad enough. There’s just no way to see non-j as anything other than an intolerable abomination.

    In non-j foreclosure, the parties being sub’d in, the ones who replaced judges in judicial-foreclosure-requiring mortgages have been reduced to people deserving of the name ‘idiot’ who either can’t themselves spell or define any of the terms in the contract to enforce them or hire 10.00 an hour saplings to carry out the mission. They have no awareness of the laws in play whatsoever.

    And to boot, they’re being casually called, by banksters and judges alike, the “agent” of the beneficiary, one party to the contract.

    This isn’t harmless; it’s far from harmless. As an agent, these trustees-come-lender/beneficiary-agents have little duty to the homeowner. (It’s at least indisputable that the dot trustee by any name owes the borrower the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Is the borrower even getting that – ever? He’s certainly less likely to get it if at all when the dot trustee is calling himself the agent of the other party to the contract, which imo is actually a denouncement of his position as trustee in favor of one of the parties’ agent, leaving the dot with no trustee).

    An agent’s agenda and obligation is to advance the position and interests of his principal and to take orders from that principal.
    .
    If today i received anything from a trustee or sub-trustee signed
    as or alleged to be Hoyle pursuant to “agency” between himself and the (alleged) lender-beneficiary or an action wherein agency was claimed between the beneficiary and the sub trustee ow where there is an on-going action wherein such agency were declared, I think my first responsive action or whatnot would include an assertion there is no trustee, a necessary party, in the dot because the one sub’d in has declared an agency (by X, Y, or Z or all the above) with the (alleged) beneficiary.

    **Any trustee has to make the same decisions in non-judicial foreclosures that judges have to make in judicial foreclosure. Is the party who claimed default the proper claimant? Do the numbers he’s been provided (without benefit of authentication, no doubt) support this party’s claim (these figures have to be 100 percent accurate) Is his reliance on a copy (unauthenticated no doubt) of the note warranted? etc. Imo these yeahoo sub trustees got nothing except a code key to the servicer’s records to look at alleged default numbers.

    The title companies won’t remain the dot trustees because they are called upon to guarantee title for 1) the trustee’s sale and 2) to the sale to anyone after the trustee’s deed….duh. Now, bet the ranch, they have contracts of indemnification between themselves and the bad actors involved in foreclosure.
    The title companies didn’t mind taking any money for the use of their names as the initialt dot trustees to lend (here actually sell) propriety to these dog-doo MERS’ (of which they are shareholders – well, MERS or MERSCorp) dots and mortgages, but they aren’t about to
    issue insurance on foreclosures in which they carried out the duties of trustee they accepted. So, they won’t carry out the duties they accepted being appointed the original dot beneficiary and insist that banksters substitute the dot trustees and get them outta there. How nice for them.

    . I’ll bet if I had long enough, I could support an allegation that allowing the use (by sale) of its name as orig trustee with known “no intention” of ever acting as such is nailable. It’s patently deceptive.

  22. Neil said:

    “…When foreclosures start being rejected because the court realizes that it is being used as a tool to strip the investors of both their receivable and their security, the next crash will reach critical mass within a period of weeks…”

    ______________________

    By not allowing discovery of accounting records and saying they don’t care if the real creditor is named or not, the judges are allowing the debt collectors of unsecured debt to continue with the fraudulent foreclosures, and simply not ALLOWING anyone to show WHY it is all unsecured debt…and complete FRAUD.
    The judges know it and don’t care, because of their pensions. Period.

    “…Fannie and Freddie—-G­SEs—-could not just sell the Note—on performing loans—- this would be securities fraud to the GSE security investors. The Note (and it’s receivable stream) HAD to be falsely placed in default—and charged-of­f (after de-regulation, 1999-2000) in order to sell the “Note”—- but, when this happens the Note NO LONGER EXISTS—thu­s, all that is sold is collection rights to a once existing note.

    Security investors fund the BANK—not the borrowers—­there is no direct relationsh­ip between security investors and borrowers. If banks are able to sell their income stream, that is an accounting transactio­n—it is not a “loan” to borrowers. This is why security investors are NEVER the creditor.

    Collection rights transfers are not funded by borrower transactio­ns (ie fabricated refinance)­. Collection rights are transferre­d by assignment­—not NOTES (which is why NOTES are fake, and all the paperwork is fraudulent and fabricated). When some people here talk about Non-Deposi­t “trust” non-member­s—they are referring to derivative transactio­ns—that “SWAP” out collection rights—alt­hough the credit enhancers pay cash for collection rights—the­y use insurance for the purchase of the rights.

    This is why the subprime was so profitable­—the bank debt buyers put up no cash for transactio­n—but, were then able to profit by the “sale” of the receivable pass-throu­ghs to security investors.­. This is also why MBIA (insurance co.) legal action against BOA and others is hugely important.­”

  23. All the angst about the NEW PATH bill may be unnecessary as assorted government and economic “experts” do not like it: http://www.housingwire.com/news/2013/07/18/path-act-receives-mixed-reviews-mortgage-experts

  24. Louise and Elizabeth,

    Why are we paying the salaries of assholes who keep stabbing us in the back? Why are we condoning it?

  25. IS PATH part of another bill they are trying to bury it in? I saw something about it being buried in an immigration bill. If so, we are safe from PATH for the time being because of vehement opposition against any immigration reform in the House. However, if it is not buried in a bill, then it is much more dangerous. Of course, it could also be buried again in a different bill.

  26. YOU MAY BE WAITING FOR NOTHING THE FIX IS IN

    The House Financial Services Committee (HFSC), headed by chair Jeb Hensarling, has approved proposed bill entitled, “Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners Act” (PATH) that is being sold to the American public as a way “to create a sustainable housing finance system.”

    Hensarling explained : “Our plan helps taxpayers and homeowners. It gives power and control back to consumers. Under the current broken system, unaccountable Washington elites have more of a say over who gets a mortgage than your local bank. The current system is a government monopoly run by the same types of Washington bureaucrats who run the IRS. America can do better. Americans deserve better.”

    Buried in PATH is the creation of the National Mortgage Data Repository (NMDR) which is the brainchild of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

    The NMDR would be “the first comprehensive repository of detailed mortgage loan information. The database will primarily be used to support the agencies’ policymaking and research efforts and to help regulators better understand emerging mortgage and housing market trends.”

    Richard Corday, director of the CFPB asserts that “in order to understand what is going on in the mortgage marketplace and develop appropriate consumer protections, we must have the best facts and data. This database will be a valuable tool for regulators and researchers and we look forward to partnering with FHFA on this important work.”

    The NMDB would be utilized in conjunction with agencies to:

    • Monitor the relative health of mortgage markets and consumers.
    • Provide new insight on consumer decision making.
    • Monitor new and emerging products in the mortgage market.
    • View both first and second lien mortgages for a given borrower.
    • Understand the impact of consumers’ debt burden.

    The problem that justifies the NMDB is the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) that is a database that was incorporated in 1995 and privately held.

    MERS board of directors is filled with vested interest from technocrats such as:

    • Freddie Mac
    • Wells Fargo
    • Citigroup
    • JP Morgan & Chase Co
    • Fannie Mae
    • Bank of America

    Those financially invested in MERS include:

    • Bank of America
    • Citigroup
    • HSBC
    • Sun Trust
    • Wells Fargo
    • Fannie Mae
    • Freddie Mac

    Hensarling took a ski-trip last April and met with powerful members of the financial Elite who have also made campaign contributions to him through the SuperPAC Jobs, Economy and Budget (JEB) Fund just before PATH was announced by the HFSC.

    The “weekend getaway” was attended by:

    • A representative from the American Securitization Forum (ASF)
    • Len Wolfson, lobbyist for the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA)
    • VISA
    • And other members of the retail industry and finance corporations

    Those who have contributed to the JEB Fund around the time of the ski-trip weekend are:

    • Capital One
    • Credit Suisse
    • PricewaterhouseCoopers
    • MasterCard
    • UBS
    • US Bank
    • National Association of Federal Credit Unions
    • Koch Industries
    • Cash America International
    • CheckSmart Financial
    • Regions Financial
    • JP Morgan & Chase Co

    Considering the implications of PATH for the banksters, it may be that those technocrats who contributed to the JEB Fund would be the first to take advantage of the bill should it pass through to become a law.

    Supporting PATH, the American Bankers Association (ABA) released a statement saying: “We commend Chairman Hensarling for this thoughtful measure to begin the essential work of reforming our nation’s housing finance system and protecting taxpayers, which includes reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and refocusing the Federal Housing Administration.”

    The ABA went on to say: “We strongly support provisions of the Chairman’s bill that would delay implementation of pending mortgage rules, including Qualified Mortgage, and provide some important and needed changes to that rule. More time is needed to ensure that banks can comply with these complex new rules to avoid unintended effects on credit availability. Clarifications to the rules are also necessary, both those still to be proposed by regulators and others included in this legislation.”

    The NMDR would wipe the slate clean with regard to the mortgage fraud that has become apparent with cases being filed in courts all across the nation. Homeowners and attorneys have realized that with the use of MERS, the banks have been able to robosign their way into mortgage debt that was foreclosable.

    However, MERS has proven to be a bit of a thorn for the banksters when it comes to proving they hold title to the property they are in the process of seizing. In fact, it appears that the financial Elite did not consider the clogging of the courts and losing their right to foreclose on home based on the lack of evidence that they hold title of the property because of MERS.

    Instead, the technocrats have devised a way to take the homes from ALL homeowners regardless of whether or not they have previously won during foreclosure litigation, are in the process of litigation and would file a complaint with the courts at a future date.

    One of the outcomes of PATH would be the right of the technocrats to stop current legal standing of the homeowners in court with regard to foreclosure litigation.

    Without this provision, the homeowner cannot sue to stop the foreclosure, nor can new complaints be filed with the courts.

    But one of the biggest advantages of PATH would be for the technocrats to reopen foreclosure litigation that was ruled on in favor of the homeowner.

    Just as with criminal law, the right of protection from being retried for a “crime” is protected under Jeopardy clause.

    The civil version of the Jeopardy clause works much the same of the criminal counterpart. Jeopardy can terminate “in four instances: after acquittal; after dismissal; after a mistrial; and on appeal after conviction.”

    What this means for PATH and the NMDR is that a homeowner who previously won a suit against the bank and kept their home, would now be under threat of having the case reopened under the new evidence argument.

    The bank could simply open a new case in light of PATH that would empower them bring this law in as evidence (should the law be passed). This would also allow the banks to circumvent the Ex Post Facto clause .

    By using PATH as the reason to bring old litigation to new light, this scheme would serve to give the banks a way to acquire those properties anyway.

    It is a three-fold win for the technocrats thanks to Henserling and the HFSC.

    • Future foreclosure litigation is halted because of lack of legal standing for the homeowner
    • Current foreclosure litigation would be halted because of lack of legal standing for the homeowner
    • Past litigation could be reopened and tried in court for the purpose of taking the property from the homeowner and possibly suing for damages and interests incurred by the original suit

    http://www.occupycorporatism.com/new-house-bill-wipes-mortgage-fraud-clean-for-banksters/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: