Seven Movies That Tell the Truth About Greed and Corruption on Wall Street

see http://fortune.com/2015/12/27/big-short-wall-street-movies/

No movie, unless it was the length of Shoah, would be able to catch both the gross behavior, much less all the nuances, caused by Wall St6reet corruption and incredible greed. But a number of movies have made some pretty good attempts at capturing parts of the largest financial crime in human history. Rarely do we see economic crimes lead to changes in history. But this time we did see that result, as more than 20 million people thus far have been displaced from their homes, their investments and their lives.

The enormity of the crime seems to be captured by the latest film, “The Big Short.” The movie itself seems to be provoking more outbreaks of rage that has been seething ever since the world found out that the banks had effectively taken over world control. To see the distortion of our electoral politics, domestic and foreign policy is to experience a kind of revulsion that is difficult to convey in words without graphic language.

I have not seen the full movie yet but I read the book and was astonished that there were people out there who would actually tell the truth about what happened.

As a primer, just keep this in mind.

The banks created empty trusts and then sold shares in those trusts to investors (i.e., pension funds). Instead of funding the trusts, they kept the money from the investors and made as few loans as possible to cover their tracks. And to make sure they would make even more money they made the worst possible loans that were certain to fail and thus gave themselves a sure thing on which to place multiple, layered bets.

In order to tie the knot they needed as many loans as possible to be foreclosed, regardless of whether the property owners were current in their payments or not and in order to make that a very certain thing, they arranged it so that “servicers” with contracts with the empty trusts, stepped in and acted like servicers and are taking money that nobody owes them or the trust, because the trust never bought the loan because the trust was never funded.

They used modifications as a lure to get homeowners deeper and deeper into the illusion of a default. The default never existed because like in any Ponzi scheme the real owners of the debt (the investors) were always getting paid regardless of whether the “borrowers” ever made a payment. They were getting paid from a slush fund. Each payment was labeled a servicer advance, when the servicer was not authorized as a servicer, didn’t make the payment, and didn’t even cause the payment to be made — that was the job of the hidden Master Servicer who was the bank that created the fake trusts and conducted fake sales of shares in the fake trusts.

But that didn’t stop the banks from foreclosing in record numbers, so confusing the borrowers and courts that everyone thought it must be true that the banks were the lenders — until everyone found out they were not lenders. They were brokers at best and thieves at worst.

I’ll leave the rest to the movies……..

 

53 Responses

  1. Therefore, because of what is stated in the link I posted previously, everything they’ve done & they’rr doing under THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION is CRIMINAL HARASSMENT of the U.S. CITIZENRY with INTENT TO CRIMINALLY EXTORT our U.S. CITIZENSHIP.

    That’s the direct result of DERELICTION OF DUTY by OBAMA , in numerous instances, he has willfully & wantonly tried to CRIMINALLY EXTORT from us our LEGAL IDENTITY which is TRADING WITH THE ENEMY under FALSE PRETENSES.

  2. I inadvertently left out one of the / in the link.I posted below RE THE SHOOTING OF LAQUAN MCDONALD – CALLS FOR ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY ANITA ALVAREZ RESIGNATION & RAHM EMANUELS RESIGNATION:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Laquan_McDonald

  3. SHOOTING OF LAQUAN MCDONALD: CALS FOR RESIGNATION OF ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY ANITA ALVAREZ & CHICAGO MAYOR RAHM EMANUEL:

    http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Laquan_McDonald

  4. Moreover, nothing can be ruled upon lawfully & no laws can be enforced under the guise of this FOREIGN PARIMILTARY ADMINISTRATION.

    One claim by the U.S. CITIZENRY the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION is operating UNLAWFULLY STATES THE CLAIM & legally disqualifies everyone, including them because they then have the BURDEN OF PROOF on them to legally prove otherwise.

    The HEADLINE from the FRONT PAGE of the SUNDAY CHICAGO SUN TIMES : COPS STORIES DON’T ADD UP, from SUNDAY DECEMBER 13, 2015, STATES THE CLAIM OBAMA is BEARING FALSE WITNESS upon the innocent UNLAWFULLY.

  5. Do OBAMA & his ADMINISTRATION get DRUG TESTED regularly? If not, they should because they’re violating our LEGAL RIGHTS by being in office:

    http://www.commieblaster.com

    Furthermore, if they’re on some DRUG, legal or not, they should go to prison for FORCED COERCION.

  6. It would have to be some FOREIGN THIRD-PARTY INTEREST because of the UNLAWFUL BAILOUT OF AIG who is no BANK & that’s LEGAL PROOF of CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY by INVESTORS who we never did business with AKA THE FOREIGN THIRD-PARTY INTEREST of FRAUD RACKETEERS.

    The LAZARDS maybe, or the ROTHSCHILDS could be FRAUD RACKETEERING under the guise of FRAUDCLOSURE.

  7. PERFECT DEFAULT CORRELATION STATES THE CLAIM FRAUDCLOSURE IS CRIMINAL EXTORTION by the INVESTORS to criminally engsge in TITLE FRAUD.

    Therefore, the THIRD PARTY FOREIGN INTEREST is by FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT, not revealing their CREDENTIALS UNLAWFULLY..

  8. Moreover, FRAUDCLOSURE is legal evidence of INTENT TO HARM by the CRIMINAL LIARS because PUPORTED EVIDENCE is DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE when FACTS DEEMED ADMITTED get destroyed by deliberately being omitted from the onset or AT LEAST BY THE COMMENCEMENT of the so called INFAMOUS SUIT. .

  9. By CRIMINAL LIARS, I point the full finger of blame to OBAMA & his ADMINISTRATION for FRAUDULENT INVESTMENT PRACTICES that is LEGAL PROOF OF INTENT TO HARM me & the entire U.S. CITIZENRY.

  10. Therefore, I’m no DEBT SLAVE who should be fined unlawfully or by FORCED COERCION, be told by UNLAWFUL TRANSGRESSORS that you’re the COMMUNITY SERVICE SLAVE to the INDENTURED SERVITUDE of CRIMINAL LIARS.

  11. For example, you go borrow on HIGH YIELD, LOW INTEREST RATE CDOS in PLOUGH SHARE FARMING that don’t mature until the PLOUGH SHARE YIELDS something of value, then the PLOUGH SHARE dies because of NUCLEAR CONTAMINATION in 1 year.

    That can only mean the money you collected wasn’t very clean either.

  12. In fact to insinuate BANKS operste like CASINOS is insulting to the GAMBLING INDUSTRY who don’t pretend their BANKS.

    The entire BANKING INDUSTRY of LOAN SHARKS who do nothing but PROLIFERATE they LOAN something of value never disclose their true intentions.

    If you walked into some NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP & they didn’t tell you until you left that’s INSIDER TRADING by WALL STREET EXECS.

  13. If they can’t get under our skin by trying to make us believe FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT is something of value they will try to force it on us in various criminal ways.

    They’re THE LAWYERS GUILD of DEVIL’S ADVOCATES with TBTF LAW DEGREES that prove nothing.

    They bypass the BAR & go directly to the BUNNY RANCH. That way they don’t need CREDENTIALS because they operate from there.

  14. @iwantmynpv,

    Again, Mr, Murray, you are no Andie MacDowell,

    You wrote: “Banks are the casinos, they take practically zero risk and only care that folks continue to show up.”.

    So… what part of me telling people to get their money out of the banks are you disagreeing with now?

    In other words, isn’t it the same thing:

    Me: take your business out of the large banks.
    You: stop “showing up” at the “banking casinos”.

    I recognize the credit unions are also at risk, but, isn’t it fair to say the large banks (btw the banks holding Trillions in “Derivatives”), are at far greater risk if people begin “not showing up” and “taking their business elsewhere”?

    The dialogue, as you and I both know, Bill, needs to change. An imposter, as we both know is manipulating our currency and they must be shown to the door, once, and for all.

    Senator Sanders 2016.

  15. If I could be targeted by the HOODWINKERS everyone could because I’m just some little no one from the SOUTHERN SUBURBS of CHICAGO.

    I was forcibly & UNLAWFULLY dragged from my house, where I raised my 4 kids, by this ADMINISTRATION for being forced to defend my TITLES PRO SE for the past 5 years in COOK COUNTY CHANCERY COURT.

    They brutalized me & tried to kill me numerous times over the past 2 years.

    They targeted me because I’m CATHOLIC & I can prove it.

  16. “DEADBEAT HOMEOWNERS”

    Report: The Big Short

    That fiction is part of the plot… and the exception to the rule. If you pay attention to the details of the film’s explanation, you’ll see that the “subprime” mortgages served as a lynch pin that started the collapse. The true AAA mortgages in the tower of cards also failed. Thousands of homeowners who were over-collaterized suffered too.

    I don’t remember if the MERS organizations, and the hundreds of millions of fraudulent assignments created by Lorraine Brown and her documents mill employing hundreds of Robosigners “made the cut” in this movie, but you can “view their art” in the land records offices of every county in the nation.

    90% of homeowners in every county are naively ignorant that the titles to their home are “clouded.” If they ever have the misfortune of losing their income source for any reason (even because of the ongoing aftermath of what happened in “The Big Short,”) and get behind on two payments, they will enter the murky world of “Fraudclosure”.

    That ugly mess began after the taxpayers bailouts of TARP 1, and TARP 2. The “Too Big To Fail” (TBTF ) Banks created this Ponzi scheme. Two Republican and two Democratic administrations who engineered the demise of the Glass-Stegall act and the resulting “merger-mania” created the TBTF myth foisted upon our nation. ..The community banks in every city could have been the solution to this “problem” but AG Holder and his ilk played as a masterful short-stop to a revival of Glass-Stegall.

    Maybe Brad Pitt, the producer of the “The Big Short”, has a sequel in the can.. “Fraudclosure: America’s Greatest Ponzi Scam!”

  17. Furthermore, can the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK show us what they PROCURED that would show PROOF OF LOSS that woud justify $60+ TRILLION DOLLARS in UNLAWFUL BAILOUTS since the OBAMINATOR became the self imposed DICTATOR of WALL STREETS BLACK NOTE SECURITIES FRAUD?

    If not, OBAMA needs to go to PRISON.

  18. No, Iwantmympv, I’m honest & nothing backs the FRAUDULENT DEBT CREATION by WALL STREET.

    Furthermore, don’t try to insult my intellect with your OBAMA ADMINSTRATION TERROR TACTICS by calling me names you should be calling yourself.

  19. Subject Line: Please join us for Episode [14] of “The Gallant Goose & Friends” on TalkShoe #139335 with

    your hosts, Neva & greg; TONIGHT, Wednesday at 6:45 PM Eastern

    — TONIGHT —
    Sorry for the Late gentle reminder – please make an appointment for yourself to join us for Episode [14] of

    “The Gallant Goose & Friends” on TalkShoe #139335 with your host, greg; TONIGHT, Wednesday evening at 6:45 PM Eastern.

    Since Neil posted that he is skipping his weekly Thursday Night LIVING LIES – FORECLOSURE DEFENSE & ATTACK call until Jan 7, 2016, we’ll discuss current events and news and your own Foreclosure Defense experience…

    IMPORTANT NOTE: Because Dec 24th and Dec 31st fall on Thursday, we will be “bumping” our call over to Wednesday for the next two weeks (Dec 23 & Dec 30)

    Details follow:

    1) Neil’s Living Lies Call at 6:00PM Eastern (347) 850-1260… on Blogtalk Radio (resumes 1/7/2016)

    2) Our interactive self-help Q&A call, “The Gallant Goose & Friends” on TalkShoe – begins TONIGHT – WEDNESDAY night at 6:45PM Eastern

    Call in at (724) 444-7444 (then use Call ID: 139335) then “1#” for guest and/or use your computer to blog/type at http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/139335 6:45 PM Eastern (for 60+ min)

    [Our Calls and Chat Board are recorded for review and sharing…]

    Please use the phone line TO SPEAK; ASK QUESTIONS AND CONTRIBUTE…
    Note that computer access will ONLY allow you to hear and type into the blog (Not Speak)…

    all are welcome!

    if you; or one of your friends; would like to be added and receive email reminders of the call…please email the host at: [lawman@gmx.us] with the subject line: “please add me to the goose!”

    If you would like to be REMOVED from the group…please email the host at: [lawman@gmx.us] with the subject line: “please pluck my goose”

    thank you.
    greg

  20. US Bank v George.

    Is it McGookey (djabelanger’s post is a cut and paste from McGookeys web page) that has misunderstood “standing,” or the Ohio 10th appellate court?

    Standing in Ohio emanates from § 16 of the Ohio Constitution, and states, in part:

    “All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay.”

    Ohio courts help parties that have been injured. Ohio courts don’t help parties that have not been injured.

    Entitlement to enforce, and injury, are not synonymous.

    A party could be a party entitled to enforce an instrument but if they have not not sustained an injury the court won’t help them.

    ———-

    There is much more to the George case than that. It is recommended reading. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. George, 2015-Ohio-49. The George court cites to 73 cases in its opinion as well.

    The concurring opinion of Dorrian reads more like a dissent than a concurrence.

    U.S. Bank has file for reconsideration.

    Also recommended is Bank of Am., N.A. v. Farris, 2015-Ohio-4980, which came out of Ohio 8th appellate court on the same day.

    ¶ 9 of Farris:

    “Sanclemente averred that she reviewed copies of the original note
    and mortgage and that Chase, as servicer for BOA, has been in the possession of the original note and mortgage since July 18, 2009.”

    If Sanclemente works for Chase, and Chase has been in possession of the original since 2009, why did Sanclemente review merely a copy?

    The Farris opinion plummets downhill from there. 😦

  21. Npv- only 7 people understand. When I woke up this morning I thought I was confused, but now I’m not sure……

  22. Maybe the hottest topic in foreclosure defense in this day and age of securitized mortgages — that is, those which are bundled together by the thousands into pools or trusts and sold as stock certificates — is whether the party seeking foreclosure is the right one to be doing so. In the law, this issue is called standing.
    McGookey Law Offices was fortunate to be able to assist in striking a blow for Ohio homeowners on this issue last week in Douglas’ case.
    THE PROMISSORY NOTE AND MORTGAGE
    The two main instruments in a mortgage loan transaction are the promissory note and the mortgage. The Note is the document which evidences the indebtedness while the mortgage secures or collateralizes the debt.
    With respect to the standing issue in Ohio foreclosures, there has been a great deal of confusion among the courts as to whether the foreclosing party must show it has rights in both the Note and the mortgage in order to prevail, or whether rights in either would suffice. Proof or rights in both is a much higher and stricter standard, and thus more favorable to the homeowner.
    THE GEORGE DECISION
    In U.S. Bank v. George, a case involving Wells Fargo, the Franklin County Court of Appeals based in Columbus held that the bank must first prove it is entitled to enforce the Note before the analysis proceeded onto consideration of the mortgage.
    Because bogus assignments of mortgages can easily be manufactured and recorded, the George case has huge implications on Ohio foreclosures in that it significantly raises the bar on the banks.
    Congratulations, Doug!

  23. thank you Dave. It ties in the
    THE 3 MERS ELECTRONIC TRACKING AGREEMENT;[“META”] : Warehouse Agreement, Gestation Agreement, Whole Loan Sale Agreement . Stating just that.

    he originator Lender Creditor is the debtor obligor.
    And HUD doc that was suppose to have been given us on or before the closing that is the HUD RELEASE OF PERSONAL LIABILITY UPON TRANSFER AND PURCHASE TO A NEW SUBSTITUTE MORTGAGE THAT TAKES OVER FULL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LIABILITY

  24. Maybe the hottest topic in foreclosure defense in this day and age of securitized mortgages — that is, those which are bundled together by the thousands into pools or trusts and sold as stock certificates — is whether the party seeking foreclosure is the right one to be doing so. In the law, this issue is called standing.

    McGookey Law Offices was fortunate to be able to assist in striking a blow for Ohio homeowners on this issue last week in Douglas’ case.

    THE PROMISSORY NOTE AND MORTGAGE

    The two main instruments in a mortgage loan transaction are the promissory note and the mortgage. The Note is the document which evidences the indebtedness while the mortgage secures or collateralizes the debt.

    With respect to the standing issue in Ohio foreclosures, there has been a great deal of confusion among the courts as to whether the foreclosing party must show it has rights in both the Note and the mortgage in order to prevail, or whether rights in either would suffice. Proof or rights in both is a much higher and stricter standard, and thus more favorable to the homeowner.

    THE GEORGE DECISION

    In U.S. Bank v. George, a case involving Wells Fargo, the Franklin County Court of Appeals based in Columbus held that the bank must first prove it is entitled to enforce the Note before the analysis proceeded onto consideration of the mortgage.

    Because bogus assignments of mortgages can easily be manufactured and recorded, the George case has huge implications on Ohio foreclosures in that it significantly raises the bar on the banks.

    Congratulations, Doug!

    This is a weekly column by Sandusky attorney Dan McGookey, devoted to telling true stories of homeowners who have been victimized by a lending system that makes it profitable to foreclose. The names used have been changed for privacy purposes.

    Note from the author: If you have questions or comments regarding this or any Foreclosure Story article or should you like to have a “free mortgage analysis,” please visit mcgookeylaw.com, visit us on Facebook or call us at 419-502-7223, 614-444-5470 or 1-844-661-7942.

    Kathryn Eyster contributed to this article.

  25. Ivent, are you insane… The federal reserve note has not been backed by gold since Roosevelt… the US gold reserves were sold by Roosevelt prior to establishing the fractional gold standard, and Nixon abolished the peg entirely. The federal note is exactly what is claims to be… a debt obligation of The United States of America, which is backed by the full faith and taxing power thereof. Its value is enforced by the United States Military, and the reserve conversion.

    MK, I am not criticizing you… I am pointing out the obvious. You cut and paste large captions from a PSA or Supplemental Prospectus, which does prove your point, but only 8 people on the entire blog understand. The issue I have is not about being right ow wrong… you are posting information that in 99% of foreclosure cases is not discoverable. Telling folks to take their money out fo the reserve banks and put them into credit unions does little, because they are still subject to the leverage of the FRC, overnight rates and letters of credit, all of which come from the reserve system banks or another bullshit quasi-governmental agency that provides or secures their liquidity.

    For example, The credit expansion of the 20’s caused the great depression. Liquidity, liquidity Liquidity equaled excessive margin, which equaled excessive speculation in the equity markets. The credit crunch in that case was also caused by the fed, who squeezed the national banks, which in turn squeezed the investment banks who produced mass maintenance calls when level of margin was tightened over and again. Here is the bottom line… Banks are the casinos, they take practically zero risk and only care that folks continue to show up. it doesn’t matter what casino you go to, the ultimate funding source is the same, and as long as you continue to come, eventually you will lose. They only care about volume – up or down makes no difference, just volatility.

  26. @iwantmynpv,

    You probably missed the part below, before your criticism of my post:

    http://ellenbrown.com/2015/12/29/a-crisis-worse-than-isis-bail-ins-begin/

    I encourage every visitor to this site to renounce ANY dealings with ANY of the large American banks and to do so immediately: pull your money out and put it in a credit union, at least…

    Although I am not sure how long even credit unions will be able to hold out against this criminal racketeering.

    I appreciate you redefining your criticism, however, and true-to-form, you are trying to find an argument between the two of us where none exists.

    Have you found a way to transform into Andie MacDowell yet?

  27. Home > Statutes & Rules > 24 CFR § 3500.2—Definitions Used In The Regulations Promulgated By The Secretary Of The Department Of Housing And Urban Development (HUD) For The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)

    Lender means, generally, the secured creditor or creditors named in the debt obligation and document creating the lien.

    For loans originated by a mortgage broker that closes a federally related mortgage loan in its own name in a table funding transaction,

    the lender is the person to whom the obligation is initially assigned at or after settlement.

    so if we did not get disclosures from the said lender, as the lender of funds. then we did not get them from true lender. the funds come from warehouse credit, they would be the lender. per this.??

    A lender, in connection with dealer loans, is the lender to whom the loan is assigned, unless the dealer meets the definition of creditor as defined under “federally related mortgage loan” in this section. See also § 3500.5(b)(7), secondary market transactions.

  28. Home > Statutes & Rules > 24 CFR § 3500.2—Definitions Used In The Regulations Promulgated By The Secretary Of The Department Of Housing And Urban Development (HUD) For The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)
    POSTED ON:
    FEBRUARY 11, 2007
    BY MICHAEL J. HASSEN
    PERMALINK
    PRINT
    EMAIL THIS POST
    Bookmark and Share
    24 CFR § 3500.2—Definitions Used In The Regulations Promulgated By The Secretary Of The Department Of Housing And Urban Development (HUD) For The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)
    As a resource for class action defense attorneys who defend against RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) class actions, we provide the text of Regulation X. Congress gave authority to the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to promulgate regulations for RESPA, and the regulations are set forth in 24 CFR § 3500.1 et seq. The definitions used in Regulation X are set forth in § 3500.2, which provides:

    § 3500.2. Definitions

    (a) Statutory terms. All terms defined in RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2602) are used in accordance with their statutory meaning unless otherwise defined in paragraph (b) of this section or elsewhere in this part.

    (b) Other terms. As used in this part:

    Application means the submission of a borrower’s financial information in anticipation of a credit decision, whether written or computer-generated, relating to a federally related mortgage loan. If the submission does not state or identify a specific property, the submission is an application for a prequalification and not an application for a federally related mortgage loan under this part. The subsequent addition of an identified property to the submission converts the submission to an application for a federally related mortgage loan.

    Business day means a day on which the offices of the business entity are open to the public for carrying on substantially all of the entity’s business functions.

    Dealer means, in the case of property improvement loans, a seller, contractor, or supplier of goods or services. In the case of manufactured home loans, “dealer” means one who engages in the business of manufactured home retail sales.

    Dealer loan or dealer consumer credit contract means, generally, any arrangement in which a dealer assists the borrower in obtaining a federally related mortgage loan from the funding lender and then assigns the dealer’s legal interests to the funding lender and receives the net proceeds of the loan. The funding lender is the lender for the purposes of the disclosure requirements of this part. If a dealer is a “creditor” as defined under the definition of “federally related mortgage loan” in this part, the dealer is the lender for purposes of this part.

    Effective date of transfer is defined in section 6(i)(1) of RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2605(i)(1)). In the case of a home equity conversion mortgage or reverse mortgage as referenced in this section, the effective date of transfer is the transfer date agreed upon by the transferee servicer and the transferor servicer.

    Federally related mortgage loan or mortgage loan means as follows:

    (1) Any loan (other than temporary financing, such as a construction loan):

    (i) That is secured by a first or subordinate lien on residential real property, including a refinancing of any secured loan on residential real property upon which there is either:

    (A) Located or, following settlement, will be constructed using proceeds of the loan, a structure or structures designed principally for occupancy of from one to four families (including individual units of condominiums and cooperatives and including any related interests, such as a share in the cooperative or right to occupancy of the unit); or

    (B) Located or, following settlement, will be placed using proceeds of the loan, a manufactured home; and

    (ii) For which one of the following paragraphs applies. The loan:

    (A) Is made in whole or in part by any lender that is either regulated by or whose deposits or accounts are insured by any agency of the Federal Government;

    (B) Is made in whole or in part, or is insured, guaranteed, supplemented, or assisted in any way:

    (1) By the Secretary or any other officer or agency of the Federal Government; or

    (2) Under or in connection with a housing or urban development program administered by the Secretary or a housing or related program administered by any other officer or agency of the Federal Government;

    (C) Is intended to be sold by the originating lender to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Government National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (or its successors), or a financial institution from which the loan is to be purchased by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (or its successors);

    (D) Is made in whole or in part by a “creditor”, as defined in section 103(f) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1602(f)), that makes or invests in residential real estate loans aggregating more than $1,000,000 per year. For purposes of this definition, the term “creditor” does not include any agency or instrumentality of any State, and the term “residential real estate loan” means any loan secured by residential real property, including single-family and multifamily residential property;

    (E) Is originated either by a dealer or, if the obligation is to be assigned to any maker of mortgage loans specified in paragraphs (1)(ii)(A) through (D) of this definition, by a mortgage broker; or

    (F) Is the subject of a home equity conversion mortgage, also frequently called a “reverse mortgage,” issued by any maker of mortgage loans specified in paragraphs (1)(ii)(A) through (D) of this definition.

    (2) Any installment sales contract, land contract, or contract for deed on otherwise qualifying residential property is a federally related mortgage loan if the contract is funded in whole or in part by proceeds of a loan made by any maker of mortgage loans specified in paragraphs (1)(ii)(A) through (D) of this definition.

    (3) If the residential real property securing a mortgage loan is not located in a State, the loan is not a federally related mortgage loan.

    Good faith estimate means an estimate, prepared in accordance with section 5 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2604), of charges that a borrower is likely to incur in connection with a settlement.

    HUD-1 or HUD-1A settlement statement (also HUD-1 or HUD-1A) means the statement that is prescribed by the Secretary in this part for setting forth settlement charges in connection with either the purchase or the refinancing (or other subordinate lien transaction) of 1- to 4-family residential property.

    Lender means, generally, the secured creditor or creditors named in the debt obligation and document creating the lien. For loans originated by a mortgage broker that closes a federally related mortgage loan in its own name in a table funding transaction, the lender is the person to whom the obligation is initially assigned at or after settlement. A lender, in connection with dealer loans, is the lender to whom the loan is assigned, unless the dealer meets the definition of creditor as defined under “federally related mortgage loan” in this section. See also § 3500.5(b)(7), secondary market transactions.

    Managerial employee means an employee of a settlement service provider who does not routinely deal directly with consumers, and who either hires, directs, assigns, promotes, or rewards other employees or independent contractors, or is in a position to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the employer. Neither the term “managerial employee” nor the term “employee” includes independent contractors, but a managerial employee may hold a real estate brokerage or agency license.

    Manufactured home is defined in § 3280.2 of this title.

    Mortgage broker means a person (not an employee or exclusive agent of a lender) who brings a borrower and lender together to obtain a federally related mortgage loan, and who renders services as described in the definition of “settlement services” in this section. A loan correspondent approved under § 202.8 of this title for Federal Housing Administration programs is a mortgage broker for purposes of this part.

    Mortgaged property means the real property that is security for the federally related mortgage loan.

    Person is defined in section 3(5) of RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2602(5)).

    Public Guidance Documents means documents that HUD has published in the FEDERAL REGISTER, and that it may amend from time-to-time by publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER. These documents are also available from HUD at the address indicated in 24 CFR 3500.3.

    Refinancing means a transaction in which an existing obligation that was subject to a secured lien on residential real property is satisfied and replaced by a new obligation undertaken by the same borrower and with the same or a new lender. The following shall not be treated as a refinancing, even when the existing obligation is satisfied and replaced by a new obligation with the same lender (this definition of “refinancing” as to transactions with the same lender is similar to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 226.20(a)):

    (1) A renewal of a single payment obligation with no change in the original terms;

    (2) A reduction in the annual percentage rate as computed under the Truth in Lending Act with a corresponding change in the payment schedule;

    (3) An agreement involving a court proceeding;

    (4) A workout agreement, in which a change in the payment schedule or change in collateral requirements is agreed to as a result of the consumer’s default or delinquency, unless the rate is increased or the new amount financed exceeds the unpaid balance plus earned finance charges and premiums for continuation of allowable insurance; and

    (5) The renewal of optional insurance purchased by the consumer that is added to an existing transaction, if disclosures relating to the initial purchase were provided.

    Regulation Z means the regulations issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (12 CFR part 226) to implement the Federal Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and includes the Commentary on Regulation Z.

    Required use means a situation in which a person must use a particular provider of a settlement service in order to have access to some distinct service or property, and the person will pay for the settlement service of the particular provider or will pay a charge attributable, in whole or in part, to the settlement service. However, the offering of a package (or combination of settlement services) or the offering of discounts or rebates to consumers for the purchase of multiple settlement services does not constitute a required use. Any package or discount must be optional to the purchaser. The discount must be a true discount below the prices that are otherwise generally available, and must not be made up by higher costs elsewhere in the settlement process.

    RESPA means the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Servicer means the person responsible for the servicing of a mortgage loan (including the person who makes or holds a mortgage loan if such person also services the mortgage loan). The term does not include:

    (1) The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), in connection with assets acquired, assigned, sold, or transferred pursuant to section 13(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or as receiver or conservator of an insured depository institution; and

    (2) The Federal National Mortgage Corporation (FNMA); the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); the RTC; the FDIC; HUD, including the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) (including cases in which a mortgage insured under the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) is assigned to HUD); the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA); the Farmers Home Administration or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 (FmHA); and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in any case in which the assignment, sale, or transfer of the servicing of the mortgage loan is preceded by termination of the contract for servicing the loan for cause, commencement of proceedings for bankruptcy of the servicer, or commencement of proceedings by the FDIC or RTC for conservatorship or receivership of the servicer (or an entity by which the servicer is owned or controlled).

    Servicing means receiving any scheduled periodic payments from a borrower pursuant to the terms of any mortgage loan, including amounts for escrow accounts under section 10 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2609), and making the payments to the owner of the loan or other third parties of principal and interest and such other payments with respect to the amounts received from the borrower as may be required pursuant to the terms of the mortgage servicing loan documents or servicing contract. In the case of a home equity conversion mortgage or reverse mortgage as referenced in this section, servicing includes making payments to the borrower.

    Settlement means the process of executing legally binding documents regarding a lien on property that is subject to a federally related mortgage loan. This process may also be called “closing” or “escrow” in different jurisdictions.

    Settlement service means any service provided in connection with a prospective or actual settlement, including, but not limited to, any one or more of the following:

    (1) Origination of a federally related mortgage loan (including, but not limited to, the taking of loan applications, loan processing, and the underwriting and funding of such loans);

    (2) Rendering of services by a mortgage broker (including counseling, taking of applications, obtaining verifications and appraisals, and other loan processing and origination services, and communicating with the borrower and lender);

    (3) Provision of any services related to the origination, processing or funding of a federally related mortgage loan;

    (4) Provision of title services, including title searches, title examinations, abstract preparation, insurability determinations, and the issuance of title commitments and title insurance policies;

    (5) Rendering of services by an attorney;

    (6) Preparation of documents, including notarization, delivery, and recordation;

    (7) Rendering of credit reports and appraisals;

    (8) Rendering of inspections, including inspections required by applicable law or any inspections required by the sales contract or mortgage documents prior to transfer of title;

    (9) Conducting of settlement by a settlement agent and any related services;

    (10) Provision of services involving mortgage insurance;

    (11) Provision of services involving hazard, flood, or other casualty insurance or homeowner’s warranties;

    (12) Provision of services involving mortgage life, disability, or similar insurance designed to pay a mortgage loan upon disability or death of a borrower, but only if such insurance is required by the lender as a condition of the loan;

    (13) Provision of services involving real property taxes or any other assessments or charges on the real property;

    (14) Rendering of services by a real estate agent or real estate broker; and

    (15) Provision of any other services for which a settlement service provider requires a borrower or seller to pay.

    Special information booklet means the booklet prepared by the Secretary pursuant to section 5 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2604) to help persons understand the nature and costs of settlement services. The Secretary publishes the form of the special information booklet in the FEDERAL REGISTER. The Secretary may issue or approve additional booklets or alternative booklets by publication of a Notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER.

    State means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

    Table funding means a settlement at which a loan is funded by a contemporaneous advance of loan funds and an assignment of the loan to the person advancing the funds. A table-funded transaction is not a secondary market transaction (see § 3500.5(b)(7)).

    Title company means any institution, or its duly authorized agent, that is qualified to issue title insurance.

  29. They will sell you up the river for free.

    Therefore, no bargaining will suffice & no legal remedy is going to hide TREASON by self contrived rulers over their own WAR CRIMES

  30. The worst result of FALSE CONTRIVANCE by WALL STREET FIRMS not operating in their own names is you could marry one of their russian counterintelligance spies & never even know it.

    That’s why failure to show PROOF OF LOSS by re-entering FALSIFIED EVIDENCE is legal proof the PLAINTIFF is trying to unlawfully harbor you to their own FEMA CAMP unlawfully.

    Therefore, every PLAINTIFF is UNCREDENTIALED & operating on behalf of FEMA who could be BIN LADENS ALIAS or the KREMLINS CIO.

  31. So when the GSE’S ride in on the coat tails of their own free range turkeys of their own predecendent predecessors & denote ownership in FREE MARKET PRICE GOUGING is standing to call themselves NUTTY PROFESSORS know that its no drill & they really mean it.

  32. If the KNIGHTS TEMPLARS were ever subjorned to their own perjury BILL AYRES would be out of the terrorism business.

  33. Far be it from me to knock CREDIT UNIONS who don’t recognize UNSECURED CREDIT is lawful money.

    They require the DEPOSITOR try to deposit something of value before crediting themselves gazillions of times what the purported deposit is purportedly worth.

    In other words, they try to let you borrow your own underestimated self worth in the form of interest bearing notes that never ACCRUE to their MONETARY FACE VALUE CREDIT BASED RATE OF EXCHANGE.

    So when they monetize their own debt & restate the income derived to be non profit profit sharing of your personal wealth & tgey restipulate the MARXIST LENINIST deal like WALL STREET PROPAGANDA under the guise of say FRITO LAY the HOLLYWOOD JET SETTERS get bigger fatter ANNUITIES REVALUATION CHECKS.

    Because nothing is fair under unlicensed FAIR TRADE EXCHANGE RATE AGREEMENTS tendered like their lawful money stipulations.

    That is what the ROYAL BANK OF LONDON loves to deny is their unlawful right to operate brothels & call them BANKS.

  34. The problem with the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK NOTE is it can’t be exchanged for lawful money because it is backed by FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE TRADES that create MARKET VOLITILITY & Janet Yellins derriere isn’t lawful money in exchange for FREE MARKET FRAUD by the MONEYCHANGERS in the WHITE HOUSE.

    Therefore, for the STATES to coin & issue their own lawful currency, the FRB OF GOVERNORS, the money exchangers, would have to deliver the GOLD that backs it to FORT KNOXX in physical form & have JANET YELLIN sign off upon DELIVERY rellnquishing the LEGAL RIGHTS to her own tush.

  35. Michael, I will start backward… There is a little known GSE called the FHLB. They are the primary source of funding for credit unions that need to compete for yield with the reserve system banks. Credit Unions have very limited avenues for capital — Deposits and the FHLB, why??? because they are not banks! The game is rigged from the top down. Sure, some folks are permitted to siphon off some of the crumbs, but trust me… it will be cold day in hell before the government permits the SEC to allow any unregulated capital to enter the global system. Tell me again… how credit unions are safer? Those that can fractionally lend will always have an unfair advantage over those that cannot.

    It is quickly approaching the time when the people of these united states should give the world the fed dollar, it’s debt and our reserve banks, and bring about state issued currency that is not pegged to their dollar.

  36. OBAMA quite literally LEGALLY VANQUISHED his presidency by the UNLAWFUL TBTF BAILOUTS because of no proper legal DUE DILIGENCE REPORTING by the SEC, the FDIC & the FEDERAL BANKING REGULATORY AGENTS in regards to the MISSING MONEY to the SECRETARY of the U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

    Moreover, PURPORTED DEBT can not be legally relinquished by the PURPORTED DEBTOR but must be reported to the IRS for TAX EVASION by
    the TREASURY SECRETARY.

    Otherwise the TREASURY SECRETARY engsged in GRAND THEFT LARCENY of the PUBLIC TRUST & must be sequestered for questioning by the SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE.

  37. The OBAMA ADMINISTRATION obviously confuses PURPORTED DEBT by UNKNOWN ASSAILLANTS with HOSPICE.

    Therefore, OBAMA, his ADMINISTRATION & the WALL STREET controlled MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT is completely DELUSIONAL in their thinking & they need to be criminally prosecuted.

  38. Furthermore, for OBAMA to surmise he has the LEGAL CAPACITY to speak on behalf of WE THE PEOPLE by thinking he can DICTATE the needs of others is the definition of FASCIST DICTATORSHIP.

    In fact he is worse than most because the U.S. CONSTITUTION is not LEGALLY BINDING.

    Therefore he is RULING under the guise of CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS that only WE THE PEOPLE have the legal capacity to legally enforcd on our own behalf.

    POST-JUDGMENT HEARINGS the likes of FRAUDCLOSURE have no legal capacity to enforce because the EVIDENTIARY HEARING was unlawfully quashed for LACK OF EVIDENCE by the UNLAWFUL BAILOUTS.

    Therefore, OBAMA nor his ADMINISTRATION, has LEGAL JURISPRUDENCE to speak on behalf of no one.

  39. In fact, the legal evidence suggests, the UNSUBSTANTIATED DEBT COLLECTION OF SOME UNKNOWN DEBT TO SOME UNKNOWN DEBTOR by some UNFUNDED TRUST ENTITY under the guise of the HEALTHCARE SCOFFLAW would imply OBAMA UNLAWFULLYdonated WE THE PEOPLE to the MEDICA ESTABLISHMENT under the guise of the UNLAWFUL BAILOUTS & that is inexplicably TREASON.

  40. Otherwise, OBAMA is operating on behalf of the EXECUTOR of some unknown ESTATE of some unknown EXECUTOR by UNLAWFUL SEARCH & SEIZURE of our TITLES, he is UNLAWFULLY ABSCONDING with our U.S. BIRTH CERTIFICATES AKA TRADING WITH ENEMY.

  41. In other words, the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION must produce in physical form what was purportedly sold in the ISSUANCE OF THE ORIGINAL SALE that would be LEGAL JUST CAUSE to BAILOUT WALL STREET & SUE WE THE PEOPLE UNLAWFULLY without WRITTEN LEGAL NOTICE being given of the PURPORTED WRITTEN LEGAL PROVISION that was never DISCLOSED to us but is REQUIRED BY LAW.

  42. For unsubstantiated debt to be legally enforceable full disclosure regarding the whereabouts of the UNLAWFUL CONTRIVANCE that SECURES it must be produced in its physical form.

    Otherwise that’s LEGAL EVIDENCE of FRAUD IN THE ESSENCE of SALE OF THE ISSUANCE.

    If the ISSUER of the purported sale, SOLD THE SALE OF THE ISSUANCE that is GRAND THEFT LARCENY.

  43. The OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has used MASKED CONTRIVANCE, THE LOST NOTE THEORY OF WALL STREET EXECS, to victimize the COMMON GOOD behind the AUSPICIOUSNESS of LEGALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED DEBT in FRAUDCLOSURE to brutalize the sanctity of our CORE VALUE SYSTEM by its own sacrilegiousness.

    That is the tenets of FUNDAMENTAL ISLAMO FASCISM, FORCED SUBJOGATION, that is being used to wage UNLAWFUL JIHAD on the LEGAL RIGHT to PRIVACY of WE THE PEOPLE.

  44. By masked contrivance, the LOST NOTE THEORY, & under the guise of PURPORTEDNESS, FRAUDCLOSURE, the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has BRUTALIZED the LEGAL RIGHTS of THE COMMON GOOD by FORCED VICTIMIZATION of their CORE VALUE SYSTEM.

    Forced SUBJOGATION to something that cannot be LEGALLY PROVEN is FORCED ENTRY upon our PRIVACY RIGHTS & is UNLAWFUL.

  45. iwantmynpv,

    I am still waiting, please enlighten me.

  46. David Belanger is correct…

    Also, Thank You Elaine. I am sorry for your troubles and hope you may be able to claw-back soon.

    The simple fact is: The private bankers manipulating our currency are here fraudulently and too many of We The People, believe the banks and the government are the same thing… They most-assuredly, are NOT.

    There is a reason Andrew Jackson is on the 20 dollar bill and it is because he went to war with the 2nd manifestation of an American central bank: the 2nd US Bank.

    The bankers tried to kill him, twice.

    Ultimately, the people came to understand it wasn’t the president that had visited misfortune on the country, while, instead, it was the central bankers.

    Google “Nicholas Biddle”. He told President Jackson he would “ruin him”, or, words to that effect. Instead, Nicholas Biddle died broke and broken in jail. It is a fate I fervently pray overtakes the presnt group of criminal, central banking pigs.

  47. It has started in Europe and the criminal TBTF pigs are already poised, through Dodd frank, to begin robbing US even further, here.

    http://ellenbrown.com/2015/12/29/a-crisis-worse-than-isis-bail-ins-begin/

    I encourage every visitor to this site to renounce ANY dealings with ANY of the large American banks and to do so immediately: pull your money out and put it in a credit union, at least…

    Although I am not sure how long even credit unions will be able to hold out against this criminal racketeering.

    Stop making excuses that your dealings with these banks, or the dealings of your family, with these banks , “really doesn’t add to their bottom line in any way and you just use them to cash your paycheck or process withdrawals etc…”.

    At the very least, you are aiding them in concealing their insolvency, while lending them “legitimacy” if you have ANY dealings with them whatsoever.

    Instead, as ANY victim of their criminal behavior, up-to-this-point already knows, these pigs need to be “choked-out” and denied ANY revenue streams whatsoever… period.

  48. @MK – I think you know exactly what you are talking about. It’s mind boggling. But until it happens to them – not a single person will believe that it wasn’t your fault. Hapless as we were at the time, we were strung along with promises of a loan mod by a self proclaimed loan mod ‘expert’ and promises to help us keep our house by three attorneys in five years. All we got was thrown deeper and further into the foreclosure rabbit hole with no chance EVER of digging out. Not only did we lose our house and my ancestral waterfront property – we lost our entire 401k. Starting over again at 60 isn’t pretty.

  49. A Crisis Worse than ISIS? Bail-Ins Begin

    Posted on December 29, 2015 by Ellen Brown

    While the mainstream media focus on ISIS extremists, a threat that has gone virtually unreported is that your life savings could be wiped out in a massive derivatives collapse. Bank bail-ins have begun in Europe, and the infrastructure is in place in the US. Poverty also kills.

    At the end of November, an Italian pensioner hanged himself after his entire €100,000 savings were confiscated in a bank “rescue” scheme. He left a suicide note blaming the bank, where he had been a customer for 50 years and had invested in bank-issued bonds. But he might better have blamed the EU and the G20’s Financial Stability Board, which have imposed an “Orderly Resolution” regime that keeps insolvent banks afloat by confiscating the savings of investors and depositors. Some 130,000 shareholders and junior bond holders suffered losses in the “rescue.”

    The pensioner’s bank was one of four small regional banks that had been put under special administration over the past two years. The €3.6 billion ($3.83 billion) rescue plan launched by the Italian government uses a newly-formed National Resolution Fund, which is fed by the country’s healthy banks. But before the fund can be tapped, losses must be imposed on investors; and in January, EU rules will require that they also be imposed on depositors. According to a December 10th article on BBC.com:

    The rescue was a “bail-in” – meaning bondholders suffered losses – unlike the hugely unpopular bank bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis, which cost ordinary EU taxpayers tens of billions of euros.

    Correspondents say [Italian Prime Minister] Renzi acted quickly because in January, the EU is tightening the rules on bank rescues – they will force losses on depositors holding more than €100,000, as well as bank shareholders and bondholders.

    . . . [L]etting the four banks fail under those new EU rules next year would have meant “sacrificing the money of one million savers and the jobs of nearly 6,000 people”.

    That is what is predicted for 2016: massive sacrifice of savings and jobs to prop up a “systemically risky” global banking scheme.

    Bail-in Under Dodd-Frank

    That is all happening in the EU. Is there reason for concern in the US?

    According to former hedge fund manager Shah Gilani, writing for Money Morning, there is. In a November 30th article titled “Why I’m Closing My Bank Accounts While I Still Can,” he writes:

    [It is] entirely possible in the next banking crisis that depositors in giant too-big-to-fail failing banks could have their money confiscated and turned into equity shares. . . .

    If your too-big-to-fail (TBTF) bank is failing because they can’t pay off derivative bets they made, and the government refuses to bail them out, under a mandate titled “Adequacy of Loss-Absorbing Capacity of Global Systemically Important Banks in Resolution,” approved on Nov. 16, 2014, by the G20’s Financial Stability Board, they can take your deposited money and turn it into shares of equity capital to try and keep your TBTF bank from failing.

    Once your money is deposited in the bank, it legally becomes the property of the bank. Gilani explains:

    Your deposited cash is an unsecured debt obligation of your bank. It owes you that money back.

    If you bank with one of the country’s biggest banks, who collectively have trillions of dollars of derivatives they hold “off balance sheet” (meaning those debts aren’t recorded on banks’ GAAP balance sheets), those debt bets have a superior legal standing to your deposits and get paid back before you get any of your cash.

    . . . Big banks got that language inserted into the 2010 Dodd-Frank law meant to rein in dangerous bank behavior.

    The banks inserted the language and the legislators signed it, without necessarily understanding it or even reading it. At over 2,300 pages and still growing, the Dodd Frank Act is currently the longest and most complicated bill ever passed by the US legislature.

    Propping Up the Derivatives Scheme

    Dodd-Frank states in its preamble that it will “protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts.” But it does this under Title II by imposing the losses of insolvent financial companies on their common and preferred stockholders, debtholders, and other unsecured creditors. That includes depositors, the largest class of unsecured creditor of any bank.

    Title II is aimed at “ensuring that payout to claimants is at least as much as the claimants would have received under bankruptcy liquidation.” But here’s the catch: under both the Dodd Frank Act and the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, derivative claims have super-priority over all other claims, secured and unsecured, insured and uninsured.

    The over-the-counter (OTC) derivative market (the largest market for derivatives) is made up of banks and other highly sophisticated players such as hedge funds. OTC derivatives are the bets of these financial players against each other. Derivative claims are considered “secured” because collateral is posted by the parties.

    For some inexplicable reason, the hard-earned money you deposit in the bank is not considered “security” or “collateral.” It is just a loan to the bank, and you must stand in line along with the other creditors in hopes of getting it back. State and local governments must also stand in line, although their deposits are considered “secured,” since they remain junior to the derivative claims with “super-priority.”

    Turning Bankruptcy on Its Head

    Under the old liquidation rules, an insolvent bank was actually “liquidated” – its assets were sold off to repay depositors and creditors. Under an “orderly resolution,” the accounts of depositors and creditors are emptied to keep the insolvent bank in business. The point of an “orderly resolution” is not to make depositors and creditors whole but to prevent another system-wide “disorderly resolution” of the sort that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. The concern is that pulling a few of the dominoes from the fragile edifice that is our derivatives-laden global banking system will collapse the entire scheme. The sufferings of depositors and investors are just the sacrifices to be borne to maintain this highly lucrative edifice.

    In a May 2013 article in Forbes titled “The Cyprus Bank ‘Bail-In’ Is Another Crony Bankster Scam,” Nathan Lewis explained the scheme like this:

    At first glance, the “bail-in” resembles the normal capitalist process of liabilities restructuring that should occur when a bank becomes insolvent. . . .

    The difference with the “bail-in” is that the order of creditor seniority is changed. In the end, it amounts to the cronies (other banks and government) and non-cronies. The cronies get 100% or more; the non-cronies, including non-interest-bearing depositors who should be super-senior, get a kick in the guts instead. . . .

    In principle, depositors are the most senior creditors in a bank. However, that was changed in the 2005 bankruptcy law, which made derivatives liabilities most senior. Considering the extreme levels of derivatives liabilities that many large banks have, and the opportunity to stuff any bank with derivatives liabilities in the last moment, other creditors could easily find there is nothing left for them at all.

    As of September 2014, US derivatives had a notional value of nearly $280 trillion. A study involving the cost to taxpayers of the Dodd-Frank rollback slipped by Citibank into the “cromnibus” spending bill last December found that the rule reversal allowed banks to keep $10 trillion in swaps trades on their books. This is money that taxpayers could be on the hook for in another bailout; and since Dodd-Frank replaces bailouts with bail-ins, it is money that creditors and depositors could now be on the hook for. Citibank is particularly vulnerable to swaps on the price of oil. Brent crude dropped from a high of $114 per barrel in June 2014 to a low of $36 in December 2015.

    What about FDIC insurance? It covers deposits up to $250,000, but the FDIC fund had only $67.6 billion in it as of June 30, 2015, insuring about $6.35 trillion in deposits. The FDIC has a credit line with the Treasury, but even that only goes to $500 billion; and who would pay that massive loan back? The FDIC fund, too, must stand in line behind the bottomless black hole of derivatives liabilities. As Yves Smith observed in a March 2013 post:

    In the US, depositors have actually been put in a worse position than Cyprus deposit-holders, at least if they are at the big banks that play in the derivatives casino. The regulators have turned a blind eye as banks use their depositors to fund derivatives exposures. . . . The deposits are now subject to being wiped out by a major derivatives loss.

    Even in the worst of the Great Depression bank bankruptcies, noted Nathan Lewis, creditors eventually recovered nearly all of their money. He concluded:

    When super-senior depositors have huge losses of 50% or more, after a “bail-in” restructuring, you know that a crime was committed.

    Exiting While We Can

    How can you avoid this criminal theft and keep your money safe? It may be too late to pull your savings out of the bank and stuff them under a mattress, as Shah Gilani found when he tried to withdraw a few thousand dollars from his bank. Large withdrawals are now criminally suspect.

    You can move your money into one of the credit unions with their own deposit insurance protection; but credit unions and their insurance plans are also under attack. So writes Frances Coppola in a December 18th article titled “Co-operative Banking Under Attack in Europe,” discussing an insolvent Spanish credit union that was the subject of a bail-in in July 2015. When the member-investors were subsequently made whole by the credit union’s private insurance group, there were complaints that the rescue “undermined the principle of creditor bail-in” – this although the insurance fund was privately financed. Critics argued that “this still looks like a circuitous way to do what was initially planned, i.e. to avoid placing losses on private creditors.”

    In short, the goal of the bail-in scheme is to place losses on private creditors. Alternatives that allow them to escape could soon be blocked.

    We need to lean on our legislators to change the rules before it is too late. The Dodd Frank Act and the Bankruptcy Reform Act both need a radical overhaul, and the Glass-Steagall Act (which put a fire wall between risky investments and bank deposits) needs to be reinstated.

    Meanwhile, local legislators would do well to set up some publicly-owned banks on the model of the state-owned Bank of North Dakota – banks that do not gamble in derivatives and are safe places to store our public and private funds.

    _____________________

    Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com. Listen to “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on PRN.FM.

  50. iwnatmynpv,

    Can you be any more general in your criticism??? LOL

    I mean what part is wrong? I am less than as “All-Seeing” as yourself.

    Go ahead and dazzle me.

  51. Mk, you are wrong. i like you, but you view everything from a simplistic ledge.

  52. If Senator Sanders can deliver the proper dialogue regarding the Clinton’s suppression of “Glass-Steagall” through Bill Clinton’s advocacy of the “Graham, Leach, Bliley Act”, he will win millions of supporters, presently victims or still fighting “wrongful foreclosures”, predicated upon Fraud.

    Presently the TBTF banks have been given a “Pass” and they are using American Mortgages to launder terrorist and drug cartel money.

    No “Actual, Mortgage Lenders” will ever, voluntarily step forward because they are “fronting” for criminals. (google HSBC and Wells Fargo)…

    Oh… and there are Trillions owed the taxman.

    The “trusts” are empty. There is no “RES”; hence millions of violations of tax-deferred, “pass-through certificates” that were given on bogus pools of loans. (google “Securitization Fail”).

    Mort, the banker and Gage, his secretary, took money from third parties (pension plans)…

    Mort claimed he gave the money…

    Gage is willing to keep up appearances and is presently claiming an ability to foreclose on the collateral (your house); hence forgery, fraud, robo-signing etc…

    Google, “Lynn Szymoniak”.

    Mort took the “loans” someone else paid for (the pension plans) and made “Servicing Agreements with Gage (Pooling and Servicing Agreements) and then placed the loans someone else already paid for and put them in his own possession (google, “Bucketeering”). (Bucket Trusts).

    Gage is left, covering for Mort and keeping up appearances and collecting her fees even as she and her fellow secretaries are placing “Short-Sale Bets”, aka, “derivatives” against any given “loan” the criminal banks decide to place into foreclosure, whether fees are being paid, or, not.

    To begin to gain an understanding, go watch, “The Big Short”.

    These bogus, “Short-Sale Bets” are tracked by the “MERS”. (Talk to Prof. Christopher L. Peterson, now chief of enforcement for the CFPB).

    The criminal bankers are satisfied, no one, beyond Mort and Gage will ever penetrate the deception as anyone other than, Mort or Gage, are third parties to the “Pooling and Servicing Agreements”.

    Clinton and three republican senators (Graham, Leach and Bliley) cooked this up after going on a double-date with Monica Lewinsky and impeachment.

    First, there was “Subprime Lending”, now there is 1200 Trillion Dollars (20 times the GDP of every country on the planet) owed to “Notional derivatives” (don’t believe me, google “Quadrillion” or “1200 trillion Dollars”).

    The “Notional Derivatives” are predicated upon foreclosures across the planet and owed to the international, central banking cartel. They are now become, a “self-fulfilling prophecy” and based on Fraud, because, if they fail to “pay-out” the central bankers will be proven INSOLVENT.

    Read, Ellen Hodgson Brown’s, “The Web Of debt”.

    The same criminal banking parasites that occupy the intentionally-mislabeled, “federal reserve- neither federal, nor, possessing ANY reserves”, also used to own “Fannie and Freddie” until taken into conservatorship in 2008.

    The same, criminal bankers now own, the DTC and DTCC and they are charged with reporting “derivatives”; something they are presently, absolutely refusing to do.

    In fact, the banks have not shown an aggregate accounting of assets minus liabilities since 2006, for, if they were to do so, they would be proven INSOLVENT.

    People want to incriminate senator sanders as a “Socialist”, even as these same people, invariably and conveniently forget Wall Street used a “Socialist Bailout” to salvage their wholly-criminal behavior while placing the financial well-being of the entire planet as a victim to their extortion.

    Michael Keane

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: