If they really wanted to provide the relief necessary for homeowners and household wealth and thus bolster the economies of the world, they would take down the the shadow banking marketplace with one simple announcement: that the notes and mortgages were illegal, immoral. and improper, as they were designed not for a loan, but a cover-up of outright theft from investors.
You must read between the lines. Here is Deutsch being punished for “improperly” packing loans. Yet part of the deal is to provide the “borrowers” in those “loans” with modifications or other relief. If the settlement was really about improperly packaging the loans then the relief would go to investors, not the homeowners.
This is a concerted effort to hold back the fury of a population that knows it was screwed by the banks and know that government did nothing to protect them or help them get their lives back.
Listen to the Last Neil Garfield Show at http://tobtr.com/s/9673161
Get a consult! 202-838-6345
This is a continuing PR campaign to create the illusion of holding the banks accountable; but the real story is that the the debts arising from the receipt of money at “residential loan closings” were never memorialized on any document. Mainstream media refers to “outsize” profits derived from “trading” in “loans” “mortgage bonds” when in fact it was mostly converting stolen money to “trading profits” in fictitious trades where the only record keeping for the “trades” is the buy and sell order, with no corresponding records on the money trail. Analysis of those trades would confirm the fact that most of the trades were either fictitious or premised upon the existence of prior transactions that were nonexistent.
Instead the real purpose of the “closing” procedure was to induce and coerce unsophisticated borrowers into signing a note that created a second liability to a party who had not loaned them any money.
Since the debt and the note were created contemporaneously the homeowner was immediately put into a default upon conclusion of the illusory closing transaction. The merger doctrine that is meant to prevent the two liabilities cannot be used because the note is payable to one party and the debt is payable to another party. The debt and the note cannot merge. The fraudulently induced note should never have been released from the “Closing table” and the mortgage should never have been signed or recorded.
All this is attributable to the national security argument: we can’t tell everyone that the loan documents and the foreclosures are worthless pieces of paper, fabricated, forged and then fraudulently represented in foreclosure proceedings. We must sacrifice the lives and wealth of tens of millions of people in order to let the banks keep their ill-gotten gains and in order to allow the banks to continue their illegal behavior. And the reason for this is national security: if we don’t pretend that what the banks did was real, then the financial system will collapse taking governments, and world order down with the banks who perpetrated the largest economic crime in human history.
I agree that national security trumps individual rights — if the threat is real. I don’t agree the threat is real. We have over 7,000 banks, credit unions and savings banks in this country alone who could pick up the slack caused by the collapse of the major banks (if it came to that). The policy continues to support the banks at the expense of household wealth and thus the country’s future prospects; and all of this is propelled by the ignorance of politicians who are relying upon opinions issued by the same banks who committed these atrocious acts.
And I wonder out loud if the trier of fact, even if it is the judge, should be subject to voir dire examination as to their “instructions” or beliefs concerning the national security implications of failing to enforce foreclosures. In most cases if they answer truthfully it will be apparent that they have prejudged the case and have an insurmountable bias to rule for the banks regardless of the rules of evidence. If they believe that denying foreclosures will undermine national security, then they are in no position to be fair and impartial.
Filed under: foreclosure |