tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post4939731914407296077..comments2023-10-25T06:36:25.124-07:00Comments on Mortgage Fraud: Restitution (June 12, 2008)Whistleblowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13144659621472624683noreply@blogger.comBlogger550125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-87569626523792109472008-07-15T08:17:00.000-07:002008-07-15T08:17:00.000-07:00this fo yo juggins...a leegal breef....reed it goo...this fo yo juggins...a leegal breef....reed it good!<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>July 13, 2008<BR/><BR/>In an article in The San Francisco Chronicle in December 2007, attorney Sean Olender suggested that the real reason for the subprime bailout schemes being proposed by the U.S. Treasury Department was not to keep strapped borrowers in their homes so much as to stave off a spate of lawsuits against the banks. The plan then on the table was an interest rate freeze on a limited number of subprime loans. Olender wrote:<BR/><BR/> “The sole goal of the freeze is to prevent owners of mortgage-backed securities, many of them foreigners, from suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value – right now almost 10 times their market worth. The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.<BR/><BR/> “. . . The catastrophic consequences of bond investors forcing originators to buy back loans at face value are beyond the current media discussion. The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC . . . .<BR/><BR/> “What would be prudent and logical is for the banks that sold this toxic waste to buy it back and for a lot of people to go to prison. If they knew about the fraud, they should have to buy the bonds back.”1<BR/><BR/>The thought could send a chill through even the most powerful of investment bankers, including Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson himself, who was head of Goldman Sachs during the heyday of toxic subprime paper-writing from 2004 to 2006. Mortgage fraud has not been limited to the representations made to borrowers or on loan documents but is in the design of the banks’ “financial products” themselves. Among other design flaws is that securitized mortgage debt has become so complex that ownership of the underlying security has often been lost in the shuffle; and without a legal owner, there is no one with standing to foreclose. That was the procedural problem prompting Federal District Judge Christopher Boyko to rule in October 2007 that Deutsche Bank did not have standing to foreclose on 14 mortgage loans held in trust for a pool of mortgage-backed securities holders.2 If large numbers of defaulting homeowners were to contest their foreclosures on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, trillions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) could be at risk. Irate securities holders might then respond with litigation that could indeed threaten the existence of the banking Goliaths.<BR/><BR/>States Leading the Charge<BR/><BR/>MBS investors with the power to bring major lawsuits include state and local governments, which hold substantial portions of their assets in MBS and similar investments. A harbinger of things to come was a complaint filed on February 1, 2008, by the State of Massachusetts against investment bank Merrill Lynch, for fraud and misrepresentation concerning about $14 million worth of subprime securities sold to the city of Springfield. The complaint focused on the sale of “certain esoteric financial instruments known as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) . . . which were unsuitable for the city and which, within months after the sale, became illiquid and lost almost all of their market value.”3<BR/><BR/>The previous month, the city of Baltimore sued Wells Fargo Bank for damages from the subprime debacle, alleging that Wells Fargo had intentionally discriminated in selling high-interest mortgages more frequently to blacks than to whites, in violation of federal law.4<BR/><BR/>Another innovative suit filed in January 2008 was brought by Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson against 21 major investment banks, for enabling the subprime lending and foreclosure crisis in his city. The suit targeted the investment banks that fed off the mortgage market by buying subprime mortgages from lenders and then “securitizing” them and selling them to investors. City officials said they hoped to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in damages from the banks, including lost taxes from devalued property and money spent demolishing and boarding up thousands of abandoned houses. The defendants included banking giants Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Citigroup. They were charged with creating a “public nuisance” by irresponsibly buying and selling high-interest home loans, causing widespread defaults that depleted the city’s tax base and left neighborhoods in ruins.<BR/><BR/>“To me, this is no different than organized crime or drugs,” Jackson told the Cleveland newspaper The Plain Dealer. “It has the same effect as drug activity in neighborhoods. It’s a form of organized crime that happens to be legal in many respects.” He added in a videotaped interview, “This lawsuit said, ‘You’re not going to do this to us anymore.’”5<BR/><BR/>The Plain Dealer also interviewed Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, who was considering a state lawsuit against some of the same investment banks. “There’s clearly been a wrong done,” he said, “and the source is Wall Street. I’m glad to have some company on my hunt.”<BR/><BR/>However, a funny thing happened on the way to the courthouse. Like New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General Dann wound up resigning from his post in May 2008 after a sexual harassment investigation in his office.6 Before they were forced to resign, both prosecutors were hot on the tail of the banks, attempting to impose liability for the destructive wave of home foreclosures in their jurisdictions.<BR/><BR/>But the hits keep on coming. In June 2008, California Attorney General Jerry Brown sued Countrywide Financial Corporation, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, for causing thousands of foreclosures by deceptively marketing risky loans to borrowers. Among other things, the 46-page complaint alleged that:<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/> “‘Defendants viewed borrowers as nothing more than the means for producing more loans, originating loans with little or no regard to borrowers’ long-term ability to afford them and to sustain homeownership’ . . .<BR/><BR/> “The company routinely . . . ‘turned a blind eye’ to deceptive practices by brokers and its own loan agents despite ‘numerous complaints from borrowers claiming that they did not understand their loan terms.’<BR/><BR/> “. . . Underwriters who confirmed information on mortgage applications were ‘under intense pressure . . . to process 60 to 70 loans per day, making careful consideration of borrowers’ financial circumstances and the suitability of the loan product for them nearly impossible.’<BR/><BR/> “‘Countrywide’s high-pressure sales environment and compensation system encouraged serial refinancing of Countrywide loans.’”7<BR/><BR/>Similar suits against Countrywide and its CEO have been filed by the states of Illinois and Florida. These suits seek not only damages but rescission of the loans, creating a potential nightmare for the banks.<BR/><BR/>An Avalanche of Class Actions?<BR/><BR/>Massive class action lawsuits by defrauded borrowers may also be in the works. In a 2007 ruling in Wisconsin that is now on appeal, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman held that Chevy Chase Bank had violated the Truth in Lending Act by hiding the terms of an adjustable rate loan, and that thousands of other Chevy Chase borrowers could join the plaintiffs in a class action on that ground. According to a June 30, 2008 report in Reuters:<BR/><BR/> “The judge transformed the case from a run-of-the-mill class action to a potential nightmare for the U.S. banking industry by also finding that the borrowers could force the bank to cancel, or rescind, their loans. That decision was stayed pending an appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is expected to rule any day.<BR/><BR/> “The idea of canceling tainted loans to stem a tide of foreclosures has caught hold in other quarters; a lawsuit filed last week by the Illinois attorney general asks a court to rescind or reform Countrywide Financial mortgages originated under ‘unfair or deceptive practices.’<BR/><BR/> “. . . The mortgage banking industry already faces pressure from state and federal regulators, who have accused banks of lowering underwriting standards and forcing some borrowers, through fraud, into costly adjustable loans that the banks later bundled and sold as high-interest investment vehicles.”<BR/><BR/>The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) is a 1968 federal law designed to protect consumers against lending fraud by requiring clear disclosure of loan terms and costs. It lets consumers seek rescission or termination of a loan and the return of all interest and fees when a lender is found to be in violation. The beauty of the statute, says California bankruptcy attorney Cathy Moran, is that it provides for strict liability: the aggrieved borrowers don’t have to prove they were personally defrauded or misled, or that they had actual damages. Just the fact that the disclosures were defective gives them the right to rescind and deprives the lenders of interest. In Moran’s small sample, at least half of the loans reviewed contained TILA violations.8 If class actions are found to be available for rescission of loans based on fraud in the disclosure process, the result could be a flood of class suits against banks all over the country.9<BR/><BR/>Shifting the Loss Back to the Banks<BR/><BR/>Rescission may be a remedy available not only for borrowers but for MBS investors. Many loan sale contracts provide by their terms that lenders must take back loans that default unusually quickly or that contain mistakes or fraud. An avalanche of rescissions could be catastrophic for the banks. Banks were moving loans off their books and selling them to investors in order to allow many more loans to be made than would otherwise have been allowed under banking regulations. The banking rules are complex, but for every dollar of shareholder capital a bank has on its balance sheet, it is supposed to be limited to about $10 in loans. The problem for the banks is that when the process is reversed, the 10 to 1 rule can work the other way: taking a dollar of bad debt back on a bank’s books can reduce its lending ability by a factor of 10. As explained in a BBC News story citing Prof. Nouriel Roubini for authority:<BR/><BR/> “[S]ecuritisation was key to helping banks avoid the regulators’ 10:1 rule. To make their risky loans appear attractive to buyers, banks used complex financial engineering to repackage them so they looked super-safe and paid returns well above what equivalent super-safe investments offered. Banks even found ways to get loans off their balance sheets without selling them at all. They devised bizarre new financial entities - called Special Investment Vehicles or SIVs - in which loans could be held technically and legally off balance sheet, out of sight, and beyond the scope of regulators’ rules. So, once again, SIVs made room on balance sheets for banks to go on lending.<BR/> “Banks had got round regulators’ rules by selling off their risky loans, but because so many of the securitised loans were bought by other banks, the losses were still inside the banking system. Loans held in SIVs were technically off banks’ balance sheets, but when the value of the loans inside SIVs started to collapse, the banks which set them up found that they were still responsible for them. So losses from investments which might have appeared outside the scope of the regulators’ 10:1 rule, suddenly started turning up on bank balance sheets. . . . The problem now facing many of the biggest lenders is that when losses appear on banks’ balance sheets, the regulator’s 10:1 rule comes back into play because losses reduce a banks’ shareholder capital. ‘If you have a $200bn loss, that reduced your capital by $200bn, you have to reduce your lending by 10 times as much,’ [Prof. Roubini] explains. ‘So you could have a reduction of total credit to the economy of two trillion dollars.’”10 <BR/><BR/>You could also have some very bankrupt banks. The total equity of the top 100 U.S. banks stood at $800 billion at the end of the third quarter of 2007. Banking losses are currently expected to rise by as much as $450 billion, enough to wipe out more than half of the banks’ capital bases and leave many of them insolvent.11 If debtors were to deluge the courts with viable defenses to their debts and mortgage-backed securities holders were to challenge their securities, the result could be even worse.<BR/><BR/>Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle<BR/><BR/>So what would happen if the mega-banks engaging in these irresponsible practices actually went bankrupt? These banks are widely acknowledged to be at fault, but they expect to be bailed out by the Federal Reserve or the taxpayers because they are “too big to fail.” The argument is that if they were allowed to collapse, they would take the economy down with them. That is the fear, but it is not actually true. We do need a ready source of credit, so we need banks; but we don’t need private banks. It is a little-known, well-concealed fact that banks do not lend their own money or even their depositors’ money. They actually create the money they lend; and creating money is properly a public, not a private, function. The Constitution delegates the power to create money to Congress and only to Congress.12 In making loans, banks are merely extending credit; and the proper agency for extending “the full faith and credit of the United States” is the United States itself.<BR/><BR/>There is more at stake here than just the equitable treatment of injured homeowners and investors in mortgage-backed securities. Banks and investment houses are now squeezing the last drops of blood from the U.S. government’s credit rating, “borrowing” money and unloading worthless paper on the government and the taxpayers. When the dust settles, it will be the banks, investment brokerages and hedge funds for wealthy investors that will be saved. The repossessed will become the dispossessed; and unless your pension fund has invested in politically well-connected hedge funds, you can probably kiss it goodbye, as teachers in Florida already have. <BR/><BR/>But the banking genie is a creature of the law, and the law can put it back in the bottle. The imminent failure of some very big banks could provide the government with an opportunity to regain control of its finances. More than that, it could provide the funds for tackling otherwise unsolvable problems now threatening to destroy our standard of living and our standing in the world. The only solution that will be more than a temporary fix is to take the power to create money away from private bankers and return it to the people collectively. That is how it should have been all along, and how it was in our early history; but we are so used to banks being private corporations that we have forgotten the public banks of our forebears. The best of the colonial American banking models was developed in Benjamin Franklin’s province of Pennsylvania, where a government-owned bank issued money and lent it to farmers at 5 percent interest. The interest was returned to the government, replacing taxes. During the decades that that system was in operation, the province of Pennsylvania operated without taxes, inflation or debt. <BR/><BR/>Rather than bailing out bankrupt banks and sending them on their merry way, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) needs to take a close look at the banks’ books and put any banks found to be insolvent into receivership. The FDIC (unlike the Federal Reserve) is actually a federal agency, and it has the option of taking a bank’s stock in return for bailing it out, effectively nationalizing it. This is done in Europe with bankrupt banks, and it was done in the United States with Continental Illinois, the country’s fourth largest bank, when it went bankrupt in the 1990s.<BR/><BR/>A system of truly “national” banks could issue “the full faith and credit of the United States” for public purposes, including funding infrastructure, sustainable energy development and health care.13 Publicly-issued credit could also be used to relieve the subprime crisis. Local governments could use it to buy up mortgages in default, compensating the MBS investors and freeing the real estate for public disposal. The properties could then be rented back to their occupants at reasonable rates, leaving people in their homes without the windfall of acquiring a house without paying for it. A program of lease-purchase might also be instituted. The proceeds would be applied toward repaying the credit advanced to buy the mortgages, balancing the money supply and preventing inflation.<BR/><BR/>Local and Private Solutions<BR/><BR/>While we are waiting for the federal government to act, there are also private and local possibilities for relieving the subprime crisis. Chris Cook is a British strategic market consultant and the former Compliance Director for the International Petroleum Exchange. He recommends getting all the parties to settle by forming a pool constituted as an LLC (limited liability company), in a partnership framework that brings together occupiers and financiers as co-owners under a neutral custodian. The original owners would pay an affordable rental, and the resulting pool of rentals would be “unitized” (divided into unit interests, similar to a REIT or real estate investment trust). Among other advantages over the usual mortgage-backed security, there would be no loans at interest, since the property would be owned outright by the LLC. Eliminating interest substantially reduces costs. The former owners would be able to occupy the property at an affordable rental, with the option to buy an equity stake in it. For the banks, the advantage would be that they would be able to find investors again, since the risk would have been taken out of the investment by insuring full occupancy at affordable rates; and for the investors, the advantage would be a secure investment with a dependable return.14<BR/><BR/>Carolyn Betts is an Ohio attorney who served in Washington as issuer’s counsel for MBS trusts formed by various federal governmental entities, and represented Resolution Trust Corporation in its auction of defaulted commercial mortgage loans during the last real estate crisis. She proposes a squeeze play by the states, in the style of that brought against the tobacco companies by a consortium of state attorneys general in the 1990s. She notes that at the end of 2007, at least 20% of the funds held by the Ohio Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) were in mortgage backed securities and similar investments. That makes Ohio public money a major investor in these mortgage-related securities. Ohio governments have an interest in not having homes foreclosed upon, since foreclosures destroy local real estate markets, contribute to lower tax revenues and losses on PERS investments, and cause a strain on state and local affordable housing systems. A coordinated series of actions brought by state attorneys general could eliminate the culpable banker middlemen and return the properties to local ownership and control.<BR/><BR/>Andrew Jackson reportedly told Congress in 1829, “If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.” A wave of private actions, class actions and government lawsuits aimed at redressing injurious banking practices could spark a revolution in banking, returning the power to advance “the full faith and credit of the United States” to the United States, and returning community assets to local ownership and control.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-15973717370354741322008-07-15T06:11:00.000-07:002008-07-15T06:11:00.000-07:00Makes you wonder who next will get access to the F...Makes you wonder who next will get access to the Fed's emergency lending discount window.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>why my hype of course!<BR/><BR/>so they can pay me and belly bowl.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-63034454078019947402008-07-14T22:27:00.000-07:002008-07-14T22:27:00.000-07:00quoting MoogieMakes you wonder who next will get a...<B>quoting Moogie</B><BR/><I>Makes you wonder who next will get access to the Fed's emergency lending discount window. When & where will this special privilege end?</I><BR/><BR/>My statement was, that “...the Fed, particularly through the discount window, does not make loans of that kind...” still stands. They had to be “authorised” to do so, it is not something they would have done in the normal course of business, probably at the order of the Treasury, by way of the Fed Board. The type and means of the loan have yet to be determined unless you’ve seen something I haven’t, and it certainly didn’t go through the discount window.<BR/><BR/>Since neither company is covered by any type of insurance, unlike the banks and thrifts, the backing would have to come from some point, and the Fed is a reasonable source for it since it will ultimately come out of the Gov'ts pocket one way or another.notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-56458589277751024132008-07-14T17:45:00.000-07:002008-07-14T17:45:00.000-07:00juggins...maybe yo can esplane to me why juges mak...juggins...maybe yo can esplane to me why juges make disions and then only jimmy no one pay attenton to dem???<BR/><BR/>ho cum it like dat?<BR/><BR/>why botha making a dision then?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>July 11, 2008<BR/><BR/>Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the US District Court in California has ruled that President George W. Bush is a felon. The ruling stems from the case of Al-Harmain Islamic Foundation Inc. v Bush, a case which will now be remembered as making it official that Bush's program of 'warrantless spying' is illegal.<BR/><BR/> Judge Walker held that the president lacks the authority to disregard the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA -- which means Bush's warrantless electronic surveillance program was illegal. Whether Bush will ultimately be held accountable for violating federal law with the program remains unclear. Bush administration lawyers have fought vigorously -- at times using brazen, logic-defying tactics -- to prevent that from happening. The court battle will continue to play out as Congress continues to battle over recasting FISA and possibly granting immunity to telecom companies involved in the illegal surveillance.--Suing George W. Bush: A bizarre and troubling tale<BR/><BR/>The complete story at Sott.net outlines the sorry history of how the Bush administration has defined the law of this nation as well as the laws of common sense and decency to carry out a program that would have made even Richard Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover blush. It would seem to me that it's now well established that Bush is indictable in a Federal Court. It is also my understanding that any sitting federal judge can now --upon his/her own motion --convene a federal grand jury to investigate Bush's many violations of federal law, not the least of which are US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441, which make Bush subject to the penalty of death for each death of his war of aggression in Iraq.<BR/><BR/> (a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. --TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 § 2441. War crimes<BR/><BR/>It's easy to find evidences of Bush's tyranny. Here's a headline linked from the article cited above.<BR/><BR/> Editor's note: This article is part of a Salon investigative series on spying inside the United States by the Bush administration. Research support for the article was provided by the Nation Institute Investigative Fund.<BR/><BR/> Spying on Americans without warrants, charges based on secret evidence, a small town divided by fear. Welcome to the world of Bush's "specially designated global terrorists."May 19, 2008 | RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, and ASHLAND, Ore. One day in March 2004, Soliman Hamd Al-Buthe, a former member of Saudi Arabia's national basketball team and a government official in the city of Riyadh, picked up his phone for an urgent call with two American lawyers in Washington, DC Most of the call concerned a growing confrontation between the US government and the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation in Ashland, Ore., the US branch of a global Saudi Arabian charity organization under investigation for possible links to terrorism. Al-Buthe had been an advisor to Al-Haramain from 1995 to 2002 and was a member of the Oregon foundation's board of directors. Just weeks prior to the call, the foundation -- a respected fixture in the Ashland community run for years by an Iranian-American Muslim named Pete Seda -- had been raided by US law enforcement agents.--Blacklisted by the Bush government, Tim Shorrock, Salon <BR/><BR/>It is the Bush administration which has pressed this issue, an issue that has come up, until Bush, just four times in 23 years. But since 911 and the Bush wars for which it is fraudulently cited in justification, Bush has seized upon a Supreme Court ruling of 1953 to justify sweeping authority far beyond anything that could have been envisioned by the courts. Mere mention of two words --'state secrets' --was always enough to get a wink and nod from a federal judge. Things have changed. There is the possibility that George W. Bush is under investigation by a Federal Grand Jury as we write this.<BR/><BR/> Federal grand juries do two things: They investigate to determine if federal crimes have been committed; and they indict, or bring criminal charges against, those whom the grand jury believes committed federal crimes. To indict, the grand jurors must have probable cause to believe the persons indicted did violate federal criminal law. Grand juries offer prosecutors several advantages in conducting a criminal investigation, especially a high-profile, factually complicated investigation. For one thing, grand juries operate in secret; this not only gives prosecutors the ability to shield the evidence they are gathering from disclosure to the press and others, it can also encourage people to cooperate with a grand jury. Unless a witness reveals that he or she testified before a federal grand jury, no one ever needs to know that occurred, and since the transcripts of grand jury testimony are secret, no one will know what the witness said. This can be an advantage in an investigation, such as an investigation into terrorism, where witnesses may be afraid of retaliation if they cooperate with investigators. Grand juries also give prosecutors the power to subpoena witnesses and evidence from around the country and, in some circumstances, from other countries, as well. (Getting evidence from abroad is discussed below.) If federal agents want to interview someone, the person can refuse to speak to them; this is true even if the person is arrested as a material witness, because persons who are arrested can invoke the Miranda rights to silence and to an attorney. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, however, that the Miranda rights are not available to witnesses subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. Unlike someone being interrogated by federal agents, a grand jury witness not only has not right to silence or counsel, he or she is required to answer questions posed by the prosecutor working with the grand jury and by the grand jurors. A grand jury witness can refuse to answer if he or she can invoke the Fifth Amendment as to a question, but the privilege must be claimed as to each question and the prosecutor can challenge a witness' ability to invoke the privilege.--Using a Grand Jury to Investigate the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, Susan Brenner & Lori Shaw<BR/><BR/>It is against both the letter of the law, logic, and common sense to allow Bush carte blanche to dismiss out-of-hand legal challenges to his various assumptions of dictatorial powers. This is crucial! Bush wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and 'terror' can be shown to be criminal and fraudulent. No other criminal defendant could simply invoke 'executive privilege' in order to have the smoking gun evidence against him thrown out of court. And Bush must no be allowed to do so either!<BR/><BR/>In this case, the evidence that must be allowed, the evidence that must be weighed by a federal grand jury will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the panoply of frauds and lies Bush perpetrated upon the sovereign people of the US amount to high treason, mass murder, and war crimes for which US Codes themselves demand the death penalty.<BR/><BR/>A very important and related story at Alternet: Worries About War Crimes Heat up in the White House. Bush should worry. Any competent prosecutor could make an open and shut case right now that George W. Bush, who ordered the illegal attack and invasion of Iraq, is personally guilty of war crimes that demand the death penalty.<BR/><BR/>See: US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441.<BR/><BR/>Also see: Impeach, Remove, and Try George W. Bush for War Crimes and Mass Murder<BR/><BR/>existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/07/federal-judge-ruling-george-w-bush-is.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-67142731515431663182008-07-14T17:42:00.000-07:002008-07-14T17:42:00.000-07:00LOL!yo gotta better shot braney fife fix up the ba...LOL!<BR/><BR/><BR/>yo gotta better shot braney fife fix up the banks....he only nedd one bullit...yo neva say any banks go broke in mayberry.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-30127954209066203972008-07-14T15:13:00.000-07:002008-07-14T15:13:00.000-07:00rite! blarny frick....dun wanna get behine him......rite! blarny frick....dun wanna get behine him....thats fo juggins to do in the end...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-55304032589986427542008-07-14T13:05:00.000-07:002008-07-14T13:05:00.000-07:00LET THE LIES BEGIN: Rep. Barney Frank, the Massach...LET THE LIES BEGIN: <BR/><BR/>Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, told CNBC television that he expected to get a housing bill to President George W. Bush by the end of next week.<BR/><BR/>Frank also said Fannie and Freddie were FINANCIALLY SOUND, and would probably NOT NEED TO BORROW from the Fed.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-7532136402657167272008-07-14T12:34:00.000-07:002008-07-14T12:34:00.000-07:00The US Treasury Dept. is talking about making an "...The US Treasury Dept. is talking about making an "equity investment" into the companies of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac which tells us that their problems are more of a solvency problem than just a temporary liquidity problem.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>right! as therres no fee lunck as they say...it only a matta o time befo T-BONDS/BILLS/NOTS are wurtless.....<BR/><BR/><BR/>garanteed by full fate an cretit of the us govt....LOL!!!<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>as if the "money" doesnt cum frum anywhere....wha a load....so if dat teh case, they why let it get to falure in the first place??<BR/><BR/><BR/>so hose backin up the FDICK?<BR/><BR/>hte fed...ok, so ho backs up the fed???<BR/><BR/>right! jimmy noone!<BR/><BR/><BR/>at sum point, they gonna get an ovation...the hole thins gonna claps......<BR/><BR/>hyip my hope payout bfo den.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-10358278953362505332008-07-14T12:00:00.000-07:002008-07-14T12:00:00.000-07:00"There's a disconnect with saving Fannie and Fredd..."There's a disconnect with saving Fannie and Freddie and bailing out the shareholders," Ablin said. "If the government steps in and ultimately creates a bailout of these entities, I'd be astounded if equity holders were left with anything. I think the market is realizing that. The bonds are holding in pretty well, and it's just a matter of time before the stock is worth ZERO."mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-68470695714348789472008-07-14T08:35:00.000-07:002008-07-14T08:35:00.000-07:00The US Treasury Dept. is talking about making an "...The US Treasury Dept. is talking about making an "equity investment" into the companies of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac which tells us that their problems are more of a solvency problem than just a temporary liquidity problem.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-57719679513536295772008-07-14T08:29:00.000-07:002008-07-14T08:29:00.000-07:00Notarial Dissent quotes me:"Makes you wonder who n...Notarial Dissent quotes me:<BR/><BR/>"Makes you wonder who next will get access to the Fed's emergency lending discount window. When & where will this special privilege end?"<BR/><BR/>Notarial answers: "Since the Fed, particularly through the discount window, does not make loans of that kind you are again braying like the jackass you are."<BR/><BR/>Yet the news today says this: <BR/><BR/><BR/>The Fed said it granted the Federal Reserve Bank of New York authority to lend to the two companies, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, "should such lending prove necessary." They would pay 2.25 percent for any borrowed funds -- the same rate given to commercial banks and big Wall Street firms.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-60175460527873778702008-07-14T04:32:00.000-07:002008-07-14T04:32:00.000-07:00day sumteeng rawn wit choo mon.yo eva here of choo...day sumteeng rawn wit choo mon.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>yo eva here of chooch an ching??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-14967886433179288422008-07-13T19:51:00.000-07:002008-07-13T19:51:00.000-07:00choo beffer gaw bock to mayheeco wha choo beelawns...choo beffer gaw bock to mayheeco wha choo beelawns...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-55418396200502490112008-07-13T16:17:00.000-07:002008-07-13T16:17:00.000-07:00the FDA knew all along that the tomatoes were comi...the FDA knew all along that the tomatoes were coming from Mexico (as i pointed out repeatedly on my show<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>tomtos cummin frum mayheeco?<BR/><BR/>yo, r choo keeding me?<BR/><BR/>wha da maffa wit choo?<BR/><BR/><BR/>day sumteeng rawn wit choo mon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-64174918806516653382008-07-13T16:14:00.000-07:002008-07-13T16:14:00.000-07:00which makes me think that the mil boys are playing...which makes me think that the mil boys are playing with it again (not <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>yo sho yo nut talkng abut juggins?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-15035337523806077032008-07-13T02:25:00.000-07:002008-07-13T02:25:00.000-07:00uly 13, 2008 posting ... WEATHER BOMBED AGAIN !!! ...uly 13, 2008 posting ... WEATHER BOMBED AGAIN !!! the entire central USA ... this time with heavy lightning ... cars fried with lightning ... incredible cloud to cloud lightning storms accompanying tornado watches ... things just missing ... swaths of trees down in isolated areas ... a roofer hit by lightning with a hole in his head ... the evening news not reporting it anymore as this is just "normal" ... i have to add that there is no reasonable source of energy for this spring season's severe day after day after day weather ... which makes me think that the mil boys are playing with it again (not seen since katrina and hurricane rita and wilma a few years ago) ... a dormant alaskan volcano just blew its stack 50,000 feet into the air ... more satellite laser manipulation ??? next ... on the home front ... now to mention the bizarre twist to the salmonella tomato poisoning story of the past months ... the FDA knew all along that the tomatoes were coming from Mexico (as i pointed out repeatedly on my show) ... now imagine ... as the FDA sat in front of a congressional hearing asking for more funding to "oversee american agriculture" when the SOBs knew all along that it was coming from mexican farms and they were turning their heads and mixing that with grower's products from 17 other states that were then blamed for the poisoning ... THIS IS CRIMINAL and the entire FDA staff should be arrested and convicted for murder ... mexico "did an internal investigation" ... si senior !!! and they claim ... (as i said ... si senior ... ya you betcha !!!) ... found no salmonella and beseeched the customs to start admitting tomatoes form mexico again ... while tomato farmers across the USA plow their tomato crops into the ground because the prices have fallen below what it would cost to pick and ship their crops ... the FDA response ... now they think it may have been chili peppers ... can you believe the incompetence ... lies ... disgusting politics and lack of responsibility ... need i say more ... now maybe you are starting to understand why i have been harping on being your own source of food and fresh water ... jim mccanneyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-36881274158002163852008-07-12T14:08:00.000-07:002008-07-12T14:08:00.000-07:00and Moogie’s mouth runneth overYou must agree with...<B>and Moogie’s mouth runneth over</B><BR/><I>You must agree with the protagonist (Michael Douglas) of the movie in "Wall Street" that "GREED IS GOOD" than & it is what makes America great.</I><BR/><BR/>Again with the assumptions Moogs, wrong as usual, but at least you are consistently wrong.<BR/><BR/>I have no particular love for the banking industry, and none whatsoever for the mortgage industry. The ones who violated the law should be punished, but it has to be actual violations of law not figments of some con artists imagination. <BR/><BR/><B>Moogie delusional again</B><BR/><I>....it isn't too much of a leap of faith to believe that they would do even more diabolical things too, like pretending to be the holder in due course of the promissory notes & selling these ill gotten mortgages to the secondary markets of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.</I><BR/><BR/>In the first place, this is total nonsense. Banks/lenders are not in the habit of selling things they don’t own, for one thing it is illegal and when the actual owner shows up it causes all kinds of complications, which is why they don’t do it, the fact that the mortgage bundling industry got completely out of control is a regulatory foul up. If they have lost track of their property, then they deserve the problems they are having.<BR/><BR/>There is too much documentation needed to make this kind of fraud a growth industry. In most foreclosures, the foreclosing party has the right, ownership, and documentation to prove their ownership and right. In the ones that don’t the courts are quite capable of dealing with them.notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-76737338236181006212008-07-12T13:21:00.000-07:002008-07-12T13:21:00.000-07:00when enemies become friends....click these in orde...when enemies become friends....<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>click these in order:<BR/><BR/>1) http://origin.ih.constant<BR/>contact.com/fs020/<BR/>1100829209749/img/<BR/>335.jpg?a=1102162298806<BR/><BR/>2) http://origin.ih.constant<BR/>contact.com/fs020/<BR/>1100829209749/img/336.<BR/>jpg?a=1102162298806<BR/><BR/>3) http://origin.ih.constant<BR/>contact.com/fs020/1100829<BR/>209749/img/337.<BR/>jpg?a=1102162298806<BR/><BR/>4) http://origin.ih.constant<BR/>contact.com/fs020/<BR/>1100829209749/img/338<BR/>.jpg?a=1102162298806<BR/><BR/><BR/>AMAZING!!! ISNT IT!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-51739309323050796462008-07-12T11:32:00.000-07:002008-07-12T11:32:00.000-07:00jugguns....i here dat yo had yo $ in dat big mac b...jugguns....i here dat yo had yo $ in dat big mac banke...so, no ho yo get yo muney out?<BR/><BR/><BR/>look like yo gonna haf to wate jus like everynone else fo they moeny.....cept maybe jimmy noone...he the only none who get his money quick....<BR/><BR/><BR/>so no yo haf to wate fo FDICK to get yo money...i bet yo wating hard fo it too....yo get at the front o the line while evernone can get behind yo....i gus yo like it dat way anyway....in da end....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-28845332363321700752008-07-12T10:00:00.000-07:002008-07-12T10:00:00.000-07:00I don't even believe we've seen the worst yet of ....I don't even believe we've seen the worst yet of ....<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>nut buy a lawn shoot....eva hay of 1929 ????<BR/><BR/>day wun bee enfu briges fo ppls to jum off oof!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-36249996949996014352008-07-12T09:54:00.000-07:002008-07-12T09:54:00.000-07:00i guss that even stroy has piked up on this.....CR...i guss that even stroy has piked up on this.....<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>CRISIS INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY REVIEW IS PUBLISHED<BR/><BR/>CRIMINAL BASIS OF CALAMITY CANNOT BE EXPUNGED FROM THE RECORD<BR/><BR/>Saturday 12 July 2008 12:11<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>make sho that when yo post, dat someho yo mange to get an "11" in they...i see dat yo manged to do this...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-27355969946505202882008-07-12T08:44:00.000-07:002008-07-12T08:44:00.000-07:00Notarial Dissent said: "Sure they did Moogs, just...Notarial Dissent said: "Sure they did Moogs, just like in all your other fantasies where you pretend you know what you are talking about."<BR/>______________________________<BR/><BR/>You must agree with the protagonist (Michael Douglas) of the movie in "Wall Street" that "GREED IS GOOD" than & it is what makes America great. <BR/><BR/> Mortgage companies & lenders/banks have taken advantage of people that could least afford to pay the high fees & high interest rates that were charged, not to mention the unethical equity stripping by lenders & this greed has come back to bite all of these institutions in the butt with bad mortgage paper & has hurt the financial industry in general. Kind of a real carma at work here. Taking advantage of people is a form of stealing too, & really taking advantage of your superior negotiating position to manipulate people with low incomes & bad credit through their own fraud & misrepresentation like not even verifying income & even accepting bogus values on appraisals for the sake of JUST MAKING THE LOAN WORK. You say the financial institutions haven't done this? <BR/><BR/>If they have done this, and even Judge Bean might agree with that, it isn't too much of a leap of faith to believe that they would do even more diabolical things too, like pretending to be the holder in due course of the promissory notes & selling these ill gotten mortgages to the secondary markets of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-17492778063695844132008-07-12T08:22:00.000-07:002008-07-12T08:22:00.000-07:00Indymac Bank is the 2nd biggest bank failure in U....Indymac Bank is the 2nd biggest bank failure in U.S. history. Lehman is also in big financial trouble. We've already seen the woes of Countrywide, the biggest mortgage lender & the death of New Century & the demise of Bear Stearns being bought out by Chase Bank. That's all big news, but bigger news is the financial problems of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.<BR/><BR/>Both are too big to have the government NOT step in & save them with some plan that all of us will pay for, however, by the government stepping in, their credit rating is going to be compromised too. Kind of like being between a rock & a hard place for any solution. 5 Trillion or more in debt that those 2 firms have either purchased or guaranteed? That's about half the governments debt, isn't it? I don't even believe we've seen the worst yet of the subprime mortgage crisis & may not see that until sometime in 2009. You'll probably hear in the news that all of this is manageable & that the worse is behind us & things are going to get better soon, but I think we've only seen the tip of the iceburg.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-54370436598207290412008-07-11T19:59:00.000-07:002008-07-11T19:59:00.000-07:00yep....like kennybunk rogets say....yo goota no we...yep....like kennybunk rogets say....yo goota no wen to fole em....an yo dun need a dinosaurus to no wha dat meen....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-6760493443426595562008-07-11T16:03:00.000-07:002008-07-11T16:03:00.000-07:00yo gaonna stot ta see a lot mo bank walks....no mo...yo gaonna stot ta see a lot mo bank walks....no mo bank runs...coss da banks dont run anymo...they off of busyness....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com