Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Occupy Tulsa
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Billybob" data-source="post: 1631565" data-attributes="member: 1294"><p>To say it's simply capitalism v. socialism leaves out a lot of details. Well at least we know it's all "legal", after all it's not like the banks got their own courts set up specifically for what they wanted, (who paid for those courts?, taxpayers again) and at least there aren't any questions/investigations about accurate payment records, bogus docs, or fraud upon the court, well...</p><p></p><p>But at least we don't have to ask Congress if the banks even had legal standing to foreclose in some cases, well...</p><p></p><p>And thank goodness there's not a new Attorney General's settlement agreement being talked about, which some contend is another bailout for the banks, (last article) to limit current and possibly future liability right as more suits come out involving taxes not being paid, well...</p><p></p><p>I'm not saying I agree or side completely with the all of the protesters, but there are as said before some things that should be looked at to prevent it happening again.</p><p>And I do believe in personal responsibility, those who screwed up their own deal should pay but so should those who screwed others or helped/allowed/covered said screwing.</p><p></p><p>Regardless of how we feel about the protest we should all at least hope/pray they stay peaceful and possibly that maybe something positive can come from it even if it's just learning a little more and agreeing to peacefully disagree.</p><p></p><p>"Rocket Docket" rushing foreclosures, lawyers say</p><p>["The fundamental problem," said Chip Parker, an attorney who specializes in foreclosure defense, "is that for the first time, this court was created with the specific goal of reducing foreclosures 62 percent."</p><p></p><p>It's designed with a result in mind, and that's not how justice is supposed to work."</p><p></p><p>At least seven states are investigating allegations of wrongdoing involving bogus signatures and missing documents.</p><p></p><p>Several cases have been tossed out by Florida judges who found fraud. Duval Circuit Judge Jean Johnson declared that one South Florida law firm under investigation, Shapiro & Fishman, had "committed fraud on this court" on behalf of Chase. She dismissed the case in August, finding in favor of Parker's client, because of fraudulent documents.]</p><p></p><p></p><p>Read more at Jacksonville.com: <a href="http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2010-10-10/story/rocket-docket-rushing-foreclosures-lawyers-say#ixzz1a1ML7BXT" target="_blank">http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2010-10-10/story/rocket-docket-rushing-foreclosures-lawyers-say#ixzz1a1ML7BXT</a></p><p></p><p>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Congressional hearing: Do banks lack the legal standing to foreclose?</p><p>By Ariana Eunjung Cha</p><p>12/ 2/2010</p><p></p><p>A state judge, law professor and consumer attorneys are testifying before Congress that in many cases the banks trying to foreclose on borrowers do not have the legal standing to do so, according to prepared remarks.</p><p></p><p></p><p>University of Utah law professor Christopher L. Peterson raised further questions about MERS in his written remarks, saying the system has a "problematic legal foundation" because it undermines state recording laws.</p><p></p><p>Calling MERS a "deceptive" and "anti-democratic" institution because it allows 20,000 people who are not its employees but rather employees of mortgage lenders, servicers and law firms to sign mortgage paperwork in its name, Peterson argued that the practice clouds the ownership of the loan.</p><p>Peterson called on Congress to bar Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae from purchasing MERS-recorded loans--echoing legislation introduced by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) last month.</p><p></p><p>Joseph R. Mason, a banking professor from Louisiana State University, said legislation may be necessary to clarify the status of MERS.</p><p></p><p>"MERS presents two main risks in the current marketplace," he testified. "The first regards whether MERS has legal standing to foreclose in its own name. The second is whether loans recorded in MERS can be foreclosed at all."</p><p></p><p></p><p>Thomas Cox, a pro bono attorney from Maine, took one of the depositions of Ally Financial "robo-signer" Jeffrey Stephan, who triggered the recent uproar. Cox refuted claims by banks that they are foreclosing only on borrowers who are hopelessly behind in their payments.</p><p></p><p>"I hear and see reports of wrongful foreclosure actions on virtually a daily basis," Cox said in his written testimony.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/12/congressional_hearing_do_banks.html" target="_blank">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/12/congressional_hearing_do_banks.html</a></p><p></p><p>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p>Invasion of the Home Snatchers</p><p>[Kowalski has seen hundreds of cases like the one he's presenting this morning. It started back in 2006, when he went to Pennsylvania to conduct what he thought would be a routine deposition of an official at the lending giant GMAC. What he discovered was that the official - who had sworn to having personal knowledge of the case - was, in fact, just a "robo-signer" who had signed off on the file without knowing anything about the actual homeowner or his payment history. (Kowalski's clients, like most of the homeowners he represents, were actually making their payments on time; in this particular case, a check had been mistakenly refused by GMAC.) Following the evidence, Kowalski discovered what has turned out to be a systemwide collapse of the process for documenting mortgages in this country.]</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110" target="_blank">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110</a></p><p></p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Attorneys General Settlement: The Next Big Bank Bailout?</p><p></p><p>[In fact, any federal foreclosure settlement along the lines of what’s been proposed will amount to a last round of post-2008-crisis bailouts. I talked to one foreclosure activist over the weekend who put it this way: “[The AG settlement] will be a bigger bailout than TARP.”</p><p></p><p>How? The math actually makes a hell of a lot of sense, when you look at it closely.</p><p></p><p>Any foreclosure settlement will allow the banks to pay one relatively small bill to cover all of their legal liabilities stemming from the monstrous frauds they all practiced in the years leading up to the 2008 crash (and even afterward), when they all schemed to create great masses of dicey/junk subprime loans and then disguise them as AAA-rated paper for sale to big private investors and institutions like state pension funds and union funds.</p><p></p><p>To recap the crime: the banks lent money to firms like Countrywide, who in turn created billions in dicey loans, who then sold them back to the banks, who chopped them up and sold them to, among other things, your state’s worker retirement funds.</p><p></p><p>So this is bankers from Deutsche and Goldman and Bank of America essentially stealing the retirement nest eggs of firemen, teachers, cops, and other actors, as well as the investment monies of foreigners and hedge fund managers.To repeat: this was Wall Street hotshots stealing money from old ladies.]</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/attorneys-general-settlement-the-next-big-bank-bailout-20111005" target="_blank">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/attorneys-general-settlement-the-next-big-bank-bailout-20111005</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Billybob, post: 1631565, member: 1294"] To say it's simply capitalism v. socialism leaves out a lot of details. Well at least we know it's all "legal", after all it's not like the banks got their own courts set up specifically for what they wanted, (who paid for those courts?, taxpayers again) and at least there aren't any questions/investigations about accurate payment records, bogus docs, or fraud upon the court, well... But at least we don't have to ask Congress if the banks even had legal standing to foreclose in some cases, well... And thank goodness there's not a new Attorney General's settlement agreement being talked about, which some contend is another bailout for the banks, (last article) to limit current and possibly future liability right as more suits come out involving taxes not being paid, well... I'm not saying I agree or side completely with the all of the protesters, but there are as said before some things that should be looked at to prevent it happening again. And I do believe in personal responsibility, those who screwed up their own deal should pay but so should those who screwed others or helped/allowed/covered said screwing. Regardless of how we feel about the protest we should all at least hope/pray they stay peaceful and possibly that maybe something positive can come from it even if it's just learning a little more and agreeing to peacefully disagree. "Rocket Docket" rushing foreclosures, lawyers say ["The fundamental problem," said Chip Parker, an attorney who specializes in foreclosure defense, "is that for the first time, this court was created with the specific goal of reducing foreclosures 62 percent." It's designed with a result in mind, and that's not how justice is supposed to work." At least seven states are investigating allegations of wrongdoing involving bogus signatures and missing documents. Several cases have been tossed out by Florida judges who found fraud. Duval Circuit Judge Jean Johnson declared that one South Florida law firm under investigation, Shapiro & Fishman, had "committed fraud on this court" on behalf of Chase. She dismissed the case in August, finding in favor of Parker's client, because of fraudulent documents.] Read more at Jacksonville.com: [url]http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2010-10-10/story/rocket-docket-rushing-foreclosures-lawyers-say#ixzz1a1ML7BXT[/url] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Congressional hearing: Do banks lack the legal standing to foreclose? By Ariana Eunjung Cha 12/ 2/2010 A state judge, law professor and consumer attorneys are testifying before Congress that in many cases the banks trying to foreclose on borrowers do not have the legal standing to do so, according to prepared remarks. University of Utah law professor Christopher L. Peterson raised further questions about MERS in his written remarks, saying the system has a "problematic legal foundation" because it undermines state recording laws. Calling MERS a "deceptive" and "anti-democratic" institution because it allows 20,000 people who are not its employees but rather employees of mortgage lenders, servicers and law firms to sign mortgage paperwork in its name, Peterson argued that the practice clouds the ownership of the loan. Peterson called on Congress to bar Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae from purchasing MERS-recorded loans--echoing legislation introduced by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) last month. Joseph R. Mason, a banking professor from Louisiana State University, said legislation may be necessary to clarify the status of MERS. "MERS presents two main risks in the current marketplace," he testified. "The first regards whether MERS has legal standing to foreclose in its own name. The second is whether loans recorded in MERS can be foreclosed at all." Thomas Cox, a pro bono attorney from Maine, took one of the depositions of Ally Financial "robo-signer" Jeffrey Stephan, who triggered the recent uproar. Cox refuted claims by banks that they are foreclosing only on borrowers who are hopelessly behind in their payments. "I hear and see reports of wrongful foreclosure actions on virtually a daily basis," Cox said in his written testimony. [url]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/12/congressional_hearing_do_banks.html[/url] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Invasion of the Home Snatchers [Kowalski has seen hundreds of cases like the one he's presenting this morning. It started back in 2006, when he went to Pennsylvania to conduct what he thought would be a routine deposition of an official at the lending giant GMAC. What he discovered was that the official - who had sworn to having personal knowledge of the case - was, in fact, just a "robo-signer" who had signed off on the file without knowing anything about the actual homeowner or his payment history. (Kowalski's clients, like most of the homeowners he represents, were actually making their payments on time; in this particular case, a check had been mistakenly refused by GMAC.) Following the evidence, Kowalski discovered what has turned out to be a systemwide collapse of the process for documenting mortgages in this country.] [url]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110[/url] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys General Settlement: The Next Big Bank Bailout? [In fact, any federal foreclosure settlement along the lines of what’s been proposed will amount to a last round of post-2008-crisis bailouts. I talked to one foreclosure activist over the weekend who put it this way: “[The AG settlement] will be a bigger bailout than TARP.” How? The math actually makes a hell of a lot of sense, when you look at it closely. Any foreclosure settlement will allow the banks to pay one relatively small bill to cover all of their legal liabilities stemming from the monstrous frauds they all practiced in the years leading up to the 2008 crash (and even afterward), when they all schemed to create great masses of dicey/junk subprime loans and then disguise them as AAA-rated paper for sale to big private investors and institutions like state pension funds and union funds. To recap the crime: the banks lent money to firms like Countrywide, who in turn created billions in dicey loans, who then sold them back to the banks, who chopped them up and sold them to, among other things, your state’s worker retirement funds. So this is bankers from Deutsche and Goldman and Bank of America essentially stealing the retirement nest eggs of firemen, teachers, cops, and other actors, as well as the investment monies of foreigners and hedge fund managers.To repeat: this was Wall Street hotshots stealing money from old ladies.] [url]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/attorneys-general-settlement-the-next-big-bank-bailout-20111005[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Occupy Tulsa
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom