Imagine that a group of arsonists was terrorizing your town. First they'd buy insurance on a stranger's home, then they'd show up with a blowtorch and a tanker truck filled with gasoline and burn the place down. Imagine that they've burned down a thousand homes this way, ruining the lives of the homeowners -- and everyone else's, too, as real estate values plunged and the local economy collapsed.
Now let's imagine that the Mayor, the DA, and the Chief of Police said they've come up with a great "settlement": The arsonists will pay a small fine, and they'll never be prosecuted for arson. Plus, if they're asked very nicely, they'll also agree to provide a little help to 27 out of the 1,000 families they made homeless -- although they'd control the 'help' process and the town might wind up footing the bill anyway.
And one more thing: They get to keep the gasoline truck and the blowtorch.
____________________________
Substitute "country" for "town" and "banker" for "arsonist," and that pretty much sums up the mortgage fraud settlement that the administration and some attorneys general keep trying to impose on the nation. It's a sweetheart arrangement that asks for pennies on the dollar, would only help a tiny fraction of those harmed, and would allow the wrongdoers to keep the tools of their criminal trade -- making future crimes all but irresistible to the feloniously inclined.
Here are four reasons why California Attorney General Kamala Harris and her colleagues must reject this proposal:
1. Crime must be punished
The bankers' crimes during the mortgage crisis have included perjury, forgery, and investor fraud. These aren't the baseless accusations of some wild-eyed radicals. They're well-documented in the "consent orders" that the banks signed with the Treasury Department, most of which resemble the one executed with JPMorgan Chase. It's the kind of deal that's all too common these days: The bank "neither confirms nor denies" it did anything wrong.
Then it promises to stop.
The crimes described in the document include: lying in affidavits that were filed state and Federal courts; the filing of court documents which hadn't been notarized, but which the banks falsely asserted had been; foreclosing on homes when the bank didn't have proof that it even owned the note; and "failing to sufficiently oversee outside counsel and other third-party providers handling foreclosure-related services." (That last item refers to the illegal behavior of law firms and foreclosure specialists hired by the banks -- often continuing even after their lawbreaking had been widely publicized.)
The actions describes suggest a widespread pattern of criminal activity that includes perjury; suborning perjury; and forgery. There's also a good case to be made for criminal solicitation in the repeated use of those law firms and foreclosure servicers. In addition, most of the major banks have also settled charges of investor fraud connected with the bundling and re-selling of mortgage-backed securities.
That's a pretty hefty bunch of criminal charges to be waved away just because somebody whipped out their checkbook, isn't it? Especially since other people (the banks' shareholders) are going to pay the check.
2. The punishment doesn't fit the crime
However you look at it, $20 billion is a tiny price to pay for the damage that's been done. There are 11.1 million underwater mortgages, and they hold $750 billion in non-existent equity -- loan money that they're still paying back to the banks, even though their homes have lost that value.
Remember, a few years ago bankers were spending millions of dollars in advertising to convince homeowners that their home values will go up forever, and encouraging them to borrow against those homes. The banks knew better -- or should have -- but the homeowners have been stuck with the bill. $20 billion is roughly 1/38th of the amount these homeowners owe for disappeared real estate property. That's hardly fair.
3. Helping a few when many were harmed
Wisely, three attorneys general have refused to sign on to this shameful deal, despite the intense pressure placed upon them by the Administration, the banks, and the other AGs. Eric Schneiderman of New York was the first refusenik, followed by Beau Biden in Maryland and Kamala Harris in California. Now the AGs in Nevada, Massachusetts, Kentucky and Minnesota are holding back, too. Schneiderman and Harris are particularly important players, given the pivotal role their states played in the crisis.
Now they're trying to lure Harris back by sweetening the deal, but they're using a tiny, homeopathic dosage of sweetener. Stories planted this weekend said that Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who's serving as a bank shill in this process, had a new offer: Banks would throw in $5 billion to "refinance the mortgages of as many as 300,000 underwater U.S. homeowners." (Emphasis ours.)
Banks immediately countered this non-offer (it's not worth anything without Harris and Schneiderman) by offering $2 billion for 150,000 homeowners. In return, Californians would lose their right to challenge mortgages that were fraudulently issued -- and, of course, the bank criminals would still go free.
It's not even clear exactly what's being offered -- the banks would offer $5 billion to refinance these mortgates, but they would still expect to collect their principal, so it's not a big sacrifice. But the key facts are these: $5 billion to refinance these homes does not include any reduction in principal. And 300,000 homeowners (that's the highest figure; don't forget the "as many") is only 1/37th of the total number of people out there. It's absurdly trivial.
4. Gimme back my blowtorch, pal
At the heart of the mortgage crisis lies MERS, the artificial corporation and electronic database that served as the engine of the banks' mortgage scheme. They used MERS to circumvent local taxes, and to avoid meeting their legal obligations to provide a clear chain of title for ownership of a mortgage. They also used it to buy, bundle, and sell mortgages at light speed. (More on MERS here.)
It would have been impossible to do all of the trading that drove the housing bubble, or to create the financial instruments that led to the financial crisis, without using MERS. The banks could not have engaged in their massive criminal behavior surrounding the foreclosure process without MERS. And the banks would have been required to provide full legal documentation for their activities without MERS.
The arsonists who burned down the real estate economy used MERS as the blowtorch. Schneiderman, Harris, and Biden should refuse to join any settlement that doesn't either shut down MERS or require massive changes in its design, legal structure, and ownership.
Conclusion: It's a fire sale for arsonists
Kamala Harris would be doing her constituents a grave disservice by considering this offer. We trust that the holdout AGs will remain holdouts once they've had a chance to review this puncture-filled trial balloon.
The banks shattered the economy, costing the world economy at least seven trillion dollars in lost wealth. They made billions by artificially pumping up the real estate market, and they made billions more when it blew up. For three years they've benefited from government and Federal Reserve loans at fire sale prices - after they started the fire.
The AGs need to hold firm on this settlement, which is still a shameful cave-in to the big banks. No principal reduction? No deal. No dismantling of the criminals' toolbox? No deal. No jail time for bank crime? No deal.
The bankers are bitching about the deal, but since the alternatives include criminal prosecution they'll eventually sign it gladly. And when they do, they won't even bother washing the stink of gasoline and ashes from their clothing. These arsonists don't deserve another fire sale.
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Re: Link to Lis Pendens with Evidence of Deed of Trust alteration and fraud by Wells Fargo Bank.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71080695/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Bank-LIS-PENDENS-With-Evidence-of-Deed-of-Trust-Alteration-and-Fraud
And evidence of multiple authors of Wells Fargo Bank employee Rhonda Bernard Thomas
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71082634/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Declaration-of-Dr-Laurie-Hoeltzel-Re-Multiple-Authors-of-Rhonda-Bernard-Thomas-Signatures
Second Supplemental Objection with supporting Expert Opinion from Forensic Document Examiner Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel as filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. SC112044.
www.scribd.com/doc/70306223/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Re-Expert-Opinion-of-Dr-Laurie-Hoeltzel-Forensic-Document-Expert-Re-Rhonda-Bernard-Thomas-Signatures
www.scribd.com/doc/70305637/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Re-Expert-Opinion-of-Dr-Laurie-Hoeltzel-Forensic-Document-Expert-Re-Deed-of-Trust
www.scribd.com/doc/70303961/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Re-EXPERT-OPINION-TESTIMONY-for-Cerified-Deed-of-Trust-and-Rhonda-Bernard-Thomas-Signatures
Thank you.
Barry S. Fagan Esq.
Attorney's General Schneiderman, Biden, Harris, Masto, Coakley, Swanson and Conway for your responsible action.
And "Thank You" Mr. Escow for your tireless efforts and outstanding work.
　
"Must watch" MSNBC "Dylan Ratigan Show" segment in which Professor William K. Black not only calls for the firing of Tim Geithner, but also powerfully calls out leading economist and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP3oRwXI558
"And for that matter, where's Paul Krugman who can't be bothered to use the F-word, this is the five letter "F" word you can use in public, it's called fraud."
* Classic PBS Bill Moyers Interview with Professor Black on Fraud:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04232010/watch.html 　
Join the "effort of all efforts" GetMoneyOut.com
2 Additional Excellent Sources of Information Regarding Lobbying and Moneyed Interests:
OpenSecrets.org
MapLight.org
Contact Elected Officials easily at: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
good work
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025
FRB: Speech--Kroszner, The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis
"...Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priÂced loan originatioÂns went to middle- or higher-incÂome borrowers or neighborhoÂods. Such borrowers are not the populationÂs targeted by the CRA. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priÂced loans were extended to lower-incoÂme borrowers or borrowers in lower-incoÂme areas by independenÂt nonbank institutioÂns--that is, institutioÂns not covered by the CRA.
Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priÂced loans were extended by CRA-covereÂd lenders to lower-incoÂme borrowers or neighborhoÂods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographieÂs that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantiaÂl role for the CRA in the subprime crisis.
In other words, the very small share of all higher-priÂced loan originatioÂns that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributeÂd in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis..."
FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY REPORT
"We also studied at length how the Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmenÂt’s (HUD’s) affordable housing goals for the GSEs affected their investment in risky mortgages. Based on the evidence and interviews with dozens of individualÂs involved in this subject area, we determined these goals only contributeÂd marginally to Fannie’s and Freddie’s participatÂion in those mortgages.Â"
"Finally, as to the matter of whether government housing policies were a primary cause of the crisis: for decades, government policy has encouraged homeownersÂhip through a set of incentivesÂ, assistance programs, and mandates. These policies were put in place and promoted by several administraÂtions and Congresses—indeed, both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush set aggressive goals to increase homeownersÂhip."
"The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significanÂt factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA."
***HERE IS A COPY OF YOUR EMAIL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS REQUESTED - DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL***
Your email to the Attorney General states:
This is a Consumer complaint against the business/company named below
Company Name: Wells Fargo Bank NA
Please click on the following links to see evidence of both document and loan application fraud as produced by Wells Fargo Bank NA.
www.scribd.com/doc/68820189/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Bank-Re-Three-Original-Deeds-of-Trust-With-Three-Different-Page-Fours
www.scribd.com/doc/67182879/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Bank-Re-Evidence-of-Bank-and-Appraisal-Fraud-to-OCC-Complaint-Numbers-01615287-and-01406372
www.scribd.com/doc/68315583/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Bank-Re-OCC-COMPLAINT-No-01751312-With-Additional-Evidence-of-Bank-Fraud
Contained within those exhibits, are 3 different versions of an ORIGINAL Deed of Trust, along with multiple fraudulent loan applications.
Exhibit A is the Deed of Trust as filed with the Los Angeles County Registrar Recorders Office, while Exhibit B and Exhibit C were provided by Wells Fargo Bank as alleged original documents. The magnified version of page 4 all clearly show variations of the same hand written number and is an indication that the original Exhibit A as recorded in the Los Angeles County Registrar Recorders Office has been altered since it was originally recorded.
Right on point (as usual).
And must we repeat
what would happen to any of us (as individuals) had we egaged in activities
as detrimental to society as Wall Street has.
And
with trillions taken out of the system...there is no solution IN the system able to retrieve the lost $$
therefore we must look outside the system with a CLAWBACK solution for closure.
This casino "experiment" was contrived by people - using too big to fail banks to do their bidding. The solution should bypass the machine and find its justice with the people who perpetrated it.