Posts
Meanwhile on the ground, 7 million foreclosure sales have been conducted at auctions at the behest of people and parties who claim they have the right to foreclose. The only way that could be true is if they are the lender or creditor or they have acquired the receivable without conditions or other provisions. But we all know that the trading activity, bailouts, insurance, credit default swaps, and other third party transactions either paid the obligation, or transferred it. In the case of AIG, who insured MBS values, and the contracts written for credit default swaps, they specifically waived the right to subrogation, so they obviously didn't buy the MBS or the SPV, they simply paid the liability. Yet in courts and non-judicial proceedings, "foreclosures" have been conducted as though they are real, even though the highest probability is that the claimant is not in the least related tot he loan or the purchase of the loan, and the party for whom they claim the position as "agent" has long since been dissolved or has transferred its claims to interests in the loans.
Why is no one asking the most obvious questions about the now-acknowledged foreclosure frauds? Isn't this the children's game of "play pretend?"
THE QUESTION NOBODY IS ASKING EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: What is the effect of Trading, Buybacks, Reconstituted “Trusts” On the Claims of “Ownership” of the Loans?”
Up in the clouds of finance and trading desks they are creating accounting entries indicating transfers of mortgage backed bonds. AIG announced it is “buying back” $17 billion worth of the worthless stuff. Industry insiders estimate that more than 50% of all Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) have been “reconstituted” into new vehicles and sold again. And then you have “trading” as investors purchase and sell MBS speculating on their eventual value, which I contend is zero.
Meanwhile on the ground, 7 million foreclosure sales have been conducted at auctions at the behest of people and parties who claim they have the right to foreclose. The only way that could be true is if they are the lender or creditor or they have acquired the receivable without conditions or other provisions. But we all know that the trading activity, bailouts, insurance, credit default swaps, and other third party transactions either paid the obligation, or transferred it. In the case of AIG, who insured MBS values, and the contracts written for credit default swaps, they specifically waived the right to subrogation, so they obviously didn’t buy the MBS or the SPV, they simply paid the liability.
Yet in courts and non-judicial proceedings, “foreclosures” have been conducted as though they are real, even though the highest probability is that the claimant is not in the least related to the loan or the purchase of the loan, and the party for whom they claim the position as “agent” has long since been dissolved or has transferred its claims to interests in the loans.
Then, to top matters off, somebody, not necessarily the party that started or ordered the foreclosure, makes a “credit bid” at the foreclosure auction. This means that instead of paying cash for the house they use a piece of paper that says they are the creditor, when everyone knows that at the very least they are not and never were in the position of a creditor because they neither loaned any money nor purchased any receivables with actual money. They were appointed by unnamed authorities to start the foreclosures and “bid” on the property like mobsters order hits through intermediaries so they can’t be charged with murder.
The fact remains that the shell game on the ground, in the court system is merely a reflection of the shell game in the clouds where they are pretending that the MBS actually are backed by loans even though the borrower never agreed to the terms that the investor received when they advanced the money. It is also true that the investor never agreed to the terms of the loans that were funded or the manner in which they were executed, and that transfer of the loans, in any form, were never made.
So why are we pretending that we know who owns the loan and that the documents proffered are accurate representations of the funded loans? Why are we pretending that the credit bid is valid and why are we pretending that the claims of foul predatory lending, along with investors’ claims of predatory proprietary trading by investment houses are “irrelevant.” The answer can only be that when somebody is paid not to see something they don’t see it. When their job depends upon them being ignorant of the facts, then they know nothing. And that is why we have this huge market of predatory loans and predatory foreclosures by people who are knowingly committing fraud on the homeowners and investors — from the ground up to the sky.
For example: There were several “Maiden Lane” entities named for a small street dating back 200 years right off Wall Street. These were created during the bailouts and other chicanery to create the impression that the mega banks were in stable condition. These Maiden Lane Entities were said to own the mortgage-backed securities, which is to say, they were now in the position of the “lender” on loans that were funded to homeowners.
How they came to own those loans is a mystery because there is no document in any public record that effectuates the transfer but it has been widely announced, thus giving actual notice to anyone who is involved with those loans that any particular loan can and probable was the subject of some sort of transfer. None of these entities ever show in foreclosure proceedings, nor do you ever see AIG, the U.S. Treasury, or the investment houses, some of whom were stuck with MBS that had not quite made it to sale.
Now here is the kicker — The price, although not publicly disclosed yet, is 100 cents on the dollar — on securities of no value or if you want to twist things around, on securities of at best dubious value. Why would they do that, what assets are they buying, and what is the effect on foreclosures of loans held in those “portfolios”? DEFINE THE ASSET!!
NY Times
A.I.G. Offers to Buy Back Securities for $15.7 Billion
Updated with New York Fed statement
The American International Group offered on Thursday to pay $15.7 billion to buy back mortgage securities held in an investment fund set up as part of its huge government bailout.
The move is intended to further simplify what remains of the rescue package granted to A.I.G., the insurance company, before it begins selling off the government’s 92.1 percent stake in an offering that will probably be held in May. Under the offer, outlined in a letter A.I.G. sent on Thursday, it would buy back securities held in an investment fund financed primarily by a loan from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
That vehicle, known as Maiden Lane II, originally held about $30 billion worth of securities, though its portfolio value now stands at $15.9 billion. Through principal and interest payments from the securities’ underlying mortgages, the balance of the New York Fed’s loan to the fund has fallen to $13.2 billion from $19.5 billion. It was set up to buy securities that A.I.G. had acquired through a subsidiary that lends stocks owned by the insurer to other investors for purposes like short-selling.
While stock-lending businesses normally invest in safe instruments like Treasury securities, A.I.G.’s unit invested in higher-yielding mortgage-backed securities — which soured as the housing market collapsed, costing A.I.G. money.
To pay for the transaction, A.I.G. will draw upon cash held in its insurance subsidiaries, which would then hold the securities and profit from the coupons they pay out. The company said it believed that the securities would actually generate more income than the low-yield investments those subsidiaries hold, said a person with direct knowledge of the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
A.I.G. is offering to buy the securities at an average of 50 cents on the dollar, this person added.
A.I.G. consulted credit ratings agencies to ensure that taking on the securities would not substantially affect its debt ratings, the letter said. In the letter, A.I.G.’s chief executive, Robert H. Benmosche, said the New York Federal Reserve would reap a $1.5 billion profit on the loan it made to Maiden Lane II.
Jeffrey Smith, a spokesman for the New York Fed, declined to comment.Update: The Federal Reserve Bank of New York said in a statement:
The Federal Reserve has received a formal offer from AIG to purchase the assets in Maiden Lane II, LLC (MLII). The Fed has been aware of AIG’s interest in those assets for some time. Any decision on a possible disposition of these assets will be made in a way that maximizes the proceeds to the taxpayer and that is consistent with the goal of fostering financial stability. 1 Comment:
debi J, on March 11, 2011 said:
How much more crooked can our government be? This is sick and wrong and so full of fraud. Our government is as corrupt as they come. Do we have any chance for justice. I’m starting to HATE and that my friend is a horrible place to be. Hate drives the bad in people. We all have our limits. When are any of these corrupt pigs going to be slaughtered? They are deplorable and no one cares. What in the F is really going on. Does our government really want everyone homeless? Do they want all independant small businesses to fail? Why is that? Why would our government continue to slaughter and rape and no one cares except a few honest people who are so aggravated? This is sick and this is wrong and no one ever goes to jail. What’s the point of being an honest person with moral?? We don’t have a shot in hell with that approach…and where does that leave us? So angry and bitter and hateful. That leads to nothing good. That’s all I know for sure right now. This is sick and wrong and jail time needs to be in order. Debi _______________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Two “Original” Wet Ink Notes Submitted in the Same Case by the Florida Default Law Group and JPMorgan Chase
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is exactly what the BAP appellate judges said when I listened in on an appeal - that they had several occasions in which on the same docket, two completely unrelated parties both claimed to be the holder of the original note and both claimed to have the right to foreclose. The appearance of apparent "wet ink" signatures clearly means that the pretenders have graduated to more sophisticated forgeries of documents using the miracles of modern technology.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Foreclosure Fraud of the Week
Here is a new little game I am going to play. Each week I will be taking ten random foreclosure cases out of the Palm Beach County court house and picking out the one that has the most fraudulent document in the file.
Be it a Pleading, a BOGUS Assignment, a Fabricated Note, a Forgery, or an Assistant Attorney General that works for both the AG Office and a Foreclosure Mill at the same time…Two “Original” Fabricated Notes?
In my last Foreclosure Fraud of the Week we talked about Poor Photo Shop skills. This week we will expand on that topic.
Hold onto your hats. This one could possibly be a game changer.
Below are TWO “Original” Wet Ink Notes submitted in the same OPEN case by the notorious Florida Default Law Group. One submitted by Ms. Ashleigh Politano, Esq. and the other by Tamara M. Walters, Esq.
I am very grateful for this find since it corroborates some theories I have had.
I personally believe, that in most cases, the “Original” notes are purely high quality COPIES. The reason I say this is because almost EVERY “Original” note I examine, the blue “wet ink” signature is always the same odd colored blue. You know, the blue that comes off a printer or copy machine. I have yet to find that same elusive blue colored pen in any stationery store.
I think that the Foreclosure Mills and the Default Processing firms have electronic copies of the notes and just print them out however they need them, or they just replace the last page with a fabricated one that is endorsed to the plaintiff.
Not only that, the last page of the note, in many cases, is a different quality paper then the first few pages.
Now I know these are some conspiracy theorist type allegations, so bear with me and see for yourselves below. Most judges do not want to hear those theories, so lets take it a step further to possibly opening their eyes.
Remember that these are both “Original” Notes filed in the same case, both with “wet ink” signatures, by the Florida Default Law Group, so they should be identical, right?
I took the liberty on taking screen shots of the “Notes” where I thought there might be frauds perpetrated on the court.
Examine the full Certified Copies to compare. (Click here.)
Ron Schiller's a fundraiser, not a news director. NPR keeps a high, thick firewall between its successful development office and its superb news division. The "separation of church and state" - the classic division of editorial and finance - has been one of the glories of public radio as it has won a large and respectful audience as the place on the radio spectrum that is free of commercials and commercial values.If you've been wondering how to defend NPR against the latest rightwingnutter (O'Keefe again) attack, Bill Moyers and Michael Winship protest loudly enough to be heard all the way to the White House. If they're listening.
___________________In Defense of NPR By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship Come on now: Let’s take a breath and put this NPR fracas into perspective. Just as public radio struggles against yet another assault from its long-time nemesis - the right-wing machine that would thrill if our sole sources of information were Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and ads paid for by the Koch Brothers - it walks into a trap perpetrated by one of the sleaziest operatives ever to climb out of a sewer. First, in the interest of full disclosure: While not presently committing journalism on public television, the two of us have been colleagues on PBS for almost 40 years (although never for NPR). We’ve lived through every one of the fierce and often unscrupulous efforts by the right to shut down both public television and radio. Our work has sometimes been the explicit bull's eye on the dartboard, as conservative ideologues sought to extinguish the independent reporting and analysis they find so threatening to their phobic worldview. We have come to believe, as so many others have, that only the creation of a substantial trust fund for public media will free it from the whims and biases of the politicians, including Democratic politicians (yes, after one of our documentaries tracking President Clinton's scandalous fund-raising in the mid-'90s, the knives were sharpened on the other side of the aisle). Richard Nixon was the first who tried to shut down public broadcasting, strangling and diverting funding, attacking alleged bias and even placing public broadcasters Sander Vanocur and Robert MacNeil on his legendary enemies list. Nixon didn't succeed, and ironically his downfall was brought about, in part, by public television's nighttime rebroadcasts of the Senate Watergate hearings, exposing his crimes and misdemeanors to a wider, primetime audience. Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich tried to gut public broadcasting, too, and the George W. Bush White House planted partisan operatives at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in an attempt to challenge journalists who didn't hew to the party line. But what's happening now is the worst yet. Just as Republicans again clamor for the elimination of government funding and public broadcasting once more fights for life, it steps on its own oxygen line. The details are well-known: how NPR’s development chief, Ron Schiller, stupidly fell into a sting perpetrated by an organization run by the young conservative hit man James O'Keefe, a product of that grimy underworld of ideologically-based harassment which feeds the right's slime machine. Posing as members of a phony Muslim group, O'Keefe's agents provocateurs offered NPR a check for $5 million - an offer that was rejected. But Ron Schiller couldn’t leave it there. Unaware that he was speaking into a hidden camera and microphone, and violating everything we're told from childhood about not talking to strangers, he allowed the two co-conspirators to goad him into a loquacious display of personal opinions, including his belief that Tea Partiers are racist and cult-like. As the record shows, more than once he said he had taken off his "NPR hat" and was representing himself as no one other than who he is. His convictions, their expression so grossly ill-advised in this instance, are his own. Ron Schiller's a fundraiser, not a news director. NPR keeps a high, thick firewall between its successful development office and its superb news division. The "separation of church and state" - the classic division of editorial and finance - has been one of the glories of public radio as it has won a large and respectful audience as the place on the radio spectrum that is free of commercials and commercial values. If you would see how this integrity is upheld, go to the NPR website and pull up any of its reporting since 2009 on the Tea Party movement. Read the transcripts or listen to its coverage - you will find it impartial and professional, a full representation of various points of view, pro and con. Further, examine how over the past few days NPR has covered the O'Keefe/Schiller contretemps and made no attempt to cover up or ignore its own failings and responsibilities. Then reverse the situation and contemplate how, say, Fox News would handle a similar incident if they were the target of a sting. Would their coverage be as "fair and balanced" as NPR's? Would they apologize or punish their outspoken employee if he or she demeaned liberals? Don't kid yourself. A raise and promotion would be more likely. Think of the fortune Glenn Beck has made on Fox, spewing bile and lies about progressives and their "conspiracies." And oh, yes, something else: Remember what Fox News chief Roger Ailes said about NPR executives after they fired Fox contributor Juan Williams? "They are, of course, Nazis," Ailes told an interviewer. "They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism. These guys don’t want any other point of view." When the Anti-Defamation League objected to the characterization, Ailes apologized but then described NPR as "nasty, inflexible" bigots. Double standard? You bet. A fundraiser for NPR is axed for his own personal bias and unprofessionalism but Ailes gets away scot free, still running a news division that is constantly pumping arsenic into democracy's drinking water while he slanders public radio as equal to the monsters and murderers of the Third Reich. Sure, public broadcasting has made its share of mistakes, and there have been times when we who practice our craft under its aegis have been less than stalwart in taking a stand and speaking truth to power. We haven't always served well our original mandate to be "a forum for debate and controversy," or to provide "a voice for groups in the community that may be otherwise unheard," or helped our viewers and listeners "see America whole, in all its diversity." But for all its flaws, consider an America without public media. Consider a society where the distortions and dissembling would go unchallenged, where fact-based reporting is eliminated, and where the field is abandoned to the likes of James O'Keefe, whose "journalism" relies on lying and deceit. We agree with Joel Meares who, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, expressed the wish that NPR had stood up for themselves and released a statement close to the following:
"Ron Schiller was a fundraiser who no longer works for us. He had nothing to do with our editorial decision making process. And frankly, our editorial integrity speaks for itself. We've got reporters stationed all over the world, we've won all sorts of prizes, we've got an ombudsman who is committed to examining our editorial operations. If you think our reporting is tainted, or unreliable, that’s your opinion, and you're free to express it. And to look for the evidence. But we will not be intimidated by the elaborate undercover hackwork of vindictive political point-scorers who are determined to see NPR fail." That’s our cue. Come on, people: Speak up! Bill Moyers is a veteran broadcast journalist and managing editor of Public Affairs Television. Michael Winship, former senior writer of Public Affairs Television, is president of the Writers Guild of America, East.
No comments:
Post a Comment