BOMBSHELL: Expert Confirms Google Swung Upwards of 10.5 Million Votes to Hillary In 2016
Everyone should be outraged. This is WRONG!
John Salvatore Published 2 days ago on July 19, 2019 By John Salvatore
TRUMP: You saw what happened yesterday with Google. Google was totally biased, like you know they talk about Russia, because they have some bloggers. And by the way some of those bloggers were going both ways they were for Clinton and for Trump.
MARIA: Well somebody at Google said they what happened in 2016 to happen in 2020. They don’t want it to happen again.
TRUMP: Let me tell you, they’re trying to rig the election. That’s what we should be looking at, not the phony witch hunt. This is the greatest political disgrace in history……
TRUMP: They should be sued. What’s happening with the bias, and now you see it with that executive yesterday from Google the hatred for Republicans. It’s not even like let’s lean democrat. The hatred. And actually I heard that all during my election. They were swamping us with negative stuff.
These privacy concerns have to be fully realized by the satiated public, whose ease of life blues a terrible danger lurking in the offing…specifically, what happens when the police ask Google to know everything about you?
In this ever-digital world, concerns over privacy are paramount as they stand, yet continuing to mount as well.
We have sacrificed privacy for convenience in the early Internet Age, much like we sacrificed freedom for security in the immediate wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
Now, with a few simple clicks, or the use of our thumbprint, any manner of ways to access the world are at our literal fingertips. A great deal of these niceties exist solely to drain our bank accounts, as major corporations the world over look to grease the tracks between their bank accounts and your hard work.
Japan Correspondent: It’s very scary, officials trying to brainwash public about Fukushima crisis — Professor: We’re wrapping our heads more and more around Fukushima’s legacy… human impact becoming more clear… that’s a very big and serious issue here — “Virtually no public support for nuclear power” (AUDIO)
KWMR 90.5 FM, July 14, 2014 (h/t Fukushima Response) — Umi Hagitani, interpreter, Japan correspondent for Ecological Options Network (at 9:30 in): The survivors of the nuclear power accident and supporters of children… are asking the city of Koriyama to evacuate them because of the exposure to the radiation. But the women of Fukushima, their statement demanded that the reduction of the radioactive exposure is more urgent than the current federal policies and practices in Japan, which is to force people to remain in the contaminated area… Many students of the 5th and 6th grade in elementary school, they attend something called a cancer seminar where they learn about how cancer is such a typical story for many people, they don’t have to worry about it… They’re trying to even build a junior high school and high school combined together by 2020 in Futuba County — that is the closest place to the Fukushima Daiichi. But the administration of the town invited and made a survey of the kids, and I guess kids were not told about the options that they could evacuate, they made it look like they’re interested in coming back. It seems that right now the Abe cabinet has already schemed out a lot of brainwashing and making people feel that it’s possible to decontaminate — and its making the suffering of the people invisible… I feel like that after 3 years, there are more cover-ups and silencing the survivors of this ongoing nuclear accident in Fukushima Daiichi, and it’s really well supported by the structural power hierarchy… it’s very scary to see this. The current situation is that the Ministry of Environment is putting fake radioactive monitors all over. >> Full KWMR broadcast here
ABC 90.3 FM, July 14, 2014 — Dr. Robert Jacobs, associate professor at Hiroshima City University (at 3:15 in): It’s become a much more common and regular thing you read in the newspapers and topic of discussion among people in Japan… it’s become increasingly a topic of conversation because we do here have to deal with the fact that it’s every day pouring radiation into the sea. We’re wrapping our heads more and more around the legacy of it… The human impact is unfolding in more clear view than it did at first, so that’s a very big and serious issue here… People are very, very aware of [contamination in the food supply]… People are very anxious about it… There’s virtually no public support for nuclear power, especially in the communities in which the plants are located. >> Full ABC broadcast here
NHK, July 16, 2014: An NHK survey [on] the government’s policy to allow the restarting of nuclear power plants that pass safety screening [found] 21 percent supported the policy […]
NHK, July 14, 2014: Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has suggested his cabinet’s new security policy may have influenced the outcome of a gubernatorial election in western Japan. Voters rejected the candidate recommended by Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party in the Sunday race in Shiga Prefecture. They elected an independent instead [who] campaigned on the promise of phasing out nuclear power generation in Japan.
1 STATEMENT OF FACTS In 2006 and 2007, Citigroup Inc., through certain of its affiliates (“Citigroup”), securitized thousands of residential mortgage loans and sold the resulting residential mortgagebacked securities (“RMBS”) for tens of billions of dollars to investors, including federally insured financial institutions. Prior to securitization, Citigroup conducted due diligence on loans (including credit, compliance, and valuation due diligence). In securitizing and issuing the RMBS, Citigroup provided representations in offering documents about the characteristics of the underlying loans. As described below, in the due diligence process, Citigroup received information indicating that, for certain loan pools, significant percentages of the loans reviewed did not conform to the representations provided to investors about the pools of loans to be securitized. Citigroup’s RMBS securitization process and representations In 2006 and 2007, Citigroup securitized and sold RMBS, through both “thirdparty” and “principal” transactions. For “third-party” transactions, Citigroup served as an underwriter. In certain of those transactions, Citigroup served as the lead underwriter. In that role, Citigroup, among other things, structured the transaction and sold RMBS certificates to investors. Citigroup acted as an underwriter through its wholly-owned subsidiary Citigroup Global Markets Inc. For “principal” transactions, Citigroup purchased groups or “pools” of loans from third parties prior to securitization and, in certain instances, originated the loans itself through another of its subsidiaries. Citigroup also acted as underwriter for certain of the principal transactions. Citigroup bought pools of mortgage loans from numerous lending institutions, or “originators.” These lending institutions included Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Argent Mortgage Company LLC, Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., New Century Mortgage Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and others. 2 In these transactions, Citigroup securitized the loans under its own shelf registration, such as its shelf known as “Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc.” or “CMLTI.” In various RMBS offerings, Citigroup provided representations, or otherwise disclosed information, in certain offering documents, about the loans it securitized, telling investors that: Loans in the securitized pools were originated generally in accordance with the loan originator’s underwriting guidelines. Exceptions to those underwriting guidelines had been made when the originator identified “compensating factors” at the time of origination. The securitization sponsor or originator (which, in certain instances, was Citigroup) represented that each loan had been originated in compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The loans being securitized had various characteristics, such as loan-to-value ratios at origination within various ranges.
In the base prospectus for certain RMBS offerings, Citigroup further represented that it would not include any loan “if anything has come to [Citigroup’s] attention that would cause it to believe that the representations and warranties made in respect of such mortgage loan will not be accurate and complete in all material respects as of the date of initial issuance of the related series of securities.” Citigroup’s due diligence process Citigroup reviewed due diligence results on loans prior to securitization. 3 In principal transactions, before purchasing a pool of loans from a third-party originator, Citigroup conducted due diligence on those loans. Citigroup typically conducted this due diligence by reviewing certain loans in the loan pool, rather than the entire pool. This sample was generally composed of certain loans from the pool with characteristics that Citigroup viewed as warranting review. Citigroup would contract with a due diligence vendor to review the sampled loans. The vendor would “re-underwrite” the individual loan files in the sample. Part of this review focused on “credit,” including whether the loan met the originator’s underwriting guidelines, or whether the originator had found the loan to possess sufficient “compensating factors” to warrant a deviation from the guidelines. Another part of this review was focused on “compliance,” to determine whether the loan had been originated in compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. For each sampled loan reviewed for “credit” and “compliance,” the due diligence vendor assigned a grade. In general, the vendor graded a loan “EV1” when the loan was underwritten according to the applicable guidelines and originated in compliance with applicable laws. The vendor generally graded a loan as “EV2” when the loan did not comply with applicable underwriting guidelines, but nonetheless had sufficient compensating factors that the originator had found to justify the extension of credit. The vendor graded a loan “EV3” when the loan was not originated in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, the loan did not comply with applicable underwriting guidelines and lacked the sufficient offsetting compensating factors, or the loan file was missing a key piece of documentation. Citigroup obtained the results of the credit and compliance reviews from the due diligence vendors and was provided information about the number or percentage of loans in the sample that the vendor had graded EV3. Citigroup also was provided with the reasons that the vendor had assigned the EV3 grades, including the nature of the defects, such as
4 whether the borrower had unreasonable stated income, when the borrower’s credit score was below guidelines, when the ratios of loan-to-property value and debt-to-income exceeded the underwriting guidelines, and when the loan file reviewed was missing documents or had inadequate documentation. Citigroup referred to EV3 loans as “kicks,” “kickouts,” or “rejects.” Citigroup also used a due diligence process to assess the reported values of the properties that served as collateral for the mortgage loans. This “valuation” review was intended to determine whether information about the property’s value sufficiently supported the reported value for the property. The valuation review was conducted by a vendor, using methods such as automated valuation models, broker price opinions, and appraisal reviews. The vendor used one or more of these methods to calculate a valuation determination for the property being reviewed. Citigroup used thresholds or “tolerances” for the valuation firm to assess whether the information about the property’s value sufficiently supported the reported value as determined by an appraiser. Citigroup instructed the vendor to recommend the loan for rejection if the vendor’s valuation determination differed from the appraised value by more than 15 percent with respect to certain types of loans. In other words, Citigroup had an internal “tolerance” of up to 15 percent. This meant that Citigroup routinely accepted, for purposes of the valuation review, specific types of loans for purchase and securitization when the valuation firm’s determination deviated by less than 15 percent from the reported appraised value. Citigroup’s thresholds further provided that if a valuation firm determined that the combined loan-to-value ratio for a loan exceeded 100 percent, the loan would be recommended for rejection. In third-party transactions, depending on the role played by Citigroup, Citigroup would work with due diligence vendors to perform diligence on samples of loans selected with 5 the participation of the issuer or otherwise review reports from due diligence vendors retained by the issuer or other underwriters to the transaction. Due diligence on Citigroup RMBS in 2006 and 2007 In 2006 and 2007, Citigroup’s due diligence vendors provided Citigroup with reports reflecting that the vendors had graded certain of the sampled loans as EV3. For numerous pools, the reports showed that the vendors had graded significant percentages of the sampled loans as EV3.1 In addition, Citigroup’s internal due diligence personnel reevaluated loan grades and subsequently directed the due diligence vendor to assign grades of EV1 or EV2 to loans as to which Citigroup’s due diligence vendors had previously assigned grades of EV3. Certain of Citigroup’s main due diligence vendors would track when loans that they had graded as EV3 were “waived” in by Citigroup. Citigroup’s contemporaneous records did not in all cases document Citigroup’s reasons for directing the due diligence vendors to re-grade loans. Further, in certain instances, Citigroup learned from the vendors conducting valuation due diligence that loans in particular loan pools exceeded Citigroup’s valuation tolerances. The vendors also reported that a number of the properties securing the loans had reported or appraised values that were higher than the vendors’ valuation determination. In certain instances, Citigroup securitized loans that its vendors had reported exceeded Citigroup’s valuation tolerances or where the vendor’s valuation determination exceeded the reported or appraised value.
1 There were loans in each of the RMBS reviewed by the Justice Department that did not comply with underwriting guidelines, including the securitizations set forth on Appendix 1, which the Justice Department determined to contain significant percentages of defective loans. 6 Examples In the following deals, Citigroup securitized loans, making representations of the type described earlier that the loans generally complied with underwriting guidelines or had sufficient compensating factors, had been originated in compliance with law, and possessed certain characteristics. 1. In three CMLTI RMBS issued and underwritten by Citigroup in 2006, Citigroup’s due diligence vendors reported to Citigroup their findings that loans in the samples had not been originated in compliance with underwriting guidelines and with applicable federal law and regulations. Certain of these loans were missing documentation, such as HUD-1 documents that Citigroup had told the vendor were necessary. A due diligence report sent to Citigroup, after the re- underwriting was complete, showed that more than 12 percent of loans in the sample had been graded EV3. A due diligence report for another large pool, which contributed over 2,000 loans to another RMBS, showed that more than 29 percent of the sampled loans had been graded EV3. Citigroup securitized the loans from these pools that had not been rejected at the end of the due diligence process in the three RMBS.
2. In an RMBS where Citigroup served as the lead underwriter in 2006, the due diligence report provided to Citigroup by its vendor showed that more than 25 percent of the loans in the sample reviewed for credit and compliance had been graded by the vendor as EV3 or were found to have missing file documents. Many of the loans did not comply with underwriting guidelines or represented exceptions to those guidelines: more than 67 percent were graded as EV2 by the vendor. The vendor graded only approximately 6 percent of the loans in the sample as EV1. Notwithstanding these results, Citigroup securitized loans from this pool in the RMBS.
3. In a CMLTI RMBS issued and underwritten by Citigroup in 2007, the due diligence vendor initially reviewed a sample of loans selected based on certain criteria (the 7 “adverse sample”). Early in the diligence process, the vendor notified Citigroup employees that it had graded over 44 percent of the adverse sample as EV3s. The vendor identified trends associated with its review of those loans and stated that, if the trends continued, it expected the pool to have an “unusually large” number and percentage of rejects. Later in the due diligence process, the vendor asked Citigroup whether it would be “prudent” to perform additional diligence based on a random sample, to determine whether the large number of “kick outs” were the result of the adverse selection method or reflective of the loans across the entire pool. Thereafter, the due diligence vendor advised Citigroup that it had graded over 32 percent of the random sample as EV3. In addition, during the due diligence on the same loan pool, Citigroup’s due diligence personnel reevaluated certain of the vendor’s loan grades and directed the due diligence vendor to change some of those grades from an EV3 to an EV2 or EV1. The final report from the vendor graded approximately 20 percent of the sample as EV3. Apart from the random sample, Citigroup did not conduct further due diligence to determine whether the remaining loans in the pool contained defects. Instead, Citigroup securitized loans from this pool in the RMBS.
4. In two CMLTI RMBS issued and underwritten by Citigroup in 2007, Citigroup’s due diligence vendor identified a number of loans that were outside of Citigroup’s valuation rules and tolerances. These included loans where the difference between the reported original appraisal and the vendor’s valuation determination exceeded 15 percent, or otherwise exceeded Citigroup’s thresholds. Citigroup also instructed the due diligence vendor to change the grades of loans that its vendor had recommended for rejection, following Citigroup’s review of those loans and loan grades. Citigroup then securitized hundreds of the loans that its vendor had identified as outside of Citigroup’s tolerances. 8 In addition, early in the due diligence process, a trader at Citigroup wrote an internal email that indicated that he had reviewed a due diligence report summarizing loans that the due diligence vendor had graded as EV3s and had noted that “a lot” of these rejected loans had unreasonable income and values below the original appraisal, which resulted in combined loan- to-value in excess of 100 percent. The trader stated that he “went thru the Diligence Reports and think that we should start praying… I would not be surprised if half of these loans went down. There are a lot of loans that have unreasonable incomes, values below the original appraisals (CLTV would be >100), etc. It’s amazing that some of these loans were closed at all.” Despite this trader’s observations, Citigroup securitized loans from this pool in the two RMBS.
5. In four CMLTI RMBS issued and underwritten by Citigroup in 2007, Citigroup securitized loans from two loan sellers. Citigroup employees had been informed that in prior RMBS securitizations where the underlying loans were from the same companies, a significant number of loans had already gone into early default. In addition, prior to the securitization of those four RMBS, Citigroup received additional information about the quality of mortgage underwriting at those companies. Prior to the issuance of the four RMBS in 2007, Citigroup had begun the process to acquire assets from one of the companies. As part of that acquisition, Citigroup conducted due diligence on the companies. As part of that due diligence, Citigroup received some of the company’s internal audit reports, and distributed them to, among others, a Managing Director who was involved with Citigroup’s RMBS securitizations. The internal audit reports showed that the seller had itself found, in the prior year, that it lacked key internal controls over its quality assurance for loan production, and that substantial percentages of the loans failed to adhere to underwriting guidelines, which the seller itself labelled as “high risk.” 9 Citigroup also conducted its own reviews of a sample of loans provided by the seller. In that process, Citigroup identified issues with the seller’s internal quality controls. During this time, Citigroup’s due diligence vendors graded a number of sampled loans, both from loan pools to be securitized and from loans funded through “warehouse” lines of credit, as EV3, including loans that the vendors found did not comply with applicable laws and regulations due to missing documentation. In certain instances, Citigroup’s due diligence personnel reevaluated certain of the vendors’ loan grades and instructed its due diligence vendor to change some of those grades from an EV3 to an EV2 or EV1. Notwithstanding the information Citigroup had received about the companies’ loans, Citigroup purchased the loan pools and securitized loans from those pools in the four RMBS.
I swear! It never ceases to amaze me, the stupidity of the public. Everyone sitting around with their fingers in their asses while we are continually nuked! What the f–k is wrong with people? Is it Ok that you children’s children will be unrecognizable as humans? What are you people thinking?
No one gives a shit! What is going on? Years ago, when 3-Mile Island was going on, people became afraid of nuclear reactors, and rightfully so. Now, the horrible scary news about Fukushima, WIPP, and Hanford are just like totally ignored by you people! Hell, I didn’t have kids, and I am more frantic about the situation than the people with kids, and grandkids. What the fuck are you people paying attention to? Nothing?
Yes, I am mad! Mad as hell! All the people that protested in the 60’s early 70’s what the hell are yall thinking? Shit! You would protest anything and everything, and now, it is suddenly ok to nuke everyone? What the hell did you grow up to be? A Senator or Congressman, protected from the radiation on earth?
I tell you what people… If you don’t get out of your zombie states, and you own little world taking whatever kind of I don’t give a shit pills yall are taking, there won’t be nothing but radiation sickness, damaged genes, and the mutation of all mankind.
I don’t know what to tell yall! I thought everyone snoozing through Foreclosure Hell was bad enough, but now they are literally killing us with an unseen toxin. Do you really think you are immune?
Ya know, I used to think that Foreclosure Hell was the worst thing we in this Country had to face. Wow, Was I Wrong!
I didn’t realize that just like in Japan, they will cook us to death with radiation, and not even bother to tell us. I have condemned the Japanese for nuking the world and not telling us the truth about it, but fuck me, this country is doing the same thing.
While most people go about their daily business, they never think about the fact, that a pleasure of getting rained on is killing them. We are the walking dead, and being asleep to the fact is just fucking us up more.
I would apologize for my slang, no, crude language, but something needs to wake these sleeping zombies up!
So, they are not only going to take every house they can get their grimy paws on, but they are going to continue the slow kill of humankind from the planet.
It is not the kids growing up now that will suffer so much, it is like the butterfly test in Fukushima. It is the children’s children that will be riddled with deformities.
No matter what they try to tell us, we cannot be stupid, and believe that radiation is ok. The thought of believing that, well, it is, stupid. The sheeple that make up this country now, is amazing. If the government says the radiation is not hurting us, we’ll just believe them. Because the government says so? Yall need to get out from under the rock, and out of the sun, cause damn! You been drinking too much water with fluoride in it, for too long, and it has made you dumb! I take that back, it has made you dumber than dirt!
For years, they have been doing things with the weather, with our food, with our prescriptions, our health! They have taken healthy human beings and turned them into out of shape, fat slugs that have lives that are meant for cattle. Chemtrails is no lie either. What about HARP? I guess that you also believe that 911 was not an inside job.
No, I am not a conspiracy theorist, I believe in taking what is put before me, studying it, seeing it for what it is, listening to scientists, listening to experts, and deducing my own opinion. You see, we woke up. We quit drinking the tap water. We quit watching the regular news. The news media is brainwashing you sheeple, which is not hard for them to do.
Terrorists are here, they are going to get you, so we have to militarize the Police forces. These false flag shootings, are to outrage you sheeple, so that you will agree that guns are bad, and they can confiscate our guns. We are told that our rights have to be taken, so that we can be protected from the terrorists, etc.,
If you are so blind you cannot see your nose on your face, you will not notice that Fannie Mae, and the banks are throwing our elderly out on the street. Right now, in Goodyear, Arizona, and 83 year old woman and her 86 year old husband are being thrown out of their home. No one cares. In Colorado Springs, CO, an 82 year old woman is being thrown out of her home. No one cares.
What the hell is wrong with you sheeple? It’s not you, so it is Ok? The Bank With the Most Homes in the End Wins, Get Used to It!!!
A man from Devon, England, was so desperate to end his suffering after spending many painful years with an injured hand that he did the unthinkable—he built a guillotine and cut off his own hand.
According to the Daily Record, Mark Goddard, 44, amputated his arm because he suffered excruciating pain since injuring the arm during a motorbike accident in 1998. Goddard claims to take 40 painkillers a day and says he had to quit his garage job. While Goddard would have preferred for the surgery to have been done professionally in a hospital, Goddard claims that doctors were hesitant to honor his amputation request because his injured hand, despite the nerve damage, was still functional.
It took two weeks for Goddard to build the guillotine. Before amputating, he tied two tourniquets to his arm and had a first aid kit nearby. After severing the hand, he tossed the body part into a fire he had started in an outdoor garden bin. Goddard’s wife came home soon after and, upon discovering the grisly scene, immediately called emergency services.
Local authorities claim Goddard appeared rational when they arrived on the scene. Officers attempted to salvage Goddard’s hand but it was too badly damaged. Goddard hopes his desperate act will convince doctors to implant a spinal stimulator in his back to ease his pain.
Nair Rodriguez explained how her family went to the Warren Theater for Valentine’s Day, but she and her daughter started fighting in the parking lot.
Nair admits she slapped her daughter. Her husband, Luis, stepped in.
She said “My husband was trying to calm (us) down, because that’s what he was . . . a grizzly bear . . . but with a teddy bear heart.”
The Moore Police Department said two security guards, an off-duty officer, and two on-duty officers responded to the domestic dispute.
Authorities said Luis was being uncooperative, and there was a struggle.
The family claims the officers started beating him while he was on the ground and they recorded the entire thing on their cell phones.
At one point, Luis stopped breathing and police immediately called for medical help. Sadly, he died a short time later.
Nair said her family doesn’t have the video anymore because police seized their cell phones.
Moore police say they’re in the process of getting a warrant for the cell phone video. They say they had to take the phones to protect the video from tampering and they won’t look at it until they get the warrant.
Certainly, one couldn’t imagine that the police side of the incident would have any incentive to “tamper” with the video. More from NewsOK.com:
Three Moore police officers are on administrative leave while the death of a man at the Warren Theater is being investigated…..
Luinahi Rodriguez [his daughter] said Luis did not resist police force and was hit repeatedly by police officers.
“They jumped on him like he was some kind of killer or drug dealer and beat him up,” Luinahi Rodriguez said. “He never fought the officers, they beat him on the head and that’s how he lost his breath.”
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has announced it has reached a settlement in cases involving Bank of America, Countrywide Financial, Merrill Lynch, and certain named individuals totaling approximately $5.83 billion. Bank of America Corporation owns Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. The cases alleged violations of federal and state securities laws in connection with private-label, residential mortgage-backed securities (PLS) purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 2005 and 2007. Allegations of common law fraud were made in the Countrywide and Merrill Lynch cases.
The Agreement provides for an aggregate payment of approximately $9.33 billion by Bank of America that includes the litigation resolution as well as a purchase of securities by Bank of America from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
“FHFA has acted under its statutory mandate to recover losses incurred by the companies and American taxpayers and has concluded that this resolution represents a reasonable and prudent settlement of these cases,” said FHFA Director Melvin L. Watt. “This settlement also represents an important step in helping restore stability to our broader mortgage market and moving to bring back the role of private firms in providing mortgage credit. Many potential homeowners will benefit from increasing certainty in the marketplace and that is very much the direction we should be taking.”
Of the 18 PLS suits filed in 2011, FHFA now has claims remaining in seven suits against various institutions and remains committed to satisfactory resolution of these pending actions.
The settlement agreement regarding private label securities claims between FHFA and Bank of America involves the following cases: Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 11 Civ. 6195 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.); Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Countrywide Financial Corp., et al., No. 12 Civ. 1059 (MRP) (C.D. Cal.); Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et al., No. 11 Civ. 6202 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.); as well as one Merrill Lynch security in Federal Housing Finance Agency v. First Horizon National Corp., No. 11 Civ. 6193 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.).
Photo – Sadly, there is not enough space here to tell you the entire 7-year saga of whistleblower Michael Winston, but the bottom line is this: He got royally screwed by the California judicial system.
Sadly, there is not enough space here to tell you the entire 7-year saga of whistleblower Michael…
Justice is supposed to be blind. But what happens when it turns out to be blind, deaf and dumb?
Sadly, there is not enough space here to tell you the entire 7-year saga of whistleblower Michael Winston, but the bottom line is this: He got royally screwed by the California judicial system.
Winston, 62, is a mild-mannered Ph.D. and a veteran leadership executive who has held top jobs at elite corporations such as McDonnell Douglas, Motorola and Merrill Lynch. After taking time off to nurse his ailing parents, Winston was recruited by Countrywide Financial to help polish their corporate Image. He was quickly promoted — twice — and had a team of 200 employees.
It’s almost unheard of for a top-tier executive turning whistleblower, but that’s what Winston became after he noticed many of his staff were sickened by noxious air in their Simi Valley, California, office. When the company failed to fix the problem, Winston picked up the phone and called Cal-OSHA to investigate. Retaliation was immediate. Winston’s budget was cut and most of his staff was reassigned.
Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
Several months later, Winston says he refused Countrywide’s request to travel to New York and, basically, lie to the credit ratings agency Moody’s about corporate structure and practices. That was the death knell for Winston’s stellar 30-year-long career.
When Countrywide was bought out by Bank of America in 2008 — following Countrywide’s widely reported lead role in the sub-prime mortgage fiasco that caused the collapse of the U.S. housing market — Winston was out of a job.
In early 2011, after a month-long trial, a jury overwhelmingly found that Winston had been wrongfully terminated and awarded him nearly $4 million. Lawyers for Bank of America (which had assumed all Countrywide liabilities) immediately asked the judge to overturn the verdict. Judge Bert Gennon Jr. denied the request saying, “There was a great deal of evidence that was provided to the jury in making their decision, and they went about it very carefully.” Winston and his lawyer maintain they won despite repeated and egregious perjury by the opposition.
Winston never saw a dime of his award, and nearly two years later, B of A appealed. In February 2013, the Court of Appeal issued a stunning reversal of the verdict. The court declared Winston had failed to make his case.
“This never happens … this isn’t legal,” Cliff Palefsky, a top employment lawyer in San Francisco told me during a phone conversation. “The appeals court is not supposed to go back and cherry-pick through the evidence the way this court did. And if there is any doubt about a case, they are legally bound to uphold the jury’s verdict.”
None of the legal eagles I spoke to could explain why the Court of Appeal would do such an apparently radical thing.
The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection group in D.C., has been watching the Winston case closely. Senior Counsel Richard Condit says he believes the appeal judge wrongly “nullified” the jury’s determination.
“This case is vitally important,” Condit told me on the phone. “Seeing what happened to Winston, who will ever want to come forward and reveal what they know about corporate wrongdoings?” GAP and various legal academicians are trying to figure out a way to get Winston’s case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
There have been whispers about the possible malpractice of Winston’s trial lawyer failing to file crucial documents that might have satisfied the appeal court’s questions. His appellate lawyer didn’t even tell him when the appeals court was hearing the case and Winston was out of town. The LA District Attorney and the Sheriff’s Department refused to follow up on evidence that Countrywide witnesses, including founder Angelo Mozilo, had blatantly committed perjury on the stand. Some court watchers speak of the, “unholy alliance” between big corporations and the justice system in California.
Winston, who says he spent $600,000 on legal fees, further depleted his savings by appealing to the California Supreme Court. That court refused to hear his case.
During one of our many hours-long phone conversations, Winston told me, “So, here I sit,” the whistleblower. The good guy loses. And the bad guys, officials at the corporation that cheated and lied and nearly caused the collapse of the U.S. economy — win.”
There’s a lot of talk out of Washington these days about “economic equality.” But seven years have passed since the housing crisis and the feds have not prosecuted one key executive from any of the financial giants that helped fuel the economic crash. Too big to fail — and too big to jail, I guess.
Bank of America has spent upward of $50 billion in legal fees, litigation costs and fines cleaning up the Countrywide mess. Their latest projections indicate they’ll spend billions more before it’s over. To my mind, a stiff prison sentence for the top dogs who orchestrated the original mortgage schemes would go much further than agreeing that they pay hefty fines. That’s no deterrent to others since they all have lots of money.
A recent email I got from Michael Winston, a proud man who has been unemployed for four years, said: “I have just received (a) court order mandating that I pay to Bank of America over $100,000.00 for their court costs. This will be in all ways — financial, emotional, physical and spiritual — painful.”
If a top-tier executive can’t prevail blowing the whistle on a corrupt company, if the feds fail to pursue prison terms, and if a jury’s verdict can be over-turned without the opportunity to appeal — what kind of signal does that send to the dishonest?
You know the answer. We’re telling them it is OK to put profit above everything else. We’re telling them to continue their illegal behaviors because there will be no prison time for them. At worst, they may only have to part with a slice of their ill-gotten gains.
This is not the way the justice system is supposed to work.
DIANE DIMOND, a Washington Examiner columnist, is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.
On Wednesday it was reported that America’s enemies within, mainly those who are part of the “progressive movement,” are very close to their ultimate goal of the complete demise of the Republic has envisioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Today there is even more disturbing news.
An “ex-spook” as they are known, in other words a retired member of the CIA, stated concerning the effort to destroy the U.S., “You have no idea how bad it is.” The enemies of freedom and the Constitution within the country, he said, have now succeeded in putting most of their goals in place. “Think of how far they have come since 2008,” he continued, “Most Americans don’t even recognize their own country anymore. They feel like foreigners in their own land.”
“If we continue down the present path,” he concluded, “Our liberties will be dust in the wind by 2016. These people are organized, relentless, persistent, and dangerous. And they have been at it since the early 1900s.”
The former agent did not wish to be more specific about what he knows due to the fact that if he did so, it would be easy enough to figure out his identity based upon the in-depth knowledge he has of certain facts.
These “enemies within” are generally known as progressives, although the term has fallen in and out of vogue based upon changing perceptions of the public. Progressives are known under a variety of names. Liberals, collectivists, statists, Marxists, neo-Marxists, socialists, and “democratic consensus builders” are some of the more common terms that people who stand for freedom and liberty have used to describe progressives. But it all boils down to the same thing. In order for them to achieve their self-described utopia, human freedom and liberty must be severely restricted and controlled, and the power of the centralized government must be greatly strengthened.
Rep. Rick Jasperse (R-Jasper) celebrates after his gun bill received final passage in the House after 11 p.m. on the last day of the session Thursday evening. (Photo credit: Ben Gray/Atlanta Journal Constitution)
The sweeping gun-rights bill that has been winding its way through the past two legislative sessions in the Georgia state legislature passed in the last hours of the current session.
The bill, HB060, legalizes the use of suppressors for hunting in the state and allows guns in several areas that previously were off limits, such as in unsecured areas of airports.
“The House has finally come along for Georgia’s gun owners,” said Sen. Bill Heath, R-Bremen on the legislation.
House Bill 60 was introduced into the state House over a year ago before finally passing that body on Feb. 13, 2014 by a landslide 167-3 vote. Then followed a month of being passed back and forth between the Georgia House and Senate with various amendments clarifying the measure’s sections on legalizing suppressors and allowing guns in churches.
The House, sending the bill to the governor’s desk, confirmed the final version, which passed the Senate on Mar. 18 by a 37-18 vote, Thursday.
One of the few changes in the final bill from the original version included dropping language that would have allowed guns in churches. Instead, unless a church itself expressly allows guns on its property, it will remain illegal.
“Churches would have to vote on it,” said Melinda Ennis, who heads Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in Georgia. “The clergy didn’t ask for this and they don’t want it. They wonder why it was put on their plate to deal with when they have so many other matters of faith.”
Meanwhile. those in the firearms industry noted the bill’s inclusion of suppressors, which would now be legal for hunting in the Peachtree State.
“We are pleased by the growing appreciation by state legislators and wildlife managers of the benefits sound suppressors provide to hunters and target shooters,” Larry Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president and general counsel, told Guns.com Friday. “We look forward to actively supporting legislation in other states.”
Legislation backing expanded use of suppressors as well as increases in concealed carry laws have been sweeping the country in recent months. South Carolina’s governor signed a new law in February to allow carry in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol whereas North Carolina greatly expanded their concealed carry laws in 2013.
House Bill 60 now heads to the desk of Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) for signature.
Well that didn’t take long. Like the revelations concerning Urban Lending Solutions and Bank of America, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the the intermediary banks were hell bent for foreclosure regardless of what was best for the investors or the borrowers. This included, fraud, fabrication, unauthorized documents and signatures, perjury and outright theft of money and identities. I understand the agreement between the Bush administration and the large banks. And I understand the reason why the Obama administration continued to honor the agreements reached between the Bush administration and the large banks. They didn’t have a clue. And they were relying on Wall Street to report on its own behavior. But I’m sure the agreement did not even contemplate the actual crimes committed. I think it is time for US attorneys and the Atty. Gen. of each state to revisit the issue of prosecution of the major Wall Street banks.
With the passage of time we have all had an opportunity to examine the theory of “too big to fail.” As applied, this theory has prevented prosecutions for criminal acts. But more importantly it is allowing and promoting those crimes to be covered up and new crimes to be committed in and out of the court system. A quick review of the current strategy utilized in foreclosure reveals that nearly all foreclosures are based on false assumptions, no facts, and a blind desire for expediency that sacrifices access to the courts and due process. The losers are the pension funds that mistakenly invested into this scheme and the borrowers who were used as pawns in a gargantuan Ponzi scheme that literally exceeded all the money in the world.
Let’s look at one of the fundamental strategies of the banks. Remember that the investment banks were merely intermediaries who were supposedly functioning as broker-dealers. As in any securities transaction, the investor places in order and is responsible for payment to the broker-dealer. The broker-dealer tenders payment to the seller. The seller either issues the securities (if it is an issuer) or delivers the securities. The bank takes the money from the investors and doesn’t deliver it to an issuer or seller, but instead uses the money for its own purposes, this is not merely breach of contract — it is fraud.
And that is exactly what the investors, insurers, government guarantors and other parties have alleged in dozens of lawsuits and hundreds of claims. Large banks have avoided judgment based on these allegations by settling the cases and claims for hundreds of billions of dollars because that is only a fraction of the money they diverted from investors and continue to divert. This continued diversion is accomplished, among other ways, through the process of foreclosure. I would argue that the lawsuits filed by government-sponsored entities are evidence of an administrative finding of fact that closes the burden of proof to be shifted to the cloud of participants who assert that they are part of a scheme of securitization when in fact they were part of a Ponzi scheme.
This cloud of participants is managed in part by LPS in Jacksonville. If you are really looking for the source of documentation and the choice of plaintiff or forecloser, this would be a good place to start. You will notice that in both judicial and non-judicial settings, there is a single party designated as the apparent creditor. But where the homeowner is proactive and brings suit against multiple entities each of whom have made a claim relating to the alleged loan, the banks stick with presenting a single witness who is “familiar with the business records.” That phrase has been specifically rejected in most jurisdictions as proving the personal knowledge necessary for a finding that the witness is competent to testify or to authenticate documents that will be introduced in evidence. Those records are hearsay and they lack the legal foundation for introduction and acceptance into evidence in the record.
So even where the lawsuit is initiated by “the cloud” and even where they allege that the plaintiff is the servicer and even where they allege that the plaintiff is a trust, the witness presented at trial is a professional witness hired by the servicer. Except for very recent cases, lawyers for the homeowner have ignored the issue of whether the professional witness is truly competent, and especially why the court should even be listening to a professional witness from the servicer when it is hearing nothing from the creditor. The business records which are proffered to the court as being complete are nothing of the sort. There documents prepared for trial which is specifically excluded from evidence under the hearsay rule and an exception to the business records exception.
Lately Chase has been dancing around these issues by first asserting that it is the owner of a loan by virtue of the merger with Washington Mutual. As the case progresses Chase admits that it is a servicer. Later they often state that the investor is Fannie Mae. This is an interesting assertion which depends upon complete ignorance by opposing counsel for the homeowner and the same ignorance on the part of the judge. Fannie Mae is not and never has been a lender. It is a guarantor, whose liability arises after the loss has been completely established following the foreclosure sale and liquidation to a third-party. It is also a master trustee for securitized trusts. To say that Fannie Mae is the owner of the alleged loan is an admission that the originator never loaned any money and that therefore the note and mortgage are invalid. It is also intentional obfuscation of the rights of the investors and trusts.
The multiple positions of Chase is representative of most other cases regardless of the name used for the identification of the alleged plaintiff, who probably doesn’t even know the action exists. That is why I suggested some years ago that a challenge to the right to represent the alleged plaintiff would be both appropriate and desirable. The usual answer is that the attorney represents all interested parties. This cannot be true because there is an obvious conflict of interest between the servicer, the trust, the guarantor, the trustee, and the broker-dealer that so far has never been named. Lawsuits filed by trust beneficiaries, guarantors, FDIC and insurers demonstrate this conflict of interest with great clarity.
I wonder if you should point out that if Chase was the Servicer, how could they not know who they were paying? As Servicer their role was to collect payments and send them to the creditor. If the witness or nonexistent verifier was truly familiar with the records, the account would show a debit to the account for payment to Fannie Mae or the securitized trust that was the actual source of funds for either the origination or acquisition of loans. And why would they not have shown that? The reason is that no such payment was made. If any payment was made it was to the investors in the trust that lies behind the Fannie Mae curtain.
And if the “investor” had in fact received loss sharing payment from the FDIC, insurance or other sources how would the witness have known about that? Of course they don’t know because they have nothing to do with observing the accounts of the actual creditor. And while I agree that only actual payments as opposed to hypothetical payments should be taken into account when computing the principal balance and applicable interest on the loan, the existence of terms and conditions that might allow or require those hypothetical payments are sufficient to guarantee the right to discovery as to whether or not they were paid or if the right to payment has already accrued.
I think the argument about personal knowledge of the witness can be strengthened. The witness is an employee of Chase — not WAMU and not Fannie Mae. The PAA is completely silent about the loans. Most of the loans were subjected to securitization anyway so WAMU couldn’t have “owned” them at any point in the false trail of securitization. If Chase is alleging that Fannie Mae in the “investor” then you have a second reason to say that both the servicing rights and the right to payment of principal, interest or monthly payments in doubt as to the intermediary banks in the cloud. So her testimony was hearsay on hearsay without any recognizable exception. She didn’t say she was custodian of records for anyone. She didn’t say how she had personal knowledge of Chase records, and she made no effort to even suggest she had any personal knowledge of the records of Fannie and WAMU — which is exactly the point of your lawsuit or defense.
If the Defendant/Appellee’s argument were to be accepted, any one of several defendants could deny allegations made against all the defendants individually just by producing a professional witness who would submit self-serving sworn affidavits from only one of the defendants. The result would thus benefit some of the “represented parties” at the expense of others.
Their position is absurd and the court should not be used and abused in furtherance of what is at best a shady history of the loan. The homeowner challenges them to give her the accurate information concerning ownership and balance, failing which there was no basis for a claim of encumbrance against her property. The court, using improper reasoning and assumptions, essentially concludes that since someone was the “lender” the Plaintiff had no cause of action and could not prove her case even if she had a cause of action. If the trial court is affirmed, Pandora’s box will be opened using this pattern of court conduct and Judge rulings as precedent not only in foreclosure actions, disputes over all types of loans, but virtually all tort actions and most contract actions.
Specifically it will open up a new area of moral hazard that is already filled with debris, to wit: debt collectors will attempt to insert themselves in the collection of money that is actually due to an existing creditor who has not sold the debt to the collector. As long as the debt collector moves quickly, and the debtor is unsophisticated, the case with the debt collector will be settled at the expense of the actual creditor. This will lead to protracted litigation as to the authority of the debt collector and the liability of the debtor as well as the validity of any settlement.
Foreclosure filings were reported on 124,419 U.S. properties in January 2014, an 8 percent increase from December but still down 18 percent from January 2013. Foreclosure filings were reported on 1,361,795 U.S. properties in 2013, down 26 percent from 2012 and down 53 percent from the peak of 2.9 million properties with foreclosure filings in 2010. But still, 9.3 million U.S. residential properties were deeply underwater representing 19 percent of all properties with a mortgage in December 2013, down from 10.7 million homes underwater in September 2013.
In 2006 there were 1,215,304 foreclosures, 545,000 foreclosure filings and 268,532 Home Repossessions. By 2007 foreclosures had almost doubled – up to 2,203,295 with 1,260,000 foreclosure filings and 489,000 Home Repossessions. 2008 saw an even further increase to 3,019,482 foreclosures, 2,350,000 Foreclosure filings and 679,000 Home Repossessions. In 2009 – 3,457,643 foreclosures, 2,920,000 foreclosure filings, and 945,000 Home Repossessions. 2010: 3,843,548 foreclosures, 3,500,000 foreclosure filings, and 1,125,000 Home Repossessions. 2011: 3,920,418 foreclosures, 3,580,000 foreclosure filings, and 1,147,000 Home Repossessions. Then January to September 2012: 1,616,427 foreclosures 1,382,000 foreclosure filings and 572,844 Repossessions. The remainder of 2012 – September through December saw an additional 2,300,000 foreclosures, 2,100,000 foreclosure filings and 700,000 Repossessions. In other words, from 2006 through 2012, there were a total of 21,576,117 foreclosures; 17,637,000 foreclosure filings; 5,926,376 Home Repossessions. The foreclosures added to the repossessions is equal to: 27,502,493. The numbers are staggering.
Many of the homes have been wrongfully foreclosed upon, where either the party had not been in default, or the foreclosing party lacked standing to foreclose. It has become almost as lawless as the wildwest, or comparable to a shark feeding frenzy.
‘Ultra-Rare’: Up to 70 endangered ‘whales’ by California coast — Seen once in several decades, lives in open ocean — Breached as if performing, rubbing heads on boat — So loud thought it was engine — “Seemed to be speaking to camera” — Also spotted in Western Pacific same day (VIDEO)
Corona Del Mar Today, Mar. 13, 2014: False killer whales are members of the dolphin family and are listed as endangered […] “According to the news, these are so rare that they haven’t been seen in Southern California for well over a decade,” [Sgt. John Hollenbeck] said. “They were traveling in a pod of perhaps 50 or so, spread out over about a quarter of a mile. They were very noisy. I could hear them whistling and singing to each other through the hull of my boat as they passed around me. I’ve heard that many times before before with common dolphins, but these were much louder. Initially, I didn’t even realize it was their song – I thought there was something wrong with the engine on my boat.”
Pete Thomas Outdoors, Mar. 13, 2014: [There were] between 50 and 70. […] [Capt. Dave Anderson] managed not only to capture close-ups of the false killer whales, but vocalizations […] including one that seemed to be speaking to the camera. “I’ve never seen anything like it,” Anderson said. “I was sitting there for about five minutes and the whales came over and surrounded me. Their whistles were so loud I could hear them above the surface.”
KPCC, Mar. 12, 2014: Ultra-rare ‘false killer whales’ sighted off California – [NOAA’s Jay Barlow] says he last saw this species in Southern California in the early 1980s […] Normally they live in tropical waters, and Barlow says even there they are rarely seen. One reason false killer whales are seen so rarely is that they typically live in the open ocean […]
CBS, Mar. 12, 2014: “I have been cruising in this area for many years, and I have never seen this species of cetacean off of our coast.” -Capt. Mike Bursk, Ocean Institute’s RV Sea Explorer
GrindTV, Mar. 13, 2014: On Monday morning, a pod of similar size was spotted off Ensenada, Mexico […] during each sighting, one animal stood out because of the peculiar shape of its spine. [Bursk] said the false killer whales came to him and were riding in his wake. When he stopped, some of the mammals rubbed their heads against the vessel. […] [Capt. Larry Hartmann] spent about 45 minutes alone with a small pod, and said they were breaching, as if “performing for me.”
South China Morning Post, Mar. 13, 2014: Hong Kong’s unusually chilly waters didn’t put off one unusual group of visitors. A pod of about 100 false killer whales has been in local waters […] the first mass sighting of the marine mammal in Hong Kong. […] researchers found the sight of the pod deeply impressive. “If you looked around, they were everywhere. It was spectacular view” [Dr Samuel Hung Ka-yiu said] “I can’t really think why (they were here).”
I have been trying to get the time to post something, anything. I hate my Blogs to sit without activity, and I appreciate all my followers and readers. I really do.
I have to be honest with yall. I have been overwhelmed. I’ve tried not to be. I’ve tried to let it all go, and not worry about things. I failed to do so.
Between the Banksters, the Globalists, the Feds, ObamaCare Joke, DHS, Cops shooting people all over the place, Cops shooting dogs for wagging their tails, Seven cops beating a dead man.
Then there is Fukushima, and Foreclosure Hell going 100 mph. Where does it end? It don’t, it just gets worse.
So…we do what we can, and this week, I have decided that we will warn others about eating the fish! Don’t eat seafood and don’t eat the fish for God’s sake, unless it came from the local catfish farm or whatever.
We went to netc.com and purchased our monitoring station, and we are up and running and monitoring for radiation spikes. At least we are informed, and we are not walking around like sheeple.
You must realize that our government is not going to talk about Fukushima, no one is talking about it.
FACT: Over 3,000 ppl were reported of tweeting “can’t stop my nosebleed” (hanaji ga tomaranai) during the week of 9/20-9/30 (as of 12am 10/01/2013 JST)http://togetter.com/li/568710
FACT: Over 2,500 ppl were reported of tweeting “I’m nosebleeding” (hanaji ga deta) during the short days of 9/28-9/30 (as of 12 am 10/01/2013 JST)http://togetter.com/li/570016
[…] WHAT YOU CAN DO:
For Japanese Facebook and Twitter users, I’ve been asking for assistance to help spread the survey to as much of the affected people as possible using the list shown above. For users overseas, I would like to ask the following: Help me create a database out of this massive list; Help me find reliable statistics on nosebleeding in general vis-a-vis abnormal nosebleeding; and Help me devise a way to bring in the international civic community’s attention on the matter.
‘Radioactive Spill’ at Fukushima: Tons seeping into ground; ‘Widespread structural problems’ indicated with tanks — Nitrogen injection for preventing explosions at reactors temporarily halted http://enenews.com/radioactive-spill-…
Nuclear regulator criticized for ‘red tape’ job
Japan’s nuclear regulator is coming under fire from intellectuals. They’re being criticized for bureaucratic behavior.
The Nuclear Regulation Authority fielded comments on Monday from 6 experts who are studying the crisis in Fukushima. The discussion was a review of the NRA’s first year of operation.
I have just received a copy of a daring and tempestuous motion for rehearing en banc filed by the winner of the appeal. The homeowner won because of precedent, law and common sense; but the court didn’t like their own decision and certified an absurd question to the Florida Supreme Court. The question was whether the Plaintiff in a foreclosure case needs to have standing at the commencement of the action. Whether it is jurisdictional or not (I think it is clearly jurisdictional) Stopa is both right on the law and right on his challenge to the Court on the grounds of BIAS.
The concurring opinion of the court actually says that the court is ruling for the homeowner because it must — but asserts that it is leading to a result that fails to expedite cases where the outcome of the inevitable foreclosure is never in doubt. In other words, the appellate court has officially taken the position that we know before we look at a foreclosure case that the bank should win and the homeowner should lose. The entire court should be recused for bias that they have put in writing. What homeowner can bring an action or defend an action where the outcome desired by the courts in that district have already decided that homeowners are deadbeats and their defenses are quite literally a waste of time? Under the rules, the Court should not hear the the motion for rehearing en banc, should vacate that part of the decision that sets up the rube certified question, and the justices who participated must be recused from hearing further appeals on foreclosure cases.
Lest their be any mistake, and without any attempt to step on the toes of Stopa’s courageous brief on an appeal he already won, I wish to piggy back on his brief and expand certain points. The problem here might be the subject of a federal due process action against the state. Judges who have already decided foreclosure or mortgage litigation cases before they even see them are not fit to hear them. It IS that simple.
The question here was stated as the issue of standing at the commencement of the lawsuit. Does the bank need to have a claim before it files it? The question is so absurd that it is difficult to address without a joke. But this is not funny. The courts have rapidly evolved into a position that expedited decisions are better than fair decisions. There is NOTHING in the law that supports that position and thousands of cases that say the opposite is true under our system of law. Any judge who leans the other way should be recused or taken off the bench entirely.
In lay terms, the Appellate Court’s certified question would allow anyone who thinks they might have a claim in the future to file the lawsuit now. And the Court believes this will relieve the clogged court calendars. If this matter is taken seriously and the Supreme Court accepts the certified question for serious review it will merely by acceptance be making a statement that makes it possible for all kinds of claims that anticipate an injury.
It is bad enough that judges appear to be ignoring the requirement that there must be an allegation that a loan was made by the originating party and that the Plaintiff actually bought the loan. This was an obvious requirement that was consistently required in pleading until the courts were clogged with mortgage litigation, at which point the court system tilted far past due process and said that if the borrower stopped paying there were no conditions under which the borrower could win the case.
It is bad enough that Judges appear to be ignoring the requirement that the allegation that the Plaintiff will suffer financial damage unless relief is granted. This was an obvious requirement that was consistently required in pleading until the mortgage meltdown.
Why is this important? Because the facts will show that lenders consistently violated basic and advanced protections that have been federal and State law for decades. These violations more often than not produced an unenforceable loan — as pointed out in law suits by federal and state regulators, and as pointed out by the lawsuits of investors who were real lenders who are screwed each time the court enters foreclosure judgment in favor of the bank instead of the investor lenders.
It is not the fault of borrowers that this mess was created. It is the fault of Wall Street Bankers who were working a scheme to defraud investors by diverting the real transaction and making it appear that the banks were principals in the loan transaction when in fact they were never real parties in interest. Nobody would seriously argue that this eliminates the debt. But why are we enforcing that debt with completely defective mortgage instruments in a process that confirms the fraud and ratifies it to the damage of investors who put up the money in the first place? The courts have made a choice that is unavailable in our system of law.
This is also judicial laziness. If these justices want to weigh in on the mortgage mess, then they should have the facts and not the stories put forward by Wall Street that have been proven to be pure fiction, fabrication, lies and perjury. That the Court ignores what is plainly documented in hundreds of thousands of defective mortgage transactions and the behavior of banks that resulted in “strangers to the transaction” being awarded title to property — that presents sufficient grounds to challenge any court in the system on grounds of bias and due process. If ever we had a mass hysteria for prejudging cases, this is it.
Neil Garfield | October 4, 2013 at 9:26 am | Tags: bias, Mark Stopa, motion for rehearing en banc, recusal, removal of judge, standing | Categories: CORRUPTION, Eviction, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, politics, securities fraud, Servicer | URL: http://wp.me/p7SnH-5GX