Obama to Grant Banks Robosigning Immunity

only available via the internet? I haven't seen mention of it on cable news.

It's one person's opinion masquerading as "news," as if they actually had a factual basis for their claims.

and believe it without thinking!

Yup no surprise here.

there is every reason to suppose more than a grain of truth in it.

wonderful...

OpEdNews Contributing Editor since October 2006) Inner city schoolteacher from New York, mostly covering media manipulation. I put election/finance reform ahead of all issues but also advocate for fiscal conservatism, ethics in journalism and curbing overpopulation. I enjoy open debate, history, the arts and hope to adopt a third child. Gustav Wynn is a pseudonym, but you knew that.

You don't run half-cocked at every bit of supposition and conjecture that people toss around this web site as if the Repubs are not five minutes away from anointing a half-wit pyschopath to challenge this president and potentially run this country?

Good. Glad to see DU is not completely overrun anyway.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203735304577169014293051278.html

The actual original source called it a "settlement."

I don't get what the alternative is. Everyone hates banks until they want a loan, then we hope and pray they will allow us to borrow funds so we can have a roof over our heads or a car to drive.

If the ability to foreclose is compromised by the widespread shoddy processing, who will ever want to buy the securities that fund mortgages again?

I just had to sign the same 30 papers three times because the bank I was dealing with needed an n/a in every blank space and dashes across the entire blank line and kept on kicking it back because it wasn't perfect. They made me sign my entire legal name and initial with all three letters.

Then I hear that the original lender I was going through won't take a loan unless it adheres to the most stringent interpretations of both Fannie and Freddie. This is what has happened to getting a loan from a big bank.

In the past people wanted these loans. Unless there was fraud in the selling of the loan, I don't understand what is so unfair about robosigning an obviously failed mortgage. I get that all the freaking initials should have been there and all the i's dotted but a loan is a loan. Unless the deception was that people were told that even if they stopped paying their mortgages for 5 years they would not get foreclosed on, what is the outrage?

it gave too much of my personal info, not because of any slam or anything negative to you.

The fact that the banks have used robosigned documents to foreclose upon properties which have not been in default, including properties owned by retirees and others who did not even have mortgages, has been reported in the news. There are many such cases which are now going through the court systems.
http://www.miamibankruptcylawfirmblog.com/2011/06/foreclosure-mix-up-causes-florida-retiree-to-lose-belongings.shtml

The very purpose for the procedures required by the law is to protect against such illegal foreclosures and trespass activities. The robosigning activities is unlawful, as is the related activities of the banksters who knowingly were involved with the robosigning. Their illegal activities cannot be logically excused on the grounds that many of the recipients of their illegal activities were in default on their mortgages. This is not a case of "no harm, no foul." To the extent that the banks had legal remedies against borrowers in default, they should have followed the law. Under no circumstances should they have used forged and unlawful documents to foreclose upon persons who were not in default. They certainly should never have used forged and unlawful documents to justify their trespasses upon properties owned by persons who did not have mortgages.

In one particular case,


It is heartless and cruel to ignore the harm done to this 82-year-old retiree, and the destruction of his deceased wife's photos and other property with sentimental value him, based upon an unsupportable belief that the banks only used robosigned documents with false addresses and/or other false information to foreclose upon deadbeat debtors.

Some will use that reasoning. I hope that you, who now have such knowledge, will not continue to do so.

For example a $500,000 home would be a $1,000,000 settlement to the victim (plus expenses).

$150 million is nothing for these foreclosures.


But we know that the VAST majority of robo-foreclosures were legit until the paperwork procedure was violated. Impersonating a notary public is a misdemeanor in the states I checked.

The law allows for both criminal RICO prosecutions and civil RICO lawsuits.

At a minimum, under civil RICO, an aggrieved party who has sufficient proof is entitled to recover both (1) attorney feees and (2) treble (3x) actual damages. 18 U.S.C. 1964(c).
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/civil.rico.htm

Some people might be satisfied with 2x. Based upon the law, I'm not sure that is enough.

Some punitive damages are rightfully due. But I don't see how that couldn't happen without robosigning. Just a typo in the eviction docs and bingo.

Robosigning of false documents = no one is responsible.

In contrast,
Signing of false documents by a person who is required to actually look at the documents = someone is reponsible and can be made to either act responsibly or suffer the consequences.

The law's requirement of having someone swear under penalty of perjury that the representations made by them are known by them to be true causes some people to exercise caution and not just carelessly do whatever they want without thinking.

Excusing robosiging on the grounds that false documents might have otherwise been created through carelessness would result in no one being held accountable and would further promote the creation of additional false documents.

Under the reasoning that the creation of false documents with robosigning should be excused because some false documents might have otherwise been created through human error or not, why record any documents at all? Why not just let the banks decide upon whose property that they want to take?

And that is illegal.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_7565650_north-carolina-notary-statutory-penalties.html

They are robo-signing - not forging. For crying out loud.

higher crime of which the elements for the higher crime can be proven?

If such were the law, then a person guilty of vehicular homicide could avoid criminal liability by claiming that they were only speeding.

It's not the law. There is no statute, regulation, or case law establishing that as the law. None. Nada. Zilch.

fraudulent signing = forgery

Disingenuous argument you have there. Foxian, really.

Robo-signing is slang for a person who signs documents without reading and verifying them. Let’s use Linda Green as an example. She is a robo-signer and the small percentage of documents with her actual signature were robo-signed.

As I understand, improperly and wrongfully attesting to facts presented to a court is perjury. That is the problem with robo-signing.

The majority of the documents with her signature though are forgeries because many persons other than Linda Green signed her name.

How is any person, Recorder of Deeds or court able to distinguish an instance of robo-signing which is perjury, from an instance of forgery and perjury?

These invalid and fraudulent documents aren’t simply crimes committed against foreclosed homeowners because these documents include “robo-signed” Satisfactions of Mortgage. The banksters have clouded the Titles to millions of properties with these fraudulent documents which is why I filed a Quiet Title action to clear my property Title.

If any variation of Linda Green’s signature is presumed to be valid, any document that you or I signed as Linda Green would be indistinguishable from the ones produced by document & foreclosure mills and mortgage servicing companies.

I’m really starting to wonder about the real world implications of permitting the banksters to commit perjury and forgery.

I guess it depends on how you define "robo-signing".

I knew that sometimes it referred to outright forgery.

I think you would feel very differently if you were one of the victims of the foreclosure fraud, as my friend was. It's no small thing to have a bank literally steal your home and to use forgery to do so.

The government has acknowledged now that people were wrongfully foreclosed on with its latest attempt to 'review' all foreclosures from Jan 2009 to Dec 2010. My friend lost, no, had her house stolen, in Jan 2010. The person who bought it, doesn't own it either because of the forgeries in the paperwork.

To say all of this should just be swept under the rug is simply to not understand the vast corruption involved which, if not accounted for, will continue to poison the mortgage industry.

What is needed are investigations starting last year, as recommended by the Bi-Partisan Senate Committee after its own two year investigation. They sent those recommendations to the Justice Dept. But so far, nothing has come of that.

We are still a country of laws. To say that those laws do not apply to the 1% is simply not acceptable. My friend will be suing Wells Fargo, along with their corrupt Law Mill attorney, Steven Baum, now out of business and under criminal investigation by the NY AG. Too bad ordinary people don't feel like handing over their homes to corrupt bankers and then just forget about it.

If so what is morally wrong about foreclosing on property that isn't being paid for? What if she said she didn't sign the papers with her entire middle name? Is the mortgage void?

Should a problem in processing invalidate the principle that not paying your mortgage leads to foreclosure?

Due process of law protects all of us, including the banks and the banksters.

That’s a very good question. It would require a thorough mortgage loan audit. First, the mortgage loan itself should be checked for fraud. Next, the audit should determine which Trust supposedly owned the mortgage loan. Was the loan properly and legally pledged to the Trust? As you may know, it most likely was not legally pledged to any Trust. Was the mortgage loan illegally pledged to multiple Trusts? This often happened with securitized mortgage loans as part of the securities fraud that took place on Wall Street.

During the time a Trust supposedly owned the loan, what payments were applied to the loan? How did Credit Enhancements and Credit Default Swaps impact the loan balance? How did the Pooling & Servicing Agreement govern the mortgage loan and payments? Was the mortgage servicer obligated to make payments on the loan?

Until a full and complete accounting is made of the mortgage loan and all payments, it is not possible to determine if the loan was in default or not. The accounting that is provided to homeowners on Main Street is only a partial accounting of the loan.

Next, I would want to know what happened to the Trust that supposedly owned the loan. Is it still in operation or did it fail? Was it part of failed MBS that was sold off to the U.S. government or the Federal Reserve?

Was the foreclosure action brought in the name of a party other than a Trust? If so, how did that party supposedly come to own the loan? Was there an Assignment of Mortgage from the loan originator to the foreclosing party? If so, it’s very easy to determine it was a wrongful foreclosure. There would be gaps in the chain of Title. Somewhere in the chain, there should have been a Trust that legally owned the loan.

Did a supposed MERS official sign the Assignment of Mortgage? If so, the document is invalid and fraudulent as MERS has never legally created any Vice Presidents or Assistant Secretaries in accordance with Delaware law where they are incorporated.

dkf, if you remain focused on the debt that was created and the debtor without also examining the mortgage contract and the creditor side of the transaction, you will never fully understand a securitized mortgage loan.

Personally, I’m not wondering if a friend of Sabrina1 was in default on their mortgage. I’m wondering how many times the banks already collected payment on the loan from Swaps, Uncles Ben or Sam, PMI insurance, etc.

I'm wondering what the case for moral outrage is. "I didn't pay my mortgage but you didn't properly document all transactions so you have no legal recourse" isn't the same thing as "I paid every mortgage payment on time and you took my property."

The second case is clearly wrong, the first is debatable.

I am a business person and I like a full accounting of everything down to the penny. That must be a sound business practice because it keeps my accountant happy.

Why isn't the homeowner provided a full accounting of their mortgage loan? Why does a securitized mortgage have two sets of books? As an honest business person with one set of books, I know a second set is only necessary when engaging in fraud.

There should be moral outrage. Homeowners are entitled to a full accounting of their loans.

Sabrina's friend would have had no way of knowing if their loan was in default because they would never have been provided a full accounting of all monies paid against the loan. They would not even have known who owned their loan because MERS records are a secret. So why are secret land records necessary as well as two sets of books?

Would it be your position that only the money paid by the homeowner should be counted against the Note, or that ALL monies paid against the Note should be counted?

Her husband died of cancer during which time she took care of him. After his death his income was gone. She managed to keep up the payments for two years by realized she needed an adjustment which she qualified for btw, for at least two years until she was earning enough to cover all the bills by herself. She never once received a response to any of her phone calls or letters.

She was more than capable of paying a slightly reduced amount and without hearing from the bank, rather than not pay she paid what she could afford. Those payments were returned to her without any explanation. The foreclosure of her home never should have happened and would not have happened had it been with a Community Bank. She was pushed out of her home and received nothing in return for all the work put into it as well as ten years of payments. She was a widow, her husband had set up a pension fund for her, the bank was assured she could pay a slightly less amount. They are not 'PEOPLE', they do not care about people, pushing her out of her house not only was harmful to her, it reduced the value of the homes around her.

One and a half years later, she received a very large amount of money from her husband's estate, way more than enough to have paid off the mortgage in full. The lawyer and bank responsible for what happened to her, are both in trouble with the law for other illegal foreclosures and the government has acknowledged that her eviction from her home was most likely illegal and that she may be entitled to compensation.

It was difficult to understand why a bank would refuse money, leave a house empty and have to pay the taxes themselves as it deteriorated at the time. But now we know why, someone was betting on her failing.

There was also the fact that her mortgage was transferred four times over ten years, twice by Mers, and the Bank refused to provide the note when they were asked to do so. Which means as far as we know, that the person who recently bought her home, is not the real owner either. They created a mess of mammoth proportions. The government has done little to hold them accountable, so now the people are doing so themselves. This mess could take decades to fix. The missing records eg, that now must be restored, the forged documents that fooled judges and caused people to lose their homes. The crime involved was massive. My friend will most likely not get her house back, she is not trying to do that, but will receive I hope, a huge settlement from the bank and the crooked law mill who refused to even talk to her.

It is those the bank has no trail on that would benefit, not everyone and that is absolutely fine and dandy with me.

The banks can sit and spin, I better have full documentation for a $10 discrepency so expecting them to actually not forge up a bunch of shit to support their claims is far from unreasonable. How much trouble would a natural person be in for doing the same thing?

They are in part responsible for the meltdown. They add no value at all.

Or they would have to be much more expensive to entice people to deposit instead of owning stocks or bonds.

90% of investment in stocks and bonds is by the 1%. Normal people would love to get better interest on the savings accounts that funded housing very adequately in the 50s and 60s, thankyouverymuch. If normal people can't afford housing because of crappy wages, then we just tax the shit out of the 1%, use the money to hire people to provide public goods, and those workers will spend for housing and other goods provided by the private sector generating jobs there as well.

investing it in stocks bonds real estate, etc.

Right now you have investors buying the mortgages themselves on the back end. If you disallowed that the banks would be the investors and would need to entice depositors into savings accounts and CDs in order to fund mortgages. Rich or not so rich, people would need to get a decent return to choose bank deposits over the other options.

---safety over ROI. Ordinary people with savings accounts were able to fund housing in the 50s, and there is no reason why that can't happen now.

I would much rather see loan haircuts and a juicy settlement.

This is an editorial, not a news story. If you can find a legitimate source that details exactly what this agreement contains, then we'll have something to talk about. This isn't that.

If there is a reliable source for this, why did the OP not use it. The source used was an editorial statement by an unknown, non-journalist. If there is information, why not source it from a reliable source?

You found some information, but it's on a subscription site, and I'm not going to pay for it. The source used by the OP is not a reliable source.

editorial statement by an unknown, non-journalist" which was not sourced.

Because you asked, "If there is information, why not source it from a reliable source?," I assumed that you wanted to know a reliable source for the information.

Although you are correct in saying that the WSJ site is a subscription site, you did not say that you only wanted to know of the source from a completely free web site. The WSJ's web site has sufficient free information to identify the HUD Secretary as being the source.

I no longer assume that you merely wanted to know of a reliable source for the information. I supposed that I could use Google to find a completely free web site that also reported the information reported on the WSJ's web site, but that would not change your criticism of the OP as not being sourced to a person other than an "unknown, non-journalist" on a free web site. If you want such information, you can use Google. If you would otherwise prefer that the author of the OP modify the OP to include such information, I suppose that you can wait for that.

My criticism of the OP still stands. I guess what I'm doing is suggesting that people who post on DU take the time to find a trustworthy source for their posts. As you say, it's not difficult to do. Anyone can do it, including the OP. My point was addressed to the OP. You volunteered to do something you weren't asked to do. That's a good thing. But, you also assumed that I could not find a source myself. I can, and did. I actually have a subscription to the WSJ, but I would not use a subscription site for an OP, either. It's unfair to DUers who don't hold such subscriptions.

I hope you have an enjoyable weekend.

No luck there. But I reced this anyway.

Can't throw out the good in search of the perfect. Also, it doesn't eliminate the fact that some banksters may be found guilty of other charges and still go to jail.

prosecuted. To me that is not searching for the perfect. That is why we have laws.

Make deals with some and impose fines. Prosecute the others where there is sufficient documentary evidence to show that they were knowingly involved with the wholesale fraud and perjury, and send them to prison.

Through MERS, fraud and forgery involving millions of titles were carried out so as to facilitate the chopping-and-trading that allowed the creation of the fraudulent subprime mortgage-backed securities that were then fraudulently rated AAA and sold to sucker investors around the world, after which the issuers bet on their securities to fail, all of which caused the meltdown and ongoing depression. If they get away with it, we are inviting a permanent, lawless gangster state.

You can try the banksters but if you can't get a conviction or might not get a conviction the deal would be the best for those involved.

Will desperate people who've lost everything take a minor payoff to shut up? Let's see how far we can break them first!

This is about all of us. The fraud perpetrated by the Wall Street banks on the whole world, with consequences for the world. The depression that we are all suffering through was triggered by Wall Street scams. Anything that lets the criminals get immunity in exchange for a payback that is only a fraction of what they plundered is like capitulating to terrorism.

Seriously, why not offer big rewards to terrorists if they agree not to commit attacks? Why don't you ask their potential victims how they feel? What could be wrong with that?

"It's only an opinion piece."

"Hasn't happened yet."

"Don't worry, I've got this"

"Don't believe everything you read on the intertubes"

ect. ad nauseum...

Followed by...

Federal Justice officials today announced a settlement...

They really have no respect for our intelligence, AT ALL.

And it's always a bad sign. If the industry had any interesting voluntary reforms, they would have already voluntarily reformed, right? And do we need their agreement? Is their willingness to participate an essential criteria? Why don't we go into prisons and ask those criminals about voluntarily agreeing to do the right thing?

Try another two orders of magnitude, and we could talk.

Every damned day.

Occupy, because we don't have representation anymore.

PB

Mere mortals cannot comprehend such advanced tactics. Trust and believe.

If they would tell us that every thing that you have learned about the rule of law and democracy from the time that you attended grammer school up to the present is nothing more than mere history, because we've got the power and there's nothing that you can do about it except to be silent or be cheerleaders, it would make it so much easier.

i stepped in some in
coincidentally
north carolina
stank real bad

informed people can only feel a little tickle at the back of their throat when they hear Axelrod or some other lackey denouncing the banks, the insurers, income inequality, und so weiter

once it stops sleeting in NYC, Occupy will be back, in multifarous new forms, and send buffeting gales of laughter at every attempt to say "I'm the 99% President, and my opponent is a greedy bankster"

Generally speaking, when debts are forgiven, the principal that was forgiven by the lender is treated as income by the IRS. 1 million people splitting $19 billion in principal reductions is an average of $19,000 per loan. At the end of the year, 1 million people will receive a 1099 from their lenders showing an additional $19,000 in taxable income that they did not plan on paying taxes on. Even if their effective tax rate is only 10 - 15% you're looking at $1,900 - $2,850 in additional income tax owed. What will happen when people can't pay the lump sum of taxes due? Will the IRS also "take a haircut" on the money owed to them due to the debt forgiveness?

regular Democrats like me are responsible for awful things like this because we haven't delivered progressive super majorities to the House and Senate. I'm not surprised that this is happening and yet I'm the one who doesn't understand political realities.

Emphatic +1.

still waiting ...

of our children's future

I hope he understands that when he does that

does things like this!

all the support this prez gets from "democrats".

I guess you just need to just be a notch back from batshit crazy anymore - and PRESTO!- you're a 'soshuliss"

He must be a greedy sociopath underneath it all.

We are told to ignore the crimes of the rich and powerful and yet follow all the laws ourselves. That's no where near close to a democracy.

I think you probably didn't see him sing Al Green and that cute photo of him surrounded by adoring children.

Otherwise you would know how cute and disarming he is. Really the perfect president.

He kicks ass at mortgage fraud, but if the banks are responsible (say, toxic loans), I don't know why they'd get immunity here.

Please, if you're going to give me a canned "he's a banker whore" or something response, just spare me. I'm trying to understand the actual reasons behind why this is being done, it makes little sense given the overwhelming mortgage fraud prosecutions that they've done. This should, in theory, go into mortgage fraud, not financial fraud (which Obama hasn't cracked down hard on at all).

Wouldn't that be ENOUGH reason?

...and the banks. Give 'em temporary immunity. Prosecute them once things settle. Otherwise I can't see how this will collapse the system, this is mortgage fraud, and we need to weed out the fraudsters. Obama has been doing very good on that count (no one can dispute that), but this seems like a technicality that is going to slow the prosecutions if not throw a wrench into them altogether (how many grubby fraudsters are hoping for that immunity so that they can use it in a future defense for fraud?).

I don't see, like you, how prosecutions (criminal liability) could be the issue, but can easily see how "immunity" from lawsuits might be the desired end-result.

It would sure seem to be that they're steering clear of this because it has all the elements of something likely to mushroom far beyond their control.

And it's utter bullshit, because how can anything not be bullshit when it's a race to close down inquiry, to silence the whole shebang before a thorough investigations takes place?

Most of all, WHERE THE FUCK IS OUR TRANSPARENCY PRESIDENT???

...to maybe 50,000 prosecutions? They very likely already have a very streamlined system to be able to handle 1,000 prosecutions a year, many of which are probably people making plea deals and whatnot. At the bare minimum they can say "we're not letting this go, it's going to be prosecuted over the next 5 years" which will extend the period at which the prosecutions are made.

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the banks are throwing an "uncertainty" ball at the administration and asking for immunity before they start the loans again. But if the administration falls for it, then those 50k or so people who need to be prosecuted (and yes I have no doubt the number is that high; most would probably have to pay fines, not criminal indictments necessarily).

Robo-signing requires an employee sign off on a mortgage as a proxy, that employee was acting illegally after the passage of Dodd-Frank*, where robo-signing has gone on and continues to go on. If you recall, the banks settled over this issue, but the practice continues. If Obama wants to be serious about mortgage fraud (and let's no question that he's not serious, look at the stats, he has gone after them hard and furious!) he needs to say no to immunity here. I don't know if he'll do that, but I still can't see a reason why he'd continue the way he is. This immunity thing is very bad, it can cause issues down the road for future prosecutions, and if it's granted, I guarantee robo-signing won't go away (and a lot of those new mortgages are going to be robo-signed).

*some blame Dodd-Frank for making the paperwork requirements so high, but this is clearly fraud, and illegal.

but to this Administration's desire to shut down further inquiry - is it unreasonable to think that they don't want public revelation that responsibility for this continued practice runs all the way to the top of pretty much all of the banks involved?

This would seem to be the crux of the reason that certain state AGs are against settlement and immunity.

If I'm getting this wrong, I'm getting this wrong - I'm having a hard time, though, not seeing this as another example of the Administration participating in the sweeping under the rug of *systemic* malfeasance in the financial industry. It's all well and good to go after a few individual scalps, but indicting an industry as a whole seems like something they just lack the taste for. Which, if it is the case here, as I suspect, stinks.

..."-is it unreasonable to think that they don't want public revelation that responsibility for this continued practice runs all the way to the top of pretty much all of the banks involved?"

My opinion...and it is only my opinion based on very little knowledge of the situation...is that the problem became systemic. Because of that, to very publicly indict all involved (a huge number of people and banks)
would destabilized financial markets again...at HUGE risk to the country. That's ALL of us. For President Obama to risk that would not be responsible. He is a smart man.

While I also think those who did this...banks and others...deserve jail for what they did, I am guessing that the Obama Administration could not risk it. Therefore, they are working for a 'deal' that would include reforms to prevent this from happening again. If so, whatever they come up with won't be perfect. It will leave some who did wrong unpunished and reward some homeowners who don't deserve it.

Don't misunderstand me. I support Ca's AG Kamala Harris and the other AGs for doing their job, wherever that leads. I also support President Obama for trying to clean up a mess that festered for 8 years under the GWB Administration who de-regulated, cheered for homeownership at any cost, and looked the other way while people made money off a trashed system.

However, as I said in my other post, blanket immunity is going a bit too far. I hope there are exceptions in there. I don't know how they would be set up, but they need to be in there. Bankers, high level managers, even some lower level managers and even employees (if there is evidence, say, in one brokerage, that they were doing it systematically to the point where anyone could see through it and were warned to stop, etc).

...is lazy. It sends banks the wrong message. I am with you on the need for exceptions.I also think any money they must pay should include reimburement to counties for the fees...even if it's cents on the dollar. Just to make the point that legally they were responsible for that.

...places and I am NOT that knowledgeable about financial issues. BUT...from what I understand, there are multiple issues where the banks are concerned.

1. Toxic loans (stated income, for instance) that were doomed to fail and the need for that to support the MBSecurities that banks made money on. The rules/boundaries became blurred between Commercial banks and Investment banks.

2. Systemic changes to how banks/mortgage companies did business. The creation of MERS as an online system to help banks deal with their side of the business seemed, IMHO, to ignore certain laws that had been in place for a long time. Because these changes were allowed to stand unchallenged for YEARS, a lot of mortgages were affected.

3. Fallout from the financial meltdown of 2008 on homeowners. Foreclosures. The economy tanking. Did this 'new world' of MBS that the banks created cause the 2008 crisis? Of course it did.

4. Finally, I once worked at a low-responsibility title job. But I learned a few things. When a mortgage holder (on the original Trust Deed) no longer wants that TD, it is sold. The documentation for that is an Assignment of Trust Deed. In CA, that requires recording the document in the county where the property is located. The county collects a fee each time such a document is recorded. Creation of MERS bypassed that action. Trust Deeds (loan docs) were assigned, assigned and assigned again without doing the recording step which made it legal. Counties lost ALL THOSE FEES at a time when they needed the money. Banks just documented the assignments on MERS and moved on to make new loans. After 2008, when the foreclosures started, they didn't know who legally held the deeds of trust. They foreclosed anyway. Since they had no recorded (at the county) of assignments of TDs, they created them and 'robosigned' to get the paperwork they needed. Illegal, IMHO. But I'm no expert.

Here is my GUESS about the problem: Now there are LOTS of these situations out there, some foreclosed on (legally or not), some in the process (legally or not) and some outstanding mortgages that were wrongly assigned, without documentation or the fees paid, where homeowners' payments are up-to-date but the servicer has no legal proof that the mortgage TD was assigned to them.

Thoughts?

MERS sounds like it does try to be a loophole, but the robosigning that was done in place of it, imho, is illegal, straight up fraud. If a DA had the time and money to prosecute the cases there would be tens if not hundreds of thousands of them. This immunity could be, and again, my opinion, an effort to avoid the prosecution of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people for following banksters orders. In that vein, I can almost forgive it, however, by giving blanket immunity, they are certainly closing the door on higher profile people, the people who gave those orders. That's why this is so bothersome to me.

I can overlook peons doing bad things under orders. I can't accept blanket immunity to overlook those smaller cases.

...by financial institutions with no regard for its implications. And the implications were serious...all the way from people losing homes, to counties shorted on needed fees, to the tanking of the financial system.

The only reason I can accept for not prosecuting is that the fraud is so huge that it would de-stabilize the world economy...AGAIN. I don't think any President should risk that.

And you are welcome...

Seems like the most plausible reason to me, but I'm a cynic.

anything, ANYthing at all, was being done to help or "give immunity" to some of the people struggling to keep their homes. IOW if there some just a little even-handedness in the fucking largesse being handed out to those who need it least.

Is there no END to this man's betrayals?

i checked the link
this seems to be an opinion piece
are there any actual news links on this story?
i hope this is not as presented

ok read the hud sec on the link on 26 i think
now i am sad

Jesus F. Christ! R U series1111

This is not new or is it uncontroversial. The question is why it's not falling into mortgage fraud. It should. Obama's going to have to come up with a decent explanation for this further immunity.

Huff Post but it's a good article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/obama-housing_b_1221921.html

I would like to understand.

You claim that immunity against class-action lawsuits is not new and not controversial. Can you post a link to why you make either of those claims?

Also, you seem to be more concerned about the ability to prosecute for mortgage fraud and while I think this is important, I do not see why it is more important than the ability for victims of this fraud who were foreclosed on to receive damages compensatory with their suffering.

So if someone says he's doing more of it, you shouldn't question it. I'd question it if it wasn't something he's done before. In this event I'm more prone to question allegations that he wouldn't do this. Sorry if I'm not clear on that count.

Of course, the act of him doing it is controversial, as this thread shows (and this despite that he's done it before), but I'm glad I think I'm beginning to understand what's going on here, but we'll have to see his justification for it first.

Simply helping victims foreclosed on to receive damages does not solve the problem. The robosigning has continued, for instance. Give 'em immunity, they'll keep doing it. To solve the problem you have to get rid of the corruption, and those who did the corruption should be the ones responsible for paying for the damages, you kill two birds with one stone.

There are almost 20 million empty homes out there. Tie up the corruption and I guarantee you that those homes will be filled quickly.

Damn it.

they havent filled up the sea yet with $100 dollar bills.

Let's wait and see what the law experts say...

he's being ridiculed for daring to think our two-party political system is too corrupt to support with a vote.

This is just more proof, in my book.