A nurse,car dealership worker,& Insur.fraud specialist uncover biggest consumercrime-Fraudclosure
While the crime is called Foreclosure Fraud-some shorthand versions refrence it as Fraudclosure
Chain of Title
How Three Ordinary Americans Uncovered Wall Streets Great Foreclosure Fraud
David Dayen
The dramatic true story of how a nurse, a car dealership worker, and a forensic expert took on the nations largest banksand then shook them to their core
It had been a long day. Lynn just wanted to get back to West Palm Beach and relax. Just before her flight took off, she reached forward to get the in-flight magazine. The stranger sitting next to her leaned forward and said, You know what happens to people who sue banks?
What?
They end up dead.
from Chain of Title
Winner of the Ida and Studs Terkel Prize
http://thenewpress.com/books/chain-of-title
This is the story, one of its characters tells us, of an unlikely crime scene: the real estate courts of Florida, where professional fraudsters greased the skids to kick people out of their houses in order to prop up Wall Streets profits, while judges looked the other way. And, it is the story of a prairie firebegan by ordinary Americans who brilliantly and courageously fought back when our leaders refused to do so. All in all, it is one of the best books about the law and American life that I ever have read.
Rick Perlstein, author of Nixonland and The Invisible Bridge
Chain of Title is a sweeping work of investigative journalism that traces the arc of a criminally underreported story in America, the collapse of the rule of law in the home mortgage industry. By following three victims of illegal foreclosure practices, Dayen humanizes and brilliantly illuminates a vast scam unseen by the public because its been indecipherable to everyone but a few industrious housing lawyersas he shows, even judges dont understand it. The nightmare scavenger-hunt pursued by homeowners like Lisa Epstein leads to a horror-ending: behind the dream of home ownership lies a lawless jungle, owned and operated by banks, where there are no rules to protect families and their property.
Matt Taibbi, author of The Divide
villager
(26,001 posts)midnight
(26,624 posts)the crisis hit: families who lost their homes were mostly undeserving spendthrifts trying to shirk just debts. "-Former congressman Brad Miller (D-NC), original co-author of the section of the Dodd-Frank Act that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
http://thenewpress.com/books/chain-of-title
I don't know much about this former congressman, but hope he didn't loose his position, because he tried to put the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in place.
zazen
(2,978 posts)He was an early champion for finance reform in a state dominated by the big banks. Obama et al were ready to throw him to the wolves when he got double-bunked with David Price, a founding member of the DLC. David veered left and kept the safe 4th district seat, one of only 3 safe Dem seats left in NC (Chapel Hill, Durham, etc.)
His story is a microcosm of what's happened on a larger scale. It was stunning.
He won't go public about it because he doesn't want to come off as a whiner. Maybe one day . ..
PS: Look up the clip of his questioning of Tim Geithner before the HFSC to get an idea of why the Obama admin isn't crazy about him.
midnight
(26,624 posts)midnight
(26,624 posts)a threat to the International trade agreements.
"Single-payer is both proven and popular, but constitutes exactly the kind of threat to transnational investor interests that GATS rules are designed to neutralize. The GATS treaty is structured to award the home nations of multi- national investors compensation for domestic policies that adversely affect their investments, such that the implementation of far-reaching social service programs would become extremely difficult. If single-payer legislation such as Representative John Conyerss United States National Health Insurance Act (HR 676) were to be implemented, foreign-owned hospitals, drug companies, disease management programs, and other service companies could (through their home states) claim a violation of GATS rules in a WTO tribunal. A WTO dispute resolution panel would first determine whether the single-payer program was in conflict with the United States existing GATS commitments. First, the statutory
International Trade Law and U.S. Health Reform / 373
establishment of a single-payer system of health insurance that barred the pro- vision of private health insurance that duplicated the benefits of the single-payer may be claimed to be a new monopoly right and hence a violation of the GATS prohibition on new monopolies. In addition, under the interpretations advanced in U.S.-Gambling, any outright ban on the provision of a service (i.e., private health insurance, for-profit hospitals, or disease management programs) may constitute an impermissible zero quota on the provision of the service and may hence be claimed to be a GATS violation. Finally, regulations prohibiting investor ownership of health delivery facilities are potentially banned by GATS market access rules, which forbid limitations on the type of legal entity a service supplier may assume."
Baobab
(4,667 posts)If only he was here to explain his paper and hadn't died on August 9. 2009.
We can remember him with this.
Single Payer vs. Public Option.
midnight
(26,624 posts)http://www.pnhpillinois.org/pipermail/activists_healthcareil.org/2009-August/000156.html
http://www.pnhpillinois.org/pipermail/activists_healthcareil.org/2009-August/000157.html
http://www.pnhpillinois.org/pipermail/activists_healthcareil.org/2009-August/000158.html
http://www.pnhpillinois.org/pipermail/activists_healthcareil.org/2009-August/000159.html
http://www.pnhpillinois.org/pipermail/activists_healthcareil.org/2009-August/000160.html
Baobab
(4,667 posts)https://www.citizen.org/documents/Memo%20-%20Unanswered%20questions%20memo%20for%20Geneva.pdf
https://www.citizen.org/documents/memo-gats-conflict-with-bank-size-limits-may-10-2011.pdf
https://www.citizen.org/documents/FinanceReregulationFactSheetFINAL.pdf
------
Also jobs- international trade - We make too much- Its a trade-
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/Resources/C13.pdf
https://us.boell.org/sites/default/files/downloads/Stumberg_-_Guide_to_GATS_Dom_Reg_5-19-10.pdf
https://us.boell.org/2010/05/20/plain-language-guide-gats-negotiations-domestic-regulation
http://www.ictsd.org/downloads/2008/06/dom_reg.pdf
http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/ngsv/publications/english/p2_s9.asp
Read them later
http://www.cuts-geneva.org/pacteac/images/Documents/EAC%20Forum/Forum17/EAC%20Geneva%20Forum-%20WTO%20Note%2017.pdf
http://www.cuts-geneva.org/pacteac/images/Documents/EAC%20Forum/Forum22/EAC%20Geneva%20Forum-%20WTO%20Note%2022.pdf
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)It's amazing how right wing propaganda spreads like cancer.
Rec
midnight
(26,624 posts)The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that wasin the Commission's viewhonest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)Thank you for sharing this.
midnight
(26,624 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)For the next time, Secretary Clinton, blames the homeowners.
Uncle Joe
(58,284 posts)Thanks for the thread, midnight.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)had already been removed from the home owner class. We have gone from a nation that spent decades building homes for working class America, to a nation where even the middle class can't buy a home.
All made possible with the preceding three decades of wage suppression and wage reduction of the working and middle class.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)from Christmas lying here on my table. I just used it to to pre-order this on iTunes for my phone.