The Pentagon Can’t Account for $21 Trillion (That’s Not a Typo)



Then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a 2008 visit to Kosovo with U.S. Army troops on foot patrol in the town of Gnjilane. (The U.S. Army / CC BY 2.0)

The Pentagon Can’t Account for $21 Trillion (That’s Not a Typo)
By Editor May 23, 2018
The Pentagon Can’t Account for $21 Trillion (That’s Not a Typo)
Then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a 2008 visit to Kosovo with U.S. Army troops on foot patrol in the town of Gnjilane. (The U.S. Army / CC BY 2.0)
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/news/north-america/the-pentagon-cant-account-for-21-trillion-thats-not-a-typo-2/
By Lee Camp

Twenty-one trillion dollars.

The Pentagon’s own numbers show that it can’t account for $21 trillion. Yes, I mean trillion with a “T.” And this could change everything.

But I’ll get back to that in a moment.

There are certain things the human mind is not meant to do. Our complex brains cannot view the world in infrared, cannot spell words backward during orgasm and cannot really grasp numbers over a few thousand. A few thousand, we can feel and conceptualize. We’ve all been in stadiums with several thousand people. We have an idea of what that looks like (and how sticky the floor gets).

But when we get into the millions, we lose it. It becomes a fog of nonsense. Visualizing it feels like trying to hug a memory. We may know what $1 million can buy (and we may want that thing), but you probably don’t know how tall a stack of a million $1 bills is. You probably don’t know how long it takes a minimum-wage employee to make $1 million.

That’s why trying to understand—truly understand—that the Pentagon spent 21 trillion unaccounted-for dollars between 1998 and 2015 washes over us like your mother telling you that your third cousin you met twice is getting divorced. It seems vaguely upsetting, but you forget about it 15 seconds later because … what else is there to do?

Twenty-one trillion.

But let’s get back to the beginning. A couple of years ago, Mark Skidmore, an economics professor, heard Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, say that the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General had found $6.5 trillion worth of unaccounted-for spending in 2015. Skidmore, being an economics professor, thought something like, “She means $6.5 billion. Not trillion. Because trillion would mean the Pentagon couldn’t account for more money than the gross domestic product of the whole United Kingdom. But still, $6.5 billion of unaccounted-for money is a crazy amount.”

So he went and looked at the inspector general’s report, and he found something interesting: It was trillion! It was fucking $6.5 trillion in 2015 of unaccounted-for spending! And I’m sorry for the cursing, but the word “trillion” is legally obligated to be prefaced with “fucking.” It is indeed way more than the U.K.’s GDP.

Skidmore did a little more digging. As Forbes reported in December 2017, “[He] and Catherine Austin Fitts … conducted a search of government websites and found similar reports dating back to 1998. While the documents are incomplete, original government sources indicate $21 trillion in unsupported adjustments have been reported for the Department of Defense and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the years 1998-2015.”

Let’s stop and take a second to conceive how much $21 trillion is (which you can’t because our brains short-circuit, but we’ll try anyway).

1. The amount of money supposedly in the stock market is $30 trillion.

2. The GDP of the United States is $18.6 trillion.

3. Picture a stack of money. Now imagine that that stack of dollars is all $1,000 bills. Each bill says “$1,000” on it. How high do you imagine that stack of dollars would be if it were $1 trillion. It would be 63 miles high.

4. Imagine you make $40,000 a year. How long would it take you to make $1 trillion? Well, don’t sign up for this task, because it would take you 25 million years (which sounds like a long time, but I hear that the last 10 million really fly by because you already know your way around the office, where the coffee machine is, etc.).

The human brain is not meant to think about a trillion dollars.

And it’s definitely not meant to think about the $21 trillion our Department of Defense can’t account for. These numbers sound bananas. They sound like something Alex Jones found tattooed on his backside by extraterrestrials.

But the 21 trillion number comes from the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General—the OIG. Although, as Forbes pointed out, “after Mark Skidmore began inquiring about OIG-reported unsubstantiated adjustments, the OIG’s webpage, which documented, albeit in a highly incomplete manner, these unsupported “accounting adjustments,” was mysteriously taken down.”

Luckily, people had already grabbed copies of the report, which—for now—you can view here.

Here’s something else important from that Forbes article—which is one of the only mainstream media articles you can find on the largest theft in American history:

Given that the entire Army budget in fiscal year 2015 was $120 billion, unsupported adjustments were 54 times the level of spending authorized by Congress.

That’s right. The expenses with no explanation were 54 times the actual budget allotted by Congress. Well, it’s good to see Congress is doing 1/54th of its job of overseeing military spending (that’s actually more than I thought Congress was doing). This would seem to mean that 98 percent of every dollar spent by the Army in 2015 was unconstitutional.

So, pray tell, what did the OIG say caused all this unaccounted-for spending that makes Jeff Bezos’ net worth look like that of a guy jingling a tin can on the street corner?

“[The July 2016 inspector general] report indicates that unsupported adjustments are the result of the Defense Department’s ‘failure to correct system deficiencies.’ ”

They blame trillions of dollars of mysterious spending on a “failure to correct system deficiencies”? That’s like me saying I had sex with 100,000 wild hairless aardvarks because I wasn’t looking where I was walking.

Twenty-one trillion.

Say it slowly to yourself.

At the end of the day, there are no justifiable explanations for this amount of unaccounted-for, unconstitutional spending. Right now, the Pentagon is being audited for the first time ever, and it’s taking 2,400 auditors to do it. I’m not holding my breath that they’ll actually be allowed to get to the bottom of this.

But if the American people truly understood this number, it would change both the country and the world. It means that the dollar is sprinting down a path toward worthless. If the Pentagon is hiding spending that dwarfs the amount of tax dollars coming in to the federal government, then it’s clear the government is printing however much it wants and thinking there are no consequences. Once these trillions are considered, our fiat currency has even less meaning than it already does, and it’s only a matter of time before inflation runs wild.

It also means that any time our government says it “doesn’t have money” for a project, it’s laughable. It can clearly “create” as much as it wants for bombing and death. This would explain how Donald Trump’s military can drop well over 100 bombs a day that cost well north of $1 million each.

So why can’t our government also “create” endless money for health care, education, the homeless, veterans benefits and the elderly, to make all parking free and to pay the Rolling Stones to play stoop-front shows in my neighborhood? (I’m sure the Rolling Stones are expensive, but surely a trillion dollars could cover a couple of songs.)

Obviously, our government could do those things, but it chooses not to. Earlier this month, Louisiana sent eviction notices to 30,000 elderly people on Medicaid to kick them out of their nursing homes. Yes, a country that can vomit trillions of dollars down a black hole marked “Military” can’t find the money to take care of our poor elderly. It’s a repulsive joke.

Twenty-one trillion.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke about how no one knows where the money is flying in the Pentagon. In a barely reported speech in 2011, he said, “My staff and I learned that it was nearly impossible to get accurate information and answers to questions such as, ‘How much money did you spend?’ and ‘How many people do you have?’ ”

They can’t even find out how many people work for a specific department?

Note for anyone looking for a job: Just show up at the Pentagon and tell them you work there. It doesn’t seem like they’d have much luck proving you don’t.

For more on this story, check out David DeGraw’s excellent reporting at ChangeMaker.media, because the mainstream corporate media are mouthpieces for the weapons industry. They are friends with benefits of the military-industrial complex. I have seen basically nothing from the mainstream corporate media concerning this mysterious $21 trillion. I missed the time when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said that the money we dump into war and death—either the accounted-for money or the secretive trillions—could end world hunger and poverty many times over. There’s no reason anybody needs to be starving or hungry or unsheltered on this planet, but our government seems hellbent on proving that it stands for nothing but profiting off death and misery. And our media desperately want to show they stand for nothing but propping up our morally bankrupt empire.

When the media aren’t actively promoting war, they’re filling the airwaves with shit, so the entire country can’t even hear itself think. Our whole mindscape is filled to the brim with nonsense and vacant celebrity idiocy. Then, while no one is looking, the largest theft humankind has ever seen is going on behind our backs—covered up under the guise of “national security.”

Twenty-one trillion.

Don’t forget.

If you think this column is important, please share it. And check out Lee Camp’s weekly TV show, “Redacted Tonight.” Camp also is taping a new live stand-up special in Los Angeles on May 18 and 19. He’ll be doing over an hour of his new comedy, and special guest Jimmy Dore will be on the show. You can purchase tickets here.

Truthdig has launched a reader-funded project—its first ever—to document the Poor People’s Campaign. Please help us by making a donation.

Advertisements

The Donald’s Done — The Deep State Wins Its War On America First; written by david stockman wednesday may 9, 2018


The Donald’s Done — The Deep State Wins Its War On America First
written by david stockman wednesday may 9, 2018
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/may/09/the-donalds-done-the-deep-state-wins-its-war-on-america-first/

The Donald’s action to ash-can the Iranian nuclear deal marks the War Party’s complete and baleful triumph. There is now nothing much left of America First.

Trump’s reckless, unwarranted and utterly irrational action will pull Washington ever deeper into an incendiary middle eastern vortex of political and religious conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with the safety and security of the America people.

To the contrary, picking a fight with Tehran is an exercise in unprovoked Imperial aggression. The Iranian regime has no means to attack America militarily and has never threatened to do so. Nor has it invaded any other country in the region where it was not invited by a sovereign government host.

Even Iran’s minor skirmishes with American forces in recent years have been owing to the happenstance of Washington’s far-flung imperial ventures.

For example, Washington destroyed Saddam’s Sunni/secular government in Iraq and installed a Shiite regime in Baghdad, thereby leaving the Sunni lands of western Iraq in chaos. Only then did Baghdad invite their shiite co-religionists from Iran to help excise the scourge of ISIS that formed from the remnants of Saddam’s army and government.

Likewise, Washington and its allies sent thousands of jihadist warriors and billions of aid and supplies into Syria to topple its dully elected government. Only then did the Alawite (Shiite) Assad regime invite help from its confessional compatriots in Tehran.

And you can’t find any more ludicrous example of the cat calling the kettle black than the Donald’s claim that Iran is a terrorist state because it is aligned with the Shiite population of Lebanon represented by Hezbollah.

For crying out loud. The War Party pretends Washington has turned much of the middle east into rubble and barbarism in order to spread democracy — whether they wanted it or not, and whether they were ready for it or not.

But Lebanon is a serviceable democracy and last weekend Hezbollah and its allies — including certain Sunni factions — won an overwhelming election victory. They now control a clear majority in its legislature, where Hezbollah will have the power to name a new Prime Minister (a Sunni) and Speaker of the Parliament (a Shiite) — both of whom will be pledged to work with the country’s Christian president.

That particular outcome of democracy the War Party can’t abide. But it fairly violates the english language itself to call it state sponsored terrorism.

In a similar vein, the Houthi tribe of Shiites have dominated much of northern and western Yemen for centuries. So when a Washington installed government in Sana’a was overthrown, the Houthi took power in northern Yemen — as had been the case during the long expanse from 1918-1990 when the two Yemens were finally unified.


But it is the Houthis who are the victims of aggression by the brutal Saudi bombing campaign that has left more than 10,000 civilians dead and the land plagued with famine, cholera, rubble, and economic collapse.

There is no telling which faction in Yemen’s fratricidal civil war and invasion by Saudi Arabia is the more barbaric, but the modest aid provided by Iran to its Shiite kinsman in northern Yemen is absolutely not a case of state sponsored terrorism.

In a word, the Donald has fallen hook, line and sinker for the War Party’s lie- and propaganda-filled demonization of the Iranian regime. We have debunked this false history elsewhere, but suffice to say that it boils down to two very imperialist propositions.

To wit, that Iran is not entitled to have its own foreign policy via alliances with Iraq, Syria, the dominant party of Lebanon, or the official government in Sana’a Yemen because Washington (and Israel) say so; and that it’s not allowed to have even intermediate and medium range missiles (that can’t reach either the US or most of Europe) to defend itself — even though Washington has armed its far wealthier Sunni rival across the Persian Gulf with upwards of $250 billion of America’s most advanced warplanes, attack helicopters, missiles, drones and sundry other accoutrements of war.

And that is to say nothing of a tiny residual capacity to enrich uranium to 3.5 percent purity (compared to 90 percent weapons grade) for civilian power reactors on fewer than one-fifth of the oldest and slowest centrifuges it had before the 2015 nuke deal.

Nor does it consider that all 17 US intelligence agencies certified in an official NIE (national intelligence estimate) in 2007 and again in 2011 that Iran only had a small weaponization research program between 1999 and 2003, which was then abandoned and never restarted.

Moreover, the documentary proof of that was thoroughly investigated by the IAEA after the 2015 deal, which then re-validated that the Iranian weapons program was indeed disbanded in 2003.

In short, the Donald has fallen for a pack of lies and distortions that are only remotely plausible if the aim is to find enemies and territories around the planet to police, occupy or otherwise hegemonize. And to thereby keep the Warfare State in business, its $800 billion budget funded, and the Imperial City’s vast beehive of think-tanks, contractors, NGOs, lobbyists, and racketeers in clover.

The invincible grip on power of the above — the Deep State for short-hand purposes — has now been proven. And that’s a full-on tragedy because the Donald’s inchoate notion of America First was an incipient challenge to its power — the only one since the end of the cold war.

To be sure, Donald Trump never had a coherent or articulated notion of America First. But all of his impulses were in the right direction.

Perhaps like renegade Sarah Palin before him, for example, he could see Russia from his airy on the 68th floor of Trump Tower and recognize that it is no threat whatsoever to America’s security.

That is, from his perch the Donald could gaze upon metro New York’s $1.6 trillion of GDP, which is greater than the entirety of Russia’s economy ($1.5 trillion GDP); and whether he knew the precise numbers or not, his impulse toward rapprochement with Putin was spot on.

Likewise, whether he had gotten George Bush’s folly in Iraq right on day one or not — he was loud and clear in his consistent denunciation years before Hillary sprouted her dawkish feathers.

Nor was he any less correct when he averred that NATO was obsolete. After all, the GDP of the EU-29 is 10X larger than Russia’s, and their combined military spending is 4X greater.

If you’re not a prisoner of Imperial Washington’s twisted group think you cannot possibly believe that Russia’s supremely rational leader — Cool Hand Vlad — intends to militarily assault his European neighbors. He’d like to supply their markets, not occupy their cities — something that anyone except the demented, self-serving bureaucrats of NATO can easily understand.

Ditto for Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia et. al. They aren’t cold war “dominoes” because the Soviet Union slithered off the pages of history 27 years ago; they don’t threaten America directly, either, because they don’t have two dimes to rub together economically or militarily; and whether they affiliate with the Saudi-Sunni axis or the Iran-Shiite crescent makes not one damn bit of difference for the safety and security of American citizens in Lincoln NE or Springfield MA.

In the case of the Korean Peninsula, the Donald also rightly questioned why we are still funding 29,000 US troops when the war there ended 65 years ago.

The truth is, it is a war that never should have been fought in the first place because the now open Soviet archives show both Stalin and Mao were against it. US national security was never at stake.

Rather than a domino, it originated purely as a civil war between the communist/nationalists under Kim II-sung, who had fought the Japanese occupiers to the death, and a puppet government in the South under Syngman Rhee.

The latter was an aristocratic dandy who moved to the US in 1904 and spent most of the next 40 years hob-knobbing in Washington. So doing, he promoted endless schemes to install himself in power back in Korea, which finally happened when Japan’s 35-year long occupation was ended in August 1945.

At length, the two Korean political rivals got into a war that the north would have handily won — and might well have turned itself into a cheap labor based export platform just as did Mao’s heirs on the mainland. It might even have become a darling of Wall Street — just as the Red Suzerains of Beijing are today.

That is to say, there was exactly nothing at stake in June 1950 — until the rabid cold warriors in Washington persuaded Truman to intervene.

So doing, the US military launched the most destructive and vicious bombing campaign in history under the blood-thirsty top Air Force general, Curtis LeMay. By the 1953 armistice, North Korea had become a bombed-out wasteland with hardly a city or town not reduced to rubble and with millions of civilians dead or starving.

But it was not merely a pointless war and waste of American blood and treasure; it also became forever embraced by the people of the north as the patriotic war of resistance that paved the way for six decades of the brutal Kim family dictatorship and a life of poverty and misery for its 25 million people, who could otherwise be working in Apple factories and auto plants today.

Needless to say, Imperial Washington has no regard for honest history — only its own self-serving narrative and imperative need for enemies and missions to justify nearly $800 billion per year for the machinery of war and empire. In the case of North Korea, in fact, its imperial pretensions and penchant for “regime change” under the neocons in recent decades, unleashed a veritable monster.

That is, a drive by the Kim family to obtain nuclear weapons, thereby hoping to avoid Saddam’s fate at the end of a rope or Khadafy’s bloody demise with a shive up his rectum.

Fortunately, the Donald has been blessed with a historic serendipity. His military bluster and name-calling apparently caused Kim Jong-un to stage so many nuclear bomb tests culminating in a huge (for N. Korea) 160 kiloton explosion last September that the Fat Boy of Pyongyang has literally destroyed the mountains which house his Punggye-ri test site.

A recent authoritative study actually warns that if North Korea were to use the same area for another test it could cause an “environmental catastrophe.”

North Korea’s past tests have altered the tectonic stress in the region to the extent that previously inactive tectonic faults in the region have reached their state of critical failure. Any further disturbance from a future test could generate earthquakes that may be damaging by their own force or crack the nuclear test sites of the past or the present.
Of course, Kim Jong-un is now attempting to make a virtue out of necessity by ostentatiously shuttering the no longer useable site and inviting the world to witness its entombment. But if that leads to a denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, so be it.

And let it also be an occasion to reverse the mistake of June 1950, and get American forces off the peninsula once and for all: Return Korea to the Koreans to work out their own governance as they see fit!

Yet even on this matter, where the Donald has recently tried to explore a drastic reduction, if not complete removal, of US troops as part of the pending deal with Kim Jong-un, the Deep State has come down on him with all fours.

In that regard, here is what former “peace” candidate Barack Obama’s leading advisor on the topic had this to say:

Kelly E. Magsamen, a top Asia policy official at the Pentagon during the Obama administration, said, ‘U.S. presence in South Korea is a sacrosanct part of our alliance.’
In fact, apparently the entire global empire of Washington is sacrosanct — including the ridiculous fact that in the year 2018 Washington still has military bases in the defeated powers of World War II. Yet neither Japan nor Germany have any mortal military enemies and both are utterly dependent on the trade custom of the US for their high standard of living.

So the Deep State now owns the Donald and America First is not even a slogan. It’s inoperative, Nixon-style.

Indeed, it’s only a matter of time before the Donald gets the ultimate Nixon treatment — now that he has done the Deep State’s dirty work and ash-canned the deal that could have opened a broad avenue toward peace in the world and drastic retrenchment of the fiscally bankrupting Warfare State at home.

That is to say, at length the ingrates of the Deep State will put the Donald on the Dick Nixon Memorial Helicopter for his final ride to Gonesville.

To paraphrase the great Randolph Bourne, Demonization of the Unwilling is the Health of the Deep State.

At least that much the Donald has now, regrettably, confirmed with his sophomoric attack on Iran.

So doing he has also lurched America drastically forward on the path to a monumental financial catastrophe. That’s because taken together the Warfare State and the Welfare State are also the fiscal demise of the state.

One of these days even the lemmings of Wall Street — which took day’s calamitous news in stride — will finally get the memo, too.

Reprinted with permission from David Stockman’s Contra Corner.

The Event Chronicle: 82-Year-Old Woman With Dementia Gets Her Memory Back



82-Year-Old Woman With Dementia Gets Her Memory Back After Changing Her Diet
By Editor May 2, 2018 No Comments

http://www.theeventchronicle.com/health/82-year-old-woman-with-dementia-gets-her-memory-back-after-changing-her-diet-2/

82-Year-Old Woman With Dementia Gets Her Memory Back After Changing Her Diet

By Alanna Ketler

Recently, an 82-year-old woman who suffered from dementia, who couldn’t recognize her own son has miraculously got her memory back after changing her diet.

When his mother’s condition became so severe that for her own safety she had to be kept in the hospital, Mark Hatzer almost came to terms with losing another parent.

Sylvia had lost her memory and parts of her mind, she had even phoned the police once accusing the nurse who were caring for her of kidnap.

A change in diet, which was comprised of high amounts of blueberries and walnuts, has proven to have had a strong impact on Sylvia’s condition that her recipes are now being shared by the Alzheimer’s Society.

Sylvia also began incorporating other health foods, including broccoli, kale, spinach, sunflower seeds, green tea, oats, sweet potatoes and even dark chocolate with a high percentage of cacoa. All of these foods are known to be beneficial for brain health.

Mark and Sylvia devised to diet together after deciding that the medication on it’s own was not enough, they looked into the research showing that rates of dementia are much lower in mediterranean countries and copied a lot of their eating habits.

According to Mirror.co.uk“

Mark, whose brother Brent also died in 1977, said: “When my mum was in hospital she thought it was a hotel – but the worst one she had ever been in.

“She didn’t recognise me and phoned the police as she thought she’d been kidnapped.

“Since my dad and brother died we have always been a very close little family unit, just me and my mum, so for her to not know who I was was devastating.

“We were a double act that went everywhere together. I despaired and never felt so alone as I had no other family to turn to.

“Overnight we went from a happy family to one in crisis.

“When she left hospital, instead of prescribed medication we thought we’d perhaps try alternative treatment.

“In certain countries Alzheimer’s is virtually unheard of because of their diet.

“Everyone knows about fish but there is also blueberries, strawberries, Brazil nuts and walnuts – these are apparently shaped like a brain to give us a sign that they are good for the brain.”

There were also some cognitive exercises that Mark and his mother would do together like jigsaw puzzles crosswords and meeting people in social situations, Sylvia would also exercise by using a pedaling device outfitted for her chair.

Mark said, “It wasn’t an overnight miracle, but after a couple of months she began remembering things like birthdays and was becoming her old self again, more alert, more engaged..

“People think that once you get a diagnosis your life is at an end. You will have good and bad days, but it doesn’t have to be the end. For an 82-year-old she does very well, she looks 10 years younger and if you met her you would not know she had gone through all of this.

“She had to have help with all sorts of things, now she is turning it round. We are living to the older age in this country, but we are not necessarily living healthier.”

The Body’s Ability To Heal Is Greater Than Anyone Has Permitted You To Believe

This story just goes to show how resilient our bodies really are if given the right environment. Most of these types of diseases are often related to diet in the first place so that means that they can indeed be reversed with a proper diet. Sure, some of them are genetic and you might be a carrier of the gene, but that is not a guarantee that it will become active, there are things you can do to minimize the risk. Our health is our greatest wealth. We have to realize that we do have a say in our lives and what our fate is.

We have covered the topic before of how aluminum build up in the brain is directly related to dementia and more specifically Alzheimer’s disease, being able to identify this as a cause is important because recognizing this means we can do our part to limit the exposure and to also detoxify our brains and bodies from this damaging heavy metal.

In an article titled, Strong evidence linking Aluminum to Alzheimer’s, recently published in The Hippocratic Post website, Exley explained that:

“We already know that the aluminium content of brain tissue in late-onset or sporadic Alzheimer’s disease is significantly higher than is found in age-matched controls. So, individuals who develop Alzheimer’s disease in their late sixties and older also accumulate more aluminium in their brain tissue than individuals of the same age without the disease.

Even higher levels of aluminium have been found in the brains of individuals, diagnosed with an early-onset form of sporadic (usually late onset) Alzheimer’s disease, who have experienced an unusually high exposure to aluminium through the environment (e.g. Camelford) or through their workplace. This means that Alzheimer’s disease has a much earlier age of onset, for example, fifties or early sixties, in individuals who have been exposed to unusually high levels of aluminium in their everyday lives.”

His most recent study, published by the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology in December 2016, titled: Aluminium in brain tissue in familial Alzheimer’s disease, is one of the many studies that he and his team have conducted on the subject of aluminum over the years. However, this study in particular is believed to be of significant value, because it is the first time that scientists have measured the level of aluminum in the brain tissue of individuals diagnosed with familial Alzheimer’s disease. (Alzheimer’s disease or AD is considered to be familial if two or more people in a family suffer from the disease.)

According to their paper, the concentrations of aluminum found in brain tissue donated by individuals who died with a diagnosis of familial AD, was the highest level ever measured in human brain tissue.

Professor Exley wrote:

“We now show that some of the highest levels of aluminium ever measured in human brain tissue are found in individuals who have died with a diagnosis of familial Alzheimer’s disease.

The levels of aluminium in brain tissue from individuals with familial Alzheimer’s disease are similar to those recorded in individuals who died of an aluminium-induced encephalopathy while undergoing renal dialysis.”

He explained that:

“Familial Alzheimer’s disease is an early-onset form of the disease with first symptoms occurring as early as 30 or 40 years of age. It is extremely rare, perhaps 2-3% of all cases of Alzheimer’s disease. Its bases are genetic mutations associated with a protein called amyloid-beta, a protein which has been heavily linked with the cause of all forms of Alzheimer’s disease.

Individuals with familial Alzheimer’s disease produce more amyloid beta and the onset of the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease are much earlier in life.”
The First Step Towards Change Is By Raising Awareness

As more and more awareness grows involving the true causes of these neurodegenerative brain disorders, the more we can do our part to prevent and even treat them and hopefully, eventually eliminate things such as aluminum and other chemicals in our foods to prevent this disease from happening altogether.

Please share this article with anyone you know who knows someone who is suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s.

This article (82-Year-Old Woman With Dementia Gets Her Memory Back After Changing Her Diet) was originally published on Collective Evolution and syndicated by The Event Chronicle.
———————————-

Apparently the reason Aluminum has been found in the Chemtrails that allegedly don’t exist! “They” are not only trying to kill us, and make us dumb, they want us to succumb to dementia…

When I read this article, I kept hearing that song “Take It To The Limit One More Time”! They’ve changed the words “Sub-Prime” to “Non-Prime” and we re going to take it to the limit one more time…


Subprime mortgages make a comeback—with a new name and soaring demand
The subprime mortgage industry vanished after the Great Recession but is now being reinvented as the nonprime market.
Carrington Mortgage is now offering mortgages to borrowers with “less-than-perfect credit.”
Demand from both borrowers and investors is exceeding expectations.
Diana Olick | @DianaOlick
Published 10:45 AM ET Thu, 12 April 2018 Updated 1:54 PM ET Thu, 12 April 2018
CNBC.com
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/12/sub-prime-mortgages-morph-into-non-prime-loans-and-demand-soars.html
Subprime stages comeback as ‘non-prime’ loans Subprime stages comeback as ‘non-prime’ loans
1:41 PM ET Thu, 12 April 2018 | 01:28

They were blamed for the biggest financial disaster in a century. Subprime mortgages – home loans to borrowers with sketchy credit who put little to no skin in the game. Following the epic housing crash, they disappeared, due to strong, new regulation, and zero demand from investors who were badly burned. Barely a decade later, they’re coming back with a new name — nonprime — and, so far, some new standards.

California-based Carrington Mortgage Services, a midsized lender, just announced an expansion into the space, offering loans to borrowers, “with less-than-perfect credit.” Carrington will originate and service the loans, but it will also securitize them for sale to investors.

“We believe there is actually a market today in the secondary market for people who want to buy nonprime loans that have been properly underwritten,” said Rick Sharga, executive vice president of Carrington Mortgage Holdings. “We’re not going back to the bad old days of ninja lending, when people with no jobs, no income, and no assets were getting loans.”

A home improvement contractor works on a house in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Here’s how much homeowners could cash out in home equity
2:32 PM ET Mon, 2 April 2018 | 01:14
All loans will not be the same


Sharga said Carrington will manually underwrite each loan, assessing the individual risks. But it will allow its borrowers to have FICO credit scores as low as 500. The current average for agency-backed mortgages is in the mid-700s. Borrowers can take out loans of up to $1.5 million on single-family homes, townhomes and condominiums. They can also do cash-out refinances, where borrowers tap extra equity in their homes, up to $500,000. Recent credit events, like a foreclosure, bankruptcy or a history of late payments are acceptable.

All loans, however, will not be the same for all borrowers. If a borrower is higher risk, a higher down payment will be required, and the interest rate will likely be higher.

“What we’re talking about is underwriting that goes back to common sense sort of practices. If you have risk, you offset risk somewhere else,” added Sharga, while touting, “We probably are going to have the widest range of products for people with challenging credit in the marketplace.”

Carrington is not alone in the space. Angel Oak began offering and securitizing nonprime mortgages two years ago and has done six nonprime securitizations so far. It recently finalized its biggest securitization yet — $329 million, comprising 905 mortgages with an average amount of about $363,000. Just more than 80 percent of the loans are nonprime.

A ‘who’s who of Wall Street’
Investors in Angel Oak’s nonprime securitizations are, “a who’s who of Wall Street,” according to company representatives, citing hedge funds and insurance companies. Angel Oak’s securitizations now total $1.3 billion in mortgage debt.

Angel Oak, along with Caliber Home Loans, have been the main players in the space, securitizing relatively few loans. That is clearly about to change in a big way, as demand is rising.

“We believe that more competition is positive for the marketplace because there is strong enough demand for the product to support multiple originators,” said Lauren Hedvat, managing director, capital markets at Angel Oak. “Additionally, the more competitors there are, the wider the footprint becomes, which should open the door for more potential borrowers.”

Big banks are also getting in the game, both investing in the securities and funding the lenders, according to Sharga.

“It’s large financial institutions. A lot of people with private capital sitting on the sidelines, who are very interested in this market and believe that as long as the risks are managed well, and companies like ours are particularly good at managing credit risk, that it’s a good investment opportunity,” he said.

As the economy improves, and rents continue to rise, more Americans are trying to become homeowners, but the scars of the Great Recession still stand in the way. One-fifth of consumers today still have very low credit scores, often disqualifying them from obtaining a mortgage in today’s tight lending market.

Relaxed lending standards
Last summer, Fannie Mae announced it would relax its lending standards for prime loans, allowing borrowers with higher debt and lower credit scores to obtain loans without additional risk overlays, such as large down payments and a year’s worth of cash reserves.

Fannie Mae raised its debt-to-income (DTI) limit from 45 percent to 50 percent. DTI is the amount of total debt a borrower can have compared to his or her income. As a result, demand from buyers with higher debt exceeded all expectations. The share of high DTI loans jumped from 6 percent in January 2017 to nearly 20 percent by the end of February 2018, according to a study by the Urban Institute.

“From January to July 2017, Fannie purchased 80,467 loans with DTI ratios between 45 and 50 percent. But from August 2017 to February 2018, Fannie purchased 181,911 loans in the same DTI bucket. This increase of more than 100,000 loans in just seven months exceeded our estimate (85,000 additional Fannie loans annually) and Fannie’s expectations.” – Urban Institute

The mortgage industry expectation was that Fannie Mae would mitigate the additional risk with other factors, like a higher necessary credit score, but that was not added. The mortgage insurers balked, since they would be on the hook for the risk, so last month Fannie Mae “recalibrated” its risk assessment criteria again.

“We got a bigger response than we thought we were going to, so we dialed back to make sure we were in the right spot where our governance kicks in to make sure we’re not taking excessive risk,” said Doug Duncan, Fannie Mae’s chief economist.

Millennials carry more debt
The outsized demand from borrowers with more debt as well as demand for nonprime mortgages in the private sector show just how many borrowers today would like to become homeowners but are frozen out of the mortgage market.

Millennials, the largest homebuying cohort today, have much higher levels of student debt than previous generations. Members of older generations who went through foreclosures during the housing crisis or other hits to their credit are still struggling with lower FICO scores.

In addition, credit tightened up dramatically. In fact, between 2009 and 2015, tighter credit accounted for just more than 6 million “missing” loans, according to research by Laurie Goodman at the Urban Institute. These are mortgages that would have been granted under more normal historical underwriting standards.

The rebirth of the nonprime market is focused on these missing mortgages. The hope is that the industry will also focus on better standards of underwriting and not take risk to the levels it once did, levels that resulted in disaster.

California Attorney Pleads Guilty in National Securities Fraud



California Attorney Pleads Guilty in National Securities Fraud
A California attorney pleads guilty to a securities conspiracy charge in a pump-and-dump stock scam.
https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/sites/dailybusinessreview/2018/01/26/california-attorney-pleads-guilty-in-national-securities-fraud/
By Samantha Joseph | January 26, 2018 at 05:59 PM

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission building.

Diego M. Radzinschi

California attorney Andrew H. Wilson pleaded guilty of conspiracy to unlawfully sell unregistered securities.

The Nevada City man was one of 10 people convicted in a conspiracy to sell shares of shell companies they secretly controlled, then inflating values in a pump-and-dump scam that involved participants from New York and Colorado.

Wilson pleaded guilty Thursday in federal court in Miami. He faces a maximum statutory sentence of five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 or double the proceeds of the offense, according to prosecutors. He is at least the second attorney charged in the scam.

Prosecutors say the scheme ran for about seven years and involved fraudulent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings listing nominee chief executive officers for shell companies.

Participants presented the CEO as the owner and listed shareholders while maintaining full control over blocks of shares. When the shares become unrestricted, or free trading, participants secretly sold them to shell buyers or got SEC approval to sell them publicly.

Wilson created fraudulent paperwork to support the scam, according to court documents.

In October, attorney James M. Schneider of Hillsboro Beach faced a parallel civil enforcement action by the SEC, accusing him and Wilson of participating in a fraud involving 22 blank-check companies “secretly bound for reverse mergers.” Blank-check companies “have no operations, making them attractive targets for those seeking reverse mergers for use in pump-and-dump schemes,” according to prosecutors.

New York stock promoter Yelena Furman and Colorado registered stock transfer agent John Ahearn are among those convicted, according to a news release from the Department of Justice.

Sentencing for Ahearn and Wilson is set for June 8 before U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams in Miami. Furman’s sentencing is set for April 25 before U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

jmdenison https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/29589295/posts/15035 Very Good MERS article from Mandelman



https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/29589295/posts/15035
jmdenison
MaryGSykes.com

From GG: the good ship MERS may be going down…for you folks facing those robo signing/false accountings foreclosure cases, read on
23h ago
http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/02/new-bankruptcy-court-decision-sounds-the-alarm-%E2%80%93-the-uss-mers-is-going-down/

This is a pretty funny article about MERS and how it is mostly a full of it mortgage/note handling process that bilks county recorder out of millions in recording mortgage docts per year, plus it can often create havoc in foreclosure/assignment/purchase cases.
read on.
New Bankruptcy Court Decision Sounds the Alarm – The USS MERS is Going Down

Preface…

Before I jump into this decision by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge in New York, I just want to acknowledge that I very rarely write about MERS. And it’s not an accident; I’ve chosen not to do so… until now, anyway.

Perhaps I’ve been wrong not to cover the MERS debacle in greater detail, but the reason I haven’t is that I view some of the issues related to MERS as kind of… well, pedestrian… not to put too fine a point on it.

Other than a few good decisions by courts that have barred MERS from foreclosing, it just seemed to me that the problems presented by MERS could be fixed, and therefore I didn’t want homeowners who read my column to put too much stock in their loan being a MERS loan, as doing much for them if they find themselves at risk of foreclosure.

This decision has done a lot to change my view of MERS and the role it plays in foreclosures. The judge in this case presents a damn strong, if non-binding case why MERS may in fact be a much larger problem than I thought it was.

According to consumer bankruptcy attorney and nationally known foreclosure defense guru, Max Gardner…

“This case may well be the final dagger in the deep dark heart of the MERS business model. MERS has fired its President, R.K. Arnold, and may well terminate its Secretary, William Hultman, but MERS cannot fix the systematic and fundamentally flawed legal issues clearly and succinctly identified by the Court in Agard.”
And so… without further delay, I present to you… the “Agard Decision”.

~~~

The State: New York

The Case: In re: Ferrel L. Agard, Debtor, Chapter 7

The Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York

The Judge: The Honorable Robert E. Grossman

The Set Up: U.S. Bank, as the trustee for one First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF12, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-FF12… which all just means that we’re talking about a REMIC trust containing a securitized pool of mortgages… moves to obtain relief from the automatic stay created by a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing, in order to complete the foreclosure of Ferrel Agard’s home. New York State courts had already ruled and a foreclosure judgment was issued, so now U.S. Bank as trustee just needed to finish things out by obtaining relief from the automatic stay so they can proceed with selling the home.

Records show that the bankruptcy trustee expected a routine, no assets case… file report, collect fee, end of case. U.S. Bank, represented by its loan servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing (“SPS”), who was in turn represented by Buffalo’s most infamous foreclosure mill, Steven J. Baum PC, must have thought about the same… a straight forward foreclosure case, lets get rid of the deadbeats and be home by dinner.

But, in today’s fast changing world of Fraudclosuregate, things are not always as they appear, and crap that flew yesterday may not fly again tomorrow.

The Opposition: On October 27, 2010, the borrower’s attorney filed a single page document on which the type was double-spaced. It was a “partial opposition to the motion for relief from stay” that U.S. Bank had filed, and it suggested to the judge that perhaps there might be some sort of small problem with the MERS assignment. It also, in so many words, posited: Who the heck was Select Portfolio Services and why did they have any role in the case anyway?

After that, one might say… the fit hit the shan.

The Hearing: At a hearing held on November 15, 2010, the judge must have more than just hinted that he was going to look very carefully at this whole MERS thing, because he suggested that the parties might want to consider filing some real legal briefs on the subject, and he made it clear that he would be holding a real hearing on the issues on December 15, 2010, just one month down the road.

The Response: All of a sudden nothing was at it seemed just days before… SPS asks the court for more time and rushes out for reinforcements, bringing in a “tall building” law firm from New York City to replace the relative pikers at Baum’s Mill. The newly retained big city lawyers file a major brief in support of the U.S. Bank/SPS position on December 8th.

Then, on December 9th, MERS shows up, metaphorically at least with lights flashing and sirens blaring, to file an “emergency motion to intervene,” crying in sheer panic that their entire national business model is being attacked and that the result can be nothing less than the end of the world as we all know it.

They bring in a sworn declaration from MERS Treasurer and Corporate Secretary, William Hultman on December 10th, that explains what an entirely fabulous and utterly wonderful invention MERS actually is, and then… I suppose afraid that the one Hultman declaration just might not carry the day they show up with yet another declaration from MERS Treasurer and Corporate Secretary, William Hultman on December 23rd.

In an effort to keep things straight as related to the declarations, we’ll call that one: “Why Everyone Should Love MERS More Than Life Itself… The Sequel.”

The judge then begins to dig into the matter. Perhaps he was waiting for a case such as this one, or perhaps some other forces were in play, but regardless… for MERS… this was the wrong judge on the wrong day.

The Decision: Judge Grossman devotes the first half of his opinion to discussing whether he even has the legal authority to look into how U.S. Bank obtained this mortgage in the first place, since it already had obtained a foreclosure judgment in state court, and because there is an irritating (to Federal judges) and arcane Rooker-Feldman doctrine that prohibits federal courts from interfering with state court judgments.

Alas, our intrepid judge concludes on page 18 of his decision that Rooker-Feldman does in fact preclude him from looking further into the issues that underlie the U.S. Bank foreclosure judgment. And, as a result, Judge Grossman decides that he must grant U.S. Bank’s motion for relief from the bankruptcy automatic stay so that the trustee can complete the foreclosure.

Now, were we talking about most judges, that would represent the end of this proverbial road… the opinion would be dated and signed and I would not be writing about the case now. But we’re not talking about most judges… we’re talking about the Honorable Judge Robert E. Grossman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, and he’s apparently not a judge with which one should trifle.

He’s got MERS in his crosshairs, apparently exactly where he wants them, and in the 18 pages that follow his decision to grant the relief from the automatic stay he goes after MERS mercilessly. Attorney Thomas Cox of Portland, Maine, who you may remember from the “GMAC uses robo-signers deposition” that brought foreclosures to a standstill last fall, says that in his opinion…

“He (Judge Grossman) does the most thorough and competent analysis of the MERS charade that I have seen, basically concluding that the entire MERS business model does not comply with our laws, and that he will no longer accept MERS mortgage assignments in his court room.”
It’s a decision that was a delight to see.”</em>
Now, clearly this is a decision that’s worth reading for one’s self… Judge Grossman is one heck of a writer and not one to play patty-cake with MERS or those of the banking persuasion, but I thought I’d at least provide the overview of the decision with “training wheels” for those who aren’t of the mind to wade through the entire text of the decision themselves, or who find these things next to impossible to read and understand.

Here’s the overview of the Memorandum Decision in its entirety… with my clarifications added for those who find them valuable. If you’re a lawyer or just an uber-smartee, just scroll on down to the imbedded document for a copy of Judge Grossman’s decision in its entirety.

The movant is Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“Select Portfolio” or “Movant”), as servicer for U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF12, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-FF12 (“U.S. Bank”)

Okay, for now just remember that the servicer is the “Movant.” The rest I already covered above at the very beginning. U.S. Bank N.A. is the trustee for the First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust… blah, blah, blah… got it? Good, let’s move on…

The Debtor filed limited opposition to the Motion contesting the Movant’s standing to seek relief from stay. The Debtor argues that the only interest U.S. Bank holds in the underlying mortgage was received by way of an assignment from the Mortgage Electronic Registration System a/k/a MERS, as a “nominee” for the original lender.

The Debtor’s argument raises a fundamental question as to whether MERS had the legal authority to assign a valid and enforceable interest in the subject mortgage. Because U.S. Bank’s rights can be no greater than the rights as transferred by its assignor – MERS – the Debtor argues that the Movant, acting on behalf of U.S. Bank, has failed to establish that it holds an enforceable right against the Property.1.

This references the single page, double-spaced document I described that was filed by the borrower’s attorney, called a “partial opposition to the motion top relief from stay”. It raised some questions that the judge would later seek to answer.

The Movant’s initial response to the Debtor’s opposition was that MERS’s authority to assign the mortgage to U.S. Bank is derived from the mortgage itself, which allegedly grants to MERS its status as both “nominee” of the mortgagee and “mortgagee of record.”

Judge Grossman is going to attack this line of reasoning head on in the last 18 pages of his decision. Among many other things, you’ll see him say… “Aside from the inappropriate reliance upon the statutory definition of “mortgagee,” MERS’s position that it can be both the mortgagee and an agent of the mortgagee is absurd, at best.” And there’s a whole lot more where that came from… read on…

The Movant later supplemented its papers taking the position that U.S. Bank is a creditor with standing to seek relief from stay by virtue of a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered in its favor by the state court prior to the filing of the bankruptcy.

The Movant argues that the judgment of foreclosure is a final adjudication as to U.S. Bank’s status as a secured creditor and therefore the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits this Court from looking behind the judgment and questioning whether U.S. Bank has proper standing before this Court by virtue of a valid assignment of the mortgage from MERS.

This is the part that caused Judge Grossman to back down in this particular instance and allow the relief from automatic stay, thus allowing the foreclosure to proceed. Basically, he concludes that he’s not allowed to question the facts that underlie the foreclosure judgment that was previously granted by the state court.

There is also an important footnote (“1”) on the second page that reads as follows:

The Debtor also questions whether Select Portfolio has the authority and the standing to seek relief from the automatic stay. The Movant argues that Select Portfolio has standing to bring the Motion based upon its status as “servicer” of the Mortgage, and attaches an affidavit of a vice president of Select Portfolio attesting to that servicing relationship.

Case law has established that a mortgage servicer has standing to seek relief from the automatic stay as a party in interest. See, e.g., Greer v. O’Dell, 305 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2002); In re Woodberry, 383 B.R. 373 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2008).

This presumes, however, that the lender for whom the servicer acts validly holds the subject note and mortgage. Thus, this Decision will focus on whether U.S. Bank validly holds the subject note and mortgage.

I think the judge is saying that servicers do have standing to seek relief from an automatic stay that results from a borrower filing bankruptcy, but that such standing presumes that the lender being represented by the servicer validly holds the note and mortgage, and that the decision will address that issue.

Okay, you’ve got that part pretty much down, right? Then the decision goes on to say…

The Court received extensive briefing and oral argument from MERS, as an intervenor in these proceedings, which go beyond the arguments presented by the Movant.
This just says that MERS showed up with all guns blazing, arguing that MERS represents all that is right, good and just in the world. The judge isn’t buying though…

In addition to the rights created by the mortgage documents themselves MERS argues that the terms of its membership agreement with the original lender and its successors in interest, as well as New York state agency laws, give MERS the authority to assign the mortgage.

MERS argues that it holds legal title to mortgages for its member/lenders as both “nominee” and “mortgagee of record.” As such, it argues that any member/lender, which holds a note secured by real property, that assigns that note to another member by way of entry into the MERS database, need not also assign the mortgage because legal title to the mortgage remains in the name of MERS, as agent for any member/lender, which holds the corresponding note.

MERS’s position is that if a MERS member directs it to provide a written assignment of the mortgage, MERS has the legal authority, as an agent for each of its members, to assign mortgages to the member/lender currently holding the note as reflected in the MERS database.

Judge Grossman is going to examine all of these arguments and then some in his decision. But before he does that, he’s going to agree that he’s precluded from digging into the facts pertaining to the foreclosure judgment previously obtained in state court, and so he’s going to grant relief from the automatic stay and allow this foreclosure to proceed. And in that regard the judge writes…
For the reasons that follow, the Debtor’s objection to the Motion is overruled and the Motion is granted. The Debtor’s objection is overruled by application of either the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, or res judicata. Under those doctrines, this Court must accept the state court judgment of foreclosure as evidence of U.S. Bank’s status as a creditor secured by the Property. Such status is sufficient to establish the Movant’s standing to seek relief from the automatic stay. The Motion is granted on the merits because the Movant has shown, and the Debtor has not disputed, sufficient basis to lift the stay under Section 362(d).

Next the judge explains that, even though this court is constrained by Rooker-Feldman and the previously obtained state court decision, because there are numerous other cases before this court that present identical issues, and for which there have been no prior dispositive state court decisions, he’s going to look beyond this case’s limitations and publish a decision that addresses the issue of whether the “Movant” has established standing in this case because of the precedential effect it will have on other cases pending before the court. And so he writes…

Although the Court is constrained in this case to give full force and effect to the state court judgment of foreclosure, there are numerous other cases before this Court, which present identical issues with respect to MERS and in which there have been no prior dispositive state court decisions.

This Court has deferred rulings on dozens of other motions for relief from stay pending the resolution of the issue of whether an entity which acquires its interests in a mortgage by way of assignment from MERS, as nominee, is a valid secured creditor with standing to seek relief from the automatic stay.

It is for this reason that the Court’s decision in this matter will address the issue of whether the Movant has established standing in this case notwithstanding the existence of the foreclosure judgment. The Court believes this analysis is necessary for the precedential effect it will have on other cases pending before this Court.

The next paragraph of the judge’s decision is particularly telling. It is Judge Grossman completely disregarding perhaps MERS’ favorite argument, which is that MERS has to be okay because half the mortgages in this country are registered with MERS and if it’s not okay, the whole world will come to an end.

Judge Grossman states his view of this argument in no uncertain terms…

The Court recognizes that an adverse ruling regarding MERS’s authority to assign mortgages or act on behalf of its member/lenders could have a significant impact on MERS and upon the lenders, which do business with MERS throughout the United States.

However, the Court must resolve the instant matter by applying the laws as they exist today. It is up to the legislative branch, if it chooses, to amend the current statutes to confer upon MERS the requisite authority to assign mortgages under its current business practices.

MERS and its partners made the decision to create and operate under a business model that was designed in large part to avoid the requirements of the traditional mortgage recording process. This Court does not accept the argument that because MERS may be involved with 50% of all residential mortgages in the country, that is reason enough for this Court to turn a blind eye to the fact that this process does not comply with the law.
Wow, so you see what he’s saying there, right? It’s worth repeating…

MERS and its partners made the decision to create and operate under a business model that was designed in large part to avoid the requirements of the traditional mortgage recording process. This Court does not accept the argument that because MERS may be involved with 50% of all residential mortgages in the country, that is reason enough for this Court to turn a blind eye to the fact that this process does not comply with the law.
Did you hear that sound? That was the sound of the MERS ship hitting an iceberg and starting to sink. To the lifeboats, banker-people, your ship is sinking, and the water’s damn cold.

And on that note, it’s once again time to Sing-Along with Mandelman! You remember the song from our youth about “How they built the ship Titanic to sail the ocean blue? And they thought they had a ship that the water would never leak through. But the Lord’s almighty hand, knew that ship would never stand… it was sad when the great ship went down. It was sad, so sad… it was sad, so sad…” You remember that one right?

Alrighty then… so, sing it like you mean it… with feeling… and if you don’t want to sing, maybe you should be reading about this stuff on Naked Capitalism, or Firedog Lake… Yves Smith is smarter than all get out, but when was the last time she led you in song?

V1:

Oh they built the good ship MERS, so foreclosures could sail through,

And they thought they had a plan that the courts would never see through,

But some lawyers’ learned hands, showed that MERS just didn’t stand,

We were glad when the MERS ship went down.

~~~

CHORUS:

Oh we were glad, so glad,

We were glad, so glad,

We were glad when the MERS ship went down, to the bottom of the sea…

Many lost homes, but to those who lacked their loans,

We were glad when the MERS ship went down.

~~~

V2:

Oh, they went into the courts, hoping judges were inclined,

To not care exactly how, someone’s loan had been assigned.

Yes, the banks would rue the day, when they wrote that PSA,

We were glad when the MERS ship went down.

~~~

CHORUS:

Oh we were glad, so glad,

We were glad, so glad,

We were glad when the MERS ship went down, to the bottom of the sea…

Many lost homes, but to those who lacked their loans,

We were glad when the MERS ship went down.

~~~

V3:

MERS said it had the right, to do things as it pleased,

But the courts did not agree, and soon homes could not be seized.

Seems laws had important words, and MERS assertions were absurd,

We were glad when the MERS ship went down.

~~~

CHORUS:

Oh we were glad, so glad

We were glad, so glad

We were glad when the MERS ship went down, to the bottom of the sea…

Many lost homes, but to those who lacked their loans,

We were glad when the MERS ship went down.

V4:

Soon the bankers will all see, that fraud is not what prevails,

And they’ll realize their hot air will not fill this nation’s sails,

But the price will have been paid, for their mortgage-backed charade,

We were glad when the MERS ship went down.

~~~

CHORUS:

Oh we were glad, so glad

We were glad, so glad

We were glad when the MERS ship went down, to the bottom of the sea…

Many lost homes, but to those who lacked their loans,

We were glad when the MERS ship went down.

~~~

Okay, so I know there are at least a few people out there singing along with that little ditty from days spent at summer camp or on the school bus while on the way home from a field trip. Maybe next time I’ll work from Bingo Was His Name-O, or 100 bottles of Beer on the Wall.

Meanwhile, you’ve got plenty to do reading Judge Grossman’s decision as provided below. But, before you do, here are a few highlights, once again for those who want the Reader’s Digest Version.

First, from the MERS side of the argument…

In addition to adopting the arguments asserted by the Movant, MERS strenuously defends its authority to act as mortgagee pursuant to the procedures for processing this and other mortgages under the MERS “system.”

First, MERS points out that the Mortgage itself designates MERS as the “nominee” for the original lender, First Franklin, and its successors and assigns.

In addition, the lender designates, and the Debtor agrees to recognize, MERS “as the mortgagee of record and as nominee for ‘Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns’” and as such the Debtor “expressly agreed without qualification that MERS had the right to foreclose upon the premises as well as exercise any and all rights as nominee for the Lender.” (MERS Memorandum of Law at 7).

These designations as “nominee,” and “mortgagee of record,” and the Debtor’s recognition thereof, it argues, leads to the conclusion that MERS was authorized as a matter of law to assign the Mortgage to U.S. Bank.

Although MERS believes that the mortgage documents alone provide it with authority to effectuate the assignment at issue, they also urge the Court to broaden its analysis and read the documents in the context of the overall “MERS System.” According to MERS, each participating bank/lender agrees to be bound by the terms of a membership agreement pursuant to which the member appoints MERS to act as its authorized agent with authority to, among other things, hold legal title to mortgages and as a result, MERS is empowered to execute assignments of mortgage on behalf of all its member banks.

In this particular case, MERS maintains that as a member of MERS and pursuant to the MERS membership agreement, the loan originator in this case, First Franklin, appointed MERS “to act as its agent to hold the Mortgage as nominee on First Franklin’s behalf, and on behalf of First Franklin’s successors and assigns.”

MERS explains that subsequent to the mortgage’s inception, First Franklin assigned the Note to Aurora Bank FSB f/k/a Lehman Brothers Bank (“Aurora”), another MERS member. According to MERS, note assignments among MERS members are tracked via self-effectuated and self-monitored computer entries into the MERS database. As a MERS member, by operation of the MERS membership rules, Aurora is deemed to have appointed MERS to act as its agent to hold the Mortgage as nominee.

Aurora subsequently assigned the Note to U.S. Bank, also a MERS member. By operation of the MERS membership agreement, U.S. Bank is deemed to have appointed MERS to act as its agent to hold the Mortgage as nominee. Then, according to MERS, “U.S. Bank, as the holder of the note, under the MERS Membership Rules, chose to instruct MERS to assign the Mortgage to U.S. Bank prior to commencing the foreclosure proceedings by U.S. Bank.” (Affirmation of William C. Hultman, ¶12).

MERS argues that the express terms of the mortgage coupled with the provisions of the MERS membership agreement, is “more than sufficient to create an agency relationship between MERS and lender and the lender’s successors in interest” under New York law and as a result establish MERS’s authority to assign the Mortgage.

Okay, so that’s much of what MERS has to say about why it’s practices are fine and dandy, now let’s take a quick look at what the judge in this case has to say about the assignment of the note, among other things…

Noteholder Status

In the Motion, the Movant asserts U.S. Bank’s status as the “holder” of the Mortgage.

However, in order to have standing to seek relief from stay, Movant, which acts as the representative of U.S. Bank, must show that U.S. Bank holds both the Mortgage and the Note. Mims, 438 B.R. at 56. Although the Motion does not explicitly state that U.S. Bank is the holder of the Note, it is implicit in the Motion and the arguments presented by the Movant at the hearing.

However, the record demonstrates that the Movant has produced no evidence, documentary or otherwise, that U.S. Bank is the rightful holder of the Note.

Movant’s reliance on the fact that U.S. Bank’s noteholder status has not been challenged thus far does not alter or diminish the Movant’s burden to show that it is the holder of the Note as well as the Mortgage.

Under New York law, Movant can prove that U.S. Bank is the holder of the Note by providing the Court with proof of a written assignment of the Note, or by demonstrating that U.S. Bank has physical possession of the Note endorsed over to it. See, eg., LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Lamy, 824 N.Y.S.2d 769, 2006 WL 2251721, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 7, 2006).

The only written assignment presented to the Court is not an assignment of the Note but rather an “Assignment of Mortgage” which contains a vague reference to the Note.

Tagged to the end of the provisions which purport to assign the Mortgage, there is language in the Assignment stating “To Have and to Hold the said Mortgage and Note, and also the said property until the said Assignee forever, subject to the terms contained in said Mortgage and Note.” (Assignment of Mortgage (emphasis added)).

Not only is the language vague and insufficient to prove an intent to assign the Note, but MERS is not a party to the Note and the record is barren of any representation that MERS, the purported assignee, had any authority to take any action with respect to the Note. Therefore, the Court finds that the Assignment of Mortgage is not sufficient to establish an effective assignment of the Note.

By MERS’s own account, it took no part in the assignment of the Note in this case, but merely provided a database, which allowed its members to electronically self-report transfers of the Note.

MERS does not confirm that the Note was properly transferred or in fact whether anyone including agents of MERS had or have physical possession of the Note. What remains undisputed is that MERS did not have any rights with respect to the Note and other than as described above, MERS played no role in the transfer of the Note.

Absent a showing of a valid assignment of the Note, Movant can demonstrate that U.S. Bank is the holder of the Note if it can show that U.S. Bank has physical possession of the Note endorsed to its name. See In re Mims, 423 B.R. at 56-57.

According to the evidence presented in this matter the manner in which the MERS system is structured provides that, “when the beneficial interest in a loan is sold, the promissory note is transferred by an endorsement and delivery from the buyer to the seller [sic], but MERS Members are obligated to update the MERS® System to reflect the change in ownership of the promissory note. . . .” (MERS Supplemental Memorandum of Law at 6).

However, there is nothing in the record to prove that the Note in this case was transferred according to the processes described above other than MERS’s representation that its computer database reflects that the Note was transferred to U.S. Bank.

The Court has no evidentiary basis to find that the Note was endorsed to U.S. Bank or that U.S. Bank has physical possession of the Note. Therefore, the Court finds that Movant has not satisfied its burden of showing that U.S. Bank, the party on whose behalf Movant seeks relief from stay, is the holder of the Note.

So, the judge is saying things that are very similar to what we’ve all heard before, most recently in the Ibanez Decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and in the New Jersey court decision, Kemp v. Countrywide, among numerous others of late. How was the note assigned, was it endorsed properly, can the trustee even produce any evidence that the trust is the holder of the note?

What it would seem to come down to is quite simple, I think…

Does the trust that thinks that it owns the loan, actually own the loan, and can the trustee produce any evidence that it does own the loan?

If the loan was not properly transferred into the trust, and if there is no evidence that the trust owns the loan in question, then it would seem that the investor bought a mortgage-backed security without the mortgage-backed part, and my guess would be that the investors at this point don’t care about the mortgages… they will want their pound of flesh from the bankers whose massive securities fraud has robbed them of untold billions and destroyed the global financial system.

I’m not a lawyer, but with the first investor lawsuit against Bank of America – Countrywide having been filed just a couple weeks ago, and saying basically that the investor was delivered mortgage-backed securities without the mortgages, that’s how I’m seeing it start to stack up.

Now let’s look at what the judge says about the mortgage itself… you see… it’s supposed to follow the note, but when MERS is in the game, it simply doesn’t.

Mortgagee Status

The Movant’s failure to show that U.S. Bank holds the Note should be fatal to the Movant’s standing.

However, even if the Movant could show that U.S. Bank is the holder of the Note, it still would have to establish that it holds the Mortgage in order to prove that it is a secured creditor with standing to bring this Motion before this Court.

The Movant urges the Court to adhere to the adage that a mortgage necessarily follows the same path as the note for which it stands as collateral. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Perry, 875 N.Y.S.2d 853, 856 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009).

In simple terms the Movant relies on the argument that a note and mortgage are inseparable. See Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 274 (1872).

While it is generally true that a mortgage travels a parallel path with its corresponding debt obligation, the parties in this case have adopted a process, which by its very terms alters this practice where mortgages are held by MERS as “mortgagee of record.”

By MERS’s own account, the Note in this case was transferred among its members, while the Mortgage remained in MERS’s name.

MERS admits that the very foundation of its business model as described herein requires that the Note and Mortgage travel on divergent paths. Because the Note and Mortgage did not travel together, Movant must prove not only that it is acting on behalf of a valid assignee of the Note, but also that it is acting on behalf of the valid assignee of the Mortgage5.

Footnote 5 – MERS argues that notes and mortgages processed through the MERS System are never “separated” because beneficial ownership of the notes and mortgages are always held by the same entity.

The Court will not address that issue in this Decision, but leaves open the issue as to whether mortgages processed through the MERS system are properly perfected and valid liens. See Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. at 274 (finding that an assignment of the mortgage without the note is a nullity); Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 216 P.3d 158, 166-67 (Kan. 2009)

(“In the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the deed of trust, with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable”).
Yes, you read that last part right. The mortgage may become unenforceable. That’s really the 800-pound Gorilla in the room, isn’t it? Do they own it or not, and if they broke the laws, who wins?

Many people get all upset about the idea that a homeowner could not have to pay their mortgage because the laws were broken related to the transfer of the note and mortgage, but I’m starting to think they’re just a bunch of crybabies. The law is the law and if it says that someone doesn’t owe their mortgage, well… good for them.

We’re a nation built on laws and forged by lawyers, and there have been a lot of unpopular decisions that rightly stood because they upheld our nation’s laws… Brown v. The Board of Education comes immediately to mind, but there are many.

We need our plaintiff’s lawyers, our judges and our courts, if we’re going to live through what’s ahead of us. We certainly can’t depend on our legislature or our executive branches… they have, for the most part, been bought and paid for… our system is corrupt with the money of lobbyists. Only our laws and our courts can see us through this, and I’m willing to abide by whatever they say follows the law.

Okay, so here’s just a bit more from Judge Grossman’s analysis and conclusion…

MERS asserts that its right to assign the Mortgage to U.S. Bank in this case, and in what it estimates to be literally millions of other cases, stems from three sources: the Mortgage documents; the MERS membership agreement; and state law.

In order to provide some context to this discussion, the Court will begin its analysis with an overview of mortgage and loan processing within the MERS network of lenders as set forth in the record of this case.

In the most common residential lending scenario, there are two parties to a real property mortgage – a mortgagee, i.e., a lender, and a mortgagor, i.e., a borrower. With some nuances and allowances for the needs of modern finance this model has been followed for hundreds of years.

The MERS business plan, as envisioned and implemented by lenders and others involved in what has become known as the mortgage finance industry, is based in large part on amending this traditional model and introducing a third party into the equation.

MERS is, in fact, neither a borrower nor a lender, but rather purports to be both “mortgagee of record” and a “nominee” for the mortgagee.

MERS was created to alleviate problems created by, what was determined by the financial community to be, slow and burdensome recording processes adopted by virtually every state and locality. In effect the MERS system was designed to circumvent these procedures. MERS, as envisioned by its originators, operates as a replacement for our traditional system of public recordation of mortgages.

MERS argues that it had full authority to validly execute the Assignment of Mortgage to U.S. Bank on February 1, 2008, and that as of the date the foreclosure proceeding was commenced U.S. Bank held both the Note and the Mortgage.

However, without more, this Court finds that MERS’s “nominee” status and the rights bestowed upon MERS within the Mortgage itself are insufficient to empower MERS to effectuate a valid assignment of mortgage.

There are several published New York state trial level decisions holding that the status of “nominee” or “mortgagee of record” bestowed upon MERS in the mortgage documents, by itself, does not empower MERS to effectuate an assignment of the mortgage.

However, the rules lack any specific mention of an agency relationship, and do not bestow upon MERS any authority to act. Rather, the rules are ambiguous as to MERS’s authority to take affirmative actions with respect to mortgages registered on its system.
That’s pretty clear, I think. MERS, you’re going down.

In addition to casting itself as nominee/agent, MERS seems to argue that its role as “mortgagee of record” gives it the rights of a mortgagee in its own right.

MERS relies on the definition of “mortgagee” in the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Section 1921, which states that a “mortgagee” when used in the context of Section 1921, means the “current holder of the mortgage of record . . . or their agents, successors or assigns.” N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. L. § 1921 (McKinney 2011).

The provisions of Section 1921 relate solely to the discharge of mortgages and the Court will not apply that definition beyond the provisions of that section in order to find that MERS is a “mortgagee” with full authority to perform the duties of mortgagee in its own right.

Aside from the inappropriate reliance upon the statutory definition of “mortgagee,” MERS’s position that it can be both the mortgagee and an agent of the mortgagee is absurd, at best.

Okay, so some of that gets a little technical, I agree, but the last sentence is about as straightforward as it gets… MERS’s position that it can be both the mortgagee and an agent of the mortgagee is absurd, at best. And wait… there’s just a little bit more…

Adding to this absurdity, it is notable in this case that the Assignment of Mortgage was by MERS, as nominee for First Franklin, the original lender.

By the Movant’s and MERS’s own admission, at the time the assignment was effectuated, First Franklin no longer held any interest in the Note.

Both the Movant and MERS have represented to the Court that subsequent to the origination of the loan, the Note was assigned, through the MERS tracking system, from First Franklin to Aurora, and then from Aurora to U.S. Bank. Accordingly, at the time that MERS, as nominee of First Franklin, assigned the interest in the Mortgage to U.S. Bank, U.S. Bank allegedly already held the Note and it was at U.S. Bank’s direction, not First Franklin’s, that the Mortgage was assigned to U.S. Bank.

Said another way, when MERS assigned the Mortgage to U.S. Bank on First Franklin’s behalf, it took its direction from U.S. Bank, not First Franklin, to provide documentation of an assignment from an entity that no longer had any rights to the Note or the Mortgage.

The documentation provided to the Court in this case (and the Court has no reason to believe that any further documentation exists), is stunningly inconsistent with what the parties define as the facts of this case.

However, even if MERS had assigned the Mortgage acting on behalf of the entity which held the Note at the time of the assignment, this Court finds that MERS did not have authority, as “nominee” or agent, to assign the Mortgage absent a showing that it was given specific written directions by its principal.

This Court finds that MERS’s theory that it can act as a “common agent” for undisclosed principals is not support by the law.

The relationship between MERS and its lenders and its distortion of its alleged “nominee” status was appropriately described by the Supreme Court of Kansas as follows: “The parties appear to have defined the word [nominee] in much the same way that the blind men of Indian legend described an elephant – their description depended on which part they were touching at any given time.”

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Motion in this case should be granted. However, in all future cases, which involve MERS, the moving party must show that it validly holds both the mortgage and the underlying note in order to prove standing before this Court.

February 10, 2011

Hon. Robert E. Grossman United States Bankruptcy Judge
~~~

It’s very important to realize that the judge’s findings related to MERS in this case are NOT BINDING ON ANY COURT.

As foreclosure defense attorney Thomas Cox explains:

“Judge Grossman’s findings about MERS are not binding on anyone, because they did not resolve any issue in the case where Rooker-Feldman blocked that inquiry.”
Cox says he won’t be surprised if the MERS/securitization/foreclosure industry spin mentions this point since the law prohibited the judge from going behind the judgment to see how U.S. Bank got the mortgage, then it also prohibited making binding findings about the MERS issue.

Cox further points out…

“On the other hand, with that being so, I am highly doubtful that U.S. Bank and Select Portfolio Servicing could appeal from those MERS holdings because their position in the case was not affected by them. While the judge did allow them to intervene, since the judge’s opinions about MERS are not binding on any court, I do not see how MERS could effectively argue that it suffered a legally cognizable harm. If and when Judge Grossman, or some other judge, in some other case uses the rationale laid out by Judge Grossman to nullify a MERS mortgage assignment, only then will a trustee and/or MERS have any ability to appeal the issue.”
Okay, so that about covers it, I’d say. Below you’ll find the Judge Grossman’s decision in its entirety, and hat tip to attorney Thomas Cox of Portland, Maine for bringing this decision to my attention, helping me to understand it, and continuing to go after the bastards with the strength and tenacity of a Mainer.

Mandelman out.

In re: Ferrel L. Agard, Debtor
Share
1Comment

“I Cannot Express How Wrong I Was…” BY TIM SCHMIDT – USCCA FOUNDER


Concealed Carry Report – Click Display Images to view this email properly.
A FREE REPORT FROM THE PUBLISHERS OF CONCEALED CARRY MAGAZINE
October 2017 • Issue No. 41

“I Cannot Express How Wrong I Was…”
BY TIM SCHMIDT – USCCA FOUNDER
Tim Schmidt
It’s no surprise that, in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre that occurred just two Sundays ago, things have really heated up in the ongoing gun-control debate.

I mentioned in last week’s Concealed Carry Report that the divisiveness over guns, gun laws and even the 2nd Amendment has finally seemed to reach its boiling point following the tragic events of Oct. 1.

As expected, the usual suspects wasted no time pointing fingers and assigning blame to the NRA, Republican lawmakers, responsible guns owners and pretty much anyone else who believes in and supports the God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Late night TV show host Jimmy Kimmel implied that the groups of people mentioned above simply “don’t care” about what happened in Vegas, questioning why they continually “allow this to happen” and suggesting that those folks should “pray for God to forgive them.”

While his response was typical of what we’re used to hearing from anti-gunners following such a devastating event, other seemingly pro-gun folks seemed to quickly cave to the likes of Kimmel’s — and others’ — emotional pleas to “do something.”

One Phoenix gun owner, Jonathan Pring, contacted his local police department and then turned over his firearms to them, hoping that his actions would inspire others to do the same. He claimed he was “trying to be the change he wanted to see in the world.”

Caleb Keeter, the lead guitarist for the Josh Abbott Band, a Texas-based collective that played at the Route 91 Harvest Festival just hours before the shooting, went so far as to renounce his support of the 2nd Amendment:

“I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd Amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. Enough is enough. We need gun control RIGHT. NOW. My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn’t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it.”

Of course, the most surprising reaction came from the National Rifle Association:

“In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

I have to be honest: I’m equal parts shocked and disappointed in all of these responses.

As I mentioned last week, the events in Las Vegas, as heartbreaking as they are, don’t change my stance on firearms or other firearms-related equipment, the 2nd Amendment or concealed carry. I stand by the simple truth that no piece of equipment — regulated or not — is going to have one bit of an effect on an evil man or woman hell-bent on doing harm.

Bump stocks were a relatively obscure accessory before the Las Vegas massacre. We have to stop demonizing inanimate objects.

Let’s be honest:

The anti-gunners aren’t going to be happy with only banning bump stocks.

A little bit here, a little bit there … and pretty soon we’ve lost one of the cornerstones of our freedom.

Remember: Having the right to life also guarantees the right to defend life. And nothing acts as a greater equalizer than does a firearm.

I stand proudly for the 2nd Amendment, and I always will.

I hope you’re with me.

Take Care and Stay Safe,

Tim Schmidt
Publisher – Concealed Carry Report
USCCA Founder

P.S. – Have you upgraded to the brand-new USCCA Elite Membership level yet? Act now to be covered by $2,250,000 in Self-Defense SHIELD protection, and I’ll enter you to win today’s gun: the ADCOR ELITE Gas Piston Carbine 5.56mm/.223, valued at a whopping $2,295!