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

Advertisements

“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!

Killing Ron Brown: A Clinton Crime Family Story


twothirds-750x420_00000421-750x420

Killing Ron Brown: A Clinton Crime Family Story
Reading Time: 7 minutesYour life is in danger. At this moment, a Chinese nuclear warhead sits in a missile silo. Its guidance, if launched, instructs the warhead to detonate a mile or two above your home. And this was all made possible by extortion, murder, and illegal campaign contributions to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Remember Ron Brown? Brown was Clinton’s Secretary of Commerce.

Ron Brown ran the Clintons’ extortion racket in the 1990s.

Ron Brown played a role . . . he would rather not have. Targeted by an independent counsel along with his son Michael and his confidante (and my source) Nolanda Butler Hill on unrelated charges, Brown desperately needed the Clintons’ help to keep himself, Hill, and especially Michael out of prison. In true Underwood fashion, the Clintons exploited Brown’s vulnerability by making him their international bagman.

Jack Cashill writing on American Thinker

Follow the Money

Records show that Commerce Secretary Ron Brown used his position to raise illegal donations for the Clintons. Brown turned the Commerce Department into a shakedown machine, just the way the Mafia shakes down businesses. Commerce under Clinton was a protection racket. Donate to the Clintons or something bad might happen to your company. Or your kids.

In a 1998 summary of Clinton’s criminal activities involving Chinese campaign contributions, Phyllis Schlafly wrote:

Bill Clinton’s friend and ubiquitous Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung told Federal investigators that he funneled nearly $100,000 from the Communist Chinese military to the Democratic campaign in the summer of 1996. The money was handed to Chung by the daughter of the top commander of China’s People’s Liberation Army, General Liu Huaqing, who was also one of the top five members of the Chinese Communist Party’s ruling Politburo.

Remember that illegal influence peddling is the primary mission of the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton used the State Department to extort cash payments from corporations and foreign governments. Clinton laundered the dirty money through the Clinton Foundation.

In the 1990s, the Clintons ran the same money laundering scheme through Ron Brown’s Commerce Department.

The More You Know About the Clintons, the Sooner You Will Die

After a religious experience, Ron Brown’s confidante Nolanda Hill told her story to former Wall Street Journal and Washington Post reporter Jack Cashill. Writing on the 10th anniversary of Brown’s likely assassination, Cashill says:

Hill is convinced and always has been that Ron Brown was assassinated. At the time of his death, I had refused to believe such a scenario possible. I was doing talk radio then in Kansas City, and I vigorously rejected all speculation about conspiracy. When I started research for my book, Ron Brown’s Body, in 2003, I began with the conviction that the plane crash was accidental and the famed hole in Brown’s head was some sort of anomaly. To say the least, I have lost that conviction.

Cashill has made the story his life’s work. And for good reason. Bill and Hillary Clinton are extortion artists at best and murdering traitors at worst.

You should believe the worst. As Jack Cashill wrote in American Thinking in 2014:

As Hill tells it, Brown arranged a meeting with Clinton at the White House family quarters. It did not go well. When Clinton said there was nothing he could do for Michael, Brown resorted to his ultimate bargaining chip. If he had to, he told Clinton, he was prepared to reveal the president’s treasonous dealings with China, news of which had yet to break.

We now know the China deal involved selling US military secrets to China in exchange for Chinese contributions to the DNC laundered through a tech company called Loral. The latePhyllis Schlafly explained in 1998:

In June 1994, the CEO of Loral Space and Communications, Bernard Schwartz, made a $100,000 contribution to the Democratic National Committee. He then joined a Ron Brown trip to China that led to a $250 million telecommunications deal for Loral’s satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets [in violation of US law at the time].

In October 1994, Clinton lifted the sanctions he had imposed on China for selling missile technology to Pakistan. In early 1995, Schwartz sent a letter to Clinton urging that responsibility for satellite-export licenses be shifted from the State Department to the Commerce Department. Meanwhile, both Schwartz and Johnny Chung made more huge donations, in excess of $100,000, to the Democratic Party.

Back to Ron Brown’s desperate meeting with Clinton. Guess how Bill and Hillary dealt with Brown’s threat.

Next thing you know, Ron was on his final seat-selling trade mission, this one to Croatia to cut a deal between the neo-fascists who ran the country and the Enron Corporation. Yes, that Enron. He never got there. The Air Force plane that carried Brown, the military version of a Boeing 737, crashed into a hillside outside Dubrovnik. Brown and 34 others were killed.

After the crash that took out the US Secretary of Commerce and 33 others, the Clinton Administration covered up everything. They prohibited an autopsy of Ron Brown’s body despite evidence of a bullet wound in Brown’s skull. The military general in charge of the “investigation” repeatedly lied to the press and to Congress. The US Air Force released false press statements claiming the plane’s wreckage was found in the Adriatic. The US government said the plane crashed in the “worst storm in a decade,” which was a laughable lie even at the time. And many involved in the investigation died by accident or gunshot wound before testifying.

Those are facts on the record.

mtiwnja4njmznzu1mjm5otq4

But Nolanda Hill thinks the Clinton’s ordered their hit on Brown before that White House meeting. Here’s how Jack Cashill recounts Hill’s thinking:

Today, after much reflection, Hill no longer believes that the meeting with President Clinton triggered the trip to Croatia. She believes that the planning of Brown’s demise had already begun. “They [the president’s advisors] knew he was going to get indicted. They knew that he was gone.” Brown was the classic “man who knew too much.” The knowledge that had protected when his legal problems could still be fixed left him vulnerable when those problems were beyond fixing.

Back to Cashill’s American Thinker article:

The Enron executives landed safely in their own jet just a few minutes earlier despite what the Clinton administration called “the worst storm in a decade.” As I learned in reading the 22-volume USAF report on the crash, it was not even raining at the time, and the sun was peeking through the clouds. I requested that report eight years after the crash. As far as I know, I was the first person in the media to request it, and the New York Times had a reporter on the plane.

And the Enron flight carried a very important connection to Hillary Rodham Clinton, as will see very soon.

Clinton’s Treason Goes Deeper Still

These paragraphs from Phyllis Schlafly’s excellent summary of the Chinese missile scandal will make you shudder:

The rationale for allowing U.S. satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets is that the technology is safely locked up in a black box, and Americans monitor the launch to assure that it stays secured. But when the Loral rocket blew up, the parts were scattered. The Pentagon refused comment on the Drudge report that the Loral engineers who reviewed the recovered debris said that the encryption hardware was missing.

U.S. intelligence has reported that China has targeted 13 of its 18 CSS-4 long-range missiles against U.S. cities. The CIA says that China’s targeting was made more accurate by Loral’s unauthorized help. The Justice Department started a criminal investigation of Loral, and the State Department warned that Loral’s actions were “criminal, likely to be indicted, knowing and unlawful.”

In March 1996, despite the objections of Secretary of State Warren Christopher, the Defense Department and our intelligence agencies, Clinton personally transferred jurisdiction over satellite-export licensing from the State Department to his pal, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Meanwhile, Bernard Schwartz stepped up his contributions to the Democratic Party and became the largest single contributor in the 1996 election cycle. Clinton signed another waiver this year to allow Loral Space to export a satellite that is scheduled to be launched by the Chinese in November.

To cover up their treason, the Clintons apparently ordered the assassination of Ron Brown and 33 others who boarded a doomed Air Force flight on a trade mission to Croatia.

So why haven’t the Clintons been tried and convicted for these capital crimes? Becausethey’re out of reach of US law, protected by the Wall Street and corporate interestswho laundered Chinese money to the Clintons in the 1990s. That and Republican fecklessness. The GOP impeached and tried Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal when the real crime of the Clinton Administration involved treason and state assassinations. Assassinations and sham investigations.

The Mysterious, Beautiful Woman

While the Ron Brown assassination story has yet to reach its end, Jack Cashill’s reporting explains Clinton’s desperation to win the White House in 2016. And it involves a mysterious woman.

Zdenka Gast
Zdenka Gast

Cashill found an intriguing open loop in an Air Force report on the assassination of Ron Brown. (The USAF does not call the report an assassination report, but you know by now that it was.) This open loop was a Croatian woman named Zdenka Gast.

[For more about Zdenka Gast and Hillary’s serial lies, click here.]Gast was supposed to be on Ron Brown’s plane. At the last minute, she was removed from that death flight’s manifest and moved to the Enron plane.

Why the move?

According to a witness, “There were problems in — in — in this — in concluding this deal where they wanted to sign a letter of intent, and so, rather than — than go on the Brown trip, she stayed with the Inron [sic] people to do the final negotiations.”

The Air Force never interviewed Gast. The USAF claimed they were unable to find her. But Cashill found in a few minutes of searching. He contacted her office. Gast’s office said she’d return the call shortly. Six years later, Cashill is still waiting.

Well, no. Cashill isn’t waiting. He knows he’ll never hear from Gast. As Jack Cashill explains in his American Thinker story:

Inquiring into Gast’s background, I came across the Croatian-language magazine Gloria. The photo that graced this article leapt off the page at me. In the center of three smiling women, all linked arm in arm, was Gast, an attractive, full-figured redhead. On her left was the then Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman. On her right was none other than Hillary Clinton. Gast was one of only forty guests at a 2000 White House wedding reception for Herman, the woman who dispatched Brown on his fatal trip. Most of the other guests the reader would recognize by name.

According to public records, Gast lives in Grand Island, New York with a home in Florida. She’s listed as CEO of Z Global Consulting Ltd., a company with no apparent legal formation in any state. Except for a bare-bones LinkedIn profile, Gast seems to have been wiped from the internet.

Let’s hope Zdenka, now 67, is still alive.

 

Hillary Clinton keeps her friends close . . . and her witnesses closer. Just ask Ron Brown.


Also published on Medium.

Cashill and Clinton here.

Senator Clinton, Just Who Is Zdenka Gast?

Ron Brown's Body: How One Man's Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary's Future
Ron Brown’s Body: How One Man’s Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary’s Future

© Jack Cashill

WorldNetDaily.com
December 4, 2008

Although his colleagues on the U. S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be content to throw Hillary Clinton softballs during her confirmation hearing, I suspect Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has moxie enough to throw the would-be secretary of state a nasty curve as follows:

DeMint: Senator Clinton, just who Is Zdenka Gast?

Clinton: Zdenka Gast? Help me out here.

DeMint: Let me refresh your memory. Gast played a key role in Commerce Secretary Ron Brown’s fatal trip to Croatia in April 1996. Ostensibly at least, Brown went to Croatia to broker a deal between the Croatian government and a certain American corporation. Gast served as liaison between the two.

Clinton: Why is this an issue?

DeMint: For starters, it was a sweetheart deal that the White House coerced Croatia to sign. For another, the White House’s Croatian client was president Franjo Tudjman, a notorious anti-Semite. And for a third, the company in question was Enron. Otherwise, no problem.

Clinton: Enron? Please! What’s your source? Some right-wing blog?

DeMint: No, your ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith. He told Air Force investigators that Gast had been scheduled to fly with Brown on the USAF plane that crashed but flew in instead on a Swiss Air Charter with the Enron guys.

Clinton: You’re making this up.

DeMint: Let me quote the official, 22-volume U.S, Air Force Report. Said Galbraith, “There were problems in—in—in this—in concluding this deal where they wanted to sign a letter of intent, and so, rather than—than go on the Brown trip, she stayed with the Inron [sic] people to do the final negotiations.”

Clinton: Bull. Enron was a Republican company.

DeMint: That is what the media tell us, and Gast was allegedly a Republican too, but in the nineties Enron execs were frequent flyers on Brown trade missions. Remember the deal in 1995 when you all held up a $13.5 million aid package to Mozambique until its president agreed to give Enron a major stake in a local gas field?

Clinton: I have no recollection of that.

DeMint: As you probably heard, Brown more or less sold seats on these missions to raise money for what Senator Fred Thompson’s committee would call “the most corrupt political campaign in modern history.”

Clinton: I had nothing to do with that campaign.

DeMint: Dick Morris says otherwise. As he tells it, you were the one who brought him into the White House after the Dem’s November 1994 whipping, and you were there with the president, Al Gore, Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and DNC chair Don Fowler when his plan for a massively expensive ad campaign was approved. In fact, The DNC cupboard was bare. The money had to come from somewhere.

Clinton: Prove it.

DeMint: Brown could have. In fact, Judicial Watch had scheduled him to give a deposition on this subject as soon as he returned from Croatia. It’s a shame he never returned.

Clinton: And why would Tudjman submit to such a deal?

DeMint: Glad you asked. According to the Financial Times of London, Tudjman linked the Enron deal to a variety of political demands, chief among them—and this is a quote–“avoiding his arrest and that of other senior figures by the Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal.”

Clinton: You’ve got it backwards. The Serbs were the war criminals.

DeMint: The Serbs had no monopoly on ethnic cleansing. If you recall, just months before Brown’s death, Croatian forces drove more than 200,000 Serbian civilians from their homes in the Krajina region and killed some 14,000 of them. The White House and Galbraith aided and abetted the Croats as something of a reward for their agreeing to the federation between Croats and Muslims in Bosnia.

Clinton: I had nothing to do with that.

DeMint: I didn’t say you did. But I am curious as to why you took a one-day detour to Tuzla in Bosnia just nine days before Brown left Tuzla on his fatal flight. You may have fudged about the sniper fire, but Tuzla was a dangerous place in 1996. As the White House spun it, “No first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt has made a trip into such a hostile military environment.” And you brought Chelsea?

Clinton: I wanted to say “thank you” to our troops. What are you insinuating?

DeMint: Nothing, just asking. Much of this would be clearer if we had all the facts.

Clinton: What are you missing?

DeMint: Our best witness. After Galbraith told the Air Force about Zdenka, the investigator said, “We’ve been looking for her.” Apparently, they did not find her. The report lists 148 witness interviews, but Zdenka’s was not among them. You might have been able to help.


Above: Zdenka Gast

Clinton: How is that?

DeMint: You know the lady. I have this photo here from a Croatian language magazine named Gloria taken a few years after Brown’s death. In the center of the photo is Zdenka, the redhead, not bad looking. On her left, as you can see, is Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman. On her right is you.

Clinton : Probably some big fundraiser. I get my picture taken with all kinds of people.

DeMint: This is a little more intimate, a lot more. This was taken at a wedding reception for Herman at the White House. You hosted it. Only 40 people attended, just about all of them DC big shots except Zdenka. Zdenka boasts that she was supporting your senate run and that—quote–“Hillary paid special attention to me.”

Clinton: And that’s somehow suspicious?

DeMint: It’s no more suspicious than your detour to Tuzla or the hole in Ron Brown’s head or the White House refusal to do an autopsy on Brown or the “inexplicable” deviation of the aircraft into the mountainside or the lethal bullet hole in the chest of the airport aviation manager.

Clinton: Are you finished?

DeMint: This is just question one, Senator. Fasten your seat belt.

to top of page


Subscribe to the Cashill Newsletter. It’s FREE!

Receive political news, invitations to political events and special offers.

Home | Professional | Personal | International | National | Regional | Books & DVDs | Articles By Title | Email Jack

copyright 2005 Jack Cashill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eXTReMe Tracker

We have new details on Goldman Sachs’ $5 billion legal settlement


We have new details on Goldman Sachs’ $5 billion legal settlement

Evan Vucci/APGoldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

Jamie Dimon Lloyd Blankfein

Wells Fargo just agreed to pay $1.2 billion to settle ‘shoddy’ mortgage practices

We now know more about the $5 billion settlement Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay related to residential mortgage-backed securities it sold between 2005 and 2007.

Regulators announced details of the settlement on Monday.

Goldman initially announced the settlement in January. That nearly wiped out fourth-quarter earnings for the firm.

“Today’s settlement is yet another acknowledgment by one of our leading financial institutions that it did not live up to the representations it made to investors about the products it was selling,” said one regulator, US Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner of the Eastern District of California, in a statement.

“We are pleased to put these legacy matters behind us,” Goldman Sachs said in a statement. “Since the financial crisis, we have taken significant steps to strengthen our culture, reinforce our commitment to our clients, and ensure our governance processes are robust.”

Morgan Stanley announced a similar settlement in February. It agreed to pay $3.2 billion over charges that it misled investors on the quality of mortgage loans it sold.

And on Friday, the US Justice Department announced that Wells Fargo had agreed to pay $1.2 billion to settle “shoddy” mortgage-lending practices.

Here’s what we learned about the Goldman settlement on Monday:

  • $2.385 billion in a civil-monetary penalty
  • $875 million to settle claims by various federal and state entities, including:
    • $575 million to settle claims by the National Credit Union Administration
    • $37.5 million to settle claims by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines as successor to the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle
    • $37.5 million to settle claims by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago
    • $190 million to settle claims by the state of New York
    • $25 million to settle claims by the state of Illinois
    • $10 million to settle claims by the state of California
  • $1.8 billion in the form of relief to aid consumers who were allegedly harmed

Here’s a press release from the Department of Justice:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department, along with federal and state partners, announced today a $5.06 billion settlement with Goldman Sachs related to Goldman’s conduct in the packaging, securitization, marketing, sale and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) between 2005 and 2007. The resolution announced today requires Goldman to pay $2.385 billion in a civil penalty under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) and also requires the bank to provide $1.8 billion in other relief, including relief to underwater homeowners, distressed borrowers and affected communities, in the form of loan forgiveness and financing for affordable housing. Goldman will also pay $875 million to resolve claims by other federal entities and state claims. Investors, including federally-insured financial institutions, suffered billions of dollars in losses from investing in RMBS issued and underwritten by Goldman between 2005 and 2007.

“This resolution holds Goldman Sachs accountable for its serious misconduct in falsely assuring investors that securities it sold were backed by sound mortgages, when it knew that they were full of mortgages that were likely to fail,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Stuart F. Delery. “This $5 billion settlement includes a $1.8 billion commitment to help repair the damage to homeowners and communities that Goldman acknowledges resulted from its conduct, and it makes clear that no institution may inflict this type of harm on investors and the American public without serious consequences.”

“Today’s settlement is another example of the department’s resolve to hold accountable those whose illegal conduct resulted in the financial crisis of 2008,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “Viewed in conjunction with the previous multibillion-dollar recoveries that the department has obtained for similar conduct, this settlement demonstrates the pervasiveness of the banking industry’s fraudulent practices in selling RMBS, and the power of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act as a tool for combatting this type of wrongdoing.”

“Today’s settlement is yet another acknowledgment by one of our leading financial institutions that it did not live up to the representations it made to investors about the products it was selling,” said U.S. Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner of the Eastern District of California. “Goldman’s conduct in exploiting the RMBS market contributed to an international financial crisis that people across the country, including many in the Eastern District of California, continue to struggle to recover from. I am gratified that this office has developed investigations, first against JPMorgan Chase and now against Goldman Sachs, that have led to significant civil settlements that hold bad actors in this market accountable. The results obtained by this office and other members of the RMBS Working Group continue to send a message to Wall Street that we remain committed to pursuing those responsible for the financial crisis.”

The $2.385 billion civil monetary penalty resolves claims under FIRREA, which authorizes the federal government to impose civil penalties against financial institutions that violate various predicate offenses, including wire and mail fraud. The settlement expressly preserves the government’s ability to bring criminal charges against Goldman, and does not release any individuals from potential criminal or civil liability. In addition, as part of the settlement, Goldman agreed to fully cooperate with any ongoing investigations related to the conduct covered by the agreement.

Of the $875 million Goldman has agreed to pay to settle claims by various other federal and state entities: Goldman will pay $575 million to settle claims by the National Credit Union Administration, $37.5 million to settle claims by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines as successor to the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, $37.5 million to settle claims by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, $190 million to settle claims by the state of New York, $25 million to settle claims by the state of Illinois and $10 million to settle claims by the state of California.

Goldman will pay out the remaining $1.8 billion in the form of relief to aid consumers harmed by its unlawful conduct. $1.52 billion of that relief will be paid out pursuant to an agreement with the United States that Goldman will provide loan modifications, including loan forgiveness and forbearance, to distressed and underwater homeowners throughout the country, as well as financing for affordable rental and for-sale housing throughout the country. This agreement represents the largest commitment in any RMBS agreement to provide financing for affordable housing—a crucial need following the turmoil of the financial crisis. $280 million will be paid out by Goldman pursuant to an agreement separately negotiated with the state of New York.

The settlement includes a statement of facts to which Goldman has agreed. That statement of facts describes how Goldman made false and misleading representations to prospective investors about the characteristics of the loans it securitized and the ways in which Goldman would protect investors in its RMBS from harm (the quotes in the following paragraphs are from that agreed-upon statement of facts, unless otherwise noted):

  • Goldman told investors in offering documents that “[l]oans in the securitized pools were originated generally in accordance with the loan originator’s underwriting guidelines,” other than possible situations where “when the originator identified ‘compensating factors’ at the time of origination.” But Goldman has today acknowledged that, “Goldman received information indicating that, for certain loan pools, significant percentages of the loans reviewed did not conform to the representations made to investors about the pools of loans to be securitized.”
  • Specifically, Goldman has now acknowledged that, even when the results of its due diligence on samples of loans from those pools “indicated that the unsampled portions of the pools likely contained additional loans with credit exceptions, Goldman typically did not . . . identify and eliminate any additional loans with credit exceptions.” Goldman has acknowledged that it “failed to do this even when the samples included significant numbers of loans with credit exceptions.”
  • Goldman’s Mortgage Capital Committee, which included senior mortgage department personnel and employees from Goldman’s credit and legal departments, was required to approve every RMBS issued by Goldman. Goldman has now acknowledged that “[t]he Mortgage Capital Committee typically received . . . summaries of Goldman’s due diligence results for certain of the loan pools backing the securitization,” but that “[d]espite the high numbers of loans that Goldman had dropped from the loan pools, the Mortgage Capital Committee approved every RMBS that was presented to it between December 2005 and 2007.” As one example, in early 2007, Goldman approved and issued a subprime RMBS backed by loans originated by New Century Mortgage Corporation, after Goldman’s due diligence process found that one of the loan pools to be securitized included loans originated with “[e]xtremely aggressive underwriting,” and where Goldman dropped 25 percent of the loans from the due diligence sample on that pool without reviewing the unsampled 70 percent of the pool to determine whether those loans had similar problems.
  • Goldman has acknowledged that, for one August 2006 RMBS, the due diligence results for some of the loan pools resulted in an “unusually high” percentage of loans with credit and compliance defects. The Mortgage Capital Committee was presented with a summary of these results and asked “How do we know that we caught everything?” One transaction manager responded “we don’t.” Another transaction manager responded, “Depends on what you mean by everything? Because of the limited sampling . . . we don’t catch everything . . .” Goldman has now acknowledged that the Mortgage Capital Committee approved this RMBS for securitization without requiring any further due diligence.
  • Goldman made detailed representations to investors about its “counterparty qualification process” for vetting loan originators, and told investors and one rating agency that Goldman would engage in ongoing monitoring of loan sellers. Goldman has now acknowledged, however, that it “received certain negative information regarding the originators’ business practices” and that much of this information was not disclosed to investors.
  • For example, Goldman has now acknowledged that in late 2006 it conducted an internal analysis of the underwriting guidelines of Fremont Investment & Loan (an originator), which found many of Fremont’s guidelines to be “off market” or “at the aggressive end of market standards.” Instead of disclosing its view of Fremont’s underwriting, Goldman has acknowledged that it “[u]ndertook a significant marketing effort” to tell investors about what Goldman called Fremont’s “commitment to loan quality over volume” and “significant enhancements to Fremont underwriting guidelines.”  Fremont was shut down by federal regulators within several months of these statements.
  • In another example, Goldman was aware in early-mid 2006 of certain issues with Countrywide Financial Corporation’s origination process, including a pattern of non-responsiveness and inability to provide sufficient staff to handle the numerous loan pools Countrywide was selling. In April 2006, while Goldman was preparing an RMBS backed by Countrywide loans for securitization, a Goldman mortgage department manager circulated a “very bullish” equity research report that recommended the purchase of Countrywide stock. Goldman’s head of due diligence, who had just overseen the due diligence on six Countrywide pools, responded “If they only knew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .”
  • Meanwhile, as Goldman has acknowledged in this statement of facts, “[Around the end of 2006], Goldman employees observed signs of uncertainty in the residential mortgage market [and] by March 2007, Goldman had largely halted new purchases of subprime loan pools.”

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Colleen Kennedy and Kelli Taylor of the Eastern District of California investigated Goldman’s conduct in connection with RMBS, with the support of the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Office of the Inspector General (FHFA-OIG) and the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP).

“Goldman Sachs had a fiduciary responsibility to investors, which they blatantly side stepped,” said Deputy Inspector General for Investigation Rene Febles of FHFA-OIG. “They knowingly put investors at risk and in so doing contributed significantly to the financial crisis. The losses caused by this irresponsible behavior deeply affected not only financial institutions but also taxpayers and one can only hope that Goldman Sachs has learned the difference between risk and deceit. Two Federal Home Loan Banks suffered significant losses so we are pleased to see both entities receive a portion of this settlement. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to hold those accountable who have engaged in misconduct.”

“Goldman took $10 billion in TARP bailout funds knowing that it had fraudulently misrepresented to investors the quality of residential mortgages bundled into mortgage backed securities,” said Special Inspector General Christy Goldsmith Romero for TARP. “Many of these toxic securities were traded in a taxpayer funded bailout program that was designed to unlock frozen credit markets during the crisis. While crisis investigations take time, SIGTARP is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to protect taxpayers and bring accountability and justice.”

The settlement is part of the ongoing efforts of President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force’s RMBS Working Group, which has recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of American consumers and investors for claims against large financial institutions arising from misconduct related to the financial crisis. The RMBS Working Group brings together attorneys, investigators, analysts and staff from multiple state and federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the FBI, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), HUD’s Office of Inspector General, the FHFA-OIG, SIGTARP, the Federal Reserve Board’s OIG, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and multiple state Attorneys General offices around the country. The RMBS Working Group is led by Director Joshua Wilkenfeld and five co-chairs: Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mizer, Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Director Andrew Ceresney of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, U.S. Attorney John Walsh of the District of Colorado and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. This settlement is the fifth multibillion-dollar RMBS settlement announced by the working group.

Here’s a press release from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman:

NEW YORK — Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today joined members of the state and federal working group he co-chairs to announce a $5 billion settlement with Goldman Sachs over the bank’s deceptive practices leading up to the financial crisis. The settlement includes $670 million—$480 million worth of creditable consumer relief and $190 million in cash—that will be allocated to New York State. The resolution requires Goldman Sachs to provide significant community-level relief to New Yorkers, including resources that will facilitate a significant expansion of the New York State Mortgage Assistance Program enabling distressed homeowners to restructure their debt, as well as first-lien principal forgiveness, and funds to spur the construction of more affordable housing. Additional resources will be dedicated to helping communities transform their code enforcement systems, and invest in land banks and land trusts.

The settlement was negotiated through the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, a joint state and federal working group formed in 2012 to share resources and continue investigating wrongdoing in the mortgage-backed securities market prior to the financial crisis.

New York has now received $5.33 billion in cash and consumer relief from the National Mortgage Settlement (NMS) and all five Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group settlements (RMBS). The combined $3.2 billion in cash and consumer relief from RMBS settlements is more than any other state.

“Since 2012, my number one priority has been getting New Yorkers the resources they need to rebuild,” Attorney General Schneiderman said. “These dollars will immediately go to work funding proven programs and services to help New Yorkers keep their homes and rebuild their communities. We’ve witnessed the incredible impact these programs and services can have in helping communities recover from the financial crisis. This settlement, like those before it, ensures that these critical programs—such as mortgage assistance, principal forgiveness, and code enforcement—will continue to get funded well into the future, and will be paid for by the institutions responsible for the financial crisis.”

The settlement includes an agreed-upon statement of facts that describes how Goldman Sachs made multiple representations to RMBS investors about the quality of the mortgage loans it securitized and sold to investors, its process for screening out questionable loans, and its process for qualifying loan originators. Contrary to those representations, Goldman Sachs securitized and sold RMBS backed by large numbers of loans from originators whose mortgage loans contained material defects.

In the statement of facts, Goldman Sachs acknowledges that it securitized thousands of Alt-A, and subprime mortgage loans and sold the resulting residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) to investors for tens of billions of dollars. During the course of its due diligence process, Goldman Sachs received pertinent information indicating that significant percentages of the loans reviewed did not conform to the representations it made to investors. Goldman also received and failed to disclose negative information that it obtained regarding the originators’ business practices. Indeed, Goldman’s due diligence vendors provided Goldman with reports reflecting that the vendors had graded significant numbers and percentages of sampled loans as EV3s, i.e., not in compliance with originator underwriting guidelines. In certain circumstances, Goldman reevaluated loan grades and directed that such loans be waived into the pools to be purchased or securitized.

Even when the percentage of problematic loans in pools sampled by it vendors indicated that the unsampled portions of the pools likely contained additional such loans, Goldman typically did not increase the size of the sample or review the unsampled portions of the pools to identify and eliminate any additional such loans. In many cases, 80 percent or more of the loans in the loan pools Goldman purchased and securitized were not sampled for credit and compliance due diligence. Nevertheless, Goldman approved various offerings for securitization without requiring further due diligence to determine whether the remaining loans in the deal contained defects. A Goldman employee overseeing due diligence for a particular loan pool noted that the pool included loans originated with “[e]xtremely aggressive underwriting” and “large program exceptions made without compensating factors.” Despite this observation, Goldman did not review the remaining portion of the pool, and subsequently securitized thousands of loans from the pool.

Goldman made statements to investors in offering documents and in certain other marketing materials regarding its process for reviewing and approving originators, yet it failed to disclose to investors negative information it obtained about mortgage loan originators and its practice of securitizing loans from suspended originators.

Beginning in mid-2006, Goldman recognized that Fremont, a “key originator, was experiencing an increasing level of early payment defaults (“EPDs”) (i.e., loans for which the borrowers had failed to make one or more of their first payments). Goldman was aware that EPDs were a sign of originators’ bad credit decisions and could be indicators of potential borrower fraud. However, Goldman did not put Fremont on its “no bid” list and continued to purchase loan pools from Fremont during the period Fremont’s EPD claims remained unpaid. Moreover, Goldman “[u]ndertook a significant marketing effort” to tell investors about what Goldman called Fremont’s “commitment to loan quality over volume” and “significant enhancements to Fremont underwriting guidelines.” Likewise, Goldman identified issues with Countrywide’s origination practices. Goldman’s head of due diligence, when presented with a “very bullish” equity report on Countrywide, another large originator, exclaimed “[i]f they only knew  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .”

Attorney General Schneiderman was elected in 2010 and took office in 2011, when the five largest mortgage servicing banks, 49 state attorneys general, and the federal government were on the verge of agreeing to a settlement that would have released the banks—including Bank of America—from liability for virtually all misconduct related to the financial crisis. Attorney General Schneiderman refused to agree to such sweeping immunity for the banks. As a result, Attorney General Schneiderman secured a settlement that preserved a wide range of claims for further investigation and prosecution. In his 2012 State of the Union address, President Obama announced the formation of the RMBS Working Group. The collaboration brought together the Department of Justice (DOJ), other federal entities, and several state law enforcement officials—co-chaired by Attorney General Schneiderman—to investigate those responsible for misconduct contributing to the financial crisis through the pooling and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities.

Under today’s settlement, Goldman Sachs will be required to provide a minimum of $480 million in creditable consumer relief directly to struggling families and communities across the state. The settlement includes a menu of options for consumer relief to be provided, and different categories of relief are credited at different rates toward the bank’s $480 million obligation, including at least:

  • $220 million for debt restructuring
  • $30 million for land banks and land trusts
  • $30 million for code enforcement
  • $150 million for first-lien principal reduction
  • $50 million for the creation and preservation of affordable rental housing

In addition to the settlement with Goldman Sachs, the RMBS working group has reached settlements with four other major financial institutions since 2012:

  • J.P. Morgan Chase: $13 Billion
  • Bank of America: $16.6 Billion
  • Citibank: $7 Billion
  • Morgan Stanley: $3.2 Billion

The National Mortgage Settlement (NMS), reached with the five largest national mortgage servicers, has provided $51 billion in consumer relief and cash nationwide. The combined amount of cash and consumer relief that has been returned to New York as a result of all the RMBS and NMS deals is $1.481 billion in cash and $3.857 in consumer relief, for a total of $5.338 billion. This matter was led by Senior Enforcement Counsel for Economic Justice Steven Glassman and Assistant Attorneys General Desiree Cummings and Kenneth Haim, both of the Investor Protection Bureau.

 

Health Ranger: “California to throw adults in JAIL if they refuse government-mandated vaccines”


California to throw adults in JAIL if they refuse government-mandated vaccines

SB792
 (NaturalNews) In case you haven’t noticed, there’s an incremental push right now by the controlling elite to force vaccinations on all Americans, both young and old. And this agenda is gaining considerable traction in California, where legislators are now moving forward with plans to force childhood vaccines on all adults who work in daycare centers, both private and public.

Senate Bill 792, also known as the “Day care facilities: immunizations: exemptions” act, was presented quietly alongside SB 277, which eliminates personal, philosophical and religious vaccine exemptions for children who attend both private and public schools in the Golden State. The bill, as recently heard by the California Assembly Human Services Committee, reads as follows:

This bill, commencing September 1, 2016, would prohibit a day care center or a family day care home from employing any person who has not been immunized against influenza, pertussis, and measles.

If passed, SB 792 would represent the first adult vaccine mandate in the U.S. that disallows exemptions for personal reasons, and that threatens criminal penalties for those who fail or refuse to comply. Here’s how Vaccine Impact describes SB 792:

SB 792, would eliminate an adult’s right to exempt themselves from one, some, or all vaccines, a risk-laden medical procedure.


This bill would make California the first state to require mandated vaccinations for all childcare workers, including all private and public school early childhood education programs (Headstart, Private preK and preschools), family daycares, and daycare centers.

SB 792 represents medical violence against adults

An affront to both medical and religious liberty, SB 792 appears to be the wave of the future in New America, where the perceived health of the “herd” is now more important than the health of the individual. Never before in the history of the United States have legislators pushed this hard to literally force vaccine injections on the public under duress.

But why do they feel the need to do this if vaccines really work and are truly safe as claimed? The answer is that vaccines aren’t safe and effective, and more people than ever are acknowledging this truth and opting out of the “requirements” of the system through vaccine exemptions, hence the rush to eliminate these exemptions as quickly as possible, starting with California.

“This bill eliminates medical autonomy, crushes religious freedom, undermines personal freedom, and burdens quality providers with a non-optional series of medical interventions in the form of mandated vaccines that are not even 100% effective,” adds Vaccine Impact.

Contact California legislators and say NO to SB 792

As of this writing, SB 792 awaits a hearing by California’s Committee on Appropriations, having recently passed through the Assembly Human Services Committee with a 6-1 vote. The official vote tally reveals that the following members of this committee voted in FAVOR of passing SB 792:

Ian C. Calderon
Kansen Chu
Patty Lopez
Brian Maienschein
Mark Stone
Tony Thurmond

You can contact the above individuals here and let them know how you feel about their betrayal of medical freedom in California.

You can also contact the individual members of the Committee on Appropriations and tell them to vote AGAINST SB 792 by visiting: pro.assembly.ca.gov

If Americans sit idly by while corrupt legislators pass incremental bills like SB 277 and SB 792, it will only be a matter of time before even stricter bills come along mandating vaccinations for additional groups of people, until eventually everyone is forced into being vaccinated by the state for the benefit of “public health.”

“Laws like these are forging a burden of responsibility that is collectively shared by everyone,” writes Joshua Krause for GlobalResearch.ca.

“It won’t be long before they try to force vaccines on every adult and child in California. And if they pull it off there, legislators in other states will try to see if they can use the sheepish tyranny of majority rule to force vaccines on their citizens as well.”

Sources:

experimentalvaccines.org

vaccineimpact.com

globalresearch.ca

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

apro.assembly.ca.gov

$150 billion in bank fines and penalties


7 years on from crisis, $150 billion in bank fines and penalties
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/30/7-years-on-from-crisis-150-billion-in-bank-fines-and-penalties.html
John W. Schoen | @johnwschoen
Thursday, 30 Apr 2015 | 2:32 PM ET

(Scott Mlyn | CNBC )

Bank of America
Scott Mlyn | CNBC

More than seven years after the global financial collapse, regulators and investors are still working through an epic pile of lawsuits and other civil actions, collecting settlements, fines and other penalties for a long list of wrongdoing.

The latest settlement involved Bank of America, which agreed this week to pay $180 million to settle a lawsuit that claimed the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank and others manipulate foreign-exchange rates, according to The Wall Street Journal. JPMorgan Chase has already settled with the same investor group, while others, including Citigroup, are expected to settle soon, the The Journal notes.

The 2013 lawsuit claimed bank traders shared customer information to profit at their clients’ expense, according to the report.

The settlement follows a seven-year effort by federal and state regulators that included dozens of actions related to a broad range of misconduct and fraud, including bilking mortgage investors, laundering money and evading taxes. So far, banks and other institutions have paid more than $150 billion in fines, settlements and other penalties, according to a tally by the Financial Times.

That compares with roughly $700 billion in profits generated by U.S. banks between 2007 and 2014, according to Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data.

Financial penalties
Banks and other financial firms have paid more than $150 billion in fines, settlements and restitution to homeowners and investors since the finanical crisis. Click on a bubble for details, then hover over bars for payment descriptions. (SOURCE: Financial Times.)

Bank of America: $57.8 Billion
JPMorgan Chase: $31.3 Billion
Citigroup $12.8 Billion
Wells Fargo $ 9.7 Billion
PNB Paribas $ 8.9 Billion
HSBC $ 3.5 Billion
UBS $ 3.5 Billion
Sun Trust $ 2.9 Billion
Also listed are Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, but for which no amount of money is shown:

Bank of America
Scott Mlyn | CNBC

More than seven years after the global financial collapse, regulators and investors are still working through an epic pile of lawsuits and other civil actions, collecting settlements, fines and other penalties for a long list of wrongdoing.

The latest settlement involved Bank of America, which agreed this week to pay $180 million to settle a lawsuit that claimed the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank and others manipulate foreign-exchange rates, according to The Wall Street Journal. JPMorgan Chase has already settled with the same investor group, while others, including Citigroup, are expected to settle soon, the The Journal notes.

The 2013 lawsuit claimed bank traders shared customer information to profit at their clients’ expense, according to the report.

The settlement follows a seven-year effort by federal and state regulators that included dozens of actions related to a broad range of misconduct and fraud, including bilking mortgage investors, laundering money and evading taxes. So far, banks and other institutions have paid more than $150 billion in fines, settlements and other penalties, according to a tally by the Financial Times.

That compares with roughly $700 billion in profits generated by U.S. banks between 2007 and 2014, according to Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data.

Some of those involved charges against individual bankers. About 70 CEOs, CFOs and other senior corporate officers had been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission as of October, the latest data available. The SEC says it collected $3.6 billion in penalties and other payments related to the charges.

Bank of America
Scott Mlyn | CNBC

More than seven years after the global financial collapse, regulators and investors are still working through an epic pile of lawsuits and other civil actions, collecting settlements, fines and other penalties for a long list of wrongdoing.

The latest settlement involved Bank of America, which agreed this week to pay $180 million to settle a lawsuit that claimed the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank and others manipulate foreign-exchange rates, according to The Wall Street Journal. JPMorgan Chase has already settled with the same investor group, while others, including Citigroup, are expected to settle soon, the The Journal notes.

The 2013 lawsuit claimed bank traders shared customer information to profit at their clients’ expense, according to the report.

The settlement follows a seven-year effort by federal and state regulators that included dozens of actions related to a broad range of misconduct and fraud, including bilking mortgage investors, laundering money and evading taxes. So far, banks and other institutions have paid more than $150 billion in fines, settlements and other penalties, according to a tally by the Financial Times.

That compares with roughly $700 billion in profits generated by U.S. banks between 2007 and 2014, according to Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data.

Some of those involved charges against individual bankers. About 70 CEOs, CFOs and other senior corporate officers had been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission as of October, the latest data available. The SEC says it collected $3.6 billion in penalties and other payments related to the charges.

The biggest payments have gone to the Justice Department, which has collected some $50 billion, according to the FT tally.

Among the banks paying the biggest amounts, Bank of America tops the list—with nearly $58 billion, followed by JPMorgan Chase ($31.3 billion), Citigroup ($12.8 billion) and Wells Fargo ($9.7 billion).

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000375715

“It’s 300 TONS of Radioactive, Toxic Alphabet Soup of radioactive poisons, cesium…Strontium-90, Plutonium isotopes…Every Single Day For the Past Nearly 4 Years Now — 300 TONS EVERY DAY!!!


All I know to tell yall, is that the sheeple need to awaken, and something has to be done, or humankind will be on a trap into extinction. At least the way humankind is now. There may be a fucked up mutated mess of a human in a few generations, but babies being born without brains… and the other horrors that have been already experienced, everybody needs to get a grip!

TV: Unprecedented catastrophe underway at Fukushima… Radioactive material will keep coming across to North America for centuries — Gundersen: Melted nuclear fuel to bleed into ocean for decades, perhaps centuries… Entire Pacific is being contaminated (VIDEO)
Published: October 22nd, 2014 at 9:57 am ET
By ENENews
http://enenews.com/gundersen-fukushima-will-bleed-ocean-centuries-entire-pacific-contaminated-tv-will-keep-coming-across-north-america-years-centuries-unprecedented-catastrophe-video

image040 1

Arnie Gundersen, nuclear engineer, Oct. 20, 2014 (at 13:30 in): Chronic and long-lasting radioactive releases are [ongoing]… Fukushima continues to bleed into the ocean, because those nuclear cores have melted down and are in direct contact with the groundwater. It will bleed for centuries perhaps, and certainly decades to come. So when you compare these nuclear accidents… [Chernobyl] didn’t hit groundwater… The bottom line is that accidents are getting worse… Chernobyl contaminated all of Europe – Fukushima is contaminating the entire Pacific. >> Watch presentation here

Kevin Kamps, nuclear waste watchdog, Oct. 21, 2014 (at 46:00 in): It shows what’s really been expected, that the massive releases of radioactivity — both atmospheric, that fell out on the ocean, and liquid, that are still on a daily basis pouring into the ocean — are slowly, or not so slowly, making their way to the North American coastline… This is going to keep going on for years, decades, even centuries into the future… Everyday, it’s 300 tons of radioactive groundwater that flows into the sea – every single day for the past nearly 4 years now — 300 tons of radioactive groundwater, containing a toxic alphabet soup of radioactive poisons, cesium… strontium-90, plutonium isotopes. That’s each and every day, so it is an unprecedented catastrophe for the oceans… The significance is — that is open ocean sea water. The bioaccumulation, biomagnification — we’re talking about orders of magnitude concentration of these radioactive poisons. First plankton, then go up the food chain — we are at the top of that food chain. So that’s just going to get worse the further up the food chain you go. It’s a very significant issue that the US federal government and the state governments are not paying attention to. >> Watch broadcast here

See also: Fukushima nuclear waste detected off U.S. West Coast, from California to Canada — “There is definitely offshore Fukushima cesium now” — Test results will not be revealed to public for several weeks (VIDEO)