Skip to main content

View Diary: NY Atty. Gen. Schneiderman LOVES Today's Mortgage Fraud Deal. UPDATED x3 Liz Warren Likes it Too! (261 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Only if what they did was (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fogiv, ericlewis0

    criminal at the time they did it.  That's what keeps getting lost in the noise and fury.  Very little of what they did was illegal at the time.  Why?  Because Congress made the rules the banks wanted made.  We can be pissed about that, but that doesn't change reality.  Getting anything from the banks at all is really remarkable.  And no, there will never be fairness in any of this for the people who ended up in foreclosure.  

    I'm hoping that the near-complete collapse of our system ends up making all of us smarter consumers and smarter voters.  There is some personal responsibility here that needs to be taken as well.  People who bought homes they could barely afford when things were rosy made bad decisions.  

    I've made exactly the same kinds of bad decisions, and the consequences taught me to live differently.  I'd love to live in a spacious place with central heat and central air.  I'd love to take a shower in the winter without having to get that space heater going an hour ahead of time.  I'd like to sit on a warm toilet seat some mornings.  I'd love to have a dining room table that doesn't serve as my desk, the stand for the 9" TV, the sewing table, the junk I need table.  I could have a lot of that if I was willing to take the chance that my income won't suddenly drop, leaving me with a rent payment I can't make and a lease I can't fulfill.  I can't bear the thought of reliving 2002 - 2004 again so I live within my means, no credit, no debt.  

    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

    by I love OCD on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 10:58:50 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, robosigning's fraud and that IS criminal N/ (0+ / 0-)

      Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

      by FarWestGirl on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 11:51:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My understanding is that robosigning (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        by the shadow banks coudn;t be prosecuted because they were unregulated and there was no oversight.  And most of the robosigning took place in the shadow banking area.

        I could be wrong, it's a complex issue and I may have misread this.

        Aren't there already some prosecutions against banks robosigning?  This agreement didn't prevent criminal investigations and is, in fact, channeling money into expanding them.

        I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

        by I love OCD on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 02:06:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My understanding is that the papers they were (0+ / 0-)

          signing were affidavits stating that they had personally reviewed and checked all the other paperwork and that signing them without having done so was perjury. That's what I gathered, anyway.

          Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

          by FarWestGirl on Fri Feb 10, 2012 at 10:26:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Robosigning involved (0+ / 0-)

          *Counterfeiting - creating or re-creating from whole cloth original mortgage documents and or notes and presenting them as original documents.

          *forgery - signing another person's signature as your own

          The excuse I have seen for the practice is that it is "surrogate signatures" which is perfectly legal because it was done with the internal permission and knowledge of the company doing the robosigning. That excuse doesn't address the fact that while the company may know internally the signature is faked, the court and the homeowner DON'T and it is being presented as the true signature of the person who is AUTHORIZED to sign. The faked signatures are in an extremely important part of the process that affirms that a QUALIFIED person has read and reviewed the file and asserts that the contents within are true.

          In fact, an UNQUALIFIED person is making that representation, after NO REVIEW, and presenting the file to the courts. To me, simple layperson that I am, this seems like forgery because the intent is to deceive the persons outside the company, the people within are moot. It also seems like a perjury to the court and it also seems like filing false affidavits.

          Notary fraud - the corrupted counterfeited forged perjured files noted above are then signed by a non-notary using the notary stamp issued to another. The notary is attesting that the name on the file is the person signing when we already know that isn't the case.

          We haven't even addressed the contents of the file itself which may be filled with bogus and inflated fees, often derived from misapplied payments.

          The apologist cover phrase for robo-signing is "sloppy paperwork".  It's sloppy paperwork in the same sense as a  misspelled robbery note.

          This "sloppy paperwork" is part of the due process of an American homeowner losing their most precious possession - their house. Do we not all have the right to expect that if we do lose our homes to foreclosure that it won't be because of counterfeited documents, forged signatures, false affidavits and incompetent or malicious accounting?

          I won't even attempt to get into what robosigning and foreclosure fraud does to the chain of title.

          Anyway, there are plenty of easily recognizable crimes in robosigning. Unregulated "shadow banking" has nothing to do with it.

          “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

          by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 04:17:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site