The Blessing (And Curse) That Is The "Linda Green" Signature

Tyler Durden's picture

When we presented our follow up post on Sarah Palin's recent house purchase, various elements from the Pavlovian fringe decided to make the idiotic assumption that the post, and the one preceding it, were some hit piece targeting the presidential candidate. Actually, no. Frankly, we have absolutely no opinion of Ms. Palin, and as such have no intention of writing "hit pieces", or any pieces, targeting her. The whole point of the posts was to demonstrate that even a person, who soon may or may not be president of America, could have fallen for what is now the most massive mortgage fraud scheme in the history of this country (which will certainly cost banks tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to ultimately resolve). And while we will have many more discoveries on the matter soon, as we pointed out, the key link in the whole story is the mythical entity known as "Linda Green." While the backstory is by now very well known by most, for those to whom the reference is still unclear, we present the following investigative reporting piece by WHDH.com which explains why the Linda Green signature appearing anywhere in one's mortgage doc history, is a "blessing" and comparable to winning the lottery. Furthermore, we make no ethical judgments about whether strategically defaulting on one's mortgage is "good" or "bad" - the reality is that we are where we are. As Marie McDonnell, a Forensic Mortgage Analyst says, "I'm speechless. The scope of the problem is unimaginable, the depth of the fraud is shocking." And therein lies the rub: when all is said and done, banks will ultimately be saddled with another massive round of losses, which will then necessitate another round of taxpayer bailouts, which will then likely be orchestrated by the mainstream media machine as a conflict between those who pay their mortgages and those who don't, instead of focusing on the core problem: unimaginable greed by the financial system to do whatever it takes to fatten the bottom line, which includes breaking the law. And the longer we pretend the problem does not exist, the bigger the ultimate bail out (see Greece).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
augie's picture

wait a second. Is linda green the same name used on Barack's birth certificate?

 

I just realized all to late someone has totaly used that joke before.

boo me.

chet's picture

I'll write a hit on her:  she's a fucking idiot.

CrazyCooter's picture

Having moved to Alaska from Texas earlier this year, I finally figured out why Palin was so popular/is popular with certain demographics ... this genuinely eluded me for a very long time.

Once upon a time, Palin was a "small town" politico that got elected governor. She was not really backed by oil interests (a big influence in Alaska). As a result, she didn't support oil interests as governor and engaged in policy that was broadly popular within the state (the current governor is a former oil lobbyist and his policy isn't very popular as best I can tell). Colloquially, she "socked it to the good ol' boys" and did the peoples business. This was the "tea party" roots she will later try to claim.

Being an avid tea partier since the first protest rallies in Dallas in front of City Hall, I never liked Palin for a lot of reasons. What I later realized is that when she got sucked into the national scene, she got "professional handlers". The instincts that had served her well to that date were right out the window.

I have reached the conclusion she was doing so much damage to the oil industry lobby agenda that they paired her with McCain and did whatever they had to do to run her out of town. This agenda succeeded. She QUIT the governorship for Christ's sake. QUIT! How many politicos would QUIT a GOVERNORSHIP? Think about that.

Anyway, what this has exposed in time, partly due to her new handlers and partly the inner narcissist that is almost all politicians, is that she is just another narcissistic politician.

Just thought I would share...

Regards,

Cooter

pan-the-ist's picture

Duh.  Where have you been?  Now shut off O'Reilly already.

CrazyCooter's picture

I have not watched TV (I assume you mean Fox O'Reilly) in ... 10+ years.

I do not own a TV, nor have I owned a TV or paid for cable in ... 10+ years.

I hope the demeanor and candor of my comments bear this out. You are welcome to log in and check out what I post.

I really could care less what you think.

Why must everyone define reality in terms of TV? Bruce Krasting had a great YouTube that insinuated that folks are TV heads (damn if I can find the link). He only did a few YouTube posts on ZH, but ... I suck at searching aparently ... see him if you care to learn something ... else take my comments at face value.

If I was running the show ... well ... it doesn't matter ... "gravity" will continue to be paitent and in time, things will return to "stable resting places".

I hope you, and your family, prepare accordingly.

Regards,

Cooter

 

DarkAgeAhead's picture

There is no such thing as a stable resting place.  Not even 6 feet under.  The coming Change will hurt, particularly those bracing or awaiting stability.

Shell Game's picture

Makes a lot of sense, thanks Cooter.

tarsubil's picture

"Anyway, what this has exposed in time, partly due to her new handlers and partly the inner narcissist that is almost all politicians, is that she is just another narcissistic politician."

Basically. So many politicians change when they get to Washington, DC or involved with national politics, it makes you think that the tea party is a futile effort.

famousamos's picture

Fraudclosure Bitchez!

JLee2027's picture

Exactly. No bailouts for the banks, they committed fraud and broke the chain of title, while most of us just stuggled to pay our own bills. Now we should pay theirs too?  No way.

I think the end result will be squatters win. For those with a MERS mortgage in foreclosure, hang in there guys, DON'T let the banks boot you.  If you get a default notice, write them a letter, send a fax and challenge it. Make them prove they have an original mortgage note, and ask them their authority to assign mortgage through MERS. Claim they are committing fraud (which they are through MERS).  Tell them if they persist in trying to take your house you will sue them. This does stop some of the banks and attorneys dead in their tracks, especially if they KNOW the paperwork has flaws. 

If that doesn't work fight them in court every step of the way and when you lose, appeal. File pro se if you have to. When you lose and they try to evict you, file again in court and appeal that if you lose. You can hold out for years while the courts figure things out. By that time, the illegal business practice known as MERS should be dead and the survivors will get title.

Do not fall for the refinancing gimmick. That is their chance to "fix" the papers and really trap you. I know it's hard, but ignore it. 

BTW, if that is Palin's new house and there are title issues, they have a moral obligation to back out of the sale. There are plenty of homes available, as we all sadly know.

patb's picture

what prevents someone from submitting a forged
release of deed of trust using the Linda Green Signature?

Submit it showing the deed is released to some
other bizarre MERS entity.

The paperwork is so messed up, how would they know?

JLee2027's picture

You or them committing fraud? If you're suggesting it, that's just stupid. You go to jail, they go free, as always. But...if it's them:

That's why you need to challenge it immediately to the entity that claims to be foreclosing, then again in court. They have dubious authority through MERS to make these assignments, as the authority is self-given and violates state laws in some cases.

I am not a lawyer, but I am a homeowner who's been through this. "They" are crooked as the day is long. Stand up and fight!

bonderøven-farm ass's picture

How are you to find out if your mortgage lender used MERS?  Is there a list of lenders that can be found online somewhere?

Thisson's picture

Go to your county clerk's property registry department and check who has registered your mortgage.  Not too difficult.

JLee2027's picture

How are you to find out if your mortgage lender used MERS?

It's on your Deed of Trust from the Settlement you went to. BTW, if you last settled between 2002 and 2007, chances are pretty high. Also, you can search by your propery address here:

https://www.mers-servicerid.org/sis/

Screenshot everything on YOUR MORTGAGE, so if it changes, you have a trail.

buzzsaw99's picture

Will the real Linda Green please stand up... and show us your titties?

I Got Worms's picture

Accidentlly junked you. Fat finger trying to hit reply.

Regarding the real Linda Green's tiddies, if you saw that 60 Minutes piece where she was interveiwed - you do not want any part of those!

buzzsaw99's picture

un-junk me worms!

edit:

OMG!! Google:

 

the real linda green mortgage signature

I'M #1 BITCHEZ!!

FOC 1183's picture

+1 for the laugh. But of course, I now have to junk you just to maintain ZH karma

blunderdog's picture

Don't be silly.  There's a Linda Green out there who's right for each and every one of us.

williambanzai7's picture

After seeing who the real Linda Green is, you don't want this, trust me.

Hacksaw's picture

They had her on TV, some old cracker living in a trailer down in Georgia if I remember correctly.

Rodent Freikorps's picture

Palin supporters have a good reason to have a thin skin. The attacks on Palin - a private citizen - by the MFM are unprecedented.

What other human has ever been as persecuted by the media? And over bullshit as trivial as her wardrobe? WTF?

chet's picture

The media persecutes someone different every week.  What are you talking about? 

Right now, it is DSK.  Last week it was Trump.  The month before that it was Kate Plus 8.

Manthong's picture

K+8 deserves an ankle bracelet and (hard) time as houskeeper at DSK's new digs.

delacroix's picture

she gets persecuted, because she is an idiot, and corrupt to boot.

JW n FL's picture

but shes such a great Mother! look at the job she did with those kids!

ISEEIT's picture

Yeah, you sure got that one there figer'ed out! Only geniuses like obama should be allowed to rule us. Sure has worked out well following the MSM's pick!

The mark of a great president? Assassination. So maybe we won't get great but somebody not sponsored by Goldman's or B.P. might be worth a gamble?

 

JPG101's picture

Palin is not a private citizen by her own desire. Saying someone who might run for the office of president is a private citizen is twisted logic at best. She is a media-political personality. She is on Fox and shows up (for a very big fee) wherever a right wing thought thug is needed.

JLee2027's picture

Thug? Don't make me laugh.

She's a babe in the woods compared to thugs son.  You must mistake reminding the world of how this country was founded as thuggary. The "thugs" are the ones who want all of us to forget that and accept their rule, cause they say so.

topcallingtroll's picture

You make a very good point as to why we should have never changed the property requirement for voting.

Bob's picture

It was the "thought" part that made me laugh.   Funny!

Things that go bump's picture

Persecuted!  There is an old showbiz saying that any publicity is good publicity.  There are politicians who would pay good money for the attention that is wasted on her.  

tarsubil's picture

That's true and she is reaping the benefits. It is just conservatives see the nitpicking and highly critical coverage of Palin and compare it with the bootlicking coverage of Obama and get upset. The assumption is then that Palin really does represent country folk but it is simply more identity politics like with W and Obama. They are all scumbags.

Hacksaw's picture

Poor little Sarah, of course those sort of things seem to happen to self righteous bitches. It tends to come back and bite you in the buttocks when you attack someone else on their morals when your family is full of alley cats. You better be pure as the driven snow if you are going to play the family values card in politics. Just ask Newt, he can tell you all about it.

SRV - ES339's picture

Palin supporters have a good reason to have a thin skin. The attacks on Palin - a private citizen - by the MFM are unprecedented

Another sexually frustrated old white guy with a crush on the Annie Oakly wannabe bimbo!

BTW... Palin is not a private citizen, she craves (and nurtures) ANY publicity so horny, pathetic white guys will pay thousands of $s to drool over her, while she recites meaningless gibberish written on the palm of her hand... and she's making millions off mouth breathing rodents dumb enough to fall for her shtick!

The lady is dumb as a post, and an embarassment to even her own party... she will milk this (you) until 2012, and will then fade into obscurity... with millions stolen from you and your friends.

Clycntct's picture

Please let it not be. Radiation may be a better choice.

" who soon may or may not be president of America"

jal's picture

" ... which will certainly cost banks tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to ultimately resolve)"

What about the pension funds. They should get their money back because of the fraud. How much will the lawyer and accountants charge the pension fund for getting the money back from the banks. 

 

As usual, the accountants and the lawyers that invented the fraud are going below the radar and making a fortune.

jal

JLee2027's picture

There's no fix, it's TSUF - Too Screwed Up to Fix.

System collapse is coming. Inevitable really.

Shell Game's picture

Surprising that there are folks with the wherewithal to direct their browsers to ZH, and yet still defend one of the two parties.  Insane.

Rynak's picture

Never really understood this as well. Though to be fair, even if it isn't left vs. right, the average ZH-member is not free of biases based on dichotomies.

For example, because of the current rampant crap produced by collectivism and governments, there overally is a bias towards anarchism and individualism. Holding such a position may make sense right now for strategic reasons... but actually permanently believing this, is just falling for another false dualism.

I understand that on such a popular site as ZH, it cannot be prevented that such fanboyish "campers" exist. Still, it's kinda sad seeing people who realize the deception of some dichotomies, and who then fall for the next one.

Clay Hill's picture

"For example, because of the current rampant crap produced by collectivism and governments, there overally is a bias towards anarchism and individualism. Holding such a position may make sense right now for strategic reasons... but actually permanently believing this, is just falling for another false dualism."

 

Rynak, this is not an attack, but you may want to reconsider that last bit.

I don't consider my personal, Individual rights as a false dualism, paradigm, meme or any kind of easily dismissed -ism. I feel the same way about your rights, and any other person, especially those who contribute to society without a governmental mandate to do so.

Perhaps you could clear it up for me?

Rynak's picture

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Okay, let me put it as simple as it can get:

Observation: Collevtive and collective control acts bad.

Reaction: Collective and collective control bad. Individual good.

Problem: This is a dichotomy. Where there are multiple individuals, there is a collective. Where there is a collective, there are individuals. Both is just a matter of scale anyways. And where there is a collective, there is a need for coordination between individuals.

So, i'm not saying "your individual rights and needs don't matter". I ALSO do not say "collective control and needs don't matter".... instead, i reject this dichotomy alltogether.... i say "Each cannot exist without the other anyways. Thus BOTH matters, and the question is just HOW individuals interact with each other and HOW collective needs are managed". The problem as well as solution does not lie in which of both is right, but how both works and interacts with each other. After all, isn't that precisely this is totally broken right now, the reason why we are so dissatisfied?

Clay Hill's picture

Cool. \

Now we can get down to haggling over the chain of command.

I propose that given what I consider one and a half centuries of governmental excess, maybe we need a prolonged phase of Individual rights returning to primacy. To facilitate this, many of the Institutions now in place will of course need to be abolished.

Rynak's picture

The problem is that if you do not set limits to individual rights (including large scale consequences), you just end up with another variant of the oh so hated "oligarchy". Simple example: If the power of corporations, as well as individuals, does not have an upper limit (which may be a soft limit), it is just a matter of time until you get another "marketmaker".

I do agree that a strong reduction in gov size and coverage is desirable, if only to "start learning to selfsustain and balance a small collective infrastructure, before going to a midsized infrastructure". Clear limitations, both at the bottom as well as the top, are however necessary anyways.... in fact, you CANNOT have a free market without enforced lower and upper limits, because if you do not have them, then it is just a matter of time until agents either cannot enter the market anymore, or cannot leave it anymore via monopolies. A sustainable free market is dynamicity in a defined "range".

Bottom line: Individual rights only are as good the collective rights (and enforcement). We may not need such a fat set of collective infrastructure and regulation, but we DO need a good one, for individual freedoms to be protected.

Clay Hill's picture

I do agree that there are legitimate functions for Gov't to perform. By necessity the Individual lends power to the Collective in good faith that their rights and the rights of others will be protected. So far so good.

 

I do not agree with the concept of "Corporate Personhood", I consider it bad jurisprudence, that can only lead to the harm of the Individual, and the Collective. Without this fallacious concept in play, the limits you mention are easier to define and enforce. Individuals are somewhat self-limiting in a way that Corporations are not, "on a long enough timeline...".

 

Now back to Gov't.

The fact that every level of Gov't seeks to increase its power at the expense of Individual rights is not a new development, but is in fact part of its' nature. Gov't is force. Over time errors creep in, some by default, some by design. Gov't is made up of people, and their flaws are reflected in the finished product. This is unavoidable.

As it stand now, the Gov't we have has grown to the point that Indivivdual rights are threatened by what must surely be seen as an approaching police state, if in fact it has not already arrived. The economically burdensome social welfare experimentation supported by Gov't power to tax weakens the family structure (whatever flavor you call family is O.K. with me BTW), and thereby society as a whole.

Forgive me if I (and many others, no doubt) are willing to throw this ugly baby out with the bathwater and start over. At some point, a sane person with a genuine concern for posterity must begin to sense it as a duty.

 

 

 

Rynak's picture

I do agree that there are legitimate functions for Gov't to perform. By necessity the Individual lends power to the Collective in good faith that their rights and the rights of others will be protected. So far so good.

I'd like to reinforce this. This is something which i strongly miss from current systems. While it may be true that some payments or work-contributions (if one uses the relevant services) must be mandatory (i.e. streets, water infrastructure, etc), it should be MUCH more pronounced that citizens grant the state the means to do certain things, NOT the state without popular backing doing things and extorting the population for the required ressources. With this, i do not mean that citizens should "vote" and "allow" every single damn tiny program, but if there is popular rejection of certain programs, the population should be able to *directly* reject funding unless its demands are met.

I do not agree with the concept of "Corporate Personhood", I consider it bad jurisprudence, that can only lead to the harm of the Individual, and the Collective. Without this fallacious concept in play, the limits you mention are easier to define and enforce. Individuals are somewhat self-limiting in a way that Corporations are not, "on a long enough timeline...".

Mostly agree, though i am not so confident yet about the "how". So, i do consider corporate personhood a problem, but am not confident yet how to replace the role of this concept.

@Gov corruption and power accumulation:

I doubt that there is one concept to fix it all, and describing all the necessary implementation details would also probably go beyond the size of a post. Plus, i for logical reasons consider it impossible to create a model, that cannot be corrupted (for the simple reason, that humans can change any model, given enough time/effort). I do however think, that there are some guidelines that do increase resistance against corruption:

1. Transparency. Every deception relies on it not being detected by the majority. Truth is the #1 enemy of lies. Actions of the gov, as well as the laws, should be detectable by anyone interested in it, and be understandable without unreasonable effort (i.e. simplicity and explanation matters here. Take for example current laws: Such a complicated mess that no sane person can understand it anymore without a lawyer).

2. Strong cooperation and sharing of work, between the coordinating body (state) and the population. In a nutshell, what i mean is less "gov does everything, and citizen just consumes", and more "gov and citizens cooperate and share the workload, decision and responsibility".

3. Fuck elections. This is designed for drones voting for big daddyy to decide everything for them. Democracy exclusively via elections is just a joke..... simply there to give mentally retarded people the sense of being able to decide, while precisely offloading all decision and responsibility to the gov. Not saying that there should be no elections at all, but all major gov programs, should be rejectable via direct vote on said program.

4. Making parties and politicians more accountable for what they do, ACROSS election terms. For example, if a party runs a significant budget deficit, it should lack precisely those ressources, when it is elected the next time. Some stupid laws and persecution isn't enough... make them feel the consequences of their actions, by them being affected by the consequences of their actions.