This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Is HR3808 The Equivalent Of TARP 2 And Obama's "Get Out Of Bail" Gift Card For The High Frequency Signing Scandal?

Tyler Durden's picture


Now that the High Frequency Signing (HFS, not to be confused with HFT) scandal is mainstream, and virtually every single foreclosure in the US in the past several years is under question, with the impact on mortgage servicers (who just happen to be the TBTF banks) could be just as dire as the fallout from the credit crunch, it appears that the get out of jail card for the banking syndicate has once again materialized, this time in the form of bill HR3808: Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009, sponsored by Republican representative Robert Aderholt. The bill, it turns out, has passed both congress and senate, and is now quietly awaiting for Obama's signature to be enacted into law. In summary, the bill requires all federal and state courts to recognize notarizations made in other states. That's the theoretical definition: the practical one - the legislation, if enacted, could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents. In other words, with one simple signature Obama has the capacity to prevent tens of billions in damages to banks from legal fees, MBS deficiency claims, unwound sales, and to formally make what started this whole mess: Court Fraud perpetrated by banks, a legal act, and to finally trample over the constitution. Will Obama do it? Potentially - the banking lobby certainly has enough power over him and his superiors, the members of the FOMC. On the other hand, the populist revolt that will surely follow the enactment of such a law will certainly end any dreams of a second term, and potentially of a completed first one. The drama is now on: will Obama openly side on behalf of the bankers (without a "blame the republicans" fall back this time) or of the foreclosure "victims" (granted, the bulk of whom are deadbeat homeowners who should never have owned a home to begin with). We doubt a decision will be reached before the midterms, although quite a bit now hangs in the balance.

Reuters explains the situation:

A bill that homeowners advocates warn will make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors is awaiting President Barack Obama's signature after it quietly zoomed through the Senate last week.

The bill, passed without public debate in a way that even surprised its main sponsor, Republican Representative Robert Aderholt, requires courts to accept as valid document notarizations made out of state, making it harder to challenge the authenticity of foreclosure and other legal documents.

The timing raised eyebrows, coming during a rising furor over improper affidavits and other filings in foreclosure actions by large mortgage processors such as GMAC, JPMorgan and Bank of America.

Questions about improper notarizations have figured prominently in challenges to the validity of these court documents, and led to widespread halts of foreclosure proceedings.

The legislation could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents.

The White House said it is reviewing the legislation.

"It is troubling to me and curious that it passed so quietly," Thomas Cox, a Maine lawyer representing homeowners contesting foreclosures, told Reuters in an interview.

The timing certainly is odd. As readers will recall, the event that catalyzed it all occurred on September 16, giving the banking lobby sufficient time to flex its tentacles and get passage enacted quickly and quietly.

After languishing for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill passed the Senate with lightning speed and with hardly any public awareness of the bill's existence on September 27, the day before the Senate recessed for midterm election campaign.

The bill's approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn't acted on it.

The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent.

It appears the chief culprit for the prompt and clinical Senate passage is one Patrick Leahy and one Jeff Sessions:

Senate staffers familiar with the judiciary committee's actions said the latest one passed by the House seemed destined for the same fate. But shortly before the Senate's recess, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pressed to have the bill rushed through the special procedure, after Leahy "constituents" called him and pressed for passage.

The staffers said they didn't know who these constituents were or if anyone representing the mortgage industry or other interests had pressed for the bill to go through.

These staffers said that, in an unusual display of bipartisanship, Senator Jeff Sessions, the committee's senior Republican, also helped to engineer the Senate's unanimous consent for the bill.

Neither Leahy's nor Session's offices responded to requests for comment Wednesday.

As for the bill sponsor, it appears his interest is rather innocuous compared to what may have been a solid 30 pieces of silver before the abovementioned two gentlemen:

The bill was first sponsored by Aderholt in 2006. He told Reuters in an interview that he proposed it because a court stenographer in his district had asked for it due to problems with getting courts in other states to accept depositions notarized in Alabama.

Aderholt said organizations of court stenographers supported the bill, but said he wasn't aware of any backing by banks or other business groups.

Aderholt said that he hadn't expected the Senate to pass the bill, and "we were surprised that it came through at the eleventh hour there."

Unfortunately even if the prompt Senatorial passage of the bill was the bankers' plan all along, they may have shot themselves in the foot by leaving it up to the president to determine if America is now a banker corporatocracy (what some may call a fascist regime), or still a place that believes in laws and regulations, as broken as they may be, in broad daylight. Our sense, is that this bill will not pass, although we have on many occasions in the past underestimated the degree of corruption in this country. On the other hand, should tens of millions of Americans have a crystallized image of one person who in their view will be "responsible" for their inability to pay their mortgage bill on time, then we just may be one step closer to the full societal collapse that many predict will accompany the end of Keynesianism.

The ball is now in the president's court.

h/t Jeff


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:23 | 631078 Orly
Orly's picture

Seems like they have done their research on this one already.  Must have taken some time, huh?  Such efficiency is so rarely seen in the US government.


Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:42 | 631122 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

This bill looks to have the vaunted bi-partisan support so seldom seen. 

Red team, blue team, they both are part of the same league.  Keep cheering and buying giant foam #1 fingers for "your" team and booing the other team.  Your vote really does make a difference, just like your cheering from the cheap seats at The Big Game.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:05 | 631194 Orly
Orly's picture

The entire charade has smelled of some duplicitous script run for the diversion of Mr. and Mrs. J. S. Pack.  How and when do they have time to write this stuff?  Incredible!

And everyone all together: Bernanke, Posen, Dudley and now that guy from Minnesota, plus Grayson and gang all pulling along the dog before the pony.

Propaganda masters par excellence!

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 03:25 | 631467 i-dog
i-dog's picture

"will Obama openly side on behalf of the bankers?"

Ummm ... let's take a vote from former presidents Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, Wilson, Eisenhower and Kennedy on this one ... Do I refuse to sign and get assassinated (after which Biden, then Pelosi, will be handed the pen to take the same decision), or do I sign and enact martial law just a year or so earlier than planned? What do you guys think?

[edit] See 'Everyman's post below ... the impact of this bill may not be anywhere as serious as first thought. So he probably won't sign ... and the MSM will praise him!

Indeed, if the bill gets signed, that will reinforce the perjury IN the affidavit rather than diverting the blame onto some hapless/witless notary. Sign it, Barry!

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 06:28 | 631691 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I read everyman's comment and the bill.  This bill could fix a small problem in a legal defence that these foreclosure cases hinge on that isn't obvious just yet.  The timing of the bill should call it into question.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:17 | 631216 Deacon Frost
Deacon Frost's picture

bi-partisan indeed

Look how the vote was conducted.

Votes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept. Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept. (emphasis added)
Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:32 | 631247 MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

At least you know how all the senators voted. 

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:11 | 631306 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Not so, Missy, or so it is stated in the record:

Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.   Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

I'll post my comment from another article:

on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 13:07

2) The Mortgage Fraud...

Our "lawmakers" in Congress can fix that with the stroke of a pen.  It won't be pretty nor neat, but they can.   And, rest assured, they'll do it to the advantage of the banks in the objective of "strengthening their balance sheets".

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:18 | 631323 MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

This bill passed in theSenate by Unanimous Consent.

All the senators had to vote yes for this to be true or I am missing your meaning.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:30 | 631342 Orly
Orly's picture

All those present.  As long as a quorum ensued, then the vote is legal.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:50 | 631364 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Exactly.   And where is the list of who was present?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 01:09 | 631383 knukles
knukles's picture

And so now, somebody tell me there ain't no Power Elite.  When these assholes run afoul of their own law, they just dismantle it.

Used to be when I was a kid, most decision making was based upon whether something was Moral or Immoral.  Then it came to pass that alternatives were weighed on whether something was Right or Wrong.   Time goes by and it becomes whether it is Legal or Illegal.   Then it deteriorates to What Can I Get Away With Without Being Caught.  But not having enough degrees of freedom, it slides even further to Nobody's Gonna do Shit About It Anyway or I'll Just Change the Law as it that Applies To Me and Fuck Everybody Else. 

Long ago, wise men commiserated as to the Thin Veneer of Civilisation being damaged.  Now, a Civilised Society based upon the Rule of Law is being Summarily Dismantled by those Vested with the Responsibility to Maintain Such.

End of Game.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 06:27 | 631688 Bob
Bob's picture

+Fat lady starting to sing.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 07:56 | 631753 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Knuckles, you are so judgemental.  Get into the 21st Century, will you <\sarc>

- Ned

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 07:17 | 631717 Xedus129
Xedus129's picture

That's the same way they passed the start of this whole game.. the FED.  Some obscure vote time and a slight of hand

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 01:17 | 631393 LostWages
LostWages's picture

Be interesting to see how many "campaign contributions" were made just before the vote.

We still have the best politicians money can buy, including the telepromter in chief.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 09:31 | 631948 Lux Fiat
Lux Fiat's picture

I'll have to add the ability of Congress to pass legislation with no vote traceability to my laundry list of things that Congress should not be able to do.  Of course, I'd like to see Congress subject to every law they have ever passed - no exceptions.  However, I'm not holding my breath.

Makes me wonder if anyone has ever challenged the constitutionality of any law passed this way.  If I can't tell how my elected representatives voted, then as a voter, I don't have any way to determine whether they are representing me.  From my perspective, it's like an intentional abrogation of representative democracy.  Ok, I'm no constitutional scholar or legal expert, but this manuever stinks worse than a skunk.  It's wrong on a moral level, but it would be interesting to know from much more knowledgeable law folks if there is any chance it could be wrong on a legal basis?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 02:07 | 631456 midtowng
midtowng's picture

The bi-partisanship of this bill is the most notable event. People should stop thinking about this as Democrats vs. Republicans, and start thinking about this as the wealthy elite versus the rest of us.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 09:00 | 631877 JohnKing
JohnKing's picture

Two party crime syndicate.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:29 | 631085 Florida Joe
Florida Joe's picture

Please withdraw, or provide backup numbers and calculations for your assertion that: "the foreclosure "victims" (granted, the bulk of whom are deadbeat homeowners who should never have owned a home to begin with). "

(i.e. prove you have the backup as to it is a "bulk" of them.) 


Otherwise, I agree that these banks are so powerful they can change the rules AFTER the game so as to never ever lose. If Obama signs it he will lose HUGE.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:18 | 631217 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't it patently obvious that if you are foreclosed upon, you should not have levered so much?

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:56 | 631287 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Good question.

Does this bill merely make it tougher for the above mentioned deadbeats to delay entirely just proceedings by claiming that someone didn't dot all the I's or cross a few T's? Or could it put a fiscally responsible homeowner at risk of being foreclosed upon just because the bank said so?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 07:45 | 631739 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

The bill requires courts to recognize "lawful" notarizations.  Notarizations signed en masse are not lawful.  The obvious problem, though, would be procing which ones were lawful.  The bill provides cover.  The non-recorded vote provides more cover.  This is criminality at its best and in the open for all to see.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:31 | 631346 DarkMath
DarkMath's picture

Good point. Although it's kind of like buying your teenage son booze then blaming him for throwing a party, trashing your house and getting your neighbors daughter pregnant when you went away for the weekend.

Is little Johnny really the one to blame?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 07:31 | 631723 Xedus129
Xedus129's picture

Haha, I'm sure Johnny Sr. pulled the same stunts

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 01:37 | 631425 myshadow
myshadow's picture

saying the 'bulk of them are dead beats', is presumptuous.  There are millions of people who lost their jobs and bought honestly and in good faith.

What you are missing is the antidote for sociopathy.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:20 | 633314 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

purchasing "honestly" and "in good faith" speaks nothing to the speculative nature of leverage...  what no one wants to talk about is the fact that taking out credit for homes and education alike is a speculative endeavor...  people are completely ignorant of the risks...

It was presumptuous for them to think they would keep their jobs...  it was presumptuous to think that things were going to stay the same for 30 years...  it was presumptuous to think that they had no alternative to taking debt...

I do recognize that some have been the victims of circumstances not only outside of their control, but outside any reasonable contemplation.  But, I think we disagree as to the weight of these people to the whole...  I believe you are arguing the exception and not the rule.

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 03:40 | 634566 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I also want to add that the concept of the "antidote to sociopathy" is exactly the same perspective that lead to our present socialist nightmare...  or at least the cover to create/perpetuate it.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:26 | 631087 Jake Lamotta
Jake Lamotta's picture

People of America protect your families and homes.  Stock up in BBB (beans, bullets & bullion).

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:26 | 631091 MikeyKid
MikeyKid's picture

This guy is given chance after chance to grow a pair... and caves every time.

Why would this be different?


Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:47 | 631268 Millivanilli
Millivanilli's picture

Obama is fuckin tv anchor president.   Just like FISA, a bill he claimed he'd filibuster along with sack of shit dodd, he ended up voting yes.   Recently he signed the biggest pentagon bill in the history of our country.   Transparency, ha. He buried Abu Ghraib and other damning documents.  Fuck wad is sorry about giving Guatemalans STD's back in the 40's.   He and Eric holder are simply place mats.  So, on a Friday he'll sign it.  Fuck Obama, the democrats and the republicans.  The whole god damn game is rigged.   

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:50 | 631363 Vernon Wormer
Vernon Wormer's picture


Thu, 10/07/2010 - 01:32 | 631418 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Girl you know it's true.


Thu, 10/07/2010 - 01:43 | 631434 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

ooo-ooo-ooo they screwed you

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 06:30 | 631693 Bob
Bob's picture


Thu, 10/07/2010 - 06:23 | 631679 Miss Expectations
Miss Expectations's picture

This guy is given chance after chance to grow a pair

You mean those devil horns on his head, right?

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:27 | 631093 quasimodo
quasimodo's picture

Game on I have seen it all. Is it possible they could be more blatantly in-our-face on this one? This bill must have got sent in the vaccum tube straight to the oval office for immediate action

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:32 | 631111 Calvin Jones an...
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle's picture

The good question is why?  The GOP was blocking everything in the Senate, and this passes by unanimous consent?  Which means both parties(at least those crooks in D.C.) were in on this.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:56 | 631174 rfaze
rfaze's picture

Maybe the GOP knows it's a loss/loss decision for Obama..... 

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:23 | 631331 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture


We have a winner.


Oh, and the repubs are in the banks' pocket too.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:32 | 631347 Orly
Orly's picture

Vote Libertarian.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:35 | 631351 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture


Thu, 10/07/2010 - 07:55 | 631749 Ace Ventura
Ace Ventura's picture

Constitution Party! Although I admit I like the Libertarian platform as well. Anything but a damn donkey or elephant.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:31 | 631244 laughing_swordfish
laughing_swordfish's picture

Passed by unanimous consent of BOTH CRIMINAL CARTELS in D.C.

Even the Mexican Narcotraficantes wouldn't have the stones to do something as blatant as this.

If Obummer signs this, he's done - make way for President Biden?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 02:03 | 631452 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

Passed by unanimous consent of BOTH CRIMINAL CARTELS in D.C.

Isn't it redundant to say BOTH...SAME seems like the better word here.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:11 | 631312 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

in answer to your "good question" of why Calvin, given the speed, the "urgency" of passing with unanimous consent. . . well, anyone remember back 2 years when certain congress-critters were "taken aside" and made aware of the threat of "martial law" should they not agree to TARP?

it's short.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:28 | 631095 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

Hell you knew it was coming. The outright legalization of high level fraud was inevitable.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:30 | 631099 Spirit Of Truth
Spirit Of Truth's picture

Maybe you didn't know.

TBTF has been changed to TBTFW and now means "TO BIG TO F*** WITH".

The banksters own America now and We The People serve at their behest.  Politicians are just the middle men.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:30 | 631101 Calvin Jones an...
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle's picture

Why does this bill matter?  Isn't fraud still fraud no matter where the documents were "signed"?

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:14 | 631214 detersbb
detersbb's picture

That is exactly my point too.  The fact that these documents were noterized not in the presence of the notery is not material, it may be a violation of rule 21(a) or whatever of the Civil Rule of Procedure as is being knowldgeable and reading the documents that you sign, but this is immaterial.


The issue here is the content of what was signed.  Did or did the party named have or not have a legal right to foreclose?  That is the point that matter, nothing besides a default even has legal value.


If it was signed by whoever across state lines, or electronically, big deal.  If the party named to have a right of foreclosure, does not, well, that is fraud and this bill does not legalize fraud.


I read it 3 times to see how this would rebut fraud in the facts sworn and it does not.  If anything this actually helps the case for fraud in that now there is an irrevocable notery that shall be deemed legitimate even if signatures don't match, so there is no defense that this is a bad hoax upon the poor bank.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:03 | 631297 Implicit simplicit
Implicit simplicit's picture

Yeah, I don't really understand how this would impact the present fraudulent affadavit situation. It only applies to legal documents without fraud.

Sat, 10/09/2010 - 02:11 | 637373 anontrol
anontrol's picture

I impacts present documentation by limiting jurisdiction.


...presumably to the federal level where more power is held in fewer hands that are far more easily controlled.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:14 | 631317 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Here is what I gathered from the article:

In summary, the bill requires all federal and state courts to recognize notarizations made in other states. That's the theoretical definition: the practical one - the legislation, if enacted, could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:21 | 631328 Everyman
Everyman's picture

The Reuters article is trash and that is NOT in the bill.

Agains, read the bill, I posted it below.  Do you expect a "reporter" today to actually read or investigate anything?

IT was hysterical reporting from a misinformed (and sloppy) reporter.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:52 | 631368 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Are there no decent editors!?

Where is Perry White when we need him?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 02:39 | 631478 i-dog
i-dog's picture

Nice catch! The plot thickens...............

BTW, reporters don't report anything. They just attach their names to press releases as they roll of the fax machines (or their sub-editor just adds their name for them, if they are out to lunch or golf).

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 08:33 | 631814 cossack55
cossack55's picture

In Saigon, they used to call it the "5:00 O'clock Follies."

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:31 | 631104 Occams Parsimony
Occams Parsimony's picture

Absolutely knew this one.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:31 | 631105 RheologyMan
RheologyMan's picture

Go Figure....This will be the end of any "legitimacy"....lawyers better hope the White House does the right thing...and lets this ONE pathetic attempt at pandering to SPECIAL INTERESTS go "UNSIGNED"!!!!!

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:02 | 631106 TheJudge2012
TheJudge2012's picture

Senator Casey also stated his support for shielding The Federal Reserve from scrutiny and supported watering down Ron Paul's audit.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:32 | 631108 Fatso
Fatso's picture

Of course Obummer is gonna sign this.


Is there a fucking alternative?

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:36 | 631117 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

i own some gold although i'm still somewhat agnostic....This Obamanation goes through and i'm ALL IN.....

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:21 | 631327 MsCreant
MsCreant's picture


Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:53 | 631372 Vernon Wormer
Vernon Wormer's picture

Do FEMA camps have Wifi?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 01:14 | 631389 knukles
knukles's picture

Reception's best inside the gas chamber.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 08:35 | 631820 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Don't drop your soap while waiting.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 02:07 | 631455 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

OUCH!  (can you hear me now?)

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 08:54 | 631864 Lux Fiat
Lux Fiat's picture

Thanks, my screen needed cleaning anyway.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:41 | 631133 Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

Time to email this story to Colbert and Stewart.  See if we can't get a angry mob revival!

Seriously though, everyone needs to be on the phone and email passing word along about how inportant this is.  Not just family and friends, but local news, national news, and that idiot in the White House.  Make noise so this can't just pass like a fart in the wind.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:23 | 631330 undereducated
undereducated's picture

I can't find these tool's email addresses!

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:32 | 631110 max2205
max2205's picture

WTF!!!!!!!!! That's it I am outta here

Btw has anyone come up with the amount savers have lost to low MMKT rates. That one huge which I consider a tax

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:33 | 631112 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

the populist revolt that will surely follow the enactment of such a law

Surely you jest. 

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:46 | 631153 Big Corked Boots
Big Corked Boots's picture

Yeah. There won't be a populist revolt because the population will never hear of it, or understand it, or get educated about it, or be allowed to organize against it.

The sheep will remain inside their pen until the captive bolt is ready.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:16 | 631320 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

... populist revolt...

Uh-huh.  Best laugh I've had all evening.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:36 | 631119 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

I too am curious on how this really helps them that much. And Affidavit still requires personal knowledge. Not possible signing 10k/month. And still doesn't help with the securitization issues...

From the linked document, they didn't even have to have their votes recorded.

Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept. Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:45 | 631150 RheologyMan
RheologyMan's picture

......TREASON in plain view.....not sure how they could "shove" it in our face any more directly!!!!!........WTF!!!

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 07:43 | 631737 Perseid.Rocks
Perseid.Rocks's picture

If anything it just speeds up the process of nailing their stinking criminal carcases to the wall. I think speed might be of the essence in getting this whole business resolved. They've got millions of people falling off unemployment, with no job creation in sight for years to come.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 08:41 | 631831 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

what a bunch of cowards.

was this vote on C-SPAN?

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:15 | 631130 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Massive wealth transfer vs. Chicago style corruption and power brokering on a grand scale....yup, this is going to be a tough one for Barry.

- - - -

Since, in many of these cases:  A) the homeowner deserves to be foreclosed on because he isn't paying his fucking mortgage (oh, yeah...that) and B) The entity trying to foreclose on the homeowner doesn't have a legit title to the mortgage - why can't we set up some kind of clearing house to determine who the last good holder of the mortgage title is (and then green-light that foreclosure)?...instead of, you know, making up laws as we go along?

 Since four or five banks own pretty much all this shit anyway the legit holder of a bogus mortgage title Wells Fargo is holding now might turn out to actually be Citi and vice versa. So maybe a lot of this crap would cancel each other out as far as the banks are concerned. Plus, it makes sense and it at least sounds reasonably ethical.

But no, the government will always take the easy way out, every time. 

Someone please tell me that the Roberts Court would likely frown on this law.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:41 | 631131 cjbosk
cjbosk's picture

F'k 'em, if you don't pay fo yo shit, you don't own yo shit!  That simple...I don't side with the poor home owner that is simply a squatter today living in a property paid for 'a 'la you and me.


Foreclosure Bitchez!


Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:00 | 631186 rmsnickers
rmsnickers's picture

You are missing the point.  How would you feel if I told you to get the fuck out of your house b/c my piece of paper says I own it even if I just drew it up on my computer? 

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:24 | 631229 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

you're leaving out the fact that you paid the "real" party capable of foreclosing for that piece of paper...  kind of changes things...  the banks have been caught moreso in legal formalities than getting the short end of the stick on the relative equities...

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:09 | 631310 Eternal Student
Eternal Student's picture

And you're leaving out that the Banks have engaged in outright fraud throughout this entire mess. "Legal formalities" is just an outright lie, unless you're shilling for the Banks.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:29 | 633356 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Real fraud, true fraud like what you're talking about involves scienter (fraudulent intent).  All that has happened is that the documents securing Bank B's purchase of a mortgage instrument from Bank A were not recorded/transferred properly.  This made it legally impossible for Bank B to foreclose.  It made it a fraud on the court for Bank B to swear it had the right to foreclose and it made it a fraud for the lawyers to file for Bank B and for the notary to simlarly swear the autostamp from Bank B actually appeared and signed the documents.

Now, you can separate frauds by fraudulent intent...  in this case, Bank B really does own the mortgage instrument or at least is equitably entitled to the same.  The problem is that Bank B just got ahead of itself...  simple as that.

Now, liars loans, packaging mortgages into security instruments, assessment of risk thereon, and a number of other associated things involve a totally different level of fraudulent intent...

again, the relative equities are in Bank B's favor, not a defaulting homeowner...  however, courts may be prohibited from weighing the relative equities given, as a matter of law, the issue is not properly before the court/Bank B does not have the legal right to foreclose...

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 10:45 | 634571 Eternal Student
Eternal Student's picture

The bottom line remains that you're propagating a lie by claiming that fraud a legal formality.

 I think you're quite well aware that this whole thing became news after one of the Courts found the Bank had committed fraud. Plain and simple. Furthermore, the Courts had warned these lawyers in the past that they were fraudulently bringing foreclosures, at which point the lawyers would apologize and promise to fix it in the future. They never did, and Judge finally got tired of it.

So it's established legally that they are committing fraud. And only a Banker would consider fraud a "legal formality".

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 18:49 | 636803 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

people are using the term fraud as a blanket for virtually every aspect of the mortgage fiasco.  Only very specific issues related to the fiasco amount to fraud.  One of them is swearing, under oath, that you are the proper party to bring the foreclosure action...  that's a biggie.  Really, it's more akin to purjury, but who's trying to be accurate anyway... 

Courts are divided into two realms, legal and equitable.  The basic mandate of the court is to administer justice (whatever that is).  In this regard, if the legal structure is insufficient to administer justice, then the court's equitable powers take over...  and it can weigh the policy arguments between the parties, their relative wrongs, and issue a judgment accordingly.

In other words, we have an issue of morality versus legality...  the fraud crowd basically says that "even though you purchased the mortgage or are under the impression you can sue in foreclosure as servicer, when you attempt to do so, it is fraudulent because you made a material missstatement".  What this analysis overlooks is that on the other side of the issue is in virtually all circumstances a deadbeat who isn't paying his note. 

What the discussion seems to quickly digress to is that because banks have done X Y and Z over the last A hundred years, then mortgagors get to stiff them on this one...  doesn't work like that.  If everything would have gone to plan, the homeowner sure as fuck would have asserted that he/she owned the place free and clear...  and when it doesn't go to plan, you'd sure as shit better know that the reciprocal will be true.

All we need at this juncture is a court to determine the correct lineage of the lienholders and to appoint a party to handle/bring the foreclosure actions...  the problem with the previous foreclosures is they put the cart before the horse...  now they're aware of the problem and letting homeowners skip out on the liens should be a thing of the distant past...  they'll get their shit together and it will be game on.

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 19:05 | 636830 Eternal Student
Eternal Student's picture

You're still dancing around trying to avoid the fact that it's in the opinion of a Court of Law that fraud has been committed. No matter how much you try, you just simply can't avoid that big fact. Everything else are just weasel words.

You're also avoiding the rather glaring fact that the AG's from various states are looking into the matter of fraud. Not legal formalities, outright fraud.

The point remains that this is outright fraud, and not your attempt to downplay this as a "legal formality". It's amusing to note that you have neither disputed this, nor outright recanted your attempts to downplay the Banks fraudulent actions. But you have tried to downplay the findings and allegations of fraud, and that speaks volumes about where you are coming from.

Sat, 10/09/2010 - 03:32 | 637412 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

My position is that of someone who advocates (literally) for every side of this fiasco.  You might say I'm in the trenches...  or, in other words, have a "court side" seat. 

I do not dispute that it is a fraud on the court...  I presumed that this much is certain, has already been decided, and is not open for debate.  However, that is not our sole consideration.

What you're talking about as "outright fraud" tends to skew the concept.  In this case, you can have a person that really, genuinely thinks that he has the right to foreclose, who signs a document to that effect and begins foreclosure proceedings, and then is found to have committed fraud upon the court.  The issue is effectively with the degree of intimate knowledge claimed for a particular transaction, hence "robo stamping".  This is fraud in the sense that persons acted without the requisite knowledge...  not the kind of fraud where you, from the inception, set out to totally fuck over defaulting homeowners...  (the fraud is not in the concept of mortgages, banking, nor securitization, which is what everyone is after...  the fraud is merely in the sworn and attested documents filed with the court, which severely limits the prospective impact of the whole mess...  again, previous foreclosures are going to be scrutinized to hell and back by every desperate attorney out there on the hopes of punies from the big banks).

again, you have to accurately portray what is going on here...  simply calling it fraud fails to acknowledge the true situation...  and, again, if utilizing the correct analysis, prospective foreclosures are not remotely as in jeopardy as retroactive lynchings of banks...  the same fraud will not be committed in the future...  simple as that.  But, can't get the cow back in the barn on those foreclosures already done.

Also, the actions by state legislatures and AGs paint too broad of a brush.  What about the lienholders (seconds and thirds) out there who actually can prove AT THIS VERY MOMENT (this is a crucial part of the analysis...  because we all know there IS a party out there with either the legal or the equitable right to foreclose and/or obtain a judgment that will lead to foreclosure) they are the proper party to bring a foreclosure action on their lien.  All the moratoria are doing is ensuring the firsts stay the firsts while the lineage of the liens gets sorted and the proper parties appointed to act on behalf of the true owners in the foreclosure procedings.  Literally all of this stuff can be sorted through agreements with the rightful owners...  and/or a court determination...  once that happens, it's game on.  This is why the fraud aspect of the situation has a limited scope...  it is merely a device for delay at the present time or only has specific application to those foreclosures already fraudulently made (aside from potentially being a can of retroactive worms large enough to shut down the banks).

The real scary issues are the third party divestments...  e.g. property owners associations (small portion), delinquent property taxes and subsequent tax sale (large portion), etc.  Right now, all we're doing is talking about priority of the lienholders...  just because a first doesn't have his shit together doesn't mean a second or a third can't foreclose...  so long as the banks have their paper work in order before foreclosing, they don't face the risk of the trial judge assessing a null and void lien as, effectively, a penalty...  in the end we still have a defaulting homeowner...  and there does exist a real and true party who will boot him out...

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:10 | 631202 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

Or when you go to sell your place and you learn that there isn't a clear chain of title to your mortgage/title and therefore there is no title insurance available?

Or how about when the fascist state pulls you over for speeding and takes you to jail and never has to try you because "procedures don't matter"?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:25 | 631329 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

on Mon, 10/04/2010 - 22:12

"The law will recognize the banks as the proper owners."

No, it's more than that. The banks might NOT own the homes. Loans were sold so often (without proper transfers of titles) that the chain of title might be broken. Titles/loans may not have been properly transferred into RMBS trusts. Even if they were, all of the owners of the RMBS trusts have to participate in the foreclosure for there to be standing. And if some of the tranches have already been paid off, there might not be able to be standing. And title may have been clouded on millions of homes, even if the person has been paying (who owns the note?). Original notes may no longer exist. Some may be held by bankrupt organizations. This not a simple problem. This is systemic fraud brought about by the entire securitization and mortgage origination and services processes.


Ned Zeppelin
on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 14:46

I enjoy this particular subject quite a bit, and at the risk of repeating myself from other posts, point out the "Shitstorm Coming" aspects of this whole "Fraudulent Foreclosure" problem.

First, hat tip to those who say they do not understand what the fuss is all about - if you stop paying your mortgage, you should be foreclosed against and thrown out of your home, the house sold, the lender having exercised its normal and customary remedies and life goes on.  I don't think that is the problem, although from the shallow treatment given the subject matter by the MSM, you might conclude this fuss is nothing more than a lot of noise orchestrated by ACLU-do-gooder liberal commie Obama lovin' lawyers using the law and our sacred Constitution to help a bunch of deadbeats live rent free for life, and even better get a quitclaim deed without paying the principal and interest on their legal and proper debt.

Or, you might go a little deeper, and conclude that the problem is about mortgage foreclosure mills at the big banks "cutting corners" and "swearing oaths" to documents they have not really read - the implication being that the documents themselves are correct, but that the process is somehow defective. Partly true, but that's not the big problem.

Here's the big problem:

In defending the foreclosures the lawyers went deeper down the rabbit hole, to trace ownership of the notes and mortgages in question.  What they found were defects in the formation of the mortgage backed securities, trusts really, such that the trusts did not own the note or the mortgage in question. And for a myriad of tax and other legal reasons, the problem cannot be fixed.

From Naked Capitalism:

"The admission by GMAC that it produced improper affidavits, followed by suspension of foreclosures by GMAC, Chase, and Bank of America in 23 judicial foreclosures states, is the tip of the iceberg of widespread foreclosure abuses. Yet comparatively few members of the media have asked the right question: why would servicers and law firms engage in fraudulent activity on such a widespread basis?

The ugly answer, as we have detailed long form in earlier posts . .  is just as the front end of the mortgage securitization pipeline broke down, with originators increasingly simply pumping any deal through in the interest of pulling out fees, the same behavior spread to the back end.

Evidence is mounting that the various parties responsible for getting the notes (the borrower IOU into the securitization trust, failed to perform a series of tasks that were clearly set forth in the governing contract, the pooling and servicing agreement. These procedures were designed to thread a path through a complex thicket of multiple legal considerations (state real estate statutes, federal securities law, trust law, IRS provisions, to name a few). The failure to do it right means any retrospective fixes run afoul of multiple boundary conditions. Thus to industry participants, fraud, bizarrely, looks to be less bad than admitting to their colossal failures to respect contractual obligations and legal requirements."

What this means is that not only are the foreclosures invalid but, far worse, it shines a spotlight on the fact that the MBSs in question don't own anything.  So not only do you discount the value of a particular tranche of MBS based on your particular view as to the risk allotted to that tranche, but you also have to consider the fact that the MBS tranches, ALL OF THEM, have nothing in them at all.  The due diligence required to figure this out, whether a particular MBS is "safe" or not, would be colossal, if not impossible.  So today, every single MBS may be completely worthless - well, that's not true, it is worth something, since there are a huge pile of lawsuits lurking there and someone will recover something from somebody after the lawyers feast and the bankruptcies conclude, but that is a small percentage.

If one foreclosure, in one MBS, turns out to not be feasible due to an ownership/chain of title/assignment issue, to me it means it is extremely likely the entire MBS is defective. And if one MBS is questionable for that reason, they are all questionable. Value plummets as marketability becomes a problem. Collateral calls, usefulness as margin security, need I go on?

That is the problem.


on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 11:15

What ever happened to preponderance of the evidence?

It's not about evidence, it's about the chain of title.  This area of law has been settled so long that it has whiskers.  That is what is in question.  Holding out for a "free house" is another matter altogether.


How long do we have to thrash this dead horse before it gets understood?

It's about the foundation of the entire country:  LAW

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 10:23 | 632058 Dantzler
Dantzler's picture

Thanks, Rocky--this helps me understand the situation better.


It makes me wonder what are the implications for some one whose mortgage got sold to Chase and securitized but who is looking to pay off the loan and take full ownership. i.e. Dude, where's my note?


Props to Yves & traderjoe as well.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:41 | 631132 Miramanee
Miramanee's picture

The day to day drama is gripping. The anger is palpable. Each day feels like endless steams of rage and incredulity at the depth and breadth of lies and fraud and disingenuousness. But this shit has been going on forever, and will go on forever more. I suggest finding a quiet tract of land in some rural happy place, where you and your loved ones can unplug from the Internet idiocy, from the new feudal order, and live well and in peace for the remainder of your days.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 05:04 | 631538 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

it all sounds good except unplugging from the internet idiocy.  to my mind, that is the best value for one's entertainment (and, occasionally, enlightenment) dollar going.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 07:54 | 631748 Xedus129
Xedus129's picture

No Internetz?  Madness.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:42 | 631135 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

This is all a socially engineered crisis event. Let me be clear, ignorance will be played down as the factor to form World Governance.

Government failure, shock and dismay will ripple throughout the global community. Oligarchs laughter will only be heard faintly.

A Perfect Circle - Counting Bodies Like Sheep


Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:44 | 631142 truont
truont's picture

"Who run Bartertown?"

"Who run Bartertown?"

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:09 | 631201 mbutler101
mbutler101's picture

I starting laughing my ass off when I heard true.


Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:26 | 631232 Harbourcity
Harbourcity's picture

+ 100000   Perfect.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:44 | 631144 BankRaped
BankRaped's picture

"I have abandoned the judicial system in order to save the judicial system" - Obama 2010

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:44 | 631146 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Not a person in 1000 has a fucking clue what's going on.

Didn't take the banks long to throw up a legislative shield for themselves, did it?  I'm not sure even if this particular practice became epidemic if the people would get it or whether the blue teamers would rant about Busch and the red teamers about Bama.

It seems to be the DEFAULT response to any claim of malfeasance...if you talk about how corrupt the banking system is, it's always, well Paulson bailed them out.  Or well, Obama bailed them out.  They can't even address defeatist and sheep mentality.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 05:16 | 631544 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

when it was bush in office being compared to gore out of office, nader's (and your) point about the immaterial differences between dems and reps was so hard to believe.  now that we have obama IN office as comparison, not so much.  still a minority position, though growing as unfolding events provide continuous instruction to a notoriously uncurious population albeit one constantly and painfully prodded by said events.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 11:59 | 632432 Ferrari
Ferrari's picture

I concurr. Nader is looking pretty good right now with his line about the only difference between the two parties is who's knee hits the floor first when the corporation walks into the room. Too bad no one with a microphone or budget has any interest in democracy or a free market. Instead of those things we sort of had, we'll be compensated with social chaos.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:44 | 631147 Rob Jones
Rob Jones's picture

"... helped to engineer the Senate's unanimous consent for the bill."

There are a bunch of senators who are now very publicly "shocked! shocked!" by what they describe as the banking industry's blatant disregard for the law. But it sounds as if they all voted in favor of this bill, which seems intended to retroactively legalize the very thing that they are complaining about.

If you are in Congress, I guess you can have your cake and eat it too.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:46 | 631154 vonchor
vonchor's picture

Reading the law ( it doesn't seem to do what you allege. It just says that the notarization is recognized. Says nothing about improper affidavits suddenly transmogrifying into proper (altho that might come next). Says nothing about the validity of the REMICs and MBSs that the IRS is looking into (see the kentucky case filed a few days ago).  Hence your reaction to the law seems a bit much. 

This is an affidavit.


All the notary does is say, in effect: "I know who the signer is, they have identified themselves to me".

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:21 | 631226 Assetman
Assetman's picture

I think, if anything, it makes notaries potentially liable, especially if there is knowledge that the signer could in no way exercise predential review of the documents.  For notaries under this bill, there is nowhere to hide and they would be wise to be truthful of any underlying knowledge of fraud.

Same for those who are identifed as signing the documents.  Despite where the notary was/is located, the signing party to the contract has been verified.  In no instance can a document be made "null and void" due to improper notarization.

Or perhaps I'm totally off the mark on this.  It wouldn't be the first time...

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:41 | 631260 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

First, the notaries are on the hook already.  If you notarize a document and the notarization turns out to be false, you're on the hook in any court in the u.s....  open and shut... 

Second, any document that is required to be notarized can have a different legal effect if the notarization is later determined to be false.  For example, if you are first in priority on a property because you filed first, but your notarization is incorrect, and the 2nd lien's mortgage was properly filed, then you just got divested of your position.  Likewise, I can easily see state judges throwing out documents with false affidavits...  any document that is required to be notarized can be subject to being thrown out for virtually any reason.

I think what you're trying to articulate is the often overlooked issue that a mortgage executed by two parties, regardless of whether formalities are followed, etc., IS STILL GOOD AND ENFORCEABLE BETWEEN THOSE PARTIES (and their assigns).  The issue simply becomes priority...  those seconds and thirds may become firsts...  (and need to start foreclosing immediately)

What people haven't talked about is that the universal foreclosure moratoria ARE SIMPLY BEING IMPLEMENTED TO PROTECT THE FIRST LIENS.  The firsts face divestiture of priority in the interim (however long it takes for them to chart the assignments/owners of the mortgages).  By coming in and stopping ALL foreclosures, regardless of whether the foreclosing party has his shit together, they're just protecting the firsts in the meantime.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:47 | 631271 Rick64
Rick64's picture

By coming in and stopping ALL foreclosures, regardless of whether the foreclosing party has his shit together, they're just protecting the firsts in the meantime.

 Excellent point.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 02:23 | 631471 Assetman
Assetman's picture

Very well put, Macho Man.

It's the process of determining the assigns and priority that will make the process very labor intensive and complex.  The bottom line is that if your a first lien, you better have your shit together.  You've been given a major break. 

If you're a servicer and you forced the forclosure process and there is no clear title and/or agency assignment from the priority lien holder-- you're screwed, and no extreme application of notary jurisdiction is going to do didly for you..

And I totally agree, the contract between the deafulted homeowner and the evental priority assign is still enforceable-- but there are mutliple interested parties here, including the servicer.  And I suspect, most won't be too happy on how things turn out, especially it results in long drawn out legal challenges.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 06:25 | 631681 Eternal Student
Eternal Student's picture

As I pointed out yesterday, no, the contract is not necessarily enforceable. It is possible to get a house (or condo, rather) for free:

HOA's ought to be all over this as soon as they figure it out.

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 03:55 | 634568 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Only having read the article (given I'm on vacation), it seems there are quite a few hoops to jump through: (1) there must be a state statute allowing HoA/PoA to unilaterally foreclose; (2) there must be purposeful delay on the part of the bank; and (3) (from the looks of the cases, again without having read them) the bank defaults on the foreclosure suit...

sorry, but this isn't going to be a magic bullet.

(the magic bullet is property tax, which I suspect is universal through the states)

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:22 | 631227 rfaze
rfaze's picture

Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the court is located if--;" title="Extract this section" href="">;" title="Link to this section" href="">

(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and;" title="Extract this section" href="">;" title="Link to this section" href="">

(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or;" title="Extract this section" href="">;" title="Link to this section" href="">

(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.


Perhaps it's the electronic record part of this bill that was needed. Remember, many of the original document were destroyed when they were put on microfilm and the banks were filing affidavits that they were lost.

Now you won't have to lie. 

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:15 | 631319 Rob Jones
Rob Jones's picture

It is the Reuters article which is saying that "Questions about notarizations have figured prominently in challenges to the validity of these court documents, and lead to widespread halts of forclosure proceedings. The legislation could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents."

Unfortunately Reuters doesn't explain in detail how this would work. I suppose that if the problem is that there are a lot of documents that were notarized in the wrong state, then this bill would fix that problem.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 07:09 | 631712 chinaguy
chinaguy's picture

"First, the notaries are on the hook already" No, I mean they are, but only to the extent that they represent that they notarized the document & made a good faith effort to do so.

No chance they are on the hook for the content of the document.

This bill only shields 3rd parties from fraudulent notary stamps....NOT the content of the documents.

This bill does NOT say "the content of out of state documents shall be construed as true by the court"

Notaries are NOT handwriting experts, or experts on everything in the universe. This breathless, hysterical article is one of the reasons I spend less & less time at this site.

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 04:00 | 634570 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I'm pretty confident I can get a case to a jury against both the notary and the bank.  Either they'll be jointly and severally liable or the jury will apportion blame between the two, depending on the state...  either way, the notary will be on the hook.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:51 | 631166 rmsnickers
rmsnickers's picture

If this is signed, this may be the proverbial straw....I, for one, am almost at the point where I am going to refuse to pay my mortgage out of spite.  Fuck the banks, servicers, title insurers, etc.  Yes, people may have gotten into a home they couldn't afford but when you have Wall St. driving the demand for loans to be taken out what do you expect?  This shit pisses me off.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:08 | 631198 svendthrift
svendthrift's picture

Yes, I agree. I have behaved in a perfectly ethical manner in regards to money for my whole life. I save and get raped by shit interest rates. I invest and the firms were cooking their books and the auditors busy fucking around and not reading financial statements. The SEC doesnt do shit. I rent and my landlord didn't pay her mortgage so I get kicked out and she keeps my deposit. Now, this. Fuck it. I am going to start looking for condos in my city. I will take a zero-down (money back even) loan and maybe make a single fucking payment. Then I will stop. The backlog will take 18 months to get to me. Free rent. I'll finally fit in.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:45 | 631269 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

santa claus has a list of who's been naughty or nice and santa claus also owns a shit ton of farmland...  that you will be slaving in...  because the records of your dissent reverberate in perpetuity...

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 01:40 | 631430 snakeboat
snakeboat's picture

Umm, no, echoes die rather quickly.  One of the beauties of our America.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:20 | 631223 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Yeah.  I really, really, really DO remember all of those Lehman and Bear advertisements telling consumers "Apply for home loans.  Apply for Home Loans.  Apply For Home Loans, NOW."  What will people be remembering next, I wonder?

You want to quit paying?  Get ready to move.  All of these jackasses using Tactical Default are borderline crooks.  Why not hold up a jewelery store and get some free gold?

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:42 | 631263 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

Not all crimes are treated equally under the law, thats why.  Holding up a jewelry store is a criminal act, punishable by jail time.  Not paying your secured loan is a civil dispute.  You may hold them as equal in moral terms, but I do not.  I am a economic darwinist: if a lender loans money to a shady borrower with poor credit and no job, they deserve to loose the principle.  Unfortunatly, the government does not feel the same as me and bails out the weak banks and screws the strong.  It goes against nature and evenutally we will pay.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:50 | 631277 Augustus
Augustus's picture

The lenders did not necessarily loan to shady borrowers with no job or resources.  It has now become fashionable to be dishonest and simply not make repayment, even when incomes and assets are available to the borrower.  That is borderline crooked in my book and is no different from robbing the jewelery store.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:57 | 631290 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

If the borrower knowingly enters into the contract with the intent on default, it is fraud and criminal.  In my state loans are recourse and the lender can go after the entire loan amount; even in default.  So not many stratigic defaulters.


All of this will make it much more difficult to obtain a loan to buy property; even for those of us who have paid.  Borrowers will be asking for more evidence, more down, and higher PMI premiums.  On my recent mortgage, the bank demanded 5 years of PMI - regardless if the mortgage was below 80% equity or not.  Real estate prices will continue down as a result.  I guess this is good for future buyers.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:33 | 631349 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Every case must stand on its own.  Each contract must be unique from any other.  That's the whole point of the foreclosure mills being at fault and jeopardizing the lien-holders interests.  Mortgages cannot be processed in bulk, and notaries cannot do the job they are supposed to do by signing piles of documents they have not witnessed.  Like the chick in Florida who was out of state when the supposed documents she notarized were processed.  Again, it's all about the well-established law.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 02:13 | 631460 still kicking
still kicking's picture

ok so per your advise I should continue to play by the rules and "do the right thing" while I am constantly getting fucked by the banks that change the rules to their benefit every 6 months, destroying my savings, the value of what my dollars will buy and feigning collapse in order to refunnel my tax dollars to them?  I know Jesus said turn the other cheek but I am fresh out of them at this point, so if they can change the rules so can I.  It's eat or be eaten at this point you need to catch up or you will be dinner my friend.  I agree with you in principal but the reality is that we all better change.  So i advise take care of your family, your friends and your neighbors and tell wall street to go fuck themselves.

also I actually do remember many many ads and commercials from country wide, bank of america, chase and a dozen other banks saying now is the time to build that dream home.  I also remember numerous financial advisors calling me and giving some really shitty advice about what I could afford and how no one stays in a house long enough for the rate to adjust, it's all about flipping it.  I thank God every day I didn't listen to that bullshit.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:51 | 631167 Thomas
Thomas's picture

Slowly but surely, confidence in our system erodes. A generation of investors (and people who bleed red, white, and blue) is being lost.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:57 | 631177 Bob
Bob's picture

All we can do is our part to keep the spotlight on Barry! 


Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:58 | 631178 Bob
Bob's picture



Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:58 | 631179 xi
xi's picture
Nobody is responsible for this bill.  There is no accountability.  I cannot even chastise the honorable, greedy, hypocritical, sell-out, douche bag representative, my Michael McCaul, because of the following: (1) Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept; (2) Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.  Why do people tolerate this criminal class - congress?  Americans...
Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:59 | 631182 eatthebanksters
eatthebanksters's picture

Do ya think the TBTF banks knew this was coming?  Of course they knew, that's why they got to the pass first...trying to change our direction.  If the TBTF banks win I will dust off my blue steel, because my friends justice in our country will be no more...when money can change the law then it's time to change the system...liberty or may be time for revolution.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:06 | 631185 wareco
wareco's picture

Jesus, have any of you tinfoil folks even read the Bill?  All it says is that Federal and State courts must recognize as lawful, any notorization that complied with the laws of the state in which the notarization occurred, and which contains a seal which signifies the authority of the notary public to notarize the document.  That's it.  Period.  Please remember that a notary is not attesting to the correctness of the information contained in the document.  The notary is only attesting that the document was duly signed in the presence of the notary.  This Bill does nothing to alter the issue of a bank representative falsely attesting to the correctness of the information contained in the notarized document.  Frankly, Tyler, I would have thought you  would have realized this from the text of the Bill, but then again, recognizing the Bill for what it is, and isn't, wouldn't allow you to roil the natives, now would it?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 07:12 | 631714 chinaguy
chinaguy's picture

Yes, this article is an example of why I spend less & less time at this site & only occasionally read the see how stupid the population here has become.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:02 | 631189 Boxed Merlot
Boxed Merlot's picture

The bill...requires courts to accept as valid document notarizations made out of state...


Actually, to me, one of the unlearned, unwashed masses, it seems a big ho-hum.  Courts are already required to accept as "valid" document notarizations.  This just adds an "out of state" clause because the federal government has oversight of how states relate to one another.


The issue of questionable practices of robo-signing will remain.  Any court that rejects the admissability of facts relating to fraud, whether initiated in the state or not will continue to be functioning in a biased, prejudicial and otherwise kangaroo fashion.


The 30 pieces of silver pricetag for this effort may be the best indication of the complete turnover needed in our legislative and executive branches.  Too bad Raul's leaving before the fun begins. imo




Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:07 | 631196 Fearless Rick
Fearless Rick's picture

This law is a real bitch and agreed, it doesn't alleviate any fraud that is contained within the affidavits in question, which, according the Gretchen Morganson of the NY Times, is basically, in most of these, statemets as to the legal ownership, in lieu of the absent note. In other words, it is the banks record of assignments, etc. and THAT stuff may all be illegal and probably is a bunch of made up BS.

So, AGs in the states need to go deeper and look into the actual documents for the real deal. This just buys the banks some time and maybe some luck, and probably - they hope - the issue will die down and be seated with the president.

Here's a kicker: USA Today reports that DOJ will investigate foreclosures via the  Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force

In other words, spread cheeks to have more smoke blown up anus.

Obama will likely sign the bill, after the elections.

This is surely not over, though. Not by a long shot. Banks gonna get fucked, hard and long.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:28 | 631239 Illya Kuryakin
Illya Kuryakin's picture

Yeah exactly - the banks are just going to get shit they have to maintain, insure and pay taxes on. Then sell at a loss if they can.

If I thought the MSM would actually cover it I'd hope the tool actually signs it.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:07 | 631197 Fred Hayek
Fred Hayek's picture

I don't think the pretentious cipher in chief can actually run the clock out till election day on this.  I thought he had something like 8 or 10 days to sign a law after it got to his desk or the inaction constituted a pocket veto.



Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:22 | 631225 Fearless Rick
Fearless Rick's picture

Fred, I believe the pocket veto applies only when congress is in session, though I'm still not 100% sure on that. If that's the case, though, the Pres has some time to wait on it.

Could be just political fodder. It is silly season, after all.

Republicans may want to twist this all sorts of ways to say the "president needs to act..." and similar BS leading up to the election, completely distorting the intent of the bill. Been done before.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:09 | 631199 Everyman
Everyman's picture

This bill as I read it is to have a :"similar standard" for accepting notary republic signatures, and allowing an electronic one.  It just "recognizes" the signature, it does not "endorse the signatory" or the validity of that document.

It still means that if the person that "signed" the material is still responsible for the material they are "signing for".  If it is fraud it is still fraud even if it is in another state or electronically produced.


My bet is that the California contengent got right into the President's Office and are going to have him veto it because it does look bad, politically.

Hell look at what it has done here with people I consider "above average" in intelligence and analytical skills, and most of you have your panties in a bunch over this.


Here is the whole act:

An Act

To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the ‘Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010’.


Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the Federal court is located if--

(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and

(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or

(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.


Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the court is located if--

(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and

(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or

(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.


In this Act:

(1) ELECTRONIC RECORD- The term ‘electronic record’ has the meaning given that term in section 106 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006).

(2) LOGICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH- Seal information is ‘logically associated with’ an electronic record if the seal information is securely bound to the electronic record in such a manner as to make it impracticable to falsify or alter, without detection, either the record or the seal information.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.


My bet is these affidavits do not meet that one either.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:55 | 631283 Implicit simplicit
Implicit simplicit's picture

"Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State..."

If fraud was used to notarize or sign affadavits, which appears to be the case(s) against the banks, this bill would not protect the banks. Thanks for the post.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:12 | 631204 honestann
honestann's picture

What's the surprise?

Rule of law is long gone.

Rule of fiat is now complete.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:11 | 631205 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Oh no. Our representatives are our heros and our lawyers too. Our hero's will heroically fight for us and lose and then we'll all sit around crying like little bitches.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:12 | 631207 svendthrift
svendthrift's picture

Isn't it amusing that we study Friedman, Keynes, Adam Smith.. Demand curves, supply curves, R-squared, comparative advantage, aggregate demand. And it all matters for jack shit. The economy isn't capitalist. The demand curves are as real as, well, something really fake. What's real is the fraud. The corruption. The insiders. We learn about an economy that does not exist. How dare Krugman whine about aggregate demand and stimulus when the problem is fucking corruption. Is he running interference?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 01:44 | 631385 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

is that a rhetorical question?

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:13 | 631210 Everyman
Everyman's picture

For those that are a little slow that means that they can also recognise the "fradulent affidavits" as interstate fraud as well.  Otherwise it would be soley a beef with the jurisdiction of the state.  Now it could be a FEDERAL CASE of FRAUD!!!

NOW it is Fraud on the federal court with interstate commerce implications!!!!

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 11:06 | 632193 rmsnickers
rmsnickers's picture

That will end up being the ultimate end around on this....cases all fall under the jurisdiction of federal law vs state and the gov't will basically make this a non-issue somehow.  The first step is taking it out of the state's hands.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:13 | 631212 lsbumblebee
lsbumblebee's picture

What populist revolt? From the "tea-party"? They're Republicans with multiple personality disorder.

Obama has done nothing but side with the bankers. Even Rush Limbaugh understands this.


Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:28 | 631238 Nolsgrad
Nolsgrad's picture

I have only one comment


Fuck OBummernuts

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:37 | 631355 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

It has not even gotten to him yet.  It was passed by Congress.

How 'bout spreading the hate around a little?

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:29 | 631241 Professordoomfinger
Professordoomfinger's picture

I have some shiny for you, Ben.  Let's negotiate a price.


Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:30 | 631243 Fearless Rick
Fearless Rick's picture

WaPo article mentions TARP2 at the end of story. Interesting stuff:


Banks gonna take it up the wazoo big time, folks. Trust me, I'm a bank robber.

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 23:41 | 631259 max2205
max2205's picture

Shocked. From Barry's email:

Due to the high volume of messages received at this address, the White House is unable to process the email you just sent. To contact the White House, please visit:

Thank you.

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy

The White House · 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW · Washington, DC 20500 · 202-456-1111

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!