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




 
0
Your rating: None
 

- 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.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3808

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:

RockyRacoon
on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 13:07
#630072

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

Amen.

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

Word.

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 bitches....now 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

BINGO!

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

Agreed!

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

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.

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