It was a set up from the get up!

Taxing Wall Street Down to Size: Litigation Guidelines

Posted on January 20, 2010 by LivingLies dot WordPress dot com

The mistake I detect from those who are not faring well in court is the
attempt to treat preliminary motions and hearings as opportunities to
prove your entire case. Don’t talk about conspiracy and theft, talk
about evidence and discovery.
Every debtor is entitled to know the identity of the creditor, the full
accounting for the entire obligation and all transactions arising from
the transaction, and an opportunity to comply with Federal and State
law requiring attempts at modification and/or mediation or settlement
with the real parties in interest.
The banking system has become an agent of
destruction for the gross domestic product and of impoverishment for
the middle class. To be sure, it was lured into these unsavory missions
by a truly insane monetary policy under which, most recently, the
Federal Reserve purchased $1.5 trillion of longer-dated Treasury bonds
and housing agency securities in less than a year. It was an
unprecedented exercise in market-rigging with printing-press money, and
it gave a sharp boost to the price of bonds and other securities held
by banks, permitting them to book huge revenues from trading and
bookkeeping gains.

Editor’s Note: Stockman notes the myth (lie)
that “a prodigious upwelling of profitability will repair bank balance
sheets and bury toxic waste from the last bubble’s collapse.” He
questions whether the “profitability” will be there. I don’t question
it, I know it — both for the reasons he cites and because the reality
is that at least certain institution “in the loop” have tons of money
and profitability “off-balance sheet” and I might add, off-shore.

According to published reports, Wall Street is
“taxed” on this gorging of money at the rate of 1% while some poor
bloke earning $80,000 is paying 16% just for social security, directly
or indirectly. Fix the budget, cure the deficit? There it is!

The current profits reported, and the bonuses
that come along with them, are being attributed widely in the press to
the give-away of the federal reserve is letting them borrow at zero
rates and then giving them a much higher rate for money held on
deposit. While this is true all it really describes is the cover the
laundering the plunder of $24 trillion back into the system where it
will be moved around again producing more fees, more “profits”, and
greater “liquidity” (proprietary currency).

The significance of this cannot be understated for the foreclosure litigator.
We have the SEC in a 10 year confidentiality agreement with AIG so that
the bailout and payment to counter-parties is being kept secret while
the foreclosures proceed on obligations that have been paid in full,
sometimes thirty times over. And we have the treasure
trove “off-balance sheet” that was created by a secret undisclosed
yield spread premium that should have investors, borrowers, and the
regulators screaming. This second YSP as described recently in
this blog, dwarfs any other fees, profits or other revenue or capital
made during the creation stage of the mortgage mess.

The job of
the litigator is to pique the interest of the judge enough to allow you
to inquire about a FULL ACCOUNTING from the CREDITOR who is positively
identified. Don’t ask the Judge to buy into the whole conspiracy theory
aspect of the mortgage meltdown. He or she is not there to listen to
“fiction.”

Just use your expert to prove there is an
absence of facts and numbers such that the full accounting from debtor
through creditor is not present and that under the most basic of
premises, every
debtor is entitled to know the identity of the creditor, the full
accounting for the entire obligation and all transactions arising from
the transaction, and an opportunity to comply with Federal and State
law requiring attempts at modification and/or mediation or settlement
with the real parties in interest.

The
mistake I detect from those who are not faring well in court is the
attempt to treat preliminary motions and hearings as opportunities to
prove your entire case. Don’t talk about conspiracy and theft, talk
about evidence and discovery.

Don’t ask the Judge to accept the idea that
all these big name banks and other entities are thieves or interlopers,
ask the Judge to accept the premise that you have alleged that the real
creditor is not present, not represented, and that this action is in
derogation of that creditor. Talk about your attempts to identify the
creditor (investors) and the stonewalling you have received. Talk about
your attempts to get a consistent complete accounting for the
obligation and your inability to get it.

TALK ABOUT YOUR ATTEMPTS TO FIND AN ACTUAL
DECISION MAKER (CREDITOR) WHOM YOU COULD SPEAK WITH AND ATTEMPT
RECONCILIATION, MODIFICATION OR SETTLEMENT.

 

January 20, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor

Taxing Wall Street Down to Size

By DAVID STOCKMAN

WHILE supply-side catechism insists that lower taxes are a growth
tonic, the theory also argues that if you want less of something, tax
it more. The economy desperately needs less of our bloated,
unproductive and increasingly parasitic banking system. In this
respect, the White House appears to have gone over to the supply side
with its proposed tax on big banks, as it scores populist points against the banksters, too.

Not surprisingly, the bankers are already whining, even though the
tax would amount to a financial pinprick — a levy of only 0.15 percent
on the debts (other than deposits) of the big financial conglomerates.
Their objections are evidence that the administration is on the right
track.

Make no mistake. The banking system has become an agent of
destruction for the gross domestic product and of impoverishment for
the middle class. To be sure, it was lured into these unsavory missions
by a truly insane monetary policy under which, most recently, the
Federal Reserve purchased $1.5 trillion of longer-dated Treasury bonds
and housing agency securities in less than a year. It was an
unprecedented exercise in market-rigging with printing-press money, and
it gave a sharp boost to the price of bonds and other securities held
by banks, permitting them to book huge revenues from trading and
bookkeeping gains.

Meanwhile, by fixing short-term interest rates at near zero, the Fed
planted its heavy boot squarely in the face of depositors, as it shrank
the banks’ cost of production — their interest expense on depositor
funds — to the vanishing point.

The resulting ultrasteep yield curve for banks is heralded, by a
certain breed of Wall Street tout, as a financial miracle cure. Soon,
it is claimed, a prodigious upwelling of profitability will repair bank
balance sheets and bury toxic waste from the last bubble’s collapse.
But will it?

In supplying the banks with free deposit money (effectively,
zero-interest loans), the savers of America are taking a $250 billion
annual haircut in lost interest income. And the banks, after reaping
this ill-deserved windfall, are pleased to pronounce themselves
solvent, ignoring the bad loans still on their books. This kind of
Robin Hood redistribution in reverse is not sustainable. It requires
permanently flooding world markets with cheap dollars — a recipe for
the next bubble and financial crisis.

Moreover, rescuing the banks yet again, this time with a steeply
sloped yield curve (that is, cheap short-term money and more expensive
long-term rates), is not even a proper monetary policy action. It is a
vast and capricious reallocation of national income, which would be
hooted down in the halls of Congress, were it properly brought to a
vote.

National economic policy has come to this absurd pass because for
decades the Fed has juiced the banking system with excessive reserves.
With this monetary fuel, the banks manufactured, aggressively at first
and then recklessly, a tide of new loans and deposits. When Wall
Street’s “heart attack” struck in September 2008, bank liabilities had
reached 100 percent of gross domestic product — double the ratio of a
few decades earlier.

This was a measurement of the perilous extent to which bad
investments, financed by debt, had come to distort the warp and woof of
the economy. Behind the worthless loans stands a vast assemblage of
redundant housing units, shopping malls, office buildings, warehouses,
tanning salons and fast food restaurants. These superfluous fixed
assets had, over the past decade, given rise to a hothouse economy of
jobs that have now vanished. Obviously, the legions of brokers,
developers, appraisers, contractors, tradesmen and decorators who
created the bad investments are long gone. But now the waitresses, yoga
instructors, gardeners, repairmen, sales clerks, inventory managers,
office workers and lift-truck drivers once thought needed to work at
these places are disappearing into the unemployment statistics, as well.

The baleful reality is that the big banks, the freakish offspring of
the Fed’s easy money, are dangerous institutions, deeply embedded in a
bull market culture of entitlement and greed. This is why the Obama tax
is welcome: its underlying policy message is that big banking must get
smaller because it does too little that is useful, productive or
efficient.

To argue, as some conservatives surely will, that a
policy-directed shrinking of big banking is an inappropriate
interference in the marketplace is to miss a crucial point: the big
Wall Street banks are wards of the state, not private enterprises.
During recent quarters, for instance, the preponderant share of Goldman
Sachs’ revenues came from trading in bonds, currencies and commodities.

But these profits were not evidence of Mr. Market doing God’s work,
greasing the wheels of commerce and trade by facilitating productive
financial transactions. In fact, they represented the fruits of
hyperactive gambling in the Fed’s monetary casino — a place where the
inside players obtain their chips at no cost from the Fed-controlled
money markets, and are warned well in advance, by obscure wording
changes in the Fed’s policy statements, about any pending shift in the
gambling odds.

To be sure, the most direct way to cure the banking system’s ills
would be to return to a rational monetary policy based on sensible
interest rates, an end to frantic monetization of federal debt and a
stable exchange value for the dollar. But Ben Bernanke, the Fed
chairman, and his posse are not likely to go there, believing as they
do that central banking is about micromanaging aggregate demand — asset
bubbles and a flagging dollar be damned. Still, there can be no doubt
that taxing big bank liabilities will cause there to be less of them.
And that’s a start.

David Stockman, a director of the Office of Management and
Budget under President Ronald Reagan, is working on a book about the
financial crisis.

Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, bubble, currency, foreclosure, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “It was a set up from the get up!

  1. Muckle v. USA- Analysis of the Mortgage Meltdownfrom: http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2010/01/muckle-v-usa-analysis-of-the-mortgage-meltdown/comment-page-1/#comment-484As an attorney who defends consumers in mortgage foreclosure cases and who is helping consumers with mortgage modifications, I sometimes hear opponents or other parties argue that the people who ar in foreclosure should just be thrown out of their homes…who cares about any other issues about what the banks did wrong. One consumer who gets the problem and is doing something about it is Paul Muckle, who filed a federal lawsuit, Muckle v. USA. In this lawsuit, he sues Bush, Obama, Geithner, Paulson and the governors of all fifty states….but more on that later.Widespread and Systemic FraudProblem is the individual foreclosures are just the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is the systemic fraud that went from the top to the bottom of the entire world economic system. Banks, mortgage companies, Wall Street, Washington DC and world financial centers all conspired to take billions of dollars in shift it from the general population and concentrate those billions in the hands of a few. If the initial fraud and scheme wasn’t bad enough, the bailout and billions that are being poured right back into the system represent a second bajillion dollar heist.It’s difficult to explain the intricacies of such a wide ranging systemic fraud, but here are the basics.1.Mortgage brokers begin the fraud when they concocted information about income/assets and value of property on the individual loan applications. (Brokers pocket thousands on the individual loans.)2. Mortgage lenders pool thousands of the fraudulent loans into packages then sell them to brokers on Wall Street. (Lenders pocket millions on the packages.)3. Wall Street brokers sell the packages of mortgage loans to retirement funds and investment groups around the world. (Brokers pocket billions on the packages.)4. The investors who purchased the packages discover the pools of loans are fraudulent. (Investors demand millions in refunds and some are made whole with US taxpayer dollars.)5. The institutions and individuals that started and perpetuated the fraud are paid millions (billions?) allegedly to help correct the problems they created. (They shove millions in their pockets.)MUCKLE V. USAThe link that appears here will take you to a 106 lawsuit that a private consumer filed that lays out in painstaking detail exactly how the fraud worked and explains a bit of the long term consequences. It also makes a compelling argument against the continued pursuit of foreclosures that are part of the problems as explained above. Give it a read, then contact me if you have any questions.

  2. What is going on here? I don’t remember voting for or being notified of this possibility in Illinois:New Law with Multiple Effective DatesMunicipal Liens on Vacant Residential Properties and Other Provisions.As of press time, this legislation is still awaiting gubernatorial action. SB 1894 is an omnibus measure that consists of several unrelated legislative initiatives. At this writing, the bill has not been signed into law; however, enactment is expected before the end of the year. Most significantly for Illinois bankers, the bill amends the Code of Civil Procedure and the Illinois Municipal Code (both effective 60 days after enactment) to provide two new notices in foreclosure actions and to enable municipalities to undertake certain “self-help” actions on abandoned residential properties and to obtain superior lien positions for the costs incurred for these actions. The remedial actions subject to this superior lien relate to (1) cutting and removal of neglected weeds, grass, trees and bushes,; (2) pest control activities; (3) removal of trees infected with Dutch elm disease or emerald ash borer; (4) removal of garbage and debris; and (5) securing or enclosing abandoned buildings or part or all of their underlying land. A municipality may unilaterally take these actions by contracting with third parties to perform the work and then recording a superior lien for the costs incurred for the work. The superior liens will be subject to rigorous standards that must be met by a municipality in order for the superior status of the lien to be enforceable. Additionally, the superior liens will be enforceable exclusively at the hearing for the confirmation of the sale is held at the conclusion of a foreclosure action, so they will be limited to a claim of interest in the proceeds of the judicial sale. The statutory provisions granting these superior liens will “sunset” when the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) is fully operational in Illinois. (MERS will enable municipalities to immediately contact mortgagees and servicers of abandoned residential properties whenever they have a concern with a property.) Other notable provisions enacted include the reauthorization of the Illinois Real Estate License Act (effective Dec. 31, 2009, and Jan. 1, 2010), an increase in the amount of stock that a bank may hold in the Illinois Bankers Bank from 5 percent to 15 percent of the bank’s voting stock (effective upon signature), and an extension of the “Predatory Lending Database Program” to Kane, Peoria and Will counties, beginning July 1, 2010.What the heck? They want to give municipalities another reason to allow MERS to exist? Can someone translate this?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s