Quantcast
Feeds: Email, RSS & Twitter

Get Our Videos By Email

 

8,300 Unique Visitors In The Past Day

 

Powered by Squarespace

 

Most Recent Comments
Cartoons & Photos
SEARCH
« Sketchy CNN Insider Poll Says Romney Won The Debate | Main | CNN's John King Demonstrates Why He Should Be Booted From The Airwaves And NEVER Again Be Allowed To Host A Presidential Debate (Video - GOP 2012 Debate) »
Tuesday
Jun142011

The New American Revolution Begins, MERS Gets Hit HARD In NY, 'Soft Patchers' Are Dreaming, FDIC OKs Minimum Capital Standards (15 LINKS)

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (8)

JPMorgan dismisses mortgage head Lowman

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/14/us-jpm-mortgage-idUSTRE75D3XR20110614

[snip]

JPMorgan Chase & Co has pushed out its head of home lending, David Lowman, who had been sidelined in February after the bank racked up billions of dollars in losses on mortgages and became mired in litigation over foreclosures.
Jun 14, 2011 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered Commenterjohn
Central Bankruptcy - Why QE3 is Inevitable

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1308031500.php
Jun 14, 2011 at 1:59 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Jun 14, 2011 at 8:02 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Madison - Acting with unusual speed, the state Supreme Court on Tuesday reinstated Gov. Scott Walker's plan to all but end collective bargaining for tens of thousands of public workers.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/123859034.html
Jun 14, 2011 at 8:03 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The White House and Congress should work together in “good faith” to solve the nation’s budget crisis and shy away from using a necessary increase in the debt ceiling as a tool to bend the will of opponents, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke said Tuesday.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernanke-dont-play-politics-with-debt-limit-2011-06-14?dist=afterbell
Jun 14, 2011 at 8:04 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
A Tale of Two Cases - (Veal vs. Fryzel Opinions)

There are several similarities in the two cases referenced above. One being that they were both filed on June 10, 2011. The other being they involve some of the same players.

From there, the two recommendations made by the respective Courts reach conclusions that are entirely at odds with each other. Both opinions will be linked at the bottom of this post for comparison.

The first opinion I'll bring up is the opinion by The Honorable Judge Randolph J. Haines in VEAL vs. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE INC., et al:

This opinion has been widely distributed and discussed. Naturally, I agree with Judge Haines.

Now comes United States Magistrate Judge David L. Martin's Report and Recommendation regarding FRYZEL vs. MERS INC. et al.

I'm going to take the liberty (remember that?) of summarizing Magistrate Martin's opinion.

Again, it should come as no surprise that I disagree with this one.

Forgetting for a moment that in Rhode Island an assignment is a conveyence of Real Estate Magistrate Martin concludes (in my interpretation) that anything and everything that takes place after the original alleged mortgage transaction is simply none of the alleged borrower's business.

I'm quite certain Magistrate Martin's opinion will be hailed as gospel and wildly popular in Banking Circles and will be trumpeted by their dapper Foreclosure Mill lawyers.

Measured by the pound, certainly Magistrate Martin's opinion would seem just and fair. He goes to great length to boot-strap his arguments with thirty eight pages of fluff. In conclusion he cites the "Eisenberg" case and emphasizes that it was only one page in length and therefore lacks merit.

Despite the Magistrate's attempt to thread the needle his conclusion seems to miss a few very basic elemenents of the Ponzi. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that most if not all the subsequent investors had default insurance on the underlying bonds (the CDS contracts).

So if a CDS contract came and paid off the default they cannot collect more than once: the writer of the CDS contract can come along and try to collect but not the party who was paid off, because they've already been paid: they're trying to collect twice (or more) on the same alleged breach. That means you need to know WHO ever claimed to own the thing, and who ever wrote a CDS contract on it, and whether that CDS insurance contract paid them.

Hiding behind a "servicer" in order to protect "Trade Secrets" or "Proprietary Information" seems like a great idea. Especially if those innovative "Trade Secrets" include wide-spread systemic fraud.

I'm not even going to bring in REMIC...

How can all these banks be flush with cash after being systematically raked over the coals by deadbeats?

I humbly suggest Magistrate Martin's people call Judge Haines' people.

Welcome aboard the Black Pearl. Feel free to take leave...the very next time we make port.

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/a-tale-of-two-cases-veal-vs
Jun 15, 2011 at 8:01 AM | Unregistered Commenterchunga

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.