The most interesting news from the SOTU address was the very belated appointment of a mortgage investigation task force, the Office 0f Mortgage Origination and Securitization Abuses.

You may recall that back in April of 2011, I presented to the National Association of Attorneys General a short keynote speech. It was titled “How Systemic Bank Fraud Contributed to the Financial Crisis.”In particular, you should review pages 14-17, and 22-30.

But meanwhile you may be asking why in 2012 — 4 years after the great financial collapse, 3 years after the recovery began, and in the last year of the President’s term — Mr. Obama finally decided to investigate the role of Fraud in the entire crisis.

The politics are obvious: Both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party were very unhappy with the bailouts, and even more unhappy with the lack of prosecutions. So its obviously good politics.

But the suspicions on the Left have already begun; consider:

• The Schneiderman Gambit: Financial Fraud Unit Appears Designed to Fail, and Grease Skids for Foreclosure Fraud Settlement (Firedoglake)

• Obama To Announce Mortgage Crisis Unit Chaired By New York Attorney General Schneiderman (HuffPo)

• Is Schneiderman Selling Out? Joins Federal Committee That Looks Designed to Undermine AGs Against Mortgage Settlement Deal (naked capitalism)

• California calls $25-billion mortgage settlement ‘inadequate’ (L.A. Times)

That is way too negative — but the suspicions of the Obama administration, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner aka the Banker’s friend — is not unwarranted.


What is the thought process about this? Is this the real deal investigation? Will this commission uncover anything, or is this cover for a white wash?

What say ye?

Category: Bailouts, Foreclosures, Legal

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

48 Responses to “The Belated Mortgage Fraud/Crisis Investigation”

  1. Sechel says:

    The history of Treasury and the Obama administration has not been to prosecute Wall Street and to the extent there are fines to not make them so onerous as to create the possibility of a bank failing. Summers has often spoke about the magic and importance of confidence in the banking system, and I believe this thinking is shared by Geithner, and those who may have the President’s ear( Summers & Rubin). Ever since the talk of a settlement started gaining ground bank stocks are rallying, this should tell you something. Add to that talk of a settlement seems to have occurred prior to a true investigation prosecutions and occurred with back-drop of the Fed speaking of rewriting contract law to have investors bear the brunt of a settlement. Long story short I would not suggest that Schneiderman is selling out, but that the Obama administration is trying to control events to make a settlement occur. Bringing Schneiderman into the fold a great way to start that process.

  2. flocktard says:

    This DOES look shifty. It looks like Schneiderman could be bucking for higher office if he plays ball with the Geithner mob. Also note that Robert Khuzami, the most weak-kneed enforcer in SEC history, is on this commission.

    Sounds like some public diligence is needed- plus some jail time for the perpetrators of the biggest fraud ever committed against the public.

  3. Julia Chestnut says:

    It’s very, very saavy – and in my opinion, will do absolutely nothing. If they wanted an investigation, appoint a prosecutor, hire a big staff, and start sifting through the documents. There are LOTS of very bad things out there, and a lot of them are in the public record.

    I personally have that same feeling I had when I found out Larry Summers and Turbo Timmy would be in charge of the economic team. They very effectively boxed Elizabeth Warren, I feel certain they will get Schneiderman, too.

  4. RW says:

    Our politics and governance has been deeply corrupted by the now nearly unbreakable link between wealth and electability so skepticism regarding this latest move is certainly warranted.

    But unlike most of the Washington DC revolving door-mongers, Obama does not need a job after the ball and does not appear to have further political ambitions, so …assuming he is re-elected and gets a reasonable breakout in the congressional elections, I suppose there is at least a slight chance we might see a modicum of justice done before the end which is certainly more than the zero chance we’d get any under a Republican administration.

    Still seems like tepid tea after the incredible damage done though so FWIW

  5. uzer says:

    “Is this the real deal investigation? Will this commission uncover anything, or is this cover for a white wash?”

    The answer to both questions is yes since hell hath clearly frozen over — evidenced by our local southern trees blooming in January that normally don’t bloom until February.


    BR: That suggest less that hell hath frozen over and more that its escaping to our world

  6. gkm says:

    Belated? No, it is in fact all about the timing. As in whatever statute of limitations will apply and what wounds have been healed with time – not to mention the ability of those most culpable/powerful to prepare their defense. Good luck as it be will little ado about nothing except to extract some new tributes in the end.

  7. mathman says:
    (from site)
    “America likes to tout its status of a free market country. But that’s just nuts. Delusional nuts. And no, it’s not that all of a sudden we see socialism or communism, popular as those accusations may be; that just comes from people who don’t understand what those words mean.

    What has happened is that America is electing a Liar-in-Chief every four years. His/her job is to keep the herd in the faith, to let them buy stuff all the time, preferably with borrowed money. To keep all noses pointing in the same direction, namely perpetual growth, especially when there isn’t any.

    The Liar-in-Chief is far more a religious leader than a political one. You can’t have the herd disperse and separate and all its members running off in different direction to go and do their own thing. Nothing to do with Obama specifically either, it’s simply in the job description. Taking the job, though, is indeed his own responsibility.

    If Obama were a political instead of a faith-based leader, he would take his hands off the US real estate market, and let the market do what it does best: price discovery. Shut down Fannie and Freddie and their ilk, the biggest economic disaster in US history, and sell off their “assets” to the highest bidder. Write down all the losses, let holders of loans and securities take the haircuts they are entitled to, and go on with life. Look at the future instead of being stuck in the past.”

  8. Randel says:

    This is a scam. Not much will happen, yet.

    Naked Capitalism laid bear what is really going on. The US Attorney General’s former law firm represents many of the big banks. That law firm presently lists 34 former government officials on its payroll. When you have such a highly-networked, highly-paid, revolving-door system in place, justice will not occur. There are now just mutual understandings that post government life, you will be taken care of. Read Abramoff’s account as he seeks redemption.

    As you have pointed out BR, the proposed mortgage fraud settlement imposes losses on the mutual funds and pension funds held by the middle class which unfortunately bought the toxic assets the big banks cooked up. Those banks should have been dead, but were brought to life with taxpayer assistance, hence the common term, zombie banks. With such monsters let loose, along with the Godzilla the Roberts’ Court unleashed with the Citizens’ United decision, we are in for one heck of a political roller coaster ride. When I was kid I loved roller coasters, not so much now.

    In politics, irony rules. President Obama goes Marx in the STOU, yet the same week they support the above settlement which hurts the middle class. Who would have thought the modern Democrat Party would betray its anti-bank Jefferson Jackson roots? Which means, it is possible a Mitt Romney Presidency could be a Teddy Roosevelt event! Remember the Nixon goes to China thing. Strange, but good things can still happen in the US. We need patience.

  9. Robespierre says:

    Yes it is all BS. If he wants a real investigation and prosecutions he should get Bill Black.

  10. louis says:

    I didn’t think it could get more appalling than the original crimes, but it has.

  11. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    Task force, huh?

    Maybe this will be like the Iraq war hearings (still waiting for the second round of those), or the Valerie Plame affair (Patrick “I think I’ll have to indict the VP, so I’d better stop” Fitzgerald playing the role of Chief Inspector Clouseau), or even the Warren Commission (“How the hell should we know what happened to the President’s brain?”).

    Any real effort to round this criminal cabal up would look more like this:

    SEC>FBI> Warrants and Raids>Arrests>USAG >Grand Jury>Court>Prison.

    No Task Force, Commission, Blue Ribbon Panel, Special Prosecutor, or Encyclopedia Brown, Boy Detective needed.

    WTF do we pay these people to do?

  12. Stan Klein says:

    I would like to see them investigate whether the terms and conditions of the toxic mortgages were influenced by those who bought credit default swaps on the mortgage bonds. You can’t keep raising the interest rate on a loan without hitting a point where the borrower can’t pay. Influencing the terms of loans to guarantee eventual default and then betting the bonds representing the securitized loans will go into default seems a way to construct a huge and highly profitable scam while leaving few perpetrator fingerprints.

  13. advsys says:

    Give me a good ol special prosecutor. Someone who channels Ken Starr. :)

  14. A says:

    Politics is based on the creation of impressions.
    And the incumbents need to create ‘something’ that is positive, to herd the voting sheep to the November election.

    Any legal beagle knows that fraud cases of this magnitude, will take months if not years to come to trial – if ever.

    By then, Obama & Co. (at least per their hopes) may be safely in place in the White House for another 4 yrs – and the can will be kicked down the road…again.

  15. TR says:

    Great presentation Barry.
    How frightning; 12 years of inventory to absorb with decreasing household formation.
    Is Smith and Wessen still american made? :)

  16. GuinnessFan says:

    I agree with those who cosider this to be a fraud in addressing “The Fraud”. I might have considered it legit if BR had been appointed to the Mortgage Crisis Unit. Surely that’s something he could handle along with his day job.

  17. jpmist says:

    I’ll go with “white wash”.

    The key point so far is that the AG negotiations are still on-going. If Obama was serious about the investigations the negotiations would be suspended.

  18. Lesly says:

    Is this the real deal investigation?

    As long as there is a campaign to win, sure.

    I love Campaign Obama. He sounds like the guy should run for president.

  19. lalaland says:

    Having read the firedog lake and naked capitalism bits without being convinced (I take their cynicism with the same grain of salt as they take the news), my question is this:

    What exactly do they allege wall street did that was illegal, as opposed to unethical or something that should have been better regulated but wasn’t?

    What evidence would they need, does the evidence exist, and would it be sufficient to prosecute and win?

    Would the end-result destabilize the housing market drastically? Considering the impact of the robo-signing scandal on foreclosures (down 25% in some states) what would happen if NY declared MERS in violation of it’s state laws, or something of that caliber?

    Does the SEC, DOJ, whatever, actually have the resources to handle the volume of prosecutions necessary if all the evidence were trialworthy? I very much believe in the rule of law being applied fairly and justly; I’m wondering if it can be done in this political/business environment (for example one party in particular has gone out of it’s way to prevent any action from being taken on the CPA, never mind strengthening existing regulators or increasing their funding)?

  20. Futuredome says:

    The only way the ‘fraud’ comes out is in nationalization of insolvent banks. Then they would even be ok with somebody like Gingrich. Rather than pop O’bama’s skull JFK style.

  21. constantnormal says:

    A delaying tactic, trying to leverage/finesse a few votes out of it — nothing more. Highly unlikely that any prosecutions will emerge from this, and if any do, they will be trivially deflected using the statute of limitations as a shield, the way the laws were designed to be used … protecting the guilty.

  22. Frilton Miedman says:

    To clarify that this isn’t an anti-Obama perspective, my mind is made up that I’ll vote Obama, the alternatives are nothing short of terrifying.

    That said, I think it no coincidence that one of O’s biggest contributors in 2008 was Goldman Sachs, and not one person from Goldman’s is sitting behind bars despite glaring and obvious fraud as exposed by Levin, as well as the fact that the biggest penalty they were hit with amounted to a good days profits in HFT/prop trading.

    A story was released a few days ago that Eric Holder and another high ranking DOJ official worked for a Law firm that’s regularly retained by several of the TBTF banks prior to coming to his current position.

    I would guess a very large fraction of law firms in the NY area are or have been retained at some point by these banks, which makes it a matter of six degree’s of separation to a degree, but, Obama can’t afford to leave this stone unturned.

    I imagine something dramatic has to transpire before the GOP primary is concluded, a few big names might have to be put up to the sacrificial alter before this can be used against Obama.

    This is one portion of Obama’s SOTU speech that he does not have to depend on a House vote to enact.

    In other words, it’s on, he has absolutely no choice but to attack chance of a spark of suspicion there’s any influence by special interests or bribery here.

  23. rd says:

    Very few commissions accomplish anything. They are usually a tool to show “action” while not having any results until years later. Washington is incapable of having a commission investigate and deliver a report before the Nov 2012 elections, so Obama and Geithner will have delivered for their beloved banker constituency again. Commissions are also useful tools to issue findings after statutes of limitations and repose have expired so that prosecutions can’t occur.

    Ultimately, most of the laws that have likely been broken are actually state laws. The individual state AGs should be investigating and prosecuting in their own states.

    I have already sent an e-mail to Schneiderman protesting his participation in this commission.

  24. philipat says:

    Cover for Holder?

  25. bear_in_mind says:


    Schneiderman would be effectively captured and his opposition silenced by the process. Not an accident.

    Look at how the Obama Administration froze out Paul Volker, Elizabeth Warren, Simpson/Bowles. Not to mention marginalizing critiques from Paul Krugman, Joe Stieglitz, William Black (to name a few).
    Pretty much anyone not named Geithner and Summers has been shown the door.

    I bet they’re not even willing to embrace from former Reagan OMB director, David Stockman, who has been outspoken on the need to terminate the Bush tax breaks so government can get the budget and deficit under control.

  26. Expat says:

    White wash. In any case, what is the statute of limitations for most of the applicable charges? At best we will end up with a thin report claiming that “mistakes were made”. No one will be named or blamed personally. No one will be punished.

  27. m111ark says:

    There is no more rule of law. Everything is merely for show. In this case, a lot of smoke and shoutin’ and promisin’ but no thing. Did you see the SOTU??? Sounds good because it’s designed to sound good, but ain’t gonna change a thing. Bankers still be stealin’, freedoms still be disappearing, stocks be screamin’ cause that keeps the sheeple distracted so’s the Oligarchs can keep doin’ what they want – destroying the Ideal of democracy to implement a fascist regime here using the Chinese model, and then the world, cause once the Ideal is gone, the rest of the world will fall into line. Oh, one more thing, stealin’ as much money as they can before the whole thing is collapsed.

    You think Iraq and Afghanistan was to fight terrorist??? Bullshit!!! training the troops for urban warfare more likely. Urban warfare training in Los Angeles ain’t for terrorist, it’s for us. Foreign policy eventually becomes domestic policy. Freedoms are easy to disappear one thin slice at a time.

  28. Moss says:

    Most likely an optical illusion. Politics and money still rule so this is nothing more than a pacifier for the rage.

  29. Julia Chestnut says:

    Lala – I don’t disagree with you. The old saying is “if you go hunting for a lion, make certain that you want to find one.” It doesn’t help either if we look through the wreckage and find, for whatever reason, that we can’t make out a case – from a practical standpoint. But from a political standpoint, much greater harm is done to the people and their relationship with government by allowing it all to stay in the dark. I agree that certain places are rife with conspiracists: that’s because nothing is honest any more, I think. We all populate the dark with the particular brand of monsters we believe in.

    And certainly, underfunding regulatory agencies – and burrowing in people who believed the agency should be disbanded – was a favorite trick among certain powerful people. In fact, someone very knowledgeable just the other day told me “Well, you know, the SEC can’t bring cases – no criminal authority, and no money to do the investigation. They refer it to the DOJ, and they don’t have the money and the personnel either.” That’s why they let companies admit to no guilt at all, this person said, because the company is in the driver’s seat. Would I rather they recovered a little money for the investors, or put them to the risk of a trial?

    Retribution is a powerful force. We might open up a can of worms that will reshape the landscape, but really — will it? Or will it just drop the water level to where we can see the damage already done by fishing with dynamite for the past couple of decades? I think that the unwillingness to even consider dealing honestly and transparently with what has happened leaves a shadow over everything that we an ill afford. I will take my risks with the truth.

    And yes, underfunding of the regulators is a sore spot. But my personal opinion is that they now completely lack the will and the experience to hang tough and actually call crime for what it is. Slowly but surely, judges have completely gutted shareholder protections – that is true. Private cases are all but doomed now. But the last bulwark is supposed to be the SEC. As with so many things, I don’t think that throwing money at it will help without a new approach in the hearts and minds of those operating the agency. Some of that is defeatism and a critical lack of imagination, and some of it is capture (in my opinion). Money could buy good people to some extent – but in the past couple of decades, the whole point to being at a regulator was to build up credentials to take into the private sector and make some money. No one had any respect for the job itself, within or outside.

  30. killben says:

    Since it is coming from Obama you can bet your last dime that it is an ELECTION GIMMICK.

  31. killben says:

    Who knows it might work and win him the election given that Americans are gullible and believed in the change he offered last time. One thing about Obama he knows what it takes to win elections. Show as if you are with main street at election time and go after wall street and then once he wins go with wall street and screw main street.

    If this were coming from Ron Paul, I am more likely to believe it.

  32. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    Julia Chestnut Says:

    “But my personal opinion is that they now completely lack the will and the experience to hang tough and actually call crime for what it is.”

    One of the most damaging aspects of the policies of Bushco was the replacement of experienced career bureaucrats with political sycophants (Monica Goodling and Michael Brown come to mind). If you want to know the value of experience, replace an experienced professional with a neophyte in any enterprise, and watch formerly easy tasks quickly become insurmountable.

  33. Jim67545 says:

    1. Prosecution will be VERY difficult except, perhaps, for overt misbehavior such as robo-signing. To oversimplify, the housing problem was due to many disperate parties (homebuilders, lenders, regulators, consumers, etc.) taking many independent actions which, in aggregate, led to the crash. It’s like trying to prosecute those who rushed from the burning theatre because someone got trampled.
    2. We see, in this blog, a far too loose use of the word “fraud.” Few of the things so characterized would satisfy the legal test and so prosecution for “fraud” in these instances would fail.

    My impression of the State of the Union was, again, admiration for Obama’s oratory. If I were in his shoes I’d have been much more bitchy. I was also surprised that so many of his “new” initiatives, including the subject of this article, were not already well under way. What the *)#$&) has he been doing for 3 years?

  34. Jim67545 says:

    For a legal definition of fraud try:

    There are a lot of practical problems here. For example, did originating a sub-prime mortgage really harm the borrower? Perhaps, over the passage of time, it turned out to be bad for a multitude of reasons (lost job, got sick, etc.), but at the point of origination was it harmful? Another example, can it be proved that deception occurred when the documents clearly disclosed the terms of the contract? Another: NINA loan might be unwise from a lending standpoint but was not the borrower aware of what was taking place?


    BR: The definition you referenced — A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury should suffice for these purposes

  35. gordo365 says:

    They should create a website and ask people links to reports of illegal activity that have been reported in the NEWS. Don’t need to do much digging really.

  36. b_thunder says:

    Democratic National Convention where they will crown Obama will take palace at the Bank of America Stadium.
    How appropriate.

  37. Robert M says:

    The level of disgust I have w/ President Obama can not be expressed in an economic friendly blog. Countless authors on Naked Capitalism, here, Zero Hedge and others documenting the absolute refusal of this administration to act can be best described by Mr Ritholtz’s term nonfeasance

  38. A says:

    And just when you think you’ve seen a new low, yet another Wall Street story of corruption:

  39. Seaton says:

    BR, and all the rest above with excellent points to consider (I agree with most, especially not needing a “Encyclopedia Brown, Boy Detective”. Install Fitzgerald, the one that got Gov. Blagoyavich–or Kent Starr’s clone).

    I’m wondering about “statute-of-limitations”, and “running-out-the-clock” that’s become so favored in this Federal Government, regardless of Administration. (Remember Alaska’s Senator Ted Stevens? Boy, wasn’t that a FUBAR?)

    Lead the way, BR, lead the way. The rest of us ‘commenters,’ do what we can where we can, this is one of our more shameless periods of history in America. S.

  40. DeDude says:

    It is possible that Obama is finally separating a bit from Wall Street although he really cannot do it for good until after he is re-elected. If big money got scared of him they could wipe him out before the election (even with the current crop of GOP candidates). This is either a warning to Wall Street (don’t go against me, I can hurt you); or a set up to do the real thing after the election. Only time will tell.

  41. Bokolis says:

    How can we think that this is anything other than the old “kick him upstairs” to get Schneiderman out of the way? The pitchto him probably started with, “Have I got a job for you…”

    Our leaders are so bought and paid for that we can’t even get a politically-motivated railroading of some marginally involved fall guy. Failing any Bokolis-recommended exections, I suggest that you round them all up and give them a life sentence of being a NYC cabbie.

  42. Two things.

    1) The Administration is not serious at all about calling banks to account for robosigning and outright fraud. This is theater. Why? Because the banks could have huge liabilities in civil and criminal penalties. Having saved them once, the decision is “do no harm”.

    2) Homeowners will not get the true (and difficult) help needed to stem foreclosures unless they start walking away en masse. This is literally written in Larry Summers’ much-talked-about memo to President-Elect Obama. See this:

  43. AtlasRocked says:

    He already has the results from the FCIC commission, right? Even liberal new outlet CBS is asking questions, why no prosecutions, bro? He has all he needs already.

    Timing? Perfect – whoever starts prosecuting, it will cause a disruption in the market IMHO – after the election. Fraudsters will be running for cover, bailouts will be exposed for propping up crime. Investigate now, the next administration will be left to do the dirty work. Would O’bama or a Republican actually do it? Naw. Maybe Ron Paul, that’s the only guy I trust to get some dirty work done. Him or Chris Christie.

  44. MinnItMan says:

    So, Fed interest rate targets won’t change much before the end of ’14, and the M-to-M rule will be un-suspended, exactly when? Whatever else happens or doesn’t happen, I don’t see market prices for real estate recovering until there is some semblance of a “real” market, the absolute minimum for which includes financing that reflects real risk rather than the duct-tape policies (ZIRP, not MtM) of the shadow bailout.

    The Republican nomination contest fascinates me (depresses, appalls, too). Assuming that the race is down to Newt and Mitt – I dunno ’bout that – but whatever. There is somebody, somewhere in America who has the WORST combination of political and executive skills. Let’s say there is a bottom ten. Ok, so it’s a difficult epistemological problem, but somebody is the very worst, or there are ten people who are the very worst. Newt Gingrich’s executive ability are known quantities/qualities (unlike, say Sen. Obama in 2007, for example). And, they are known to be terrible. It seems at least half of his “friends” and allies think so, as well. It is possible that he has the worst political executive skills – if not in the universe – in America. While this may not be literally true – discounting for the epistemoligal problem of proving it true – it is clear that there are a significant number of right-of-center types who have reason to believe it is true, actually believe it is true, or have first-hand experience that it is surely true. It is more likely true than absolutely not true. I don’t know anybody credible, right, center or left, who would rule out Speaker Gingrich being the worst political executive in America. Maybe they think it is President Obama, but reasonable people must agree that reasonable people could come to either conclusion.

    On the other hand, I have never bought that Gov. Romney is “electable,” either. Unlike President Obama who may be a “secret Muslim,” Gov. Romney is an overt Mormon, a public member of a sect that no small part of the Republican base absolutely believes is a Satanic cult – the more “moderate” view being that it is merely an egregious heresy of adding new canonical revelations to the New Testament. Sen. Santorum’s Legion of Christ Catholicism and Rep. Paul’s Randianism may not exactly put these folks at ease as alternatives, by the way. I’m only half being a wise-ass here. Rep. Bachmann’s former denomination WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod), for example, has extensive positions on all of these matters, even if it isn’t exactly promoting them at the moment. My un-wise-ass take on this is that the is very little acknowledgement that this could be a real problem.

    And this assumes that the fact that the cost of Gov. Romney’s suits don’t become an issue. Now, I don’t generally notice men’s clothing choices very much, especially their suits – especially their suits. But, I gotta say, he wears really kick-ass suits and I’m thinking they cost more than a few of my paychecks. They’re that noticeable – to me. His play clothes look pretty pricey, too.

  45. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    Atlas Rocked:

    If you really wanted the mess cleaned up, you’d write in Ralph Nader.

  46. DeDude says:

    If the South Carolina GOP primaries proved one thing, it is that a millionaire by strategically investing in attack adds, can toss an election. If Wall Street got scared of Obama before the election they could (and would) wipe him out. I think that is one of the reasons he got so angry with the supreme court. He knew what they had done, not just to our democracy, but also to his ability to do anything real about the countries problems in his first term.

    The problem is also that the people who should be punished cannot be punished unless we destroy our justice system. We may be able to jail the clerk who robo-signed but the department head who ordered it or the vice-president who told the department head to get it done – where is the proof that could pass the current supreme court. The people who benefitted have long ago taken their bonuses and found greener pastures. The battle is between whether the teacher’s pension fund should lose the money on their bank stock investments, bank bond investments or their investments in CDO’s. No matter how and what you do it is the little peoples investments that will be hurt and the responsible people are going to be out of reach.

  47. AtlasRocked says:

    Dedude-wheat-joe-Klugman – your comment about the Supreme court is ridiculous, as usual. The Supreme court would not block the prosecution of Robosigners, it is clear Notary law.

    Now the “living document” lower court judges may say “This is not what the legislators meant when they required wet ink signatures and prosecution of violaters”, they may say “What the legislators really meant, was that if the Robosigners had good intentions, they’re ok. Let’s just fine them a little and let them move along….nothing to see here, nobody needs jail time, we’ll just increase their cost of business with a fine, then let the executive branch bail them out again. Us judges don’t want to own any market downturn, and we’re not throwing our buds in jail.”

    That’s a more typical judiciary and SEC response. Barry has written heavily on this.

    1000 bankers were to jail after the S&L crisis, and I count 3 so far in this cycle. And you’re still making excuses for them and rallying the rabble to point at the 1%, which as Barry has shown, is mostly populated by your cronies in the gov’t medical benefits handout market.

    Own the problems your ideas have created, bro. Advocating “living document” ideas always results in mass lawlessness, not selected, limited lawlessness. If you guys can do it, everyone can.