Banks commit mass foreclosure fraud

There must be a lot of it if it is news that a judge actually bothers to check that the paperwork is correct:

He has tossed out 46 of the 102 foreclosure motions that have come before him in the last two years. And his often scathing decisions, peppered with allusions to the Croesus-like wealth of bank presidents, have attracted the respectful attention of judges and lawyers from Florida to Ohio to California. At recent judicial conferences in Chicago and Arizona, several panelists praised his rulings as a possible national model.

His opinions, too, have been greeted by a cry of affront from a bank official or two, who say this judge stands in the way of what is rightfully theirs. HSBC bank appealed a recent ruling, saying he had set a “dangerous precedent” by acting as “both judge and jury,” throwing out cases even when homeowners had not responded to foreclosure motions….

“To the extent that judges examine these papers, they find exactly the same errors that Judge Schack does,” said Katherine M. Porter, a visiting professor at the School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a national expert in consumer credit law. “His rulings are hardly revolutionary; it’s unusual only because we so rarely hold large corporations to the rules.”

It’s not just large corporations, of course. The various levels of government are seldom held accountable to following the law or having its motions thrown out for a failure to comply by the applicable rules. The point, of course, is that there is no longer even much of a pretense at the rule of law in the United States. That has been replaced with rule by bureaucratic dictate.

It’s good to know there are still a few judges who are honorable. The key phrase from the article is this: “Justice Schack’s take is straightforward, and sends a tremor through some bank suites: If a bank cannot prove ownership, it cannot foreclose.”

“Hardly revolutionary” is correct. One would assume that this was always the case; one would, of course, be wrong. Indeed, the fact that a requirement to prove ownership is considered an unusual position only shows how endemic the acceptance of blatantly illegal behavior has become.

White House communists

One suspects that the Obama administration’s failure to scrub the Internet in time to hide his environmental czar’s recent past is one reason the White House seeks emergency control of the Internet:

STORM’s Politics

STORM was never formally a “Marxist-Leninist” organization, and we never had a systematic Marxist theoretical framework. But we did hav a political commitment to the fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism. We upheld the Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation. We agreed with Lenin’s analysis of the state and the party. And we found inspiration and guidance in the insurgent revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Tse-Tung and Amilcar Cabral…. We also saw our brand of Marxism as, in some ways, a reclamation. In the face of a stereotype of Marxism that racialized it as white, we wanted to reclaim the history of Third World Communist struggle. After all, such struggles have made up the overwhelming majority of communist movements worldwide….

But if we were firmly within the Marxist tradition, we were not bound very tightly to any camp within it.

Reclaiming Revolution: history summation & lessons from the work of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), STORM, Spring 2004

It was never any secret that Green was the new Red. But, given the Magic Negro’s affiliations with the Chicago Left, the Latin American Left, and outright California communists such as Van Jones, there can be little doubt that he is, at the very least, sympathetic to Marxist causes. It is a mistake to look too closely at his ideology in an attempt to forecast his future actions, however, because as I pointed out in today’s column, the liberal fascist is, like his historical counterpart, first and foremost practical in his actions.

WND column

Liberal Book Banners

The issue was that the McCain-Feingold law bans corporate money being used for electioneering. … At the first Supreme Court argument in March, a government lawyer, answering a hypothetical question, said the government could also make it a crime to distribute books advocating the election or defeat of political candidates so long as they were paid for by corporations and not their political action committees. That position seemed to astound several of the more conservative justices, and there were gasps in the courtroom.

– New York Times, “Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ Documentary,” Aug. 29, 2009

Few political books have ever been published with more perfect timing than Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism.” Although Goldberg may have gotten the identity of the victorious liberal incorrect, his work has nevertheless proven to be a reliable indicator of the increasingly materno-fascistic behavior of the Democratic House, Senate and White House. The present Washington regime is the political version of the so-called helicopter moms who hover over their children at all times in an attempt to exert constant control over their decisions and behavior.

Worse than Chamberlain

Gordon Brown is caught lying again:

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal. Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

Has there ever been a worse Prime Minister than the One-Eyed Liar? The amazing thing is that as bad as Blair was, Brown has proven to be even worse. One would be tempted to call him a traitor destroying his country, but then, perhaps he’s just a patriot wreaking Scottish vengeance on England.

How can one call him worse than Neville Chamberlain? Because at least Chamberlain only gave away Czechoslovakia to a group of continental fascists. Brown, on the other hand, is giving away Britain to a group of continental fascists.

Mailvox: force and marital rape

JB followed the logic:

At first I felt your argument was intuitively incorrect. Then it occurred to me that the use of force would still be prosecutable. A contract to sell your furniture does not give the other party authority to break down your door, beat and bind you, and take your sofa. While you haven’t mentioned this, I think it would mollify most.

I didn’t mention it because it was always completely obvious. The mere possession of consent to sex doesn’t grant the holder a license to kill, commit assault, or rob a bank. Nor was that ever a relevant issue, for as I pointed out in the comments to the previous post, the greater part of the nebulous “rape” arguments begin with a knife-wielding stranger breaking in and binding the victim and end with the “victim” saying that she felt she was coerced because the “rapist” looked at her with puppy dog eyes.

Centralizing risk

This is the result of the Fed and the FDIC continually playing double-or-nothing with the banking system:

J.P. Morgan Chase, an amalgam of some of Wall Street’s most storied institutions, now holds more than $1 of every $10 on deposit in this country. So does Bank of America, scarred by its acquisition of Merrill Lynch and partly government-owned as a result of the crisis, as does Wells Fargo, the biggest West Coast bank. Those three banks, plus government-rescued and -owned Citigroup, now issue one of every two mortgages and about two of every three credit cards, federal data show.

It shouldn’t be too terribly long before it all collapses. I think it’s inevitable at this point. My guess is that the monetary authorities will attempt to substitute a new currency and financial system that nevertheless leaves the same institutions in control. Given their inept performance over the last 20 years, I find it hard to believe they’ll be successful.

The big question, the only real question, is if the Fed can genuinely create money or not. The problem they face is that while they can print all the paper they want, they can’t get it into the system without someone borrowing it. The fractional-reserve system begins to break down as soon as people stop taking out loans, which appears to be the point we’ve finally reached.

FDIC: “We’re not broke yet!”

So, the FDIC Quarterly reported a 20 percent decline in the Deposit Insurance Fund during second quarter, from $13 billion to $10.4 billion, which is considerably more than the $4 billion than the estimated losses indicated, much less the -$4.4 billion that I calculated based on the 1.94 balance reduction/estimated losses ratio that applied to the previous five quarters.

The answer is due to the Special Assessment which brought in an additional $8 billion or so from the insured banks, as otherwise the balance would have been reduced to $2.4 billion. The FDIC also announced another Special Assessment would be collected during the third quarter; since estimated losses in the third quarter have already surpassed those of the second quarter, $10.2 billion to $9 billion, it will have to be even bigger than the previous one.

The problem is that there is no explanation for why the FDIC has suddenly gotten so much better at estimating its losses. Whereas the ratio reliably averaged around 1.9x the previous five quarters, in the second quarter it miraculously improved to 1.2x. This seems… questionable at best, especially given the way that the situation is clearly worsening for the banks in general.

There are now about 102 banks in the state operating in the red, up from 76 in the first quarter and 74 a year ago, according to quarterly financial results the federal government released Thursday. Nationally, 28 percent of banks were unprofitable.

Promiscuous women are less fit

Less fit by the standards of natural selection, anyhow:

The following table shows the average number of children women have birthed by the number of male sexual partners they have had since the age of 18*. Like men, women who have had only one partner are the most fecund.

Whereas monogamous women who have only had one lifetime partner averages 2.29 children, the average US woman with nine partners averages 1.46 children. The big dropoff appears to be between six and seven partners, which I find somewhat interesting because I recall an old numerical definition of promiscuity from one of my school health textbooks as being six or more partners.

Religion would appear to account for most, but not all, of this effect, as regular church attendance is correlated with an increasae of about .7 kids/woman.