The Bank Defendants frequently represent to borrowers and the public that they are actively assisting distressed borrowers...Instead, however, upon information and belief, each of the Bank. Defendants has deceived Massachusetts borrowers about loan modification requirements, by, without limitation., misrepresenting that:There's othe interestng stuff in the full suit --- Coakley is also suing MERS, the electronic land registry in which about 2/3rd of American mortgages are registered, saying it's unlawful.
---Borrowers must be over sixty days delinquent to get a loan modification, when in fact actual delinquency is not required. Borrowers may be eligible even if they are at simply at risk of imminent default. Such misrepresentations resat in increased and unnecessary defaults.
---If borrowers are over ninety days delinquent they will receive priority treatment, which is false; and which results in unnecessary additional defaults and extended delinquencies.
---Certain borrowers cannot be considered based oil the type or seasonal, nature of their income, when in fact such factors are not determinative of eligibility. This results in borrowers who otherwise may qualify for a loan modification being improperly denied or dissuaded from applying.
...In spite of the Bank Defendants' conduct above, certain borrowers have received loan modifications, often after waiting months, hiring counsel, and/or answering repeated requests to provide identical application information. Once approved, borrowers typically must execute and return written loan modifications to their servicer and then begin making the required modified monthly payments. On numerous occasions, however, and often after months of accepting the bo owers' payments pursuant to the very loan modifications the Bank Defendants approved, each of the Bank Defendants has informed these borrowers that their loan modifications were in fact rejected, were never accepted by investors, were never in place, and/or that foreclosure auctions were scheduled imminently...The Bank Defendants routinely make misrepresentations to borrowers and/or their counsel regarding pending foreclosure proceedings, including, among other misrepresentations, that while loan modification negotiations are occurring, foreclosure proceedings will not continue and/or that foreclosure auctions will be postponed. As negotiations progress, however, borrowers and/or their counsel often learn, whether through public notices or communications with other employees or agents of the relevant Bank Defendant, that the foreclosure auctions are continuing as scheduled.
If I had my home foreclosed on improperly, I'd rather have the compensation than see people I don't know go to jail.I'd rather see both.
You can argue that the fact that almost no one at Bank of America really knows who their foreclosing on or why is a serious problem, and I'd agree, but the only people SCRA would put in jail there would be random, negligent, low level functionaries.So what? they're breaking the law. These banks can't operate without low level functionaries, so I don't really have a problem with putting them in jail. Enough with this "I was just following orders" bullshit.
Well, I'm just thankful that my actual government doesn't waste what little money it has chasing down anonymous people that will just be replacedTell that to the millions of people in prison for drug offenses.
There might be a crime that the top people can actually be convicted of, but this isn't it.Then why should they be the ones who go to jail? Someone broke the law, this is a crime with jail time attached. You're essentially arguing that no one should go to jail of an organization can 'bury' the actual decision well enough. It's completely absurd. A crime was committed, and someone was responsible. Why shouldn't they go to jail?
Bob the Robosigner isn't the problem, the system is the problem. Show me a crime that the higher ups at Bank of America, et al. are guilty of, and put them in jail for that crimeSo who exactly is responsible for breaking the law here? No one? If no one forced them to foreclose on active duty military, then they should go to jail. If someone forced them to do it, then those people should go to jail.
Due to a federal law called, IIRC, the Servicemembers Protection Act, every foreclosing lender is required to file an affirmative affidavit pledging that the homeowner they're foreclosing on is not in the active military. They use social security numbers found on loan documents and a database provided by the department of defense to check this.Right. In order to foreclose one someone who is in the military, you have to sign a form saying they are not active duty. If you sign the form, knowing it's false, then you should go to jail. It's not all that complicated.
Yeah, the person signing the form is guilty(or at least every one of them who signed the form for someone who was active duty military, you could almost certainly convict him. I've never questioned that there is someone, somewhere, guilty of this crime. I just don't see that putting those people in jail does anyone anywhere any good.Well, it would serve as a deterrent from people continuing to do it. The same thing with every other law on the books.
(2) Some peon you don't even know, and never would have met, and don't care about except that you're annoyed at having to pay them, who can be immediately replaced by some other poor schlub who needs a job, has to do a few months in prison.Eventually you run out of peons.
For the love of God, I have said EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME that I do not want to see lower level people prosecuted. It's basically all I've been saying. Are you even listening? Have you confused me with delmoi? This makes no sense at all.First of all, I am saying you ought to prosecute the peons who carried this stuff out. If a Mob enforcer comes to your store to extort money, and then beats the crap out of if you refuse, should he be prosecuted? Obviously. Why should it be any different for these people. It's mind boggling to me that you're just sitting here saying that no one should be prosecuted.
Isn't a more important difference that they had the high-ups in Galleon, including Rajaratnam, on tape committing the crimes? That makes a huge difference in an actual criminal prosecution, as opposed to screaming "these guys DESTROYED THE ECONOMY!" which surprisingly is not effective as a legal argument.Fabrice Tourre sent emails back and forth about defrauding Goldman Sachs clients by selling them known shit mortgage derivatives that a hedge fund was shorting. The result was a fine and now Tourre works in London.
« Older Specimen products is the workshop of Ian Schneller... | Roderick on the Line... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 11:20 AM on December 1, 2011 [10 favorites]