Bank of America settles loan dispute with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac

Washington Post ^ | 1/3/11 | David S. Hilzenrath

[longtermmemmory]

how about this, BofA INFLATED the value of the homes which would have otherwise been affordable to a payment level that was unaffordable.

Remember the bank loan officers were telling these people they could flip the house based on the 15% per year return, doubling their money in five years!

You also forget BofA restricted to a limited list of appraisers in order to ensure the profit margin of the default value of the promissory note to the wall street market.

[Kartographer]

LOL! The fact that they own a share of such a front company that is so shadowy that even they stopped using it isn’t enough? So how are things on the river ‘De Nile’?

Heres your list of shareholders:
http://www.mersinc.org/about/shareholders.aspx

[DoughtyOne]

Well, at least you didn’t try to get me to go read an ACORN press release. LOL

How much of what you just mentioned is charged, and how much of it has been proven, through conviction? Was this one branch, a region, or national?

[Kartographer]

Guys I get the feeling that it is time to stop feeding the troll.

[DoughtyOne]

Banks start and stop using different enterprises all the time.

Is MERS up and running today? If so, what is your reasoning behind it?

Why did it take you so long to answer my question the first through fourth or fifth times?

If MERS is still up and running, you are experiencing a bit of denial yourself. Is there a value to it? Has the problems with MERS been over-stated? Are there problems in certain regions that are not national?

[DoughtyOne]

So you want me to stop feeding you?

[Chunga85]

I'll make a note to send you an apology next time I go to the Post Office.

Maybe I'll send something nice to Kim Jong-il's staff while I'm at it. They can't all be bad. In fact I bet some of them are swell guys!

[DoughtyOne]

When you’re smart enough to figure out which post #37 was addressed to, you’ll understand why I said what I did.

Hint: is 32 larger or smaller than 34

[DoughtyOne]

So you think that our banking and lending industry is as bad as Kim Jong-il’s staff. Well, okay.

I note you couldn’t find an instance of what you accused me with.

We can just leave it at that. You don’t have to man up.

[Chunga85]

You don’t have to man up.

Not to you. That's for sure.

[DoughtyOne]

Chunga, you made a false charge against me. And now when called on it, you have the nerve to try to cast me as the person who doesn’t deserve respect.

That rests on it’s own merits.

[DoughtyOne]

D1: I’m not here to say that banks and lending institutions haven’t done some things wrong here. It would be wrong to make such a statement.

Chunga85: It would be very wrong to make such a statement but it doesn't seem to be stopping you from doing so.

D1: Please link me to where I said that banks and lending institutions had done nothing wrong.  Otherwise I expect you to admit that I never said that and apologize.

[Chunga85]

If it makes you feel better I'll "Robo-Sign" you an apology.

You're angry and insulted by my "failure" to address your granular questions.

I'm angry with what I perceive to be your inability/refusal to comprehend the "big picture".

You can have the last word but don't hold your breath for a response despite your assertion you're entitled to one.

Feel free to re-read some of your previous clap-trap about rulings from a NJ court basically being a nullity in your mind because NJ is a "liberal" state.

We'll just never agree on this. Furthermore, if I gave it any thought, your opinion would make no difference to me.

Bash away FRiend. Also accept my apologies for not adding sophomoric HTML color tags to this dreary dialog parsing exercise.

[DoughtyOne]

If it makes you feel better I'll "Robo-Sign" you an apology.

Frankly I don't actually care if you apologize or not. However, if you're going to try to cast me as the bad guy for saying the banks and lending institutions didn't cause this meltdown, and the ACLU, ACORN, Congress, and the courts did, and then put words in my mouth, I'm going to call you on it.

You're angry and insulted by my "failure" to address your granular questions.

If you and others on this thread want to make statements unchallenged, you're probably on the wrong forum.

As for being angry or insulted, not so much. Insults pretty much go with the territory on forms like this. Trying to pass me off as the bad guy will get you push-back.

I'm angry with what I perceive to be your inability/refusal to comprehend the "big picture".

Would that be the big picture you folks tried to pass off here, absent any mention of Leftist social engineering concerns, Congress, or what may or may not be activist judges who wish to perfect society's ills as as they see them from the bench?

I stated that I did think some banks were problematic. Did you folks admit that there were other entities that were problematic? I didn't see it and that caused me to defend banks and lending concerns.

Socialists always demonize capitalist pillars of society when trying to implement their dreams. Banks, lending institutions, stock markets, the rich, and often the Jews are demonized. At the same time socialist agitators and dedicated seditionists get a free pass.

You'll see shades of this in the Russian and Chinese revolutions. You'll see shades of it in 1930s Germany too. I'm not trying to say this is what you are up to, but as conservatives we have to be careful not to play into the leftist propagandist game plan. And when you leave out what Leftist subversives did to cause problems for our economy, that's what you are doing IMO.

You can have the last word but don't hold your breath for a response despite your assertion you're entitled to one.

My only assertions that I was entitled to a response was connected to asking for some foundation for some of the charges being asserted. Don't you think it's within reason to ask why a person believes what they do, or why a certain aspect of explanation actually ties in? Do you really think you should be able to say anything here without having to explain yourself like the rest of us have to?

Feel free to re-read some of your previous clap-trap about rulings from a NJ court basically being a nullity in your mind because NJ is a "liberal" state.

The point I was making was a simple one. Court decisions may or may not mean what you think they do. The courts sided with Leftists in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, saying lending institutions must extend mortgage loans to people in blighted areas with inadequate incomes. Were those wise unbiased decisions? In those cases they ruled against some of these very same banks. And frankly they got it very wrong. Is it possible a judge is getting it wrong today?  Yes. It is within the realm of possibility. If courts could get it wrong before on those matters, they could be exhibiting bias again.  I am not saying they definatey are.

We'll just never agree on this. Furthermore, if I gave it any thought, your opinion would make no difference to me.

I don't expect everyone on this forum to agree with me. I do however find it reasoned to express alternative opinions on certain matters and I have done so here.

People need to read that our financial melt-down was attributable to a number of factors, and that our bank and lending institutions were by no means the worst players in all this, whether you agree or not.

Bash away FRiend. Also accept my apologies for not adding sophomoric HTML color tags to this dreary dialog parsing exercise.

It's not my intention to bash you. It is my intention to express my thoughts and defend them. I don't think I have been unfair in this post.

I respond using color in order to male it easier for people to follow along and not have to question who is talking at a given point. I also copy your post so it is easier for me to make sure I directly address the issues you raise.

Quite often I make comments or ask questions that are ignored. I try not to do that to people who disagree with me.

[Jet Jaguar]

ACORN Ping.

[servantoftheservant]

Wow, fascinating reading.

Several times, the MERS secretary clearly says they have no interest in the promissory note, and for a MERS member to foreclose in the name of MERS without the promissory note is a violation of the MERS agreement.

There are many, many mortgages vulnerable to 'quiet title' proceedings, where a defunct bank (like Lehman, or Countrywide, etc., etc.,) and MERS are the only trustees on file with the county. A property owner theoretically has the right to challenge these parties to state their interest in the title to the property, and upon no response or a plead of non-interest, have a judge assign clear title to the homeowner.

[Kartographer]

Clearly what has been done by the Mortgage lenders during their securitization of mortgages and their wholesale breaking of state's real estate laws is so monumentally stupid and is on such a grand scale that people have a difficult time grasping it. Institutions which for years and years where relied upon for their strict adherence to real estate law and procedure have throw most such compliance to the wind. And now when they find themselves in need of using that same system, they are finding that because of their own actions they now can not provide the proper and legal proofs required by that system.

Equally hard to fathom is their reaction to their loss of proofs and the exposure of the facts that they have not been adhering to various real estate laws, which in many cases have been the presenting in court of fraudulent, forged and postdated documents, perjured statements and affirmations to the court. Here again all preformed on a scale that many will find unchomperhensable.

What a quandary we have! To either totally disregard long standing and widely recognized real estate laws weighed against the fear that forcing strict adherence to those laws will cause a financial catastrophe!

[Wolfie]

When two con-men can convince you that one of them is on your side, you’re truly screwed. That’s where we are with the Democrats and Republicans. Everybody believes their side does no wrong, so they can both gang up on us with impunity.