Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Where Are The Indictments!

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 23, 2011, 9:41 a.m. EST by justicia (58) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Please read this article (on home foreclosure crimes by the banks) ... and then take the Occupation to the Department of Justice and every US Attorney's Office in every city where people are being defrauded and illegally evicted!

Special Report: The watchdogs that didn't bark

By Scot Paltrow

Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:15pm EST

Reuters) - Four years after the banking system nearly collapsed from reckless mortgage lending, federal prosecutors have stayed on the sidelines, even as judges around the country are pointing fingers at possible wrongdoing.

The federal government, as has been widely noted, has pressed few criminal cases against major lenders or senior executives for the events that led to the meltdown of 2007. Finding hard evidence has proved difficult, the Justice Department has said.

The government also hasn't brought any prosecutions for dubious foreclosure practices deployed since 2007 by big banks and other mortgage-servicing companies.

But this part of the financial system, a Reuters examination shows, is filled with potential leads.

Foreclosure-related case files in just one New York federal bankruptcy court, for example, hold at least a dozen mortgage documents known as promissory notes bearing evidence of recently forged signatures and illegal alterations, according to a judge's rulings and records reviewed by Reuters. Similarly altered notes have appeared in courts around the country.

Banks in the past two years have foreclosed on the houses of thousands of active-duty U.S. soldiers who are legally eligible to have foreclosures halted. Refusing to grant foreclosure stays is a misdemeanor under federal law.

The U.S. Treasury confirmed in November that it is conducting a civil investigation of 4,500 such foreclosures. Attorneys representing service members estimate banks have foreclosed on up to 30,000 military personnel in potential violation of the law.

[...]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/22/us-foreclosures-idUSTRE7BL0MC20111222

12 Comments

12 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Great question.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

fleft - proof that paid trolls are amongst us

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 2 years ago

(but they are just here because they are interested in the movement and like having discussions with people who are not like minded because they are so enlightened, or so they keep telling me)

[-] -2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

There haven't been any prosecutions because the banks were operating under the law as promulgated by the government. How hard is that to understand? Do you beat puppies for shitting on the carpet? That's what puppies do.

Banks lend under the law, they would be insane to do otherwise, they could go to jail. I realize you people aren't the sharpest pencils in the box but my god, even the dullest of you should be able to figure this out.

[-] 3 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Try reading the article. The whole point is that the banks BROKE the law but they're not being prosecuted.

[-] -2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

What laws have been broken? There are a few thousand faulty mortgages out of millions? Really? Doesn't that fall more under margin of error than dastardly law breaking?

Or does this fall under the liberal rubric; if you don't like what someone is doing it's illegal and if you don't agree with what someone is saying, it's a lie? Handy isn't it?

[-] 3 points by Marquee (192) 2 years ago

The crimes committed (allegedly) were, as stated very clearly in the article; fraud, forgery, refusal to grant foreclosure stays to US soldiers, and illegaly altering documents. It's all in the article.

[-] -2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

The article expresses opinion about a very small number of mortgages. If the author has proof of wrongdoing he should submit it to the DOJ forthwith.

Reality is the best you folks can hope for is the scalp of some overworked local mortgage banker who cut some corners, a 99%er no doubt. You've got your panties in a twist over nothing and the very fact these minor errors are being touted shows the paucity of your position. Shame.

[-] 2 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Shame on you for thinking that ILLEGAL foreclosure on 30,000 military families is "nothing."

You're displaying only your ignorance and mean spriited ugliness. Troll Be Gone!

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

LOL! I love liberal tolerance! What you are hoping for can never happen. For you to get your fire and brimstone revenge against the evil bankers you would have to prove it was the POLICY of the bank to submit faulty documents or WRONGLY foreclose on military members and that will never happen because it isn't policy of the banks to do such things.

The very best you could do is jail some low level clerks (fellow 99%ers) who were responsible for documentation and same in the case of the military foreclosures, some dumbass clerk was following the company handbook and submitted foreclosure documents without even checking the employment status of the individual.

You guys need to think this stuff through, it just makes you look silly to claim major banks have a policy of filing incorrect documentation and foreclosing on military homeowners.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 2 years ago

The facts are in print, why don't you try doing some reading instead of spewing stupid shit on this board. Your house may be next...

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Sorry to disturb your Wa with reality. :) The cognitive dissonance must truly be painful when your treasured positions are shown to be not only silly but stupid in that the truth is plainly evident.

Of course, you could actually engage and show me with your blinding brilliance where I'm wrong in my statements. But then you can't can you?