FedUpUSA

Archive for May 9th, 2011

Responding to growing allegations of fraudulent mortgage documents found in Michigan, state Attorney General Bill Schuette on Friday announced his support for a package of bills aiming to make it easier for law enforcement to fight mortgage fraud.

The concerns come from registers of deeds across the state who are finding foreclosure documents with the signature Linda Green on them. Why is that bad?

Because a recent “60 Minutes” story revealed that several people were being paid $10 an hour to sign the name Linda Green on foreclosure-related documents one after another. According to the story, the former Georgia company, Docx, was trying to recreate mortgage reassignment documents that should have been signed when the mortgages were bundled, sold and securitized.

One former employee told “60 Minutes” he had to sign at least 350 documents an hour and probably hit 4,000 signatures a day – none of them his own.

The story sent ripples through county clerks office who began checking documents for Linda Green’s name.

“We had our software company look at Docx documents,” Ottawa County Chief Deputy Register of Deeds Kathy Haiker said. “We do have documents with Linda Green on them. I think we have maybe 35 from 2008 and 2009.”

Jerome Czaja, the chief deputy register of deeds for Kent County estimates they have “hundreds” of Linda Green documents and have submitted samples to the attorney general’s office.

“It’s something that is going to have to work its way through the courts,” he said.

They are among counties across the state who have contacted the attorney general with concerns that thousands of forged mortgage documents were filed during the foreclosure crisis, prompting an investigation.

Attorney General Spokeswoman Joy Yearout said consumers current on their mortgage who find Linda Green’s name on their documents should alert their county register of deeds.

“If there is someone being foreclosed upon, we advise them to check to ensure that the company foreclosing on the home actually holds the note to the property,” she said. “And if they are concerned, we do recommend they consult a private attorney.”

The same goes for people who already went through foreclosure and find Linda Green’s name on their documents.

“People also can file a complaint with the attorney general’s office,” she said.

Kym Spring, coordinator of Foreclosure Response, a consortium of nonprofits and businesses fighting foreclosure in West Michigan, said there’s no real way to know whether the foreclosures with Linda Green’s name are legitimate or not.

“They were rubber stamped,” she said. “They were just signing Linda Green, Linda Green, Linda Green.”

The attorney general’s office is part of an ongoing effort with other states to investigate earlier allegations of “robosigning,” and Yearout said the new allegations are being discussed, too.

The bipartisan package of seven bills were in a senate committee this week, Yearout said, and are likely headed to the senate floor next week. Together they would:

• Make it a felony to violate the notary act when a document affects interest in real estate.
• Increase the penalty for fraud over $20,000, also known as the crime of false pretenses.
• Increase the statute of limitations on crimes related to real property transactions from six to 10 years to give investigators more time.
• And define a specific crime “mortgage fraud,” giving prosecutors a “precise tool.”

Spring welcomed news of the legislation.

“I’m thrilled that there are now some serious efforts to punish those responsible for stealing families’ homes and to help curb and prosecute future abuses,” she said. “At the same time, there really needs to be a requirement that you actually have to have proof that you own someone’s mortgage before you can foreclose on them.”

MILive

Mr. Schuette, while this is a step in the right direction, what we need is legislation requiring any entity initiating foreclosure be required to show proof that they have the right to do so!  Why make this the homeowner’s responsibility to fight fraudulent activity, often times AFTER they’ve been defrauded? 

Of course, if this were to be attempted, I’m sure Michigan would run into the same problem that Arizona is having, where the bankers buy off all the legislators.  So far, there have been two attempts to pass their proposed legislation and each time, one of the sponsoring legislators have withdrawn it after receiving a nice mortgage principal reduction.   See Disappearing Legislation Courtesy of Bankers and Strange Happenings In Arizona State Senate.

Will Michigan actually stand up against the bankers and for its citizens?

As early as January of 2005, high-ranking officials were discussing the best way to sell the idea of North American “integration” to the public and policymakers while getting around national constitutions. The prospect of creating a monetary unit to replace national currencies was a hot topic as well.

Some details of the schemes were exposed in a secret 2005 U.S. embassy cable from Ottawa signed by then-Ambassador Paul Cellucci. The document was released by WikiLeaks on April 28. But so far, it has barely attracted any attention in the United States, Canada, or Mexico beyond a few mentions in some liberty-minded Internet forums.

Numerous topics are discussed in the leaked document — borders, currency, labor, regulation, and more. How to push the integration agenda features particularly prominently.

Under the subject line “Placing a new North American Initiative in its economic policy context,” American diplomatic personnel in Canada said they believed an “incremental” path toward North American integration would probably gain the most support from policymakers. Apparently Canadian economists agreed.

The cable also touts the supposed benefits of merging the three countries and even mentions what elements to “stress” in future “efforts to promote further integration.” It lists what it claims is a summary of the “consensus” among Canadian economists about the issues, too.

Merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico

Integration is a little-used term employed mainly by policy wonks. But while it may sound relatively harmless, it generally describes a very serious phenomenon when used in a geopolitical context — the gradual merging of separate countries under a regional authority.

Similar processes are already well underway in Europe, Africa, and South America. And according to critics, the results — essentially abolishing national sovereignty in favor of supranational, unaccountable governance — have been an unmitigated disaster. But the U.S. government doesn’t think so.

In North America, integration has been proceeding rapidly for years. The New American magazine was among the first to report on the efforts to erect what critics have called a “North American Union,” encompassing Canada, the United States, and Mexico. But more recently, the topic has received more attention.

After the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)  — similar in many ways to the European Common Market that preceded the political union in Europe — the integration scheme has only accelerated. And the bipartisan efforts have been going on for years.

Under President George W. Bush, integration occurred through the little-known “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.” And with the Obama administration, the process,  now virtually out in the open, is only accelerating.

Back in 2005, the cable released recently by WikiLeaks explained how it would be done. And looking back, the document was right on the mark.

Moving Forward

The best way forward, according to the cable, is via gradual steps. “An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,” the cable states in its summary.

“Our research  leads us to conclude that such a package should tackle both ‘security’ and ‘prosperity’ goals,” the document claims, using the two key words that have been emphasized at every step along the way. “This fits the recommendations of Canadian economists who have assessed the options for continental integration.”

Toward the end, the cable offers more advice on how to advance the integration agenda by tailoring the narrative. “When advocating [the North American Initiative to integrate the three countries], it would be better to highlight specific gains to individual firms, industries or travelers, and especially consumers,” the cable states, noting that it’s harder to “estimate the benefits” on a national or continental scale.

Unsubstantiated Claims

In a section headlined “North American Integration: What We Know,” the cable offers nothing but praise for the merging of the continent’s once-sovereign nations that had already been achieved.

“Past integration (not just NAFTA but also many bilateral and unilateral steps) has increased trade, economic growth, and productivity,” it claims, despite the fact that countless economists disagree. Of course, true free-trade advocates also correctly point out that the thousands of pages of regulations making up the agreements should hardly be considered examples of genuine free trade.

So-called “security,” the other big integration selling point, is featured prominently in the document as well. “A stronger continental ‘security perimeter’ can strengthen economic performance,“ the cable states. “It could also facilitate future steps toward trilateral economic integration, such as a common external tariff or a customs union.”

And law enforcement “cooperation” is good too, the embassy and the U.S. ambassador claim matter-of-factly.

“Cooperative measures on the ‘security’ side, a critical focus of current bilateral efforts, can deliver substantial, early, and widespread economic benefits,” the cable alleges, offering no evidence to substantiate the assertions.

“Security and law enforcement within North America have evolved rapidly since 9/11,” it continues. “Collaboration to improve these processes could yield efficiency improvements which would automatically be spread widely across the economy, leading to general gains in trade, productivity, and incomes.”  

The Alleged “Consensus”

According to the document, “many” economists agree with the scheme. The cable says they support the principle of “more ambitious integration goals” such as a customs union, a single market, and even a continental currency to replace the dollar. On top of that, they supposedly believe such a union should involve all three major North American countries — the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

The cable cautions, however, that “most” of the economists believe the gradual approach is “most appropriate” — for now, at least. And all of them apparently agree that such an approach “helps pave the way to these goals if and when North Americans choose to pursue them.”

The embassy cable also included a summary of what it calls the “professional consensus” among Canadian economists on various issues related to integration.

“At this time, an ‘incremental’ approach to integration is probably better than a ‘big deal’ approach,” the document states under the “process” subheading, supposedly referring to the economists’ opinions. “However, governments should focus on choosing their objectives, and not on choosing a process.”

Next in the cable is the question of “border vs. perimeter,” as the formerly secret document puts it. “Even with zero tariffs, our land borders have strong commercial effects,” the embassy said. However, “some” of the effects — such as law enforcement and “data gathering” — are described as “positive.”

“Canada and the United States already share a security perimeter to some degree; it is just a question of how strong we want to make it,” the 2005 document notes. Apparently Canadians’ main reason for seeking a perimeter approach to security and borders, as opposed to a border between the two nations, is to avoid the “risk” that “discretionary” U.S. decisions to stop terror or disease might impede commerce. And evidently, the nations’ rulers did decide to make the perimeter stronger.

As The New American reported in February, U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper met in Washington, D.C., to hammer out a deal on solidifying the common “perimeter” around the two countries. Also part of the agreement, which conspicuously bypassed both countries’ legislatures, was a diminished role for the nations’ shared border. The development of a biometric system to track North Americans was agreed to as well, as were numerous other controversial measures.

In terms of labor markets, the so-called “consensus” among the unidentified Canadian economists is also — surprise! — the pursuit of even more integration. “Many Canadian economists point to labor markets — both within and among countries — as the factor market [sic] where more liberalization would deliver the greatest economic benefits for all three countries,” the document states.

Next, the cable release by WikiLeaks highlights another startling proposition about how to achieve an end-run around the Canadian Constitution. “Inter-provincial differences [in regulation] are important here, since Canada’s federal government does not have the benefit of a U.S.-style ‘interstate commerce’ clause,” the document states. “While much of the problem is domestic in nature, an international initiative could help to catalyze change.”

Yes, the U.S. embassy referred to the wildly abused and misapplied “commerce clause” as a “benefit” that Canada lacks. And it actually suggested, hiding behind unnamed “economists,” that the constitutional “problem” could be minimized by foisting an “international initiative” on the Canadian people.    

The cable also claims the “economists” support a customs union, a feature developed in the European Union once the integration process was well established. “A common external tariff, or a customs union which eliminated NAFTA’s rules of origin (ROO), is economically desirable,” it states.

And finally, the document summarizes the “consensus” on the subject of a currency union. It said the supposed economists were “split” on the issues of returning to fixed exchange rates or even abolishing Canada’s fiat dollar and replacing it with American Federal Reserve fiat currency.

The cable gives the final word on the topic of a currency union to the Canadian central bank boss. He is quoted as saying that “monetary union is an issue that should be considered once we have made more progress towards establishing a single market.”

Secrets, Backers

The scheme to merge North America into a political unit with its own legislature and currency is largely the brainchild of the world government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations. But though documents leaked earlier this year revealed that governments were trying to keep the process under wraps, integration is now proceeding out in the open for the most part.

Where the campaign will eventually end remains to be seen. But if North American Union advocates get their way, the U.S. Constitution and its Mexican and Canadian counterparts could soon be rendered irrelevant. After that, plugging the regional units into a global system would be a relatively simple matter, critics and supporters both argue.

The New American

In support of the WikiLeaks documents, there’s this Task Report from The Council On Foreign Relations:

The hubris of the Federal Reserve knows no bounds; the Fed Governors’ delusions will lead to tragic failure.

In the tragi-comic farce that is the U.S. economy, the Federal Reserve plays the part of the hubris-soaked Hero whose overconfident meddling triggers ruin.

Entire volumes could be written about the folly of the Federal Reserve’s policies, but I will limit this to two specific points of a general nature.

Many observers have likened financial systems to natural systems, i.e. an ecology in which complex interactions establish a dynamic harmony of ebbs and flows within a stable framework.

The current global ecology of finance is out of balance and intrinsically unstable. The Federal Reserve and the other central banks are playing the role of financial gods, if you will, intervening in the interactions of mere mortals to create the illusion of stability.

To this end, the Fed has created trillions of dollars behind its veil of secrecy, and used this money to prop up delusional asset values (high) and interest rates (low).

If we look at a decentralized financial system as a self-organizing ecology, we find that the strength of the system lies in the adaptability of the myriad organisms in its many micro-climates and meandering streams. The key strength of a decentralized financial ecology, i.e. one not organized as a top-down command economy, is the “genetic diversity” of its many participants. There is not just one dominant species in the ecology, but many interdependent species.

In a financial ecology, there is not one lender and one class of borrowers, but a huge diversity of lenders, borrowers, creditors and savers, and a wealth of interacting, inter-dependent enterprises.

A centralized financial ecology is a doomed system. The Fed is the equivalent of an ignorant, hubris-infused agency that seeks to “restore” an ecology by flooding it with dammed-up water and unleashing a single predatory species raised in an unnatural, contrived “factory.”

The Fed is wiping out diversity and thus the adaptability of the enterprises that survive its crude flooding and replication of a single predatory species.

The Fed is creating a sickly, vulnerable mono-culture of an economy, one dominated by centrally controlled predators which are themselves lacking in genetic diversity. the predators are vulnerable to collapse, and so is the entire mono-culture ecology.

Just as agencies playing god further degrade the natural systems they claim to be “restoring” with ever-grander interventions, so too is the Fed destroying the U.S. economy with equivalent god-like meddling and ever-more grandiose, ever-more delusional interventions in what were once decentralized, self-organizing systems that naturally sought harmony and stability.

Put another way: the Fed has taken the risk from failed institutions and policies, and spread it throughout the entire financial ecology. What should have triggered a “die off” of one vulnerable species–the “too big to fail” mortgage/commercial banks and the Wall Street investment banks–was redistributed to all other species.

In other words, the risk to the entire system has been raised in order to preserve the Fed’s “preferred” predators. Risk cannot be massaged away, it can only be cloaked or redistributed. In redistributing the monumental losses and the equally monumental risks of price discovery inherent in those undeclared and masked losses, the Fed is greatly increasing the vulnerability of the entire financial ecosystem.

The Fed’s grandiose attempts to play Central Command Economy god, destroying the strengths of diversity and adaptability to preserve its predatory partners, will usher in Nemesis–the culminating destruction brought on by the Fed’s folly and hubris.

Of Two Minds

And manage to get published in the WSJ!

When I had the honor of leading the True Finn Party to electoral victory in April, we made a solemn promise to oppose the so-called bailouts of euro-zone member states. These bailouts are patently bad for Europe, bad for Finland and bad for the countries that have been forced to accept them. Europe is suffering from the economic gangrene of insolvency—both public and private. And unless we amputate that which cannot be saved, we risk poisoning the whole body.

These guys have been reading Tickers.

Here’s the interesting part of this – they’re hitting virtually all of the correct points.  You can’t solve a debt problem with more debt.  Lowering interest rates doesn’t help if you continue to borrow, it only makes the problem worse.

Debt only becomes less toxic as you remove it from the system!

The money did not go to help indebted economies. It flowed through the European Central Bank and recipient states to the coffers of big banks and investment funds.

Yep.  Just like here.  We blew nearly $3 trillion in deficit spending over the last three years, which “coincidentally” just happens to be approximately the amount by which financial firm credit contracted.

Gee, where’d the money go?  I’ll tell you where it didn’t go – it did not help the consumer.  And despite Zillow and others claiming there has been $9 trillion in home value lost, mortgage debt has only declined by $530 billion.  Where’s the rest?

Being hidden, that’s where.

That was not to be. As former Finance Minister Brian Lenihan recently revealed, Ireland was forced to take the money. The same happened to Portuguese Prime Minister José Sócrates, although he may be less forthcoming than Mr. Lenihan about admitting it.

Nobody was “forced.”  They decided to blow the bankers.  The choice did, and does, exist to tell them to go screw instead.  If you had actual representative government that’s what would have happened.  But you don’t.  You have a captured government, where people vote in straw polls and then get serially financially raped by their alleged “representatives.”

Insolvent banks and financial institutions must be shut down, purging insolvency from the system. We must restore the market principle of freedom to fail.

Yep.  I’ve been singing this song since 2007.  It still applies today.

This is not just about economics. People feel betrayed. In Ireland, the incoming parties to the new government promised to hold senior bondholders responsible, but under pressure, they succumbed, leaving their voters with a sense of democratic disenfranchisement. The elites in Brussels have said that Finland must honor its commitments to its European partners, but Brussels is silent on whether national politicians should honor their commitments to their own voters. In a democracy, where we govern under the consent of the people, power is on loan.

My my, someone in government understands that in fact all government flows from the consent of the governed?

I like this guy.  How is Finland’s immigration policy?

The Market-Ticker