On the art of the "technical mistake"

It’s amazing how quickly these little “mistakes” and “errors” are popping up now that the lawyers for the fraudulent securities are on the hunt. And so many too!

Wells Fargo admitted Wednesday it made mistakes in the paperwork for thousands of foreclosure cases and promised to fix them. The San Francisco-based bank said it plans to refile documents in 55,000 of the cases by mid-November. The company said not all those cases included errors and didn’t say how many did. Wells Fargo described the mistakes as technical and said it has no plans to halt the foreclosure process.

Oh, well, so long as it’s only 54,999 technical mistakes… meanwhile, the bankers’ little game of ex post facto minimal admission doesn’t appear to be playing well with anyone but the media.

“Mortgage servicers have been reworking investor-owned loans while not seeking amendments on debts they hold themselves, a misstep investors can use to bypass trustees or force them to act, Bill Frey, the head of Greenwich Financial, said at the conference. The four largest U.S. banks, which service a majority of U.S. mortgages, own more than $400 billion of home- equity debt, Goodman said. “We found servicer defaults in 100 percent of the trusts,” Frey said.”

100 percent servicer defaults? Probably just a technical mistake, I’m sure. It will be interesting, of course, to see the attempts to explain away the magic rotating vice-presidency of MERS as yet another technical mistake.

“In the instant action, Ms. Johnson-Seck claims to be: a Vice President of MERS in the March 16, 2009 MERS to INDYMAC assignment; a Vice President of INDYMAC in the May 14, 2009 INDYMAC to ONEWEST assignment; and, a Vice President of ONEWEST in her June 30, 2009-affidavit of merit. Ms. Johnson-Seck must explain to the Court, in her affidavit: her employment history for the past three years; and, why a conflict of interest does not exist in the instant action with her acting as a Vice President of assignor MERS, a Vice President of assignee/assignor INDYMAC, and a Vice President of assignee/plaintiff ONEWEST. Further, Ms. Johnson-Seck must explain: why she was a Vice President of both assignor MERS and assignee DEUTSCHE BANK in a second case before me, Deutsche Bank v Maraj, 18 Misc 3d 1123 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2008); why she was a Vice President of both assignor MERS and assignee INDYMAC in a third case before me, Indymac Bank, FSB, v Bethley, 22 Misc 3d 1119 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2009); and, why she executed an affidavit of merit as a Vice President of DEUTSCHE BANK in a fourth case before me, Deutsche Bank v Harris (Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 5, 2008, Index No. 35549/07).”

Now here’s the punchline: “Johnson-Seck admitted she was not employed by MERS and didn’t know who its president was or the location of its headquarters.”

Brothel or burqah: the reality

You can’t say I didn’t warn you about the choice an increasing number of Western women are presently making:

Tony Blair’s sister-in-law announced her conversion to Islam last weekend. Journalist Lauren Booth embraced the faith after what she describes as a ‘holy experience’ in Iran. She is just one of a growing number of modern British career women to do so…. According to Kevin Brice from ­Swansea University, who has specialised in studying white conversion to Islam, these women are part of an intriguing trend. He explains: ‘They seek spirituality, a higher meaning, and tend to be deep thinkers. The other type of women who turn to Islam are what I call “converts of convenience”. They’ll assume the trappings of the religion to please their Muslim husband and his family, but won’t necessarily attend mosque, pray or fast.’…

For a significant amount of women, their first contact with Islam comes from ­dating a Muslim boyfriend.

Although this may be shocking to the typical half-sapient and maleducated secular mind, numbed as it is from between 12 and 27 years of unmitigated feminist and multicultural propaganda, it was entirely predictable. And was, in fact, predicted by numerous parties. The primary reason neither the Greeks nor America’s Founding Fathers permitted women to vote is because they are much more intellectually malleable than men. Even the most fervent feminist will enthusiastically embrace the submission of Islam if a man is able to inspire her rationalization hamster to spin in that direction.

Osama bin Laden was correct in stating that Islam is the strong horse in comparison with secular post-Christian America. Secular post-Christianity is both rootless and pointless; it has neither raison d’etre nor does it provide anyone with objectives beyond the momentary and the material. While the abstract thinkers of the cognitive elite can come up with higher purposes of their own, (most of which involve placing themselves in control of other people and wind up getting a lot of people killed), such self-serving intellectual ephemeralities are incapable of satisfying the spiritual hunger of the masses.

In turning away from its historical identity as Christendom, the West has created a vast spiritual void and already the weaker souls are drifting into the pagan madness that Chesterton, Lewis, and other Christian savants predicted in the previous century. There will never be an atheist society, because human society can no more abide a spiritual vaccuum than nature can abide a material one.

The WSJ in defense of Wall Street

An ostensibly conservative media is still trying to blame borrowers for the multiple frauds that were committed by the banks. And it’s still not working:

Millions of Americans have stopped paying their mortgages, creating a giant paperwork snafu and legal crisis, and yet… Funny how many media accounts begin with that rarest of creatures, a homeowner fully paid up on his mortgage, or better yet a Florida man who paid cash for his house, and who was foreclosed on anyway thanks to a paperwork error by some confused bank. This poor shmuck then is made to symbolize the larger phenomenon when in fact the larger phenomenon is precisely the opposite.

You can’t understand the latest mortgage mess without understanding the powerful appetite to cast borrowers as victims and banks as villains in the housing bubble. This tendency is present in claims that minorities have been especially victimized, that people were sold loans they didn’t understand.

The battle of the narratives is reaching its climax in the robo-signer controversy, with lawyers seizing upon technicalities to let people go on living in homes they’ve stopped paying for.

We hasten to add that technicalities are important; the rule of law is nothing but a profound commitment to honor technicalities. But let’s understand that in the absence of the snafu, we’d have a faster, smoother-working foreclosure process, in which more Americans would more quickly be shoved out into the street in perfect compliance with the law.

It is really remarkable how the self-appointed defense attorneys for the mortgage banks keep dancing desperately around the word FRAUD like wildebeest at a crocodile-infested waterhole. There was no “snafu”. There were no “clerical errors”. There were no “paperwork mistakes”. There was only the mass and ongoing commitment of FRAUD. The loans were FRAUDULENTLY made in the first place. Then the titles were FRAUDULENTLY transferred, after which they were utilized to sell FRAUDULENT securities. When the loans went bad, as many of them were specifically designed to do, the banks then produced FRAUDULENT documents to replace the originals that were either destroyed or showed evidence of the previous FRAUD committed by the bank.

The bankers are the villains here. There is no “elusive search” to be conducted, in fact, there is no debating this! And many, if not most of the defaulting borrowers were one of the many victims of the multiple frauds committed by the villains. The ironic thing is that this disingenuous Wall Street tool complains about politicians having “moved heaven and earth to prop up the self-same banks” when his entire column is yet another feeble attempt to downplay the criminal activity of the banks and shift responsiblity away from them.

A portrait in conservative cluelessness

Can someone just get this chick the job she obviously wants on Fox already? I have absolutely nothing against attractive blondes babbling nonsensically in ignorance, I just don’t think it belongs on the op/ed page:

What have we come to when we believe drunken college students over police officers? That is exactly the case in Boston. Several “eye witnesses” claim the authorities overreacted when they shot at 20-year-old D.J. Henry’s car in front of a local bar, which resulted in his death and the injury of his passenger. It has been reported that D.J. was supposed to be the designated driver and was only there to pick up some friends. I find that hard to believe considering his blood alcohol level was nearly twice the legal limit.

Understandably, D.J.’s parents are outraged and devastated, calling for an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. I can’t imagine the pain they must be going through. This is a tough one because on one hand you have parents who just lost their son, and on the other you have a drunken kid who allegedly fled from the cops when he was approached and hit two of them with his car as he accelerated. It’s not like D.J. was just minding his own business and the cops walked up to the car and shot him. He put himself at risk when he knowingly got behind the wheel while he was intoxicated.

Where does personal responsibility come into play? D.J.’s blood alcohol level was .13. He was in the driver’s seat and the cops were called to the bar due to an “unruly crowd” outside. Should they have let him drive home? Of course not; they’re going to do their job and approach him. If the authorities hadn’t gone up to the car and instead just let D.J. drive home, what would the consequences have been? Driving under the influence could have resulted in an accident….

The cops were doing their job. It seems like when they do that, their investigations are “fatally flawed,” as D.J.’s family put it – but when they don’t do their job they’re incompetent and negligent. Are we to blame police officers when they try to protect and serve?

Americans will stop believing “drunken college students over police officers” when police officers stop destroying evidence, lying about what happened, and exonerating themselves of any wrongdoing after leaving a trail of dead bodies behind them. Someone needs to explain to little Chrissy Chatterfield that “protecting and serving” does not involve murdering men who happen to be lightly intoxicated behind the wheel of a car. Or legally carrying while shopping at CostCo. Or sitting at home minding their own business with a door left open to provide a breeze on a hot summer evening. There are no shortage of unjustifiable police murders for which none of the responsible cops were even prosecuted.

What passes for her logic is darkly hilarious; it’s good for the police to kill a man in order to prevent the highly unlikely possibility that he might kill someone else in an accident. By this reckoning, police snipers should be stationed outside every bar and nightclub parking lot in America, picking off anyone who looks like they might have had more than two drinks. And more importantly, the police had absolutely no idea that the guy was drunk. They didn’t shoot him because he had a BAC of 0.13, which despite the absurd legal limits is barely into the range that is even detectable without testing, they shot him because he didn’t follow their confusing and imprecise orders. (At his body weight, D.J. Henry had probably had all of 5 drinks that evening.) Randy Moss would be dead if the Minneapolis police were similarly inclined to homicide.

Take note of the scare quotes around “eyewitneses”. Does little Miss Chatterfield not believe that these people were there on the scene? Does she have any reason to doubt their eyewitness testimony, which just happens to be the primary foundation of every legal system dating back to the Old Testament? Of course not, she’s just a clueless, conservative cop-lover who believes that providing a psychopath with a blue uniform and a gun magically transforms him into a heroic and faultless doer of good.

Miss Chatterfield may be on the cops’ side, but what she is too young and foolish to understand is that they are most certainly not on her side. Since her interactions with the police are probably limited to Norman Rockwell paintings and crying to get out of the occasional speeding ticket, she has no idea of the extent to which the police departments of America have been militarized, corrupted by drug war money, and populated by criminals. This asinine article is exhibit A in the mindless conservative support for the police that must come to an end in order to restore legitimacy to what is presently little more than a lawless government badge gang.

UPDATE: I missed the fact that WND’s cheerleader for the police state didn’t even manage to get the right state, let alone city, in her rush to defend a police shooting. D.J. Henry was shot and killed in Thornwood, New York by the Pleasantville police. The case, exactly or otherwise, had no connection with Boston.

UPDATE II: Well, I suppose this would be one effective means of addressing police brutality: “The entire police force of a small town in northern Mexico resigned after gunmen attacked their recently-opened headquarters with grenades and assault rifles, local news agencies reported quoting the town’s Mayor on Wednesday.”

I suppose it’s not so fun to wave your badge and your gun when the people start shooting back.