More Proof our Government is in Bed with the Banksters

In an article released yesterday in the New York Times,  reporter Gretchen Morgenson confirms another bank settlement with the S.E.C, but this one fails to name names.

 She notes " It is a deal that holds no one at the bank accountable for behavior that caused investors to lose an estimated $2 billion." Not surprisingly the fine is just a tiny bit of the estimated $2 Billion that clients were tricked out of when led to believe their investment in municipal bonds was safe, when in fact it was anything but safe.

"Citigroup will pay $180 million in the settlement, most of which will be distributed to wronged investors. The bank neither admitted nor denied the S.E.C.’s allegations. A spokesman said the bank was pleased to have resolved the matter."

Well worth the read, Ms Morgenson exposes other failures of our government to hold any of the players accountable, even when there is no doubt who is the mastermind of the criminal
behavior.

“He was absolutely the mastermind, there is no doubt about that.”

$180 Million is nothing to a giant like Citibank. Undoubtably the lawyers will receive more compensation that the wronged investors.


'Too Lame to Name' should be the new slogan for the S.E.C.

Too Lame to Name

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/business/sec-settlement-with-citigroup-holds-no-one-responsible.html?emc=edit_dlbkam_20150831&nl=business&nlid=68893896&_r=0

US BANK'S HOODWINKING NO LONGER FOOLING JUDGES

In an article written by Barry Fagan in JD SUPRA business advisor- he states that

" It has long been the successful strategy of banks to hoodwink judges into treating them as Holders in Due Course — even when HDC status is expressly denied by the foreclosing party. For them it is simple: they have the note in their possession and that is all anyone needs to know. That is dead wrong."

Many homeowners have lost their cases when the bank boldly lies to the courts about the chain of title and their right to foreclose.  However in St. Clair v US BANK  the court opines

"Ultimately the problem with US Bank’s attempt to establish standing to foreclose is that it relies on a “paper trail” that beats around the bush but never axes the tree necessary to establish the legal requirement of standing. We cannot, as advocated by U.S. Bank, presume standing simply because it serviced the loan; Long standing case law prevents us from doing so.”

This is what so many foreclosure fighters have been fighting for- hopefully the tide is turning.
See the July 17 2015 opinion here. 

http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Pages_2015/July/July%2017,%202015/2D14-2111.pdf