jose chalhoub

Pandemonium in Venezuela.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Rodent said:

I know what the Street is up to: making money. I'm not suggesting they are on the up and up. 

In your example, not sure how that relates to the issue at hand. Not saying it doesn't, only that I don't see it. While the original lender may no longer have a claim (I don't understand who is who in your above), the homeowner certainly doesn't if they are not paying. 

That specific example aside, if you have borrowed money and then find yourself upside down or catastrophe happens (God forbid) and you find yourself unable to pay, it will be reclaimed, and rightfully so, even if the money was lent knowing that the borrower had a slim chance of paying.

The banks did an awful thing here, for sure. They should suffer. but they won't. But we must not whitewash the borrowers who bit off more than they can chew. And accidents and unforseen circumstances happen, to be sure. Some of these things are unavoidable. But then you must take your lumps--a contract to pay is a contract to pay, and if you can't pay, regardless of the reason, you are not entitled to the thing you purchased. The banks need to own up to their share of this mess. Borrowers too must own their share as well.

Rodi, you are not grasping the sequence of events. It does not work like that. 

1.   The Lender is paid.  He gets paid by a contract of insurance.  So he is made whole.  Basically, the same as if the house burned down and he collected on the casualty insurance.

2.   The homeowner continues as the owner on title.  Whether or not HE pays is both irrelevant and immaterial.  The only question is: is the LENDER paid? 

3.   The insurer would (in typical circumstances)  have a claim of subrogation on the loan.  BUT:  the insurance contract was written without subrogation rights.  Those deals simply require a higher premium.. The Street did it that way to avoid having some insurer go in there to claim the property under subrogation and then discover that the Street had faked the documents. 

4.  The net result is that the homeowner's obligations are fully discharged - by the insurer.  He is the owner.  The Lender is paid.  It is now his house (even though he defaulted).  Are you offended by that result?  Well, why? (Other than a Calvinist reflexive response that nobody should get something for nothing.)  

5.   Somebody shows up in Court and sues the homeowner.  That entity is not the Lender, it is not the owner of the debt, it is not the insurer, - hey, who is it?  It is some clown who waves around a photocopy of that Note (never mind it was paid by the insurer) and claims to the Judge:  "I am the Holder of the Note,  He didn't pay.  Give me that house!"    

And the Judge says:  "Are you the Holder of the Note?"  and the lawyer says: "Sure, I am holding it in my sweaty little hand!" 

And the Judge asks the homeowner:  "Did you borrow the money?"  And the homeowner says: "Yup, sure did."  Except, of course, he did not borrow one thin dime from the guys standing in the courtroom waving the note around, but nobody tells the judge that, and the homeowner has no clue. 

And the Judge asks:  "Did you pay it back?" And the homeowner says "No, I did not."  (Never mind that someone else did, on his behalf, so the lender is paid and has no claim, but the Lender is not even before the Court, that guy in court is someone else). 

So the Judge, who is not told that the party in Court has nothing to do with the loan, says:  "Foreclosed!"  

And he hands over that house to some bank that never made the loan, that has no funds at  risk, that did not purchase the loan, that has no risk of loss, and basically is no more than some distant neighbor living eight doors down and around the corner, collecting on that fallen tree in the yard.  Make sense to you?

Now, you ask, how do these Wall Street guys get away with it?  (Aside from controlling the information flow, and forging paperwork, and hiding the truth from the Court) they get away with it because most Americans have precisely the same attitude you have, that is: "Hey you signed, if you don't pay, you don't get to keep that house."   It is a purely Calvinist attitude, and the Street has developed exploiting it to a fine art. Remember, they have zero investment in that loan.  It is piracy, pure and simple.  Check out the video I posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Rodi, you are not grasping the sequence of events. It does not work like that. 

1.   The Lender is paid.  He gets paid by a contract of insurance.  So he is made whole.  Basically, the same as if the house burned down and he collected on the casualty insurance.

2.   The homeowner continues as the owner on title.  Whether or not HE pays is both irrelevant and immaterial.  The only question is: is the LENDER paid? 

3.   The insurer would (in typical circumstances)  have a claim of subrogation on the loan.  BUT:  the insurance contract was written without subrogation rights.  Those deals simply require a higher premium.. The Street did it that way to avoid having some insurer go in there to claim the property under subrogation and then discover that the Street had faked the documents. 

4.  The net result is that the homeowner's obligations are fully discharged - by the insurer.  He is the owner.  The Lender is paid.  It is now his house (even though he defaulted).  Are you offended by that result?  Well, why? (Other than a Calvinist reflexive response that nobody should get something for nothing.)  

5.   Somebody shows up in Court and sues the homeowner.  That entity is not the Lender, it is not the owner of the debt, it is not the insurer, - hey, who is it?  It is some clown who waves around a photocopy of that Note (never mind it was paid by the insurer) and claims to the Judge:  "I am the Holder of the Note,  He didn't pay.  Give me that house!"    

And the Judge says:  "Are you the Holder of the Note?"  and the lawyer says: "Sure, I am holding it in my sweaty little hand!" 

And the Judge asks the homeowner:  "Did you borrow the money?"  And the homeowner says: "Yup, sure did."  Except, of course, he did not borrow one thin dime from the guys standing in the courtroom waving the note around, but nobody tells the judge that, and the homeowner has no clue. 

And the Judge asks:  "Did you pay it back?" And the homeowner says "No, I did not."  (Never mind that someone else did, on his behalf, so the lender is paid and has no claim, but the Lender is not even before the Court, that guy in court is someone else). 

So the Judge, who is not told that the party in Court has nothing to do with the loan, says:  "Foreclosed!"  

And he hands over that house to some bank that never made the loan, that has no funds at  risk, that did not purchase the loan, that has no risk of loss, and basically is no more than some distant neighbor living eight doors down and around the corner, collecting on that fallen tree in the yard.  Make sense to you?

Now, you ask, how do these Wall Street guys get away with it?  (Aside from controlling the information flow, and forging paperwork, and hiding the truth from the Court) they get away with it because most Americans have precisely the same attitude you have, that is: "Hey you signed, if you don't pay, you don't get to keep that house."   It is a purely Calvinist attitude, and the Street has developed exploiting it to a fine art. Remember, they have zero investment in that loan.  It is piracy, pure and simple.  Check out the video I posted.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm just suggesting that you can't steal something from someone if they aren't entitled to it in the first place. On time payments = keepy the house. No payments = no house. My view is not based on the legality of who is rightfully entitled to reclaim, only the practicality and ethicality of the fact that it should be reclaimed.. I get what you're saying about the shell game. So the question may very well be who can rightfully claim a house, not if someone can reclaim it.

My original contention is that 22 million houses weren't stolen from people, like they had no accountability. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rodent said:

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm just suggesting that you can't steal something from someone if they aren't entitled to it in the first place. On time payments = keepy the house. No payments = no house. My view is not based on the legality of who is rightfully entitled to reclaim, only the practicality and ethicality of the fact that it should be reclaimed.. I get what you're saying about the shell game. So the question may very well be who can rightfully claim a house, not if someone can reclaim it.

My original contention is that 22 million houses weren't stolen from people, like they had no accountability. 

Sorry, Rodi, you remain unclear as to the legalities.  The homeowner has title. It is his house.  He took out a loan on it.  He has no idea who the real lender is.  The real lender never shows up in Court.  The real lender is not interested in showing up in Court because (1) he does not even know that someone has filed a lawsuit (sometimes in his name, amazing but true) and (2) because a contract of insurance has paid his claim.

The party suing in court is not the lender.  That entity has no funds at risk. They have no loss.  They are busy stealing, under false pretenses.

The entity that paid on the homeowner's behalf is an insurer.  Normally after the insurer pays the Lender, the insurer makes a claim on the security for the loan, by subrogation (the security being the house).  BUT: the insurer did a contract without subrogation, so they do not claim on the house.   Hey, that was their deal.  

So: with nobody making a claim of loss, who keeps the house?  the homeowner.  

Except, of course, that you have these "pretender lenders" who come sailing in claiming "holder of the note" status, even though  what they have is a photocopy of a loan that never existed, as the lender named on the note is not the lender, it is some stand-in who did a rent-a-name. Thus, bottom line:  Wall Street has filed some 22 million foreclosure lawsuits, won virtually all of them - and, astonishingly, had zero interest in those loans!  Amazing stuff.  The Street simply steals.  And they get away with it because Obama did not have the balls to lower the boom (he was terrified of a "financial collapse," which was all varnish put out by the Street in order to pave the way for the big pot of gold for the bankers' bonus pool). 

You don't like the result because it offends you.  It offends your sense of the proper order of things  ("no payments = no house.").  The Street has anticipated your reaction, which is not contractual but religious in nature, and built that into the scheme. And that is why they get away with it. 

Does that clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Rodent said:

in the process of reading this now. From pg 2 

"n particular, the Superior Court of Kings County [Brooklyn], New York, undertook a detailed examination of the shenanigans of Ocwen and HSBC Bank and noted in relevant part"

Is "shenanigans" a legal term? LOVE IT.

You will find that DEUTSCHE BANK, is involved, up to their knockwurst in it also.

I had the pleasure, of forcing OCWEN to disclose and admit, they were only the servicing agent of the MORTGAGEE, which was DEUTSCHE BANK.

WITHOUT disclosing client confidentiality, My client and I successfully shut down OCWEN's harrassment, by offering a settlement of the outstanding balance, in good funds, to the MORTGAGEE. Shoving it down their throat, and ending the endless interest bleeding of the client, was the best part.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Here is a fuller descriptive of what the Street is up to when they go sue some hapless homeowner:

Holy Sh*t.  I'm not surprised, but I am. 

Actually replacing papers within the mortgage is a detail I never really considered.  And an entire industry to service the dirty documents. The gaul. I appreciate your "don't feel so bad,"  and appreciate your disdain for the people on wall street even more.  

I haven't made it through the entire dismissal motion yet, about page 10 and my head was swimming. 

Is there anything to be changed in the law, that would prevent it from reoccurring?  Or, is it simply the courts failed us?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike Marcellus said:

Holy Sh*t.  I'm not surprised, but I am. 

Actually replacing papers within the mortgage is a detail I never really considered.  And an entire industry to service the dirty documents. The gaul. I appreciate your "don't feel so bad,"  and appreciate your disdain for the people on wall street even more.  

I haven't made it through the entire dismissal motion yet, about page 10 and my head was swimming. 

Is there anything to be changed in the law, that would prevent it from reoccurring?  Or, is it simply the courts failed us?

Wall Street has gone to the Governors and the top legislators of the States where they do this kind of work and informed them that, if they change the foreclosure laws or sic the attorneys general on the Street, then the Street will refuse to buy the bonds issued by those States to cover their deficits.  In the Case of Connecticut, the ongoing deficits run to $1.8 billion a year, and no hope of ever raising that money given the way the Democrats have run the State into the ground.  So, the Legislature does nothing, the Street continues its predations, and they buy the deficit funding bonds as a sop to keep the game going.  It is the most gigantic, colossal fraud ever concocted.  All being done by about 3,000 people in New York City, the epicenter of the fraud.

Wells Fargo even wrote a 150-page "foreclosure manual" for their attorneys, instructing them on who to call and who to write if documents needed fabricating. It got accidentally released in a Discovery motion in a court in White Plains, NY, and the hyper-aggressive defendant lawyer just reamed Wells Fargo out, and the Manual is out there on the Internet  (I have a copy). Wells Fargo actually instructed their attorneys on how to forge documents. 

Good to see you enjoy the stuff I write. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Glenn Ellis said:

You will find that DEUTSCHE BANK, is involved, up to their knockwurst in it also.

I had the pleasure, of forcing OCWEN to disclose and admit, they were only the servicing agent of the MORTGAGEE, which was DEUTSCHE BANK.

WITHOUT disclosing client confidentiality, My client and I successfully shut down OCWEN's harrassment, by offering a settlement of the outstanding balance, in good funds, to the MORTGAGEE. Shoving it down their throat, and ending the endless interest bleeding of the client, was the best part.

So now go sue OCWEN.  In the Saccamento Complaint (attached), the Judgment was for $5.8 million.

second amended complaint.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Sorry, Rodi, you remain unclear as to the legalities.  The homeowner has title. It is his house.  He took out a loan on it.  He has no idea who the real lender is.  The real lender never shows up in Court.  The real lender is not interested in showing up in Court because (1) he does not even know that someone has filed a lawsuit (sometimes in his name, amazing but true) and (2) because a contract of insurance has paid his claim.

The party suing in court is not the lender.  That entity has no funds at risk. They have no loss.  They are busy stealing, under false pretenses.

The entity that paid on the homeowner's behalf is an insurer.  Normally after the insurer pays the Lender, the insurer makes a claim on the security for the loan, by subrogation (the security being the house).  BUT: the insurer did a contract without subrogation, so they do not claim on the house.   Hey, that was their deal.  

So: with nobody making a claim of loss, who keeps the house?  the homeowner.  

Except, of course, that you have these "pretender lenders" who come sailing in claiming "holder of the note" status, even though  what they have is a photocopy of a loan that never existed, as the lender named on the note is not the lender, it is some stand-in who did a rent-a-name. Thus, bottom line:  Wall Street has filed some 22 million foreclosure lawsuits, won virtually all of them - and, astonishingly, had zero interest in those loans!  Amazing stuff.  The Street simply steals.  And they get away with it because Obama did not have the balls to lower the boom (he was terrified of a "financial collapse," which was all varnish put out by the Street in order to pave the way for the big pot of gold for the bankers' bonus pool). 

You don't like the result because it offends you.  It offends your sense of the proper order of things  ("no payments = no house.").  The Street has anticipated your reaction, which is not contractual but religious in nature, and built that into the scheme. And that is why they get away with it. 

Does that clarify?

Yeah, I get it. And I feel we are talking in circles. The result is not offensive to me (a hard task indeed). There are two issues here, as I see it. 

One issue is that the house buyer cannot ethically claim "thief!" over a house he/she didn't failed to pay for, in breech of a contract (whether they legally can do so is not important to me and falls outside my original assertion that they shouldn't feign outrage when a house that they didn't pay for is repossessed). 22 million people (your figure) were foreclosed on because they didn't made good on the payments. Sure, they were foreclosed on by fraudsters. What of it? 

The other issue, the one which you are referring to, is the nonsense that the lenders/insurers/underwriters/Joe Schmoe perpetrate on the public and in courts. Their actions may very well be fraudulent, but it doesn't change the first issue.

Unless I am missing something (possible) their fraud is only made possible after a buyer defaults (except in rare circumstances).

I still maintain that everyone could do with more personality responsibility and accountability. It can't always be someone else's fault. If these buyers want to own something, let them own that.

Taking my own lumps, I will own the fact that I have derailed this thread.....

Back on the Venezuela pandemonium topic, Maduro came up with a lovely plan today to reorganize PDVSA, the details of which are conveniently absent. Now that's offensive!

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

I invite you to ponder the attached and the implications for society, as to what Wall Street does to the little guy. 

Memo of Laws re Mot to Dismiss 3.10.18.pdf

^What Jan is saying sure sounds correct.  I think this is the key point of the document: "The mortgage secures the indebtedness itself, not the written evidence of it.... Because [the assignee] has chosen to pursue the equitable action of foreclosure of the mortgage, rather than a legal action on the note, the fact that [the assignee] never possessed the lost promissory note is not fatal to its foreclosure of the mortgage."

If I am thinking of this correctly, it appears that Wallstreet used a bunch of paper shenanigans in order to have their cake and eat it, too.  They collected on the insurance to pay off the debt, which means the homes should have gone to those insurance companies that paid off the debt (kind of like when a car insurance company totals your car after a crash...they write you a check for the car and then they get to keep your totaled car to scrap for parts).  But rather than those houses going to the insurance companies to recoup their losses from the insurance payment, those insurance companies went bankrupt and so the houses were free to also be seized by the banks. 

Cake + Eat  

So, who was left holding the bag?  After all, the insurance companies weren't actually able to make the required insurance payments, nor could they have made them even if they had seized all of those homes in foreclosure.  Instead, those insurance companies were bailed out by the US government who purchased those CMOs from them. 

So does that mean that the US government should have taken ownership of those 22 million homes?  It seems this should be the case.  Unfortunately, due to the paperwork shenanigans, the US government probably didn't even know they were the rightful owners of those homes, and so they couldn't have collected in court even if they wanted to, even more so because the government didn't have the required paperwork to do so.  Only the banksters had that paperwork, or at least, they had enough of the paperwork to delude most of the judges into signing those homes over to those banksters.   

Cake + Eat

2 hours ago, Mike Marcellus said:

I think you may have missed her point.  Yes, you are right. it's absolutely the definition of predatory lending.  But every mortgage was a contract between two parties.  The homeowners signed.  If they signed something they didn't understand, well that's their fault.  Unfortunately, I fell under that segment.  I worked very hard to right that ship.  And I also, like Rodent, have very little patience for those who like to blame everyone but themselves.

^So, actually, Mike was correct.  But so was Jan.  You were arguing past each other due to the complex nature of this situation.  Those homeowners did sign, and they did rightfully lose their house in foreclosure.  But Jan was correct too.  The banksters should not have been the ones to seize those houses since those houses were paid, courtesy of the US government.  So, due to the note which was now owned by the US government, the those houses should belong to the government.  The banksters, knowing that the US government was unable to collect those homes due to a lack of paperwork, decided to collect for them (they just 'forgot' to pass on to them the profits from those collected homes).  

Cake + Eat.  

Must be nice to be a bankster.  In fact, I think Jan's quote would fit nicely here:

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

When Jamie Dion was asked how he figured he could get away with doing what he did, his answer to the Analyst sitting in the audience at the Meeting was "Because I have more money than you." 

 

In fact, I think a Madison quote (paraphrased) is also appropriate here, as well.  In the Federalist Papers, Madison argued that Federal law should be so simple that every US citizen should be able to easily read it and memorize it in its entirety.  That way, US citizens will be well informed voters and responsible citizens who are willing to defend their country because they know what their country stands for.  

...of course, the reality is much different.  Here is a direct quote from the Library of Congress:

"In an example of a failed attempt to tally up the number of laws on a specific subject area, in 1982 the Justice Department tried to determine the total number of criminal laws. In a project that lasted two years, the Department compiled a list of approximately 3,000 criminal offenses. This effort, headed by Ronald Gainer, a Justice Department official, is considered the most exhaustive attempt to count the number of federal criminal laws. In a Wall Street Journal article about this project, “this effort came as part of a long and ultimately failed campaign to persuade Congress to revise the criminal code, which by the 1980s was scattered among 50 titles and 23,000 pages of federal law.” Or as Mr. Gainer characterized this fruitless project: “[y]ou will have died and [been] resurrected three times,” and still not have an answer to this question."

^And this is only the criminal code.  So why did it take two years to count up 3,000 laws?  Well, the Library of Congress goes on to explain,

"At the reference desk, we are frequently asked to estimate the number of federal laws in force. However, trying to tally this number is nearly impossible.  If you think the answer to this question can be found in the volumes of the Statutes at Large, you are partially correct. The Statutes at Large is a compendium that includes all the federal laws passed by the U.S. Congress. However, a total count of laws passed does not account for the fact that some laws are completely new; some are passed to amend existing laws; and others completely repeal old laws. Moreover, this set does not include any case law or regulatory provisions that have the force of law."

Patriots want the law to be simple.  Banksters want it to be complicated.  I guess now you know why, and I guess now you know who owns this country.  For those of you who don't know, Andrew Jackson tried to protect us from all of this back in 1832 with his Bank War.  He failed, and so have we.  

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Epic said:

Cake + Eat.

Tar + Feather.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Incredible.

I have just barely scratched the surface.  The Wall Street fraud caper is the largest ever wealth transfer, from ordinary people to the very rich and their (lying) very slick and highly paid lawyers.  It is now in the trillions of dollars. And here is the killer:  nobody fully understands what these pigs have pulled off.  Amazing. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

16 hours ago, Epic said:

^What Jan is saying sure sounds correct.  I think this is the key point of the document: "The mortgage secures the indebtedness itself, not the written evidence of it.... Because [the assignee] has chosen to pursue the equitable action of foreclosure of the mortgage, rather than a legal action on the note, the fact that [the assignee] never possessed the lost promissory note is not fatal to its foreclosure of the mortgage."

If I am thinking of this correctly, it appears that Wallstreet used a bunch of paper shenanigans in order to have their cake and eat it, too.  They collected on the insurance to pay off the debt, which means the homes should have gone to those insurance companies that paid off the debt (kind of like when a car insurance company totals your car after a crash...they write you a check for the car and then they get to keep your totaled car to scrap for parts).  But rather than those houses going to the insurance companies to recoup their losses from the insurance payment, those insurance companies went bankrupt and so the houses were free to also be seized by the banks. 

Cake + Eat  

'''''''''''''''

Patriots want the law to be simple.  Banksters want it to be complicated.  I guess now you know why, and I guess now you know who owns this country.  For those of you who don't know, Andrew Jackson tried to protect us from all of this back in 1832 with his Bank War.  He failed, and so have we.  

 

You are mostly correct.  Equitably, the US Government should be the end party that owns the loans (and thus the rights to the collateral). 

Where your analysis fails is that you do not consider that the contracts of insurance were without subrogation rights. Thus, to use the car analogy  (a good analogy, to be sure), due to the specific contracts the insurers were not entitled to the collateral to  offset damages, and that waiver of subrogation rights was built into the premiums.  However, the insurers were bamboozled, and lost their shirts. Wall Street lied to everyone, the insurers, the Courts, the other investment banks, the pension funds - and the homeowners, of course.  The Street lies and lies and lies.  For them, lying is just another day at the office.  They are the garbage of the planet. 

But hey, those guys have nice mansions out at the Hamptons.  And really nice yachts.  And nice apartments on Park Avenue. Hey, why not? Do you seriously think some single mom in Baltimore is going to figure out what the Street really did? 

Andrew Jackson would have had them all hung.  [Or:  "hanged."  Depends on your English sourcing.]

Edited by Jan van Eck
added "hanged"
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

So now go sue OCWEN.  In the Saccamento Complaint (attached), the Judgment was for $5.8 million.

second amended complaint.pdf

A 9th circuit case is not the best law, to bring an action in the 5th circuit under.

OCWEN, being a national operation, and the client, being from TEXAS, might benefit from suit in Federal Court under diversity of citizenship.

Texas is a non-judicial foreclose/sale state.

Action may be brought on the Note, Deed of Trust, or Warranty Deed if the language in the deed allows it. Most old school deeds have a reservation in them for such.

NON-PAYMENT is the big issue.

Suing OCWEN would be better left to a class action in Federal Court.

IF, the court would certify all the mortgagors, that OCWEN raped as a class.

Thanks, but I will leave that to other learned colleagues, whom specialize in those actions.

I will stick to what i know best, the OIL BUSINESS>>>>>>

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some pushback on the housing skullduggery.  Granted, this article discusses renters and not mortgages.

Big Wall Street Landlords Sued By Tenants

The largest owner and landlord of single-family rental homes in the United States is fighting a class-action lawsuit filed in California that alleges illegal and overly punitive late fees in Arizona, Oregon, California, Washington, Colorado, Utah, Texas and five other states in which it operates.

Invitation Homes, which owns nearly 7,500 properties in Arizona and more than 82,500 properties nationwide, is one of a group of real-estate investment companies that went public and, plaintiffs say, have allowed stockholder demands to unfairly affect how the companies are run. The growth of Wall-Street-owned single-family landlords came after the 2008 financial crisis, when equity companies and institutional investors bought foreclosed homes in bulk.

The plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit is Jose Rivera, a tenant in a home owned by Invitation Homes in Sylmar, Calif., a community of about 100,000 in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles County.  His lease said that a fee of $95 would be charged if rent was late by even a minute.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

The plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit is Jose Rivera, a tenant in a home owned by Invitation Homes in Sylmar, Calif., a community of about 100,000 in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles County.  His lease said that a fee of $95 would be charged if rent was late by even a minute.

What you are seeing here is the  next stage in the big Wall Street Property Theft:  the creation of a very small group of people on the Street, roughly 3,000, who end up owning the entire country, with everybody else becoming a land-rent tenant.   It is the reincarnation of Ireland at the time of the potato famine, which pushed so many Irish off the land and into emigration to the USA.  The real question is:  will the Americans put up with it, and knuckle under, or will they rise up in some variant of revolution? And if so, how will the thieves respond?

So far, the institutions that would be expected to step in where this type of theft occurs have utterly failed  (in part due to the devious way the scheme was developed).  The Court system has collapsed.  The Trustee system is useless.  The Federal Government is paralyzed with the fear that arresting the offenders will collapse the financial system;  I point to the failures of Mr. Obama as the principal cause of that.  I jsut don't see Mr.  Trump stepping in  (nor his attorney general Mr. Sessions).  So, that leaves the "plaintiff's bar" and big fat lawsuits, although I suspect the hedge funds of the Street will shrug those off as just another cost of doing business. 

Memo to US readers:  if you find yourself sitting on some jury and an enraged homeowner is suing some big bank for theft and fraud, go ahead and whack that bank with a seriously hefty judgment, something that will make them sit up and take notice.  At least 100 million.  At those numbers, you are going to force a reckoning.  Gotta start somewhere on this mess.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

You are mostly correct.  Equitably, the US Government should be the end party that owns the loans (and thus the rights to the collateral). 

Where your analysis fails is that you do not consider that the contracts of insurance were without subrogation rights. Thus, to use the car analogy  (a good analogy, to be sure), due to the specific contracts the insurers were not entitled to the collateral to  offset damages, and that waiver of subrogation rights was built into the premiums.  However, the insurers were bamboozled, and lost their shirts. Wall Street lied to everyone, the insurers, the Courts, the other investment banks, the pension funds - and the homeowners, of course.  The Street lies and lies and lies.  For them, lying is just another day at the office.  They are the garbage of the planet. 

But hey, those guys have nice mansions out at the Hamptons.  And really nice yachts.  And nice apartments on Park Avenue. Hey, why not? Do you seriously think some single mom in Baltimore is going to figure out what the Street really did? 

Andrew Jackson would have had them all hung. 

Sorry, cant resist - its "hanged" and not "hung". Pedantic bugger the I am. Here in Vietnam, the government owns the land. Foreigners are only just becoming able to buy some types of property. My wifes family bought an apartment in Saigon a couple of years ago and its on a fifty year lease (the land that the apartment sits on that is). Apparently it can be extended in increments of fifty years, so they can gift the property to grandchildren or whatever. I haven't got to the bottom of all the land regulations here, but there is another type of land ownership that is "indefinite", a term that makes me think of danger.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Eodmatt said:

Sorry, cant resist - its "hanged" and not "hung". Pedantic bugger the I am. Here in Vietnam, the government owns the land. Foreigners are only just becoming able to buy some types of property. My wifes family bought an apartment in Saigon a couple of years ago and its on a fifty year lease (the land that the apartment sits on that is). Apparently it can be extended in increments of fifty years, so they can gift the property to grandchildren or whatever. I haven't got to the bottom of all the land regulations here, but there is another type of land ownership that is "indefinite", a term that makes me think of danger.

And it's "wife's" and not "wifes", but let's not go there.  Here in Thailand, foreigners are allowed to own condos outright, and buildings/houses but not the land underneath.  Foreigners are allowed to lease for maximum 30 year periods, extendable.  In the case of marriage between a Thai and a foreigner, the Thai spouse can grant a Usufruct to their spouse, which can cover a piece of land, a structure/house or both.  The holder of a Usufruct, known as “Usufructuary”, has the right to use, possess and enjoy the property, as well as the right to receive profits from the fruits of the property.  A usufruct gives the foreign spouse the right to continue occupancy of the land and/or house after a spouse dies.  It means that you can enjoy this property, even ask the spouse to leave the property, can sublease and get the money from the rent, and this, until the end of your life. It is NOT restricted to 30 years maximum.  On top of that, if you decide to build on this land, it is possible for you be the full owner of the buildings and constructions. In Thailand, a Usufruct can be created for a limited time (5 years, 10 years, etc.) or the LIFE of the Usufructuary.  If no time has been fixed, it is presumed that the Usufruct is for the life of the Usufructuary.  In any case, the Usufruct ends at the death of the Usufructuary.  It is really a strong right.  Imagine the Thai spouse dies in a car accident and their Thai family comes after the property so that they can gain control of any business on the land, or simply to evict the foreign spouse in order to take control of the land and any business or structures on that land!  You should check with the "land office" officials to see if this type of agreement exists in Vietnam.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Refman said:

Meanwhile in Venezuela......things are starting to smell really bad

https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2018/09/03/maracaibo-sinks-under-overflowing-sewage/

 

From the article, Communism can’t be studied, it must be lived,” said Venezuelan comedian Claudio Nazoa, and what a tough lesson that’s been under the Maracaibo sun."

I'd insert the word socialism.

and yet, the masses remain apathetic...……………...

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/6/2018 at 10:18 AM, Jan van Eck said:

In all candor, Valerie, the American system has now failed its citizens.  It is the basis for a putsch by Wall Street, who have stolen perhaps 22 million homes from ordinary folk, and the System has enabled that mass theft, of breathtaking proportions. 

The duopoly system in the USA is inherently deficient, as it suppresses minority issues and approaches.  The Parliamentary System expands to include even the smallest group politically, so you can see those advantages.  Even neighboring Canada has evolved into three major Parties, each quite distinct.  I don't place much faith in the US system, which seems to be based on the principle that the bigger get to steal more, with impunity, from the smaller. 

I get what you're saying, and it's the same thing I get upset about. But don't misunderstand where my affection for my country comes from. I was speaking of ideals, and you're pointing out instances of corruption. For one, point to where on the planet we can find no corruption, and I will gladly promote that system instead. Secondly, regarding the ideals, I have been dismayed for decades over the US's slide toward fascist (actual fascism, not this rhetoric the hysterical left likes to go on about) government policies. I mean, where the government props up, bails out, plays favorites with, and colludes with private enterprise and financial institutions. The US federal government has also over the years grown too big and become involved in too many things it has no legitimate role in (I did point that out in my comment to Jose, where I stated I would place more safeguards against an overreaching government). This overreaching government and corrupt financial sector we have today is the result of many years of smuggling in fascist (or, crony-capitalist - same thing) and socialist policies. So you can't blame the ideals of capitalism, sanctity of private property, and free markets for the problems that have arisen from doing the opposite of those ideals.

So again, I stand by my message/exhortation to Jose: If Venezuela can bring revolution to their country, they should seek to allow their people to be free and teach future generations to look to themselves as free individuals for the solutions to their problems. Do not look to government for succor, but to themselves. Instead, regard governments as necessary, but on a very limited basis, knowing that a government that grows too large will become oppressive. Again, I say that free people tend to prosper.

Oh, and a note to avoid confusion: Jan, and everyone, I hope it's clear that I am responding to the larger conversation about Wall Street, etc., beyond the portion that I quoted from Jan above.

Edited by Valerie Williams
Clarification
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Valerie Williams said:

I get what you're saying, and it's the same thing I get upset about. But don't misunderstand where my affection for my country comes from. I was speaking of ideals, and you're pointing out instances of corruption. For one, point to where on the planet we can find no corruption, and I will gladly promote that system instead. Secondly, regarding the ideals, I have been dismayed for decades over the US's slide toward fascist (actual fascism, not this rhetoric the hysterical left likes to go on about) government policies. I mean, where the government props up, bails out, plays favorites with, and colludes with private enterprise and financial institutions. The US federal government has also over the years grown too big and become involved in too many things it has no legitimate role in (I did point that out in my comment to Jose, where I stated I would place more safeguards against an overreaching government). This overreaching government and corrupt financial sector we have today is the result of many years of smuggling in fascist (or, crony-capitalist - same thing) and socialist policies. So you can't blame the ideals of capitalism, sanctity of private property, and free markets for the problems that have arisen from doing the opposite of those ideals.

So again, I stand by my message/exhortation to Jose: If Venezuela can bring revolution to their country, they should seek to allow their people to be free and teach future generations to look to themselves as free individuals for the solutions to their problems. Do not look to government for succor, but to themselves. Instead, regard governments as necessary, but on a very limited basis, knowing that a government that grows too large will become oppressive. Again, I say that free people tend to prosper.

Oh, and a note to avoid confusion: Jan, and everyone, I hope it's clear that I am responding to the larger conversation about Wall Street, etc., beyond the portion that I quoted from Jan above.

Well said Valerie, the problems we have here in America are not failure of the representative republic form of government, the problem is those being represented, who are becoming apathetic and look for the nanny-state to "take care of them" cradle to grave.  I think forum member John Foote described it best in saying that Chavez/Maduro and the lot of them gained power through "Fantastical Promises". We are on the path of Venezuela (look at Bernie Sanders) and your exhortation to Jose and his countrymen and perhaps our own, is prescient.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, TXPower said:

Well said Valerie, the problems we have here in America are not failure of the representative republic form of government, the problem is those being represented, who are becoming apathetic and look for the nanny-state to "take care of them" cradle to grave.  I think forum member John Foote described it best in saying that Chavez/Maduro and the lot of them gained power through "Fantastical Promises". We are on the path of Venezuela (look at Bernie Sanders) and your exhortation to Jose and his countrymen and perhaps our own, is prescient.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson

Yes! We are sliding that way. How people can look at the evidence that abounds in the past, and also abounds in the present - and yet still say they want more of it - I'll never understand. People act like what we have had in the US is indestructible. But it's not; it's fragile as glass, and we're doing a poor job lately of protecting it.

Edited by Valerie Williams
typos
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Refman said:

Meanwhile in Venezuela......things are starting to smell really bad

https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2018/09/03/maracaibo-sinks-under-overflowing-sewage/

 

Very interesting article indeed.  Beyond sad, beyond bad.  And the comments at the bottom are also sadly revealing.  Some may think this is some kind of bad joke, but I'm going there anyway: 

We should tell Bernie there is an election to be won in Venezuela, and he should go right away.  Bernie will have no problem transferring the wealth of the most successful companies in the world to the 3rd world to even things out and to raise up the poor people who have been marginalized by evil capitalism!  Doesn't that sound like a Bernie speech?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.