Too Big to Jail? Will the Fed actually offer alleged foreclosure related law breakers a chance to pay fines to avoid potential criminal charges?

Is the entire Foreclosure controversy going to result in the Fed deciding that the amount of people involved in illegal activity is so massive, that as a group they are too big to jail?

Is it also possible that government agencies themselves forced the banks and mortgage servicers to accelerate their foreclosure activity, and would rather have everybody pay a fine then have this rush to foreclose information come out in a court of law transcript?

If the government chooses to offer fines as a way out of lawlessness, what will they do for the hundreds of thousands, perhaps into the millions of homeowners who have already been irrevocably harmed? What will be done to actually change the entire process in such a way as to not motivate the loan servicers, investors, and banksters to not want to foreclose on a home in the future?

Is Barack Obama going to have the mettle to go after the very core group of financial industries that gave handsomely to his campaign in 2008? Will the republican politicians, who never met a bankster they did not like, have any appetite to actually prosecute anybody from wall street?

I am advocating that the rules regarding the homeowner's down payment be changed. It seems that the down payment is being immediately sucked up by money grubbing vampire bankster suckers, who then get bored with tending to the actual mortgage and instead scheme of ways to exponentially increase the "value" of what is nothing more than a home on main street.

If foreclosure meant that a significant portion of the down payment, say 75%, went back to the homeowner (along with any gained equity) as a down payment rebate, would not the banks try harder to work something out with the homeowner? Even if it meant just letting the homeowner run through a significant portion of their 75% of the down payment as ongoing monthly payments, this would still give the homeowner some type of leverage, AND, IT WAS THE HOMEOWNER'S MONEY to begin with.

It seems to me that it should not become the banks money, or the investors money, or anybody else we don't know about, until the mortgage is actually paid off.

Banks expect more sympathy from GOP-controlled House - KansasCity.com

Banks expect more sympathy from GOP-controlled House - KansasCity.com

As I say from time to time, Republican politicians never met a bankster they did not like.

WATCH CSPAN3 NOV. 18, 2010 HOUSE MEETING on MORTGAGE SERVICES and FORECLOSURE ISSUES.

CLICK HERE to go to NOV. 18, 2010 CSPAN3 ARCHIVE VIDEO of the HOUSE MEETING on MORTGAGE SERVICES and FORECLOSURE ISSUES.

(Edit Update - Nov. 27, 2010 10:53PM)

You can find congressional video and transcription links to all three congressional hearings on home foreclosures and mortgage service investigations by clicking here.

URGENT, House of Representatives Financial Services Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, mortgage servicing issues, Thurs, Nov. 18, 2010

URGENT, House of Representatives Financial Services Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, mortgage servicing issues, Thurs, Nov. 18, 2010 at 10AM (or thereafter).

A mirror meeting to the one held two days earlier in the Senate, but this one is for the House of Representatives. This one has gone under the radar a bit but should be on CSPAN, the House of Representatives channel.

UPDATE: 2:00 Eastern Standard Time. I saw a small portion of the hearing. I could not find which channel it was on, and I mistakenly thought it would be on the House of Representative CSPAN channel, when instead it was on CSPAN-3. Then when I found it, I heard about 10 minutes, when they cut away to the Charlie Rangel misconduct hearing.

I'm hoping the meeting will be available as an archive and will share the info when I find out. If you know, please leave it in the comments section.

thanks.

Edit update: Nov. 27, 2010 10:55 pm.

You can find video and transcription links to all three congressional hearings on home foreclosures and mortgage service investigations by clicking here.

HR 3808 REJECTED! Presidential veto stands! For Now.

Hooray, HR 3808 REJECTED! Presidential veto stands! However, I think I heard that the motion would be going back to committee. Yikes!

ONLY SIX REPUBLICANS VOTED NO!

Like I say, A republican politician never met a bankster they did not like. Final vote was 185 yes, 235 No.

Oh, look here, MORE PROOF that Republican Politicians NEVER MET A BANKSTER THEY DID NOT LIKE.

Watch HouseLive Beta - Nov 17, 2010 - The VOTE ON HR 3808.

Watch HouseLive Beta - Nov 17, 2010 to see if Barack Obama's veto of HR 3808 (a good move), is overturned by the House of Representatives.

UPDATE: 3:04 EASTERN STANDARD TIME. This looks like a hit or miss venture. There were other issues on the table today including airport screening practices and security, who the new party leaders will be, and so on.

I don't think the HR 3808 vote has happened yet.

UPDATE: 5:09 EASTERN STANDARD TIME. The HR 3808 vote is coming up. Nancy Pelosi and her freshly slurped kool aid mustache is speaking as if its a victory to be in the minority. Who Knew!

UPDATE: 5:17:00 EASTERN STANDARD TIME. The HR 3808 Vote is ON.

UPDATE: GO HERE TO SEE RESULTS.

CSPAN3's coverage of the Nov. 16, 2010 Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Mortgage Service & Foreclosure Practices Hearing.

UPDATE: CLICK HERE TO GO TO CSPAN ARCHIVE VIDEO OF THE NOV. 16, 2010 SENATE MEETING ON MORTGAGE SERVICES & FORECLOSURE PRACTICES HEARING.

(Edit Update - Nov. 27, 2010 11:00 PM)

You can find congressional video and transcription links to all three congressional hearings on home foreclosures and mortgage service investigations by clicking here.

----------------------------------------------

Here is the link for a CSPAN3 video recording of gavel to gave coverage of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Hearing on Mortgage Services and Foreclosure Practices. (PLEASE NOTE, THAT WAS A LIVE LINK AND CHANGES DAILY.)

I suggest anyone with a blog find at least ONE EXCHANGE that you think is important, and TRANSCRIBE IT.

Many issues came up in the hearing. Some of the main points raised included...

1. The committee was curious as to the number of homeowners who have been adversely affected by all aspects of the foreclosure controversy. NOBODY is willing to give a number. My suggestion, come up with a percentage. 10% may be the point of no return where pretty much everybody would agree that is way too high of a number.

But what if the percentage of problems is around 1% to 2%? Obviously still a huge number, but, is it a big enough number to actually grind the entire foreclosure process to a halt?

Diane E. Thompson pointed out that the reason the number of defective foreclosures is hard to know is that many times draconian fees were the tipping point that made the foreclosure happen. The foreclosure paperwork may have been correct, but how the situation escalated to a foreclosure situation may not have happened ethically.

2. The mortgage servicer and the investor are more adversarial with each other than cooperative. This is important because between the mortgage servicer, the investor, and the bank, there can be three different entities with three entirely different agendas. Diane E. Thompson pointed out that the banks are trying to hide their defective loans to make their books look good, so their agenda can be different from either the investor or mortgage servicer. Three entities, three different agendas, all against the homeowner, ouch!

3. A good bit of time was spent on PARALLEL FORECLOSURE. The bottom line was that the issue of Parallel Foreclosure IS KNOWN, and it just stinks to high heaven. The banks tried to claim that they are working on having the SAME PERSON handle an account all the way through which might help with communication between the foreclosure wing and the HAMP for HAMPsters wheel. However, I seem to recall Chase Bank admiting they begin foreclosure on homes that require HAMP before HAMP commences.

Here is Bank of America's actual use of the word "parallel foreclosure" during the hearing.

Here is a link to the Bank of America page where the above parallel foreclosure phrase appears on.

4. Early on, a group of homeowners who were in attendance LOUDLY BOOED when the Chase Bank rep, David Lowman, began to babble his spittle about caring for the community and the homeowner. One man was escorted out of the hearing in handcuffs by security guards for shouting out that Lowman was Lying.

5. Another key point raised by the committee was the concern that as a foreclosure occurs, the other homes in the area reduce in value. I recall reading that each foreclosure in a neighborhood reduces the surrounding homes by 1 percent. During the committee hearing, they were using 5% as their benchmark, perhaps referring to a few foreclosures in each neighborhood.

6. The Banksters continued to claim that they would prefer the homeowners not be foreclosed on and that it is more profitable to keep a homeowner in their home then foreclose on them. I personally don't believe this at all and my research seems to confirm they are lying.

7. I don't think the down payment issue was mentioned, but I will have to listen again to the entire program to know for sure. Until the down payment is put back on the table during a foreclosure, (meaning the homeowner gets back a signficant portion of the down payment if they are foreclosed on), banksters will probably continue to prefer foreclosure to working with the homeowner.

Of course there were several more issues raised, and I will add them after reviewing the program again.

WATCH C-SPAN 3 RIGHT NOW. 2:30PM EASTERN TO 5:00PM EASTERN, NOV. 16, 2010 FOR HEARING ON HAMP.

WATCH C-SPAN 3 RIGHT NOW. 2:30PM EASTERN TO 5:00PM EASTERN, NOV. 16, 2010 FOR HEARING ON HAMP. DON'T FORGET TO CHECK OUT DIANE E. THOMPSON.

UPDATE, 5:55PM EASTERN, HEARING STILL GOING ON.

UPDATE, FINISHED ABOUT 5 MINUTES AGO, AROUND 3:04PM EASTERN.

(Edit Update - Nov. 27, 2010 11:01 PM)

You can find congressional video and transcription links to all three congressional hearings on home foreclosures and mortgage service investigations by clicking here.

Diane E. Thompson to speak about HAMP today, Nov. 16, 2010, at the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee hearing.

I was impressed with Diane E. Thompson's July 16, 2009 HAMP report that she presented to the Banking, Housing and Urban Development committee hearing. Today, November 16, 2010, exactly 16 months later, Ms. Thompson will once again speak in front of the Banking, Housing and Urban Development committee hearing.

I've tried to piece together a few of the more important aspects of the HAMP crisis, and it is a crisis.

Here are five important points about HAMP to be aware of prior to Diane E. Thompson's return 16 months later to Washington.

1. Read Diane E. Thompson's July 16, 2009 report to learn that all of HAMP's problems were identified back then.

2. Barack Obama has taken credit for the HAMP program when it first was announced on February 18, 2009 and then again as recently as Oct. 27, 2010 when Phyllis Caldwell, Chief of Home Ownership Preservation Office, proclaimed HAMP hugely successful.

3. The latest spin from HUD is that HAMP just puts off the inevitable foreclosure. OUCH!

4. Banks are NOT OBLIGATED to follow HAMP guidelines, therefore any HAMP violation by the banks might be easier to void in a court of law. Although homeowners could argue that once a bank agreed to accept a specific HAMP application, the banks should have honored ALL HAMP guidelines for that particular HAMP application.

5. Banks accepted HAMP applications AFTER initiating Parallel Foreclosure, a definite no no. OUCH AGAIN!

I will be interested to see what Diane E. Thompson has to say 16 months later.

(Edit Update - Nov. 27, 2010 11:03PM)

You can find congressional video and transcription links to all three congressional hearings on home foreclosures and mortgage service investigations by clicking here.

The Problem with Predatory Loans and an Example of a Predatory Loan.

Too much blame may be being placed on the homeowner when they agree to a predatory loan. It seems to me that a knowledgeable loan rep can figure out how to eek through the loan app system a loan that barely passes, thereby resulting in the highest interest rates and biggest balloon payments allowed.

What if the loan rep had asked the mortgage loan applicant for a written list of their debts and other potential credit score blemishes, then ran a separate credit report and noticed that the report provided by the customer mentioned things that the credit history report did not show?

What if the loan rep did not reveal all of the blemishes that the homeowner revealed to the loan rep, specifically to make sure the loan barely passed, versus failing?

Could not the loan rep decide what additional credit blemishes from the customer's written list to add or withhold so the mortgage application just barely passes, thereby allowing the loan rep to charge the highest interest rate with additional balloon obligations as well?

It seems like the loan rep wins big time if they can barely pass a customer's mortgage loan app. If the customer successfully makes the predatory mortgage payments, the loan rep wings, if the customer defaults because of the predatory interest rates, then the 17 income streams that can be generated because of a foreclosure kick in, including the loss of the down payment.

Excessive interest rate variations between good credit score customers and bad credit score customers may be causing predatory lending. Maybe the highest interest rate loan versus the lowest interest rate loan should be kept within a very narrow difference, of say, 2 percentage points, to help avoid the practice of predatory lending.

Why not offer every mortgage applicant the SAME interest rate and control the amount of money a mortgage applicant can borrow?

Example of a Predatory Loan.

My example uses the premise that Mortgage Loans should not be given out if the bank thinks the customer will fail on them.

Customer A and Customer B get 300,000 dollar loans.

Customer A, with a "poorer" credit score than customer B, is offered 30 years at 8.085 percent interest, which equals a monthly payment of 2,219.10

Customer B, with a "better" credit score than customer A, is offered 15 years at 4.00 percent interest, which equals a monthly payment of 2,219.06

Remembering our premise that banks should not approve any loan that they think may fail, and since Customer A is making the same monthly mortgage payment on the same amount loaned as customer B, but for TWICE AS LONG as customer B, Customer A is the VICTIM of Predatory loaning!

Home loan applicants that are being extended into 30 year mortgage loans for the same monthly payment that they could have gotten in a 15 year loan that came with a lower interest rate is PREDATORY LENDING.

If I were an attorney trying to prove that predatory lending victimized my forclosure client, I would try to find examples where similar loan amounts were being approved to other home owners near where they lived that allowed the applicant to pay off a loan in half the time, but with the same monthly payment amount.

That IS discrimination and it is IRRELEVANT to say the customer who got to pay off the same mortgage amount in half the time got that deal because they had a better credit score.

In my opinion, any mortgage loan that is going into foreclosure that has any hint of predatory lending attached to it should be suspended until the monthly mortgage payment is recalculated at a fairer interest rate and the excess already paid is credited back to the homeowner; a significant portion of the down payment is credited back to the homeowner (plus any accrued home equity); and that total amount is then converted into "rent money" that could keep the homeowner in their home for several additional months or years with no additional mortgage payments necessary.

Or, the homeowner could be handed a check based on the down payment, accrued equity, and the monthly difference between a predatory loan and what a legitimate loan would have cost, if they desire to leave the home sooner rather than later.

Not Breaking News because it's almost 16 months old, but Diane E. Thompson's July 16, 2009 Senate Committee Hearing critique of HAMP is STILL VALID.

Barack Obama has chosen to take a path of deception regarding HAMP that has resulted in over a million homes being unfairly foreclosed upon even though Obama was publicly warned about what was wrong with HAMP back on July 16, 2009!

Barack Obama's impudence recently escalated (Oct.27, 2010) when he had Chief of Homeownership Preservation Office Phyllis Caldwell give verbal and written testimony Before the Congressional Oversight Panel | RealEstateRama that claimed everything was fine with HAMP.

What is incredibly amazing is that on July 16, 2009, Diane E. Thompson gave written and verbal testimony in front of Congress identifying practically every problem related to HAMP that appears to have still gone unresolved almost 16 months later!

If you are an attorney representing a homeowner who was subjected to violations of how HAMP was supposed to perform, and those violations occurred well after July 16 of 2009, you can click here to read the written testimony given in front of the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs by Diane E. Thompson.

The question remaining to be asked is, is it fair and reasonable that 16 months after receiving official notification in front of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee by Consumer Advocate Diane E. Thompson that Barack Obama and his administration are still using a poker face to say everything is fine, when the problems outlined by Diane E. Thompson 16 months ago still remain?

If I were a homeowner with a HAMP case and a good lawyer, why not subpoena Barack Obama? Barack Obama has not only taken credit for HAMP when he first announced it, he has recently had one of his paid personnel go in front of a congressional oversight committee and say the HAMP program is a success.

Is that not perjury?

If it is perjury, than Barack Obama needs to answer more questions in court over this matter, no?

(Edit Update - Nov. 27, 2010 11:04PM)

You can find congressional video and transcription links to all three congressional hearings on home foreclosures and mortgage service investigations by clicking here.

Barack Obama administration will have to deny that homeowners were forced to fall behind 3 months on their mortgage before they could apply for HAMP.

I have spent a good deal amount of energy posting that Barack Obama has committed an impeachable act by forcing homeowners to fall behind on their mortgage payments before they can apply for HAMP (Home Affordable Mortgage Program).

The Federal Hobbs Act has an extortion clause that makes it illegal to use the "color of right" to evict a homeowner. This means that using falsified foreclosure paperwork, including running up unethical penalties and fees to make it impossible for the homeowner to catch up, would be a violation of the Federal Hobbs Act.

It would also be a violation of the Federal Hobbs Act to lure people into a taxpayer funded program by forcing them to first trigger parallel foreclosure before the homeowner can even apply for the HAMP program.

However, what if the Barack Obama administration simply denied that homeowners were forced to get behind in their mortgage payments before they could apply for HAMP? HAMP actually states that banks cannot continue with the foreclosure process while the HAMP evaluation is going on, yet we know banks violated this part of the HAMP program as well by practicing Parallel Foreclosure.

Parallel Foreclosure is another smoking gun that is still not being called parallel foreclosure. Although last night I read that in Arizona they are calling Parallel Foreclosure, "Simultaneous Foreclosure".

So what if the white house and the (do I even need that second the?) banking industry denied that mortgage payments had to be missed, triggering parallel foreclosure, before a homeowner could apply for HAMP? Could home foreclosure lawyers prove otherwise? If a homeowner is being told over the phone that they cannot apply for HAMP until they are three months behind on their mortgage, is phone conversation proof enough that homeowners were forced to miss payments before becoming HAMP eligible?

Barack Obama and his 2008 campaign were notorious for changing or removing items on their website if the issue became controversial. The HAMP, HARP and UP combined website page seems to tap dance around the issue of falling behind before becoming eligible.

Also, when Barack Obama promoted HAMP, I don't recall him ever mentioning HARP. HARP does not require homeowners to fall behind on their payments!

HARP simply tries to refinance a homeowners home loan to a lower interest rate and better terms for those who feel they are in danger of defaulting in the near future.

Why was HARP not mentioned more often? Worse still, those who fail HAMP cannot then apply for HARP. There seems to have been an agenda in place to prematurely encourage homeowners into HAMP when HARP may have been all that they needed.

So my question is, has Barack Obama, his administration, the banksters, note holders, mortgage servicers and investors pulled a fast one by not officially putting in writing that a home owner has to fall three months behind on their mortgage before being able to apply for a HAMP loan, even though this appears to be have been a requirement for a homeowner to eligible to apply for HAMP?

I suggest you lawyers collect as many of the three months behind demands that were put in writing that you can find. Otherwise one of the biggest violations involving HAMP, the three months behind on mortgage payments before being eligible to apply for HAMP that resulted in Parallel Foreclosure actions, (which could lead to a HUGE class action lawsuit), could go away.

Mortgage aid puts homeowners on shaky foundation

Mortgage aid puts homeowners on shaky foundation

Just another example of HAMP and Parallel Foreclosure working in unison to lure homeowners into the accelerated loss of their home.

Its not just that big banks held on to the bailout money, its that the government won't make it possible for americans to dig themselves out of debt.

The damage being done to main street by our own government and wall street, is two fold. Not only has the government given out money to the banks that never made it back to main street, but the government refuses to provide financial incentives for main street to get out of debt on its own.

This second point is very disconcerting to me. It's one thing if the government decides to prop up our banks so they don't fail, but its quite another, and even more unacceptable, for our own government to not offer any interest rate reduction incentives to main street to allow main street to help itself get out of debt that it already has accrued.

The government tries to focus the discussion on giving out NEW loans, giving out NEW loans, giving out NEW loans. However, the alternative approach, that would not cost the government anything, would be to reduce interest rate charges on EXISTING DEBT to people who can pay down their credit card, auto, and mortgage related obligations.

I've written a four point economic plan at Wall Street Change that gives four ways for the government to help main street recover and none of the four ways requires the government to provide loans, or money, or even forgive debt!

Exploring how Barack Obama has Violated the Federal Hobbs Act and why this is an impeachable offense.

Has Barack Obama and his White House staff used "extortion" to have his way with homeowners who are being foreclosed upon?

According to 18 USCA 1951 - The (Federal) Hobbs Act

(2) The term ''extortion'' means the obtaining of PROPERTY from another, WITH HIS CONSENT, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or FEAR, or under color of official right.

When Barack Obama required that homeowners fall behind 3 to 4 months on their home mortgage payments BEFORE THEY COULD EVEN APPLY FOR HAMP (Home Affordable Mortgage Protection), a process called parallel foreclosure would kick in that accelerates the foreclosing proceedings upon that HAMP applicant.

It is a loose technicality to say that Barack Obama did not mandate parallel foreclosure personally, so therefore he is free and clear of Federal Hobbs Act violations. Barack Obama LURED homeowners into HAMP, and to apply for HAMP required applicants to be subjected to Parallel Foreclosure.

For Barack Obama to be extricated from Federal Hobbs Act liability, he and his staff would need to first claim under oath that parallel foreclosure was never discussed in all of those meetings at the white house with bankers.

But besides denying the discussion of parallel foreclosure, Barack Obama and his staff would have to prove that they were COMPLETELY UNAWARE of parallel foreclosure FOR THE PAST YEAR AND HALF, and once again, do this under oath as well.

I have known about parallel foreclosure for approximately a year now.

Is it feasible that Barack Obama and his staff are STILL unaware of parallel foreclosure?

If Barack Obama and his White House staff knew about parallel foreclosure, knew that banks were imposing parallel foreclosure as a precursor to HAMP eligibility, yet continued to promote HAMP; are they not in violation of the Federal Hobbs Act?

Once Barack Obama took the microphone and publicly took credit for HAMP, he became subject to Federal Hobbs violations.

According to 18 USCA 1951 - The (Federal) Hobbs Act

(2) The term ''extortion'' means the obtaining of PROPERTY from another, WITH HIS CONSENT, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or FEAR, or under color of official right.

You can read the entire article explaining the Federal Hobbs Act here.