Mike Shedlock is right but so too is David Dayen. The problem for Mike is that the investors didn't do their due-diligence but rather relied upon the banksters. I refused to invest in real estate before the crash for this very reason. When I said that the whole thing is a house of cards that will fall, I met with not one person who believed me.
Of course, the regulators had an obligation to prevent this so that investors would not have to do such heavy lifting. The problem though is with what started with Ronald Reagan and accelerated right up to the tiny things Barack Obama has allowed to happen to somewhat re-regulate the banksters. The regulators didn't have the heft under law to delve in and expose and sanction. More so and rather, many of them were bought off via revolving-door plans, etc., by the very banksters they were charged with regulating. The same was the case with the private "rating agencies."
As for people deserving to lose their house, there were many who did engage in fraud by going along with the fraudulent schemes of the mortgage brokers and others right up and down the line from top to bottom to top again.
The problem has been with systemic fraud though, and little to nothing has been done about it. Barack Obama was a deliberate jellyfish hired by Wall Street via huge (largest in history to my understanding) campaign contributions to be just that. He's played his role very well, which should have already landed him in prison under current secular law. To obtain the office of the Presidency by means of working with fraudsters is itself illegal, and the Constitution is technically and ethically zero protection for Barack Obama in that matter. Only a misreading of it and ignoring it allows him to remain in office and out of prison.
More so, he is still blatantly appointing and re-appointing people from the banksters' global crime syndicate.
Yes, the banksters did cause the problem, but an uninformed and selfish and greedy electorate did also. As I said, it's systemic. The common people are not without culpability, not all but many and really most.
Mike Shedlock calls this a travesty of justice. According to him, the investor gets screwed out of $417,000, in the above case, and a family who "deserved" to lose their house got it free and clear.
This gets the case entirely backwards. When the homeowners signed the mortgage contract, they didn't request that the bank transfer it multiple times improperly and then throw it into a legal gray area where nobody could determine proper ownership. They did not request that the banks involved use a private database of questionable legal standing instead of the land recording system that worked for hundreds of years. The banks made this mess. The homeowners may be profiting from the consequences (or maybe not; we don't know the facts of the case), [No, they are profiting. Come on.] but those consequences came from the actions of the banks [agreed]. The investors now have every right and responsibility to invalidate the securities. If the law worked as it should, the responsible party for this colossal f___-up [Grow up, David, and clean up your mouth. That kind of talk is part of the problem, not the solution.] would pay the price.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)