Salon - The big banks win again
Rather than settling anything, this agreement is simply a continuation of the policy framework of both the Bush and the Obama administrations. So what exactly is that framework? It is, as Damon Silvers of the Congressional Oversight Panel which monitored the bailouts, once put it, to preserve the capital structures of the largest banks. “We can either have a rational resolution to the foreclosure crisis or we can preserve the capital structure of the banks,” said Silvers in October, 2010. “We can’t do both.” Writing down debt that cannot be paid back — the approach Franklin Roosevelt took — is off the table, as it would jeopardize the equity keeping those banks afloat.
Further down:
A more realistic solution to the problem was actually debated within the administration during the transition, in debates revealed by economist Laura Tyson at the Financial Times’ View from the Top Conference in 2011. She noted that top officials had to decide whether to engage in mass write-downs of debt similar to FDR’s programs in the 1930s by using tools such as judicial modification, or whether to allow millions of foreclosures to go forward. They chose the latter. The current foreclosure epidemic, in other words, is partially a policy choice.
Everything done subsequent to that decision has been designed to mask this essential policy choice. This settlement is simply the latest example. While the headline number on the settlement is $26 billion, the actual cost to the banks and benefit to homeowners could be far lower, depending on how this complicated system of “credits” will be allocated. The banks will in all likelihood be able to charge off activities they had already planned, such as not pursuing deficiency judgments, refinancing and loan modifications. Some of the money may wind up being be paid not by banks, but by investors, such as pension funds.
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/10/banks_get_off_easy_in_mortgage_settlement_deal/
= new reply since forum marked as read
I was referring to this...
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson..." - FDR
by the Govt a few weeks ago offering to do a review of her case. She will let her attorney handle that. These contacts from the Bank and the Govt to people like her, whose home was illegally foreclosed on over the past few weeks, considering no one was interested in talking to her before, seems to indicate they knew a settlement was coming and are trying to make the lawsuits go away. I guess it's difficult for them to understand that when someone takes your home and gives you nothing back, a couple of thousand dollars is just not a big enough bribe to make you go away.
I may be wrong, and I admit, I do not know yet, but another way to make you go away, is to change the law. To guarantee to the Banks that robo-signing cannot be used against them, seems to me to undercut the many lawsuits filed already and those that will be and are being filed, based on that issue. However, as I said, I do not know if people can no longer use that as evidence of wrong-doing in civil cases now.
I wonder if home-owners could form a large group and incorporate, making themselves too big to fail also? If these are the rules now, maybe we the people should join them. We are at a disadvantage as individuals. As a huge Corp however, we would have more influence. Just trying to find ways to protect the people from these predatory schemes and maybe get in on having the same considerations when we screw up, that they get. Seems only fair. 
the past year. So it was puzzling to see him appear to cave eventually. Because of what I've known about him due to my friend's situation, (she is in Upstate NY) I have respect for him generally. Had he not held out, eg, the banks would have been completely off the hook last year with a settlement of around 8 billion dollars, a drop in the bucket and little chance of them being held accountable at all.
He himself filed a big case against MERS eg, and way past time. This seems like not a bad settlement, if he is accurate in saying this is just the beginning and that it does not prevent homeowners from filing their own suits. Nor does it get those responsible for the Financial Meltdown off the hook. He has called this a 'down-payment' and says the Banks are going to have to pay out a lot more before all this is over.
He also credits Occupy for backing him up during the time he was under pressure from the WH to go along with the original deal. And he says, without Occupy, the change in the attitude towards getting accountability would not have happened.
What I am not sure of now is whether or not someone like my friend, can still use the robo-signing, if it occurred in her case, in her lawsuit.
However, there was a case filed just this past week against a CEO who is now charged criminally with robo-signing, over one hundred counts. When asked last night by Rachel Maddow if that case would now be in jeopardy, he said 'no, not at all'. That seems to say that criminal charges for robo-signing can still go forward. It does not answer MY question though, re civil cases.
Maybe I will call his office tomorrow and ask that queston
which was the issue in this settlement, they are not off the hook for criminal charges. I do agree though, that if it is removed from civil cases, it will not be a small thing. I will try to keep you updated on what my friend's situation is and how this might affect it
big time.
