Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on October 07, 2010, 07:14:29 AM
-
Bank foreclosure cover seen in bill at Obama's desk
Source: Reuters
Bank foreclosure cover seen in bill at Obama's desk
By Scot J. Paltrow
________________________ ________________________ ______________
(Reuters) - A bill that homeowners advocates warn will make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors is awaiting President Barack Obama's signature after it quietly zoomed through the Senate last week.
The bill, passed without public debate in a way that even surprised its main sponsor, Republican Representative Robert Aderholt, requires courts to accept as valid document notarizations made out of state, making it harder to challenge the authenticity of foreclosure and other legal documents.
The timing raised eyebrows, coming during a rising furor over improper affidavits and other filings in foreclosure actions by large mortgage processors such as GMAC, JPMorgan and Bank of America.
Questions about improper notarizations have figured prominently in challenges to the validity of these court documents, and led to widespread halts of foreclosure proceedings.
The legislation could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents.
The White House said it is reviewing the legislation.
"It is troubling to me and curious that it passed so quietly," Thomas Cox, a Maine lawyer representing homeowners contesting foreclosures, told Reuters in an interview.
<snip>
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6955YX20101006?pa...
________________________ _________________
this is total fucking bullshit. I hope you idiots on the left realize WTF is going on here.
-
Part 2
________________________ ____
By Scot J. Paltrow
WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 6, 2010 7:15pm EDT
The House had passed the bill in April. The House actually had passed identical bills twice before, but both times they died when the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to act.
Some House and Senate staffers said the Senate committee had let the bills languish because of concerns that they would interfere with individual state's rights to regulate notarizations.
Senate staffers familiar with the judiciary committee's actions said the latest one passed by the House seemed destined for the same fate. But shortly before the Senate's recess, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pressed to have the bill rushed through the special procedure, after Leahy "constituents" called him and pressed for passage.
The staffers said they didn't know who these constituents were or if anyone representing the mortgage industry or other interests had pressed for the bill to go through.
These staffers said that, in an unusual display of bipartisanship, Senator Jeff Sessions, the committee's senior Republican, also helped to engineer the Senate's unanimous consent for the bill.
Neither Leahy's nor Session's offices responded to requests for comment Wednesday.
In background interviews, several Senate staffers denied that it would have any adverse effect on the legal rights of homeowners contesting foreclosures, and said the law was intended only to remove an impediment to interstate commerce.
"SUSPICIOUS" TIMING
Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told Reuters in an interview that the law would weaken protection of homeowners by requiring many states to accept lower standards for notarizations.
She said it was "suspicious" that the law unexpectedly passed just as the mortgage industry is facing possible big costs from having filed false or improperly notarized documents.
Notarizations are made by notaries licensed by individual states. The purpose of notarizations is to attest to the identity of the person whose signature is on a legal document.
For affidavits -- sworn statements filed in court cases -- the person who made the affidavit also is required to swear under oath before a notary that the affidavit is true.
In recent depositions in several foreclosure cases, GMAC and other mortgage processors' employees have testified that they signed large numbers of affidavits without ever appearing before the individuals who notarized them.
The bill was first sponsored by Aderholt in 2006. He told Reuters in an interview that he proposed it because a court stenographer in his district had asked for it due to problems with getting courts in other states to accept depositions notarized in Alabama.
Aderholt said organizations of court stenographers supported the bill, but said he wasn't aware of any backing by banks or other business groups.
Aderholt said that he hadn't expected the Senate to pass the bill, and "we were surprised that it came through at the eleventh hour there."
(Reporting by Scot Paltrow; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)
-
The legislation could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents.
Wow just wow, how can this even be legal.
-
Wow just wow, how can this even be legal.
it is also going to save the law licenses of thousands of lawyers who are committing crimes in preparing knowingly false affidaivts of service & process, verifications, etc.
This is disgusting. Why would anyone buy a house after reading this?
-
Well that explains it most of the elected officials are lawyers
-
Well that explains it most of the elected officials are lawyers
I was discussing this with a lawyer friend this morning. This whole scam should send thousands of lawyers to jail, but it wont. disgusting.
-
Skip to comments.
What the hell: How stealth banking bailout reached Obama’s desk
MichelleMalkin.com ^ | 10-7-10 | Michelle Malkin
________________________ ________________________ ____________________
Both the left and right sides of the blogosphere are buzzing about a bipartisan TARP-style banking bailout bill that somehow reached President Obama’s desk in the legislative rush before Congress adjourned for the midterm election break.
The sordid episode underscores everything I’ve spotlighted about the culture of corruption over the last two years — sabotage of the deliberative process, circumventing of rules, backroom deals, and contempt for the will of the people.
Yes, the Vampire Congress strikes again.
The bill is HR3808, the “Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010,” which requires courts to accept as valid notarized letters made out of state, making it harder to challenge the authenticity of foreclosure and other legal documents. Here’s the legislative history of the bill.
Reuters lays out the basic story:
*snip*
And now, the dirty details of the legislative legerdemain that paved the bill’s path to Obama’s desk:
After languishing for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill passed the Senate with lightning speed and with hardly any public awareness of the bill’s existence on September 27, the day before the Senate recessed for midterm election campaign.
The bill’s approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn’t acted on it.
The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent. No debates.
No amendments.
No roll call votes.
More:
The House had passed the bill in April. The House actually had passed identical bills twice before, but both times they died when the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to act.
Some House and Senate staffers said the Senate committee had let the bills languish because of concerns that they would interfere with individual state’s rights to regulate notarizations.
Senate staffers familiar with the judiciary committee’s actions said the latest one passed by the House seemed destined for the same fate. But shortly before the Senate’s recess, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pressed to have the bill rushed through the special procedure, after Leahy “constituents” called him and pressed for passage.
The staffers said they didn’t know who these constituents were or if anyone representing the mortgage industry or other interests had pressed for the bill to go through.
These staffers said that, in an unusual display of bipartisanship, Senator Jeff Sessions, the committee’s senior Republican, also helped to engineer the Senate’s unanimous consent for the bill.
Neither Leahy’s nor Session’s offices responded to requests for comment Wednesday.
-
this is total fucking bullshit. I hope you idiots on the left realize WTF is going on here.
Why is this about 'idiots on the left' when both houses of the senate unanimously let this little worm wiggle thru?
NOBODY wants credit for the bill getting thru, but they all want it thru. Get it, man? You can scream about dems on it - but when ever you St. Brown of MAss #41 didn't vote against it... well...
-
240 - what is your answer? just don't give a shit about anything whatsoever? Blame Palin and oDonnell for the worlds issues?
-
to me, this is just 'one of those things' that is going to pass no matter what.
the CT in me has noticed for years as these quiet bills get thru - with both parties just staying out of the way.
it's not an accident, and it's not partisan politics. There's just some shit that's gonna happen no matter what. You can bitch about 'the left'... but if there were 100 repub senators, this bill would still have gotten thru dude ;)
So, just like the Bucs missing the playoffs and my erection failing me one day... i see it as something inevitable that i can't worry about now.
-
to me, this is just 'one of those things' that is going to pass no matter what.
the CT in me has noticed for years as these quiet bills get thru - with both parties just staying out of the way.
it's not an accident, and it's not partisan politics. There's just some shit that's gonna happen no matter what. You can bitch about 'the left'... but if there were 100 repub senators, this bill would still have gotten thru dude ;)
So, just like the Bucs missing the playoffs and my erection failing me one day... i see it as something inevitable that i can't worry about now.
::) ::)
How was the Bush amnesty killed?
-
::) ::)
How was the Bush amnesty killed?
Amnesty isn't inevitable (yet).
It'll take some natural disaster, financial collapse, or drug war meltdown for that to happen. it'll be the law of the land in 20 years. But until you get a sympathizer like Palin in there, we might dodge it. Get a Thune in there, it'll stall for 4 more years.
-
Amnesty isn't inevitable (yet).
It'll take some natural disaster, financial collapse, or drug war meltdown for that to happen. it'll be the law of the land in 20 years. But until you get a sympathizer like Palin in there, we might dodge it. Get a Thune in there, it'll stall for 4 more years.
Stop divertising and spinning - how was the bush amnesty killed?
-
Stop divertising and spinning - how was the bush amnesty killed?
not enough repubs supported the POS bill. You know, the TRUE conservatives.
Now that the palins are taking over - and she HAS SAID THEY CAN STAY - it won't be long until the bill passes.
You know this dude. thune postpones it. Palin lets it thru. And you know this, mannnnnn.
-
not enough repubs supported the POS bill. You know, the TRUE conservatives.
Now that the palins are taking over - and she HAS SAID THEY CAN STAY - it won't be long until the bill passes.
You know this dude. thune postpones it. Palin lets it thru. And you know this, mannnnnn.
WTF DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH PALIN?
-
WTF DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH PALIN?
you asked me why amnesty bill was killed.
I answered.
there were too many true conservatives against it in the senate and house.
won't be the case next time around - and you know it. Do you REALLY think Brown41 will stop amnesty? oh god...
-
you asked me why amnesty bill was killed.
I answered.
there were too many true conservatives against it in the senate and house.
won't be the case next time around - and you know it. Do you REALLY think Brown41 will stop amnesty? oh god...
::) ::)
You really are delusional.
-
::) ::)
You really are delusional.
great personal attack.
we both know this 'tea party' generation of repubs will pass amnesty. repubs stopped it very heroically in 2008... that won't happen this time. Palin and Romney are the 2 top voices of the party - and both allowed sanctuary cities as governor ;) And palin has said - she'll let them stay. I think Newt said it recently too, didn't he? the new 'chic' phraseology is "I'm AGAINST AMNESTY.... but we'll let them stay if they sign papers".
Oh brother. attack 240. ignore the issue. par for course here.
-
great personal attack.
we both know this 'tea party' generation of repubs will pass amnesty. repubs stopped it very heroically in 2008... that won't happen this time. Palin and Romney are the 2 top voices of the party - and both allowed sanctuary cities as governor ;) And palin has said - she'll let them stay. I think Newt said it recently too, didn't he? the new 'chic' phraseology is "I'm AGAINST AMNESTY.... but we'll let them stay if they sign papers".
Oh brother. attack 240. ignore the issue. par for course here.
Rand Paul, Miller, Angle, Buck, and all the others are dead set against amensty. WTF is wrong with you?
-
Rand Paul, Miller, Angle, Buck, and all the others are dead set against amensty. WTF is wrong with you?
in their speeches.
but so is palin. "I AM AGAINST AMNESTY" is what they say. When pressed, they admit they'll never kick the 12 milllion illegals out, and that a 'pathway to citizenship' is on the table.
if it comes up for a re-vote... I betcha $5.... it'll pass this time. I hate it as much as you do. But so many repub leadership at once saying "a pathway is okay if they sign papers" is sure a bad sign dude. Just missed it last time. This time, they're all saying sweet things (hispandering). Watch and see.
-
WTF does palin have to do with this?
-
WTF does palin have to do with this?
she and romney are the top 2012 contenders. There's probably a 50% chance the candidate will be one of them. Maybe higher. They both allowed sanctuary cities. They will both probably let a 'pathway to citizenship' slide while saying they're against amnesty the whole time. It's the same thing dude.
-
she and romney are the top 2012 contenders. There's probably a 50% chance the candidate will be one of them. Maybe higher. They both allowed sanctuary cities. They will both probably let a 'pathway to citizenship' slide while saying they're against amnesty the whole time. It's the same thing dude.
I really don't know what to say to you anymore. You are so off the deep end its not even funny.
-
I really don't know what to say to you anymore. You are so off the deep end its not even funny.
again, a personal attack.
you COULD say "dude, i dont think either of them will push for amnesty because..." and tell me why palin won't do it - even tho she made a statement this year to the contrary.
instead, you say "240, you suck a-hole"... pretty much whenever you run out of debate points.
-
You turned a horrible bailout bill that the dem controlled govt, with the hel of a few rinos, into a an attack on Palin.
Got it yet why people have been after you without abandon lately?
-
Got it yet why people have been after you without abandon lately?
'going after me without abandon'....
shit, it's the web guys... a lot of yall taking this discussion thing way too seriously. emotional and whatnot. :-\
-
she and romney are the top 2012 contenders. There's probably a 50% chance the candidate will be one of them. Maybe higher. They both allowed sanctuary cities. They will both probably let a 'pathway to citizenship' slide while saying they're against amnesty the whole time. It's the same thing dude.
So let me see if I understand you, You are against Sarah Palin because she did not outlaw Sanctuary Cities, (even though she did not have the authority to) and yet you are against Jan Brewer and Arizona for voting into Laws (giving them such authority) and now trying to use these laws, that would help do away with Sanctuary Cities.
-
So let me see if I understand you, You are against Sarah Palin because she did not outlaw Sanctuary cities, (even though she did not have the authority) and yet you are against Jan Brewer and Arizona for voting into Laws (giving them such authority the Feds have) and now trying to use these laws, that would help do away with Sanctuary Cities
I used to like 240, and still do to an extent, but something is seriously wrong with him. Maybe its drugs, booze, something. I dont know.
-
I used to like 240, and still do to an extent, but something is seriously wrong with him. Maybe its drugs, booze, something. I dont know.
I still like 240, but he is in spin overdrive lately.
-
I still like 240, but he is in spin overdrive lately.
I like him alot, but something has really gone haywire with him.
maybe he is being paid by Obama to post this stuff?
-
I just read Obama is going to veto this thing. Thankfully. His base would have strung his ass up.
-
I like him alot, but something has really gone haywire with him.
maybe he is being paid by Obama to post this stuff?
I agree, something just doesn't add up, as he is smarter than the spin he presents on here every day.
Like not only did 240 vote for Obama, but maybe he even convinced others to, maybe his Parents, and now he has so much riding on Obama that no matter what facts you present him with, he wont accept it. Just like people who refuse to sell bad stocks, and instead ride them into the ground.
-
and yet 240 is utterly silent on Obama's treason. go figure.
-
she and romney are the top 2012 contenders. There's probably a 50% chance the candidate will be one of them. Maybe higher. They both allowed sanctuary cities. They will both probably let a 'pathway to citizenship' slide while saying they're against amnesty the whole time. It's the same thing dude.
240,
So let me see if I understand you, You are against Sarah Palin because she did not outlaw Sanctuary Cities, (even though she did not have the authority to) and yet you are against Jan Brewer and Arizona for voting into Laws (giving them such authority) and now trying to use these laws, that would help do away with Sanctuary Cities?
-
240,
So let me see if I understand you, You are against Sarah Palin because she did not outlaw Sanctuary Cities, (even though she did not have the authority to) and yet you are against Jan Brewer and Arizona for voting into Laws (giving them such authority) and now trying to use these laws, that would help do away with Sanctuary Cities?
I'm 100% fine with outlawing sanctuary cities - I admire brewer for that. I'm just not cool with legal americans being forced to carry birth certs (if they are from cali) or a single legal american being forced to sit on a curb in handcuffs.
-
I'm 100% fine with outlawing sanctuary cities - I admire brewer for that. I'm just not cool with legal americans being forced to carry birth certs (if they are from cali) or a single legal american being forced to sit on a curb in handcuffs.
Then maybe the Federal Government should do its fucking job a protect the border, then guess what there would be no need for Arizona to pass said law, but no lets blame AZ when its DC that is the problem.
-
agreed - feds not doing their job.
IMO, it's cause they figure amnesty will be coming thru shortly
-
Obama Will Not Sign Bill Seen As Cover For Bank Foreclosures
The White House announced Thursday afternoon that President Obama would not sign a bill that some consumer advocates worried would make it more difficult for homeowners to fight fraudulent foreclosures. The White House noted that the bill was designed to ease restrictions on interstate commerce.