Congress to retroactively legalize mortgage fraud?

[WestSeattle2]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/cnbc-legalize-foreclosure-fraud/

"Here’s what is going to happen: Congress will pass a law called something like “The Financial Modernization and Stability Act of 2010” that will retroactively grant mortgage pools the rights in the underlying mortgages that people are worried about. All the screwed up paperwork, lost notes, unassigned security interests will be forgiven by a legislative act...."

Anyone dare bet against this prognostication? I wouldn't. Just to get it on record, I would demand that everyone running for the House or Senate make a public commitment NOT to support ANY retroactive legislation involving the financial services sector.

[Angry Dragon]

1. I would not like to see this

I truly hope you are wrong

[GodlessBiker]

2. While also prosecuting people after CA legalizes weed. It better not happen.

[WestSeattle2]

16. Of course there will be unlimited resources devoted to pursuing

pot smokers in CA - c'mon, CA pot smokers are a threat to the republic! :hippie:

The feds will feel compelled to make an example of a few to send a message to the rest of country; they just can't help themselves.

We live in a bizarre country with very twisted values.

[bluerum]

3. After all, we are just peasants with no legal standing and no legal power.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

5. we can stop paying the mortgage on those "underwater" homes

[WestSeattle2]

6. That would certainly send a message... n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. It won't work.

These mortgages have been sliced into CDOs and sold multiple times to multiple investors.

Without the trail of ownership on the note, there is no way they can identify the true owners.

Yes, it is that serious.

[Confusious]

7. Ahh, pundits. The fount of stupidity.

Ex post facto law:

In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of Article I, section 10. This is one of the very few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments prior to the Fourteenth Amendment. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in the Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), in which Justice Samuel Chase established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws. The case dealt with Article I, section 10, since it dealt with a Connecticut state law.

Congress cannot retroactively declare something legal, or illegal.

[WestSeattle2]

10. While that is true, there are a myriad of games they play that

would achieve the desired outcome. Consider:

On June 3, 2008, President Bush signed H.R. 4008, the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act, into law. This was a legislative
remedy that, under certain specific circumstances, retroactively immunized hundreds of companies that were defendants in
class action lawsuits from liability for statutory damages under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”). Prior to the passage
of this new law, these companies faced potentially bankrupting liability from statutory damages of between $100 and $1,000 per consumer for
willful violations of FACTA. In some cases, these damages could theoretically have run into the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.


http://www.paulhastings.com/assets/publications/924.pdf?wt.mc_ID=924.pdf

[Confusious]

11. Yea, I thought of that after I posted

But any way you cut it, it's still bullshit, and shows, if you have enough money, you can buy "justice" in this country.

[WestSeattle2]

13. Indeed. Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves. n/t

[gratuitous]

12. But who would have standing to challenge its constitutionality?

We know that the Department of Justice isn't going to try to disturb a hallowed writ issued by Congress that immunizes the big finance boyz from their fuck-up. So it'll be up to private citizens to try to enforce their rights. The argument will be that there isn't an ex post facto, but rather this is a streamlining of the process for private property owners to establish their rightful possession of what they say they own. You're not a Marxist, are you? What do you have against private property? Anyone who opposes this massive land grab will be painted as some kind of nut who doesn't believe in private property. The notion of legalizing today behavior that was illegal yesterday won't enter into it at all.

[laughingliberal]

8. I'd like to see them called on for pledges about this, yes. nt

[azul]

9. Congress is complicit.

Look what happened to Spitzer when states tried to slow the mortgage fraud on minorities. It's in their best interests.

Congress had better get it done today though, Monday the stock markets gonna misbehave big-time if the tabloids(MSM now) spill.

[Swede]

14. Obama just vetoed a similar bill.

http://www.statesman.com/business/obama-vetoes-bill-to-ease-mortgage-firms-paperwork-960352.html?cxtype=rss_business

[WestSeattle2]

15. I hope he remains resolute in the face of collapsing TBTF banks, if

it comes to that.