Action Advocacy Law FirmConnecticut Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney

The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is a new agency whose purpose is to protect the consumer from credit cards, loans and other financial ‘products’ that banks and similar institutions offer to consumers

It needs a real consumer advocate at the helm who has a passion and commitment to protecting the consumer’s interest. Elizabeth Warren is the ‘godmother’ of this agency because this agency is her ‘brain child’. She was the one who pushed and prodded Congress to consider this type of agency.

Elizabeth Warren is a Harvard Law School Professor who has conducted extensive research into bankruptcy, predatory lending and many other consumer financial issues. She is well qualified for this position. And for those who say that her resume lacks in experience in overseeing a Federal agency, my answer is that position needs a real consumer advocate and not a former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs who would seek to restrain the agency in favor of appeasing Wall Street.

President Obama has a real choice here. He sat on the side-lines when the consumer reform legislation was proposed that bankruptcy judges could lower the interest rates on mortgages which would have saved many homes from foreclosure. He actually didn’t even say ‘boo’ when the center piece of his legislation to prevent foreclosures was defeated by 6 Democratic Senators. And Senator Dodd has been quoted as saying that it will be difficult to confirm Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. And that’s because Wall St. doesn’t want her to head this agency. I can think of no higher recommendation.

I urge President Obana and Senator Dodd to ‘stop selling us’ that they want to help ‘the little guy’ and ‘start producing’ by vigorously supporting Elizabeth Warren as the agency head for the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.

The Supremes: ‘You Keep Me Hanging On…..’

I called the US Supreme Court: The Supremes because they ‘keep me hanging on for justice’.

Presently, there’s a consumer bankruptcy case before The Supremes and it’s In re Ransom. This case is very important to the little guy trying to get out of debt. Why? This case represents a very pro-consumer case for the little guy. Under the Bush Administration, they had enacted into law the new bankruptcy law called ‘BAPCPA’ or the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The only problem with this law is that there are no Consumer Protections provided but that’s typical on how the lobbyists get a pro-creditor bill labeled. Truth in legislative labeling isn’t required by Congress so they are free to mislabel legislation as it has done for generations.

In a nutshell, MBNA went before the US Senate and told our esteemed Senators that there was ‘abuse in the bankruptcy law’. This was like when Robert Preston in the Music Man went into Rivercity and told the people that there was ‘sin in Rivercity’. The citizens of Rivercity were shocked. The Music Man told them that the boys were going behind the barn and smoking cigarettes. The boys were playing pool and worse, they were reading French magazines behind the barn. And that did it. The citizens were shocked. And our US Senators were shocked when they were told that there was abuse in the bankruptcy law.

And therefore, MBNA, (the largest credit card company in the world who paid Barbara Bush $250,000 per appearance to explain to their executives how to bake chocolate chip cookies -I’m not making this up- and MBNA was the same company who was the fourth largest donor to the Bush Re-election Campaign and you must remember that the Bush campaign had to raise $400,000,000 for his presidential election campaign in order that he could take a job paying $250,000 per year because he was desperate to serve our country because his oil company was losing money and his baseball team wasn’t doing well (check out my numbers on http://www.opensecrets.org/

Most people haven’t heard of Charles Cawley but he was the CEO of MBNA See attached article. ) Well under the leadership of Cawley, his swarm of attorney-lobbyists ran the magic elixir of ‘campaign contributions’ under the noses of our US Senators and then they got religion. They had to reform Rivercity and the Bankruptcy Code was amended under Bush. Clinton had vetoed the legislation after talking with consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren and Hilary.

Essentially, you have to admire Cawley because for relatively a few million dollars he was purchasing the whole Federal Bankruptcy judicial system. And who ever said that our Congress isn’t the best legislative body that body can buy? And what would this prize mean to Charles Cawley? He was turning the entire Federal Bankruptcy Court system into his private collection agency. You have to admire the man. He has total ‘cojones’. His political strategy is simple, daring and imaginative. In a word, he’s brilliant because he knows that ‘he who pays for the political campaigns, calls the legislative shots’. But to their credit both he and Bush did have a sense of restraint in passing this legislation because they didn’t require that U.S. Bankruptcy Judges to wear the Walmart happy face logos on the back of their robes with the saying, “How Can We Help the Credit Card Industry, today?”

Now having said all of that, let’s back to the main agenda, In re Ransom. The Courts and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys have not gone gently into BAPCPA (Just call it: ‘The Bush: New Debtors’ Prison Act’) and a number of Court have made decisions which the credit card industry sees as a potential threat to its ‘Debtors’ Prison Act’ (There hasn’t been a Debtors’ Prison in the US since about 1810 but Cawley and his attorney-accountant lobbyists want to have a ‘Plastic Prisons’ versus a prison with iron bars’)

Essentially, according to the ‘Means Test’ in Ransom, a debtor can take a deduction for a car loan for which he isn’t presently paying under the theory that everyone has to eventually pay on a car loan. This is a very common sense observation but it’s very inconvenient to the evil forces Cawley gathering on Witch Mountain. Therefore, you can guess who is trying to ask our Supremes to over-turn the 9th Circuit’s position that the consumer can take this deduction under the Means Test. And this would mean a stunning blow against all the work of the credit card industry to establish their ‘New Debtors’ Plastic Prison’.

And, of course, I am worried. Our Supremes have consistently voted in favor of Wall Street and Big Money. And we must not forgot that this is the same U.S. Supreme Court that brought us Gore v. Bush which most legal scholars see as a ‘stain on the U.S. Supreme Court’ because they blatantly interfered in the political process and make a partisan and political decision to repay various Republicans for their appointed positions. The U.S. Supreme Court maintains its moral authority by being ‘above politics’ and making impartial decisions. The Gore v Bush decision will smell to high heaven for all eternity and like a nuclear power plant, ‘heaven and earth will pass away but their radiation will keep on decaying’.

One of the arguments for the Supremes interfering in the Bush Presidential Election was that they had to prevent a ‘constitutional crisis’ and our Nation couldn’t withstand the indecision.

If you remember: the people were not rioting, no one was torching buildings, the military forces were not disorganized. Everyone was just patiently waiting for the process to take its course because historically we have had presidential elections which were too close to call and the U.S. Constitution provides for this problem and the election can be decided by the House of Representatives. See Rutherford Hays and Samuel Tilden election 1876 Presidential election.

But the Supremes saw a serious problem. The U.S. House of Representatives had a majority of Democrats and Al Gore was a Democrat and by using their advanced mathematical skills, the Supremes concluded that this was a very dangerous situation. The Laws of Probability said that the Democrats would vote for a Democrat, namely, Al Gore; therefore, we wouldn’t have a Republican President who could drive the national debt into the stratosphere and wage 2 wars which no one understands.

And so many decisions by the Supremes have been completely aligned with Wall St and Big Money that I fully expect that their decision in Ransom will be just another ‘tip of the hat’ to Bank of America who is taking the appeal and this is the same bank that is ‘too big to fail’, so the average citizen’s tax money had to be used to keep them out of bankruptcy. I can only shake my head at the irony and promise to print a retraction or at least acknowledge their decision if the Supremes vote for the consumer.

Close to 100 Texans arrested for mortgage fraud, financial crimes

A nationwide crackdown on mortgage fraud and other financial crimes has led to the arrest of 92 people in Texas.

The U. S. Justice Department said that since March, investigators have arrested nearly 500 people nationwide during what is called Operation Stolen Dreams. The crackdown involves 1,215 criminal defendants in cases that uncovered more than $2.3 billion in losses.

| Bob Cronkleton

Posted by James Hart on Friday, June 18, 2010 at 10:38 AM in Other crimes | Permalink
TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b1b869e20134849cee39970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Close to 100 Texans arrested for mortgage fraud, financial crimes:
Comments

This is what the constant Republican cry-baby whining for deregulation has given us: opportunity for thieves to wreck this great country of ours. There’s a reason why we have Government, and this is one very fine example.

Posted by: X | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 11:03 AM

My sister used to work in the state’s property issues department back home. The scope of this kind of fraud is mind blowing. Usually, these people get busted and just pack up and move to another state, then start the con games all over again.

Posted by: Marvin | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Jeez, X–you’re right . . . con men didn’t exist before the Bush administration.

I hear the Republicans are to blame for the rash on your bum . . . (and before you freak, I’m a registered Dem).

Posted by: gee | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 11:56 AM

The Republicans DID have the lion’s share of the blame on this one, though.
But, that’s just because it worked out that way. If a group can’t buy one legislator, they’ll simply buy another. Which party they end up owning is probably just a coin toss.

Posted by: Jellybean | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 12:22 PM

I am quite sure that Republicans are responsible for your hateful, belligerent, vile attitudes, gee. I’d bet on it.

Posted by: X | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Actually, the lowering of standards for mortgage approval, set up the whole mess which is resulting in todays current problems.

Posted by: If I Were A Rich Man | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Which, was enacted by Democrats. The ratio of white to black home owners was scued, according to them.
I believe it was more like the people that have money, regular savings accounts and have been responsible with their money, were owning more homes than those that blow every dime they ever had. So, according to Democrats, these people needed more of an opportunity to buy houses.

Posted by: Searching | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 01:06 PM

It wasn’t “lowering of mortgage standards” directly. It was deregulating the industry so that they could do whatever the hell they wanted. The banks *chose* to lower their standards and give loans to any swinging johnson that walked in the door, then they sold off the loans to Wall Street to avoid the responsibility of non-payment.

Searching,

You need to do your research. The underclass were underrepresented. This was a problem of the middle- and upper-class borrowers. Probably just instinctive of you to blame brown people.

Posted by: Marvin | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 01:14 PM

Nope–

My hateful, belligerent, vile attitudes are all my own doing.

Listen, it works like this–every 2 and 4 years, differnt groups of mobsters trade power in Congress and the Executive. One group gets to run their scams, while the other group screams about it. After a while the two groups trade places. Everybody eventually gets what they want.

Demicans and Republicrats my friend. Ask yourself–Clinton, Bush, Obama have all allowed former Goldman Sachs execs. to set policy for their former cronies (the same industry they’ll be returning to once their stint in “public service” is done).

Statesmen, as opposed to politicians, are a rare breed–in any political party.

Posted by: gee | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 01:16 PM

And who was recently *still* fighting regulation of the financial industries? That’s right, your friendly neighborhood Republicans. There’s always wonderful name-calling involved in that process, too, like “Socialist” and “Communist” and on and on and on. But we know what’s really go on there–corruption fueled by the almighty dollar.

Posted by: X | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 01:18 PM

In fairness to either party, using fake social security numbers to falsify home loans, fraudulent mortgage schemes, etc–it’s always been illegal no matter who was in power.

Posted by: gee | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 01:18 PM

Sure X–

One example of Democrat “nobility”–Chris Dodd siphoning $50 million in “stimulus” funding “earmarked” for rural communities to give to an Indian casino in his home state of Conn.(a casino that reportedly made of $1 billion last year).

For my example of a Dem doing wrong, you should be able to cite a Repub doing wrong.

For either group, this idea of “Repubs are Bad, Dems are good” or vice versa is exactly what they’d like us to keep doing–continue to argue amongst ourselves, and keep sending putting one side or the other in power while nothing ever changes.

Does that sound cynical?

Posted by: gee | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 01:27 PM

They should just say that they didn’t read the paper work before they signed it. The jurys in K.C. believe it, may the Texans will too.

Posted by: Kia Zi | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 01:34 PM

Reagan pushed for deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry back in the 80’s, and we had the same result back then. Banks all over the country went under.

Government turned its back again in the 2000’s. Bush himself pushed for more lax standards in lending in 2003 when the housing market looked like it was ready to pop in high dollar markets such as California. That fueled a new wave of price increases as large-ticket houses were sold with 0% down and, in many cases, with loan payments that didn’t even pay the full interest on the loan. Those bad loans all started to reset in 2006, and pop went the bubble. It’s continued ever since.

The high-dollar loans couldn’t be cleared in traditional ways. So those were bundled into mortgage backed securities by folks such as Goldman Sachs, who probably knew that the assets weren’t worth much. So they convinced AIG to start insuring these assets. Goldman then bought insurance, and actually profited when the whole bubble popped.

Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary under Bush, was CEO of Goldman while that was all going on. He continually lobbied for relaxed regulation so that the major investment firms would be allowed to keep less cash in reserve in order to buy these faddish mortgage-backed securities. The SEC obliged. So when it all popped, it brought everything to its knees, except Goldman (gee, I wonder why).

Furthermore, the rating of the mortgage-backed securities was done by the financial industry that was selling these instruments. The ratings were clearly wrong.

I know that these little sound bytes of yours are convenient for the ill-informed mind, gee, but they don’t get at the heart of the matter. They just rally idiots to more idiocy, but they do make for good AM talk radio.

Posted by: X | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 01:44 PM

X–

Fine, if it makes you feel like a “good guy”, keep waiting for a political party (in your case, the Democrats)to lead you to the promised land.

Just keep telling yourself that everyone who disagrees with you is a dummy/idiot/vile/hateful/teabagger (just a few of your highlights you like to drop now and then).

You’re smart, funny, and people like you . . .

Posted by: gee | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 01:48 PM

X–

Look at the treatise you just posted and ask yourself–with all the Republican misdeeds you’ve reported, were the Democrats bound and gagged in the basement of the capital building? Did we have no Democrats in congress during Reagan or Bush II? Were we a land of fairness and love during Clinton? Does the financial industry contribute to Democrats out of a sense of guilt over their Republican orchestrated crimes?

Wait a minute, just more idiocy–I’ve seen the light and you’re correct. Democrats are sinless–I’m going to go pray to Nancy Pelosi for forgiveness of my sins.

Posted by: gee | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 02:02 PM

X did you not get your Organic Chai Latte today?

Posted by: Chuck McRizzo | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 02:31 PM

gee,

During the early 2000’s, the Democrats did not have much control. That’s a fact. It’s about the reverse of the situation that you have today.

And rest assured that everything which happens during this time of Democrat-controlled Government will rest squarely on the shoulders of the Democrat party. I, for one, will most definitely support that viewpoint, especially if they don’t STOP SPENDING!!!!

Posted by: X | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 02:53 PM

Chuck,

If you were to bring a Chai Latte to the table, then that would be more than anything else you’ve probably ever brought to any table, judging from the quality of your remarks.

Posted by: X | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 02:54 PM

Don’t start fighting with one another over which bunch of politicians is more screwed up. You’ll never win and just look like an idiot for trying.

Posted by: Jellybean | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 02:58 PM

Excellent point, Jellybean.

Posted by: X | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 03:06 PM

Here, here Jelly!

(X and gee withdraw to their respective corners)

Posted by: gee | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 03:21 PM

The underclass were underrepresented
Posted by: Marvin | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 01:14 PM

AS usual a bunch of excuses… funny because each and everytime that I bought a home (5X) the only thing that represented me was my credit report.
So, Marvin… .why does the underclass need anymore representation than I did?
Why cant they just pay their bills and try and handle their affairs a little better?
Why do they need more than hard work and common sense? Is it because they are usually both missing from the equation all together?

Posted by: Searching | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 04:39 PM

Searching,

Because, people who own homes have a vested interest in improving their neighborhoods. Banks don’t want to bother with the unwashed masses any more. Even if someone is lower class with good credit and can afford a cheap home, they can’t get loans (look up redlining).

It takes programs like Fanny and Freddie to get these people a break. Not by giving ninja loans to the first clean-cut looking guy who walks in, but by giving a $40-50K home loan to a guy who might only make $20K/year, but pays his bills.

Posted by: Marvin | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 04:52 PM

Fanny and Freddie are the big fat cats in this whole mess and they are still making a fortune, while everyone else is blamed for the mess they created.

Posted by: Searching | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 09:42 PM

XSTFU

Posted by: Jo Jo | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Searching needs to spend less time making up stuff that makes him feel smart and more time searching for his brain.

Posted by: Kia Zi | Friday, June 18, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Do some research yourself Kia. The federal govenment did some major bailing out with them and put a cap on it, that Obama just raised the cap to infinity. Which in itself is really strange since on the day he did it, they still had 200 mill in bailout cash in the bank.
Subprime loans were used to prop up our mortgage lending practices, and were truly meant to be for short term for people to get into a house and then refinance later on a fixed rate. The system was sold down the drain when they told lending organizations, that said amout of them had to be to lowerclass.
They may have been sold to the public to give a hand up to the $20,000 a year, I pay my bills guy, to ending up selling a bill of goods in the form of subprime loans, to sell the same guy a $120,000 house with tiny interest rate for a couple of years, and then boom huge hike that they could not pay.

Posted by: Searching | Saturday, June 19, 2010 at 06:25 AM

X, you bring as much to the table as the latte, all froth no filler. Everything you post appears to have come out of a Kieth Olberman wiki page.

Gee and JB have the best points, all politicians are to blame no one party messed up anything. If that were the case why isn’t everything fixed since the Dem’s are in power? The answer is simple if everything worked properly we wouldn’t need the government as much and thus they wouldn’t be able to sell us on the raises they give themselves and the handouts they give their buddies.

Posted by: Chuck McRizzo | Saturday, June 19, 2010 at 10:23 AM

I want to watch searching pee standing up!

Posted by: 146 | Saturday, June 19, 2010 at 01:20 PM

The banksters are where the Big fraud is. ie. The mortgage and note are 2 issues. You trade the note for the property [currency exchange]. Then You are supposed to get a loan that never happens. Sound like sci-fi. Check out the first two folders in the group files. The truth will upset Your apple cart, then set You free.

Read more: http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2010/06/close-to-100-texans-arrested-for-mortgage-fraud-financial-crimes.html#ixzz0rXWSuwR6

CORPORATE MURDER?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 | Posted by Jim Hightower
Bookmark and Share
Listen to this Commentary

A mass murder has taken place in another American workplace, taking 29 lives. The authorities know who did it, so shouldn’t that person be made to pay for this heinous crime?

Yes! But the killer is one of America’s largest coal corporations, Massey Energy Company, and you can’t give the death penalty to a corporation. Can you? Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that a corporation is a “person” – so why not?

Massey – headed by its right-wing multimillionaire CEO, Don Blankenship – has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and lawmakers to fend off any effective regulations to protect mine workers. By using its political clout to muzzle the federal watchdog, Massey has been able to flaunt the law. Last year, it had nearly 500 safety violations in just one of its mines, including life-threatening violations. It’s punishment? Fines totaling a mere $168,000 – chump change to an outfit with $56 million in profits last year.

Blankenship blithely says, “We don’t pay much attention to the violation count.” On April 5, federal inspectors added two more violations to the tally of dangerous indifference at the corporation’s Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia. The honchos just shrugged. That afternoon, Upper Big Branch exploded, killing 29 miners.

Blankenship expressed his compassion by saying, “Violations are unfortunately a normal part of the mining process.”

Normal? Nonsense! Other major mining nations provide effective regulatory protections to assure that such deaths are abnormal. By putting its profits over human life, America’s coal industry is killing people, passing it off as a “cost of doing business.” Shouldn’t these profiteers pay more than a fine?

One watchdog group is calling for the immediate arrest of Blankenship for homicide. For information go to StopTheChamber.com.

“Watchdog Group Calls For Criminal Charges Against U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Director Don Blankenship For Homicide,” StopTheChamber.com, April, 12, 2010.

“Mine Operator Escaped Added Oversight,” The New York Times, April 9, 2010.

“Deaths at West Virginia Mine Raise Issues About Safety,” www.nytimes.com, April 6, 2010.

“Mines Fight Strict Laws by Filing More Appeals,” www.nytimes.com, April 6, 2010.

“Another Mining Tragedy,” www.nytimes.com, April 6, 2010.

“Coal Mine’s Safety Record Under Scrutiny,” www.nytimes.com, April 6, 2010.
Bookmark and Share
send to friend
You can go to Jim Hightower’s excellent political blog
Lowdown Blog Jim Hightower

I’m going to attach the Docket Report for Bernie’s Fuel Oil Bankruptcy.

You’ll see that considerable activity has occurred with this case in a relatively short period of time. BERNIE’S DOCKET REPORT20100613163715

BERNIE’S POC 45320100613164343

BERNIE’S POC 453 PART 720100613164814

Most POCs (Proofs of Claim) filed by homeowners are in the $500-$3,000 range. There’s a POC for $8,900 and a POC for $5,700 and, indeed one POC for $98,000. I am attempting to attach all the POCs and; therefore, I will be using several postings because there are approximately 140 pages containing the POCs. BERNIE’S POC 453 PART 320100613164526

OVER 400 POCs FILED

POCs= Proofs of Claim

Creditors file POCs which the Trustee in Bankruptcy uses in order to distribute assets. Proofs of Claim are just that, ‘proof that money is owed to a creditor’. In effect, a POC is a ’specialized bill’ which a creditor submits to the Court in hopes of being paid.

In the present case, there is nothing so far to indicate that this is an ‘asset case’; therefore, all unsecured claims will receive no payment. However, this case is far from completed and assets can be discovered by the Trustee and if assets are discovered, then the Trustee will use the POCs to determine how distribution of those assets will be made. The Bankruptcy Code has procedures which are strictly followed when a case is ‘an asset case’. But at the present time, I don’t see any assets available for unsecured creditors.

The exact number of POCs filed in this case as of this date has been 453. Usually POCs are only filed when there’s an ‘asset case’. An ‘asset case’ means that there will be assets available to be distributed to creditors.

The Claims Register reports that there are $375.93 in unsecured claims and $4,289.45 in Priority Claims and $785,852.75 in ‘unknown claims’. However, from from reading of the Claims Register, most of the claims are unsecured claimed. Probably the people filed the POCs themselves and didn’t complete the POC correctly. The POC can be amended to indicate the type of claim but it’s too way too early for anyone to amend a POC. BERNIE’S POC 453 PART 1320100613165223

We are continuing to hear about the connection between embezzlement and gambling. See the latest stories in The Day. And like the recent flooding, this represents a social disaster which has victims. This should not come as a shock because Spectrum Gaming has filed a report with the Department of Special Revenue entitled, ‘Gambling in Connecticut: Analyzing the Economic and Social Impacts- 6/2009′. See Especially, pages 141-145.* GAMBLING & EMBEZZLEMENT CT20100611200315

If a pawnbroker was constantly receiving stolen property or stolen cash from individuals or businesses or government agencies, I’m certain our state legislators would be indignant and if there wasn’t a law which pertained to receiving embezzled funds, one would quickly be enacted with all due pomp and ceremony.

Where are the Puritans now that we need them?* (You can go to the Spectrum Website and read the extensive 390 page report.)

Gambling in Connecticut: Analyzing the Economic and Social Impact