Daily Archives: June 7, 2016

A reminder to the media: Clinton didn’t drop out of the Presidential race right away in 2008

This is certainly a reminder to the corporate media and execs to quit meddling into the political races and allow the voters to vote for whomever they chose regardless if a Presidential candidate clinches the race with pledged delegates (I am excluding superdelegates) ahead of the states that haven’t had their primaries yet. Sanders has every right to stay in the race to allow the voters in states that haven’t voted yet to vote for their candidate of their choosing. And if Sanders decides to drop out of the race, then it should be Sen. Sanders (as well as the Sanders’ supporters who support him to drop out of the race) himself to make that decision and not the media and Democratic politicians demanding him to drop out. Remember 2008? Media called the Democratic Presidential candidate Obama the presumed nominee when states like California didn’t get a chance to vote yet. Media called for then Sen. Clinton to drop out of the race. But, she didn’t. She vowed to stay in the race and which I was glad that Ms. Clinton stayed in the race all the way through. Different year but same situation. Now, this is 2016, is this Presidential race from both Democrats and Republicans is all about the political party only (in other words, voting for a political party into the White House) or is  it about engaging voters from all walks of life to vote on the candidate’s platform, Democratic, Republican, or third party, that will work best for this country that will benefit them? Whoever becomes President of the United States to succeed Barack Obama will be the new employee to the American people  for four years regardless of the political party.

The Democratic Party about to nominate a historic candidate. That candidate’s opponent not ready to accept that reality.

Bernie Sanders?

No, Hillary Clinton in 2008.

On the night, June 3, 2008, Barack Obama, the first African-American to lead a major party in this country, clinched the Democratic nomination and was declared the “presumptive nominee” by every major news outlet (and yes, that was with superdelegates), Clinton was not quite ready to give up the fight.

She touted her experience…

“[Y]ou asked yourself a simple question: Who will be the strongest candidate…. Who will be ready to take back the White House and take charge as commander-in-chief and lead our country to better tomorrows?”

… her argument that she won in competitive general-election states …

“[B]ecause of you, we won, together, the swing states necessary to get to 270 electoral votes.”

…and declined to drop out:

“Now, the question is: Where do we go from here? And given how far we’ve come and where we need to go as a party, it’s a question I don’t take lightly. This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight.

“But this has always been your campaign. So, to the 18 million people who voted for me, and to our many other supporters out there of all ages, I want to hear from you. I hope you’ll go to my Web site at HillaryClinton.com and share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can.

“And in the coming days, I’ll be consulting with supporters and party leaders to determine how to move forward with the best interests of our party and our country guiding my way.”

Read on.

And more likely Sanders will be consulting with his supporters and as well as his close advisors. We shall see what Sanders’ strategy will be after tonight’s primaries.In the meantime, the media should butt out!!

Bank requires few mortgage documents: Seems like housing deja vu

They were a hallmark of the U.S. housing crash: Mortgages that required little or even no documentation.

During the boom, they were called “stated income” loans, but advertised as “low-doc” or “no-doc” loans. When the damage was done, they were deemed “liar loans.” Both lenders and borrowers alike would write basically anything on the mortgage application to get the deal done. Now, nearly a decade after the financial crisis began, a new version of the stated income loan is making a comeback.

“Lite Doc.” That is what Quontic Bank, an FDIC-insured community lender in New York City is calling its product. It requires only verification of employment and two months worth of bank statements. For self-employed borrowers, it requires documentation of one year of profit and losses. The Lite Doc loans are five-year adjustable-rate mortgages with interest rates in the low- to mid-5 percent range, according to the bank. Thirty-year fixed-rate loans, which when fully documented can offer rates in the high-3 percent range, are not part of the offering.

Read on.

Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media


June 7 2016, 4:41 a.m.

LAST NIGHT, the Associated Press — on a day when nobody voted —surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “superdelegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors, and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.

Although the Sanders campaign rejected the validity of AP’s declaration — on the ground that the superdelegates do not vote until the convention and he intends to try to persuade them to vote for him — most major media outlets followed the projection and declared Clinton the winner.

This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization — incredibly — conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that its nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward, and undemocratic sputter.

None of this is to deny that Hillary Clinton — as was always the case from the start — is highly likely to be the legitimately chosen winner of this process. It’s true that the party’s governing rules are deliberately undemocratic; unfair and even corrupt decisions were repeatedly made by party officials to benefit Clinton; and the ostensibly neutral Democratic National Committee (led by the incomparably heinous Debbie Wasserman Schultz) constantly put not just its thumb but its entire body on the scale to ensure she won. But it’s also true that under the long-standing rules of the party, more people who voted preferred Clinton as their nominee over Sanders. Independent of superdelegates, she just got more votes. There’s no denying that.

Read on.

On a side note: Primary voters go to the polls today in California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota. And I have to agree with Abe Lincoln’s statement. The election belongs to the people and it is their decision and not the media.

UNSEALED: DOJ Confirms Holders of Securitized Loans Cannot Be Traced

Great job by 4closurefraud website!

Originally posted at http://mortgageflimflam.com
With additional edits by http://4closurefraud.org

In a filing unsealed on June 3, 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) confirms what many of us have known for years. Nobody, not even the U.S. Government, with massive resources, can determine who owns your loan and has the right to collect on your mortgage.

The information comes from case files unsealed on June 3, 2016 by federal Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California in the case of the United States v. Discovery Sales, Inc. The case involves some 325 fraudulent loans originated by Discovery Sales, Inc. (DSI) between 2006 and 2008, many of which were then sold to Wells Fargo Bank and JP Morgan Chase to securitize.


The Discovery Sentencing document on page 9 states:

The originating lenders who made loans to purchase DSI properties, including Wells Fargo and  J.P. Morgan Chase, generally would not keep the mortgages and thus did not end up losing money as a result of the DSI fraud scheme. Instead, they would sell the mortgages to other banks who would package them in securities that were sold to other investors. These securities failed when the underlying mortgages went into default. It was impossible to trace the majority of the mortgage loans on the over 300 homes sold by DSI that were the subject of the FBI investigation; it would have been harder yet to identify individual victims of the fraud given that the mortgages were securitized and traded. (Emphasis added.)

To add more outrage to this case, while the government acknowledges the damages from the fraud scheme resulted in $75 million in damages, the amount being paid by DSI in restitution is $3 million to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is all, along with an $8.5 million fine that the government will pocket. Once again the government is taking all of the money from a settlementwith a fraudulent mortgage lender, and giving nothing to the people who were damaged.

Oh, and one more thing. The “preferred lenders,” Wells Fargo Bank and J.P. Morgan Chase, who were also involved in the scheme, were not charged even though it states they knew about DSI’s “shenanigans to inflate the value of their homes” in the sentencing document:

The parties agree that the preferred mortgage lenders, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase, were on some notice that DSI was engaged in various shenanigans to inflate the value of their homes. (Emphasis added.)

During the time of the information, DSI worked with two “preferred lenders,” Wells Fargo Bank and J.P. Morgan Chase. Certain employees and managersof those two preferred lenders knew about the incentive programs offered by DSI and the builders, and knew that the incentives were not being disclosed in the loan files. (Emphasis added.)

Inside the foundation-shattering Republican plan to abolish Dodd-Frank

Includes ending ‘too big to fail’, dramatic overhaul of CFPB

If House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-TX, has his way, Tuesday, June 7, 2016 will soon be remembered as the day that the death clock started on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Just as he recently promised, Hensarling on Tuesday revealed the Republican-crafted plan to repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with a “pro-growth, pro-consumer” alternative.

n a speech given at the Economic Club of New York, Hensarling revealed the Republican plan, entitled the Financial CHOICE Act. “CHOICE” in this instance stands for “Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs.”

When Hensarling first spoke of the Republicans’ plan to overhaul Dodd-Frank, he laid out a series of principals that would fundamentally change the way that the country’s financial system operates, and the specifics of the plan don’t disappoint in that regard.

“We remain stuck in the slowest and weakest economic recovery in our history. Last quarter’s pathetic GDP growth of less than 1% merely punctuates the point,” Hensarling said in his speech Tuesday.

“The economy isn’t working for tens of millions of working Americans who cannot get ahead and fear for the future of their families. Their paychecks remain stagnant; their savings have declined,” he continued.


Per an executive summary of the Financial CHOICE Act provided by the House Financial Services Committee, those sections are:

1. Provide for election to be a strongly capitalized, well-managed financial institution

2. End “too big to fail” and bank bailouts

3. Empower Americans to achieve financial independence by fundamentally reforming the CFPB and protecting investors

4. Demand accountability from financial regulators and devolve power away from Washington

5. Demand accountability from Wall Street through enhanced penalties for fraud and deception

6. Unleash opportunities for small businesses, innovators, and job creators by facilitating capital formation

7. Provide regulatory relief for Main Street and community financial institutions

Read on.

Iowa retiree who was swindled more than $11,000 by Trump University had filed an official complaint with Iowa AG

So, we now know that one of the 11 Attorney Generals that received complaints of Trump University was from the state of Iowa. We still don’t know what the Iowa AG’s status of the Trump University complaint.

Ami Newswire:

Louis Piatt still regrets the day he signed up for Trump University. The Monroe, Iowa retiree says he was duped into squandering more than $11,000 on real estate seminars and workshops.

While Piatt lost money, Trump himself made millions. Trump University paid Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential frontrunner, $5 million out of some $40 million received by the university from 2005 to 2010, court records show.

There are at least three active lawsuits against Trump and Trump University – one by the New York Attorney General’s Office and two related California class actions. Trump has said he has returned his $5 million in fees to the university, but the entity has yet to repay most of its former students.

Piatt, who is not a named plaintiff in these three lawsuits, filed an official complaint with Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller.

Garry Trudeau’s cartoon strip Doonesbury of Trump University 11 years ago



Source: Doonesbury June 6, 2005

Garry Trudeau devoted a week’s worth of Doonesbury to Trump University.


Trump’s Get Rich Seminar, Trump Institute, Partnered With Couple Prosecuted for Fraud

Trump’s connections to Mike and Irene Milin, who operated various get-quick-rich schemes. When the scammer partnered with scammers.

04.06.16 10:00 PM ET

When The Donald started his wealth seminars, he turned to a couple with a checkered legal past.


Donald Trump needed some help in 2006. He was setting up Trump Institute, a series of seminars teaching the “way to wealth,” and was looking for expertise on how the conference business worked.

He turned to a pair with a troublesome legal history to give him a hand.


Mike and Irene Milin were known to law enforcement officials in a number of states for a host of get-rich-quick schemes and alleged real estate scams. They were prosecuted by the Texas attorney general for deceptive trade practices, and sued by the makers ofLifestyles of the Rich and Famous, to name just two of the Milins’ many legal entanglements. But Michael Sexton—then president of Trump University, which he said at the time included the Trump Institute seminars, as well as online courses—partnered with the Milins nonetheless, according to a report from The Sacramento Bee.

The Milins’ oft-investigated National Grants Conferences, in effect, became the blueprint for Trump Institute. The two seminar businesses used some of the same speakers and shared office space in Boca Raton, Florida. The ads for Trump University promised to make people “millionaires,” just as the National Grants Conference commercials told customers they’d make them rich from government money. And, most importantly, Trump Institute operated itself in much the same manner as National Grants Conferences: After a promise of easy riches and a free seminar, customers were cajoled into doling out more and more money to get the key to unlocking wealth.

The problem in both cases: The key never opened anything.

The Milins launched National Grants Conferences in 1998, promising customers lucrative grants from the government, which they could not fulfill. Before that, the couple basically got run out of each state in which they set up a different iteration of the same shady practice. Similarly, Trump Institute promised to make people into savvy real estate investors, thanks to advice from The Donald himself. The customers never met the straw-haired impresario, however. They only got to see a cardboard cutout of his likeness.

Read on.

Ex-TX AG staffer John Owens: Then we got the word, don’t reschedule anything, the case is over. Drop it. Close it. We’re not going to sue Trump University.”

Request to open an investigation against Donald Trump and Trump University.
Trump U agreed to discontinue seminars in Texas, a pre-suit conference was scheduled. Lawyers ask for permission to file suit if the settlement doesn’t happen.
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL – $3.75 million to settle. Full restitution for 267 Texans: $426k; Restitution for 39 Texans: $1.4 million.

Owens served as the deputy director of Texas’ Consumer Protection Division under Abbott when he was the state attorney general. After the Associated Press reported Thursday that an investigation into Trump U a few years back was “quietly dropped” under Abbott and that three years later Trump donated to Abbott’s gubernatorial campaign, Owens spoke about how he remembered the office handling the case.

What started as a Facebook comment on Thursday became by the end of the day Friday a cease and desist letter from the Texas Attorney General’s office warning his disclosures violated the law.

In Owens’ retelling, Abbott dropped the investigation for political reasons, and if it was any business other than Trump’s, legal action would have been taken. (Abbott’s office is denying the claims).

As internal AG documents posted by the Dallas Morning News reveal, the Houston division of the Consumer Protection Division sought to investigate Trump U in October 2009, a request that was approved by deputy attorney general for civil litigation David Morales, according to Owens.

“It didn’t take much to open an investigation. I don’t think anybody really thought much about it,” Owens said. “We go in. Get an injunction. Sometimes we freeze their assets. We fight for Texas consumers. Get their money back.”

The investigation found the university was advertising “free” seminars that falsely promised credits for continuing education credits in Texas real estate. The programs were never officially credentialed by the state real estate commission, the docs said, and the seminars were actually just used to convince potential customers to pay for more programming.

By May 2010, the division was ready to move forward with legal action. On May 6, it filed a request to ready a legal complaint against Trump personally as well as Trump University, and on May 11, it outlined the settlement it would propose to Trump’s lawyers.

“We wanted to have a settlement conference on May 19, where we handed them the petition, we handed them our demands, we sat down with the lawyers, and we were going to say, ‘Give us X-million dollars or we are going to file this lawsuit, we’re going to see you in court,’” Owens said. “And we were denied that opportunity.”

The internal AG documents allege Trump U had engaged in “false, misleading and deceptive practices in promoting and selling their real estate ventures in Texas.” It had suggested a $3.75 million settlement, which included recouping the $2.6 million Texas consumers had allegedly been defrauded. Owens said a meeting had even been scheduled with Trump’s lawyers for May 19, but, as he remembers it, they had asked for a little more time to prepare.

But, as his team was looking into rescheduling, they were told there would be no meeting after all.

“And then we got the word, don’t reschedule anything, the case is over. Drop it. Close it. We’re not going to sue Trump University,” Owens said. “The Houston lawyers told me that they’re not going to go after Trump because it’s Donald Trump, so I took from that that he’s being treated differently because he is Donald Trump and that’s a political decision and it was made at the highest levels of the AG’s office.”

Jamie Dimon to Americans: ‘You’re being manipulated’

super dimon

America’s top banker is growing increasingly alarmed by the rhetoric of this election season.

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) boss Jamie Dimon called the political environment “terrible,” and blamed talking heads on cable news for making it even worse.

“They are just jazzing you up. You’re being manipulated,” Dimon told CNNMoney’s Poppy Harlow in an exclusive interview from Detroit.

The JPMorgan CEO specifically mentioned both FOX (presumably Fox News) and MSNBC, suggesting an echo chamber exists when voters go home and watch these networks.

“Once it’s ideology, your feet are stuck in cement. You can’t move anymore. You can barely breathe — and then you’re just angry,” Dimon said.

Dimon also knocked the political candidates, saying the “scapegoating” and “finger pointing” are not helpful.

Read on.