States To Offer Banks Legal Immunity Concerning Improper Foreclosures

[noah way]

Welcome to the Fascist State, where banks can steal from you with impunity and you have no legal recourse.

States negotiating immunity for banks over foreclosures

State attorneys general are negotiating to give major banks wide immunity over irregularities in handling foreclosures, even as evidence has emerged that banks are continuing to file questionable documents.

A coalition of all 50 states

 

[Bob Maxey]

Since there were so many people getting bad loans that did not require proof of income, perhaps some people being foreclosed should also be investigated for likely lying about their ability to pay.

 

[nlsme]

Yeah, just ignore the banks getting impunity for screwing over the little guy, and blame the little guy for what the banks pushed.

 

[noah way]

Since there were so many people getting bad loans that did not require proof of income, perhaps some people being foreclosed should also be investigated for likely lying about their ability to pay.

The mortgage crisis was the direct result of the housing bubble.

The housing bubble was the result of speculative over-development financed by deregulated banks (merged with investment companies after the Gramm

 

[Martimus]

If I read that article correctly the State AG's are requiring banks to follow new rules and pay penalties. And in exchange for this it implies that they would receive some degree of immunity. It does not specifically state what that immunity will be and whether or not the immunity is for past activities, current activities, or future activities.

Until more is made public on this matter I'm hoping that the States AG's have enough backbone to limit the immunity to only past errors. While this doesn't help those already in the midst of fighting these issues, hopefully a piece of that 25 billion dollar penalty will go to them...

 

[lordofthereef]

Until more is made public on this matter I'm hoping that the States AG's have enough backbone to limit the immunity to only past errors. While this doesn't help those already in the midst of fighting these issues, hopefully a piece of that 25 billion dollar penalty will go to them...

Why should immunity be granted for any reason?

 

[Bob Maxey]

Why should immunity be granted for any reason?

Simple . . . in many cases, lenders were forced to make bad loans. They had no choice in the matter. This was done using threats of lawsuits for something called "Redlining."

Read about the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which forced many banks to make loans to low-income borrowers in what the supporters of this damaging Act calls "communities of color" that largely ignores the economic criteria required to be met when we had more sense.

So yes, some banks should not be held liable for something they were forced to do.

 

[lordofthereef]

If they were forced to do it... immunity should not be sought, because they were only doing what was required of them, no? In other words, they did exactly what they were supposed to be doing.

 

[Bob Maxey]

If they were forced to do it... immunity should not be sought, because they were only doing what was required of them, no?

One would think so, wouldn't one? Too bad we are not all that logical these days.

 

[noah way]

Simple . . . in many cases, lenders were forced to make bad loans. They had no choice in the matter. This was done using threats of lawsuits for something called "Redlining."

Read about the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which forced many banks to make loans to low-income borrowers in what the supporters of this damaging Act calls "communities of color" that largely ignores the economic criteria required to be met when we had more sense.

So yes, some banks should not be held liable for something they were forced to do.

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we

 

[keale18]

Simple . . . in many cases, lenders were forced to make bad loans. They had no choice in the matter. This was done using threats of lawsuits for something called "Redlining."

Read about the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which forced many banks to make loans to low-income borrowers in what the supporters of this damaging Act calls "communities of color" that largely ignores the economic criteria required to be met when we had more sense.

So yes, some banks should not be held liable for something they were forced to do.

Bob do you ever look at information not connected to current tea party rhetoric? I am astounded that with all the information available the tea party/Rush/Beck can get away with outright lies. I understand you thing Obama and the left sucks and thats great but when making an assertion at least try to support it with some facts. Theres plenty of blame to go around without making stuff up.

The above post puts to rest that notion that lenders were forced to do anything other than line thier pockets.

Having been in the mortgage industry during the top of the bubble the effects of an unregulated industry was plain to see for all of us. anyone with a pulse could get a loan and in some cases you didnt even need a pulse. We all knew it couldnt last. We knew that once those ARMs started to adjust upwards people would start to default. We all knew stated income loans were going to come back to bite someone. The only reason it kept going is because of the insane amounts of money being generated everyone was making a killing.

 

[deblyn]

Thanks, Noah Way for the heads' up on this development. Everyone should take note that if such legislation is passed, everyone of us is going to be paying for everyone else's digs! I'm putting my bid in now for a security-gate-guarded enclave in Beverly Hills!

Good luck house-hunting everyone.