Monday, March 29, 2010

THIS IS A WONDERFUL VIDEO! CAN YOU BELIEVE THE NEW 30% REDUCTION "GIFT" THEY'VE COME UP WITH NOW?

Tim Hawkins - The Government Can





















See more of Tim's videos athttp://www.timhawkins.net  


" onclick="document.embedForm.embed_code.focus();document.embedForm.embed_code.select();yt.www.watch.about.toggleCustomizeEmbed(yt.getConfig('IS_WIDESCREEN'), true);" readonly="" style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; float: left; clear: none; width: 200px; ">



More From: timhawkinscomedy



Could Bloomberg Lawsuit Mean Death to Zombie Banks?

March 28, 2010 · Leave a Comment

Center for Media and Democracy and www.BanksterUSA.org
Posted: March 28, 2010 09:43 AM
My recollection is a bit hazy. How does one kill a zombie exactly? 
Do you stake it? Cut off its head? Nationalize it? Perhaps it’s time 
to ask the experts at Bloomberg News.

Lost in the haze of the hoopla surrounding the insurance reform bill 
was some big news on the financial reform front. On March 19, 
Bloomberg won its lawsuit against the Federal Reserve for information 
that could expose which “too big to fail” banks in the United States 
are walking zombies and which banks were merely rotting.

Bloomberg, which has done some of the best reporting on the financial 
crisis, is also leading the charge on the fight for transparency at the 
Federal Reserve and in the financial sector. While many policymakers 
and reporters were focusing their attention on the $700 billion Troubled 
Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout bill passed by Congress, 
Bloomberg was one of the first to notice that the TARP program 
was small change compared to the estimated $2-3 trillion flowing 
out the back door of the Federal Reserve to prop up the financial system 
in the early months of the crisis.
Way back in November 2008, Bloomberg filed a Freedom of Information 
Act request asking the Fed what institutions were receiving the money, 
how much, and what collateral was being posted for these loans. Their 
basic argument: when trillions in taxpayer money is being loaned out to 
shaky institutions, don’t the taxpayers deserve to know their chances of 
being paid back?
Not according to the Fed. The Fed declined to respond, forcing Bloomberg 
to sue in Federal Court. In August of 2009, Bloomberg won the suit. With 
the backing of the big banks, the Fed appealed , and this month, Bloomberg 
won again. A three judge appellate panel dismissed the Fed’s arguments 
that the information was protect “confidential business information” and told 
the Fed that the public deserved answers.
The Fed is the only institution in the United States that can print money.  
It can drag this case out as long as it wants, but isn’t it a bid odd that 
taxpayer dollars are being used to keep information from the taxpayers?
After an unexpectedly rocky confirmation battle, Ben Bernanke kicked 
off his new term as Fed Chair in February with pledges of openness and transparency. “It is essential that the public have the information it needs 
to understand and be assured of the integrity of all our operations, including 
all aspects of our balance sheet and our financial controls,” said Bernanke. President Obama also pledged a new era of transparency when he entered 
office. What is going on here?
One theory is that Fed is hiding the secret assistance it provided to 
the financial sector, because it would expose how many Wall Street 
institutions are truly walking zombies, kept alive by accounting tricks 
like deferred-tax assets, “a fancy term for pent-up losses that the bank 
hopes to use later to cut its tax bills,” according to Bloomberg’s 
Jonathan Wiel. If this is the case, it raises doubts about the wisdom 
of Congress’ only plan to take care of the “too big to fail” problem by 
trusting regulators to “resolve” failing banks. If there is no will to resolve 
them now, why should we think regulators will resolve them in the 
future?
Another theory is that the Fed is hiding the fact that it broke the law 
by accepting a boatload of toxic assets as collateral. The law says 
the Fed is only supposed to take “investment grade” assets as 
collateral.
In either case, the public deserves answers. “This money does not 
belong to the Federal Reserve,” Senator Bernie Sanders. “It belongs 
to the American people, and the American people have a right to 
know where more than $2 trillion of their money has gone.”
The President and the Fed Chairman must live up to their pledges 
of transparency. They can start by abandoning this lawsuit and 
opening the doors on the Secrets of the Temple.

Bank of America, Wells Fargo probably won’t pay income tax for 2009: THANKS TO TRAP…I MEAN TARP!

March 28, 2010 · Leave a Comment

BANK OF AMERICA, WELLS FARGO PROBABLY WON’T PAY INCOME TAX FOR 2009






Neil Garfield- Steps to Securitization

March 28, 2010 · Leave a Comment

Mr. Garfield is a GENIUS

GO TO THIS LINK FOR WONDERFUL 
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE VIDEOS!!!!! 
CameronBaxterFilms09



March 26, 2010
A casual conversation about the mechanics of securitization with Neil Garfield MBA JD, Wall Street insider and former trial attorney. Neil is the editor ofhttp://www.LivingLies.WordPress.com, the leading internet resource on foreclosure defense. He explains how the major banks and Wall Street used securitization to bypass traditional regulatory guidelines, and why it is so difficult for judges, lawyers and borrowers to understand what happened. Neil has just released a 2-disk, 4-hour foreclosure defense DVD set – The Garfield Continuum: Seminar for Laymen. A version for attorneys follows shortly. The DVD and the accompanying Workbook can be purchased at http://www.LivingLies-store.com

 ells Fargo’s Attorney- “We are the HOLDER of THE NOTE!
Later the attorney stated “Excuse me, I MISSTATED…We are ONLY the SERVICER”
Mr. Garfield “At which point I gave the lawyer an elbo, and I said “That means WE DON’T HAVE A HOLDER OF THE NOTE in this court room.” 

No comments:

Post a Comment