Showing posts with label homeowners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homeowners. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Sometimes a White Sheet is Just Laundry: A reflection on the possibility racism may loosen its grip
Being committed to civil rights, and living in a hyper-segregated area, I am used to seeing the ravages of racism. A drive a few blocks from my home leads to a dividing line where a new town was established, requiring a change in state law to deprive a particular city of its right not to have new municipalities created within a three-mile buffer zone of its boundaries. A few more blocks takes me to a new dividing line, where suburban white flighters demarcate the area of their specially-created town that is no longer lily-white enough for them. A few blocks more, and I see the area they would classify as "changing."
These lines are not subject to imagination--the economic ravages of white flight bear out in census data and economic reports. In contrast, other images are subjective. On a recent drive through the (all-too-purposefully) "white" area of my city, I saw white robed figures and burning objects. Convinced I had just seen a KKK rally out of the corner of my eye, I persuaded my companion to take another pass around the block. He protested, himself having seen a wedding. Our second pass proved he was correct: it was a beach-front, summer wedding, replete with white attire and tiki torches (months before the latter took on a sinister meaning). Willing to laugh at myself, I realized my perceptions sometimes do not bear out.
In the middle between subjective and objective are the social attitudes that shift with time, even if the shift toward equality (much less equity) is a bit too glacial for my taste. Near my home is a pizza place bearing the name of the staunchly "white" neighborhood in which it sits. I do not particularly care for the place--its name and the fact new branches are located in white-flight areas leave me uneasy. To make matters worse, it is one of several establishments that has long refused delivery in my predominantly African-American city. An owner of another pizza place, located in the same intentionally-isolated pocket of the city, bragged about her refusal of delivery service to my neighborhood--on the grounds that "they" would pull a gun and shoot her delivery drivers. I have previously written about my inability to get simple amenities like pizza delivery: my inability to get pizza delivery and other services at http://www.kellidudley.com/2017/06/30/the-woman-in-the-shoe-and-i-would-like-one-large-veggie-pizza/.
Soon after my post about lack of delivery services, I began noticing delivery cars in my area. I was tempted to believe someone had read my blog. I was also skeptical that a hate-based practice dating back twenty years would simply give way overnight. However, the delivery cars (with magnetized signs bearing the name of the pizza joint) continued to show up around my area.
Leary of the never-too-worn-to-pull-out-again comments from racists and dreading another hate-filled exchange, I continued to eschew the pizza as well as the new service. I anticipated reluctant and limited service to my area, an unwarranted up-charge, or other unfair treatment that has threatened to infect my view of normalcy for over twenty years of living in my city and its surrounds.
Circumstances collided: a hungry friend delivering and setting up my dryer, the need to supervise a high-spirited dog, and limited time led me to try the delivery. There was no up-charge identifiable as associated with my neighborhood's demographics, and hot food came--with a smile--within an hour.
Perhaps change--real, gooey, delicious change--is nigh.
May the woman in the shoe fare as well.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Contact Your AG: Oppose the Robosigning Settlement
For a few minutes there, it seemed like we had the big banks cornered. Being the rats they are, they fought. Of course, it was not an honest fight. The banks, as usual, turned to back-door deals rather than any sincere change in policy or procedure.
The robosigning scandal came to light in the fall of 2010. Attorneys who represent homeowners had deposed bank representatives. For the most part, these were staff who signed affidavits swearing the bank truly owned the right to foreclose on a home, that the homeowner had failed to make payments, and facts required by law (even if judges don't enforce the requirement) to support a judgment of foreclosure.
In the depositions, employees testified under oath that they did not read or examine the affidavits they were signing. An affidavit is a substitute for in-court testimony, and signing an affidavit is the same as raising one's hand in court and swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and something like the truth. A failure to testify honestly in court is perjury, a jailable offense. Signing a false affidavit is committing perjury. In addition to the person signing the affidavit, an attorney can also be sanctioned if he or she knowingly offers perjured testimony (by putting a liar on the stand or turning in a falsified affidavit).
So, if you or I turned in a false affidavit: jail. If a banker turns in a false affidavit: ??? Well, thar's still gold in them thar hills, and we can't stop 'em from gettin' at it. (Of course, by "hills" I mean our pockets and by "gold" I mean a roof over our heads. But who can quibble when the bankers have been delayed in doing the good work of turning the broke into the broke and homeless?)
The glimmer of hope has already turned in to the gleam of more profits in a bankster's eye. In the short term, there was a lot of Internet buzz and it seemed change was on the way as banks halted foreclosures, attorneys general and Federal law enforcement agencies issued subpoenas for files, and affidavits offered by banks were subject to more scrutiny. However, less than six months later, the attorneys general and law enforcement agencies are ready to flip the switch and restart the machine that takes away home with no thought, no due process, and no justice.
The attorneys general have offered a settlement agreement to the banks. Much has been made of the length of the settlement agreement. However, 27 pages leaves a lot of room to use flowery language and hide the truth.
A thorough critique of the proposal would be longer than the proposal itself. Here, I am setting forth three simple points that, in themselves, are enough to send homeowners into the street to protest this latest giveaway.
1. The settlement will not require the original note to be produced. This gives official sanction to one of the most nefarious banking practices. Because loans have been transferred from bank to bank so many times, the original paperwork is "lost." Banks seek to foreclose without proving they own the debt and, therefore, have a right to foreclose. When a homeowner objects, the bank states that it has possession of the original note and, under legal technicalities (many of them fictional), has carte blanche to take the home. When the bank cannot produce this original note, it produces a robosigned affidavit saying, "Look, we really have it. We just can't find it. Maybe the dog ate it."
As long as the requirement of having the original note remains in place, a requirement that mirrors long-established commercial law, attorneys can argue that the affidavits are insufficient. Giving the green light to spurious affidavits will enable banks to continue foreclosing on debts they do not own.
A true danger is present for homeowners. If I falsely claim to own the right to foreclose on your home, present persuasive (if false) affidavits, and walk away with your home, the true owner of the debt still remains unsatisfied and could appear at any time and assert its legitimate right to collect. The collateral for the loan would be gone, so the rightful creditor would resort to garnishing wages and attaching other assets. This will further drain wealth from working communities.
As a simple matter, I can freely claim to own the right to foreclose on any home I wish. If your home is better than mine, look out! I may be sunning myself by your pool next year.
2. The settlement does not provide enough money to compensate injured homeowners. The banksters have walked away with bailouts, stipped wealth from working communities, received windfall tax breaks, and continue to escape financial responsibility. From a financial point of view, this settlement is like creating a clean-up fund for the Gulf oil spill using a couple of dollars from between somebody's couch cushions. A really poor somebody who has more pennies than quarters. There is no private right of action for a homeowner whose home is taken by a bank that is not complying with the settlement agreement.
3. The settlement puts new procedures in place for foreclosure proceedings, or, more accurately, reiterates steps that are already required (but ignored in many jurisdictions). If these are ignored now, it is hard to fathom why the settlement, entirely lacking in teeth as it is, would cause a change. Even worse, the new procedures only protect those whose homes have not yet been taken. For the millions of people whose home is presently rotting into the ground after a wrongful foreclosure, there is no relief.
Consumers should call their state attorneys general and object to the settlement agreement. A list is on the web here: http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/stateconsumeragencieslist.php
And, of course, we need to take to the streets. Protests are being planned to let the powers that be know that this kind of compromise with the corporations that destroyed our economy is entirely unacceptable.
The robosigning scandal came to light in the fall of 2010. Attorneys who represent homeowners had deposed bank representatives. For the most part, these were staff who signed affidavits swearing the bank truly owned the right to foreclose on a home, that the homeowner had failed to make payments, and facts required by law (even if judges don't enforce the requirement) to support a judgment of foreclosure.
In the depositions, employees testified under oath that they did not read or examine the affidavits they were signing. An affidavit is a substitute for in-court testimony, and signing an affidavit is the same as raising one's hand in court and swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and something like the truth. A failure to testify honestly in court is perjury, a jailable offense. Signing a false affidavit is committing perjury. In addition to the person signing the affidavit, an attorney can also be sanctioned if he or she knowingly offers perjured testimony (by putting a liar on the stand or turning in a falsified affidavit).
So, if you or I turned in a false affidavit: jail. If a banker turns in a false affidavit: ??? Well, thar's still gold in them thar hills, and we can't stop 'em from gettin' at it. (Of course, by "hills" I mean our pockets and by "gold" I mean a roof over our heads. But who can quibble when the bankers have been delayed in doing the good work of turning the broke into the broke and homeless?)
The glimmer of hope has already turned in to the gleam of more profits in a bankster's eye. In the short term, there was a lot of Internet buzz and it seemed change was on the way as banks halted foreclosures, attorneys general and Federal law enforcement agencies issued subpoenas for files, and affidavits offered by banks were subject to more scrutiny. However, less than six months later, the attorneys general and law enforcement agencies are ready to flip the switch and restart the machine that takes away home with no thought, no due process, and no justice.
The attorneys general have offered a settlement agreement to the banks. Much has been made of the length of the settlement agreement. However, 27 pages leaves a lot of room to use flowery language and hide the truth.
A thorough critique of the proposal would be longer than the proposal itself. Here, I am setting forth three simple points that, in themselves, are enough to send homeowners into the street to protest this latest giveaway.
1. The settlement will not require the original note to be produced. This gives official sanction to one of the most nefarious banking practices. Because loans have been transferred from bank to bank so many times, the original paperwork is "lost." Banks seek to foreclose without proving they own the debt and, therefore, have a right to foreclose. When a homeowner objects, the bank states that it has possession of the original note and, under legal technicalities (many of them fictional), has carte blanche to take the home. When the bank cannot produce this original note, it produces a robosigned affidavit saying, "Look, we really have it. We just can't find it. Maybe the dog ate it."
As long as the requirement of having the original note remains in place, a requirement that mirrors long-established commercial law, attorneys can argue that the affidavits are insufficient. Giving the green light to spurious affidavits will enable banks to continue foreclosing on debts they do not own.
A true danger is present for homeowners. If I falsely claim to own the right to foreclose on your home, present persuasive (if false) affidavits, and walk away with your home, the true owner of the debt still remains unsatisfied and could appear at any time and assert its legitimate right to collect. The collateral for the loan would be gone, so the rightful creditor would resort to garnishing wages and attaching other assets. This will further drain wealth from working communities.
As a simple matter, I can freely claim to own the right to foreclose on any home I wish. If your home is better than mine, look out! I may be sunning myself by your pool next year.
2. The settlement does not provide enough money to compensate injured homeowners. The banksters have walked away with bailouts, stipped wealth from working communities, received windfall tax breaks, and continue to escape financial responsibility. From a financial point of view, this settlement is like creating a clean-up fund for the Gulf oil spill using a couple of dollars from between somebody's couch cushions. A really poor somebody who has more pennies than quarters. There is no private right of action for a homeowner whose home is taken by a bank that is not complying with the settlement agreement.
3. The settlement puts new procedures in place for foreclosure proceedings, or, more accurately, reiterates steps that are already required (but ignored in many jurisdictions). If these are ignored now, it is hard to fathom why the settlement, entirely lacking in teeth as it is, would cause a change. Even worse, the new procedures only protect those whose homes have not yet been taken. For the millions of people whose home is presently rotting into the ground after a wrongful foreclosure, there is no relief.
Consumers should call their state attorneys general and object to the settlement agreement. A list is on the web here: http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/stateconsumeragencieslist.php
And, of course, we need to take to the streets. Protests are being planned to let the powers that be know that this kind of compromise with the corporations that destroyed our economy is entirely unacceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)