So JP Morgan Chase is being fined again for essentially colluding with Bernie Madoff. Ho hum–big deal. Well, for them anyway. Because even though the latest $2 billion fine–according to Marketplace–“brings the grand total of fines JPM has paid in just the past year to just about $20 billion,” that’s really no skin off Chase’s back. Because that seemingly gigantic number–$20 billion–is merely a month or two of QE Unlimited cash, paid directly from the Fed to the big banks.
Yes, every month, the privately-owned Federal Reserve creates $35 billion (from September 2012 until this month it was $40 billion) out of thin air and gives it to the big banks. So the banks get a monthly bailout of billions while the people are not only ultimately saddled with that monthly bill, but there is no concomitant monthly bailout for regular people. Like you. Or like me. Or our sisters and grandmothers and cousins and friends. We’re on our own, while the banks are given literally billions per month in bailout money.
Back to the lecture at hand…
But I’m getting off the subject here, which is this: fines aren’t fine. Because any amount Chase (or any other bank) has to pay in some wrist-slapping settlement like this is at least offset, if not completely covered, by the $35 billion per month the Fed is creating from thin air to give to these criminal banks. So the fines have no effect. Indeed, anyone else find it curious that these fines get levied only after the banks have been given $40 billion a month for the last year and a half?
Oh we’re told that the $35-40 bill is to purchase bad MBS from the big banks. Yeah, and Chuck Ponzi was just selling stamps. Even if the Fed really does take possession of worthless MBS in exchange for billions every month, the point is that the banks are getting money in exchange for garbage. It’s as though the banks took a dump on the floor and the Fed says “Will you take $40 billion for it?” See what luck any one of us would have doing the same thing.
Fed makes banks Even Steven, at the very least
So because of this $35-40 billion transfer per month to the banks–of which Chase is the biggest by assets–these fines don’t affect Chase at all. The government makes a big show of taking from Chase with one hand (i.e., the above-mentioned fines), while with the other hand putting the money right back in Chase’s pocket (i.e., with QE). Puts one in mind of a certain Seinfeld episode…
But of course, “our” biggest banks don’t just wind up breaking even like Jerry. No, they’re doing better than ever, fines and the law be damned. Oh yeah, because everything is rigged.
“According to the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Bar Association signed a resolution to remove Mississippi’s flag from the Santa Ana Civic Center. They say the flag’s confederate design, reminiscent of the Confederate battle flag used in the Civil War, symbolizes racism and hatred. Currently, all 50 states’ flags fly outside the center.”
The story goes on to quote various Mississippians who support Mississippi’s flag:
“‘People need to get out of that. You know … how are we ever going to move forward? That flag represents a lot of soldiers. It represents a lot of hard fighting for everybody,’ said Stacy Collett from Raymond, Miss.
Steve Hampton, of west Jackson, Miss., said, ‘Our state flag does not remind me of racism. People and their actions remind me of racism. I’ve since let it go. I don’t think it has anything to do with a flag.'”
I’m gonna go ahead and take a wild guess that Stacy and Steve are probably…not black.
Mississippi flag=CSA flag with more colors
Here’s what Mississippi’s flag currently looks like for those who may not know:
And here is the second official flag of the Confederate States of America, again for those who may not know:
The similarities are quite obvious. A third CSA flag was adopted in 1865 which looks just like the one above except that a single vertical red stripe was added to the right side of the flag. The various flags can be viewed at this link.
So what’s all the fuss about?
All right, so big deal–the Mississippi state flag looks just like the Confederate flag. That’s what Stacy and Steve from the article above are essentially saying, i.e., who cares because they don’t think of it in a bad light. But I’m pretty sure that Stacy and Steve never read the entry from my old blog which said this:
“The ‘rebel flag’ we are all familiar with was incorporated into both the 2nd and 3rd official flags of the CSA. So in every conceivable way, the ‘rebel flag’ is inextricably linked with the Confederacy, and we know that Mississippi left the Union and joined the Confederacy in order to be able to perpetuate the practice of slavery.
‘The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negr0 in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.’
Slavery was, in Stephens’ words, THE immediate cause of the formation of the CSA. He didn’t say it was the only cause, to be sure. It was just the cause that had the most direct bearing on the secession. That’s all.
Stephens goes on to whip up some of that good ol’ ‘Southern pride’ and ‘heritage, not hate’ for ya:
‘Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negr0 is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.’
But seriously, I don’t know why so many people…wish to argue that slavery really didn’t have all that much to do with the creation of the Confederacy. Especially when the fucking VP of the CSA himself said that making blacks subordinate to ‘the superior race’ was the very ‘cornerstone’ of the CSA! He actually said that slavery for blacks was normal and constituted a great ‘moral truth.’
And we’re supposed to believe that the flag of such a country doesn’t represent slavery and racism? And that such a flag’s inclusion on our state flag doesn’t hearken back to that sentiment? Really?
Well, sorry–that shit doesn’t wash. Mississippi said its decision to secede was to protect slavery, the VP of the CSA said that the very basis of the new nation (not really, though, because it was never recognized by any foreign country) was slavery, and God only knows what else.
Rebel Flag=slavery, white supremacy, tyranny and racism of the worst possible kind. End of story. It needs to be removed from our state flag–we’re the last state in the Union to cling to it. It’s pathetic, really. The flag stands for hate, not heritage.
Take down the rebel flag!”
Reading over that entry from almost exactly six years ago, I have to say I still concur with that analysis. There are a couple of references in the above excerpt to Mississippi saying it left the Union to protect slavery, and those references were made as if that fact were common knowledge. However, on the likely chance that the fact is not common knowledge, here’s another excerpt from my old blog on just that issue:
“…I ran across a document called ‘A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.’ I graduated with a Bachelor’s degree in history from the University of Southern Mississippi and took a course in Mississippi history from one of the foremost scholars on the subject, John Gonzales (R.I.P.). But I don’t think I’d ever read that document before.
This document so easily puts to rest the faux-sophisticate argument that the southern states didn’t really fight the war over slavery, but instead fought it over some high-minded, esoteric, principles about economics and state’s rights. Actually, that’s kind of true, but slavery was at the heart of the matter, at least where Mississippi was concerned, and they said so very plainly in their “declaration of independence” from the Union. Here’s an excerpt:
‘Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.’
Argument over. The Civil War was about slavery.”
Backwardness and hardheadedness
From the same link at my old blog, here are a couple other choice excerpts about how the attitude that clings to the Confederate flag is emblematic of the attitude that puts Mississippi at the bottom or near the bottom in lots of good things and at the top or near the top in lots of bad things:
“No one is denying that prejudice against blacks existed and still exists everywhere in the U.S., even in the north. However, the point being made in this thread is that Mississippi, as of 2003, is the only state that incorporates the Confederate flag into its state flag.
Given that fact, is it merely coincidental that we are also the only state that:
And so on. Our glorious yet benign heritage at work!!! Let us celebrate it with great fervor, shall we?
…I merely suggested that the flag and the sorry state of affairs in MS may be related…
The chain of causation if the two things were related might go like this:
-Slavery exists in MS
-Slavery in MS threatened
-MS leaves union to maintain slavery
-MS is on the losing side
-MS forced to free slaves
-MS resents this
-MS determined to keep former slaves and their descendants down
-MS largely succeeds in that effort with overt Jim Crow policies; Confederate flag incorporated into state flag, symbolizing success of Jim Crow
-Policies of oppression create a large underclass
-Underclass creates burden on state economy
-MS forced to stop keeping down former slaves and their descendants
-Underclass persists and grows through covert, subtle, neo-Jim Crow means; state given opportunity to change symbol–rejects change
-MS continues to rank at or near bottom of lists of most good things, at or near top of lists of most bad things
The state flag is not the cause of the state’s societal ills, obviously. But the mentality that keeps the Confederate flag on the state flag IS the cause of the state’s societal ills. That’s my argument.”
So is the Orange County Bar Association right to take down the Mississippi flag because it represents hate and racism? Well, you’ll get no argument from me…
“Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world’s largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.”
And he’s exactly right–everything is rigged. Those aren’t empty words, either. To a large degree, a lot of the year’s major (and some not-so-major) stories were about the extent to which everything is rigged.
The rigging is of course further exacerbated and certainly enabled by the NSA spying that Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald brought to the forefront of the American consciousness. We have a Bigger Brother than Orwell ever imagined (or maybe Big Brother just grew up a lot in the 29 years since Orwell’s prophetic date) as seen on the streets of Seattle, for example:
With all that in mind, here are some big stories from the crazy mix of foreclosures, fiascos, and fraud that was 2013:
“Meanwhile, almost all of the deal, save a $2 billion penalty to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento to settle a civil lawsuit, is tax deductible as a business expense. Assuming a 38 percent rate for deductions (as JPMorgan does) on $7 billion in business expenses, this knocks another $2.66 billion off the real cost to JPMorgan Chase. A ballyhooed $13 billion settlement winds up being closer to $2.74 billion. That’s less than what BP or GlaxoSmithKline paid in their Justice Department settlements.“
And of course, The Daily Show did an excellent breakdown of that and a few of the other settlements that prevented the big boys from going to jail and essentially making crime and fraud simply a cost of doing business. You can see the Daily Show video here.
2. Glaski v. Bank of America
A big breakthrough for homeowners fighting foreclosure, Glaski means the following, according to Sidley Austin LLP:
“However, Glaski v. Bank of America, National Association, et al., in which an Appeals Court found that borrowers have standing to challenge void assignments of their loans, even if they were not a party to or a beneficiary of the assignment, stands out as a particularly significant California decision in 2013 affecting real estate contracts.”
And let’s not forget that this decision was threatening enough to the banksters that they wanted to have it de-published once it had been published. Thankfully, and counter to the overall theme of 2013, the decision remains published and ought to be precedent for courts in California. However, in keeping with the 2013 theme, California courts have so far declined to use it as precedent:
“Dahnken joined a growing line of California federal trial courts that have rejected the Glaski court’s analysis. For instance, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California expressly refused to follow Glaski in Diunugala v. JP Morgan Chase. There, after stating that it found “the reasoning in the [pre-Glaski] case law to be more persuasive than that in Glaski,” the court held that the plaintiff borrower lacked standing to challenge the defendants’ compliance with the terms of a PSA.
Likewise, after noting that “no courts have yet followed Glaski and Glaski is in a clear minority on the issue,” the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in Newman v. Bank of New York Mellon decided that “[u]ntil either the California Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, or other appellate courts follow Glaski, this Court will continue to follow the majority rule.” See also Subramani v. Wells Fargo (declining to follow Glaski in favor of the majority rule). In short, Glaski is meeting resistance in California’s federal trial courts.”
Would courts be ignoring precedent unless everything were rigged? The question answers itself.
“The difference with the ‘bail-in’ is that the order of creditor seniority is changed. In the end, it amounts to the cronies (other banks and government) and non-cronies. The cronies get 100% or more; the non-cronies, including non-interest-bearing depositors who should be super-senior, get a kick in the guts instead.”
4. Pope Francis statements
So nice to finally have a prominent, apolitical public figure that will actually acknowledge the truth of what is really going on with the economy and that the media will actually cover. Pope Francis certainly knows everything is rigged:
“’Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world…This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.'”
5. US Bank PDF
Judges have had a field day denying homeowners due process of law throughout our current foreclosure crisis, and one of the big obstacles they have put in front of homeowners is the idea that the homeowners aren’t a party to the securitization of the promissory notes that the homeowners signed at closing. Jeff Barnes and company at Foreclosure Defense Nationwide came across an admission from US Bank in that company’s own literature stating that homeowner/borrowers are, in fact, a party to the securitization. Truth be told, homeowner/borrowers are the most important party to the securitization because without them, there’d be nothing to securitize. Quote from the US Bank document as documented by Foreclosure Defense Nationwide:
“We have been provided with a copy of U.S. Bank Global Corporate Trust Services’ “Role of the Corporate Trustee” brochure which makes certain incredible admissions, several of which squarely disprove and nullify the holdings of various courts around the country which have taken the position that the borrower ‘is not a party to’ the securitization and is thus not entitled to discovery or challenges to the mortgage loan transfer process…The first heading of the brochure is styled “Distinct Party Roles”. The first sentence of this heading states: ‘Parties involved in a MBS transaction include the borrower, the originator, the servicer and the trustee, each with their own distinct roles, responsibilities and limitations.’”
6. Bank of America gift cards
How much would you require to sell out your fellow debt slaves and see them put out on the street? Apparently some Bank of America employees will do it for the price of a gift card to Target or Bed Bath and Beyond. Anybody still not getting that everything is rigged? Here’s how we put it here at Liberty Road Media:
“From the declaration under penalty of perjury of former BoA ‘senior collector’ Simone Gordon we learn that it was the policy of Bank of America not just to tell borrowers that BoA hadn’t received borrowers’ modification documents when they had in fact received them, but also to put the accounts of those same borrowers into foreclosure status. And the employees that met certain foreclosure status quotas were rewarded with cash bonuses and gift cards to stores like Bed Bath and Beyond and Target.”
7. “Paper terrorism”
This is where the fact that everything is rigged gets really perverse, because it’s apparently not enough for these people to rig everything. No, they have to invent pejorative, inflammatory terms to apply to us when we do exactly what they do. As in the case of Barbara Bratton, alleged “paper terrorist.” Supposedly she filed false documents in the land records of San Bernardino County, California, just like she believed her “lender” had done. When they do it, it’s just business. Or it’s just “robo-signing.” When she does it, it’s “paper terrorism” and she gets thrown in jail. Unbelievable. Again from Liberty Road Media:
“And that’s the problem–no judge or district attorney seems willing to label the banks as ‘terrorists’ even when the banks engage in what those same judges or district attorneys would readily call ‘paper terrorism’ if a private citizen did it. It’s a distinction without a difference, i.e. the same behavior is considered A-OK if banks do it but it’s punishable by solitary confinement if a private citizen does it.”
8. George Babcock v. Merrill Sherman and MERS
How’s this for everything is rigged–one of the premier anti-foreclosure attorneys in the country has his cases consolidated and overseen by a court-appointed Special Master. And turns out the Special Master is a former banker whose bank was a member of MERS, one of the main parties in many (if not nearly all) the cases brought by our premier anti-foreclosure attorney. Of course we’re talking about attorney George Babcock and Special Master Merrill Sherman, which was covered at Babcock’s site, providing the necessary documentation of Sherman’s connection to MERS:
“Attorney Babcock has recently discovered that Special Master Merrill Sherman, the Federal Special Master, appointed with the task of managing the In re: Federal Mortgage Foreclosure docket, has previously sat on, and currently sits on the board of 2 different banks that are MERS members. She likewise served as the Chief Executive Officer of a Bank that was at that time and is currently a MERS member.
Special Master Merrill Sherman currently sits on the board of Brookline Bancorp, Inc.. Brookline Bank is registered as a MERS member and works directly with MERS. Coincidentally, it is estimated that 65% of the cases that are under the watch and direction of Special Master Sherman involve MERS as a defendant. Please see below for details on Special Master Sherman’s relationship with Brookline Bancorp and Bank RI and the status of both Banks as MERS members.
‘It appears that MERS runs the mortgage industry in Rhode Island’ said Attorney Babcock. However, despite MERS involvement in the state’s mortgage industry, Attorney Babcock and his team continue to press on, ‘We have managed to save hundreds of homes, and aid thousands of families without the help of any government or state agency, despite what appears to be a major conflict of interest between MERS and the Special Master.’ Click here to watch his video blog reaction to Sherman.”
9. “National Mortgage Data Repository”
And speaking of MERS–itself a great indication that everything is rigged–this year saw the proposal of the very MERS-like “National Mortgage Data Repository” which would be MERS but with the blessing of the federal government. Here was our take on it back in July (as always, David Dayen did an excellent job of covering the details):
“But it also shows that, by God, they want to make as many Americans homeless as possible, and they want to be able to do it on their say-so. That’s why the new proposed registry will still be private–again, just like MERS. The banks’ sole interest is power and control, and they figure it’s time to make it all nice ‘n’ legal with a real-life, honest-to-goodness law (usually anathema to them). After all, isn’t that what everybody complained about with MERS, that there was never any law authorizing MERS? That MERS was just created and rammed through the property records without any legislature ever ratifying it beforehand?
Oppose this joke of a ‘bill’ with all your might. This is a proposal to legalize paper terrorism–for banks, natch, and not for you and me. The sponsor is Jeb Hensarling of Texas (how sweet for the banks if a Texas representative got this done since MERS is currently being challenged hot and heavy in Texas). This new MERS is part of a larger bill called the Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners Act (PATH). Shut it down!”
10. Nueces County anti-MERS decision
Just because we get some good news every now and then doesn’t mean everything isn’t rigged. Some of the best news came when Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos in Nueces County, Texas ruled that MERS is not a beneficiary (despite deeds of trust saying that MERS is a beneficiary) and that MERS and the banks intended to cause harm to the recording system of Texas counties. Importantly, Ramos herself said these very obvious things–she was not quoting the Plaintiffs when she said them. Finally some sanity in Texas and the 5th Circuit. From the link above (which got the most Facebook shares of any post here this year), here is just a taste of Ramos’ great denial of the banks’ motion to dismiss:
“1. ‘MERS does not, however, hold any beneficial interest in the deeds of trust, and it is not a beneficiary of the deeds of trust. It is merely an agent or nominee of the beneficiary.’ (p. 14)”
Just about a year ago, in a move to try to cover the fact that everything is rigged, the “Independent Foreclosure Review” was abruptly shut down and it was decided that all affected homeowners would receive a paltry sum to “settle” the banks’ wrongdoing that they neither admitted nor denied (which is the same as an admission). Elizabeth Warren got some great and damning testimony regarding the farce that was the Independent Foreclosure Review (our take on all that here):
“Sen. Warren: All right, so let me ask it from the other point of view. You now have evidence in your files of illegal activity, I take it, for some of these banks. I get that from the evidence you’ve released about the charts, who’s going to get paid what, so if someone believes that they have been illegally foreclosed against, will they still have a right under this settlement to bring a lawsuit against the bank?
Mr. Stipano, OCC: Yes.
Sen. Warren: All right. Now, if a family wants to bring a lawsuit, you’re both lawyers, would it be helpful, if you’re going against one of these big banks, would it be helpful for these families to have the information about their case that’s in your files. Mr. Ashton?
Mr. Ashton, Fed: It would be helpful, obviously, to have information related to the injury, yes it would.
Sen. Warren: Okay. So, do you plan to give the families this information? That is, those families that have been victims of illegal foreclosures, will you be giving them the information that’s in your possession about how the banks illegally foreclosed against them? Mr. Ashton?
Mr. Ashton, Fed: I think that’s a decision that we’re still considering. We haven’t made a final decision yet.
Sen. Warren: So you have made a decision to protect the banks, but not a decision to tell the families who were illegally foreclosed against?
Mr. Ashton, Fed: We haven’t made a decision about what information we would provide to individuals, that’s true, yes.
Sen. Warren: Mr. Stipano?
Mr. Stipano, OCC: Same position.
Sen. Warren: So, I just want to make sure I get this straight. Families get pennies on the dollar in this settlement for having been the victims of illegal activities or mistakes in the bank’s activities. You let the banks – and you now know individual cases where the banks violated the law, and you’re not going to tell the homeowners, or at least it’s not clear yet whether or not you’re going to do that?”
Happy New Year, everybody! Liberty Road Media debuted in 2013 and had a great year–thanks for all your support! Here’s to 2014 and beyond…let’s un-rig the system this year!
The Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 23, 1913. It was supposed to prevent bank panics, like the Panic of 1907. It was supposed to keep inflation and unemployment down. It was supposed to stabilize the system. That’s how it was sold. 100 years in, a show of hands of those feeling the stability? Bankers, put your hands down…
The looting of this country by the Federal Reserve not only could have been foreseen, it was foreseen, by Charles Lindbergh, Sr. who wrote the following in 1913:
“This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized….the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”
And now, after 100 years of the Federal Reserve (which as they say is not federal and has no reserves), we find ourselves on the verge of total economic collapse. The Fed has failed we the people while succeeding mightily for the bankers, QE and ZIRP being the latest and greatest policies that steal from the people and give to the bankers. It’s time to end the Fed. Way past time…
Public statement of the Roziers following their conviction:
“TO THE TWELVE STRANGERS WHO CONVICTED US ON FRIDAY DECEMBER 13, 2013
December 21, 2013 at 7:15am
We forgive you. Your City Attorney robbed you of your opportunity to discover that the impossible exists. We, DAVID EUGENE ROZIER, SR., KAREN MICHELE ROZIER and DAVID EUGENE ROZIER, JR aka David Bear Rozier, exist.
The man you convicted as David Rozier actually built our 4,206 square foot home from foundation to finish with no outside labor. In our ad we said it cost us less than $35 per sq/ft. It actually cost us slightly over $29 per sq/ft, but we didn’t want to brag. The City Attorney deprived you of your right to listen to our neighbors, many of whom were willing to drive to Los Angeles to vouch for David’s credibility. They were willing to testify as to how they watched him tear down the old house before we moved in and then watched him rebuild alone. He is a very talented degreed unlicensed architect. His court-appointed attorney he met at trial failed to subpoena his witnesses or introduce his evidence. You and your tax dollars were used to convict an innocent man.
I have a degree in electrical engineering from Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) a masters also from CMU – an MS Industrial Administration, the equivalent of an MBA but with a concentration in manufacturing, I also have a Masters in Public Administration from Harvard University. I was admitted into their doctoral program with full tuition plus stipend. Harvard paid me to attend their university. Your City Attorney had full knowledge of my significant and documented work with IBM Corporation, Hughes Aircraft, Raytheon Systems Company and the Department of Defense. As you recall, he objected to my education, credentials, and publications being admitted into evidence, especically the evidence that I was briefly a Navy missile engineer and was selected as “Chief Engineer, Air-to-Ground Missiles, after being recommended by the Senior Engineer who trained me for five years. The Navy felt I was qualified to be “chief rocket scientist in charge of other rocket scientists”, but thanks to your indifference, I am scheduled to be sentenced to jail. You had before you a female Harvard doctoral candidate Navy rocket scientist and the City Attorney convinced you that I was a “Black con artist from a Detroit ghetto”. I have never been to Detroit, but you fell for it because all you saw was what the City Attorney and our court-appointed attorneys showed you. Your City Attorney knew that I was born and raised in Baltimore because he verified it back in 2011 when we were represented by the Cochran Firm. Didn’t you even wonder (during your brief deliberation) why my information was excluded and I was silenced? Your City Attorney had this evidence but excluded it, playing on your prejudices and ignorance. You and your tax dollars were used to convict an innocent woman.
The City Attorney knew he had no reason or right to pursue the case, but he also knew that prejudice and bias, as well as just common sense, would play in his favor.
One man buili a million dollar home alone on the cheap.
A Black female Harvard rocket scientist.
A brain damaged and cerebral palsied kid that clearly looks and acts healthy.
The reason why the “con” was believable is because it is true; we are who we say we are, did what we say we did, and were fully qualified and prepared to deliver what we promised to and in fact did, deliver. As for our son David Bear, the one you essentially sentenced to Foster Care (had it not been for my preventative measures) he really does have cerebral palsy. I know you feel that we created an elaborate rouse in order to elicit sympathy from potential victims, but your City Attorney has seen the medical records. Our son was in court to testify about the two brain surgeries he had at the time of the handwritten contract. Didn’t it strike you as odd that no one focused on that one contract being handwritten? Of course not! You deliberated for less than 20-minutes! May you learn to question your instincts.
David Bear was born weighing 744 grams (1.5 pounds). According to his doctor and medical charts, information that your City Attorney hid from you, he had:
(1) an open artery between his heart and lungs causing bleeding into his lung, requiring him to be transferred from Newport Beach (his birth place) to CHOC for surgery to close the artery, “patent ductus arterious”, aka “heart/lung surgery”.
(2) brain damage covering around 75% of both sides of his brain; three brain shunt surgeries;
(3) retinopathy of prematurity, the leading condition of blindness; His eyes have self-corrected twice, resulting in him no longer being eligible for Braille services as of May 28, 2013. This is his first official Christmas with sight, and thanks to the twelve of you, he now knows ugliness;
When we brought him home from the hospital, the Drumonds were his first visitors. We were shocked when the witness Drummond denied knowing us initially. The City Attorney is such a shrewd man, he also managed to get Drummond on the stands despite Drummond changing his story three times during the investigation. What are we to expect from a man working on his sixth marriage. Oops, his character isn’t somehow relevant, yet he is allowed to testify about another’s character. Are you comfortable living in that world?
The 15-year old boy the twelve of you feel should be in Foster Care was on oxygen until approximately age two. He has saved a life, and was honored for his contribution. The reason why David Sr. hasn’t sat for the architect license (which according to the court is “irrelevant”) was because he quit his job with Tagfront Architects to build our 4,206 square foot home and to heal our son. For that, you elected to send him to jail. Since you didn’t look at any of the evidence during your brief deliberation, that fact may not have mattered, but this would be a less forgiving letter.
You have seen our son. I would love for you to come see the house that he built, by himself, for his son. According to Zillow.com the day you convicted us, it was worth over $1.1 million. I am more than willing to share all the receipts plus the spreadsheets of the costs. We were planning to make a video and make it public, but you decided that we should spend six months in jail instead.
We did not need to lie about our accomplishments or affiliations because we are who we say we are and we absolutely have done everything we said we did. We had an office in Mexico before we met Ms. Ekstrand, and the land contracts, business contracts, rental agreements, utility statements, and bank account statements were likewise excluded from evidence. [I hope that those of your who proudly boasted of sitting on previous juries are seriously reconsidering your previous verdicts.] The City Attorney knows that we invested more than $200,000 of our own money plus another $50,000 of money from family in Mexico long before we met Ms. Ekstrand. I know the City Attorney made the $100,000 appear to be a huge amount for the two Defendants you convicted on paper, but you did not convict the two people that appeared before you in court.
The City Attorney knows we are not con artists but are in fact credible. We were used to sentence a Black man to seven years in prison plus years probation on fifteen felony counts. We lost $55,000 on his deal and he was charged with two felonies. Didn’t you wonder why the City Attorney would charge an alleged $100,000-theft as a misdemeanor? I pray thay your children and grandchildren are better educated.
Given that you now know that the people who appeared before you are competent and qualified, that the man that appeared before you did build a 4,206 square foot home for less than $35 per square foot, and that the boy you observed does have cerebral palsy, do you still feel that we are “not credible” and “con artists” or do you feel that you were used and cheated by the City Attorney?
We even did the things the City Attorney didn’t say, such as we asked Ms. Ekstrand twice in writing to come get her final package, asked her lawyer to come get it, and even mailed it to her. She admitted to your City Investigator that she returned the final package because she just didn’t want it. That was after she sued us for $1.4 million, and before she paid cash for her daughter to attend law school for three years. According to her emails which the City Attorney was able to exclude, she didn’t want her daughter to take out any student loans. She wanted her daughter to be able to marry a wealthy white man like she did, so her grandchildren wouldn’t look Asian, or using her own word, “ugly”. If you go to her home and look at the pictures, you will see what I saw — a child that was forced to dye her hair and wear colored contacts so she wouldn’t look “so Asian”, as Ms. Ekstrand described to me. I wasn’t allowed to defend that statement on the stand, though you should have been able to see that I was more than anxious to speak. I could tell you were all offended. Such a shrewd liar, that City Attorney. I do not forgive him.
You were entrusted with our lives and the lives of our son, family, friends associates and communities yet you were so cavalier that you didn’t even look at all the evidence.
I don’t hate you. I pity you. I pray that you accept that you can be more than you presently are and then try to be more. At least three of you should be permanently barred from jury duty, and I will make that recommendation privately. One of you should lose your job. I’m sure Ms. Ekstrand is enjoying her time, if not at her Hollywood home, then at her San Bernardino property, her Las Vegas property, or even perhaps overseas with her husband at their estate; she is quite wealthy you know, or did the City Attorney hide this from you as well? That’s right. He lied. He outright lied to you when he portrayed her as an ignorant elderly lady who invested her life savings and was conned by two liars. She is a wealthy, connected land owner who just used you to convict and potentially incarcerate three talented, honest, Black people. I want to hate you, but I am saddened that you still harbor such hate and malice that you can’t open your eyes to the possibility of greatness. How very sad your lives must be. Please know that goodness, greatness, healing and love exist. We – David Eugene Rozier, Sr, Karen Michele Rozier, and David Eugene Rozier, Jr. forgive you.
The simple fact is that the City Attorney hid the truth from you, our court-appointed lawyers were unprepared for trial, and the judge was more interested in protecting her perfect record of getting cases to jury on target than respecting two Defendants’ constitutional protections. We wish you take from this experience that God has provided us all with abundance and each with our own talents. During the Christmas, Kwanza, and Holiday Season, may you reject the stereotypes that limit us all and embrace the impossibility of Peace on Earth, Good Will Towards Men. Just like the government lied to you about our being able to exist, they have lied to you about war being a necessary condition. I pray that you learn from this experience.
Merry Christmas. Happy Kwanza Peace Be With You.
Karen M. Rozier, Peace Advocate
David E. Rozier, Sr., Master Builder
David E. Rozier, Jr., Miracle
Stay tuned for Part II: ‘My Court-Appointed Attorney’s Ties to Bank of America and How this Fraudulent Conviction Helps Bank of America in the case of Rozier v. Bank of America, Scheduled for Trial on April 28, 2013.'”
Being railroaded by the “justice” system? Want to avoid the railroading and/or put a stop to it? Do what the Roziers have done:
1. Fight back in court, by yourself if necessary
2. Let everyone know what’s going on to keep the “justice” system honest. Or as close to honest as such a system can get. If they’re allowed to work in the dark, they WILL railroad you.
By following the steps above, the Roziers have both stayed in their house that multiple banks have tried to steal, and as of yesterday, have stayed out of jail on a wrongful conviction. BOO. YA.
CALL TO ACTION FOR ACTIVISTS IN LOS ANGELES:
HAPPENING THIS MORNING AT 9 AM IN DOWNTOWN LA COURT DEPT. 45, 7TH FLOOR
Phone number for Judge Korn’s office: (213) 974-6015
Media Contacts: Pam Ragland, email Karen Rozier, rozier.karen@yahoo.com;
LA City Attorney Threatens Foreclosure Family “The Roziers” with Sentencing in Court Today Judge Refuses to Admit Credentials and Witnesses LOS ANGELES, Calif. – Dec. 18, 2013 – Out of nowhere yesterday in a downtown LA court scene reminiscent of a Hollywood crime blockbuster, Harvard University alumni Karen Rozier and her unlicensed architect husband and Eagle Scout David Rozier now find themselves wrongfully convicted of a crime. The Roziers – an Orange County, Calif., couple “famous” for fighting GMAC Mortgage, LLC, US Bank and Bank of America over wrongful foreclosures — have been battling LA’s city court in a years-long case against a former client. Yesterday in court as Karen Rozier made transparent the connection between the court-appointed counsel and Bank of America (his son works for Bank of America in the Corporate finance Department at the building a few blocks from where the Roziers were convicted), the embattled couple’s stellar resumes were questioned and LA city attorney Keith de la Rosa who even accused the Rozier’s of being “ghetto.” Today as this American super couple goes back into court today at 9:00 A.M. in Dept 45 on the seventh floor of the city’s 210 W. Temple Ave. court, the Roziers say: “We are being convicted for claiming to be talented and educated!”
This aforementioned civil case became criminal yesterday as the judge refused to admit the couple’s well-documented backgrounds into the case thereby backing up the prosecution’s case the couple somehow ripped off this former client, which the Roziers patently claim is false.
“The alternate public defender attempted to introduce my credentials,” says Karen Rozier. “The city prosecutor objected and the judge sustained the objection,” she says. Mrs. Rozier says this means the judge refused to let into evidence her three college degrees including earning a bachelor’s of science in electrical engineering and a master’s of science in industrial administration from Carnegie Mellon University and a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard University. Indeed with Karen Rozier’s stellar education as well as her 5 years with the Naval Air Systems Command in Defense Electronics Countermeasures and her two years at the Naval Sea Systems Command where she led the performance assessment branch for “Future Capabilities in Electronic Warfare, Knowledge Superiority and Missile Defense”, she could most certainly be called a “rocket scientist,” no? The Naval Air Systems Command seemed to think so. They invited her back to assume the position of Chief Engineer, Air-to-Ground Missiles. She lost that career-defining and well deserved position due to the City Prosecutor’s baseless allegations that she was not a Harvard graduate and never held a security clearance.
As for David Rozier – who built the couple’s 4,206 sq. ft. Buena Park home (was this the foreclosed home – All as pro se: GMAC issued NOD in March 08. I sued on Oct 28, 2008. They rescinded NOD around Dec 27, 2009. US got relief from stay to sell, but I took them to appeals court (BAP) and lost. 9th has agreed to hear my appeal. BofA foreclosed on Sept 24. I sued on Sept 27. They reversed on 10/4.) — the City Attorney slandered his abilities based on one unhappy client, a client who was caught contradicting the evidence no less than five times on the stand. De la Rosa claimed the Roziers “had no realistic ability to provide the services they promised”. However, the Roziers presented a letter from a licensed California architect who attests she met David Rozier in his first year of architectural school and he was “head and shoulders above most of us.” So, why won’t judge Renee Korn allow into evidence this proof that Karen Rozier really IS who she says she is? Why can’t neighbors testify about David Rozier building their fine home all by himself or read testimonials from satisfied clients? What if the judge allowed the highly educated and extremely capable Karen Rozier to testify on her own behalf thereby disallowing anything to disprove the prosecution’s “theory” this So Cal couple is credible? Could two of the country’s biggest banks be trying to stop her in a sinister plot?
The Roziers are hopeful that the judge will be merciful and lenient and not incarcerate either of them, based on the circumstances and totality of the evidence. They have gathered letters of support and need your help convincing Judge Renee Korn to take a hard look at the evidence.
These letters include a multiple property owner and former client hired Rozier to do a job, paid him a generous bonus and she ended up saving money. Another letter is by the Roziers from their next door neighbor who witnessed Rozier build the home alone and listed all the trades he personally watched this master builder perform. The neighbor has also agreed to testify at trial if subpoenaed.
Developing story. Rozier and her husband were convicted yesterday. According to Rozier:
“Tomorrow my husband and I are supposed to be sentenced to jail for being Black and talented in California. We were accused of “Theft by Fraud” and “forgery”, which was all a lie.”
Because currently, we do not have anything approaching a free market. A free market would not have bailouts, bail-ins, subsidies, licensure requirements, exemptions from regulations as size increases, QE, ZIRP, rigged prices, etc.
Libertarians often say that a minimum wage goes “against liberty” because the freedom of the employer is infringed when the employer is required to pay workers a certain amount and that therefore, wages should be set by the free market (which we don’t have, as pointed out above). The only problem with this theory is that the “free market” usually tends toward free labor (NOTE: this sentence originally had quotation marks around the words “free labor”–see comments for explanation of why this was changed). Did they somehow miss the epidemic of involuntary servitude for lo these past several millenia?
Hell, there’s involuntary servitude for lo this millenium. Like, for right now. We live in prisons without bars. That is, we seem to be free. After all, we can choose Mexican over Chinese for dinner. We can drive a Jeep or maybe a Lexus. Maybe even both. We can fly to Easter Island or Machu Picchu–for a price. That price must be paid in dollars (or your own country’s fiat currency of choice). And the only (legal) way to get the dollars? Work. Toil. More often than not, for someone else. Someone else that you despise or that despises you.
One might understandably ask how working for a living is involuntary servitude. It’s called wage slavery. Not a new concept, certainly not original with me. Wikipedia has some great quotes in a really good article about wage slavery, but the one from Frederick Douglass stands out, as he knew from slavery:
“…experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other.”
So that’s what this minimum wage fight is all about: being a little better-paid wage slave. Hey, it’s a start…
“Virtually all 62 million securitized notes define the “Noteholder” as “anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payment under this Note…” Very few of the holders of securitized mortgages can establish that they both hold (have physical possession of) the note AND are entitled to receive payments on the notes. For whatever reason, if a Bailout Bank has possession of an original note, it is usually endorsed payable to the order of some other (often bankrupt) entity.”
So the idea that there there are no “note holders” of millions of notes is not some crackpot idea, it’s obviously a legitimate point. It’s almost unbelievable that the banking industry could screw up something as simple as being entitled to receive payments while simultaneously holding the note, but that’s the way things actually are. And it has been that way for some time, as Butler recounts his victory in what he describes as “perhaps the first securitized mortgage lawsuit ever in the country“:
“In short, IMS [the Defendant], as the “record owner” of the mortgages without any provable connection to the underlying notes, had nothing. FNBER [the Plaintiff and Butler’s client], on the other hand, had promissory notes payable to the order of FNBER but did not have “record title” to the mortgages. FNBER was the winner because its possession of and entitlement to enforce the notes made it the “legal owner” of the mortgages.“
Butler and his argument
Butler himself has faced foreclosure and has been sanctioned by the Minnesota federal judiciary to the tune of $337,603 because, said as one judge, Patrick Schiltz, said:
“[Schiltz] called Butler’s arguments ‘evasive and often absurd,’ said [Butler] misrepresents the facts with ‘constantly shifting and contradictory arguments.'”
Schiltz’s complaints about Butler are actually a perfect description of the tactics of the banks. Essentially what the courts in Minnesota have done is projected the absurdity of the banks’ arguments onto Butler, and turned the whole mess around on Butler, making it seem as though Butler is the crazy one who won’t let things go.
And then people who claim to be on the side of homeowners–like Martin Andelman–pile on, despite Butler clearly being in the right, according to the terms of the note itself. “Butler has lost every case on so-called ‘show me the note,'” people say. “It’s clear that’s not going to work.”
Well, that may be true, but that’s not the point. The point is that it should work. There is no note holder to pay. Or in the words of the Matrix, “there is no spoon.”
Is the Note important or isn’t it?
And that’s what it comes down to–are courts going to enforce what the note actually says (i.e., that the only person a borrower owes money is the person who meets both of two criteria: right to payment and taking of the note by transfer), or are they going to enforce the conventional wisdom (i.e, that the borrower signed a note and a bank pops up and says that borrower owes them but the bank doesn’t meet the note’s requirements), which is nowhere to be found within the four corners of the note. Unfortunately, courts have been ruling in favor of the latter rather than the former. They’ve been taking the banks’ word for it.
Judges are essentially telling homeowners: “You signed this note, and therefore I’m not going to bother with determining whether the person who now says you owe them actually meets the definition of ‘note holder’ within the four corners of the note. All I care about is that you don’t get a free house and that the banking system’s debt slavery is able to continue unabated.” In other words, it doesn’t matter what the note actually says, it only matters that someone who could fog a mirror signed it at some point and the courts will say that mirror-fogger is on the hook no matter what the bank does or doesn’t do.
Capisce?
IMPORTANT NOTE/DISCLAIMER: The above article is not legal advice and was not written by an attorney. It is merely a collection of common-sense, rational observations written by a sane, rational layperson with common sense. It is recommended that you consult with an attorney for any and all legal advice and/or action.
LIBERTY ROAD MEDIA 