I don’t know if it’s even necessary to parse the President’s statement on the foreclosure fraud settlement today. And I’m not too interested in the justifications on conference calls that have been pushed my way from AG Schneiderman and HUD Secretary Donovan. I want to, rather, go back to December 14, 2010. Tom Miller, the Iowa Attorney General, was just named the head of the 50 state investigation looking into foreclosure fraud, and he held a meeting with community activists in Iowa. This is what he said.
“We will put people in jail,” Miller said, in response to questioning. “One of the main tools needs to be principal reductions, just like in the farm crisis in the 1980s…There should be some kind of compensation system for people who have been harmed…And the foreclosure process should stop while loan modifications begin. To have a race between foreclosures and modifications to see which happens first is insane.”
Now, most of the elements of that paragraph got accomplished, albeit in exceedingly small measures. The principal reductions will help 1 million underwater borrowers when 11 million are underwater. The “compensation system” for people who have been harmed is a $2,000 check. Dual track is “restricted.”
So Miller may have a plausible case on some of this, although the weak penalties are a problem in and of themselves. But then there’s that opening line: “We will put people in jail.” That was the promise that will clearly go unfulfilled. Now, Miller walked back that statement almost as fast as he said it. He eventually reckoned that the foreclosure fraud issue was “inherently civil” and not criminal. And he will tell you up and down that no criminal claims were given up in the settlement.
Come on. If AGs cannot win additional civil penalties on foreclosure fraud, they are not going to try to bring criminal charges. That’s just not how it works. There are a couple scattered criminal suits out there, in Missouri and Nevada, against document processors like LPS and DocX. And now, they basically cannot go up the chain to get back to the bigwigs who authorized the fraud. I’d be happy to see LPS and DocX executives in jail and their businesses dismantled, but the buck will stop there. And they are the Lynndie Englands of this scandal, when it comes down to it.
This is the broken promise. “We will put people in jail.” I’ve already explained why the failure to prosecute is not just a bloodthirsty demand for a lynch mob, but a serious point that has implications for our economy. Through criminal affirmance, banks will feel no compunction against doing this type of thing again. Investors will be once bitten, twice shy on mortgage backed securities, and the federal government will keep this enormous risk on their books. And it’s about accountability and justice, which has decayed American politics for the last decade.
I’m really not the kind of person that needs frog-marching for the sake of frog-marching. But the lack of prosecutions for criminal wrongdoing, as said by luminaries like Bill Black and Charles Ferguson and Simon Johnson and more, just furthers a financialization of our economy that is sure to cause more crises, and keeps the rot at the heart of this massive mortgage system in place.
Now Eric Schneiderman told Greg Sargent today that the coalition around these issues will force his RMBS task force, the last stand available for justice and accountability, into action.
“This will ultimately depend on the coalition that’s assembled around these principles,” Schneiderman said. “We’ve now got a progressive coalition that … can move public officials to take a more aggressive approach.”
He also said that “people on the left have to take yes for an answer.” I really only have one question. “Will we put people in jail?”




68 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Perhaps Miller was referring to Occupy protesters.
And Schneiderman’s “people on the left have to take yes for an answer” is truly beyond the pale.
kee-rist ! he’s gone the full Durbin – the original Invaders From Mars,(your analogy here_____) check this fucker’s neck for bb’s
Now we know why he delayed his initial cave-in presscon – he was busy refining his bullshit.
Note to Jane Hamsher:
As is obvious to everyone, David Dayen deserves praise and a national journalism award for his coverage of this issue.
Thanks to you as well for giving him a journalistic home from which to do such sterling work.
“Dear Wall Street”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/09/1063225/-Dear-Wall-Street?via=blog_595890#c1
So, is it official US Justice Department, as well as individual state Justice Departments, official policy that fraud and forgery are a-ok?
I have few business ideas rumbling around in my head.
heading over — so very good to see you here ! (I am commenter huttotex over at Big Orange)
ah, this year’s “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the blah blah rinse repeat blah”.
That’s OK. I am. A lot of us are. We are going to continue pounding these mofo’s all through preznit’s second term. So are some of the House Dems, if you take at face value the letter to FHFA Chief from the Dems (minority) on the House Committee on Oversight & Government Operations (COGR) that you posted yesterday.
Bullshit. That’s your job, not ours, General Schneiderman. You gave up all claims for penalties, monetary compensation and equitable relief for mortgage origination fraud? And WE are the ones who are supposed to make YOU more aggressive? We don’t buy it.
So aptly describes so much about this government.
hey, huttotex. Thanks for the kind words. Glad to see you too.
DD,in response to your last sentence, don’t hold your breath.
How disappointing this whole escapade has been. Was it Frank Luntz who coined the term “under water.” The correct messaging should be “buried.” That’s what car salesmen call it when the customer wants to trade in their $4000 car and find they owe $10,000.
No one is going to jail unless they find a janitor who is guilty of jaywalking. Such a bunch of liars and con artists.
Very nice and so abominably true.
“Through criminal affirmance, banks will feel no compunction against doing this type of thing again.”
I had to google the term ‘criminal affirmance’ to understand the context correctly. But it’s what I and a lot of others have said all along; using the threat and the fact of criminal prosecution, regardless of outcome, is an inherently legitimate way for the criminal justice mechanism to signal that those who tread the fine line of behavior that may be questionably criminal, according to some narrow, defense attorney, reasoning will be indicted. To send the message that the behavior transcends societal norms, whether one calls it civil or criminal.
Will people go to jail?
You will have to take No for an answer, you @%$#&^% retard.
Let me provide the reference I found for the sorry truth of criminal affirmance; link may have to be copied:
http://twainsthoughts.com/2011/06/06/matt-weidners-law-blog-criminal-affirmance-refusal-to-prosecute-financial-crime/
. . . and quote the text of the post:
” . . . some wrongful actors appear above the law and immune from criminal prosecution. As such, the criminal prosecutorial system affirms much of the wrongdoing giving rise to the crisis. This leaves the same elites undisturbed at the apex of the financial sector, and creates perverse incentives for any successors. Further, this undermines the legitimacy of the rule of law and encourages even more lawlessness among the entire population. These considerations transcend deterrence as well as retribution as a traditional basis for criminal punishment.Affirmance is far more costly and dangerous with respect to the crimes of powerful elites that control large organizations than can be accounted for under traditional nations of deterrence. Few limits are placed on a prosecutor’s discretionary decision about whom to prosecute, and many factors against prosecution are available, especially in resource-intensive white collar crime prosecutions. This article asserts that prosecutors should not exercise that discretion without considering its potential affirmance of crime.”
The last time Schneiderman was on with rachel maddow, she virtually made him swear on the grave of a loved one that ‘something’ of consequence would happen. Implying there would be some form of ‘accountability’.
It will be interesting to see what position she takes regarding this issue, now.
She has become quite the quisling, carrying water for this administration. Since they give her a lot of background and face time I’m not expecting much criticism. She didn’t utter a syllable when sibelius put her ‘Plan B to minors’ decision a while ago.
tweety skimmed this, and now that dylan ratigan wears glasses and listens to deepak chopra(really)his criticism was pretty thin.
It figures with all of this insanity about birth control, in congress and the catholic brigades, and ‘culture war’ on cable that this decision was put out.
In his mea culpa, Matt Taibbi was out fast to point a finger of shame at himself. But he had this curious observation, “It feels an awful lot like what happened here is the nation’s criminal justice honchos collectively realized that a thorough investigation of the problem would require resources they simply do not have, or are reluctant to deploy,”
In his October press conference the president said, his first concern was a ‘robust financial sector’.
This isn’t an ‘unwillingness to deploy’, many are of the opinion that many of the administration are accessories t the malfeasance from the beginning.
That goes all the way to the top and includes Treasury and the Fed.
There has never been the slightest scintilla of intent to truly bring ANY one to justice.
That’s all you need to hear from that rotten piece of shit, Schneiderman. Totally insulting.
Oh, and where’s Liz? How big does the fraud perpetrated on consumers have to get to bring her to the front?
Revolution is the only answer.
Matt Weidner links to a document on scribd that has been removed. I found a copy of it here:
http://4closurefraud.org/2011/06/06/whitepaper-criminal-affirmance-refusal-to-prosecute-financial-crime-and-the-social-implications/
Or a secretary smoking a joint.
So it’s official now; we work for them.
We will put people in jail. yeah a few token brown people hired by the banksters for just such an occasion
Oh crap! That copy has been deleted, too.
“I’m really not the kind of person that needs frog-marching for the sake of frog-marching”
Mr Dayen.. its not about you. Its not about how you and other decent people might get queasy about frog-marching, its how the goddamn FROG feels about being marched around in public wearing ankle chains.
Thats what fear of the long arm of the law is all about.
There is no long arm of the law for the PTB , only for us. And they have made that very clear. They also want to make it “legal” for them to do insider trading which you and I would go straight to jail for. If we don’t break out of this box we’re finished.
Maddow is another ‘defuser’, allowing the righteous to waste their energy and outrage watching her instead of doing something effective. Folks like her suck the energy out of us and at the end of the day, turn to the camera and say ‘… but we can’t waste our votes and let those evil Republicans win…’
Switch her off. Read Dayen some more. Go to rationalrevolution.net and learn.
Precisely. Rich D’s and Richer R’s vs. the masses.
Maddow is a fucking joke. Total waste of time.
ALL big trading is insider trading. Haven’t we learned that? And as for the long arm of the law not encompassing their scrawny little shoulders, sure, they might feel immune, hell they might even BE immune.. but nothing good or bad lasts forever and they know that when the shitstorm hits, they’re gone.
Sam Seder was in for the late keith olberman with Matt Taibbi.
Matt seems to still hold out hope that schneiderman will still go for it.
Sam just looked at him at the end and asked if it was going to be ‘in six months’. Matt seemed a bit sheepish.
After 15 minutes of santorum big ed had bob schrum on with the first reality check. schrum said that the administration wasn’t about to ‘sue the banks into insolvency’ blah blah.
Actually it is more like not sue the banks and reveal they are insolvent.
and a criminal enterprise.
good try though . . .
Watching those so called news shows is a joke…..do yer self & the country a favor don’t reward their bullshit with yer viewership.
Remember ,they work for a corporation.which means they have no qualms in misinforming us.
yes, I know…
I’m just impressed every time I watch a quisling, and find myself incredulous at their complicity.
‘Foreclosure Deal to Spur U.S. Home Seizures’
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-09/foreclosure-deal-to-spur-new-wave-of-u-s-home-seizures-help-heal-market.html
Enthusiastically seconded.
Ditto for Cynthia Kouril.
Amazing, ongoing work from the FDL team on this topic.
This is why I’m a proud FDL member.
Somehow, that pos president has to pay.
Suppose a bank robber robs five big banks of a total of a million dollars. He gets caught, and he agrees to give each of the banks two grand each, while he keeps the rest.
That is exactly what five banks have just managed to do to millions of homeowners, with the complicity of our so-called law enforcement agencies.
And the left has to learn how to say yes? All right, how about yes to bringing back guillotines?
One big question for me:
By this settlement has the MERS system by which titles were not properly signed and registered been made (really or effectively) legal and legitimate?
Does it block individuals from suing to prevent foreclosure by compelling the bank to produce the legitimate, old fashioned, paper title registered at the courthouse?
Speaking of Maddow,I have her show on and she just said she has Eric Schneiderman coming up for an interview. Let’s see what she does with him.
Totally agree, this deal really sucks. Didn’t we know something was up, though, when Obama appointed Schneiderman to DOJ task force.
Of course, this is only the housing market…there’s plenty of fraud to prosecute in the big investment banks..mortgage backed securities..and they’re going to get away with it too.
I, for one, was holding out hope that at least some of the crooks would be held accountable. Just plain sucks…they ruined the economy and we pay for it.
Maddow just said, emphatically, this deal is only “step one.” The DOJ task force is going to get the job done. Hmmm.
Ok, looks like her interview with Schneiderman is going to be a good public relations spot.
Hmmm. Schneiderman says deal does not release banks,incl Wall Street investment banks, from any criminal liability.
Also, DOJ task force has lots of money to staff legal aid across the country to help homeowners bring individual suit.
Still, hard to believe until we see it.
Now Schneiderman is urging the “populist” uprising – OWS – to support the President. “It doesn’t matter who you elect,” he said, a president needs a movement to help. Yeah, but a president still needs the moneyed elite to get elected and then is beholden to them, as Obama has shown us.
I got it here just now.
Nothing dies on the internet – I downloaded the pdf paper and saved it in google docs.
If you tell me how to get it to you I will – it is 442k, about 76 pages.
However the lady that wrote the paper is asking everyone to take it down – I have no clue as to why.
Agreed!
“I really only have one question. “Will we put people in jail?””
spot on
excellent post – only humans change human decisions – and fines to corporations may have little effect on future practice.
Yeah, him and Mr. Walker both.
I sometimes have issues with the issues they decide to cover and how it’s covered, but the volume and honesty and ‘eye opening behind the msm scenes’ they expose are simply incredible.
*bowstoboth*
Great read and thanks once again Mr. Dayen.
Sadly, another one to add to my ‘Banking Conspiracy’ bookmark folder.
LeSigh.
“Looks like they got us again, Josey.”
Obamaspeak would encourage imprisonment if a huge fine could not be expensed and amortized against these kleptocrats .If that was a snark-free question,the answer is no one will ever go to jail .
Hey there. Nice to see your fonts. We’ve had extended discussion of this over the last couple of days, see the Dayen and Kouril posts and comments, or skim the comment history of fractal or masoninblue to pick it up. Bottom line consensus seems to be that the structure of the settlement technically permits criminal prosecutions, but that the realities of politics and attorney general realities dictates that criminal prosecutions are effectively not gonna happen.
” In his mea culpa, Matt Taibbi was out fast to point a finger of shame at himself. But he had this curious observation, “It feels an awful lot like what happened here is the nation’s criminal justice honchos collectively realized that a thorough investigation of the problem would require resources they simply do not have, or are reluctant to deploy,” ”
I’ll take the ‘or,’ thank you.
Sorry, but the idea that locking up bankers will have major economic effects – or even minor economic effects – is kind of silly. Dont get me wrong: I am all for criminals going to jail, provided someone proves they committed a crime. But investigations like these are important insofar as they create political conditions for regulatory intervention, not because they end up with bad guys behind bars. Consider the Pecora hearings, which pretty much everyone holds up as the Platonic Ideal of good, progressive oversight of Wall St. The hearings made for great political theater: the main targets- the fallen utility magnate Samuel Insull; the short-selling president of Chase National, Albert Wiggin; and Charles Mitchell, the tax-evading head of National City Bank (todays Citi) – were all thoroughly, publicly shamed. BUT: none of them went to jail. (see this Slate article for a short and helpful primer: http://goo.gl/aTyLp). Even the Tennessee investment banker Rogers Caldwell, who more or less single-handedly brought down the entire Southern banking system when he bankrupted Caldwell and Co. in 1931, escaped incarceration, despite a litany of well-known misdeeds. Yet despite the lack of lock-ups, the Pecora strategy worked. So tell me again: why do you think the imprisonment of bankers is a necessary ingredient for economic recovery or regulatory success?
Your argument only presents a case that change can come about without criminals going to jail. The Slate article you reference makes it clear that bankers in 1929 were spared jail because they didn’t break existing laws.
So new laws and regulations came into being. Excessive greed was kept somewhat in check. For very long now, these laws and regulations have been under attack – repealed, unenforced, and ignored.
Imprisonment of criminal bankers is necessary to prevent them and others from doing the same thing again. It is necessary for regulatory success.
Likewise, compensatory fines levied to help victims recover would help economic recovery.
minsky, vot were you tinking?
I know that it’s essentially a council of despair, but I’ve basically given up on ever seeing accountability from our present government. The entire system is so rigged that the idea that you’ll ever see a person in a ten thousand dollar suit being sentenced to time behind bars is vanishingly small.
As you say, it’s always the Lynndie Englands that get the jail time — scapegoats who, while clearly bad apples, are so laughably far from the root of the corruption that anyone with eyes to see can realize that it’s just a distraction. And yet this seems to soothe the bloodthirsty mob while predictably and intentionally allowing the core of the rot to go on.
I just don’t see how we can fix this without some kind of massive, American Revolution-style change. Trying to “work within the system” by “electing more Democrats” clearly just gets us more of the same (and allows the same 1984-style Orwellian faux battle between “polar opposites” to distract us from the real conflicts, which are between rich and poor, powerful and powerless).
I think Louis already expressed this better than I, but in short, when regulatory oversight succeeds without criminal penalty, I’d very much consider that the exception, not the rule.
Generally speaking, as a society, we’ve decided that the best defense against the amorality of greed is a system of rules with harsh penalties for the worst actors. When we then turn around and neuter the regulations (while still holding them up as models of civil society) and refuse to actually punish those who have clearly committed fraud and worse, we not only fail to satisfy the righteous bloodlust of the masses. By doing this, we are actually knocking out the foundation pillars of our society — our society based upon the “rule of law” (at least in theory).
And the fact is that even though you may be able to knock out one or two foundational tenets of society without the whole structure collapsing, just like a house of cards there will eventually come an inflection point where the entire thing simply devolves into chaos and there is no going back to the orderly, harmonious structure that used to exist. I fear we are getting perilously close to that moment already, with the rich and powerful openly trampling upon the rest of us, and laughing about it with increasing boldness in public. That can only go on so long before the torches and pitchforks come out; once that day happens, there is no returning to the idyllic “rule of law” days that we all want to pretend are still happening.
Spot on.
“Now Schneiderman is urging the “populist” uprising – OWS – to support the President. “It doesn’t matter who you elect,” he said, a president needs a movement to help.”
Is he saying he’s going to go after the pepper-sprayers, the cannister-to-the-head shooters, the breakers of OWSers’ personal property, and so on and so on? That’s what I hear but not what I see. Show us you’re serious motherfucker or shut the hell up. Schneiderman/Obama: fucking jokes.
ditto
My guess is that the settlement was so small because Obama, Holder, Schneiderman and so on, you know each Senator and each Congressman and pussy Donovan all need a cut TO PAY THEIR HOUSE PAYMENT AND GET RE-ELCTED.
$2000 for a homeowner that got foreclosed on will likely cause him more grief with the IRS that it is worth.
Citizens were sold OUT again. AG’s have no guts for sure and someone must have castrated them early in life.
My guess is that most of the people foreclosed on would forego their $2000 just to see Jamie Dimon, Dick Fuld, Lloyd Blankfein and the krauts from Deutsche Bank IN JAIL.
Yes, re-elect the Prez who says nothing while the cops, AND THE FEDS, trample your First Amendment rights into the mud. Aaarrgghhh!!!!
I actually disagree with the Slate article: as someone who has spent a fair amount of time studying that particular period, I think it is easily arguable that the targets of the Pecora investigation – folks like Insull and Mitchell and Caldwell- did commit crimes as defined by the pre-New Deal legal system; at the very least, they operated in a legal grey area. But that is beside the point.
The point is: the Pecora hearings succeeded DESPITE the fact that no one went to jail. Thus your statement:
Imprisonment of criminal bankers…is necessary for regulatory success.
….is simply false. the 1933 hearings resulted in the most sweeping financial regulations the country had/has ever seen, but it did so by publicly shaming criminal bankers, not throwing them in jail. By contrast, the Enron/WorldCom scandal of 2001-2002 saw many Masters of the Universe (from Enron to Tycoi to Adelphia) go to prison; even Martha Stewart went for a while. But the regulatory benefits of that exercise – Sarbanes=Oxley- was hardly a progressive landmark.
SO: all I’m saying is there is that, when you consider economic history, there really is no correlation between the number of bankers we throw in jail and the regulatory (or economic) consequences that result. You (and Mr. Dayen) are simply wrong on that score.
—
as for your final point:
Likewise, compensatory fines levied to help victims recover would help economic recovery.
This argument has little to do with the original post, and even less to do with my response. Both concern the salutary effects of incarcerating bankers, not the effect of compensatory fines on victims or the recovery. As for the later- I agree 100 percent that such fines will be very helpful and healthy, but that’s a different discussion than the one we are having.
Yet another day of abject, disgusting, mendacious, sissyfied, sickening cave-in on behest of the 1%, gifted by the Obama/Holder 1%! Yes Obama and his crowd of elitist,insider trading,sycophants are all describable as asswits, scumwits, f#@%wits,asswipes,sh#@theads, dickwads, etc.! I could go on, but suffice to say, I hate them all, they really do disgust me and make me sick and I fear for the rule of law and social justice for my country!
My reply was a direct response to your ending question @ 55, i.e., “why do you think the imprisonment of bankers is a necessary ingredient for economic recovery or regulatory success?”, so if you think I wasn’t responding to the original post or your response, it may be because you forgot you asked that question.
In any event, I’m glad you agree with the point that compensatory fines would help economic recovery. Though I didn’t say it explicitly, I assumed that civil charges would accompany criminal charges, i.e., a banker (or corp) convicted of criminal charges would likely be found guilty of civil charges too.
As to regulatory success, I’ll say it again a little differently. You present a good analysis of what happened in 1929 and I defer to you in that analysis. Things are different now. Whether or not bankers went to jail in 1929 is irrelevant. The 1% are almost always impossible to incarcerate. In 1929 there weren’t laws to prosecute them. Now there are. If we allow bankers to break the law and regulations with impunity I would call that regulatory failure, hence the need for accountability to ensure regulatory success.
To imply that in the current context, giving these criminals a pass and expecting that stronger regulations will be put in place is naive.
Ah, thanks much for the roundup:
“Bottom line consensus seems to be that the structure of the settlement technically permits criminal prosecutions, but that the realities of politics and attorney general realities dictates that criminal prosecutions are effectively not gonna happen.”
Major bummer…you’re probably right…back to the drawing board.
We want to see bankers and unethical investment managers go to jail because it would uphold the rule of law – they might be deterred from again giving greed free rein, and they might be deterred from seeing to it that regulations remain lax.
Nevertheless, Thank you for sharing your knowledge of the 1929 period.