Sequel

Roger Ebert: We've Seen This Movie Before

Yes.

Yes we have.

Man on the (Burning) Street Interview

(Via The Big Picture)

Oh my. A BBC interviewer speaks with Darcus Howe, a West Indian writer and broadcaster, about the London riots.

If there's a better illustration of a biased news reader trying (and failing) to stick to the script, I've yet to see it.


Here are her questions

BBC News Reader Fiona Armstrong Q1: Marcus Dowe [sic] are you shocked by what you've seen there [in south London] last night?

Mr. Howe (thank you very much) replies that he was not shocked that it happened. His general point is that there were signs that keen observers could have picked up on for a long time.

Naturally, this point is utterly lost on the news reader.

Armstrong Q2: Mr. Howe - If I could just stope you for a moment. You say you are not shocked. Does this mean you condone what happend in your community last night?

Howe:I condone – if I – Of Course Not! What am I going to condone it for? What I am not – what I’m concerned about more than anything else, there’s a young man called Mark Duggan. He has parents, he has brothers, he has sisters, and two yards away from where he lives, a police officer blew his head off.

Armstrong: Well, Mr. Howe we have to wait-

Howe: Let me finish-

The volume on Howe's mic is lowered.

Armstrong: Well, Mr. Howe we have to wait for the official inquiry before we can say things like that. We don't know what happened to Mr. Duggan. We are going to wait for the police report on it.

Armstrong: If I can take you on a bit, you were talking about your grandson, you were talking about young people...

Howe: They have been stopping and searching young blacks for no reason at all. I have a grandson - he's an angel. And he began to think he was coming of age when a policeman slapped him up against a wall and searched him...I asked him the other day, A propo of a sense that something was going seriously wrong in this country. I asked him how many times have the police searched you. He said: “Papa, I can’t count there’s so many times.”

Armstrong: Mr Howe, that may well have happened and if you say it did – I – I am not to gainsay you. But that is not an excuse to go out rioting and cause the sort of damage that we’ve been seeing over the past few days.

Howe: Where were you in 1981 in Brixton?

Armstrong: ..............Mr. Howe.

Howe: I don’t call it rioting, I call it an insurrection of the masses of the people. It is happening in Syria, it is happening in Clapton, it’s happening in Liverpool. It’s happening in Port of Spain, Trinidad. And that is the nature of the historical moment. There is a, it takes -

Armstrong: Mr. Howe. If I can just ask you, you are not a stranger to riots yourself, I understand, are you? You have taken part in them yourself?

Howe: I’m not a – I have never taken part in a single riot. I have been on demonstrations that ended up in a conflict. And have some respect for an old West Indian negro, instead of accusing me of being a rioter. Because I – you don’t want me to get abusive – you just sound idiotic. Have some respect! Have – have grandchildren-

Armstrong: Darcus Howe, thank you very much for joining us from Croydon, Darcus Howe, the writer and broadcaster.

The BBC has since apologized for suggesting the Mr. Howe was a rioter, but reviewing their list of questions, it's clear they have a lot more to apologize for:

Question 1: "Are you shocked?"
Question 2: "You're not shocked, so you condone it, then?!"
Judgment: "Well, your grandson could have been mistreated by police, but that's no excuse for rioting."
Question 3: (personal attack) "You've rioted, haven't you?"

Ye gods.

Danziger Bridge Cops Found Guilty

...unfortunately none of them were for murder.

8 Innocents. 6 were shot, 2 were killed, 1 lost a limb, 0 were armed.


Every time I read about this event I'm infuriated. Let's recap:

The Danziger shootings were originally portrayed as a home run for the [New Orleans Police] department, a victory in restoring order to a city that had begun to come apart after [hurricane Katrina]. But a state grand jury that investigated the shootings didn't buy the testimony of the involved officers, seven of whom were charged with murder or attempted murder.

When the "Danziger Seven" turned themselves in at Central Lockup in December 2006, fellow officers joined them in a show of solidarity, clapping them on the back and calling them heroes. The state case fell apart for procedural reasons in 2008, when the charges were dismissed by a judge.

At that point, federal authorities, who had been monitoring the case, took over, and the pressure intensified. Last year, five officers wound up taking plea deals, agreeing to testify at trial in hopes of receiving leniency when their own prison sentences are handed down.

Their pleas contained shocking details of a seemingly coordinated cover-up: a planted gun retrieved by Kaufman from his garage; officers successively revising their accounts of the shooting; phony witnesses; a secret meeting to coordinate stories.

Three of the cooperating officers were involved in the shooting, including two men who admitted they themselves fired at civilians.

At trial, the three officers told jurors that after the shooting ended, they saw no evidence that the civilians, many of them grievously wounded, had been armed.

Brissette was shot numerous times, from the heel of his foot to his head. He was killed by shotgun pellets that struck the back of his head, experts testified. Susan Bartholomew's arm was nearly blown off by a large-caliber round, and it was later amputated. Her daughter's legs were torn apart by bullets. Holmes was struck multiple times, from his face to his abdomen, and had to wear a colostomy bag for years after the incident.

Oh, and after they riddled an unarmed family with bullets, they chased a man and his mentally handicapped brother down and shot them as they fled - killing the handicapped man.

Then they stomped on his body. Then they dragged it to a nearby car. Then they set it on fire.Then they all agreed to cover it up.

Then their department whitewashed the investigation into the shootings.

And on and on.

Life without parole would be too good for these people - so being cleared of murder, their sentence can only be inadequate.

Ye gods.

My Very Good and Trusted Friends

(Via CJR)

Imagine a parent losing a child to violent crime. Then imagine that crime becomes a national cause thanks to a team of newspaper reporters who refuse to let the story fade away. Laws are changed as a result of the coverage.

It would be easy to understand that the parent would have some affection for the newspaper that championed their lost child's cause.

Even if the paper was the now infamous News of the World.

Were it me, I could see myself writing a supportive column very similar to the one Sara Payne wrote in the NotW's final edition.

It is easy to forget in these dark times that the News of the World has often been a force for good and that has more than anything to do with the people that work on it  And its these people I have come to respect and it is for these people write this piece I do  not pretend that they are perfect or always got it right but I can tell you on a personal level there have been many times when they have stayed close and stood beside me not for the headline or public credit but just because it was the right thing to do.

 And were it me- I could hardly imagine what I would be thinking after reading this:

Sara Payne, whose eight-year-old daughter Sarah was abducted and murdered in July 2000, has been told by Scotland Yard that they have found evidence to suggest she was targeted by the News of the World's investigator Glenn Mulcaire, who specialised in hacking voicemail.

Police had earlier told her correctly that her name was not among those recorded in Mulcaire's notes, but on Tuesday officers from Operation Weeting told her they had found her personal details among the investigator's notes. These had previously been thought to refer to a different target.

Here's the thing: NotW was attempting to hack into a cell phone that - of all people - Rebekah Brooks gave to her.

Her friends at NotW give her a phone to help her keep in contact with her many supporters - and since the phone's details are known to the paper, their hacking wing swings into action to try and get personal information illegally.


Un. Be. Lievable.

No, I Don't Want To Talk About It

And shame on you for asking.

Scoreline - July 17, 2011
Japan: 2
Miyama 81'; Sawa 117'
USA: 2
Morgan 69'; Wambach 104'
Japan win 3-1 on penalties

What have we learned, Mike Pesca? That in this struggle between David and Goliath, we are Goliath?

No.

We have learned that the soccer gods - in addition to being total a$$holes - play a very deep game.
They lure you into yet another love affair with possibility - wait until you're picking out china patterns - and then they burn it all down in front of you while you scream.

Once again, the US as a nation finally notices it has a world class team at the precise instant they fail in the most heart-rending fashion.

Wambach will never hoist the cup. Rampone won't either.  They're awesome, but they're done.

Four more years - and we get to do this all over again.

That's soccer.

Go USA.

Syria Circling the Drain

With things such a mess, it's hard to know much for certain.

But it's beginning to sound like Syria could go the way of Lybia.

The people of Syria no doubt remember Hafez al-Assad slaughtering thousands of them back in Hama, yet they are gearing up for more confrontation.

For their sakes, I hope Bashar al-Assad is nothing like his father.

Stewart vs. Trump's Pizza

Doubtless most anyone who reads this has already seen this, but if I can be the safety net for the odd case that hasn't - this simply must be seen.



I laughed until it hurt, then rewound and did it again.

Dear God, I think something burst.

Mukhtaran Mai

Mukhtaran Mai, the woman who gained international respect by courageously standing up to a Pakistani tribal system that sanctions rape of innocent women and girls as punishment for the crimes of others, has once again been let down by her government.

The high court in Lahore struck down the convictions of 5 of her six attackers and commuted the death sentence of the sixth to life imprisonment.

Mukhtaran Mai now fears for her life.

Ye gods.

The Rise and Fall of Ms. Dory Goebel

Naked Capitalism snags a great case out of the US Bankruptcy Court for the eastern district of Louisiana. In Re: Wilson. While the robo-signing phenomenon is hardly new - its violent collision with bankruptcy courts never fails to entertain.

The backstory of this case is that the debtors, Ron and LaRhonda Wilson, fell behind on their mortgage and filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy in September 2007. They entered into an agreement with the US Trustee to pay regular installments to the trustee for what they owed on their mortgage prior to declaring bankruptcy. They also agreed to continue paying all future mortgage payments directly to their lender, Option One.

Assuming all goes to plan - you would think Option One would be happy with this. The amount in arrears will be paid after a delay, but the ongoing payments will continue. A blip in the payment record, but Option One gets their money.

Option One is not happy. January 2008 they ask the court to allow them to go after the Wilsons for their money. The reason? The Wilsons haven't made the payments they promised (November 2007, December 2007, and January 2008). The Wilsons are bums, and Option One wants to foreclose.

The Wilsons counter that they have made all their payments since September, and Option One is simply wrong.

The law favors the Wilsons for one simple reason: Option One didn't supply any evidence with their motion. Motion denied.

Option One digs into their records and comes back swinging a month later. Now they claim that four payments haven't been paid - and this means the escrow may be insufficient to pay real estate taxes (the horror!). This assertion is backed up by an affidavit by Option One's new champion, Ms. Dory Goebel.

Ms Goebel affirmed:

Appearer has reviewed and is familiar with the mortgage loan account of RON WILSON, Sr. And LA RHONDA WILSON (“Mortgagor”) represented by the afore described note and mortgage and the records and data complications [sic] pertaining thereto, which business records reflect acts, events or condition made at or near the time by Dory Goebel, or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge thereof and which records and data complications [sic] are made and kept as a regular practice of the regularly conducted business activities of OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION.

Ms. Goebel then declared that the balance due on the note was $176,063.27 and that Debtors were in default under their plan for failure to pay the monthly installments accruing from November 1, 2007, through February 1, 2008. Ms. Goebel represented that the last payment on the note was applied to the October 1, 2007 installment.

So there, sworn testimony that the Wilsons haven't been paying Option One.

By now it's April 2008. So presumably, Option One is owed these four payements and more.

But there's a problem. Six actually. The Wilsons enter into evidence copies of six payments. Western Union money orders and cashiers checks. Five of these payments have confirmation of receipt by Option One.

Oops.

The Court asks Option One's attorney - a Mr. Wirtz - to explain this discrepancy.

Wirtz discloses that his client agrees that, yes in fact, the Wilsons did make their October, November, and December payments. BUT, he claims, they still haven't paid all that they owe (presumably the January, February, and March 2008 payments), so the court should allow Option One to foreclose.

The Court reminds Mr. Wirtz and Ms. Goebel - via a show cause order - that there's still the matter of why Ms. Goebel's affidavit said the Wilsons had not paid when there was convincing evidence (including the signatures of Option One employees on certified mail receipts) for payments that Ms. Goebel has sworn did not exist.

Another hearing is held. Mr. Wirtz appears, but Ms. Goebel "was not present." Mr. Wirtz admits that the Wilsons are, his bad, current on their loan payments.

Oh, ho, ho. Silly me. Let's forget about that whole 'wanting-to-take-their-house-thing' okay, your honor? What'dya say?.

The Court jointly sanctioned Option One and Ms. Goebel $5,000.00 for failure to appear and $5,000.00 for filing a false affidavit. Option One was also ordered to pay $900.00 in attorney’s fees to Debtors’ counsel. The Court sanctioned Mr. Wirtz $1,000.00 for failing to amend the Second Motion and Default Affidavit once he obtained information which revealed that they were false.

The Court then pursued further investigation into why Ms. Goebel - working for Option One, but technically an employee of Loan Processing Services - would file a false affidavit.

I'll let the court summarize what followed:

From July 9, 2008, through December 2010, the parties conducted contentious discovery. Ten (10) motions to quash, compel, clarify, reconsider orders, stay proceedings, request protective orders; and appeal interlocutory orders were considered along with responses, oppositions and replies to each.

Finally, the court and the US Trustee pin Option One, LPS and Ms. Goebels down and get their explanation.

Ms. Goebel explains how she investigated the payment history of the Wilsons:

To execute such an affidavit, once I receive the affidavit, I will review the information that is in the affidavit with Option One’s [computer] system. So, I will validate the information based on their system and the information that is there.

Ms. Goebel is physically at LPS. So she's logging into Option One's system remotely and then comparing what she sees there with what the LPS system is telling her.

What the LPS system should have been telling her is that the Wilsons payments were being received. But the computer system doesn't say this, because LPS didn't mark the Wilson's file as a bankruptcy case until after their new payments were received. This meant payments destined for October 2007 were applied to pre-bankruptcy payments owed from June 2007. When the file was finally marked as a bankruptcy file - new payments were dropped into a general fund and the Wilsons balance was not credited. Payment was received, but it wasn't showing up on Ms. Goebel's monitor.

So.... she filed an affidavit based on what she saw on her screen. All a big misunderstanding, right? Wrong.

As part of its default services, LPS executed Affidavits of Default in support of Motions for Relief from Stay. LPS testified that it was just one of the services that LPS provided to clients. The affidavit is typical. It purports to be executed under oath before a notary and two (2) witnesses. It provides the name and title of the affiant and represents that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts contained in the affidavit In fact, it is a sham.

...By corporate resolution, Option One grants these individuals “officer” status, but limits their authority to the signing of default affidavits. These “officers” execute 1,000 documents per day for Option One and other clients similar to the one used in this case. In fact, Ms. Goebel is an employee of LPS with little or no connection to Option One. Each day Ms. Goebel receives approximately thirty (30) documents to sign. The process of signing default affidavits is rote and elementary.

As Ms. Goebel is also a manager of a work unit at LPS, she allocates two (2) hours per day for document execution and estimates that it takes her five (5) to ten (10) minutes to sign each affidavit she receives. Before signing an affidavit, Ms. Goebel follows the procedures directed by LPS. She checks three (3) computer screens that provide the amount of the installment payment, the total balance due on the loan, and the due date for the earliest past due installment. She matches this information with that contained in the affidavit. If it is correct, she signs the document and forwards it to a notary for execution.

Although the affidavit in this case purported to verify that Option One was the holder of the note owed by Debtors through an assignment, Ms. Goebel does not personally know this to be a fact and made no effort to verify her assertion. Similarly, the affidavit identifies the mortgage and note as exhibits to the affidavit, but Ms. Goebel neither checks the attachments nor verifies that they are correct. In fact, the affidavits she signs never have any attachments when forwarded to her for execution, and she never adds any.

Well now, that's a little harsh - don't you think your honor?

Don't you think you could-?

Ms. Goebel’s training on the seriousness of her task was sorely lacking. She could not remember who “trained” her when she was promoted in 2007 to a document execution position.92 She could not remember the extent or nature of her training. 93 She did surmise that written procedures were given to her and then she began “signing.”94 She described her task as “clerical”95 and repeatedly expressed the belief that the affidavits were counsel’s affidavits, and therefore, she relied upon counsel regarding their accuracy.96 In this admission, the real problem surfaces.

But, now we know a mistake was made... Can't we just --?

Default affidavits are a lender’s representation as to the status of a loan. They are routinely accepted in both state and federal courts in lieu of live testimony. They are an accommodation to the lending community based on a belief by the courts that the facts they present are virtually unassailable. The submission of evidence by affidavit allows lenders to save countless hours and expense establishing a borrower’s default without the need for testimony from a lending representative. While they can be refuted by a borrower, too often, a debtor’s offer of alternative and conflicting facts is dismissed by those who believe that a lender’s word is more credible than that of a debtor. The deference afforded the lending community has resulted in an abuse of trust.

And there it is, yet another eloquent explanation of why robosigning is not a paperwork problem. It is a deliberate abuse of trust on the part of the lending community. Simply put - It is fraud.

The court then gives Ms. Goebel both barrels, then beats her employer over the head with the butt of the shotgun.

The abuse begins with a title. In this case, Ms. Goebel was cloaked with the position of “Assistant Secretary,” in a purposeful attempt to convey an experience level and importance beyond her actual abilities. Ms. Goebel is an earnest young woman, but with no training or experience in banking or lending. By her own account, she has rocketed through the LPS hierarchy receiving promotions at a pace of one (1) promotion per six (6) to eight (8) month period.97 Her ability to slavishly adhere to LPS’ procedures has not only been rewarded, but has assured the development of her tunnel vision. Ms. Goebel does not understand the importance of her duties, and LPS failed to provide her with the tools to question the information to which she attests....

...In this case, LPS had personal knowledge of four (4) critical facts. First, that as of February 15, 2008, Option One had received two (2) payments from Debtors in amounts sufficient to satisfy the installments due for December and January. Second, counsel had directed that the payments be sent to it rather than posted. Third, Option One alerted LPS in February that the amounts forwarded were sufficient to bring the loan current. Fourth, counsel reported to LPS that they had only received $1,846.84, a fact LPS neglected to forward to Option One. As a result of this knowledge, LPS should have known that a payment was unaccounted for between Option One and Boles. An inquiry to either might have brought the problem to light. Instead, LPS ignored the facts...

...The fraud perpetrated on the Court, Debtors, and trustee would be shocking if this Court had less experience concerning the conduct of mortgage servicers. One too many times, this Court has been witness to the shoddy practices and sloppy accountings of the mortgage service industry. With each revelation, one hopes that the bottom of the barrel has been reached and that the industry will self correct. Sadly, this does not appear to be reality....

(signed) Hon. Elizabeth W. Magner
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

I'm thinking Bankruptcy judges should start nailing lender's pelts to the wall outside their courtroom. Maybe banks will start getting the message.

Götterdämmerung

So Tivo nabs me some soccer - and I speed watch my way through Chelsea humiliating themselves - then move onto the Champions League match.

Inter vs. Schalke.

Yeah, fricking Inter vs Schalke (which in German means "we're just glad to be here").

At the frickin' San Siro.

Calling Schalke the underdog is akin to calling Alan Greenspan an asshole. Sure, it's accurate, but it just doesn't seem... y'know...enough.

So, anyway I fire up the game, expecting to see Inter toy with the Germans before dispatching them 1-0. Yawn.

Sixteen seconds in, I see this sh!t:


An inexact transcript of the commentary I got on my network was.

Oh!

....WHOA!

Oh My EFFING CHRIST!!! WHAT THE SCREAMING F&*$! WAS THAT???

That would be Inter's Dejan Stanković volleying a ball from just inside the center line, over the keeper into the net - 25 seconds from kick off.

That was the opener. At this point bookies are sending out their enforcers to collect from people who had Schalke losing by only a goal. Twenty five goddamn seconds and this game is over.

Except nobody tells this to Schalke. They equalize sixteen minutes later. A total POS slob goal off a corner.

Okay, so Inter grabs another one sixteen minutes later. 2-1, Inter. Thanks for playing.

Then Edu nets just a sick goal five minutes before half. 2-2!

Then five minutes into the second half Raul scores on an even sicker move. 3-2 Schalke!

Then an own goal by Inter. 4-2. Schalke!

Four minutes later, Inter's Chivu gets sent off with a second yellow. Blood in the water. Italian fans start to eat each other...

Then Edu puts a stake into Inter with his second of the night. 5-2. Mother-effing-Schalke!

Inter...spanked. By three. At the San Siro. By Schalke!

God, but I need a drink...

Portrait of a Beatdown

Lest you think I was exaggerating in my prior post - here's some of the relevant court transcript from HSBC Bank USA, NA as Trustee for Nomura AAC vs Orlando Eslava.

Yves calls it "a doozy."

I call it art. Some artists work in clay, some work in oils, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey works her magic in righteous indignation. Unlike the rest of us, Judge Bailey is empowered to act on her indignation.

By way of prologue HSBC Bank has previously been ordered by the court to post a bond to indemnify the defendant - whose house they have foreclosed on despite not having the mortgage note that establishes that the house is rightfully theirs. The deadline has passed without the bond being posted. The court is not amused.

HSBC Bank is represented by a Mr. William Huffman, the Florida Default Group by Ms. Suzanne Hill, and the (reserved and presumably gleeful) attorney for the defendant, Orlando Eslava is a Ms. Sheleen Kahn.

The curtain rises

THE COURT: And so then you know what you do? You file - if you have a problem with the court order and you get inconsistent directions from your client, you file a motion for extension of the time to file the bond, you come forth and say to the Court the case is in loss mit[igation] hold, can we postpone the filing of the bond? Can we give up the sale date so that I can give it to somebody else who really needs to sell ap piece of property on the courthouse steps? Instead of just ignoring a court order, because that's what happened here.

MS HILL: I don't disagree that it could have been handled much better. I do agree to that.

THE COURT: I appreciate your diplomatic response, but is there any reason why the Court should not issue sanctions in this case? I mean, the court order was simply, based on what you're telling me, ignored because the client took the file in loss mit[igation] hold.

MS. HILL: Well, it was not complied with, that is correct, your Honor. And it was because it was on hold.
     And Mr. Huffman honestly believed that if the case was still on hold, he had no objection to having the case dismissed.
     As far as opposition at that hearing, Mr. Huffman believed he conveyed instructions to the local counsel that the case was on hold and there was no opposition.
     I can't speak to what was said at that hearing --

THE COURT: Let me just be clear. I'm not going to sanction Mr. Huffman. Mr. Huffman, you know, he's just doing what the e-mails tell him to do. I know that.
     At some level there is responsibility on the part of this court to make sure that notwithstanding whatever kind of sloppy operation the plaintiff is running, that court orders are complied with.
     And Mr. Huffman, at the end of the day, this trust is going to be over and at the end of the day some day this foreclosure crisis is going to be over. And you need to decide what kind of lawyer you're going to be. Because at the end of the day you're responsible for your client's compliance with court orders.
     And saying, oh, well, my client told me this, is not a defensible position because you swore an oath to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure and to follow the rule of law. And at the end of the day when they bury you, the words "HSBC Bank USA, NA as Trustee for Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Mortgage Pass-through Certificates Series 2006--ARI will probably appear nowhere in your obituary.
     So, you know, the bottom line - and I'm not giving you a lecture that I am not routinely delivering to foreclosure lawyers at this point in my career, which is, all lawyers have is your reputations. We don't make widgets, we don't buil[d] clocks, we don't build cars. We have nothing but the pleadings we file and sign our name to to evidence the quality and integrity of who we are.
     And when you get a court order that says post a bond -- and you're being required to post a bond for a very logical reason. It's a trust. It's going to expire by its terms.
It's not the Bank of America. I don't know if it's going to be there in six years. And you've lost the note and you're required to indemnify the defendant and therefore you have to post a bond.
     When that order is simply ignored and further motions for clarifications with the Court are not sought, you know, yes, do I understand completely that this is the client not knowing the left hand from the right had, yes; but at the end of the day, you're the lawyer, you're responsible.

MR. HUFFMAN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: How many people currently work in your office?

MR. HUFFMAN: Attorneys or --

THE COURT: Attorneys.

MR. HUFFMAN: Fifty.

THE COURT: How many files are you currently responsible for?

MR. HUFFMAN: I don't have that number. I'm not sure.

THE COURT: How many cases can you tell me you know anything in detail about the loss mitigation status of the file?

MR. HUFFMAN: Well, the way it's set up, the bank handles the loss mitigation separately.

THE COURT: So the answer is zero. You're filing pleadings in court every day and you don't even know what's going on with the case.
     And see, the really interesting thing to me as a judge is that in no other species or kind of law would that be remotely acceptable or, frankly, anything short of malpractice. But somehow in Foreclosure World everybody things that that's just fine, that you can know absolutely nothing about your files and walk in here and ask judges for things left and right without even knowing what's going on.
     And, you know, ultimately, the law firms are going to start doing that at their [peril].

[........]

THE COURT: ...And I'm not trying to crucify Mr. Huffman just because he happens to be the guy that I hauled in here today, but the upshot of it is the bond was not posted. How much was the amount of the final judgment?

MS KHAN: Judge, if I may look in the file?

MS HILL: [$]207,238.72

THE COURT: Did the plaintiff acquire title [to Mr.Eslava's house] at [the foreclosure ] sale?

MS. HILL: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: What's the status of the property? Does anybody know?

MS. KAHN: Your Honor, Sheleen Khan for the defendant.
The defendant is paying on direct debit from his account every month. This will be his fifth payment under the HAMP program, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. I think as a sanction what would be appropriate is to direct HSBC, who failed to comply with the Court's order, the only -- there's nobody here from HSBC to offer any --

MS. HILL: Well, Mr. Huffman is here on behalf of HSBC today, as well.

THE COURT: But he doesn't know anything about the loss mitigation status. I just asked him.

MS. HILL: It's our understanding in this case that it is still under loss mitigation, it is being reviewed by HAMP for permanent modification.

THE COURT: Mr. Huffman, please rais your right hand.

(Thereupon, William Ward Huffman, III Esq. was duly sworn by the Court.)

THE COURT: What's your name?

MR. HUFFMAN: Bill Huffman.

THE COURT: What was the loss mitigation status on March 4, 2010?

MR. HUFFMAN: It was on hold for --

THE COURT: Tell me what was going on. How much had the defendant paid in? Had the defendant made any HAMP payments? Was the defendant formally enrolled in a HAMP program? Was the defendant in a HAMP trial period for HAMP?

MR. HUFFMAN: I knew the defendant was in a trial period for HAMP.

THE COURT: When was the defendant put into a trial period for HAMP?

MR. HUFFMAN: My file went on hold November 6 of 2009, so I knew they had been in the trial period since that time. I didn't know the exact date.

THE COURT: December what?

MR. HUFFMAN: It was November 6, I believe, 2009.

THE COURT: What was the date of the final judgment? December 9, 2009.

MR. HUFFMAN: The hearing was, I believe, November 5 and the judgment was signed December 9.

THE COURT: So you have a final judgment hearing on November 5 and the file went on hold November 6?

MR. HUFFMAN: Correct.

THE COURT: When was the file HAMP approved?

MR. HUFFMAN: It hasn't been fully approved at this time.

THE COURT: When was the file HAMP approved for trial modification?

MR. HUFFMAN: From my knowledge, it was November 6.

THE COURT: But I'm not asking you about your knowledge. Because you're here to testify on behalf of your client.

MR. HUFFMAN: Okay.

THE COURT: So on behalf of HSBC Bank USA, NA as Trustees for Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Mortgage Pass-through Certificates Series 2006-ARI, when was Mr. Eslava's HAMP documentation accepted?

MR. HUFFMAN: I don't have -- I didn't see the doc to see when he actually signed the preliminary mods. I don't know the exact date. I just know that I was notified on November 6 to place my file on hold.

THE COURT: Mr. Huffman, respectfully, can't answer the questions I have because --
I'm going to sanction the bank. I'm not going to sanction Mr. Huffman. I could because I think Mr. Hoffman's conduct was contemptuous of a court order. But I'm also keenly aware that a comtempt finding from a judge has ramifications throughout the rest fo a laywer's career, and I'm really trying to avoid that.
     What I'm trying to give is, for lawyers that handle these cases, a wake-up call to say this is your life, this is your career on the hook and you guys better wake up and smell the coffee.
     But he cannot answer the questions for me to tell me the nature of the contempt.
Why wasn't a bond posted in this case pursuant to the court order?

MR. HUFFMAN: When I saw the order from March 4, I kind of read it --

THE COURT: Why wasn't the order -- the bond was ordered posted -- when did I order the bond? March 4. Okay.
Why wasn't a bond posted by April 4?

MR. HUFFMAN: When I saw the language, I thought it had two options, either post the bond by April 4 or have the case dismissed. Because our file was still on hold April 4, I just chose to allow the case to be dismissed.
     Instead of posting the bond, I though that was an option I had. I thought it would be in the best interest of all parties. I didn't want to incur any more fees for the defendant in this case by moving the case forward.

THE COURT: Okay. Then as a sanction, the Court will follow the path chosen by Mr. Huffman. I will dismiss the case. I will dismiss the case with prejudice.
The note, which was canceled by this Court pursuant to a final judgment is null and void.    
     Mr. Eslava is relieved of the debt.

     The title shall be conveyed back to Mr. Eslava by the bank -- by the trust -- as the legal liability for the note no longer exists.
     The basis for this sanction is the contemptuous noncompliance with the Court's order to post the bond.
     Should, however, any claim ever be pursued against Mr. Eslava on the note which was the subject of this case, since the note was lost, HSBC Bank USA, NA, as Trustee for Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Mortage Pass-through Certificates Series 2006-ARI shall jointly and liablely (sic) with Florida Default Law Group, PL, and any successor law firm, be responsible to hold harmless and indemnify Mr. Eslava from any liability should the orginal appear in the context of another case.

MS. HILL: Your Honor, if I may just briefly respond?
     I believe under the case law that in order to award sanctions, there has to be a finding of willfullness and bad faith on the part of Mr. Huffman.

THE COURT: No, this is on behalf of HSBC. I'm finding wilfulness because -- I'm not making Mr. Huffman responsible for the $207,238.72. I'm saying HSBC has been offered an opportunity to come and testify to this Court about why all this confusion erupted. They have given me Mr. Huffman. Mr. Huffman respectfully, can't answer very many of my questions in detail because all he knows is that the file was put on hold. It was put on hold the day after a final judgment was entered at the behest of the bank.
     Now, I would like to know why the bank came in here one day to get a final judgment and the next day to put a file on hold. But that's really a sideshow. Really the big question is why didn't they comply with the order of March 9? Why did they simply ignore it.
     And that answer is ["]we put the file on hold["]. That's a contemptuous answer. A bank does not have the authority or a trust does not have the authority to ignore a court order simploy because they are making business decisions on a file. And that's really where we are at.

MS. HILL: Respectfully, I understand, your Honor.
     In this case, Florida Default Law Group is taking responsibility for its actions. And I would respectfully submit that canceling the underlying indebtedness woudl not seem to fit the failure of Florida Default in this case on behalf of the bank in complying with the order. Florida Default is more than willing to stand before you and apologize.

THE COURT: No. No. No. This is way beyond -- you know, look, I don't want apologies. I want performance. I want responsible attorneys who meet the basic standards of knowing what the Sam Hill is going on in their files.
     I want acknowledgment that says, look, we understand that the court system is facing a massive number of foreclosures and we are not going to contribute to that burden by causing useless work by the Court.
     Which is really what I just got told.
What I got told is, Judge, the guy was already approved for HAMP by November 6, so the hearing on November 5, you really didn't need to do that.
     Because for every hearing that I do on these cases, the reason why I get this packet is I check service on every defendant, I look at the note, I make sure there's an endorsement. The fastest I can do one of these is about seven minutes. The slowest I can do it, if it's out of order, if it's disorganized, if there's things missing, which may well be the case in this case because the hearing was November 5 and the order wasn't entered until December, which means that there may have been missing items, it can take as much as 15 minutes or a half an hour. So the bank wasted my time on that.
     They wasted my time -- and I don't care about my time because I'm paid the enormously high sum of $144,000 to be here every day.
     But the second waste of time was then they come in and opposed the defendant's motion to cancel the sale. And we had a hearing and we talked about that. An I would imagine that took somewhere between 12 to 17 minutes, depending on how it went.
     And then they come in and walk in a motion to cancel the sale.
That's three useless, completely idiotic events. And if Florida Default wants to make HSBC whole in this, then that's between them and their carrier.
     But the bottom line is that's the sanction that the Court has ordered. Mortgage foreclosure is an quitable remedy. The plaintiff in this instance, whether it's through its own conduct -- because, frankly, I can't -- what Florida Default is telling me is we're just doing what they're telling us to do. They told us to put a file on hold.
     If this is how a bank is going to conduct its business, then the bank should be bearing the sanctions. Florida Default can cut whatever deal it wants to cut with them, but at the end of the day, the bank is responsible for this.
     Thank You.

MS. HILL: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: I need the transcript ordered, please, and a simple order attached that adopts the transcript as my order, because I think that's going to be the cleanest way to do that. And I will direct that the transfer of title occur within 30 days.

Then the attorney for the defense realizes this is her moment.

MS. KAHN: Your Honor, if I may add, I have an affidavit in support of fees, attorneys fees, reasonable fees.

THE COURT: How much?

MS. KAHN: [$]1,222, your Honor. 6.11 hours.

To the surprise of no one, Ms. Kahn gets her money.

Fade to black.

Fin.

Tone and Undertone

Following WI Judge Sumi's reiteration of her restraining order, you would think a certain amount of conservative face-saving would be in order.

"You're wrong" shouts the WI Dane County GOP:

For those people that don’t know, the state of Wisconsin has an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. The executive branch has the job of carrying out the laws and setting the agenda for his administration. The legislative branch has the job of passing laws. And the judicial branch has the job of interpreting and applying the laws and ensuring their constitutionality.

By Judge Sumi’s action today, it is apparent that she has forgotten those roles and she thinks that her job is to be a member of all three branches. The Republican Party of Dane County believes it is time for the judicial branch to stop being judicial activists. If they want to legislate the laws, they need to run for political office not judicial office.

But those are words of political hacks. You expect them to be snide and petty.

But the outright defiance by those serving in government is pretty surprising:

But minutes [after Judge Sumi re-issued her restraining order], outside the court room, Assistant Attorney General Steven Means said the legislation "absolutely" is still in effect.

Last night on Maddow, WI Sec. of State suggested that the GOP might not have the votes if Act 10 is voided for the open meetings violation. Whether or not that's true - that would be perhaps the strongest possible motivator for brass knuckles tactics to get Act 10 over the finish line now.

The WI Dept of Administration is publishing new access rules for the Wisconsin capitol building again.

And the hairs are going up on the back of my neck. Judge Sumi has a hearing on the union lawsuits today, and the follow up to the open meetings lawsuit this Friday.

What are these guys up to?

Still Looking For A Clear Picture of Fukushima Daiichi

Latest status report from JAIF:

Latest photo of workers in the Fukushima control room:

And (via VOA's Steve Herman) a report by Austrian scientists projecting the radiation levels. Herman the guy who posted the story on high levels of radiation in Iitate, Japan that equalled a chest x-ray every hour. I'm still not convinced he's not an outlier or missing a larger picture - but he posting sources that make you wonder.

Like this bit from the report:

"The nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl had a source term of iodine-131 at 1.76 x 10^18 becquerels of cesium-137 at 8.5 x 10^16 bequerels," the statement added. "The estimated for Fukushima source terms are thus at 20 percent of Chernobyl for iodine, and 20-60 percent of Chernobyl for cesium."

The lead Austrian researcher speculates that levels may in fact be higher - in part because of a delay in collecting data and gaps in the data collected.

Still room for things to not be bad - but a 77 foot tsunami and people being told to avoid giving tap water to infants is pretty damn bad enough.

Fukushima Infographics

If you've been glued to the coverage of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis - you could do worse than to check out the infographics put out by JAIF

It's been easy to lose the sequence of events by switching news sources - having the series of graphics makes it very clear.

2011-03-15

2011-03-16

Not comforting, mind you - but clear.

How Do You Say "Oh Sh!t" in Japanese?

(Via the NYT)

Japan faced the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident Tuesday morning, as an explosion at the most crippled of three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station damaged its crucial steel containment structure, emergency workers were withdrawn from the plant, and much larger emissions of radioactive materials appeared immiment [sic], according to official statements and industry executives informed about the developments....

The sharp deterioration came after government officials said the containment structure of the No. 2 reactor, the most seriously damaged of three reactors at the Daichi plant, had suffered damage during an explosion shortly after 6 a.m. on Tuesday.

They initially suggested that the damage was limited and that emergency operations aimed at cooling the nuclear fuel at three stricken reactors with seawater would continue. But industry executives said that in fact the situation had spiraled out of control and that all plant workers needed to leave the plant to avoid excessive exposure to radioactive leaks.

If all workers do in fact leave the plant, the nuclear fuel in all three reactors is likely to melt down, which would lead to wholesale releases of radioactive material — by far the largest accident of its kind since the Chernobyl disaster 25 years ago.

Cascade of Failure

(Via Schneier on Security)

The complete takedown of computer security firm HBGary (by Anonymous) has been spelled out by ars technica's Peter Bright

The short version is:

1. SQL Injection
2. Rainbow Tables + Weak passwords
3. Password Reuse
4. Unpatched Server Exploit
5. Admin email access
6. Compromise email accounts
7. Social Engineering nets root access

But the long version is oh so much more entertaining.

Take a look

Feeling a Bit Irish...

(Via CJR)

CJR's Ryan Chittum highlights a WSJ story about the financial ruin of Ireland.

See if any parts of this sound familiar:

September 2008

The party ended in 2008, when the property bubble popped and the global economy tipped into recession. The government remained optimistic; an internal finance-department memo concluded in May that the Irish banking system was "sound and robust based on all key indicators of financial health."

Yet by September, Irish banks were struggling to borrow quick cash for daily expenses. The government thought they faced a classic liquidity squeeze. Ireland—whose hands-off regulator had assigned just three examiners to two major banks—didn't recognize the deeper problem: Banks had made too many bad loans, whose defaults would leave the lenders insolvent.

December 2008

[PricewaterhouseCoopers, on behalf of the Irish government] was sent to look at the banks' books. It found defaults creeping up. Still, banks insisted they could soldier on unaided. In December meetings with bankers in the fifth-floor boardroom of Ireland's debt agency, the government resolved to act.

"It's not credible that you don't need equity," John Corrigan, the agency's chief, snapped. "You're taking capital. That's it."

March 2009

[Irish Finance Minister] Mr. Lenihan met with advisers to bat around remedies. None sounded promising. He turned to Peter Bacon, an economist he'd hired a week earlier, who shocked the crowded room with a figure far bigger than the few billion Ireland had spent. The banks made more than €150 billion of potentially toxic property and land loans, he said. "That's the extent of your problem."

Mr. Bacon suggested the government buy loans from the banks at discounted prices, effectively handing them cash and easing doubts about their viability. By insisting on steep discounts, Ireland would be less likely to lose money on the purchases. On the flip side, bargain prices would trigger losses at the banks—which the government would probably have to patch with more capital. The taxpayer would foot the bill either way, but at least Ireland would understand how big it was.

The approach "has the merit of certainty and clarity," Mr. Bacon argued. But, he added, it would only work if "the projection of the extent of impairment is accurate in the first place."

It wasn't.

and

In early 2010, Mr. McDonagh's team [working for the Irish debt agency] got a rude surprise upon diving into the books [of Irish banks].

"We opened it up and said, 'Oh, my God,"' Mr. McDonagh said in an interview. "What they are telling us is not the reality."

The banks had said they had loaned 77% of the value of a property, on average. The other 23%, put up by the borrower, would cushion a default.

The NAMA teams found that banks often piled on "equity releases" that amounted to lending out 100% of the value, and left them fully responsible in a default.

Worse, much of the collateral was shaky. Several times, a developer pledged future profits on other ventures. Many loans were riddled with flawed documentation, leaving banks without solid legal rights to the property they had believed was backing up the loans.

and then

"The detailed information that has emerged from the banks in the course of the NAMA process is truly shocking," Mr. Lenihan told lawmakers. But, he added, "we now know the extent of the losses in our banks....This certainty will further boost international confidence in our ability to recover."

He was wrong.

...

The total capital injected into banks by the government so far: €34 billion, with at least another €12 billion on the way. The bailouts mean Ireland will run a government deficit equal to 32% of its gross domestic product, the highest figure ever in any euro-zone country. Skeptics say a still-sinking property market will next sour residential mortgages, inflating the government tab even more.

Ye gods.

Death by Bunga Bunga? Seriously....?

I mean, it's in Newsweek for F#%&@! sakes:

'Bunga-Bunga' Scandal Threatens Burlusconi

Ruby, a Moroccan belly dancer who is now 18, has testified in front of Milan’s prosecutors that one of these parties included “bunga-bunga,” a kind of orgy. The party supposedly featured a naked Berlusconi and 20 nude female guests.

Ruby has denied having sex with [Italy's Prime Minister] Berlusconi and has said she lied to him about her age, telling him she was 24. She added that Berlusconi explained bunga-bunga was a ritual he had imported from the Libyan leader. “Silvio told me that he’d copied that formula from Muammar Kaddafi,” she said to prosecutors. “It’s a ritual of his [Kaddafi’s] African harem,” she added, according to the daily La Repubblica, which also reported that the prime minister called Milan police to try to get the teenager out of trouble when she was arrested in a separate theft case, telling the cops she was a relative of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Stewart vs. O'Reilly: Don't Call it a Battle of Wits

Jon Stewart goes on O'Reilly and just plays straight man to O'Reilly's firehose of stupid.

Part I:


Part II:


It's sad to watch O'Reilly stick to his worn-out playbook as if there is something for him to win.

Bill? Stewart isn't playing - he's just smarter and funnier than you are.

(H/t TPM)

My Big Fat Greek Bankruptcy

(Via Felix Salmon)

Michael Lewis scrapes off Greece's financial scab and reveals the horrors underneath.

The [Greek] national railroad has annual revenues of 100 million euros [yet pays its workers] 400 million, plus 300 million euros in other expenses. The average state railroad employee earns 65,000 euros a year. Twenty years ago a successful businessman turned minister of finance named Stefanos Manos pointed out that it would be cheaper to put all Greece’s rail passengers into taxicabs: it’s still true. “We have a railroad company which is bankrupt beyond comprehension,” Manos put it to me. “And yet there isn’t a single private company in Greece with that kind of average pay.”

And that's just the beginning.

a law on the books [makes] it a jailable offense to cheat the [Greek] government out of more than 150,000 euros [in taxes]—but its enforcement. “If the law was enforced,” the tax collector said, “every doctor in Greece would be in jail.” I laughed, and he gave me a stare. “I am completely serious.” One reason no one is ever prosecuted—apart from the fact that prosecution would seem arbitrary, as everyone is doing it—is that the Greek courts take up to 15 years to resolve tax cases.

Perhaps the most entertainingly horrific thing you will read this month.