Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

t/y Matt & April!  From: http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/09/bombshell-bombshell-bombshell-fdic-sues-the-big-banks-for-massive-securities-fraud/

It’s been a while since I’ve dropped a BOMBSHELL…. I’ve frankly been a bit per-occupied with several more important things.

But the documentation of the biggest crime spree ever perpetrated on a nation continues to be rolled out….and it continues to be ignored by EVERYONE IN THIS ENTIRE NATION!

I can only pound on the indictment of insurance fraud documented in the 49 State Attorney General Sellout.  The press refuses to report on how we’ve all been sold out by the government that serves the banks…but I digress.  No one cares about that anymore.

Let’s talk about the THREE SEPARATE NUCLEAR BOMBSHELLS OF FINANCIAL MASS DESTRUCTION.

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Complaint-2516.pdf

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Complaint-2517.pdf

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Complaint-2522.pdf

The FDIC, (that’s the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) just filed suit against the big banks alleging in very specific terms A MASSIVE SCHEME TO LIE, CHEAT, STEAL AND DEFRAUD.  You’d think this kind of thing might warrant a story or two in the national press…but then again, they’ve got far more important things to report on. Well, don’t count on The Press to actually report on anything meaningful. anymore.

A big hat tip to my friend April Charney who pointed this out to me and much thanks to the Sarasota Council of Neighborhood Associations for inviting me to speak tonight…..anywhoo, just read the allegations in the complaints: (and then ask yourself why no mainstream media will report on any of this):

This is an action for damages caused by violation of the Texas Securities Act
(TSA) and the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act) by the defendants. As alleged in detail below,
defendants issued, underwrote, or sold eight securities known as “certificates,” which were
backed by collateral pools of residential mortgage loans. Guaranty Bank (Guaranty) paid
approximately $1.5 billion for the eight certificates. When they issued, underwrote, or sold the
certificates, the defendants made numerous statements of material fact about the certificates and,
in particular, about the credit quality of the mortgage loans that backed them. Many of those
statements were untrue. Moreover, the defendants omitted to state many material facts that were
necessary in order to make their statements not misleading. For example, the defendants made
untrue statements or omitted important information about such material facts as the loan-to-value
ratios of the mortgage loans, the extent to which appraisals of the properties that secured the
loans were performed in compliance with professional appraisal standards, the number of
borrowers who did not live in the houses that secured their loans (that is, the number of
properties that were not primary residences), and the extent to which the entities that made the
loans disregarded their own standards in doing so.

This is an action for damages caused by violation of the Texas Securities Act
(TSA) and the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act) by the defendants. As alleged in detail below,
defendants issued, underwrote, or sold eight securities known as “certificates,” which were
backed by collateral pools of residential mortgage loans. Guaranty Bank (Guaranty) paid
approximately $1.5 billion for the eight certificates. When they issued, underwrote, or sold the
certificates, the defendants made numerous statements of material fact about the certificates and,
in particular, about the credit quality of the mortgage loans that backed them. Many of those
statements were untrue. Moreover, the defendants omitted to state many material facts that were
necessary in order to make their statements not misleading. For example, the defendants made
untrue statements or omitted important information about such material facts as the loan-to-value
ratios of the mortgage loans, the extent to which appraisals of the properties that secured the
loans were performed in compliance with professional appraisal standards, the number of
borrowers who did not live in the houses that secured their loans (that is, the number of
properties that were not primary residences), and the extent to which the entities that made the
loans disregarded their own standards in doing so.

Advertisements