Hiding Foreclosure Gate

[Care4all]

yes, leahy took it out, and it passed via unanimous consent of the Senate, I believe i read....so all republicans, and all democrats, and all independents voted yes, to pass it....

yet obama vetoed it.....??? I don't get it? Is there more to this, for the senate to give unanimous consent? strange....

 

[Care4all]

'

Did any of the repubas make a fuss or just pass it?

Has Fox brought this issue up?

My understanding is a repub introduced it.

But it took Leahy to get it through the Senate, the Republicans can't.

i don't oppose it coming to the floor for a vote....i pretty much think everything proposed should come to the floor for a vote...

leahey could not and can not bring it to the floor on his own, if Republicans did not want him to in the committee....is my understanding on how the committees work.

 

[Annie]

My understanding is a repub introduced it.

But it took Leahy to get it through the Senate, the Republicans can't.

i don't oppose it coming to the floor for a vote....i pretty much think everything proposed should come to the floor for a vote...

leahey could not and can not bring it to the floor on his own, if Republicans did not want him to in the committee....is my understanding on how the committees work.

Once again emphasizing the similarity between the ruling elite. Not a dime's worth of difference.

 

[KissMy]

Since this passed by unanimous consent & Obama pocketed it, doesn't that mean Congress will just turn it back around & send it right over his head on a override?

 

[edthecynic]

Leahy? You need to ask? The bills had been proposed twice from my reading, allowed to die, and resurrected by Leahy 'who got it done' just before leaving. Interesting time for this, but none for getting the budget done?

Ahhhh yes, the patented half-truth.

There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two Parties, but the partisans always try to protect their own Party.
Bank foreclosure cover seen in bill at Obama's desk | Reuters

Senator Jeff Sessions, the committee's senior Republican, also helped to engineer the Senate's unanimous consent for the bill.

They tout different divisive bullshit and act like rival siblings. When Big Daddy and Mama Bankers say "heel", they heel.

That's why I say the Dems and the GOP are the political equivalent of "Good Cop, Bad Cop."
They are working together for the same goal using different techniques.

 

[Care4all]

Since this passed by unanimous consent & Obama pocketed it, doesn't that mean Congress will just turn it back around & send it right over his head on a override?

it depends.

the house would need 2/3's to over ride the veto, and so would the senate....but this time, i believe it has to be a ''paper vote'', where each senator/representative would have to have his vote documented, verses a VERBAL unanimous consent vote?

 

[Annie]

Ahhhh yes, the patented half-truth.

There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two Parties, but the partisans always try to protect their own Party.
Bank foreclosure cover seen in bill at Obama's desk | Reuters

Senator Jeff Sessions, the committee's senior Republican, also helped to engineer the Senate's unanimous consent for the bill.

They tout different divisive bullshit and act like rival siblings. When Big Daddy and Mama Bankers say "heel", they heel.

That's why I say the Dems and the GOP are the political equivalent of "Good Cop, Bad Cop."
They are working together for the same goal using different techniques.

and you've not seen me arguing differently. However, I do want different than what they are and have been dishing out for a century.

 

[edthecynic]

Since this passed by unanimous consent & Obama pocketed it, doesn't that mean Congress will just turn it back around & send it right over his head on a override?

No! That's the beauty of the pocket veto. With a regular veto the bill gets sent back to congress but the pocket veto kills the bill without sending it back to congress.

 

[Conspiracist]

Since this passed by unanimous consent & Obama pocketed it, doesn't that mean Congress will just turn it back around & send it right over his head on a override?

No! That's the beauty of the pocket veto. With a regular veto the bill gets sent back to congress but the pocket veto kills the bill without sending it back to congress.

So this actually turns out to be a "Hey man I tried" for the senators to get campaign money or justify receiving it to their donors.

 

[Annie]

Since this passed by unanimous consent & Obama pocketed it, doesn't that mean Congress will just turn it back around & send it right over his head on a override?

No! That's the beauty of the pocket veto. With a regular veto the bill gets sent back to congress but the pocket veto kills the bill without sending it back to congress.

So this actually turns out to be a "Hey man I tried" for the senators to get campaign money or justify receiving it to their donors.

I don't know what to think. Bank of America has stopped foreclosing in all 50 states, so we'll see if they know something we don't. Certainly they need to clean up their act, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen real quick around Thanksgiving.

 

[KissMy]

If this law does not pass will this make home prices climb?

Can the 3 foreclosed homes I just bought last year from HUD be taken back by the foreclosed homeowner? One was foreclosed on by GMAC & sold to HUD & then to me. Another was foreclosed on by CitiBank, sold to HUD & then to me. The third I think was foreclosed on by Fannie Mae then sold to HUD & to me.

I guess my title insurance will kick in but if so will I get paid back for all the improvements & back taxes I paid on these properties?

Will the big banks go down or get another bail-out?

The mind starts to wander what the ramifications are.

 

[georgephillip]

Obama trying to be clear:

"To leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed, in addition to withholding my signature, I am returning H.R. 3808 to the clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this Memorandum of Disapproval."

Does this qualify as a pocket veto?

Obama Vetoes...

 

[Care4all]

If this law does not pass will this make home prices climb?

Can the 3 foreclosed homes I just bought last year from HUD be taken back by the foreclosed homeowner? One was foreclosed on by GMAC & sold to HUD & then to me. Another was foreclosed on by CitiBank, sold to HUD & then to me. The third I think was foreclosed on by Fannie Mae then sold to HUD & to me.

I guess my title insurance will kick in but if so will I get paid back for all the improvements & back taxes I paid on these properties?

Will the big banks go down or get another bail-out?

The mind starts to wander what the ramifications are.

all good questions...i don't know the answer to.

 

[KissMy]

If this law does not pass will this make home prices climb?

Can the 3 foreclosed homes I just bought last year from HUD be taken back by the foreclosed homeowner? One was foreclosed on by GMAC & sold to HUD & then to me. Another was foreclosed on by CitiBank, sold to HUD & then to me. The third I think was foreclosed on by Fannie Mae then sold to HUD & to me.

I guess my title insurance will kick in but if so will I get paid back for all the improvements & back taxes I paid on these properties?

Will the big banks go down or get another bail-out?

The mind starts to wander what the ramifications are.

all good questions...i don't know the answer to.

I am also wondering if the Title Insurance Companies get hit with a million claims will they go under & screw the buyers?

Will the Title Insurance Companies get a bailout?

Maybe I could sue HUD.

 

[edthecynic]

Obama trying to be clear:

"To leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed, in addition to withholding my signature, I am returning H.R. 3808 to the clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this Memorandum of Disapproval."

Does this qualify as a pocket veto?

Obama Vetoes...

No, apparently Congress is playing a game with whether Congress is actually adjourned, a necessity for a pocket veto, so Obama is forced to take no chances that the bill is not vetoed. If the Extreme Court decided that Congress was not adjourned, then even though Obama didn't sign the bill it would be law.

Presidential Pocket Vetoes: The Original Paperwork Reduction Act | Foxnews.com

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution requires the president to sign every bill to make it law. If the president opposes the legislation, the Constitution says "he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated."

But that same portion of the Constitution indicates that "any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same Shall be Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be Law."

That's a pocket veto.

In other words, if Congress is out of town, the president doesn't have to sign a bill into law. Nor does he have to veto the package and sent it back to Congress. If lawmakers are away, the president can in essence stash the bill in his pocket and walk away. That effectively dispatches the issue into legislative oblivion.

This is the essence of the dispute now brewing between the White House and Capitol Hill.

Congress may SEEM like it's out of session. But it's really not. The House adjourned last week until after the midterm elections. The Senate's truly not back in action until November 15. But every few days, a handful of senators meet in what's called a "pro forma" session. Senate Democrats carved a deal with Republicans to technically keep the Senate running in this fashion through next month. It's an effort to bar Mr. Obama from making recess appointments to the federal bench, his cabinet or to ambassadorships. If Congress is open for business, the president has to send such appointments to the Senate for "advice and consent." But the president can bypass the Senate if senators are adjourned for more than three days.

So the Senate is "here." The House is not. Thus, Congress isn't fully adjourned. So the president would have to just veto the foreclosure bill the old-fashioned way, right?

Apparently not. The White House contends it won't send any paperwork to Congress since it's out of session. And the president will just "pocket veto" the bill.

That's the problem.

The housing foreclosure bill is H.R. 3808. "H.R" doesn't stand for human resources or home run. It refers to the "House of Representatives." That means the bill in question originated in the House. Therefore, if the president uses a traditional veto on this measure, he would have to, as the Constitution says, "return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated."

If the bill started in the Senate, the White House would direct its veto message to that side of the Capitol.

But, House rules dictate that even when the House is out of session, it has provisions in which to always receive a "normal" veto from the president. The Clerk of the House is always available to receive such vetoes even if the House is not operating.

This issue came up before the Supreme Court in the 1920s and 1930s.

In 1926, Congress approved a bill that granted native Americans the right to sue the government for loss of ancestral territory. President Calvin Coolidge declined to either sign or veto the bill. Congress adjourned for the summer. Thus, the bill died with Coolidge's pocket veto.

Six Indian tribes then filed another suit against the government asserting Coolidge's maneuver was unconstitutional. The High Court eventually ruled against the tribes, 9-0. Justice Edward Terry Sanford penned the decision, asserting that the Founders intended a broad interpretation of "adjournment," which allowed Coolidge to use his pocket veto.

The Supreme Court revisited the pocket veto issue in the 1938 case Wright v. U.S. In Wright, the Court partially overruled its earlier decision. It found that Congress could designate people to receive veto messages when it was not in session. That's what the House does when its Clerk is on call. Thus, a president couldn't use a pocket veto to reject bill during a short recess. He would instead be compelled to issue a traditional veto and dispatch that document to Capitol Hill. But the Court decided that longer adjournments (potentially like the one Congress is operating under now) permits a president to deploy a pocket veto.

In the Wright case, the House remained in session but the Senate was away. And the legislation in that instance originated in the Senate.

So there's ambiguity of what constitutes an adjournment.

 

[Care4all]

If this law does not pass will this make home prices climb?

Can the 3 foreclosed homes I just bought last year from HUD be taken back by the foreclosed homeowner? One was foreclosed on by GMAC & sold to HUD & then to me. Another was foreclosed on by CitiBank, sold to HUD & then to me. The third I think was foreclosed on by Fannie Mae then sold to HUD & to me.

I guess my title insurance will kick in but if so will I get paid back for all the improvements & back taxes I paid on these properties?

Will the big banks go down or get another bail-out?

The mind starts to wander what the ramifications are.

all good questions...i don't know the answer to.

I am also wondering if the Title Insurance Companies get hit with a million claims will they go under & screw the buyers?

Will the Title Insurance Companies get a bailout?

Maybe I could sue HUD.

why don't you send a note to your senators and congressman, and ask them all those questions? I certainly would! the worst that can happen is them all answering, ''they don't know''....which would be pretty frightening if not one of them questioned these things before unanimous consent!

 

[georgephillip]

"Three parties stand to lose big.

"The most obvious is homeowners—they’re being slapped with enormous, illegal fees invented by fraudulent documents, and frequently being illegally exiled from their homes.

"Next are the mortgage servicers. These are the mortgage industry’s debt collectors, and their mere existence often creates huge conflicts of interest that have made the foreclosure mess much harder to clean-up.

"The dominant servicers are owned by megabanks—Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank and GMAC control the vast majority of this work.

"A massive loss for a mortgage servicer means a massive loss for a massive bank."

"That brings us to the investors.

"Mortgage-backed securities involve different levels of risk—investors don’t just buy one security composed of lots of mortgages. Instead, the pool of mortgages is cut into different pieces according to how risky they are.

"The riskiest bits fetch the highest monthly payments for investors, but are the first to take losses if the mortgages go bad.

"The safest parts bring in lower monthly payments, but are the last to take losses.

"Investors who have the safe parts of the security want to see the foreclosure process burn through as fast as possible. The faster it goes, the lower the expenses for the servicer, and the more these investors will be able to recoup after foreclosure."

"But investors who have the risky parts of the security have the exact opposite incentives. They want foreclosures stalled for as long as possible, so that the servicer has to keep forwarding them payments for as long as possible.

"The servicer doesn’t take its cut from the investors after foreclosure, it takes them from the sale of the house.

"So the risky investors (junior bondholders in finance-speak) are hoping to delay foreclosures, while the safer investors (senior bondholders) are hoping to stall for time, since time means more payments.

"So there’s a war going on right now between risky and safe investors, many of which have different risk positions in different securities.

"But servicers don’t have the necessary documents, and they can’t get them.

"The Florida bank lobby says that destroying mortgage documents was standard operating procedure during the bubble years.

"If you can’t provide the documents, then in many cases, you simply do not have the right to foreclose at all.

"That means catastrophic losses for both safe investors and servicers, since they never get to recoup any losses."

"So no matter what happens, the most obvious, immediate losses and the most serious long-term legal liability are at the big mortgage servicers. These are all megabanks. And investors of all stripes are going to do everything in their power to stick the investment banks who created these securities with the bill. These are also megabanks...

"...there are $2.6 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities out there. That’s more than enough in potential losses to sink every major bank and hedge fund in the United States."

Too Big For Paperwork?