Recent Items

Massachusetts Announces First Comprehensive Lawsuit Against Major Banks

Posted on by

The Massachusetts Attorney General has announced a major lawsuit against the biggest banks in the foreclosure game, namely Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, GMAC (now Ally) as well as MERS and its parent MERSCorp.

It seeks accountability for violations in the foreclosure process, including robosiging, initiating foreclosures when they were not entitled to do so, the use of MERS (both a violation of land records requirements and what amounts to unjust enrichment via failure to pay local recording fees) and deceptive practices in foreclosure (as in failing to offer modifications as required by law and would be good for borrowers).

In the press conference, Coakley described that there were numerous unnecessary and illegal foreclosures, and cited how not for profits had succeeded in obtaining loan mods, yet were unable to get mods processed for vastly larger number of similar borrowers.

She stressed how the banks didn’t care about the impact of their actions on borrowers and communities, and engaged in the same sort of reckless conduct as they did in predatory mortgage lending.

Coakley specifically discussed what amounts to a failure of the 50 state settlement negotiations, particularly the failure of the banks to provide accountability and their insistence on obtaining broad relief, including on MERS-related issues, which Coakley said Massachusetts had said was always off the table as far as she was concerned. She had said the negotiations had taken too long and were unwilling to provide real relief.

This is an important step forward, and shows clearly what a sham that the so called “settlement” talks.

The claim is detailed and the banks look to be in very hot water. The lawsuit, for instance, describes the specific and detailed steps that a bank must take in order to disclose in Massachusetts (including giving the borrower the right to cure the default before accelerating the debt) and also (per Ibanez) questions whether the parties had taken the steps to put themselves in a position to act. It describes how the target banks did not have the mortgage at the time of filing for foreclosure.

Coakley said she intends to move the litigation forward quickly.

The claim is here. This is an important step forward.

Print Friendly
Twitter45DiggReddit0StumbleUpon1Facebook143LinkedIn5Google+19bufferEmail

89 comments

  1. redleg

    It looks like restoring the title chain for all properties in on the list, so it’s not limited to foreclosures (if I read it right).
    Was Mass one of the States that was dissenting from the “50″?

      1. LeonovaBalletRusse

        And, Jason, they were dead serious about this. Their ad contained not a trace of irony. Oh, this is indeed a *1% solution* – and *final*.

      2. toxymoron

        That has always been a well-known fact.
        The Dutch have also calculated that obesity is a boon to society: ‘fat’ people pay taxes and contribute to social security as everybody else (well, in Holland, France, Germany and other civilized countries), but then die at the age of 50 or something, so they are net contributors.
        Same goes for smokers: the price of tobacco is mostly taxes.
        So smoking and obesity are bad for you as an individual, but good for society.

  2. alpwalker

    To me the settlement talks are as much about running out the clock on the statute of limitations as they are about minimizing real penalties for the banks. The clock doesn’t stop ticking just because they’re in negotiations, does it?

    I’m trying to imagine this playing out the way the tobacco settlement did a few years back. The cost of the economic cancer perpetrated by the banksters has to exceed the costs of the real thing caused by the cigarette companies.

    Imagine each state having a trust fund designated to undoing some of the harm caused by the vampire squids of the world. It won’t give someone back their house or job, just as the tobacco trust funds won’t bring back loved ones lost to cancer, but it would be gratifying to see squid money rebuilding communities in ways that undercut squid power.

    1. Jane Doe

      In consumer debt liability situation, such negotiations might be considered to be tolling of the SOL, but I given the preferential treatment of big banks, I am not sure if tolling exists for their liabilities. Tolling means that the SOL is extended through their actions. Tolling means that the clock is supposed to stop ticking. Its also something that exists in criminal law. Again, whether it exists here or not- I can’t say.

    1. Francois T

      The probability of criminal prosecutions is greatly enhanced by the facts unearthed during the discovery phase.

      Glad to see that Timmy Gangsta and Obummer won’t get their settlement. After real justice is done, this economy will stand a prayer of restarting for good. Not before that.

  3. randolph

    Great news.

    Anybody know if there are any plans by Coakley (or any other AG) to follow NY’s lead and pursue claims against the trustees as well? As Yves has pointed out multiple times, the over-reliance on the MERS system may have caused trustees to fail in their most important duty to investors: making sure the notes and mortgages actually and legally conveyed to the trusts.

    As Yves and others have pointed out, this is potentially huge liability for the big trustee banks. And the statute of limitations is running out.

    1. Phil

      You’re a US taxpayer, right?

      If that’s the case, I’m sure your money has gone to a lot of banks other than BOA.

    1. craazyman

      was just thinking that myself about Mass. there’s something about the light in the woods there that’s like a mind church. it must rub off. not quite sure what happened at Salem but it was an aberration.

      I used to know one of Howard Zinn’s brothers before I had a clue who Howard Zinn was. I won’t bore the board with the circumstances, which were unremarkable in human terms, but the dude was a Class A+ human being.

    2. Carla

      Didn’t Martha Coakley lose the Senate race to Scott Brown?

      If so, it seems a very good thing.

      What could she do in the Senate compared to this?

  4. Middle Seaman

    It may the beginning of an avalanche or it may be a trigger for the occupied congress to legislate protection for the lenders and their cohorts. I’ll best on the latter.

    1. psychohistorian

      That is what I have been saying since the beginning….”our” bought congress critters will memorialize a “solution”.

      And if anyone has a problem with that the Senate has just decided that you can be disappeared in a heart beat.

  5. grayslady

    $5000 per incident as a penalty doesn’t seem like a big financial hit to these criminals. Also, the lawsuit doesn’t tackle robosigning–only lying on affidavits–and it doesn’t address the issue of foreclosure and/or loan modification fees. Still, it’s a move in the right direction, and I was pleased to see that MERS was also included as a defendant.

    1. Ray Phenicie

      $5000 times how many violations-just a few hundred is not many, but why would there not be 5,000=$25 million or 20,000=$100 Million maybe still not a lot but if 50 other states get in gear?
      Buh Bye Bankeroonies toonies.

    2. Ray Phenicie

      And then there’s this:

      “The AG’s lawsuit seeks civil penalties, restitution for harm to borrowers and compensation for registration fees that were avoided. The lawsuit also seeks to hold the banks accountable through permanent injunctive relief to provide a solution for prior unlawful foreclosures and to require that the banks, going forward, register assignments and other documents in accordance with Massachusetts law.”

      I’ve seen reports where restitution awards were as much as $75,000 per home so that could add up quickly
      Fees in one county have been reported at around $6-10 million.
      Again if other states continue forward, especially New York and New Jersey, California and Nevada?
      Unfortunately this could work to just bring a lot of chaos as the banks stop lending and gradually curl up and wither away.

      1. redleg

        It also says they have to restore the chain of title of ALL properties (not limited to foreclosures), which means that all of the transaction charges to the county registrars have to be paid. I know this would make a huge impact for the counties, even if they negotiated (or better yet: received via bankruptcy trustee) a smaller fee.

      2. Carla

        Lemme tell you, in Cleveland, Ohio, alone, the banks very handily destroyed what was left of the city and most of the inner ring suburbs.

        I don’t know how you could calculate the loss accurately, but this is what I almost never read about: on every street with 3 or 4 foreclosed homes, all the other homeowners, some of whom own their properties free and clear, lose half or more of the value of their biggest single investment.

        Entire communities are decimated.

        The wealth that has been stolen from the people of this country by the banks is probably incalculable.

  6. sleeper

    Well at least one state AG is making a point.

    So I wonder -

    Why not other states especially since the state AG is usually an elected position which could garner plenty of free press attention if he/she were seen as a bit of an activist. Why are other states so reluctant to act ? Are the other states acting in concert to create a conspiracy of silence ?

    And doesn’t this put a little more pressure on our dear friend Eric Holder ? I mean if unlawful behavior is found to be the case in Mass. then does it follow that federal laws were broken ?

    And perhaps this is an opportunity for the “run government like a business” crowd since after all the banks did not pay the local transfer fees as per local registers of deeds.
    If the register of deeds is to be run as a business shouldn’t the collection of fees be paramount ? After all if the fees are not paid don’t the citizens have to pay more taxes to make up the short fall ?

    It seems that the dike is springing more and more leaks which cannot be papered over, wished away, or plugged.

  7. Tao Jonesing

    Another civil lawsuit about criminal wrongdoing. Who cares?

    By bringing a civil lawsuit, the AG is foregoing criminal actions. I don’t see how this is a win or “good news.”

    Besides, the banks can just pay the penalties by taking some of that trillion dollars in reserves the Fed handed them for free. The Fed will find a way to get the money back to the banks.

      1. Tao Jonesing

        The first step was that civil lawsuit brought by the feds against Goldman Sachs. Where are we now?

        Another first step.

        Wow. I’m really impressed.

        Many of us said what I said above when Goldman Sachs got sued. We were right then, and we’ll be proven right this time.

    1. chris m

      the burden of proof is lesser in a civil suit, and the latter doesn’t preclude the former in any event. that said, I would be interested to read the legal theory of criminality under mass law. not saying it isn’t in the public interest…on the contrary. just saying that if the civil action is a lower threshold, and if the exigence for bringing this civilly is to spur action despite the dog and pony show of never ending setllement “talks” we’ve heard about for a year now, I’m all for it.

      still, let’s talk about crime and punishment too!

      1. Tao Jonesing

        That was the excuse appeasers gave a couple of years ago when Goldman Sachs got sued instead of perp-walked.

        Choosing not to do the right thing because it’s “harder” to do is why the Rule of Law no longer applies in this farce that passes for a country. Bill Black chose to role his sleeves up and do the hard work with the S&L situation, and we were all better for it.

        Yes, in theory bringing a civil case first does not preclude bringing a criminal case later, but NOBODY in government has the stomach for bringing a criminal action against the banks, and wishing won’t make it so.

        1. Yves Smith Post author

          Goldman is extraordinarily careful about liability. It is deeply ingrained in the firm. Top partners from Sullivan & Cromwell can get Goldman VPs fired. You don;t have anything remotely like that sort of respect for legal niceties at other big firms.

          That does not mean their conduct was any better, but they’d be sure not to leave smoking guns around.

          And a state AG has more upside from taking on the banking industry than the SEC does. Being effective gets SEC budgets cut.

          1. Tao Jonesing

            Goldman is extraordinarily careful about liability. It is deeply ingrained in the firm. Top partners from Sullivan & Cromwell can get Goldman VPs fired.

            Three things.

            First, of all the i-banks, GS folks are ALWAYS the smartest people in the room. That’s my experience, at least. I like and fear GS people more than everybody else combined.

            Second, things change. To be clear, I’m not arguing that GS folks are no longer the smartest people in the room, but I don’t think they have quite the respect or worry about their law firms that they once did. Why should they? The see everybody else being less careful than they have been historically, and they get free money for ripping off the world. So what do they have to fear these days? Who is going to come after them, and what are the consequences if somebody comes after them and succeeds? At worst, the shareholder will pay a fine. The GS bonuses are safe, so why worry?

            Third, you seem to overestimate the incentive of a state AG to do something meaningful against the banks. State office is a springboard to national office, and running for national office requires a lot of “free speech” from big international corporations like the major Wall Street banks.

            The Mass. AG’s alleged “effort” to bring the major banks to heel is a MAJOR FAIL. There will be a settlement on a paltry civil penalty that shareholders will bear, and there will be no criminal follow-up.

            Do you really foresee a different result? I know you hope for something more, but you know in your heart-of-hearts that ain’t gonna happen.

            Incremental “neo-progressivism” won’t cut it, Yves. That kind of Lessig-Huffington concept may be intuitively comforting to you, but it just won’t succeed. You need to start with Bill Black’s sentiments and then become much more unreasonable

    2. Francois T

      Two points about criminal v civil lawsuit:

      1) If Mass AG would’ve brought criminal charges, rest assure that execs of the big banks would roll up the BIG guns: Best law firms, federal politicians, friendly judges and there we go up to the SCOTUS who would make goddamn sure bank execs, those incredibly important pillars of probity, virtue and business savvy, could not possibly be liable in any shape or form.

      2) The discovery process alone will show to big investors how much and how badly they got fleeced. Their cultural resistance to sue will be blown away by their own members/investors who will put the managers under tremendous pressure to seek reparations, since it will become a matter of NOT losing face…and their jobs.

      1. Francois T

        For got to add:

        The bottom line is that the Mass AG was smart to go for civil lawsuit. After all, the burden of proof is lower, and she can extract quite a few pounds of flesh.

        Moreover, she get to thoroughly embarrass the Obama Administration, Treasury and the DOJ, as well as many of her so-called colleagues who proved to be way too willing to sell out to the banksters; all this in one fell swoop.

        Can’t get any better than that!

    1. psychohistorian

      Don’t go holding your breath there. You will turn blue long before the bought congress memorializes the problem and save the perps from jail.

  8. Dan G

    Awesome. Finally. Go get em Martha Coakley. It almost seem like there was an unwritten word from the top not to go after the TBTF banks, even though the evidence seemed overwhelming. Maybe there is hope for the kleptocracy yet.

  9. CaitlinO

    I’m really glad to see this happening, but I’d be even happier if it were a criminal action.

    I want perp walks with my unicorns.

  10. GilGamesh

    Crickey. Maybe, just maybe, we will start to hear the lovely thud of bankers hitting the pavement after jumping out of the 40th floor corner office. Happy holidays, Jamie D.

  11. Conscience of a Conservative

    Free market capitalism would be more effective if the big banks had the fear of g-d in them and respected rule of law.
    I don’t care much for this idea that people who don’t pay their mortgage are owed something, but I’m even less inclined to believe that banks can disregard the law when it comes to foreclosure.

  12. lambert strether

    Frank won’t run, now this. Coincidence?

    Also, somebody should ask Warren what she thinks about this.

    “And my follow-up. Professor Warren, would you support criminal prosecution for the officers of major banks for accounting control fraud, and if not, why not?”

    1. taunger

      I’m going to a house party/teleconference for the Warren campaign saturday – thanks for the great question idea! I’ll be sure to put her response in the links comments on Sunday, if I get to ask the question.

    1. leapfrog

      MERS website is pure spin. Worse, its unreliable, riddled with errors and opaque for borrowers trying to find info.

  13. aeolius

    FYI
    I read the story both on FT and Reuters.Both somehow neglected to mention that Mass. is joining NY and Del. in
    separating from the ” 50″ state suit. Both parroted the bank line about the damage the breakaway of Mass would do.
    I was a little surprised about FT but…..

  14. G man

    Nightly Business Report had the worst guest on tonight to discuss this lawsuit. Susan Walker, it was like pulling teeth to get her to say anything.

    I emailed my recomendation that they bring on Yves when they needed a good speaker. Let’s all email them.

    Happy Holidays! looks like Mass has given us an early present. Hooray!

  15. dejavuagain

    Who is Susan Wachter, Real Estate Professor from Wharton. Tonight was the second time I have seen her on the PBS News Hours sounding more like a bank flack than a professor?

    She was commenting on the “uncertainty” created by the Massachusetts litigation etc.

      1. PL

        Wachter receives money for some of her research from the Zell/Lurie Real Estate Center at Wharton. That center is largely funded by, and fosters ties with, the real estate industry. All the big players are members. Wachter may be conflicted over what she sees happening in the industry and having research donors and friends participating in it.

      1. dejavuagain

        Thanks:

        Her is on excerpt:

        “WACHTER: This was going to be a blanket agreement that would help put behind us the robo signing controversy, the delays that are blowing – - what is going to be a long road to recovery in any case. So this raises the uncertainty across the board.”

        She seemed to be very unhappy and tense on this show. Very very tense.

        I heard her several weeks ago on another PBS show re the foreclosure crisis and she was even weaker, but, I could not find the link on the pbs web site.

  16. Nancy

    I believe the credit for Coakley finally filing this lawsuit goes to MA South Essex County Register of Deeds John O’Brien, who wrote to AG Coakley over a year ago (and many, many times since) to ask for an investigation of MERS. Calling his registry a “crime scene” he has a stack of (I kid you not) 35,000 robo-signed documents on the conference table in his office, pictured here:http://bit.ly/t0k2rb He has also asked for the registry’s money to be moved from BoA to a local bank, a step which the SoS and State Treasurer can’t seem to decide under whose jurisdiction that task belongs. John O’Brien is considered a hero in these parts and throughout the country to those of us who have skin in the game (i.e. unmodified toxic loans).

    1. IowanX

      It’s ironic that this thing hits the news the same day that Warren starts out-polling Scott Brown.

      There is a lot of meat to chew on, but I’ve always thought that the theft of recordation fees from Counties is the killer. EVERY County has been victimized by that; they all know it, but individually, no County has the horsepower to make a case. If the guy in South Essex was the catalyst for the State AG to finally get to work, he’s indeed a hero, and a role model. Reader Alpwalker says this might wind up being like the Tobacco Settlement, and I think that’s probably right, if there is any justice left.

      I also hope that somebody can calculate the value of a clear title versus a potentially clouded title–and then let’s tack that onto the damages. We spent 400 years making a legal land title system, which helps fund local government and which Hernando de Soto (the Peruvian economist, not the other guy) says is one big reason why the U.S. has a First World economy and other countries do not. It took MERS and everyone associated with the criminal enterprises which degraded our landholding and securitization recordkeeping about a decade to wreck 400 years of work. OTOH, it was a nice bubble while it lasted. It would be good to re-possess the red cars with the yellow stickers on the fenders, and put their owners into orange jumpsuits while they await trial.

    2. Jane

      Thanks for the link to the picture Nancy.

      37,000 x $5000 (per violation) = $185,000,000

      and that’s just in one country in MASS.

      This could get pretty expensive for the banksters I’d say.

      Well done Martha!

  17. mac

    It seems to me that IF folks really did not pay on their mortgage as they promised to do then, they should I would think be foreclosed on. The problem comes up when the foreclosure is not done in a proper and legal manner. The idea that people were not supposed to be foreclosed on it seems to me distorts the issue. Robo signing, bad paperwork, lack of proper registration and other issues should be dealt with by proper legal means.
    I think that making this look like people did right and lenders did wrong is not an honest portrayal.

    1. G man

      The economy crashed for all of us, not just the banks. 7.7 trillion dollars of your tax money was given to them Mac. Can you tell me why?

      And the homeowners are being treated like they don’t matter. They will get thrown out and later will have to pay for the 7.7 trillion or move to another country. Doesn’t sound fair to me. How about you Mac?

      1. readerOfTeaLeaves

        And that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
        Look at state and city budgets that are based on **property taxes** that are making vicious cuts to education; basically, we are as a society eating our own seed corn because of the mess created by rampant fraud.

        In addition, these mortgages were generated into order to be securitized. And we’ve all read repeatedly about how those securities were deliberately constructed, in some cases, to fail — then bet against (see also: Magnetar, Abacus). To fuss about someone who is not paying a mortgage they probably should not have been lent in the first place is the cart far before the horse. The homeowners are screwed, while Mozilo and the MERS board sit on their piles of lucre.

        A few people made billions off this mess, and the foreclosures are simply one obvious, overdue layer of the fraud that’s gone on. Countrywide, Wachovia, Ameriquest, WaMu were all fraud machines — the unwitting homeowners have been caught in a web of fraud, but all of us have been forced to underwrite it.

        The legal issues go to the heart of our system of legal property rights.
        What is ”ownership”?
        Is it really just someone’s forged name?

        If so, where does that leave those of us who don’t care to become forgers?
        Is our property protected, while we’re expected to continue bailing out the frauds?
        Or not?

    2. redleg

      Let’s say you haven’t paid your mortgage and I foreclose on your property. I have all of the documents that say you owe me the money, except the title to the property.
      What gives me the right to foreclose? The debt is real, but by separating the title from the note the debt has become unsecured. Someone else has title to the property, not you, not me, and they have been paid in full.
      If I foreclose anyway, I am stealing the property from whoever holds the title. And worse, there are now multiple claims to the property even w/o foreclosure (the real title owner and the one paying the mortgage).
      Yes, the “deadbeat” does not deserve to keep the house but the bank does not have the right to take the house either, and the entity that does have the right to foreclose has been paid in full and so has no standing to do so.
      So goes the CF that the banksters have brought upon us, and this is why this lawsuit is so damn important. Read up on your local adverse possession laws…

  18. 2little2late

    Those of you who have not moved your money from the TBTF banks, meet those of you who believe that borrowers caused ANY of the problems we’re witnessing in the world today. You’re all very deserving of each other. Ya’ll just make sure and sleep with one eye on your 401K meter and the other on your coin jar, cause they’re coming for you too. Soon. They’ll take your fillings as well before they leave you for dead. It’s all they know how to do.

  19. r stoltz

    Mac, you’re overlooking a number of key things. For starters, these crooks revved up the market just as they did during the dot-com bust. This set a trap for a great many borrowers, not just those who couldn’t afford the mortgage they were sold. Toxic mortgages and predatory lending was at its peak. “Where were the regulators?” When the music stopped, the weaker players got hit first, and since housing is such a big part of the economy, the economy took a dive causing people to lose their jobs and creating this huge downward spiral that continues.

    The biggest fraud in the history of money hit the entire world. How’s that for scam coordination?

    Securitization is extremely lucrative. The trusts set up to handle MBS could make up to 10 times the amount of mortgage value they held through derivatives or paper issued by firms like AIG. These trusts sell the MBS paper to investors like pension funds who were duped by sales people and the rating agencies into thinking they were buying investment grade paper(NOT). Remember AIG and Wall St banks were bailed out by taxpayers to the tune of $trillions. Bank servicers who are doing the foreclosing have no skin in the game. They loaned nothing, but are making a killing by charging borrowers exorbitant fees and by taking the proceeds from the sale of properties they foreclose. They also collect fees from the trusts.

    When the dust settles, everyone except the borrower has been paid except for some of the investors, but they’re lawyered up now. Now the borrower class either gets foreclosed, or those with deeper pockets get to continue making mortgage payments on properties that may be worth only half of their mortgage amount. What’s worse is that their homes are still losing value, and may do so for for a very, very long time.

    Forgive me for lack of detail, but this is an extremely complex scam which was being executed with great precision. Many people are becoming educated though and are starting to fight these racketeers. You have to hand it to the banks though, they sure know how to make huge money without adding any value.

    1. Lyle

      Note that the servicers do have to send the net proceeds of the foreclosure to the trusts. Of course a part of this was the incompetent choice of what to invest in by the lenders. It appears that on that side there was predation as well as on the consumer side. In particular picking on cities and other governmental entities with officials that did not understand high finance. The investment banks were selling self described bags of excrement saying it was a good thing. All the money managers were driven by a need to beat the average yield on fixed income so they went for a bit more yield and paid for it in the end. So an investor has to be as careful as a borrower in who he invests with (see the various Ponzi Schemes as an example)

    2. DWoolley

      +1 R Stoltz

      It gets better, the banks are not done. They sold these bad loans making money on sides of the transaction with no foreseeable exposure. The loans they were stuck with were picked up through AIG, Fannie, Freddie, TARP and TALF (dependant upon how the loan was held). The New York Fed paid out market peak price on these toxic assets without any negotiation. Meanwhile, the Fed and Treasury are shoveling the banks (not just American banks) over $1 trillion out the back door with the idea it would loosen up the credit. Has anyone applied for loan to help their small business along? Laughable. No need to reply, anyone in the business knows your line of credit was denied or an existing line was revoked with the balanced termed over 3 years at 6-9%. Did the Fed readily fess up to handing out money, no, they had to be sued by Bloomberg. Thank you Bloomberg, F you Geithner and Bernanke.

      The poorly underwritten loans were packaged, given a triple A rating, as mortgage backed securities which may or may not comply with the PSAs, ultimately they are trash or in industry lingo, junk status, bottom tranche. Are the investors hosed? Are the banks liable for the non-compliance with the PSA or security failures? Not in most cases. The Fed buys up the trashy securities via Maiden Lane I, II and III. Now Wall Street et. al. is made whole again. Not that it would matter, but Congressional approval be damned. F you Geithner and Bernanke. We realize you are smarter than us and you know what is best. I will not thank you, niether will the next generation.

      Next? The current Administration is going to create another backdoor bailout run through FHA and HUD. Read up on Project Rebuild, taxpayers will be paying to fix up homes which will then be bundled together and sold to investors (the same folks that dumped them on the taxpayers) at deeply discounted rates so as to offer instant equity. The caveat will include holding the homes for a given number of years to pull the homes off the market. This serves two purposes, the first is to create a false supply/demand model and the second is to warehouse the homes to fulfill any statutes of repose/limitations on title claims. Then, the Fed will start talking about and raising interest rates to add “urgency” to the purchase of a “limited” supply of homes on the market.

      We are Marionettes. Nothing more, nothing less.

      F them and the horse they rode in on.

  20. mch

    To add to the Massachusetts voices here.

    Martha Coakley is a hardworking and determined AG. h/t to John O’Brien Register of Deeds (@nancy above), if he nudged and cajoled our busy AG into this. (For non-Mass folks, the Register of Deeds is a really important position in our fair commonwealth, even if it flies under the radar of non-politicos here and sounds trivial to everyone else.)

    Martha may lack a certain imagination — her downfall vs. Scott Brown — but she is a bulldog, and she’s gotten a lot of undeserved sh#t for losing to Brown. Undeserved in that others with no more imagination and a good deal less grit have sailed through with ease here. Martha Coakley exemplifies that strain of Catholic soul that produced the Puritans. If you think that should have made her the perfect fit for MA, well, the opposite happened. She became the odd man out. Didn’t help that she’s from the “wrong part” of the state (far, far west, not at all Boston), and that she is a she.

    Martha may also have been nudged by the emergence of Elizabeth Warren. If so — well, this is the good kind of competition! This “progressive” state that has been bereft of major female public figures — can we pull this off? Win-win?

  21. Crazy Horse

    U.S. Foreclosure Fraud in a Nutshell, How Average Joe’s Home Was Stolen

    By Bill Baker
    Mr. Baker tried and won perhaps the first securitized mortgage lawsuit ever in the country in First National Bank of Elk River v. Independent Mortgage Services, 1996 WL 229236 (Minn. Ct. App. No. DX-95-1919).

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31789.html

Comments are closed.