Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:33 pm by globalturbo
BOMBSHELL! BOMBSHELL! BOMBSHELL!- FDIC SUES THE BIG BANKS FOR MASSIVE SECURITIES FRAUD!
Posted on September 16, 2012
September 10th, 2012
Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
Source: Matt Weidner – Fighting for the American People
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.
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.
Complaint-2516
Complaint-2517
Complaint-2522
Thanks to: http://jhaines6.wordpress.com
Posted on September 16, 2012
September 10th, 2012
Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
Source: Matt Weidner – Fighting for the American People
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.
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.
Complaint-2516
Complaint-2517
Complaint-2522
Thanks to: http://jhaines6.wordpress.com
