We Won! Bill to Retroactively Immunize Mortgage Fraud Defeated → Washingtons Blog
We Won! Bill to Retroactively Immunize Mortgage Fraud Defeated - Washingtons Blog

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

We Won! Bill to Retroactively Immunize Mortgage Fraud Defeated

A friend on the Hill just wrote me the following:

HR 3808 Veto Upheld

HR 3808 went down.

Most Democrats voted to uphold Obama’s veto. Nearly all Republicans voted to override Obama’s veto.

I’m somewhat surprised at the roll call, I hadn’t expected the Republicans to so overtly take this position.

Congratulations to everyone who called their congress members to demand that this blatant attempt to legalize mortgage fraud be defeated.

Here's the roll call on the vote (and see this).


  1. Yes, finally a victory!

    Hurrah! 2010 so far have been a record of defeat!

    Who would have believed that President Obama would save the day with a pocket veto?

    I don’t think the banksters will kill him for his touch of INTEGRITY but I am sure they are not happy with him. Obama gives us HOPE after all.

    As far as the house vote is concerned, the Democrats and the Republicans vote was exposed and tied to each representative so that everyone could see how they voted. The rats that passed the first HR 3808 chose a party line vote to remain hidden and to be safe the second time around.

    Who knows what Justice tomorrow will bring, maybe we will see the exercise of the Rule of Law after all and real prosecutions, not of the underlings that have already bit the dust as sacrifice, but the real perpetrators of the criminal bankster mortgage fraud at the very top.

    State level jurisprudence is a beginning. Federal prosecution would be even better.

    Either way, the privately owned Federal Reserve Central Bank through QE1, 2, 3, 4 will buy up American assets, mortgages and debt for free; they still own us, morphed or not.

  2. Yep won this round but they will be back.

  3. Obama didn't "pocket veto" the bill because he's a nice guy. He vetoed the bill so it wouldn't come up before elections. By passing the bill, but giving it a temporary veto by the Bankster's Best Friend, he was just signaling them that they need to wait till after the election. It will be passed by this lame-duck Congress. Along with the Anti-Small Farmer Bill favored by Monsanto and Big Agribusiness and the Screw the Internet Bill favored by the big media corporations.

  4. I agree with David Dyden's analysis here that basically there was no chance of the veto ever being disposed, but rather the vote was made to assert the authority of the Congress over "pocket vetos". Pelosi did the same thing under Bush when he tried to ignore the Constitution with pocket veto shenanigans.

  5. My question why are we having to work, call, mail, visit these reps to have them follow the law. Another question I have is where are the loans in all these mortgage foreclosures ? The banks are foreclosing on what exactly ? You signed a promissory note, this paid for the home. The bank endorsed your promissory with a stamp, made it their own and used that to payoff the home, then charges you interest for a loan ?

    Here's an example of this process is just like You call me and say "Hey, I need to borrow $10,000...So I say "Great I can do that what kind of collateral do you have. You say
    " Well I've got a diamond ring it's worth $10,000" You give me the ring, I sell it, put the money in my checking account then write you a check for $10,000 along with a contract that says your going to pay me back $10,000 with interest for the next 20 years.

    What we just did was an exchange, I didn't loan you anything. That's what happened with the mortgage you signed. I've written an affidavit that asks the bank these questions in detail if you want real answers. Write riceowlex@gmail.com
    use bank in the subject line.

  6. That's not what collateral is at all... What would be the point of giving someone your collateral to sell? The lender only gets the collateral if you don't pay the loan back.

  7. @Corey - I think that's the point. The banks took that promissory note you signed, offered you a loan (w/interest) to pay off, with you assuming that this means you owned the property you just acquired. Where Raising money with Google's example comes in is here: the banksters took the promissory notes (that you and millions of other people continue to pay for), and bundled them into mortgage backed securities and whatnot, then sold them off around the world to people. People around the world get ripped off by investing in something that doesn't exist, while hiomeowners get ripped off by continuing to pay off the loans for their homes, when they should be paying off the investors abroad who just bought their homes out from under their noses. The banks don't really own shit, as they've effectively sold us all out in the name of profit, but all the money is flowing their direction (at the investors and homeowners expense).

    This is how I have (recently) come to understand the whole situation, so if I am wrong let me know, but I think that's what he was getting at with the whole ring exchange example, Corey.


→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.