Stacy McCain is bemoaning the destruction of the property market in Maryland caused by a ruling against the banks who created fraudulent documents. From a report he linked to:
In a major ruling Friday, a coalition of nonprofit defense lawyers and consumer protection advocates in Maryland successfully got over 10,000 foreclosure cases managed by GMAC Mortgage tossed out, because affidavits in the cases were signed by Jeffrey Stephan, the infamous GMAC “robo-signer” who attested to the authenticity of foreclosure documents without any knowledge about them, as well as signing other false statements.
What? The banks don’t have to follow the law Mr. McCain? They can lie and the lies have to be accepted? I dunno Stacy. What ever happened to your respect for the rule of law?
You are correct about the destruction of the property MARKET. The alternative is the destruction of the rule of LAW. Choose one.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Comments
8 responses to “The Rule Of What?”
Yup, I’m in agreement with you on this one.
Yup, robosigning == Fraud. You defraud someone, you get harsh penalties. Like this.
Actually, there is a deeper issue here. Those attestments to the accuracy of the foreclosure documents are there for a reason. That reason is that banks are given privileges in court based on the fact that they are financially sound and can be counted on to pay judgments etc.
If a bank submits inaccurate foreclosure documents, they are stealing a house. The GMAC robosigning is grand theft of homes on a massive scale. A market full of stolen houses is by no means a free or economical market.
This might be helpful.
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/10/when_the_wrong.html
***QUOTE***
What we call legal “technicalities” may not square with morality, but like it or not, rule of law is built upon technicalities. Like, it does not matter how egregious your conduct was in a given situation, if you are sued you have to be served properly. Likewise, if you are wholly innocent of wrongdoing, that does not allow you to ignore service of process.
In terms of the banking scandal, whether a borrower was in over his head and ought to be held accountable is a moral argument. It has nothing to do with the legal obligations of the lender or its successor in interest (or successors to a fraudulent 1000% interest in his mortgage). If they want to foreclose, they have to do it correctly. If they have obtained the mortgage fraudulently (or find themselves without the necessary documentation to proceed), they might just be SOL. That does not make the borrower a “victim” nor does it make him morally innocent, but it might just provide precisely the technicality that the borrower can use to avoid foreclosure.
We can argue over who is more morally “right” (as if one wrong is to be weighed against another wrong), but where it comes to rule of law, that’s about as relevant as whether a criminal actually did what no one can prove he did in a court of law.
Is that justice?
Depends on your definition. The law does not guarantee “justice” in the moral sense.
But isn’t the fact that these legal “technicalities” apply to everyone equally is a form of justice? If you irresponsibly signed a piece of paper and the people who want to sue you on it irresponsibly can’t find it, then justice requires that you escape being “held accountable for your actions.” If the owner(s) of the paper can’t find it and thus can’t put you out of your house, then in the legal sense they’re being held accountable, and you aren’t.
***END QUOTE***
Do you seriously mean we have to choose between the law and the property market?
I reject that choice.
Yes, and Stacy don’t take no backtalk, neither.
What I mean to say is – he allows no contradiction, no comments.
Stacy – are you afraid of the truth?
I agree with the authors here – banks must follow the law. Why7 not try putting the blame where it lies?
Stacy – do criminals lose their civil rights?
Steve, there are comments on the post. 33 at the moment.
I disagree with McCain on this one but he’s pretty straight about taking heat from what I’ve seen.
Do you seriously mean we have to choose between the law and the property market?
The property market is already garbage. I’d prefer that we did not make the law garbage as well in an attempt to bail out the property market. That’s banana republic behavior.