According to ZeroHedge (thanks to commenter BR), the House may consider over-riding Obama’s veto of the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act. 4Closurefraud says the vote is on.
This is not surprising, as it was widely reported that there was a MERS whitewash bill in the works.
But only dirty hippies would suggest this is a plutocracy.
*** Update ***
Comments suggest these two sites are wrong, because a pocket veto can not be overridden.
Just Some Fuckhead
The show must go on.
Hunter Gathers
I’m sure the teabaggers will be very upset about this.
BR
Just FYI, I called my congressperson’s office and senators’ offices, and the staff was clueless about the bill. But that figures for a bill that somehow passed on a voice vote despite the real potential problems with the bill as raised by Jennifer Brunner and others.
More to the point, though, I don’t understand how Dems in congress can even think of overriding a Democratic president’s veto.
Martin
But MERS is the private sector performing its magic. Only 40 employees! Efficiency! Innovation! Accountability! What could go wrong with free-market competitive checks and balances? Consumers will just choose a more secure mortgage recording service if MERS fucks up!
freelancer
Someone care to unpack the nomeclature in this post? I feel clueless.
What is the bill? What would it do (or undo)? etc.
Zifnab
Hurray! Bipartisanship!
Dennis SGMM
@BR:
Did you type that with a straight face? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ is why.
kdaug
Brilliant! Now a robo-signer in Puerto Rico can do the notarizations, be paid $2/hr, and the banks can present actual, legit docs in court.
It’s a win/win/win!
Oh. Wait…
Mike M
A pocket veto cannot be overridden. The House was not in session and the President did not sign the bill within the required period. As a result, the bill is dead and must be introduced anew.
BR
@freelancer:
Here’s what Sec. Brunner said about it (repost from other thread):
Steve
By a strange coincidence, a clearcut case of notary fraud just crossed my desk today. Warranty deed witnessed and notarized in 1999, but for some reason it wasn’t recorded with the county until 2008. Upon closer examination, the deed refers to several documents that didn’t even exist until 2002, and a land survey that was conducted in 2002, so it probably wasn’t signed in 1999, now was it?
I’m sure there was nothing nefarious, because the deed is just a company selling a piece of property to the company’s managers for $1…
freelancer
@BR:
Okay. That’s fucking bad. God, it sucks being a Democrat.
slag
@Steve:
Ha! Awesome.
BR
@Steve:
Do you think it was intentional? After reading the recent Taibbi piece and the details he included about the ridiculous time warps and holes in the documents the banks were presenting, I have a hard time believing any paperwork on property these days…
Brachiator
@BR:
Everyone insane appears to be jumping on the bandwagon to insure that the Obama administration does not have any significant achievements.
Even if it puts the country at risk.
We have more nuclear and other military hardware than any other nature on Earth. We have so much firepower that even if we used stem cell research to create a new group of humans, seeded them on Mars, gave them some of our weapons and started a war, we would still have a shitload left over.
You would think that reducing nuclear arms would be a good thing. Even Reagan did it.
But no.
Note also how the Republicans, you know, those guys who are so hot to reduce federal spending, want to allocate more funds to “modernizing” the US nuclear arsenal.
Kryptik
@BR:
@Dennis SGMM:
Not to mention ‘Bipartisanship!’ and ‘Will of the peoples!’
Between that and the obvious $$$, I’m pretty sure the 2/3rds mark will be breached rather handily. But hey, I’m an optimistic, cheery sort.
kdaug
“Inside, you can feel the difference. Outside, you can see the difference.”
(OK, admittedly obscure).
Bob Loblaw
No offense, but you might want to wait for more credible sources than Neil Garfield and Zero Hedge. ZH has never yet found a market-busting conspiracy theory they didn’t want to hug and squeeze to death.
MikeJ
@Mike M:
Why on earth would you be concerned about facts and stuff when we’ve got a good hate going?
cyntax
The problem with democracy isn’t that you get the government you deserve, but that you suffer under the government others deserve.
BR
Good, and I hope that’s the case, and sorry for any false alarm.
Hopefully the MERS whitewash bill isn’t going to happen either, but we should probably keep an eye out for it.
BR
@Mike M:
So I just checked Thomas and govtrack and they both list the bill as “vetoed by the president”. Do they list pocket vetoes the same way?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03808: way?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03808:
Ruckus
@Brachiator:
The old saying “Follow the Money”, we don’t need that anymore.
It’s been replaced with “To find the Money, find a Politician”.
BR
Gah, here’s the right link:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3808
Bob Loblaw
@Brachiator:
This would be why you don’t negotiate with terrorists.
But hey, both Obama and those dastardly Russians get to be totally humiliated, so why the fuck would Republicans give a damn about any other outcomes to their reckless choices? If any shit goes sideways because of this, they’ll just have another awesome chip to play against Obama in 2012. Win win.
Nutella
Well, if you look at the the LOC site it says
so something is going on.
Steve
I wouldn’t be so sure on the pocket veto thing. The status is ambiguous, because the President BOTH pocket vetoed it and returned it to Congress with a veto message, just to make sure. This was probably the prudent move on his part, but someone could argue that since there was a veto message it’s a regular veto, full steam ahead.
The Congressional Record reflects that the House is talking about taking this bill up again, at a minimum. This isn’t just a couple bloggers spewing a crazy theory that the bill is back. That said, I doubt both houses will override the veto in any event.
oondioline
Zero Hedge fail again.
Stop reading that shit, man.
The Other Chuck
How the hell do you “pocket veto” *and* return the bill to Congress? And why would a president want to do that anyway? Quoth that scrap of paper:
No “the president must use his special veto pen or it doesn’t count” clause. Returning it with objections _is_ a veto. Regardless, there’s no way in hell that both chambers have the 2/3 requirement to override.
General Stuck
@Steve:
I think this is may be right, and didn’t we discuss this here a while back? Maybe not, but sending the bill back meets the requirement of a regular veto, I think. But it is murky because court decisions on this have other qualifications, like are congress members in a position to vote, or in town, or not.
John Cole
@kdaug: I before e except after c.
Stop. stop. Inside.
Person of Choler
“But only dirty hippies would suggest this is a plutocracy.”
From one who bathes every Saturday whether he needs to or not: The suckers who made the loans that couldn’t be paid back or the fools who bought the packaged crap mortgages and didn’t bother with due diligence or proper legal documentation of ownership changes deserve to eat their losses.
And congress (Democrat-controlled the first time, half-Republican this time) has no business mitigating the well-deserved consequences of stupidity by people who should know better.
Steve
@The Other Chuck: The reason for the procedural confusion is that Congress technically never adjourned, because they held 5-minute pro forma sessions each day to prevent recess appointments (another bit of silliness, but let’s set that aside). Now, if Congress is adjourned and Obama sits on the bill for 10 days, it’s pocket vetoed, that much we know. But if Congress technically isn’t adjourned, then the bill automatically becomes law after 10 days – exactly the opposite of what the President wants.
Supreme Court decisions on the pocket veto power from like 100 years ago suggest that Obama had the power to pocket veto this bill, because Congress actually has to be open for legislative business – a 5-minute session with one guy holding the gavel doesn’t count. But he wanted to be sure, so that’s why he pocket vetoed AND sent the bill back with a veto message purely as a precautionary measure.
John O
Well, the good news is that whatever it is, John McCain is either for or against it.
I have a special place in my heart for John McCain just because of Palin, and Stevey B. put two videos together that has to have John and Cindy at each others’ throats, and that got me worked up enough to blog about it.
OnT: Of course we live in a plutocracy. Only a moron can’t see it.
BR
@Steve:
Well, I guess either way we’ll find out what the house has in mind for the bill tomorrow. And given that the sponsor was two of the bluest of blue dogs, I’m sure they’d push for a veto override if possible.
kdaug
@John Cole: Knew I liked you, Cole.
Out for billiards. Back later.
mikefromArlington
There was a banking committee hearing on this this afternoon on C-SPAN. They were processing the titles without properly reporting it to the counties, etc…
But, the requirements vary from state to state according to one of the lawyers at the hearing. The guy from MERS sounded pretty nervous about the whole thing tbh.
Montysano
@Person of Choler:
A component of due diligence used to be to check and see what rating the security was given by the rating agencies. As it turns out, the rating agencies were in on the grift, handing out AAA ratings like candy at Halloween (and so far, mysteriously, no one has gone to prison). Also, from what I’ve read, a prospectus would tell you nothing about the state of ownership of the bundled mortgages.
All over the country/world, lawyers who represent the buyers of this toxic crap are sharpening their knives. We’re just getting started, folks.
Here’s a question: in several places, I’ve read that the Fed, as part of QE2, is buying treasuries from the banks (at a significant markup), rather than directly from the govt. At this point, my ability to comprehend all of this has reached its limit. Can anyone help?
DPirate
@Montysano: Nope.
Ruckus
I’m pretty sure that at the end of all of this, the people who win will be those who are liquid enough to buy any house they want with cash. The losers will be everyone else. The winners will be made whole in some fashion and the losers will be sliced up like a Veg-O-Matic commercial.
Roger Moore
@Brachiator:
FTFY.
JohnR
I’m sorry; you must be confused – IOKIYAAR clearly trumps any other silly rule. I’m pretty sure that’s in the Constitution somewhere.
Maude
@Ruckus:
If the mortgage and the note have been separated, all the money won’t help.
There’s no clear ownership of the property.
Linda Featheringill
@Montysano:
I don’t know whether they are or not.
But if the Fed did buy treasuries from banks, the banks would wind up with more liquidity [is that the word?].
I suppose this is supposed to encourage the banks to make loans for startups and expansion and therefore increasing hiring. Haven’t we heard this before?
Person of Choler
@Montysano: You’re absolutely right about the rating agencies, but it is convenient for investors to make rating agencies the scapegoat for stupid investments. Anyone who had any financial industry experience knows that the rated entities pay for their ratings and ought to be accordingly suspicious of rating information. I despair of ever understanding why a sane investor would give credence to rating agency information after experiences with Enron, Long Term Capital Management, and other fiascoes.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Bob Loblaw: There is also one other problem with ZH. There are probably three or four people that write under the Tyler Durden moniker. One of them seems to lean Democratic, but the others all seem to be Ron Paul supporting anti-Fed conspiracy theorists. And most of them hate Krugman with a white, hot passion too. And they let RWNJ small time Hollywood movie director write there(Gonzalo Lira).
Ruckus
@Maude:
Absolutely.
But not the point.
Clear ownership will accrue to those with money. Because we will see something like amnesty for the banks and originators and large scale investors. What won’t get sorted out will be everything else. Many will lose their homes (this has already happened, linked on this blog before) that they shouldn’t because they don’t have the money to buy the legal protection. For many the paperwork will just not be available in any form that follows what should have happened. See Steve @11 above. It will be faked, counterfeited, made up, and the courts have no way to check. And like Florida, I’ll bet they won’t care enough to take a hard look at anything provided by the defendant. Hence my prior post.
Dennis SGMM
@Linda Featheringill:
Oh yeah.
We can’t break up the TBTF banks because then they won’t be competitive and they won’t be able to loan money to business.
We have to allow the banks to mark their phony-baloney assets to book rather than mark to market because they’ll lose liquidity and then they won’t be able to…
Next:
We have to turn over the whole fucking country to the banks because then they’ll have the liquidity to loan sparrow-shit-sized bits of it back to us.
Ash Can
@Person of Choler: Do you have any financial industry experience yourself? If you do, you know that the rating agencies were trusted to the point where if they even signaled a change in rating — even a minor increment — it was enough to make a stock skyrocket or tank. You would also know that the ratings agencies were considered the gold standard, the last word in whether or not a stock was even worth looking at. And you’d know that the revelation that the companies received their ratings for pay is a relatively recent one. Perhaps there were a few insiders in New York who knew what was going on all along, but when ratings changes are enough to move the market, it by definition is not common knowledge that the ratings are worthless.
SiubhanDuinne
(I expect this is O/T, sorry)
Heh. I just got a call from the DCCC while I was reading this thread. They asked me for $300. After I stopped laughing, I said that I had no plans to contribute any money this year, and that even if Dems won every contested recount it still wouldn’t make a difference in the partisan balance. They said, well, but we would have a *bigger* minority. I said, I see what’s happened in the years we’ve had a majority, I’m fed to the teeth with every Democrat save Obama and Pelosi. She said thank you and hung up quickly.
jake the snake
I for one welcome our cartoondog overlord.
Michael
@freelancer:
Basically, its purpose is to attempt a cure for the fact that MERS fucked up the security on the loans. My position is that they’re all now unsecured because of all the market cost-cutting brilliance.
Basically, it is a bought legislative fix – you know, socializing the risk while privatizing the profits again.
The Republic of Stupidity
@Montysano:
Indeed… indeed…
Talk about going mano-a-mano in the Steel Death Cage…
For once the too-big-to-fail banks are going to lock up w/ entities that actually have the means and resources to go toe to toe w/ them… this isn’t a bunch of DFHs trying to take down Chase… we’re talking national governments and the folks who manage huge pools of other people’s money.
I, for one, am looking forward to it…
Michael
@Maude:
Au contraire, ownership is clear. The debtor owns the dirt.
What isn’t owned is any security on the note – that’s dead. All those bright white boys cutting corners and costs over at MERS on pretty much every commercially traded note for the past 10 years shanked it. The note is unsecured, so the lender is stuck having to sue on breach, then it has to file a judgment lien, and then it can attempt to foreclose on that judgment lien, at the back of the line of other lienholders (and subject to all relevant exemptions).
The Republic of Stupidity
@Michael:
I hate to admit it, but I’m not quite sure what all of that exactly means… am I safe assuming it represents…
???
That’s why I like this place… I learn such interesting tidbits of information all the time…
Michael
Think of it like this – for the past couple of centuries, the law on mortgages has been very clear. In order to ensure integrity in the title system the provisions required great specificity because over the years, it was learned that laxity creates instability and windows for the commission of fraud against other creditors.
Thus, in order to have a note coupled to the security of a mortgage, the mortgage lender had to actually provide real consideration for the obligation – nominees or strawmen didn’t count. Also, while notes were always freely assignable, those assignments required the simultaneous recording of the mortgage assignment. This guaranteed the ability to identify the mortgage lender for eventual release of the obligation on satisfaction, also, it allowed junior lienholders to identify the proper parties to include in any of their litigation. What MERS did was to detach the notes from the mortgages, rendering the security interest null.
While the notes (assuming they can be found) are still enforcible, the underlying debts are now deemed unsecure – so any action for breach of those notes can proceed to judgment, and any judgment lien on the property would now come in behind (or after the date) of every other judgment or mechanics’ lien. That’s huge, all by itself.
Also, each state provides certain basic exemptions from attachment, even if bankruptcy protection isn’t invoked. That, too, really impacts the bank position in a crapped out MERS foreclosure.
Steve
@Michael:
Basically, you’re completely talking out of your ass. This bill was introduced years ago, long before the housing bubble even popped, so your stated “purpose” is just fantasy.
There are legitimate reasons to have questions about this bill, but no one has shown that it actually does anything bad, at least not yet. It certainly doesn’t “legalize fraud” or anything of the sort. A large majority of states already recognize out-of-state notaries and won’t even be affected by this bill, that’s how shrewd and evil it is.