Skip to main content

According to a number of sources mortgage notes underlying securitizations were in many or possibly most cases not properly forwarded to the trusts as required by the PSAs and the REMIC regulations. Trustees were obliged to, and did, file annual certifications that the notes had been properly transferred, when, in many cases, they had not. This raises some questions for me. Help me out here if you can.

1)    Where were these certifications filed?

2)    Are they available for inspection by the general public?

3)    If not available to the public, who has access to these certifications?

4)    Are they required to be filed with the IRS?

5)    Are they filed under oath?

6)    For each trust, what are the names of the persons who signed the certifications on behalf of the trustee?

7)    Are any of the persons who signed such certifications lawyers?

8)    If lawyers, where are they licensed?

9)    If lawyers, who has the authority to impose sanctions for professional misconduct in the jurisdiction in which they are licensed?

10)    Has any entity anywhere with authority to impose sanctions for professional misconduct actually taken action against any lawyer for signing off on false certifications?

11)    Who has standing to file grievances (for professional misconduct, not claims for damages) against lawyers for signing off on false certifications?

12)    If persons signing off on false certifications were not lawyers, were they licensed by any kind of professional body?

13)    Has any professional association anywhere taken action against any licensee anywhere to discipline them for professional misconduct in connection with the signing of false certifications?

14)    If the certifications were filed under oath with any branch of the federal government, is it not a criminal offense to knowingly file false certifications?

15)    Has anyone, anywhere, been investigated or criminally prosecuted for filing false certifications in connection with botched securitizations?

16)    Has anyone, anywhere, been held accountable for professional misconduct of any kind associated with botched securitizations?

17)    Are the same jokers who signed the false certifications still being allowed to sign certifications today?

18)    Who would continue to accept certifications from someone who had repeatedly filed false certifications?

19)    Has anyone, anywhere, lost their job as a result of signing false certifications?

20)    Has anyone, anywhere, who signed certifications which are now known to be false, been inconvenienced in any way by the discovery that they had perjured themselves?

Just asking.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dmhlt 66, Phoebe Loosinhouse

    " 'In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." Elwood P. Dowd

    by paulbkk on Wed Aug 31, 2011 at 01:40:41 AM PDT

  •  I know nothing about certificates or (0+ / 0-)

    certification of asset transactions or transfers.  However, our legal system is largely an honor system.  People take oaths and are expected to keep them.  If they don't, it's difficult to prove bad intent, because they may have been prevented by ignorance of unforeseen events.
    The other problem we have is that the criminal law presumes not just intent (bad on purpose), but an overt act (doing something) for a measurable or tangible personal benefit.  Not acting is hard to prosecute as a crime, as became evident in the no administration perpetrated by Bush/Cheney.  Power is not considered a personal benefit, unless it's also measurable in money.  So, if people were negligent and didn't enrich themselves, it's almost impossible to prove a crime. Bad acts perpetrated on behalf of someone else are also difficult to prosecute, which is why we had to invent a special category (RICO) to deal with the mob. When the Capitol Hill gang engage in extortion to secure their longevity in office (their power base), it's difficult to confront in a legal sense.  The power addicted just have to be removed from office.  That's why the framers designated a two-year review.

    The Federal Tort Claims Act of 1947 did make it possible to hold public officials accountable for negligent behavior, even lax attention to the obligations of their offices.  The Congressional response has been to privatize as many of their official functions as possible, so they can triangulate and keep their hands clean.  It's not a new tactic.  Pontius Pilate famously used it by passing the buck to the Sanhedrin.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuzZQ8LTE2c

    by hannah on Wed Aug 31, 2011 at 03:19:34 AM PDT

    •  where is Bar Counsel? (0+ / 0-)

      Yes, it's difficult to mount a successful criminal prosecution for fraud. But while I mention criminal prosecution, I really want to focus on the bodies that are responsible for maintaining professional standards. Gross negligence is grounds for disciplinary action by Bar Counsel. Where is the 'self policing' by professional organizations? Where is the Attorney Greivance Commission? Why haven't they acted against lawyers who violate the Code of Professional Responsibility?

      " 'In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." Elwood P. Dowd

      by paulbkk on Wed Aug 31, 2011 at 03:50:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site