By CARYN ROUSSEAU, Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO - The nation's biggest mortgage lender engaged in "unfair and deceptive" practices to get homeowners to apply for risky mortgages far beyond their means, according to a civil lawsuit Illinois' attorney general planned to file Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The lawsuit against Countrywide Financial Corp. — planned for the same day shareholders were scheduled to vote on the company's takeover by Bank of America Corp. — stems from information from documents subpoenaed by the state beginning last fall, as the number of foreclosures nationwide began to skyrocket.
"Countrywide's conduct has contributed to the high number of foreclosures in Illinois and caused significant harm to the public, the market, and scores of Illinois borrowers and homeowners," according to a draft of the lawsuit provided by Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office Tuesday evening.
A spokeswoman for the Calabasas, Calif.-based company declined to comment on the litigation.
Madigan spokeswoman Robyn Ziegler said the lawsuit would be filed Wednesday in Cook County Circuit Court. In the complaint, Madigan says that Countrywide offered unfair loans with risky features, used misleading sales techniques and encouraged employees and brokers through incentives to sell more high-risk loans.
"Unfair and deceptive advertising, marketing and sales practices were utilized to push mortgages, while hiding the real costs and risks to borrowers, including enticing borrowers with low teaser rates, low monthly payments and 'no closing cost' loans that failed to make clear and conspicuous," according to the lawsuit, which also names Countrywide Chairman and Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo as a defendant.
Among other things, Madigan wants Countrywide to pay restitution to all affected consumers who lost their homes or loans. She also asks for 90 days to review any loans that are in or near foreclosure to see if borrowers can pursue affordable options.
Countrywide, like many in the mortgage industry, has suffered under the weight of the subprime fallout as thousands of customers default on home loans.
Defaults and subsequent foreclosures have been most pronounced on adjustable-rate mortgages made to borrowers with past credit problems. The subprime loans typically require a lower monthly payment in the first two or three years before resetting to higher interest rates and much larger payments.
As the nation's largest mortgage lender and servicer, Countrywide has been under scrutiny by federal and state authorities. It also faces numerous other lawsuits related to its lending practices.
Countrywide agreed in January to sell itself to Bank of America Corp. for around $4 billion in stock. The deal is now valued at around $2.8 billion, reflecting a decline in Bank of America's stock price over the last six months.
The acquisition received clearance from the Federal Reserve earlier this month, and Countrywide shareholders are scheduled to vote on it Wednesday morning during a meeting at the lender's headquarters.
Assuming shareholders give their approval, Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America has said it could close the deal as early as July 1.
___
AP Business Writer Alex Veiga in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
___
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Woman Who Thought She Could
Of course Hillary had a better chance against McCain than Obama. However, the Democratic party seems to have given up on the presidency. Obama's only selling point is that he's an underdog. American hasn't officially had a "black" president, so that is what he has to offer.
As a politician, his record is one of intense mediocrity. His only marketable quality is the color of his skin. This is unfortunate for the democrats. In a presidential election you hope to have candidates that are appealing to both parties. There is no sense in finding the candidate that your party likes if he's not going to get elected.
It's one thing to win a party nomination, but quite another to win a general election. In this case, Hillary was the candidate with the highest potential to win general, but was overshadowed by the parties internal enamor with Obama.
Do the Democrats simply not want the presidency during these troubles times? Are they attempting to show at the general election by placing a solid second place runner in a two man race? What would be the advantage other than avoiding responsibility during troubled times? Could it be another chip in the game to say we've been ignored by racists when the truth is they put up a candidate with nothing more than race to offer?
Of course many Democrats will say that racism or corruption prevented them from winning this election. The truth however, is that the Democrats purposely created the scenario for failure. Sadly, the country and the Republicans will receive the blame.
When people complain about racism or corruption, just remind them that they had a good chance before they decided to lose with Obama. It's not likely that they didn't understand that a majority of Democrats chasing eye candy is not the target audience for a general election.
As a politician, his record is one of intense mediocrity. His only marketable quality is the color of his skin. This is unfortunate for the democrats. In a presidential election you hope to have candidates that are appealing to both parties. There is no sense in finding the candidate that your party likes if he's not going to get elected.
It's one thing to win a party nomination, but quite another to win a general election. In this case, Hillary was the candidate with the highest potential to win general, but was overshadowed by the parties internal enamor with Obama.
Do the Democrats simply not want the presidency during these troubles times? Are they attempting to show at the general election by placing a solid second place runner in a two man race? What would be the advantage other than avoiding responsibility during troubled times? Could it be another chip in the game to say we've been ignored by racists when the truth is they put up a candidate with nothing more than race to offer?
Of course many Democrats will say that racism or corruption prevented them from winning this election. The truth however, is that the Democrats purposely created the scenario for failure. Sadly, the country and the Republicans will receive the blame.
When people complain about racism or corruption, just remind them that they had a good chance before they decided to lose with Obama. It's not likely that they didn't understand that a majority of Democrats chasing eye candy is not the target audience for a general election.
Friday, May 9, 2008
obama's "Bitter Half"
She seems to be setting a new precedent in how a candidate's wife wrangles with the media. Of course, if she's catering to the disenfranchised, she may very well be on to something.
Traditionally, the candidates don't spend much time whining. However, this seems to be the big thing she has to offer. Does she envision singing a verse of America the Bitterful the next time she has a camera in her face?
The interesting thing to me is how many people surrounding obama are capitalizing on the negatives. Historically, a campaign defined consisting of "our country sucks" would not get a lot of momentum. However, for some reason, directly reaching the disenfranchised is working well for votes.
Unfortunately, obama is a politician. As such, he knows that he will never have the power to achieve any of the change he promises. At the same time, he is smart enough to know that he can use the lies to get votes. Of course, he would also be able to blame the lack of change on somebody else when it didn't work out.
In the end, the disenfranchised say disenfranchised. If they buy into the hype before and after, then they become indignantly disenfranchised to a level that matches that of Rev Wright and obamas bitter half
Traditionally, the candidates don't spend much time whining. However, this seems to be the big thing she has to offer. Does she envision singing a verse of America the Bitterful the next time she has a camera in her face?
The interesting thing to me is how many people surrounding obama are capitalizing on the negatives. Historically, a campaign defined consisting of "our country sucks" would not get a lot of momentum. However, for some reason, directly reaching the disenfranchised is working well for votes.
Unfortunately, obama is a politician. As such, he knows that he will never have the power to achieve any of the change he promises. At the same time, he is smart enough to know that he can use the lies to get votes. Of course, he would also be able to blame the lack of change on somebody else when it didn't work out.
In the end, the disenfranchised say disenfranchised. If they buy into the hype before and after, then they become indignantly disenfranchised to a level that matches that of Rev Wright and obamas bitter half
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The Obama Wright Connection
To listen to some people, this scandal is a bad thing for Obama.
However, that is not true. This "scandal" is exactly what Obama needs right now. Black voters need to know that he's "still black" and not some "uncle tom" that is "too white" to represent black people. At the same time, white voters need to be assured that he's not another "kill whitey" Black Panther in sheeps clothing.
The current scandal allows him to appease both sides of the argument. The black voters will say "we see how he realy is, he's down, he's just playing the white mans game in denouncing Wright". The white voters will say "there ya go, he's standing up against the anti american!"
Both voting groups have now been given exactly what they need to rationalize how the candidate is more like they want him to be. Neither group needs to "think" about him or his candidacy because he's offered enough to both groups to fuel their preconceived notion, hopes, and desires about what he would offer.
Furthermore, the scandal gives him more time at the water cooler, more time on the blogs, and more time in peoples heads. You can be sure that he's happy to be in the news again, as there is no such thing as bad publicity.
I still think the entire situation is designed to ultimately give the candidacy to Hillary. However, him losing at this point allows for gracous speaches about how "close we came" and what should have been done in retrospect. In addition to appeasing his followers, it provides a convenient tranfer of DEM campaign energy from Obama to Clinton.
They should be able to come together after the nomination is officialy decided and work together to get their followers (supporters) to lament the scandals, but accept the victor.
the dem campaign so far has made for great tv. hopefully the writers have been well compensated!
However, that is not true. This "scandal" is exactly what Obama needs right now. Black voters need to know that he's "still black" and not some "uncle tom" that is "too white" to represent black people. At the same time, white voters need to be assured that he's not another "kill whitey" Black Panther in sheeps clothing.
The current scandal allows him to appease both sides of the argument. The black voters will say "we see how he realy is, he's down, he's just playing the white mans game in denouncing Wright". The white voters will say "there ya go, he's standing up against the anti american!"
Both voting groups have now been given exactly what they need to rationalize how the candidate is more like they want him to be. Neither group needs to "think" about him or his candidacy because he's offered enough to both groups to fuel their preconceived notion, hopes, and desires about what he would offer.
Furthermore, the scandal gives him more time at the water cooler, more time on the blogs, and more time in peoples heads. You can be sure that he's happy to be in the news again, as there is no such thing as bad publicity.
I still think the entire situation is designed to ultimately give the candidacy to Hillary. However, him losing at this point allows for gracous speaches about how "close we came" and what should have been done in retrospect. In addition to appeasing his followers, it provides a convenient tranfer of DEM campaign energy from Obama to Clinton.
They should be able to come together after the nomination is officialy decided and work together to get their followers (supporters) to lament the scandals, but accept the victor.
the dem campaign so far has made for great tv. hopefully the writers have been well compensated!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Supporting Obama Is Supporting Terrorism!
If you provide money to the Obama Campaign, you are directly supporting terrorism!
More to the point, if you provide money to any policital campaign, you are directly supporting terrorism.
When undertaking any investigation, you're always told to "follow the money". Although we already know that the utopian "world peace" is not possible given the racial and cultural barriers on our planet, we also know that the wars and police actions of modern society do not occur without help.
Who profits from these actions?
Since WW1, large financial instutions have profited, often making money from both sides of the conflict. In America, the profiteering entered a different type of low with the coordinated bank efforts that crashed the stock market and allowed subversive tactics to hand the money of USA over to the FED.
Our political partys were then converted to smoke and mirrors, a publicly viewable show of nonsense where nothing gets done that's not ordained by the powers that be.
To this day, our political system is a distration which occupies the thoughts and minds of Americans while the real power, behind the scenes, continues without check or balance.
As we enter new elections, we can easily get caught up in the candidates. However, we are forgetting that these candidates do what they are told when elected, and the very process of making a big deal about them keeps us "talking" about thing instead of getting them done.
Supporting this financially is giving money to the terrorist that control the puppets we call candidates.
And don't forget, if we learned anything from JFK, it's that breaking ranks and not doing what you're told as president is a sure way to get yourself killed.
Long story short, by engaging in politics and ignoring the fact that it's a grand illusion, we are directly supporting the people that know us as sheep while they continue to steal our land and profit from killing our children under false pretense.
More to the point, if you provide money to any policital campaign, you are directly supporting terrorism.
When undertaking any investigation, you're always told to "follow the money". Although we already know that the utopian "world peace" is not possible given the racial and cultural barriers on our planet, we also know that the wars and police actions of modern society do not occur without help.
Who profits from these actions?
Since WW1, large financial instutions have profited, often making money from both sides of the conflict. In America, the profiteering entered a different type of low with the coordinated bank efforts that crashed the stock market and allowed subversive tactics to hand the money of USA over to the FED.
Our political partys were then converted to smoke and mirrors, a publicly viewable show of nonsense where nothing gets done that's not ordained by the powers that be.
To this day, our political system is a distration which occupies the thoughts and minds of Americans while the real power, behind the scenes, continues without check or balance.
As we enter new elections, we can easily get caught up in the candidates. However, we are forgetting that these candidates do what they are told when elected, and the very process of making a big deal about them keeps us "talking" about thing instead of getting them done.
Supporting this financially is giving money to the terrorist that control the puppets we call candidates.
And don't forget, if we learned anything from JFK, it's that breaking ranks and not doing what you're told as president is a sure way to get yourself killed.
Long story short, by engaging in politics and ignoring the fact that it's a grand illusion, we are directly supporting the people that know us as sheep while they continue to steal our land and profit from killing our children under false pretense.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Who Owns Your House?
If you're a renter, you may think this is an easy question. You probably think it's the guy that you're renting from. If you're a "home owner", you probably think it's still an easy answer. Either you think you own it, or you (more closer to the truth) think that the bank you have your mortgage through owns it.
However, those answers are wrong in all cases. The people that control the money issued in our country are the ones that own the land. They have the power (and have exercised it in the past) to take your land, even if you own it outright and carry no mortgage.
The government essentialy own and controls everything. Or so we'd be led to think. However, the government is "owned" by the larger financial institutions, particularly "The FED" that we hear so much about. You know, the group that supposedly "insures" the money that we call "ours".
The money belongs to the FED, and the people that control the money control everything.
However, those answers are wrong in all cases. The people that control the money issued in our country are the ones that own the land. They have the power (and have exercised it in the past) to take your land, even if you own it outright and carry no mortgage.
The government essentialy own and controls everything. Or so we'd be led to think. However, the government is "owned" by the larger financial institutions, particularly "The FED" that we hear so much about. You know, the group that supposedly "insures" the money that we call "ours".
The money belongs to the FED, and the people that control the money control everything.
The Necessary Evils
Democrats: The overly good guy that want's to help everybody out regardless of how much it hurts society in the long run.
Republicans: The money grubbing power mongers that love kicking the little guy and enforcing demanding rules about everything from murder to morality.
In one corner, you have the supposeded camp for preserving our nation, it's people, and it's economy. In the other corner, we have the supposed camp for giving away everything, ignoring and cheapening the sacrifices of our forefathers, and leading society down a path to destruction in exchange for some short lived victorys.
However, we've seen in history that our two party system does little more than provide a distration. These two partys fight over everything, do little or nothing, and allow the real powers to continue doing their things in the background w/o attention.
Why would the American people allow the government to be taken over by unnamed individuals if they actualy knew it was happening? Without the smoke and mirrors of the two party system, "we the people" might actualy notice that type of thing instead of bickering about who get's a blowjob in the whitehouse or who gave a friend a free pass out of trouble.
Yes, the people with the money (hence the control of our country and ultimate ownership of the land we rent under the guise of mortgages) continue to do their thing behind the closed doors of a private banking corperation w/o even having their names listed.
Welcome to the party people, as we spend millions of dollars in simply determining "who" will be on the ticket, the machine turns yet another revolutions and we're still too busy staring at the curtain to begin to wake up and realize that there is somebody behind it. . .
Republicans: The money grubbing power mongers that love kicking the little guy and enforcing demanding rules about everything from murder to morality.
In one corner, you have the supposeded camp for preserving our nation, it's people, and it's economy. In the other corner, we have the supposed camp for giving away everything, ignoring and cheapening the sacrifices of our forefathers, and leading society down a path to destruction in exchange for some short lived victorys.
However, we've seen in history that our two party system does little more than provide a distration. These two partys fight over everything, do little or nothing, and allow the real powers to continue doing their things in the background w/o attention.
Why would the American people allow the government to be taken over by unnamed individuals if they actualy knew it was happening? Without the smoke and mirrors of the two party system, "we the people" might actualy notice that type of thing instead of bickering about who get's a blowjob in the whitehouse or who gave a friend a free pass out of trouble.
Yes, the people with the money (hence the control of our country and ultimate ownership of the land we rent under the guise of mortgages) continue to do their thing behind the closed doors of a private banking corperation w/o even having their names listed.
Welcome to the party people, as we spend millions of dollars in simply determining "who" will be on the ticket, the machine turns yet another revolutions and we're still too busy staring at the curtain to begin to wake up and realize that there is somebody behind it. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
