Chris Marsden

This image taken from video shows a member of the "Free
Syrian Army" [a probable CIA/Mossad outfit] firing a gun
in Homs, Syria. (Associated Press/Hawaii Tribune Herald)

The Pentagon has drawn up plans for military intervention in Syria.

A military strike would be coordinated with Turkey, the Gulf States and the NATO powers, according to reports that acknowledge such plans officially for the first time. The plan is described as an “internal review” by Pentagon Central Command, to allow President Barack Obama to maintain the pretense that the White House is still seeking a diplomatic solution.

This is considered vital, as military intervention would most likely be conducted through various Middle East proxies, which the US and NATO could then back with airpower. Turkey and the Arab League states, led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, do not want to be seen for what they are: stooges of the US. Deniability for them therefore requires the US to conceal the full extent of its involvement.

In the February 6 Financial Times, Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former director of policy planning for the US State Department, argued for “A little time… for continued diplomatic efforts aimed at shifting the allegiances of the Sunni merchant class in Damascus and Aleppo.”

As with the war against Libya last year, military intervention would again be justified citing the “responsibility to protect” civilians. But its real aim is regime change to install a Sunni government beholden to Washington, allied with the Gulf States, and hostile to Iran.

Read more »

Stephen Lendman

What major media scoundrels call relief is, in fact, business as usual coverup and fraud. Ellen Brown's important writing explained.

Obama pushed hard to get state attorneys general to settle for a fraction of stolen wealth, but it's worse than that. More on the announced deal below.

At issue is securitized mortgage-backed securities fraud compounded by "robo-signing." it involves "employees signing names not their own, under titles they did not really have, attesting to the veracity of documents they had not really reviewed."

It wasn't occasional. It's systemic grand theft since the 1990s. As a result, settling with crooks lets Wall Street shysters "off the hook for crimes that would land the rest of us in jail - fraud, forgery, securities violations and tax evasion."

State Attorneys General Perpetuate Fraud and Coverup

Forty-nine of the 50 States AGs agreed to let five major banks off the hook - JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC). Oklahoma opted out, not from altruism. AG Scott Pruitt wants no banker penalties. Stealing is OK with him.

In exchange for robo-signing fraud, illegal fees, failure to honor previous settlements, and other servicer abuses, rogue bankers settled for $25 billion. It amounts to pennies on the dollar at most.

Homeowners may sue on their own. States get a fixed amount for legal aid services. All securitization claims, tax and insurance fraud ones, and others may still be investigated and prosecuted by individual AGs and the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group (RMBS).

Set up by Obama's Financial Fraud Task Force, New York AG Eric Schneiderman is one of five co-chairs. Delaware, Missouri, Nevada and Arizona filed lawsuits. California AG Kamala Harris retained the right of state to sue under the state's False Claims Act. Massachusetts also has a foreclosure fraud suit pending.

Read more »

Ellen Brown

A foreclosure settlement between five major banks guilty of "robo-signing" and the attorneys general of the 50 states is pending for Monday, February 6th; but it is still not clear if all the AGs will sign. California was to get over half of the $25 billion in settlement money, and California AG Kamala Harris has withstood pressure to settle.

That is good. She and the other AGs should not sign until a thorough investigation has been conducted. The evidence to date suggests that "robo-signing" was not a mere technical default or sloppy business practice but was part and parcel of a much larger fraud, the fraud that brought down the whole economy in 2008. It is not just distressed homeowners but the entire economy that has paid the price, resulting in massive unemployment and a shrunken tax base, throwing state and local governments into insolvency and forcing austerity measures and cutbacks in government services across the nation.

The details of the robo-signing scam were spelled out in my last article, here. The robo-signing fraud and its implications are expanded on below.

Why All the Robo-signing?

Over half the homes in the country are now held in the name of an electronic database called MERS ―Mortgage Electronic Registration Services. MERS is a smokescreen behind which these mortgages were sold to trusts that sold them to investors. The mortgages were chopped into pieces and sold as "mortgage-backed securities" (MBS), which traded in a supposedly liquid market. That meant the investors could sell them in the money market at any time on a day's notice. Yale economist Gary Gorton gives this example:

Suppose the institutional investor is Fidelity, and Fidelity has $500 million in cash that will be used to buy securities, but not right now. Right now Fidelity wants a safe place to earn interest, but such that the money is available in case the opportunity for buying securities arises. Fidelity goes to Bear Stearns and "deposits" the $500 million overnight for interest. What makes this deposit safe? The safety comes from the collateral that Bear Stearns provides. Bear Stearns holds some asset-backed securities [with] a market value of $500 millions. These bonds are provided to Fidelity as collateral. Fidelity takes physical possession of these bonds. Since the transaction is overnight, Fidelity can get its money back the next morning, or it can agree to "roll" the trade. Fidelity earns, say, 3 percent.

That is where the robo-signing came in. Foreclosure defense attorneys armed with the tools of discovery have discovered that robo-signing ―involving falsified signatures assigning mortgages back to the trusts allegedly owning them― occurred not just occasionally or randomly but in virtually every case. Why? Because the mortgages had to be left free to be bought and sold on a daily basis in the money market by investors. The investors are not interested in making 30 year loans. They want something short-term with immediate rights of withdrawal like a deposit account.

Read more »