(1) --- On Sat, 7/19/08, Per Fagereng <phantom@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Her article is about improper lending by banks, > not financial mismanagement by Pacifica. Yes, yes, yes. Of course I know that. I have read the article. (2) --- On Sat, 7/19/08, Per Fagereng <phantom@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Brown's article is about a special situation (the > possibility that banks will have to eat fraudulent > loans) that could bring down the system on all > our heads. Yes. Aren't you a little curious about the possibility that "the system" might be only PARTLY brought down, e.g. just a few banks, such as those that Pacifica might have accounts in? (3) --- On Sat, 7/19/08, Per Fagereng <phantom@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So it looks like Pacifica is in trouble in two ways: > -- Like other people dumb enough to have bank > accounts higher than what the feds will insure, > -- Like the rest of us if a lot of banks fail and the > economy collapses. Well, if you wanted to do some background research to prepare for the interview, beyond reading the article, is it possible to discover exactly WHICH banks are holding Pacifica funds in accounts exceeding $100K? Perhaps Ellen could comment on the possibility of something short of a COMPLETE collapse but sufficient to affect Pacifica if its accounts are in the"wrong" banks. --Frank LeFever > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank Le Fever" > <fflefever@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Joseph Wanzala" <wanzala@xxxxxxxxx>; > "Fulcrums of Change" > <fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > "newpacifica" > <NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Per > Fagereng" <phantom@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:34 PM > Subject: Re: [Fulcrumsofchange] Let the Lawsuits Begin: > Banks Brace for a > Stormof Litigation > > > > --- On Fri, 7/18/08, Per Fagereng > <phantom@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I'm not sure I see the connection. The gist of > >> Brown's > >> article is that, if fraud is proven, a mortgage > lender has > >> to take back the mortgaged property at face value, > even > >> though its market value has dropped. > >> > >> How does this apply to Pacifica? > >> > >> Per Fagereng > > > > > > She cites the impact this has on banks and of its > possibly growing > > role in bank failures. Not long ago, Brian Shiratsuki > posted > > an excerpt from the auditor's report, in which it > was pointed out > > that Pacifica had rather large amounts in accounts > exceeding > > the $100,000 covered by FDIC. How much of amounts in > excess > > of that limit will be recovered by the depositor is > uncertain > > (as is, I think, WHEN it will be recovered) if the > bank fails. > > > > --Frank LeFever > > > > > > > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Frank Le Fever" > >> <fflefever@xxxxxxxxx> > >> To: "Joseph Wanzala" > <wanzala@xxxxxxxxx>; > >> "Fulcrums of Change" > >> <fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > >> "newpacifica" > >> <NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Per > >> Fagereng" <phantom@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 5:38 PM > >> Subject: Re: [Fulcrumsofchange] Let the Lawsuits > Begin: > >> Banks Brace for a > >> Stormof Litigation > >> > >> > >> > --- On Fri, 7/18/08, Per Fagereng > >> <phantom@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> I'll be interviewing Ellen Brown on > KBOO, > >> Tuesday July > >> >> 22 at 10am. > >> > > >> > Ask her, in view of the auditor's > warning, > >> > if Pacifica's funds are at risk. > >> > > >> > --Frank LeFever > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> From: "Joseph Wanzala" > >> <wanzala@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> To: "Fulcrums of Change" > >> >> <fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > >> >> "newpacifica" > >> >> <NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 5:28 AM > >> >> Subject: [Fulcrumsofchange] Let the > Lawsuits > >> Begin: Banks > >> >> Brace for a > >> >> Stormof Litigation > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9577 > >> >> > > >> >> > Let the Lawsuits Begin: Banks Brace > for a > >> Storm of > >> >> Litigation > >> >> > > >> >> > by Ellen Brown > >> >> > > >> >> > Global Research, July 13, 2008 > >> >> > > >> >> > [author's website: > >> www.webofdebt.com/articles] > >> >> > > >> >> > In an article in The San Francisco > Chronicle > >> in > >> >> December 2007, > >> >> > attorney Sean Olender suggested that > the real > >> reason > >> >> for the subprime > >> >> > bailout schemes being proposed by > the U.S. > >> Treasury > >> >> Department was not > >> >> > to keep strapped borrowers in their > homes so > >> much as > >> >> to stave off a > >> >> > spate of lawsuits against the banks. > The plan > >> then on > >> >> the table was an > >> >> > interest rate freeze on a limited > number of > >> subprime > >> >> loans. Olender > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > "The sole goal of the freeze is > to > >> prevent owners > >> >> of mortgage-backed > >> >> > securities, many of them foreigners, > from > >> suing U.S. > >> >> banks and forcing > >> >> > them to buy back worthless mortgage > >> securities at face > >> >> value â right > >> >> > now almost 10 times their market > worth. The > >> ticking > >> >> time bomb in the > >> >> > U.S. banking system is not resetting > subprime > >> mortgage > >> >> rates. The real > >> >> > problem is the contractual ability > of > >> investors in > >> >> mortgage bonds to > >> >> > require banks to buy back the loans > at face > >> value if > >> >> there was fraud > >> >> > in the origination process. > >> >> > > >> >> > ". . . The catastrophic > consequences of > >> bond > >> >> investors forcing > >> >> > originators to buy back loans at > face value > >> are beyond > >> >> the current > >> >> > media discussion. The loans at issue > dwarf > >> the capital > >> >> available at > >> >> > the largest U.S. banks combined, and > investor > >> lawsuits > >> >> would raise > >> >> > stunning liability sufficient to > cause even > >> the > >> >> largest U.S. banks to > >> >> > fail, resulting in massive > taxpayer-funded > >> bailouts of > >> >> Fannie and > >> >> > Freddie, and even FDIC . . . . > >> >> > > >> >> > "What would be prudent and > logical is > >> for the > >> >> banks that sold this > >> >> > toxic waste to buy it back and for a > lot of > >> people to > >> >> go to prison. If > >> >> > they knew about the fraud, they > should have > >> to buy the > >> >> bonds back."1 > >> >> > > >> >> > The thought could send a chill > through even > >> the most > >> >> powerful of > >> >> > investment bankers, including > Treasury > >> Secretary Henry > >> >> Paulson > >> >> > himself, who was head of Goldman > Sachs during > >> the > >> >> heyday of toxic > >> >> > subprime paper-writing from 2004 to > 2006. > >> Mortgage > >> >> fraud has not been > >> >> > limited to the representations made > to > >> borrowers or on > >> >> loan documents > >> >> > but is in the design of the > banks' > >> "financial > >> >> products" themselves. > >> >> > Among other design flaws is that > securitized > >> mortgage > >> >> debt has become > >> >> > so complex that ownership of the > underlying > >> security > >> >> has often been > >> >> > lost in the shuffle; and without a > legal > >> owner, there > >> >> is no one with > >> >> > standing to foreclose. That was the > >> procedural problem > >> >> prompting > >> >> > Federal District Judge Christopher > Boyko to > >> rule in > >> >> October 2007 that > >> >> > Deutsche Bank did not have standing > to > >> foreclose on 14 > >> >> mortgage loans > >> >> > held in trust for a pool of > mortgage-backed > >> securities > >> >> holders.2 If > >> >> > large numbers of defaulting > homeowners were > >> to contest > >> >> their > >> >> > foreclosures on the ground that the > >> plaintiffs lacked > >> >> standing to sue, > >> >> > trillions of dollars in > mortgage-backed > >> securities > >> >> (MBS) could be at > >> >> > risk. Irate securities holders might > then > >> respond with > >> >> litigation that > >> >> > could indeed threaten the existence > of the > >> banking > >> >> Goliaths. > >> >> > > >> >> > -----snip---- > >> >> > _______________________________ > >