Two puzzles for anyone trying to get ahead of the news on Syria:
1. Is it Nobel Peace Prizes for Putin and Assad, or just Putin?
2. After If it becomes obvious that Putin and Assad are just playing word games with Obama, does Obama shock the world and regain lost mojo by actually bombing Syria without UN or Congressional sanction?
Admit it - such a prompt show of force would be bold, unexpected, and resolute. And if world leaders walked away thinking that this Obama guy is scary, that could be a feature rather than a bug. Well, maybe - as I said, its a puzzle.
Well, a few days ago Kerry said it had to be done within a week. We shall see.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 02:52 PM
Apparently Sullivan loved the speech--says Obama's now a community organizer for the world.
And they say AIDS meds don't harm your capacity to think.
Posted by: Clarice | September 11, 2013 at 03:00 PM
The puzzle (for me) has always been why did Americans vote him into office. We have had some experienced, great men run for POTUS. What did he offer? Or bring us after being elected? Not even good speeches.
Posted by: Joan | September 11, 2013 at 03:02 PM
Lots of puzzles.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-president-obamas-sept-10-speech-on-syria/2013/09/10/a8826aa6-1a2e-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html
I wish the people on the right believed in freedom...
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 03:04 PM
A conundrum?
Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 11, 2013 at 03:04 PM
With Obama, it's all about saying he's solved a problem rather than actually solving it... so now that he's solved the problem of Assad using chemical weapons, it's on to the next task worthy of Obama's involvement.
And I would bet money that Obama leaves office without taking military action against Syria.
Posted by: steve | September 11, 2013 at 03:08 PM
Clarice-- I really do think the Meds have degraded Andy Sullivan's mental functions. Either that or Andy's under financial strain and has to keep bringing in whatever Lefty checks he relies on. Not a pretty picture either way. Sad, a great mind like that besotted and/or corrupted.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 11, 2013 at 03:13 PM
For those of you awake lady night, everything was ok. About to eat.
Posted by: Sue | September 11, 2013 at 03:14 PM
TK-- this word 'freedom' which Obummer uses... I don't think it means what he thinks it means.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 11, 2013 at 03:15 PM
Last night.
Posted by: Sue | September 11, 2013 at 03:16 PM
This computer won't let me link Ace but I highly recommend his post on this part of the flatulence Barry emitted last night:
Posted by: lyle | September 11, 2013 at 03:20 PM
On Fox News LtGen. Tom McInerny just said that any procedure to do away with these weapons would have to be preceded by a U.N.-supervised ceasefire, and would take 6-10 years.. Fat chance.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 03:20 PM
I think everything he is about, NK, is summed up in that unbelievably small quote I posted.
War mongering righties need to put up or shut up.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 03:24 PM
Glad to hear that, Sue.
Out of sympathy I ate a #4 combo at the local taco shop last night.
It has since metabolized into empathy.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MDVrmSEZEKg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMDVrmSEZEKg
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 03:29 PM
How did it go Sue?
Posted by: Jane-Rebel Alliance | September 11, 2013 at 03:29 PM
To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people
When did the left start believing in freedom or dignity?
Posted by: Jane-Rebel Alliance | September 11, 2013 at 03:31 PM
Those two paragraphs make no sense at all.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 03:31 PM
Ponder this in CA:
"RICHMOND, Calif (Reuters) - Richmond, California's leaders approved on Wednesday morning a plan for the city to become the first in the nation to acquire mortgages with negative equity in a bid to keep local residents in their homes.
The power of 'eminent domain' allows governments to seize private property for a public purpose. Critics say the plan threatens the market for private-label mortgage-backed securities.
Richmond's city council voted 4 to 3 for Mayor Gayle McLaughlin's proposal for city staff to work more closely with Mortgage Resolution Partners to put the plan crafted by the investor group for the city to work.
Richmond can now invoke eminent domain if trusts for more than 620 delinquent and performing "underwater" mortgages reject offers made by the city to buy the loans at deep discount pegged to their properties' current appraised prices to refinance them and reduce their principal"
Posted by: Old Lurker test | September 11, 2013 at 03:31 PM
Stupid homeowners.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 03:34 PM
Joan-
One example that came up yesterday was the push by HUD starting in 2009 (anything else happen that year?) to have universities and hospitals serve as anchor institutions in areas to facilitate the desired push toward a public sector dominated regional planned economy. No body covers and the heads work together with the mayors and utilities and announce that 'big employers need..." It's coordinated but not seen that way because no one person can monitor that many agencies. It's only on my radar because the Lefties that talk to each other also now do newsletters with their vision.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/dialectical-integration-of-the-person-as-a-totality-how-can-that-make-anyone-competitive-internationally/ is today's post.
Posted by: rse | September 11, 2013 at 03:39 PM
Some fool at CNN:
"Sixty-one percent of Americans polled, who watched President Obama´s prime-time speech, told CNN that they support his policy towards Syria. Since some surveys showed as much as two-thirds opposition to military action against Syria in the days before the speech, the poll suggests that he did what presidents rarely do: change people´s minds, if only temporarily. How did he do it? In only 15 minutes, President Obama made his points, simply and straightforwardly. Anyone arguing a controversial case in the court of public opinion can learn from what he said and how he said it: Identifying with the audience. "
No details on the poll.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 03:41 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 11, 2013 at 03:41 PM
I believe the mortgage lenders can prevail against the city of Richmond if they attempt to proceed with this plan, which is astonishingly short-sighted. If it succeeds, no one will ever obtain a mortgage in that city again.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 03:44 PM
Probably the same people that performed the 2012 exit polls that changed Jindal's mind.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 03:44 PM
The Dem Primary winner in NYC ran on his wife and kid's Melanin.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 11, 2013 at 03:45 PM
The lenders may have a problem when they go up against a city government.
Proving ownership of the note and security instrument might actually be enforced if they wish to have standing as plaintiffs in some sort of action.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 03:48 PM
--Sixty-one percent of Americans polled, who watched President Obama´s prime-time speech, told CNN that they support his policy towards Syria. Since some surveys showed as much as two-thirds opposition to military action against Syria in the days before the speech, the poll suggests that he did what presidents rarely do: change people´s minds, if only temporarily.--
Is it possible a significant majority of the people who could stomach watching his speech already supported whatever the moron does?
Posted by: Ignatz | September 11, 2013 at 03:50 PM
Rand Paul will be on Cavuto's show today.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 03:52 PM
Melanin.
Bingo. The healing balm for white people guilt.
Posted by: lyle | September 11, 2013 at 03:53 PM
--And if world leaders walked away thinking that this Obama guy is scary, that could be a feature rather than a bug.--
When world leaders have good reason to believe America will obliterate, not just decimate :), those who would harm her, that's a good, stabilizing scary.
When world leaders have good reason to believe a president will launch an attack based not on his country's interests but some amorphous red line and his own perceived humiliation that is a very bad, very destabilizing scary.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 11, 2013 at 03:55 PM
DoT's point was that there will be no NEW lending in Richmond under this scheme TK. Whatever the condition of the chain of ownership is to old loans, future lenders will invest elsewhere should this right claimed by the city stick.
Next I guess they could lay claim to all the milk on shelves and anything else there for the public good?
Posted by: Old Lurker test | September 11, 2013 at 03:55 PM
It wouldn't surprise me if Obama had a 61% approval rating for his speech. Most people don't follow foreign policy closely. Thus, the main point people are likely to have taken away from the speech is that Obama saved us from another war. I think it was a rhetorically very effective speech, aided by a lapdog media. for the low information voter (which includes substantially all of the electorate). Most of those 61% probably still oppose attacking Syria. However, when asked the question whether they approve of Obama's policy, they would most likely focus on the phony deal that would look good to them.
Keep in mind that this failure of a POTUS got 51% of the electorate to vote for him after about as substandard a performance for four years that a POTUS has ever accomplished. Getting 61% for a feel good speech is not surprising.
As far as TM's questions go, I'd predict (i) Putin for the Nobel Peace Prize, and (ii) Obama never bombs Syria. As a bonus prediction, I predict whatever will happen with Israel and Iran will make us all forget Syria.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | September 11, 2013 at 03:58 PM
I guess SCOTUS is so proud of its Kelo decision now.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 11, 2013 at 03:58 PM
Tom M's puzzles?
Putin for Nobel-- FER SURE
Obummer NEVER bombs Syria-- not even with an UNBELIEVABLY SMALL bomb-- EVAH.
Bonus Question-- Obummer Scary? only to taxpayers
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 11, 2013 at 04:02 PM
DoT's point was that there will be no NEW lending in Richmond under this scheme TK.
Just wait until Holder hears about that. Richmond is predominantly Black and Hispanic. If they are unable to get mortgage loans, that would be a disparate outcome. We all know that cannot be legal.
This has been brewing in Richmond for quite some time.
Posted by: DrJ | September 11, 2013 at 04:05 PM
"Proving ownership of the note and security instrument might actually be enforced if they wish to have standing as plaintiffs in some sort of action."
All they'd have to prove up is one note.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 04:08 PM
The only reason a city could propose something so ridiculous is because of the busted chain of title on so many loans.
A future lender will not be affected if he has clean paper, which may never happen again thanks to MERS.
I do see the concern when it comes to "performing" notes.
I do my best to be misunderstood so I will try to state clearly for the record: I get DoT's point. I think this is a horrible proposition. I think the banks brought this mess upon themselves.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 04:10 PM
One note properly endorsed within the window the PSA allowed for the trust claiming ownership of said note.
If notes of this nature existed, banks would have foreclosed long ago.
They f'd up.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 04:12 PM
No indication as to how the question was worded, but my guess would be that what the 61% are happy with is the fact that he called off the strike.
A number of pollsters periodically inquire about how he is handling Syria, and the results have been abysmal for him. I doubt those numbers will change very much, but we'll see.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 04:13 PM
TK, sorry, I think you are focused on the last wave.
This proposal is not just for delinquent loans, but also for loans that are current but underwater. Banks often let those ride since the payments are coming in and obviously the borrower is will to make the payments. Should the bank want to sell that note, the FMV will be low because the security is worth less than the loan and it is that "forced marked to market valuation" that this city is trying to play for the public good.
No different than a city forcing a shareholder to sell shares in a company that just happen to be worth less than paid for those shares. Driving a market down then forcing owners to sell used to be frowned upon.
Posted by: Old Lurker test | September 11, 2013 at 04:22 PM
Things TK said at 4:10pm:
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 04:27 PM
Here's a pretty good breakdown of that poll:
CNN poll: 61% who watched Obama’s speech say they favor his approach to Syria
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/11/cnn-poll-61-who-watched-obamas-speech-say-they-favor-his-approach-to-syria/
Dip into the crosstabs and you’ll see that reaction was more nuanced than the headline implies
Worth a read.
Posted by: Ranger | September 11, 2013 at 04:29 PM
Pondering?
"Your Tricare surplus at work"
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=37536#comments
"The U.S. Army has picked 17 companies that will be eligible to receive orders for wind energy under an umbrella contract valued at up to $7 billion, the Pentagon said on Monday."
No word on whether any of the 17 companies a involved in Eagle killing which must not be illegal for wind mill farms.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/11/eagle-slaughter-wind-farms-kill-67-eagles-5-years/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3033412/posts
"Man Rescues Bald Eagle, Could Face Jail Time"
Wind farms can apparently kill all the eagles they want. Why?
Posted by: pagar----- | September 11, 2013 at 04:37 PM
I hit the TiVo replay button during the speech just to be sure I really had heard what I thought I heard. Yeah, those deplorable righties who can't even get behind a chance to drop an unbelievably small bomb or two. Hypocrites!
OK, I get that having a bunch of these White House aides try to imagine the thought process of a conservative isn't easy, but you would hope they would have one or two contacts they could run it by. Evidently not.
But to be fair, maybe every conservative they called just fell down laughing as soon as they heard the White House wanted to talk about Obama's "strategy" in Syria.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | September 11, 2013 at 04:38 PM
"The only reason a city could propose something so ridiculous is because of the busted chain of title on so many loans."
They don't cite that as a reason.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 04:43 PM
When the contacts are McCain or Graham, conservative insight may fall short, TM.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 04:45 PM
DoT, you win.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 04:47 PM
The left believes in everyone's freedom to vote themselves into the thrall of the left.
And they'll defend to your death the right to do it.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 11, 2013 at 04:47 PM
The only reason a city could propose something so ridiculous is....Kelo.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 11, 2013 at 04:49 PM
What Iggy said at 4:49. Plus a population so unlettered that it does not see the downside.
Posted by: Old Lurker test | September 11, 2013 at 04:51 PM
Wells Fargo is already in litigation with the city.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 04:56 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 11, 2013 at 04:58 PM
Via RCP:
In Prime Time, Obama Struggles to Reason With Nation Over Syria
http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/11/in-prime-time-obama-struggles-to-reason-with-nation-over-syria/
The problem for Obama at this point is this is about as sympathetic a review as he's going to get:
For generations, the American people have had a standing deal with their Presidents: Go ahead and mess with the prime-time lineup once in a while, interrupt Who’s the Boss, Seinfeld, NCIS: Los Angeles, or whatever. But you better make it count. You better have something new to say. And when it comes to speeches of national security, you better leave the impression that you have this thing under control.
On Tuesday night, President Obama decided to test this unspoken pact. For 16 minutes from the East Room, he took over the nation’s televisions to repeat the same complex and contradictory case for bombing Syria that he has been making for two weeks, even though he acknowledged at the end, there is no longer an imminent need for the country to make a decision.
When you're on the left and you've lost Swampland, you are toast.
Posted by: Ranger | September 11, 2013 at 04:58 PM
Heard on the radio that a Federal judge just ruled WI Act 10 (the union tamer) constitutional. I lost track, but think a couple more suits are in the Federal system on this. Voter ID suits at state and federal courts still drag on with state injunctions in place.
Posted by: henry | September 11, 2013 at 05:01 PM
I did not see note grabbing in the opinion of Kelo.
The broad opinion in that case is just narrow of what powers you think Richmond gained from it.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 05:04 PM
That is great Dave!
"Free digs"
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 05:05 PM
I don't think the Nobel Committee will go anywhere near this clown show...
Posted by: Some Guy | September 11, 2013 at 05:09 PM
I bet more Americans watched the USA-Mexico soccer game than watched BOzo. The Nielsen ratings for 9-9:30 will be interesting as to which shows beat him out. Love to see the WH spin BOzo getting lower ratings than Amish Mafia.
Posted by: DebinNC | September 11, 2013 at 05:15 PM
Well Kelo lends support to the imposition of Eminent Domain by Cities/States which would have private users/beneficiaries of the condemned property, so long as a tangible public economic benefit would be derived from that condemnation of another's private property -- even if it was NOT for public use. That's potentially applicable to grabbing bank notes (especially those with recordation issues.) In any event, City of Richmond is a proud exemplar of HUD inspired and Fannie Funded CRA loans.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 11, 2013 at 05:16 PM
NK "so long as a tangible public economic benefit would be derived from that condemnation of another's private property -- even if it was NOT for public use."
In the case of Kelo, the assumed public economic benefit never developed. Ooops.
Back to my stock analogy. So sometime when the stock market is way low, some town could be convinced that if some raider might do something economically advantageous for that town/state/nation, then they could force all shareholders to sell their shares in that company at that day's value to said Raider. Were I that Raider, I would spend more time courting my politicians than trying to get shareholders to sell to me directly. Politicians are usually cheaper.
Posted by: Old Lurker test | September 11, 2013 at 05:26 PM
OL- you are correct sir-- Pfizer pulled out of the deal and moved R&D to greener --lower income tax-- jurisdictions.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 11, 2013 at 05:31 PM
I appreciate the stock analogy.
What citation would the city use from Kelo to defend their stock grad?
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 05:32 PM
Grab
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 05:33 PM
Or we can just stay with the mortgages.
Say all the mortgages in a town were fully performing and the houses were worth more than the loan amounts. Say all those loans were made by the local bank in the same year that Crazy Ben drove mortgage rates to 1%.
Now several years later when Ben runs out of ink, market mortgage rates will go back up to something well above 1%, and when that happens the market value of each of those notes is worth much less than the face amount loaned.
So in Richmond the town could force that banker to sell all those loans at deep discounts to another bank in return for that bank agreeing to reduce the amount owed to the amount paid in the forced sale of each note. That homeowner's new payment even at the higher current rate on the much reduced loan amount is a win for the homeowner and a win for the new bank.
Sorry about the old banker but he deserved to be screwed I guess.
Posted by: Old Lurker test | September 11, 2013 at 05:37 PM
Well Kelo forced the sale of simple real estate, but Richmond is evidently using that to force the sale of paper assets, not real estate, so what are stock certificates other than paper assets like Notes?
Posted by: Old Lurker test | September 11, 2013 at 05:41 PM
I think a city would run into problems in the stock case. I suspect that almost none of the stock certificates would be physically within the city's jurisdiction, and thus could not be condemned.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 05:49 PM
I know Richmond. Did a project there when I was out of the San Francisco HQ. Its a cross between Santa Cruz and Detroit.
Meet Gayle McLaughlin, the Mayor:)
Ain't she a beauty?
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 11, 2013 at 05:49 PM
DoT then say the feds wanted to do it...?
Posted by: Old Lurker test | September 11, 2013 at 05:50 PM
I mean its a cross based on demographics, politics and its demise.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 11, 2013 at 05:51 PM
The problem is the loose definition of "public economic benefit." There ought to be a presumption that the government should not, and does not need to, be involved in moving property from one private holder to another, other than to enforce contracts or settle disputes. The private sector is perfectly capable of maximizing the public economic benefit, as the recently deceased Ronald Coase so clearly explained.
It's hard to see what public economic benefit is created by what Richmond is doing. Once governments can define that as they wish, no one's property is safe.
Posted by: jimmyk | September 11, 2013 at 05:52 PM
TK/OL-- I said above the SCOTUS must be so proud of Kelo when it sees things like City of Richmond. Even under the Kelo disgrace, the City would have to show some 'public benefit' derived from the use of eminent domain, not a naked transfer of loan value from one private actor (the idiot banks) to another (the high Melanin home owner-borrowers). I guess if the City conditioned ED on the home owners using their 'new equity' to improve their home and a portion of future sales proceeds (assuming there are any) goes to some sort of public infrastructure fund that MIGHT pass muster under Kelo. But we all know what's really going on in Richmond.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 11, 2013 at 05:52 PM
DoT or when I grew up the coal mines and banks and plants were all owned by a handful of families in the county. In those cases the shares did exist in the jurisdiction...
Posted by: Old Lurker test | September 11, 2013 at 05:53 PM
I understand* what Richmond is doing and I don't agree with the idea at all.
All I am saying is bungled handling of notes and security instruments created the long term mortgage mess. If they had clean paperwork 5 years ago the delinquent would have been evicted and the values would have reset by now if not much sooner.
*I have not read Richmond's proposal verbatim nor have I read Wells Fargo's amicus.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 05:55 PM
JimmyK-- this last graph from your 5:52 is a spot on explanation of the disgrace that is the Kelo decision: "It's hard to see what public economic benefit is created by what Richmond is doing.Once governments can define that as they wish, no one's property is safe."
The City of richmond Note grab is a naked transfer of economic value to politically annointed private actors, with no public benefit. It SHOULD fail even under Kelo.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 11, 2013 at 05:56 PM
As it happens, I'm currently involved in a taking. The DoT is changing the road and a sliver of my property needs to be taken. They offered me a pittance, and explained that it's not up to me whether that's fair, and that even if I don't accept the offer, they're taking the property.
After I decided not to fight about it and accepted the offer, they sent me papers claiming that an entity has some sort of mortgage claim on the property, which never appeared during the title search when I bought the property nor again when I refinanced it.
I told them I have title insurance, but they say I need to contact this entity and have them write a letter waiving the claim in order to close. I don't believe the entity exists, and am relatively certain that they have no mortgage on the property. (I think it was they who sold the property to the people I bought it from.)
:-/
Posted by: Extraneus | September 11, 2013 at 05:59 PM
TK-- one thing about delay in foreclosures-- many banks chose not to foreclose 2008-2012--particularly in CRA areas-- because realizing the losses on the loans would have hurt them on the capital reserve requirements, so the non performing loans just hung out there in a shadow inventory. I don't know mortgage recording issues in that area, but I don't think it can be assumed fouled mortgage recording was the cause of the banks not promptly foreclosing.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 11, 2013 at 06:09 PM
The case is pending in federal court in San Francisco. I have found an amicus brief filed by the Chamber of Commerce and others:
http://www.chamberlitigation.com/sites/default/files/cases/files/2013/U.S.%20Chamber%20amicus%20brief%20--%20Wells%20Fargo%20v.%20City%20of%20Richmond.pdf
I imagine the Supreme Court would welcome a chance to put some substantially restrictive gloss on Kelo.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 06:10 PM
So they didn't take payments on the notes they did not foreclose on.
Still a loss.
Especially worse, if you ask me, because the payments stopped in the interest portion of the amortization due to the immaturity of the loan.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 06:15 PM
I'm no financial accountant, but somehow nonperforming loans affect the banks' operating income, but not liabilities against which their reserve capital must be calculated. Hence, the shadow inventory of nonperforming loans grew. MelR and possibly CathyF are good resources on these financial accounting issues.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 11, 2013 at 06:24 PM
Ext., that is the nature of the eminent domain racket: the government offers you far less than "just compensation," because they know your only recourse is to litigate. It happened to eldest stepdaughter in L.A. when they seized a third of her back yard when adding a lane to the 405. She and a bunch of neighbors went to court, and they settled for a fairly satsfactory sum. It was a three-year nightmare in which at one point her picture--standing at the site during late-night jackhammering--appeared above the fold on page one of the L.A. Times.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 06:27 PM
I have always considered Kelo the worst SCOTUS decision in my lifetime.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/06/property_rights_civil_rights_a.html
Posted by: Clarice | September 11, 2013 at 06:30 PM
I slept through it so again the prep was the worst part of it. I hope daddy and DrJ come up with something. They would make a fortune.
Posted by: Sue | September 11, 2013 at 06:36 PM
From an Indiana Law Review article:
"Property which is intangible, however, creates great difficulty in applying a territorial rule because of the inability to ascertain the property's exact location. At the present time no clear guidelines exist to provide rules for the exercise of eminent domain over intangibles. While of minimal consequence in the past, the lack of precedent in this area is causing conflicts in the present and may do so in the future if a clear rule is not established."
For the time being, if I were Wells Fargo I would move all those notes to a safe deposit box in another city.
I agreed with Clarice up until the Obamacare decision.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 06:39 PM
Kelo majority:
Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer
(Any ideas why Wikipedia doesn't list them in alphabetical order, or if their style guide goes by first names?)
Posted by: Extraneus | September 11, 2013 at 06:41 PM
I'd also consider relocating the Richmond branch to a spot outside the city.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 06:41 PM
For the time being, if I were Wells Fargo I would move all those notes to a safe deposit box in another city.
Supposedly the notes should be sitting in some bizarrely named trust somewhere in New York or Delaware if they are part of an MBS.
If I were the city I would ask Wells Fargo to prove custody of the notes.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 06:49 PM
They appear to list them by seniority.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 06:51 PM
Sue - FYI. I remembered this being discussed earlier, and found this past comment from (A)nuther Bub:
Posted by: MaryM | September 11, 2013 at 06:52 PM
That Chamber of Commerce 63 page "brief" is pretty hard to argue with.
If a private entity can ask a government to seize another private entity's property whether real or personal, tangible or intangible, and the resulting public good to justify it is the shark says he'll give the government a piece of the action, nothing's safe including the gold tooth grandma might be sporting.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 11, 2013 at 06:54 PM
DoT-- you do realize this issue gets into a conspiracy theory regarding ownership and recordation of MBS notes on single family house mortgages.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 11, 2013 at 06:54 PM
--If I were the city I would ask Wells Fargo to prove custody of the notes.--
Only guessing here but I suspect the last thing Richmond and Mortgage Resolution Partners want to do is raise the issue of who owns what because then who and or what do they condemn?
You can't very well send somebody a letter offering to buy their note as a preliminary to seizing it, while simultaneously alleging they don't own the thing you're offering to buy and threatening to condemn.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 11, 2013 at 06:59 PM
"If I were the city I would ask Wells Fargo to prove custody of the notes."
If I were Wells Fargo I wouldn't produce a single piece of paper until I could bring on a motion for summary judgment (for all I know they have done so.)
Not going there, NK. I have zero knowledge in that area.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 07:00 PM
I don't know if someone posted this already but Bambi stole many parts of his speech directly from George Bush - as the guy who wrote Bush's speech explains.
Posted by: Jane-Rebel Alliance | September 11, 2013 at 07:04 PM
NK you do realize that MERS has lost a significant enough times in court, due to recordation, to render your conspiracy claim specious.
Ask Ext if his clouded title is real or not.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 07:07 PM
Nobody is saying much today about the demand that we renounce the use of force as a precondition to starting the disarmament. I guess we'll find out in a couple of days. I don't think any president would do that. Maybe Carter.
Maybe Obama....
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 11, 2013 at 07:07 PM
Jane, you beat me to it. I was just about to post that link. It was inevitable though, and I am sure why Obama originally wanted to bomb Syria without making any statement to the nation.
Posted by: Ranger | September 11, 2013 at 07:08 PM
The city is apparently in litigation brought upon them by some investors, Ig.
The investors should have to prove how they would be harmed before they can proceed.
How the city wants to buy the notes is a separate process.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 07:10 PM
Can your motion for summary judgment be throw out for lack of standing?
How does that work?
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 07:11 PM
Hah, I looked at a place on the wall to write 'Prepopik' and it was already there. Thanks, other bub.
Posted by: Yet another hierarchically organized bub. | September 11, 2013 at 07:12 PM
The shareholders alleged they had been misled into buying shares of Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America in 2009 and 2010.
They claimed that Bank of America knew at the time it faced capital shortfalls and large mortgage buybacks, and that recordkeeping in Merscorp Inc's private Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems registry was so poor that it would not be able to legally foreclose on thousands of delinquent mortgages.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51576135/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/bank-america-ceo-ex-ceo-must-face-mortgage-disclosures-lawsuit/
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 11, 2013 at 07:18 PM