White House: home foreclosure bill being reviewed

[ProSense]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House on Thursday said the administration was currently reviewing legislation on home foreclosures.

There have been meetings on the bill and it is being reviewed now, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

A bill that homeowners' advocates warn will make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors is awaiting the president's signature after it quietly zoomed through the Senate last week.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101007/pl_nm/us_usa_housing_whitehouse_3

[Enrique]

1. sounds like a great candidate for a veto n/t

[Rhiannon12866]

3. Exactly what I was thinking.

I can't imagine the president signing this... :(

[cojoel]

6. pocket veto

Congress is out of session.

[Nite Owl]

2. Amazing how quickly the Senate

can act when it wants to.

[truebrit71]

4. Tax breaks for 95% of us? That can wait. Making it easier for banks to steal? Fast Tracked.

...they're ALL a bunch of goddamned whores...

[flvegan]

5. Bravo, Reuters! What an article. So clear and informative.

It's pathetic that one has to search (God forbid) HuffPo and FDL for actual details on this.

Nevertheless, if this bill gets signed...nah, no true Democrat would ever sign this bill.

[d_b]

7. haha

"if this bill gets signed...nah, no true Democrat would ever sign this bill"

[Tempest]

8. What is there to be reviewed?

This bill would screw over homeowners and allow for the abuses that are now under investigation.

I guess now we'll find out who's side Obama is really on.

[bluestateguy]

9. He could veto it, but don't surprised if it is overriden

Looks like it cleared both chambers pretty easily.

[formercia]

10. That would be time to start taking names.

I doubt if anyone with any sense of personal safety, would vote for the override.

It doesn't affect me, but there are plenty of folks who would have their homes pulled out from under them and a lot would be angry beyond words.

[grasswire]

11. last night a TV show plot featured an angry homeowner with a gun in a bank.

Ready to kill the mortgage officer who had ruined his family several years earlier. And that was on FOX.

So the idea is out there.

[happyslug]

19. As I said on the other thread on this topic, Congress is out of Session

Thus he either MUST sign it, or the Pocket Veto kicks in i.e. if he does NOT signed it within ten days AND Congress is adjoined, then it is viewed as vetoed even of Obama does Nothing.

[formercia]

20. Obama should Veto the Bill

If he just lets it expire, it might not look good to some and the M$M, GOP and Baggers would use it to their advantage.

[gulfcoastliberal]

12. Reviewed, Will sign tomorrow. It's been reviewed & determined to be a Friday bill.

That's my prediction.

[Waiting For Everyman]

13. They (the banks) have to follow the law too, it's that simple

We can not stand for them having their crimes legalized after the fact. If that happens this blatantly on black letter law, then WTF does the law mean? It's over then. And we all know it.

The administration simply can not afford to do something this obvious. If it does, there will be hell to pay. It will be the last straw for a lot of people. Justly so.

Banksters were scared by some people's reactions two years ago, they'd better get scared now. It'll be pitchfork time soon.

Leahy too.

[bluestateguy]

14. They are saying they have "concerns" about the bill now

We shall see. I think this will be a close call for them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/white-house-has-concerns-_n_753987.html

The White House is taking a careful look at legislation recently passed by Congress with little notice that would require courts to recognize notarizations from out-of-state, which some consumer advocates say would make it more difficult to fight bogus foreclosures by banks.

"There were a series of meeting on that this morning here," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who added the White House would have a more definitive statement later on Thursday. "It is something that, as you said, there has been a lot of news on, the processing of documentation, the resulting impact on foreclosures, and that is being evaluated....In general, there is concern, ultimately, about the situation."

Max Gardner, a foreclosure defense attorney, said the timing of the bill was suspicious, considering fraudulent notarization of bogus foreclosure affidavits is at the heart of a scandal that has prompted the nation's largest banks to pause foreclosures in 23 states.

"The timing is just a little curious to me that all of a sudden you can't get anything through the Senate at all and then all a sudden on a voice vote," Gardner said. "This was first introduced in the House in 2007."

more

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. Gadner is correct,as we have all noted.

Denninger's comments on this are totally on point also.

"all that long ago a similar bill was proposed. It essentially nationalized what had been up until then a State's Right - usury laws. These laws set maximum interest rates, and were state-specific.

The credit - that is, bank - industry argued that everyone should have the right to have banking and credit cards on consistent terms across state lines, and that this would promote interstate commerce.

They won.

What happened?

The Banks then shopped for a couple of states where they could bribe the legislature with a bunch of call centers and jobs. They found South Dakota along with a handful of other states, which had no usury law at all.

By doing this we welcomed into the world the 39% credit card interest rate and destroyed the 50 State's ability to discern that this was an abusive practice that they should not allow anyone to subject their citizens to.

Now the banks are at it again, and they will once again abuse the law.

Once this law is passed they will find some state that needs jobs, and bribe the legislature to enact ridiculously loose notary laws, such that a notary signature will become effectively meaningless.

This law will force every other State in the Union to accept that signature even though it signifies nothing.

Notarization is an extremely important legal protection. It provides verification that the person who is alleged to have signed a document in "wet ink" actually did so, and actually made a personal appearance in front of the Notary.

Further, land titles and land transactions, along with the private property rights that vest thereupon, are inherently a state function, and their protection and verification is also a state function."

More:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=168500

[Waiting For Everyman]

15. Updated Reuters article, very interesting (I think they're hearing us)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101007/pl_nm/us_usa_housing_whitehouse_5

...

Congressional staffers said many lawmakers and White House officials initially didn't realize that the bill, which nominally deals only with notarizations, could have big impact on foreclosure cases.

_______


I think (hope) we woke them up. Good work, DU. And good work Reuters.

[Waiting For Everyman]

16. HuffPo Update: OBAMA WILL NOT SIGN!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/obama-pocket-veto-foreclosures_n_753987.html

[happyslug]

17. Duplicate Topic, but using a Reuters byline instead of Yahoo

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4566941