Mass. AG sues five major banks over foreclosures

LadyJazzer wrote: If I had been deliberately swindled by a bank, and lied to and defrauded by the bank, I would probably "regret" doing business with them too. It's called "fraud."

Come on LJ, so I agree with you, saw them do it and would argue on your behalf to any crowd or court. So I ask again, if someone is clearly guilty of defrauding you, would you like the AG to:

A. charge them with a crime, where they can go to jail, be pushed the way we have traditionally punished crimes. I will be a witness for you here.

or

B. sue them civilly, where they don't go to jail, have to pay some small amount of money of which they still have 1000 times more or even better, the company will just pay and add it to your debit card fees next month. I will also be a witness for you here.

Why are all these gun totin' conservatives or bleeding heart liberals ok with boiling our legal system and criminal system down to, well the police will prolly just sue them.

I still think it should scare people when a system can say that OJ did not do it or it could not be proven and then spin 360 degrees and say he did and should pay for it. I want people to be held accountable, I want one system and one set of rules/standards. You should not feel comfortable being judged on two sets of standards, even if you think in this case you might be able to get what you want out of the system or that OJ did it....they said after many hours or days or months of trying...that they could not prove it.

Just kind of interesting on the thing that many people seem to have no doubt about whatsoever, that banks screwed customers, that not one AG or cop in the whole country can bring even one criminal case to trial...even when they want to, as this one seems to. Do you think it means that perhaps there was not a crime? I personally feel there was likely a crime or perhaps we need better laws, but just a little astounded that not one enforcer can get even one banker or person into court...or even better that for the most part, people are not that surprised....so much so that we must do an end run around our own system to get what will still not amount to justice.

Y'know, I'm sure if you do your own research you will find out the underlying law behind the AG's decision. I'm not in the mood to do your research for you. But my guess behind the AG's presumption of standing in this case is because regardless of whether banks are national chains or not, they have to have a charter, license or franchise to operate in each state they do business in, and if the bank commits fraudulent acts in that state, it's up to the AG to decide to decide whether it was criminal, or tortuous...

But you let me know what you come up with. Since I'm satisfied with the AG's response, it's not my problem.

I must say that I respect that answer. Though, I am saddened by the acceptance of a unique way of going after what many would argue are pretty big criminals without understanding of why the pretty well understood traditional method of getting them was cast aside. My concern is that those in power may use these obscure crime catching methods such as this to get one over on me, my loved ones or those that I support...and in that case, it may not work in your favor and you may care...but this may have been your chance to do something about it...like simply understand it.

But I do understand, often by the time we get what we want, we don't care how, who was hurt to get there or what price there may be for it in the future. Getting the bad guy by suing him may work for you this time (because she is really going to hurt the big bankies). I guess we will just deal with next time next time.

As long as she doesn't close them down, cause otherwise I may have to keep my money at home...and my wife said there is a $5 fee for that. Maybe I can sue her for making her fees too high.

OR if you don't like that post...

Can you tell me how "it's not my problem" fits into the whole democrat party philosophy? Is there such a thing as a compassionate liberal, or is it all about getting what you want. I am the guy that will argue tooth and nail against employee health care being mandated and then I give everyone one of my employees full health care including copay comp. I get the impression you are the kind of person that would argue for mandated health care and then not pay for it unless the law passes and everyone else has to do it. Hey it's not your problem. Can't believe after all the posts of your I have read that you wrote that. Though again appreciate your honesty.

It's hardly "unique", and I'm VERY sure there is ample precedent for it... Perhaps you'll turn that up in your research.

Thanks LJ,

I did my research and you were right, no crime was committed by the banks in the Commonwealth, the only way they could get something on the banks was using the civil court system, because as most people know, it is much easier to prove things that did not happen there and make up the consequences as you go along for actions that have not been determined to be good or bad prior via laws. Too bad, I really had assumed someone had broken a rule we had already made.

LJ you would have loved my state rep. When I expressed a concern about a new employee related law that would force me to lay off 3 people he also represented and that I was concerned for their families he told me "I know you can pay your bills, and thus, I know your taxes are too low. I will raise them and you will support those families anyway."

Even though I am sure when you did your research you learned this, but MA is not like CO, it is not a title company state among many other things (like you usually own the minerals under your surface land there). You usually have your own lawyer right next to you when you sign and you are certainly told you have the right to have one, unless you try and complete a sale at the kitchen table, which you can still do, but is very rare and typically only done by people that are very real estate savvy in that Commonwealth. Education is pretty big in Mass too, so there are many resources and educated people around to get advice from.

So, I guess in closing you are right and doing the research showed me how when there are no crimes and you still want to nail someone, you have to make up new systems or take advantage of loopholes, kinda an after the facto criminal system to make things right. I guess this makes us no better than the people we are pointing at, we all just make the rules up as we go along and get away with whatever we can. Keep moving, nothing new going on here, the end justifies the means and all future consequences of this use of the system.

But in the end, I like the world you lay out, I am the kind of guy that can really take advantage of making the rules and the consequences up as you go along...it will give me another tool in getting your family's wealth into mine via trade.

I appreciate the vote-of-confidence...But I reiterate, they aren't doing anything "new"; they aren't making anything up. They are going after corporate (bank) fraud. And while it may not rise to the level of criminal offenses, it can certainly rise to the level of fraudulent business practices. This is not "new ground"...

And, yes, I'm delighted if the banks that knowingly committed the fraud get nailed...particularly, when they were negotiated with first, and consciously chose to ignore the warnings from the AG department.

If they are not making it up as they go along, and I admit I must just not be good at this type of research, what is the consequence for the action that is on trial? What you seem to ultimately refer to as Non-Criminal Bank Fraud.

Seems to me, and I hope most of you, that it is only justice if it were to happen again if the same punishment is to be levied or a proportional punishment levied relative to the last time non-criminal bank fraud or something very similar happened in the past - because this is not new (I don't have to explain this, LJ already did, I am just accepting it as true on her word).

So since they are not doing anything new (you made this clear, I accepted this) and this happened before (this is why it is not new), what is the consequence so that we can repeat the precedent you referred to previously so that we as a country or the citizens of Mass as a Commonwealth can have justice...and know what to expect the next time a Mass citizen is interested in lending money, what are they allowed to do, what are they not allowed to do and what are the consequences of doing what they are not allowed to do. What I would call the lending rules or laws. Because, obviously, if we do as I previously and naively suggested was happening, and make up the rules and the consequences as we go along.. we know that very few banks or people would be willing to lend money or do much business at all.

So, I think we agree that what they did was non-criminal bank fraud and we are agreeing that this is not new. So last time, what was the punitive punishment amount or the punitive punishment formula so that we know we have a justice system that is not making it up as we go along and that these non-criminals get the same punishment or one that is in proportion to the last set of non-criminals in Mass. that did this. My research is not turning up this data. I am also looking for a general source for the punishments related to any other non-crimes that are also not new so that I don't become a non-criminal by accident and have to face a similar precedented punishment.

It is also interesting when something happens and is not new, that even though we picked some pretty reasonable punishments for that non-crime last time, that we were not compelled to make it a crime after that, we kept it as a non-crime.

Crime is so easy to understand. I find non-crime very confusing, sorry for my ineptitude. Before today, I thought non-criminals were good people....or at least those smart enough to not get caught and smart enough to trick people into playing this word dance whilst they count the money.

I hope in this process of everyone knowing they did wrong and it not being criminal that someone made some simple and clear rules so that next time it is a crime. Perhaps we should also make it a crime to sign an agreement you did not read and understand (which you agree to specifically when you sign a contract with me or my companies), because signing it gives the impression that you not only did read it, but that you also fully understood it or found someone to help you do so. We also need to make sure that people don't use claimed ignorance and the civil justice system via their AG to defraud banks in the future also.

outdoor338 wrote: RCCL is one of our own and has suffered, I'm sorry for what you have been through....

Thank you!

I just still, years later, can't believe it. They'd tell me I didn't submit the paperwork, i'd resubmit it three or four times a week by fax, with confirmation. I even overnighted them a copy with singature through FedEx, e-mailed it to our "Account Representative"... I even went to the little local place for Centennial to get help there, and all they did was take down my account information and have me resubmit exactly the same paperwork using their fax machine, still to no avail.

It took them a month and a half of constant faxing to get all the paperwork, and I only filled out one copy and just kept faxing the same copy to them, over and over, week after week. I still will swear on my life that they were losing the paperwork on purpose. I'd send it two, three, four times, just to ensure they had a copy. Eventually the Realtor started calling them everyday too because he thought I wasnt' sending the paperwork, so he started faxing copies too.

And in the end, still no sale, all the work and faxing for nothing. I will never take another loan from Chase, I'll never bank there or do any business through them. I've never been treated so poorly, and been so financially affected, by someone else's malfeasance