Fracking Headlines at EcoWatch: http://ecowatch.com/news/energy-news/fracking-2/

FRACKING

FrackingProtestfi

Deceptive Fracking Claims Found Unacceptable by UK Ad Board

| September 4, 2014
Fossil fuel companies are getting more brazen in their claims…
 
shaleplayworldmapfi

Groundbreaking Study Shows How Demand for Water Could Impact Fracking Worldwide

| September 2, 2014
On World Water Day, the World Resources Institute has released a study…
 
teachoutfi

Zephyr Teachout Rides Wave of Moral Outrage and Scientific Clarity on Fracking and Climate Change

| August 26, 2014
And right now, by rejecting fracking, by pioneering a real renewable energy economy…
 
peopleclimatemarchfi

What the Anti-Fracking Movement Brings to the Climate Movement

| August 24, 2014
President Obama, the science shows that we can’t frack our way to climate stability. If you issue a warrant for the arrest of carbon dioxide…
 
gasflarefi

frackingwastebanncy2

New Bill Would Ban Fracking Waste in New York City

| August 21, 2014
New York City council members Stephen Levin and Corey Johnson introduced legislation today that would ban the discharge, disposal…
 
frackcofi

Colorado Town Sues State, Gov. Hickenlooper and COGA to Protect Right to Ban Fracking

| August 21, 2014
In a state wracked with clashes over its explosive expansion of fracking…
 
sandpiperfi

Native Americans Launch ‘Love Water Not Oil’ Ride To Protest Fracking Pipeline

| August 19, 2014
Winona LaDuke launched the “Love Water Not Oil” horse ride this week to…
 
fracking_chemicals

Study Finds 8 Fracking Chemicals Toxic to Humans

Endocrinologists have warned that some of the chemicals used are known hormone-disruptors, and likely…
 
frackingukfi

UK Fracking Activists ‘Reclaim the Power’

350.org | August 18, 2014
Early this morning, campaigners from the Reclaim the Power unleashed a series of …
 
frackingarcticfi

Fracking the Arctic

Critics fear that fracking could pollute groundwater and trigger gas releases and seismic activity. Scientists say…
 
gov_christie

New Jersey Governor Vetoes Fracking Waste Ban Despite Bipartisan Support

| August 15, 2014
If New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is trying …
 
-2

From Our Friends At Living Lies on the Glaski Decision

Glaski Decision in California Appellate Court Turns the Corner on “Getting It”

Posted on August 2, 2013 by Neil Garfield  @:

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/glaski-decision-in-california-appellate-court-turns-the-corner-on-getting-it/

On the other hand we should not assume that they have arrived nor that this decision will have pervasive effects throughout California or elsewhere in the United States or other countries.

J.P. Morgan did suffer a crushing defeat in this decision. And the borrower definitely receive the benefits of a judicial decision that will allow the borrower to sue for wrongful foreclosure including equitable and legal relief which in plain language means reversing the foreclosure and getting damages. Probably one of the most damaging conclusions by the appellate court is that an examination of whether the loan ever made it into the asset pool is proper in determining the proper party to initiate a foreclosure or to offer a credit bid at a foreclosure auction.  The court said that alleged transfers into the trust after the cutoff date are void under New York State law which is the law that governs the common-law trusts created by the banks as part of the fraudulent securitization scheme.

Before you give them a standing ovation remember that it is possible for additional documentation to be created, fabricated and forged showing that despite the apparent violation of the cutoff date, the trustee has accepted the loan into the trust. This will most likely be a lie. I don’t think there is any entity acting as trustee of a trust that doesn’t know that it is under intense scrutiny and doesn’t want to be subject to liability that could amount to trillions of dollars advanced by investors with the purchase of bogus mortgage-backed bonds that were presumably managed by the trustee but in reality not managed at all  because the bonds were worthless. This gave the banks the opportunity to claim that they owned the bonds and therefore had an insurable interest which gave rise to the whole problem with AIG and AMBAC and other insurers or parties who had guaranteed the bond, the loan or any loss (credit default swaps).

The fact that the loan in this case was definitely securitized is also interesting. Of course Washington Mutual was stating to everyone that it was not involved in the securitization of mortgage loans when in fact nearly all of the loans originated became subject to claims of securitization. This case explains why I never say that the loan was securitized or that the loan was in any particular trust, to wit: I don’t believe that a funded trust exists with the ability to purchase loans and therefore I don’t believe the loans are in any of the asset pools. So when people ask me how they can prove which trust their loan is actually in, I reply that they are asking the wrong question.

What is being played out here in this case and hundreds of thousands of other cases is a representation by the foreclosing entity that the trust owns the loan when in fact it never owned the loan nor could it because the money that was advanced by investors was never deposited into the trust. We have the same banks representing to regulatory authorities and insurers that it is the bank and not the trust that owns the loan even though the bank merely made the loan using money advanced by investors who believed that they were buying mortgage-backed bonds. The truth is they were merely making a deposit into an account maintained by the investment bank. The resulting transactions do not qualify for exemption as securities or insurance under the 1998 law. Nor do they qualify for REMIC treatment under the Internal Revenue Code.

In other words if you take a close look and actually follow the path of the money and the path of the paper you will find that despite the pronouncements from the Department of Justice and other agencies, this is a simple fraud case using a Ponzi model. The hallmark of a Ponzi model is that it collapses as soon as the investors stop buying the bogus securities. If the government cares to do so it can freely prosecute the individuals and companies involved without any air of exemption under the 1998 law because none of the parties followed the securitization path presumed by the 1998 law. So we are back to this, to wit: a security is a security and subject to SEC regulations and insurance is an insurance contract subject to insurance regulators, and fraud is fraud subject to recovery of restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, treble damages etc.

You should remember when reading this decision that the appellate court was not ruling in favor of the borrower granting the substantive relief the borrower  was seeking. The appellate court merely reversed the trial court decision to dismiss the borrower’s claims. That only means that the borrower now as an opportunity to prove the elements of quiet title, wrongful foreclosure, slander of title, cancellation of instruments and relief under California’s version of unfair business practices. But the devil is in the details and proving the case requires aggressive discovery and aggressive preparation for trial. It is highly probable that the case will settle. The bank will probably be willing to pay almost any amount of money to avoid a judgment setting forth the elements of a wrongful foreclosure and how the bank violated the law.

The Bank will attempt to avoid any final order that undermines the value of loans that are subject to claims of securitization, because those loans supposedly support the value of the bogus mortgage-backed bonds sold to investors.  Any such final order would also undermine the balance sheet of J.P. Morgan and any other major bank carrying the mortgage bonds as assets on their balance sheet. If those assets are diminished, then the bank is not as well funded as it has been reporting. In fact, those assets might well vanish completely from the balance sheet of those banks, causing the banks to be seized by the FDIC and broken up into smaller pieces for regional and community banks to pick up. Hence this decision represents a risk factor that could eliminate the legal fiction created by smoke and mirrors from Wall Street banks, to wit: it is not the borrowers who are deadbeats, it is the banks who are broke and whose management has run off with billions and perhaps trillions of dollars that should be in the United States economy. The absence of that money lies at the root of our unemployment and low economic activity.

This Glaski case has many of the elements that we have been discussing for years. Fabricated documents, forgeries, perjury, false affidavits and no money trail to backup the story painted by the fabricated documents. And of course it has our old friend Washington Mutual Bank And the supposed take over by Chase Bank that never actually happened.

And it involves the issue of assignments and the fact that the assignment is not the transaction itself but only a report of a transaction. If the borrower proves that the transaction reported in the assignment or other instrument of conveyance never occurred, or if the borrower is successful in shifting the burden of proof to the bank to show that it did occur, the assignment will have no value whatsoever unless the transaction is present, to wit: that someone actually purchased the loan through the payment of money or other valuable consideration that was received by a party who actually owned the loan.

Thus even if Chase Bank were able to show that it entered into a transaction in which the loans were transferred (something we can find no evidence of which the FDIC receiver says never occurred) that would only be the equivalent of a quit claim deed, to wit: whoever received the consideration for the transfer of the loans was merely conveying any interest they had even if they had no interest at all. Hence the transactions by which Washington Mutual allegedly came to be the owner of the loan must be examined in the same way as the transaction between the Washington Mutual bankruptcy estate and chase bank.

You should also take note that the decision was published with the admonition that it is  “not to be published in the official reports.”  this is further indication that the court is concerned about the far-reaching effects of the decision and essentially tells trial judges that they do not have to follow it. So for those who wish to point to this decision and say “game over” we are not there yet. But I do think that we passed the halfway point and we are probably in the fifth or sixth inning of a nine inning game. Translating that to time, I would estimate that it’s going to take another three or four years to clean up this mess and that it might take several decades to clean up the title corruption that was created by the banks.

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2013/08/01/glaski-v-bank-of-america-ca5-5th-appellate-district-securitization-failed-ny-trust-law-applied-ruling-to-protect-remic-status-non-judicial-foreclosure-statutes-irrelevant-because-sa/

February 2012 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report

http://www.realtytrac.com/content/foreclosure-market-report/february-2012-us-foreclosure-market-report-7069

Half of largest metro areas post annual increases in foreclosure activity
Ten of the nation’s 20 largest metro areas by population documented year-over-year increases in foreclosure activity in February, led by the Florida cities of Tampa (64 percent increase) and Miami (53 percent increase).

The 10 metro areas with increases were all on the East Coast or in the Midwest, while most of the metro areas with year-over-year decreases in foreclosure activity were in the West, led by Seattle (59 percent decrease) and Phoenix (43 percent decrease).

The metro areas with the highest foreclosure rates among the 20 largest were Riverside-San Bernardino in California (one in 166 housing units), Atlanta (one in 244), Phoenix (one in 259), Miami (one in 264) and Chicago (one in 302).

Nevada, California, Arizona post top state foreclosure rates
Foreclosure activity in Nevada reached a 58-month low in February, but the state still posted the nation’s highest state foreclosure rate for the 62nd straight month. One in every 278 Nevada housing units had a foreclosure filing during the month, more than twice the national average.

California posted the nation’s second highest state foreclosure rate in February although the state’s foreclosure activity hit a 51-month low. A total of 48,422 California properties had a foreclosure filing during the month, one in every 283 housing units.

Arizona foreclosure activity increased on a monthly basis for the second month in a row boosted by a 33 percent jump in scheduled foreclosure auctions. One in every 312 Arizona housing units had a foreclosure filing during the month, the nation’s third highest state foreclosure rate.

One in every 331 Georgia housing units had a foreclosure filing in February, the nation’s fourth highest state foreclosure rate, and one in every 341 Florida housing units had a foreclosure filing during the month, the nation’s fifth highest state foreclosure rate. Florida default notices increased on a year-over-year basis for the fourth straight month in February, and overall Florida foreclosure activity was up on an annual basis for the second straight month.

Other states with foreclosure rates ranking among the top 10 were Illinois (one in 398 housing units), Michigan (one in 433), South Carolina (one in 489), Ohio (one in 543) and Wisconsin (one in 596).