Besides, what grown man calls himself Skippy and how arrogant do you have to be to use the word “vexatious”?

Well that explains a lot. Not surprised.

Mr. Moraitis is a lawyer in his daddy’s law firm and their law firm does short sales for the banks. So good luck waiting for him to propose legislation to send bankers to jail.

I was quoting the responses I received from two lawyers who apparently represent banks.

Not one? I’m not surprise at all! knowing how Chase has no consideration at all for homeowners even that they are their customers, hope that any customer of Chase that has a Mortgage with Chase and also has checking accounts moves their money out of it and cancels their accounts. that will be some way of small retribution

Mr.MMirro, I congratulate you on your comment yo seem to have a lot more conscience about what justice should be and about the rule of law than Mr. pparke500. Great comment

– A borrowers ‘promise’ to pay is but one side of a two-sided contract. There is no “moral” imperative for only one side to honor.
– There is a moral imperative to guard against thievery, because undefended the hoodlums will take over.
– Contracts generally have provisions for what either side can do if the other party defaults. This works both ways.
– At the essence of a mortgage contract, a lender/note holder should have no obligation to modify or otherwise capitulate to a change in contract terms just because the borrower can’t continue to pay. On the other hand, a lender/note holder should also be able to show they are the proper party to receive payments and show proper accounting. The current dilema is partly due to federal involvement and the huge scope of the problem at hand.
– If a lender/note holder wishes to foreclose, there are rules that they must abide by. The basic rules are not new but centuries old, tried and true. Same applies to those wishing to defend.
– If one side or the other does not follow the rules, or can’t make their case even if they do, they should lose. On the grand scale of this particular social dilema (2nd depression/mass economic evaporation, etc), anything less risks bastardizing our judicial system to the point of anarchy.
– If you do the math on most loans in default vs. current market value of the note or the asset (property secured), then consider that most delinquent borrowers would be willing to honor their original obligation or a reduced amount still over current market value, it makes little sense that one holding a $100 note would foreclose, costing them an additional $10, so they could then sell the $100 note for say $40, netting them $30, for a 70% loss, when they could likely work a deal with the original borrower reducing their loss significantly. Lender losses are inevitable here. It’s only a matter of how much. So why would they do that? Because it pays more than the alternative. Math and money. Think credit default swaps (insurance policies), FDIC loss-share agreements and $140 Billion taxpayer bailout of AIG. Then think tax dollars swirling down a hole.

At the end of the day the legal rules were all in place well before this started. We don’t need another 2,000 page bill that no one will read. The courts obligation is to uphold the existing rules. Their job is not easy these days. I pray they have the wisdom and fortitude.

If Moraitis is legit, he will propose and get passed serious increases in the penalties for now common transgressions such as fraudulent accounting, fraudulent affidavits, fraudulent notarizations, violations of FDCPA and FDUPTA, fraud on the courts, Bar violations by lawyers; and establish State licensing of attorneys since the Bar’s have a conflict of interest and are failing to police its own memebers; re-split commercial and investment banks; require originating lenders keep skin in the game; and on and on.

‘Tis a telling time indeed. How it turns out will be determined by what the majority constituents demand … or don’t.