REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

OccupyMarin problems

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Monday, December 12, 2011 07:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 977
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, December 9, 2011 7:41 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Last night was the "Outreach Workgroup" meeting, and it left me with some negative impressions. Given some seem to think I'm not willing to see anything negative about the Occupy movement, I thought I would share some of what I experienced.

I may have mentioned that we were pushing the Board of Supervisors to come up with a resolution stating that Marin County Sheriff Departments' people wouldn't be sent to roust other Occupy camps outside Marin. They did manage to get it on the public agenda, and came back with a resolution. I didn't go to last Saturday's GA because I wasn't well, but apparently there it was accepted by the GA. When it was passed around to the group, however, what was in it pretty much disgusted everyone.

Lots of "whereas"es and "be it resolved", etc., but the essence of it was "We see the problems in the country and support Occupy's efforts, as long as they abide by the law". Pure bullshit, which in no way addressed what they were asked to address, just a piece of fluff saying nothing. Given it was accepted by the GA, there's nothing that can be done about it (tho' I'll bring it up at tomorrow's GA). I think it was a totally stupid move, so as a private citizen I'm going to write my own letter and tell them what I think of it; that OccupyMarin has decided not to respond, given that's obviously a waste of time, but that everyone knows what they were saying.

They went on discussing how they should approach each Town Council and advocate for a more specifric resolution, and I kept my mouth shut. Finally someone said what I was hoping they would say; that trying to work with TPTB was a waste of time, given what we got from the Board of Supes, and why would we go, hat in hand as it were, to ask? We have our free speech rights and should use them as we see fit; to try to work within the system is exactly what we're NOT about.

They also discussed this Saturday's "action", which is to march on the Big Four banks in town (BofA, Chase, Wells, Citi) and demonstrate outside each; four of us were tasked with finding out information on each of them to elucidate in front of each bank. I've got Wells, which I have had a particular dislike for since I had dealings with them back in the 70s (which is what decided me to only deal with small, local banks henceforth). If anyone knows anything and feels like sharing it, I'd appreciate it--I'll be looking stuff up today and it was mentioned that they were involved in the arms trade, so that's a place to start looking. This action, at least, I think is valid; we're calling it a "teach in" and hopefully it will raise some awareness and inform people about some of the banks' activities.

The rest of the meeting was given over to figuring out how to support various Marin towns' Occupy groups, and largely sharing information on how to deal with next Monday's closing of the ports action...how to protect oneself from pepper spray, to write the phone number of someone to contact on your wrist in case you get arrested, travel logistics, and the things they're going to teach people at the GA who are going over, etc. This has nothing to do with me, given I know my physical condition precludes me joining any long marches, so I didn't participate.

All in all, I came away rather cynical. Each Occupy group is independent and chooses their own focus, and I may have mentioned before that I feel ours hasn't quite got its legs yet and is focusing on things I don't think are particularly pertinent. The fact that the stupid "resolution" was read and adopted by the GA makes me shake my head; SOMEONE should have spoken up about what a piece of shit it was and how it didn't even address the issue at hand, which would have kept it from being accepted. There is lack of organization, which is natural, and lack of communication, which I've thought from the start needed improving, and a lack of focus on things I believe are more in tune with what Occupy is about.

While I think approaching local shop owners about credit card usage and collecting food and clothing for the homeless are worthy endeavors, to me they miss the point. While I believe we should be addressing local issues, as all Occupy groups are, I think there are other things we could be doing which are more on point, and I'm going to say so tomorrow. I'm not sure what I think we SHOULD be doing, and again, would love any feedback along those lines, but I think it should be addressed.

I remember Pizmo suggesting we put up candidates for local office, etc., and that has been started. Our wonderful Congresswoman for years, Lynn Woolsey, has done a great job of representing us along with Senator Boxer (as best they can, given they and DiFi are only three legislators) and done a good job for us locally, is retiring.

There's a guy, Norman Soloman, who is running to replace her, and we're backing him. I don't THINK he's a shill or pandering; he's made a vow to accept NO corporate PAC money for his campaign, and is a progressive of long standing. He's shown up at our demonstrations and addressed the crowd at one of the actions, and has visited numerous other Occupy groups within his district (which stretches the Coast from the Golden Gate to the Oregon border), and brought back information on a number of them. He looks really promising, and I hope we can get him elected. One of the things I want to propose is that we investigate other candidats running for local seats and decide which of those we want to support, as well. It's a start.

We have a long "row to hoe" and have only begun, so things will shift and change as we go along, I know, but I dont' want to see us get involved in piddling little things which aren't, to me, te intent of the Occupy movement. The food drive, for example, is already handled by the Marin Food Bank and there are drums in many places around the county. Asking TPTB for resolutions is something I'm very much against, as to me that goes directly contrary to what Occupy is about, and hoping either the County or the towns to be against sending cops to other counties is a waste of time.

So we'll progress in fits and starts; I think it's hard for people to recognize where our efforts are best expended and when to work within the system (like with Solomon) and when to know trying to work within the system is a waste of time. It's a learning experince.

While I wish everyone well who is attending the Oakland action next Monday, I'm not sure where THAT fits, either, as all it does is shut down the ports and affect the longshoremen (who are with us, but also have their jobs to do). While it was perhaps useful once, and garnered a lot of attention for how the police reacted, I'm not sure twice is the most effective use of manpower. It's a difficult thing for each of us I think, trying to decide how to move forward in the best way. Hopefully we'll learn.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 9, 2011 8:06 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


ETA: I keep reading it here, and of course it's the prescribed talking point of the right and FauxNews, etc. That is that we're all "unemployed", "hippies", and want "handouts", etc. I'd like to state for the record that here in Marin, and in most of the other Occupy groups in Northern California, the groups are made up of a mix of all kinds of different people. We have some unemployed among us, and some students, but the majority are either working peole or retirees, and our median age is probably around 30-35. Those among us who have jobs come on weekends or after work; I've demonstrated with a number of them when we do demonstrations on street corners to get the attention of commuters, and a couple I know got off the bus after coming home from work and came straight to the demonstrations.

I know it won't change anything and our die-hard righties will continue to parrot the usual bullshit, but I wanted to clarify it--not in responses to individual posts because that's not worth my time, but occasionally to remind you that it IS bullshit put out by the powers on the right who fear us and want to manipulate their audience. While we have a few disabled who come in wheelchairs (or, like me, with a back brace, a cane and, on long demonstrations a camp chair), everyone I have met at the Saturday demonstrations and everywhere else has worked all their lives, most have children and have lived in Marin for a long time. We're just "people" from around the area, people who have watched for too long what is happening in this country and are willing to put ourselves out there to speak up about it and help raise awareness.

We have our own unique problem in Marin--as I'm sure each group does--in that it's a wealthy county and thus far, we're guessing, most people have not become uncomfortable enough to be motivated into joining the movement. Yes, MoveOn has been here for ages, and we do some actions in conjunction with us--their numbers are larger because they've been working for longer. Our numbers are growing; it's frustrating that they're not growing as fast as some other places, but given we have more than our share of 1%ers, this isn't surprising. There are some places, like Ross and Belevedere and Tiburon, where we won't even GO, as the percentage of "1%ers" far outweighs anything else. On the other hand, we also have activist groups of long standing in Marin who we are attempting to hook up with, learn from and support.

So let our blindly partisan posters blather on about how "filthy" Occupiers are and how they're "murderers", etc.--I notice when I challenged that, no specifics were forthcoming, of course, which won't stop them from repeating the pejoratives. It's a shame they're so blindly determined to parrot the very people who are working AGAINST their own interests, but this is no surprise either. I just want to make it clear that, in my own experience, none of the lies FauxNews, Luntz, etc., are constantly repeating in order to manipulate their audience into believing, are true. I shouldn't need to reiterate it more than this once, and ask that the THINKING people on this forum keep it in mind and let the spittle run off their backs when they read the bullshit. Thank you.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 9, 2011 8:22 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I would be interested in reading whatever evidence you have in regards to Wells Fargo performing illicit/illegal/unjust deeds. Also, if you tell me which Wells Fargo you will be appearing at, I can make an effort to arrange a dialogue with the branch staff or other representatives to discuss grievances. I myself do not and can not represent Wells Fargo, but I may be able to reach those who can.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 9, 2011 10:01 AM

HERO


Very interesting background info.

I hope your efforts result in lots of peaceful free speech. If not I hope you are all arrested and jailed. In either case I hope nobody is hurt, but if someone is hurt, let's all hope it's the protestors and not the innocent workers, bystanders, or cops you plan to victimize in your quest for socialist revolution...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 9, 2011 11:08 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I somehow find no warmth in these well wishes.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 9, 2011 12:11 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Aw, c'mon, Anthony, what else DID you expect?

Re: Your questions. Been googling and here's what I found. I apologize for throwing it all at you verbatum, but I gotta spend the next few hours condensing it and won't get back here. I got a lotta work to do before tomorrow! The march starts at 2:30 Pacific, so be sure you don't talk to anyone BEFORE that, 'kay? And thanx!

It boils down to three things:

Money laundering for Mexican drug cartels
Investment in for-profit prisons for non-criminal illegal aliens
The usual loan shit all of them were involved in (targeting minorities, foreclosures, etc.)
Gouging and profiteering with overdraft fees

Makes illuminating reading, if you're willing to slog through it all. I didn't bother to clean it up or anything, so I do mean "slog"!

Quote:

Just before sunset on April 10, 2006, a DC-9 jet landed at the international airport in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, 500 miles east of Mexico City. As soldiers on the ground approached the plane, the crew tried to shoo them away, saying there was a dangerous oil leak. So the troops grew suspicious and searched the jet.
They found 128 black suitcases, packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100 million. The stash was supposed to have been delivered from Caracas to drug traffickers in Toluca, near Mexico City, Mexican prosecutors later found. Law enforcement officials also discovered something else.
The smugglers had bought the DC-9 with laundered funds they transferred through two of the biggest banks in the U.S.: Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp., Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its August 2010 issue.
This was no isolated incident. Wachovia, it turns out, had made a habit of helping move money for Mexican drug smugglers. Wells Fargo & Co., which bought Wachovia in 2008, has admitted in court that its unit failed to monitor and report suspected money laundering by narcotics traffickers -- including the cash used to buy four planes that shipped a total of 22 tons of cocaine.

Wachovia admitted it didn’t do enough to spot illicit funds in handling $378.4 billion for Mexican-currency-exchange houses from 2004 to 2007. That’s the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, an anti-money-laundering law, in U.S. history -- a sum equal to one-third of Mexico’s current gross domestic product.
“Wachovia’s blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations,” says Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the case.
Twenty million people in the U.S. regularly use illegal drugs, spurring street crime and wrecking families. Narcotics cost the U.S. economy $215 billion a year -- enough to cover health care for 30.9 million Americans -- in overburdened courts, prisons and hospitals and lost productivity, the department says.
“It’s the banks laundering money for the cartels that finances the tragedy,” says Martin Woods, director of Wachovia’s anti-money-laundering unit in London from 2006 to 2009. Woods says he quit the bank in disgust after executives ignored his documentation that drug dealers were funneling money through Wachovia’s branch network.
For the past two decades, Latin American drug traffickers have gone to U.S. banks to cleanse their dirty cash, says Paul Campo, head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s financial crimes unit.
The bank didn’t react quickly enough to the prosecutors’ requests and failed to hire enough investigators, the U.S. Treasury Department said in March. After a 22-month investigation, the Justice Department on March 12 charged Wachovia with violating the Bank Secrecy Act by failing to run an effective anti-money-laundering program.
Five days later, Wells Fargo promised in a Miami federal courtroom to revamp its detection systems. Wachovia’s new owner paid $160 million in fines and penalties, less than 2 percent of its $12.3 billion profit in 2009.
If Wells Fargo keeps its pledge, the U.S. government will, according to the agreement, drop all charges against the bank in March 2011.
No big U.S. bank -- Wells Fargo included -- has ever been indicted for violating the Bank Secrecy Act or any other federal law. Instead, the Justice Department settles criminal charges by using deferred-prosecution agreements, in which a bank pays a fine and promises not to break the law again.
Indicting a big bank could trigger a mad dash by investors to dump shares and cause panic in financial markets, says Jack Blum, a U.S. Senate investigator for 14 years and a consultant to international banks and brokerage firms on money laundering.
The theory is like a get-out-of-jail-free card for big banks, Blum says.
“There’s no capacity to regulate or punish them because they’re too big to be threatened with failure,” Blum says. “They seem to be willing to do anything that improves their bottom line, until they’re caught.”
Wachovia’s run-in with federal prosecutors hasn’t troubled investors. Wells Fargo’s stock traded at $30.86 on March 24, up 1 percent in the week after the March 17 agreement was announced.
I am sure Wachovia knew what was going on,” says Marmolejo, who oversaw the criminal investigation into Wachovia’s customers. “It went on too long and they made too much money not to have known.”
At Wachovia’s anti-money-laundering unit in London, Woods and his colleague Jim DeFazio, in Charlotte, say they suspected that drug dealers were using the bank to move funds.
Woods, a former Scotland Yard investigator, spotted illegible signatures and other suspicious markings on traveler’s checks from Mexican exchange companies, he said in a September 2008 letter to the U.K. Financial Services Authority. He sent copies of the letter to the DEA and Treasury Department in the U.S.
Woods, 45, says his bosses instructed him to keep quiet and tried to have him fired, according to his letter to the FSA. In one meeting, a bank official insisted Woods shouldn’t have filed suspicious activity reports to the government, as both U.S. and U.K. laws require.
‘I Was Shocked’
“I was shocked by the content and outcome of the meeting and genuinely traumatized,” Woods wrote.
In the U.S., DeFazio, who had been a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent for 21 years, says he told bank executives in 2005 that the DEA was probing the transfers through Wachovia to buy the planes.
Bank executives spurned recommendations to close suspicious accounts, DeFazio, 63, says.
“I think they looked at the money and said, ‘The hell with it. We’re going to bring it in, and look at all the money we’ll make,’” DeFazio says.
DeFazio retired in 2008.
“I didn’t want anything from them,” he says. “I just wanted to get out.”
Woods, who resigned from Wachovia in May 2009, now advises banks on how to combat money laundering.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug
-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal.html
the past three years, hundreds of thousands of non-criminal immigrants have been subjected to excessively abusive treatment in for profit prisons run for the federal government by the Geo Group (GEO) and Corrections of America (CCA). Through its mutual funds, Wells Fargo is a major investor in the GEO, the nation’s second largest private prison company, and a minor shareholder in CCA, the largest.

These for-profit prison companies, which rely on billions of tax dollars as their primary source of revenue, have successfully lobbied federal and state governments to adopt and implement policies that have led to the incarceration of over one million immigrants over the past three years. Recent reports by the Houston Chronicle and PBS showed that excessive abuse of detainees is rampant across the increasingly privatized federal immigrant detention system.

Wells Fargo has also played a key role supporting GEO business ventures. http://prisondivestment.wordpress.com/campaign-resources/newss-release
s/october-national-month-of-action/
] The GEO group operates prison facilities in Australia, The UK, South Africa, the US and Guantanamo Bay and Cuba. The GEO Group has been criticized for Failing to Vet Guards, sexual abuse against immigrant detainees and other abuses

Quote:

its lending practices discriminated against black borrowers and led to a wave of foreclosures that has reduced city tax revenues and increased its costs.

Baltimore mayor to ask that the court bar Wells Fargo from charging higher fees to black borrowers. Many of these borrowers paid more under the bank’s subprime lending program, designed for less creditworthy consumers, and are more likely to default on their loans.

In 2006, Wells Fargo made high-cost loans, with an interest rate at least three percentage points above a federal benchmark, to 65 percent of its black customers in Baltimore and to only 15 percent of its white customers in the area, according to the lawsuit. Similarly, refinancings to black borrowers were more likely to be higher cost than to white ones and to carry prepayment penalties.

The complaint requests unspecified damages to cover the diminished property tax revenues and higher costs that the city said it had incurred. Additional costs include those for fire and police protection in hard-hit neighborhoods and expenditures to buy and rehabilitate vacant properties.

Wells Fargo allowed mortgage brokers to charge higher commissions when they put borrowers in loans with higher interest rates than the customers qualified for based on their credit profiles. The bank also failed to underwrite mortgage loans to traditional criteria, the suit said, setting up the borrowers for default.

Half of the Wells Fargo foreclosures in 2006 occurred in census tracts with populations that were more than 80 percent black, the suit said. Meanwhile, only 16 percent of the foreclosures were found in tracts with populations that are 20 percent or less black. Figures for 2007 were similar.

John P. Relman, a lawyer at Relman & Dane in Washington, represents the City of Baltimore in its case against Wells Fargo. “Foreclosures have a more profound effect in minority communities because they are closest to the line of distressed neighborhoods in many cities,” Mr. Relman said. “That causes big problems for the cities, not just the lost income from taxes but also the long-term social costs. Programs are going to be needed to stabilize the communities to be rebuilt.”

The Baltimore complaint cited a 2005 study showing that foreclosures required more municipal services and higher costs. The study, commissioned by the Homeownership Preservation Foundation of Minneapolis, identified 26 different costs incurred by government agencies responding to foreclosures in Chicago and in Cook County, Ill., in 2003 and 2004. The analysis concluded that total costs reached $34,199 for each foreclosure.

Quote:

Wells Fargo routinely adds surprise charges to mortgages taken out by minorities, with many rates rising well above 10 percent. As of last week, the average mortgage rate in the nation's largest cities hovered around 6.5 percent, according to the Associated Press.
Both http://knowmore.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wells_Fargo
Quote:

the campaign dollars to members of Congress from banks and firms that have received billions via the Troubled Asset Relief Program,"

Lobbying costs 2011: $6,620,000 http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=D000019743&year=
2011


Campaign contributions for 2012 campaigns: 252 contributions totaling $301,965 for election cycle 2012. 132 contributions totaling $161,753 Republicans; 120 contributions totaling $140,212. http://maplight.org/us-congress/contributions?s=1&start=01%2F01%2F
2011&end=12%2F09%2F2011&office_party=Senate%2CHouse%2CDemocrat%2CRepublican%2CIndependent&election=2012&string=Wells%20Fargo&business_sector=any&business_industry=any&source=All
]

Quote:

90 page ruling from Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California against Wells Fargo Bank, showing in detail exactly how the bank engaged in “gouging and profiteering” when it managed customer checking accounts. Nor is this one of those polite judicial rulings where the judge waits to the end to conclude whether or nor the defendant engaged in bad behavior. Judge Alsup is biting and nasty throughout his ruling, barely able to hold his disgust at what he concluded was a deliberate attempt by Wells Fargo to profit off a system that trapped customers into overdraft hell.

Prior to 2000, Wells Fargo did its best to minimize overdrafts in customer accounts. Its computers processed all credits to the account first, followed by ATM withdrawals and debit card purchases, followed by checks and then Automated Clearing House transactions (the ACH is used by banks to process debits such as PayPal charges or monthly mortgage or rental payments where the customer has agreed to an automatic debit). In every step, Wells Fargo used low to high sequencing.

Wells Fargo argued that these were best practices within the banking industry

Judge Alsup referenced several memos from management written in preparation for these changes, identifying the fee revenue to be generated as a result of them. The first change was expected to produce $40 million in additional revenue in the first year, and the second and third changes an additional $40 million.

Judge Alsup also found that the way this process was explained to customers was deliberately misleading. New clients were given the legal Customer Account Agreement, a 60 page brochure in single spaced, 10 point font, which explained on page 27 that Wells Fargo “may pay Items presented against your account in any order we choose.” When this was being distributed, Wells Fargo indisputably was already processing all debits on a high to low sequence after commingling, but the use of the word “may” left consumers thinking nothing had changed in the processing methods. The bank’s own executives testified at the trial that they did not expect customers to have time to read the 60 page CAA, or understand it even if they did.

Second, the bank gave customers an easier to understand document without the legal jargon of the CAA, in which there was no reference at all to sequencing, so that the marketing material obfuscated deliberately the reality of overdraft charges. Third, it was only after a customer complained vigorously enough about their own overdraft charges that Wells Fargo sent them a letter explaining the true nature of the high to low sequence and its consequences. Fourth, at no time was the existence of a shadow line of credit revealed to the customer, which meant that Wells Fargo purposefully approved transactions it knew would create multiple overdrafts, but never told the customer at the time that such overdrafts would result.

Judge Alsup concluded that it was impossible for any customer of Wells Fargo to control their balance and prevent overdrafts using the traditional checkbook balancing methods.

Judge Alsup concluded Wells Fargo engaged in unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code. The Code requires a business to operate in Good Faith and engage only in Fair Dealing, but Wells Fargo did neither when it reordered its sequencing of debits and then expanded the universe of possible overdrafts by commingling transactions and installing a secret line of credit. The bank also deliberately went out of its way to hide these practices from customers and confuse them about the overdraft process. This lack of appropriate information in the bank’s legal and marketing material meant that Wells Fargo deliberately deceived its customers into creating overdrafts. As such, under the Code, Judge Alsup found that Wells Fargo engaged in fraudulent behavior.

As injunctive relief, Judge Alsup ordered Wells Fargo to cease using high to low sequencing by the end of this year, and revert back either to low to high sequencing, or sequencing by chronological order, which is close to what the consumer uses. In terms of restitution, the law limits penalties to no more than the defendant has earned from its unfair business practices. Accordingly, Judge Alsup ordered Wells Fargo to return to its customers all overdraft fees assessed during the past 43 months, the period of time for which the court had access to data from the bank on its overdraft earnings. This will result in an estimated $203 million in repayments to be made by the bank to its customers.

We have seen how a large bank like Wells Fargo has put profit maximization as its greatest imperative, at the expense of its customers, and at the risk of acting in an unethical and fraudulent matter. Bank customers are no longer viewed as customers to be given a reasonable service at a reasonable price, but as revenue sources down to the microcosmic, one customer at a time level. It is not difficult to imagine that Wells Fargo nationwide has detailed internal information on the profitability of each one of the millions of people it calls a customer.

As Judge Alsup pointed out, the overdraft fee process became a big business at Wells Fargo – the largest source of revenue for Consumer Banking. These fees hit the bank’s poorest customers who could least afford $200 penalty charges, because they couldn’t afford the $2,000 minimum balance necessary to avoid being overdrawn. It is to the bank’s discredit that Wells Fargo specifically targeted these hapless customers, deceiving them in the process, and nurturing them along as continuing sources of revenue due to the simple fact that they could not possibly manage their accounts to avoid overdrafts.

In December, 2002, a class action suit was filed against Wells Fargo over the bank’s refusal to reveal the existence of the shadow line of credit to customers. This case - Smith vs. Wells Fargo Bank - was finally settled in May, 2007 before Judge Ronald Prager of the San Diego Superior Court. Judge Prager ruled that Wells Fargo must pay $20 restitution to all the customers of the bank who were granted a shadow line of credit, and to pay the plaintiff attorney fees.

Judge Alsup tells us what happened next: What Judge Prager did not know — since it only came to light in this proceeding — was that Wells Fargo paid merely $2080 to 166 claimants. This is not a typo. Barely two thousand dollars were paid to class members. By contrast, Wells Fargo agreed to pay Finkelstein and Krinsk [the plaintiff attorneys] $2.2 million in attorney’s fees and costs. http://agonist.org/numerian/20100812/the_checking_account_scam_how_wel
ls_fargo_gouged_its_customers
]



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 9, 2011 12:41 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

It seems Wells Fargo inherited quite a kettle of fish when it acquired Wachovia. I had no idea they (Wachovia) were involved in money laundering scandals. Most unfortunate for Wells Fargo. I see that Wells Fargo paid a fine for Wachovia's misdeeds, and of course Wachovia no longer exists as its own entity, having been consumed by its new owner.

Investment in for-profit prisons leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I do not believe that such enterprises are worthy of investment. I am skeptical of businesses that profit from human suffering. I do not like the idea that someone's profit is contingent upon imprisoning people. It leaves a counterincentive in the investment world for improving the system.

This statement: "Wells Fargo routinely adds surprise charges to mortgages taken out by minorities"

I consider to be incorrect. I have some intimate knowledge of the bank's Mortgage and Home Equity business lines, and I have seen their pricing and fee structures and rules. Nowhere is there a price bump or fee aimed at minorities or any race of people. Nowhere is there a product aimed at specific races or ethnicities. That having been said, if there is evidence of disparate lending or disparate impact, the bank will be subject to hefty punitive action.

This statement: " the campaign dollars to members of Congress from banks and firms that have received billions via the Troubled Asset Relief Program,"

Is flawed in respects to Wells Fargo being a Tarp recipient who didn't want the money to begin with. The company was strong-armed into taking the funds by the government. There was a strong feeling that if all of the major banks didn't take the money, then the ones who did take the money would be seen as risky, lose business, and fold. So everyone was force-fed. This is the same government that nudged banks into acquisitions with competitors, taking them from 'too big to fail' to 'too bigger to fail.'

This statement: " The bank’s own executives testified at the trial that they did not expect customers to have time to read the 60 page CAA, or understand it even if they did."

Is describing despicable behavior that can not really be defended. I am glad about legislation that altered overdraft practices, because this kind of predatory fee device was hurting customers.

Note that I am a private citizen and not a spokesman for Wells Fargo or its affiliates. My opinions are my own, and not representative of any company position or policy.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 9, 2011 4:14 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

That's just terrible.

Shameful.

Note that I am a private citizen and not a spokesman for Wells Fargo or its affiliates. My opinions are my own, and not representative of any company position or policy.



--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 10, 2011 4:34 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Niki,

Just wondering. In the Marin GAs, who seems to be taking the lead, the young folks or the older people who've been in the social justice scene for a while? I know that Occupy is called a leaderless movement, but in just about everything, some folks move to the front. Also, who ends up doing most of the actual work? I note you got tasked with information gathering. Do more experienced folk tend to get that sort of job while the younger ones do the actions?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 10, 2011 4:37 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

That's just terrible.

Shameful.

Note that I am a private citizen and not a spokesman for Wells Fargo or its affiliates. My opinions are my own, and not representative of any company position or policy.



--Anthony





So, you're an employee of Wells Fargo, and are speaking out on their behalf ?

Got it.



"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 10, 2011 6:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Niki2, I'd like to share some general observations of the Occupy movement from the far left. My email friends (as distinguished from my internet friends) are (mostly) a bunch of oldish student radicals and activists from the 60's and 70's... most of my email friends have pretty much "been there and done that, AND got the T-shirt and mug". Some of us have been in jail, others have traveled the world, still others of us have been in cooperatives, and ONE of us has been in cooperatives AND in government AND worked for (gasp!) big pharma. So, with permission, I am quoting one of my email friends. Having had a foot in so many worlds, I found this particularly enlightening...
Quote:

Local democracy, including the "Occupy" practices of consensus and facilitation have their place. The "Occupy" groups illustrated the value of the use of direct democracy in small groups of people who created a community, and within that community committed themselves to respecting each other, and using the tools of direct democracy to educate and develop plans.

Few people in North America have had this type of experience. Certainly the practice of Liberal Democracy allows for only limited demonstrations of respect and exercise of the will of the whole community. Most people in Liberal Democracy limit their view of democracy to the resolution of conflict via the will of the majority. Purposely, ignoring the needs of the minorities, let alone respecting the minorities.

For me, it was wonderful to see the "Occupy" movement in action. Having been directly involved in organizations (activist groups and cooperatives) that have used similar consensus decision making tools, I have been exposed to both the strengths and weaknesses of direct democracy. Local democracy and the "Occupy" practices work best … well locally, … and in the context of a well defined community of like-minded people who are bound together by some type of core common vision/values and use the direct democracy tools to resolve differences, but successfully only differences that outsiders may consider relatively minor.

As the cooperatives and activist groups became larger, and the constituencies became more diverse, consensus decision making, in the practical application, tends to result in indecision.

So for big questions, big solutions, parliamentary democracy and its accompanying tools are needed … The bigger the democratic organization the more structured and disciplined the decision making process needs to be, if both a wide variety of voices and alternatives are to be heard … All of these tools work best when there is commonality of vision and world view, and when differences are respected or at worse tolerated.



Anyway...what I got out of this was

local issues = direct democracy. Big issues = representative democracy. Until the Occupy movement ALSO becomes engaged in representative democracy... politics... getting people in office who represent their viewpoint... they will be limited to local issues.

Direct democracy is a heady, powerful experience. For once, you get to make important decisions about real things, not just what kind of toilet paper to buy. But it is also limited, so you need to find appropriately-sized goals for your group in order to achieve success. Success will then build on success.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 10, 2011 6:22 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



There's a reason our Founders abhorred the idea of " direct " democracy, aka mob rule.



"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 10, 2011 3:30 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Geezer: This is going to be rough...want to answer your questions, but I'm pretty frazzled. Ran from wake-up until 3 or so, now I"m pooped. Let's see...

At the GA (there's only one, every Saturday, no "main") it varies, depending on who's gonna be there. There's a "facilitator", who keeps the GA moving and hands the microphone to everyone else (using the hand signs as we go down the "stack"). Different people make announcements from their various workgroups, offer proposals their workgroups have come up with, others announce upcoming actions, etc., we might have a speaker if such was decided by a previous week's GA, we get news from OccupyCafe (a phone...well, too time consuming; look it up. It's neat), etc. It varies every week, so I can't give you percentages or such. I'd say, generally, out of maybe 15 or so people who most commonly deal with facilitating the meeting, say 65% are over 25, the rest under that.

I can only think of one person who "moves to the front" regularly...Pat, from the Outreach group. She doesn't actually "move" to the front, people kind of dump stuff on her, she swivels to try and avoid it, smiles around at everyone else and someone else picks up the ball. That's kinda how it looks, can you picture that? She refuses to make any decisions or push the conversation, but she's kinda what we all swirl around, if there is any such person. She actually doesn't want to be doing much, but I guess she's about the only person who is guaranteed to show up every week...tho', come to think of it, SHE's missed a couple too. It sounds confusing, but somehow it all works out; something will be tossed around by everyone, she'll say "so who wants to do that?", and there's always someone to stick their hand in the air and say "I'll do that", and it gets done.

Same with the work, tho' there I'll admit there ARE some who've never volunteered to do "work" per se--like physical stuff...make signs, set up, do the phone call for OccupyCafe and report, take minutes, haul signs, etc. Only a few of them I can think of; they offer suggestions and participate in the GA, but don't seem to get involved in physical stuff. Couple of them are older, but then we've got several in their 60's and a sweetheart I've gotten close to who's in her 80s and shows up EVERY fucking week! She walked across America "back then" to protest nuclear energy, and another time for the environment (and she's BIGGGG on environment). She shames me, at 63, hobbling around...but she ONLY does the Saturday demonstrations, nothing else.

It's such a mixed bag, I can't do better unless I talk about individual people. I like making signs, and spend a lot of time in my recliner, so I do that. I also haul those signs to the Saturday thing, along with a card table and some little flags I got off the internet, and small "lawn signs" I whacked up out of some leftover stuff. Pat often brings the other signs, cardboard stuff and markers so people can make their own if they like, and several different people bring various flyers, handouts, etc., etc. which compile the "welcome table". If someone has to leave early, they connect with someone else to take stuff home and bring it to the next meeting. Like the hand signal sign I made...I haven't handled it since that first week (oh, yeah, I did take it home one week), mostly it just seems to mysteriously appear behind me when I turn around while we're setting up. We all put up the signs, flags, table, etc....it just kind of "happens".

I didn't make today's march, so many different parts of my anatomy hurt today (why I have no idea!)... they marched from BofA to Chase to Wells to Citi, back to BofA (our Saturday demonstrations/GAs are held in a little plaza right next to BofA and we demonstrate on the sidewalk in front of BofA. I love it...snigger (BofA DOESN'T, poor babies!) Four of us volunteered at the Outreach meeting to take each of those banks, get info, and when they stop at each bank on today's march, speak what info they got. I had to give my written stuff to someone else to do for me so I could go home. It was just each of us raising our hands at the meeting and sayign "I"ll take Wells..."

There's the OccupyCafe Monday night call--I was supposed to do that last week but was sick so it just didn't get done; different folk will volunteer to do it from time to time, as different folk volunteer to take minutes at the GA and get them to the media folk who handle our website, where they'll be put up, or facilitate that week's GA, etc. Website's at OccupyMarin.org, if anyone's interested...also onFacebook.

So I guess I'd say everyone ends up pretty much doing more or less of the work at any given time. I don't know how hard the media group works to keep the website going, because I only talk to who's near me at any given time, or at the Outreach meeting, since that's my group. At the GA, the facilitator kind of keeps it going, but probably doesn't do much talking, they hand the mike off to others for this or that as we go down the stack.

That's the best I can do...sorry it's rambling, but I'm POOPED and off to get some dinner.

Oh...Sig: Everything you said, and everything your friend said, in spades.

Anthony, no time to respond properly, just wanted to note that Wells HAS been "judged" to have done these things, in courts of law. The problem is, as it says, "Instead, the Justice Department settles criminal charges by using deferred-prosecution agreements, in which a bank pays a fine and promises not to break the law again." That's all that ever happens, but they have been found guilty in courts of law to have dealt with their customers and minsorities in fraudulent and discriminatory fashions.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 10, 2011 3:39 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Niki2, I'd like to share some general observations of the Occupy movement from the far left. My email friends (as distinguished from my internet friends) are (mostly) a bunch of oldish student radicals and activists from the 60's and 70's... most of my email friends have pretty much "been there and done that, AND got the T-shirt and mug". Some of us have been in jail, others have traveled the world, still others of us have been in cooperatives, and ONE of us has been in cooperatives AND in government AND worked for (gasp!) big pharma. So, with permission, I am quoting one of my email friends. Having had a foot in so many worlds, I found this particularly enlightening...
Quote:

Local democracy, including the "Occupy" practices of consensus and facilitation have their place. The "Occupy" groups illustrated the value of the use of direct democracy in small groups of people who created a community, and within that community committed themselves to respecting each other, and using the tools of direct democracy to educate and develop plans.

Few people in North America have had this type of experience. Certainly the practice of Liberal Democracy allows for only limited demonstrations of respect and exercise of the will of the whole community. Most people in Liberal Democracy limit their view of democracy to the resolution of conflict via the will of the majority. Purposely, ignoring the needs of the minorities, let alone respecting the minorities.

For me, it was wonderful to see the "Occupy" movement in action. Having been directly involved in organizations (activist groups and cooperatives) that have used similar consensus decision making tools, I have been exposed to both the strengths and weaknesses of direct democracy. Local democracy and the "Occupy" practices work best … well locally, … and in the context of a well defined community of like-minded people who are bound together by some type of core common vision/values and use the direct democracy tools to resolve differences, but successfully only differences that outsiders may consider relatively minor.

As the cooperatives and activist groups became larger, and the constituencies became more diverse, consensus decision making, in the practical application, tends to result in indecision.

So for big questions, big solutions, parliamentary democracy and its accompanying tools are needed … The bigger the democratic organization the more structured and disciplined the decision making process needs to be, if both a wide variety of voices and alternatives are to be heard … All of these tools work best when there is commonality of vision and world view, and when differences are respected or at worse tolerated.



Anyway...what I got out of this was

local issues = direct democracy. Big issues = representative democracy. Until the Occupy movement ALSO becomes engaged in representative democracy... politics... getting people in office who represent their viewpoint... they will be limited to local issues.

Direct democracy is a heady, powerful experience. For once, you get to make important decisions about real things, not just what kind of toilet paper to buy. But it is also limited, so you need to find appropriately-sized goals for your group in order to achieve success. Success will then build on success.



Yup, yup. In agreement - have had experience with this as well. I think that movements evolve with size and age as well, they tend to factionalise and then there is some power wrangling that goes on. Inevitably, one faction will win and the other(s) tend to split off. I know for a lot of people involved in co-operatives and movements in the 70's this could be kind of depressing, that power could come into play in movements that were about redistributing power, but it always seemed to be inevitable. That is why organisations and movements tended to then focus on processes, rather than letting things happen organically.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 10, 2011 7:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
The problem is, as it says, "Instead, the Justice Department settles criminal charges by using deferred-prosecution agreements, in which a bank pays a fine and promises not to break the law again." That's all that ever happens...


And since the fine is often less than 1/10th, if even that, of the profit they made BY breaking the law, the only message it sends is that crime pays if you scale it large enough.

Imagine a bank robber who made off with $40,000.00USD getting slapped on the wrist and lectured, then fined $400.00USD - it's kinda like that, see ?

Were it me, I would extend the investigation and determine to a nicety how much profit was made via the violation and fine them TRIPLE that.

Oh, and Niki - remember what I said about certain people being "Lightning Rods" ?
It's not that they necessarily have to actually DO anything, but that their mere *presence* seems to have some effect whether they take action of their own or not - some of the college psych people have been examining this phenomenae, but so far they haven't come up with much, although for some reason the effect *IS* replicated with successful high stakes gamblers, although in a slightly different fashion - the language they're using to discuss it kind of eludes me though, statistics and odds and game theory, yadda yadda.

Of course that's also why my people don't want me going down there, neither, cause just bein there is like pitchin matches at a fuel leak.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 11, 2011 5:58 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"they have been found guilty in courts of law to have dealt with their customers and minsorities in fraudulent and discriminatory fashions."

Hello,

I don't have any evidence with which to refute disparate lending claims in regards to minorities, because I am a private citizen who cannot speak for or represent Wells Fargo or its affiliates in any fashion. However, I'm not sure how they would do this even if they wanted to, within the framework of the lending machine.

First, there is a yearly training program that all employees have had to take since at least as far back as 2004 commanding them to not do anything of the kind. It's a mandatory class repeated yearly, taking an hour, and it's very explicit.

If I had to imagine a plausible scenario, it would have to involve a local branch-level person discriminating. This is because the Underwriter who approves the loan and sets the stipulations does not have any ethnic or racial data at the time of that work being completed. This data IS acquired later in the process as part of a government mandate to prevent just such discrimination, by compiling data on lending approvals, types, and amounts versus sex, race, marital status, age, and ethnic types. If disparity is detected, an investigation is launched.

There is so much built-in to the system to prevent such abuses, and so much beating of employees over the head to caution against such abuses, that I am surprised to find they have been judged to occur. As a minority myself, I am sensitive to such an atmosphere of discrimination when it is present. During my observation of this company's practices, I have seen no evidence of such. You will of course want to take my opinion on this matter with a grain of salt, but I assure you I am sincere.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer: This is going to be rough...want to answer your questions, but I'm pretty frazzled. Ran from wake-up until 3 or so, now I"m pooped. Let's see...

That's the best I can do...sorry it's rambling, but I'm POOPED and off to get some dinner.



Thanks, Niki.

Seems a lot like any small social organization or club. Lots of folks show up for the functions, fewer go to meetings, even fewer volunteer for committees or work parties or such, and a very few try to keep things on track.

Does seem that more than usual for such a group show up for the GAs and participate in the discussion and consensus building, which is a good sign. Also probably a good thing for the Marin group that there are a number of, shall we say, more experienced folks who apparently are listened to. That's been a bit or a problem with the McPherson Square encampment in DC, where it's pretty much all young folks who just want to rumble with the cops. The Freedom Plaza group is more mature and seems to get more done.

Unfortunately, some in both camps seem to denigrate the efforts of the other folks who showed up for the "Take Back The Capital" protests last week, calling it a "Mock-upation". Washington Post has an interesting article on the various tactics during last weeks demonstrations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tactics-philosophies-varied-at-dcs
-three-left-leaning-protest-camps/2011/12/09/gIQAvWVTlO_story.html


Again, thanks for the info. If you're going to the Oakland demos on Monday, be careful.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2011 6:40 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Oh, Lord, Geezer, there's no way I'm going over today! Or actually to any march; demonstrations, yes, I can take all my "crip equip" (back brace, cane, ankle brace, camp chair...), but I can't march...and I certainly can't run away from tear gas! Like last time, I'll watch on the news and hear all about it next Saturday. My days of marching are over...barring something unusual.

And yes, certainly problems arise of all different kinds--as many as one can imagine, I'm sure. I'm hearing the original Occupy has kind of split into two camps...the "elite intellectuals" and the others, that they've kind of clung together so now the whole camp is really two separate camps in many ways. These things are bound to happen...and like you said, a younger group is gonna be more easily frustrated and willing to be rowdy. All I can do is watch from afar and do what I can in my own little corner of the world...like the saying goes, "think globally, act locally".

Oh, I talked to the guy who originated approaching the Board of Supes, while holding up the other end of his banner for a while Saturday. I better understand...sort of...his approach. He didn't expect anything different than the resolution we got (he's maybe mid-sixties?), he said it's a gambit to keep the lines of communication open, force them to speak out publicly, and I forget what else. We talked until my wrist got sore and someone else took over, but I don't remember much of it as I tuned it out. He's one of us "oldies" who's been there/done that and seems to know how he wants to proceed; personally I still think it was a waste of time. But I won't write my angry letter to the Supes I guess, best not to get in the way of his efforts.

Spent yesterday resting (and making signs, of course)...Saturday was TOUGH. Not the Occupy stuff I did, tho' that just exacerbated the situation, but at one point I stopped and thought about what DIDN'T hurt... The only thing I could think of was my arthritic big toe! Arthritic shoulder and arch, sciatica, back, knee that had surgery ages ago, achilles tendonitis, crick I've had in my neck for weeks, wrist...EVERYTHING went wrong at once! Bet you know how that feels, Frem, in spades. Last night it rained, so I'm guessing that was what it was, but that's the first time that's ever happened. Yuck.

Thanx for the input, guys. I've never been on the inside of a movement before, just marched and demonstrated, so it's as much a learning experience for me as it is for the young people, and many others. So learning from those of YOU who've been there helps too.

This shit is precisely what Citizens United helps happen...it's impossible to hold a corporation--much less a gigantic bank--responsible when it breaks the law. As you can see, they don't even really try. They given them TARPs instead...



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2011 7:23 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


On the matter of discriminatory lending:
Quote:

They charged higher fees to black borrowers under the bank’s subprime lending program, their mortgage brokers made higher commissions when they put borrowers in loans with higher interest. Half their foreclosures were in areas with more than 80 percent black. Wells Fargo routinely added surprise charges to mortgages for minorities, with many rates rising well above 10 percent. Refinancings to black borrowers were more likely to be higher cost than to whites and to carry prepayment penalties, causing foreclosures which brought about diminished property tax revenues, higher cost for fire and police protection in hard-hit neighborhoods and expenditures to buy and rehabilitate vacant properties.
We the taxpayers picked up the tab by giving them billions from TARP.
Quote:

The Department of Justice is preparing a lawsuit against Wells Fargo, the nation's largest home mortgage lender, for allegedly preying upon African American borrowers during the housing bubble and steering them into high-cost subprime loans, according to three people with direct knowledge of the probe.
....
In its ongoing (Baltimore) case, Wells Fargo stands accused of using those same practices, but deploying them against black borrowers in majority-black neighborhoods, an act commonly known as "reverse redlining." The city alleges that the bank targeted black borrowers, knowing they'd ultimately default on their loans, but did not fear shouldering the cost because Wells sold those loans to investors.
.....
Taken together, the various investigations paint a picture of a lender that profited by knowingly targeting less-sophisticated borrowers, in particular preying upon those communities that traditionally lacked access to a full range of consumer credit products.

They also add up to significant blows to the bank's once-pristine reputation. Widely seen as the most innocent of the biggest mortgage lenders, Wells Fargo executives were spared the humiliation of having to answer critical questions in public from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, and unlike its competitors, the bank's pre-crisis activities were never the subject of the commission's hearings.

But over the past year, that reputation has begun to crumble.
.....
Wells Fargo is in the middle of negotiations to settle state and federal allegations that it mistreated borrowers and in some cases illegally foreclosed on them. It could cost the bank billions of dollars. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/26/wells-fargo-justice-departmen
t-probe_n_910425.html?ref=tw
Wells wasn't the only one, and here's some details on how it worked:
Quote:

As a regional vice president for Chase Home Finance in southern Florida, Theckston shoveled money at home borrowers. In 2007, his team wrote $2 billion in mortgages, he says. Sometimes those were “no documentation” mortgages.

“On the application, you don’t put down a job; you don’t show income; you don’t show assets,” he said. “But you still got a nod.”

“If you had some old bag lady walking down the street and she had a decent credit score, she got a loan,” he added.

Theckston says that borrowers made harebrained decisions and exaggerated their resources but that bankers were far more culpable — and that all this was driven by pressure from the top.

“You’ve got somebody making $20,000 buying a $500,000 home, thinking that she’d flip it,” he said. “That was crazy, but the banks put programs together to make those kinds of loans.”

Especially when mortgages were securitized and sold off to investors, he said, senior bankers turned a blind eye to shortcuts.

“The bigwigs of the corporations knew this, but they figured we’re going to make billions out of it, so who cares? The government is going to bail us out. And the problem loans will be out of here, maybe even overseas.”

One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.

Theckston, who has a shelf full of awards that he won from Chase, such as “sales manager of the year,” showed me his 2006 performance review. It indicates that 60 percent of his evaluation depended on him increasing high-risk loans.

In late 2008, when the mortgage market collapsed, Theckston and most of his colleagues were laid off. He says he bears no animus toward Chase, but he does think it is profoundly unfair that troubled banks have been rescued while troubled homeowners have been evicted.

When I called JPMorgan Chase for its side of the story, it didn’t deny the accounts of manic mortgage-writing. Its spokesmen acknowledge that banks had made huge mistakes and noted that Chase no longer writes subprime or no-document mortgages. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/opinion/kristof-a-banker-speaks-with
-regret.html
a snippet from the Harvard Law Review which addresses some of the "why" of it:
Quote:

Here’s the language I have in mind: “To the contrary, left to their own devices most managers in any corporation – and surely most managers in a corporation that forbids sex discrimination – would select sex-neutral, performance-based criteria for hiring and promotion that produce no actionable disparity at all.”

Unsurprisingly, the majority’s characterization of “most managers” caught the attention of many. The dissent responded with the observation that “Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware.”

One Northern District of California judge, in In re Wells Fargo Residential Mortgage Lending Discrimination Litigation, had an interesting take, quoting Dukes but converting “most managers” to “some managers”: “Some managers ‘may select sex-neutral, performance-based criteria,’ others ‘may chose to reward various attributes,’ and ‘still other managers may be guilty of intentional discrimination.”’ http://hlpronline.com/2011/10/any-traction-for-the-dukes-majority%E2%8
0%99s-characterization-of-%E2%80%9Cmost-managers
/

In one case, they were found GUILTY:
Quote:

A Los Angeles jury today awarded damages of $3.5M in a lender liability class action against Wells Fargo.

The claim in Jones v. Wells Fargo was that Wells Fargo branches in Los Angeles selectively used software called "Loan Economics" to intentionally and systematically offer lower home mortgage loan rates to borrowers in non-minority neighborhoods than in predominantly minority neighborhoods.
.....
The jury deliberated nearly four weeks before determining that Wells Fargo did discriminate based on race.
.....
The jury also found racial discrimination and breach of contract with respect to some of the named class members, and awarded additional damages. http://info.courtroomview.com/Blog/bid/54923/3-5M-Verdict-in-Wells-Far
go-Discriminatory-Lending-Action

I thought this was long accepted, I'm not sure why you think they couldn't have done it...or did I misunderstand? Malfeasance on the part of big corporations and banks has been proven over and over by now.

Given you've got a conviction, a guilty verdict, a banker HIMSELF explaining it, and the DOJ going after them, for me it's pretty clear what happened.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:13 - 7497 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
US debt breaks National Debt Clock
Sun, November 24, 2024 14:13 - 33 posts
The predictions thread
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:15 - 1189 posts
The mysteries of the human mind: cell phone videos and religiously-driven 'honor killings' in the same sentence. OR How the rationality of the science that surrounds people fails to penetrate irrational beliefs.
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:11 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:05 - 4762 posts
Sweden Europe and jihadi islamist Terror...StreetShitters, no longer just sending it all down the Squat Toilet
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:01 - 25 posts
MSNBC "Journalist" Gets put in his place
Sun, November 24, 2024 12:40 - 2 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Sun, November 24, 2024 10:59 - 422 posts
The Islamic Way Of War
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:51 - 41 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL