#Foreclosure fraud

[mfi-miami]

My Loan Modification Application Keeps Getting Rejected

Why Does My Lender Keep Rejecting My Loan Modification Application. What Am I Doing Wrong? Applying for a loan modification requires you to think like a chess player. Homeowners call us on a regular basis befuddled and confused. They claim their lender keeps rejecting their loan modification application. They believe they qualify for a loan modification. Yet, the lender keeps rejecting their…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The CFPB is genuinely making America better, and they're going HARD

On June 20, I'm keynoting the LOCUS AWARDS in OAKLAND.

Let's take a sec here and notice something genuinely great happening in the US government: the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau's stunning, unbroken streak of major, muscular victories over the forces of corporate corruption, with the backing of the Supreme Court (yes, that Supreme Court), and which is only speeding up!

A little background. The CFPB was created in 2010. It was Elizabeth Warren's brainchild, an institution that was supposed to regulate finance from the perspective of the American public, not the American finance sector. Rather than fighting to "stabilize" the financial sector (the mission that led to Obama taking his advisor Timothy Geithner's advice to permit the foreclosure crisis to continue in order to "foam the runways" for the banks), the Bureau would fight to defend us from bankers.

The CFPB got off to a rocky start, with challenges to the unique system of long-term leadership appointments meant to depoliticize the office, as well as the sudden resignation of its inaugural boss, who broke his promise to see his term through in order to launch an unsuccessful bid for political office.

But after the 2020 election, the Bureau came into its own, when Biden poached Rohit Chopra from the FTC and put him in charge. Chopra went on a tear, taking on landlords who violated the covid eviction moratorium:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/20/euthanize-rentier-enablers/#cfpb

Then banning payday lenders' scummiest tactics:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/29/planned-obsolescence/#academic-fraud

Then striking at one of fintech's most predatory grifts, the "earned wage access" hustle:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/01/usury/#tech-exceptionalism

Then closing the loophole that let credit reporting bureaus (like Equifax, who doxed every single American in a spectacular 2019 breach) avoid regulation by creating data brokerage divisions and claiming they weren't part of the regulated activity of credit reporting:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/16/the-second-best-time-is-now/#the-point-of-a-system-is-what-it-does

Chopra went on to promise to ban data-brokers altogether:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/13/goulash/#material-misstatement

Then he banned comparison shopping sites where you go to find the best bank accounts and credit cards from accepting bribes and putting more expensive options at the top of the list. Instead, he's requiring banks to send the CFPB regular, accurate lists of all their charges, and standing up a federal operated comparison shopping site that gives only accurate and honest rankings. Finally, he's made an interoperability rule requiring banks to let you transfer to another institution with one click, just like you change phone carriers. That means you can search an honest site to find the best deal on your banking, and then, with a single click, transfer your accounts, your account history, your payees, and all your other banking data to that new bank:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/21/let-my-dollars-go/#personal-financial-data-rights

Somewhere in there, big business got scared. They cooked up a legal theory declaring the CFPB's funding mechanism to be unconstitutional and got the case fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, in a bid to put Chopra and the CFPB permanently out of business. Instead, the Supremes – these Supremes! – upheld the CFPB's funding mechanism in a 7-2 ruling:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/05/supreme-court-lets-cfpb-funding-stand/

That ruling was a starter pistol for Chopra and the Bureau. Maybe it seemed like they were taking big swings before, but it turns out all that was just a warmup. Last week on The American Prospect, Robert Kuttner rounded up all the stuff the Bureau is kicking off:

https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-06-07-window-on-corporate-deceptions/

First: regulating Buy Now, Pay Later companies (think: Klarna) as credit-card companies, with all the requirements for disclosure and interest rate caps dictated by the Truth In Lending Act:

https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2024/06/cfpb-applies-credit-card-rules

Next: creating a registry of habitual corporate criminals. This rogues gallery will make it harder for other agencies – like the DOJ – and state Attorneys General to offer bullshit "delayed prosecution agreements" to companies that compulsively rip us off:

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-creates-registry-to-detect-corporate-repeat-offenders/

Then there's the rule against "fine print deception" – which is when the fine print in a contract lies to you about your rights, like when a mortgage lender forces you waive a right you can't actually waive, or car lenders that make you waive your bankruptcy rights, which, again, you can't waive:

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-warns-against-deception-in-contract-fine-print/

As Kuttner writes, the common thread running through all these orders is that they ban deceptive practices – they make it illegal for companies to steal from us by lying to us. Especially in these dying days of class action suits – rapidly becoming obsolete thanks to "mandatory arbitration waivers" that make you sign away your right to join a class action – agencies like the CFPB are our only hope of punishing companies that lie to us to steal from us.

There's a lot of bad stuff going on in the world right now, and much of it – including an active genocide – is coming from the Biden White House.

But there are people in the Biden Administration who care about the American people and who are effective and committed fighters who have our back. What's more, they're winning. That doesn't make all the bad news go away, but sometimes it feels good to take a moment and take the W.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/10/getting-things-done/#deliverism

[sepdet]

Try to imagine Trump going to campaign HQ to reassure those working to get him elected with a speech like this after one of his unwelcome surprises.

Of course, that's impossible. This classy speech is all about "we" — the team, and the American people — although of course it's got a few "I's" in there to contrast herself with Trump and sketch out goals.

First five minutes: Squaring the circle of saluting Biden graciously, thanking and reassuring his election team, and moving forward

05:40 - rundown of major accomplishments of President Biden's administration

8:45 Harris lays out how she sees this election and I'm actually gonna transcribe it despite my arthritis because YES YES YES. (It's not very long.)

"It is my great honor to go out and EARN this nomination, and to win.

"So in the days and weeks ahead, I together with you will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic party, to unite our nation, and to win this election.

"You know, as many of you know, before I was elected as Vice President, before I was elected as United States Senator, I was the elected Attorney General of California, and before that I was a courtroom prosecutor. In those roles, I took on perpetrators of all kinds. [chuckles start around the room, she smiles.] Predators who abused women. Fraudsters who ripped off consumers. Cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say: I know Donald Trump's type.

"And in this campaign I will proudly — I will proudly put my record against his. As a young prosecutor, when I was in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, I specialized in cases involving sexual abuse. Donald Trump was found liable by a jury for committing sexual abuse. As Attorney General of California I took on one of our country's largest for-profit colleges and put it out of business. Donald Trump ran a for-profit college, Trump University, that was forced to pay $25 million to the students it scammed. As District Attorney, to go after polluters, I created one of the first environmental justice units in our nation. Donald Trump stood in Mar-o-lago and told Big Oil lobbyists he would do their bidding for a $1 billion campaign contribution. During the foreclosure crisis, I took on the big Wall Street banks and won $20 billion for California families, holding those banks accountable for fraud. Donald Trump was just found guilty of 34 counts of fraud.

"But make no mistake — all that being said, this campaign is not just about us versus Donald Trump. There is more to this campaign than that. Our campaign has always been about two different versions of what we see as the future of our country, two different visions for the future of our country. One focused on the future, the other focused on the past.

"Donald Trump wants to take our country backward, to a time before many of our fellow Americans had full freedoms and rights.

"But we believe in a brighter future that makes room for all Americans. We believe in a future where every person has the opportunity not just to get by, but to get ahead. [Calls of "That's right!"] We believe in a future where no child has to grow up in poverty, where every person can buy a home, start a family and build wealth, and where every person has access to paid family leave and affordable child care. That's the future we see! [Applause.] Together we fight to build a nation where every person has affordable healthcare, where every worker is paid fairly, and where every senior can retire with dignity.

"All of this is to say that building up the middle class will be a defining goal of my presidency. Because we here know that when our middle class is strong, America is strong. And we know that's not the future Donald Trump is fighting for. He and his extreme Project 2025 will weaken the middle class and bring us backward — please do note that — back to the failed trickle-down policies that gave huge tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations and made working families pay the cost, back to policies that put Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block, back to policies that treat healthcare as only a privilege for the wealthy, instead of what we all know it should be, which is a right for every American.

"America has tried these economic policies before. They do not lead to prosperity. They lead to inequity and economic injustice. And we are NOT GOING BACK. We are not going back. (You're not taking us back.)

"Our fight for the future is also a fight for freedom. Generations of Americans before us have led the fight for freedom from our founders to our framers, to the abolitionists and the suffragettes, to the Freedom Riders and farm workers. And now I say, team, the baton is in our hands. We, who believe in the sacred freedom to vote. We, who are committed to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. We, who believe in the freedom to live safe from gun violence, and that's why we will work to pass universal background checks, red flag laws, and an assault weapons ban. We, who will fight for reproductive freedom, knowing if Trump gets the chance, he will sign a national abortion ban to outlaw abortion in every. single. state—but we are not going to let that happen.

"It is this team here that is going to help in this November to elect a majority of members of the United States Congress who agreethe government should not be telling a woman what to do with her body. And when Congress passes a law to restore reproductive freedoms, as President of the United States I will sign it into law! [cheers, someone shouts "we the people!"] "Indeed, we the people.

"So ultimately, to all the friends here I say: in this election we know we each face a question. What kind of country do we want to live in? A country of freedom, compassion and rule of law, ["Yes!"] or a country of chaos, fear, and hate? [Boos] You all are here because you as leaders know we each — including our neighbors and our friends and our family — we each as Americans have the power to answer that question. That's the beauty of it, the power of the people. We each have the ability to answer that question.

"So in the next 106 days—" looks around the room smiling at various people, "We have work to do. We have doors to knock on, we have people to talk to, we have phone calls to make, and we have an election to win. …" [a few final crowd -whipping-up platitudes like "Do we believe in freedom"]

------

Note: Yes, I know, she spoke about rights for all Americans without getting into any specifics besides reproductive and voting rights, because those two are core values of the Democratic party and the ones most Americans agree with. Unifying a party and coalition building starts by finding common ground. The approach Harris is taking will pull away some old-school moderate Republicans who are reluctant to leave their party even as it changes beyond recognition, but who really don't like Trump. Many of them have been poisoned more or less by Fox News, so they need to see she's not a crazy crazy liberal.

[everythingelvispresley]

The foreclosure notice for Graceland is a scam. Gregory and Kurt Naussany and Naussany Investments do not exist. They have no presence online at all. No office and only PO Boxes and a post office address. I hope whoever is behind this is revealed and charged with fraud.

[houseofbrat]

Democratic party civil war, you say?

Matt Stoller on Kamala Harris:

There's a fair critique here of Kamala Harris skeptics. What basis do we have for skepticism? I'll lay out my views, which are largely policy-centered. I realize no one cares about what kind of leader Harris will be as President, but if there's one lesson we should take away from this moment, it's that we as a party should try to think more than five minutes ahead instead of panicking ourselves into a rushed decision. I started paying attention to Harris when she became California AG in 2010, because some friends worked to get her elected. It was in the middle of the financial crisis, Bush's and Obama's handling of which eventually led to the emergence of Trump. While AG, she had her most important test as an executive presiding over a big political economy decision - what to do about foreclosure crisis in California. Her position was unusual, because California is a big state, so the AG office is, staffed with many lawyers who can do complex finance analysis. Most states don't. There are only a few places - Texas, NY, Illinois, California - who have the capacity to truly wage independent litigation against powerful institutions like big banks. Harris pledged to do so. [Harris] pledged take on the banks and get something genuinely meaningful for homeowners for a mass legal violation called foreclosure fraud that put them on the hook for trillions. The details aren't important but if you want to know them read Dave Dayen's Chain of Title. It's something I was involved in. After two years where it became obvious Obama was on the wrong side, it was exciting to see a Democrat finally stand up.

Only, she didn't. Harris signed a sham settlement with a big fake fine number, that mostly let the banks do whatever they want, and I believe even get a tax deduction for the fines they did pay. As a result, a lot of people lost their homes who shouldn't have. That was a tragedy. But then when she was running for President in 2020, she *bragged* about what she did. It was rancid, similar to the worst of Obama. https://theintercept.com/2019/03/13/kamala-harris-mortage-crisis… Later it came out that her staff had given her memos on how she should have prosecuted (later) Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's bank OneWest, but just chose not to. It's not hard to see that, had Obama (and Harris) actually put the bad guys away, a whole slew of Trump officials would have been in jail rather than in the cabinet. https://politico.com/news/2019/10/22/kamala-harris-attorney-general-california-housing-053716…

I didn't pay as much attention to her big tech work or her time in the Senate, but she's quite close to a whole slew of people in the industry, top execs at Google and Facebook like Sheryl Sandberg. While AG, which was when these companies cemented their dominance in America, Harris's office saw Facebook as "a good actor." She took no actions against big firms as AG, opposed important legislation, and even started a privacy-related "monthly working group that included representatives from Facebook, Google, Instagram, and Kleiner Perkins. In internal documents, Harris' office referred to the companies as "partners."' Again, standard operating Obamacrat stuff. https://businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-silicon-valley-big-tech-facebook-attorney-general-2021-11…… Harris's circle of friends and family are biglaw Obamacrats. Her brother-in-law Tony West was a high-level Obama official, and now GC of Uber. Her niece worked at Uber, Slack, and FB, and her husband was a biglaw partner at Venable and DLA Piper. His clients included Walmart, Merck, and an arms dealer, and there were ethics questions since DLA Piper had a long list of foreign clients. https://nytimes.com/2020/08/17/us/elections/doug-emhoff-kamala-harriss-husband-takes-a-leave-of-absence-from-his-law-firm.html…

How does this differ from Biden's track record? As a Senator, you could read him like Harris. Biden did whatever the credit card companies wanted, was in on bad trade deals, and was VP when Obama mishandled the financial crisis. But Biden always had a tinge of populism. In the 1990s, he went after Stephen Breyer in his hearing for the Supreme Court, calling him an elitist for instance. He was a foreign policy guy, and never liked the Silicon Valley and Wall Street execs, he always thought they looked down on him. As President, he delegated and ignored most domestic policy, and so some of it went to populists and union people while most of it went to neoliberals like Janet Yellen and Neera Tanden. The net result of Biden's choices is a mix - good policy in a few areas, and rank incompetence across a host of them, as well as fantastically incompetent messaging. What was Harris's role? As VP, she's largely been absent from most policy areas I follow, so I don't know how to think about her views on Biden's economic agenda. She's certainly never talked about or been involved in anything competition or regulatory minded that I can see. She does not seem to be a player in any of the big money areas. That said, Harris has proven incapable of managing important tasks like addressing or even explaining the obviously dysfunctional asylum process at the border, so it's hard to know how much she *can* actually do in terms of competence. There's also a lot of inertia here, it's not like she can change everything on a dime. She will inherit Biden's legacy and officeholders, and she hasn't done much as VP to thwart economic policy, for good or ill.

So how will she be as President? I don't want to overstate my read, it's just a guess. But since we're all just guessing, what I suspect is she'll lead to a total wipeout of Dems in 2026 and 2028 as the party turns wholly against working people, and a more complete Trump-y style realignment. And that's if she wins. So that's the optimistic scenario.

Dem Civil War commencing...

[darkmaga-retard]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been shunned from the 2024 US Presidential race since he first announced his decision to run. Another corrupt New York judge has ruled in favor of the establishment by banishing Kennedy’s name from the upcoming ballot due to a discrepancy in his address.

Obviously, Kennedy meets the requirement of being a US citizen and resident. Kennedy listed New York as his primary residence but has multiple addresses, as do all of the other candidates. New York Justice Christina L. Ryba ruled that Kennedy’s address was not a “bona fide and legitimate residence, but merely a ‘sham’ address that he assumed for the purpose of maintaining his voter registration.” Therefore, the people of New York will not have the opportunity to select him as their chosen candidate.

“Using a friend’s address for political and voting purposes, while barely stepping foot on the premises, does not equate to residency under the Election Law,” the judge wrote. “To hold otherwise would establish a dangerous precedent and open the door to the fraud and political mischief that the Election Law residency rules were designed to prevent.”

Does Kennedy live at 84 Croton Lake Road in Westchester County? The home technically belongs to Barbara Moss, the wife of his lifelong friend Timothy Haydock. The house faces foreclosure as Moss has a large outstanding balance. Kennedy has been in California to support his wife, Cheryl Hines, and her acting career. He admits that he has been traveling throughout the year and unable to spend much time in New York.

“He receives mail there. His driver’s license is registered there. His automobile is registered there. His voting registration is from there. His hunting, fishing, falconry, and wildlife rehabilitation licenses are from there. He pays rent to the owner,” the Kennedy campaign said. “His father was senator from New York. New York has been his residence continuously since 1968 although he has frequently lived elsewhere. He has never claimed any other state as a residency.”

Now, it is likely that Croton Lake is not Kennedy’s primary address. The neighbors say they have not seen RFK Jr. in the area and were surprised by the claim. Yet, this is quite common for politicians. AOC, for example, claimed she was living in the Bronx while living in Yorktown. Senator Tuberville of Alabama resides in Florida. Kennedy’s actions are questionable, yes, but a fair justice system would hold the same standard for everyone. We all know there is a two-tier justice system in America and they simply are looking for a reason to kick Kennedy out of the race.

Kennedy believes that the “Democrats are showing contempt for democracy.” “They aren’t confident they can win at the ballot box, so they are trying to stop voters from having a choice. We will appeal and we will win.”

We the people are granted the Constitutional right to choose our representatives. If they believed he’d receive little support, the establishment would let the people decide if they prefer RFK Jr. this November.

[vintagepresley]

🙃🙃🙃🙃

[mantislyblaca]

The abandoned Warner & Swasey Observatory, constructed by Worchester Warner and Ambrose Swasey as a gift for Case School of Applied Science.

Worchester Warner and Ambrose Swasey founded the Warner & Swasey Company in 1880 and manufactured telescopes and other precision tools. Warner and Swasey became trustees of the Case School of Applied Science and constructed an observatory for the school as a gift.

Designed by the architectural firm Walker & Weeks, the observatory was built between 1918 and 1920 at the cost of $87,000. The original wing on the south end consisted of a copper dome atop a cylindrical brick tower for a 9½-inch refractor, which was relocated from the backyard of Warner and Swasey’s mansions. The new facility also included two four-inch transits, a zenith telescope, and two Riefler clocks.

The new observatory was dedicated at 2:30 p.m. on October 12, 1920. Dr. W.W. Campbell, one of the most noted astronomers of the world and director of the Lick Observatory, gave the opening address.

In October 1940, a new wing to the observatory was completed, which was outfitted with a library, lecture hall, and a new 24-inch Burrell Schmidt telescope from Warner & Swasey that was installed in the spring of 1941 at the cost of $127,000.

Light pollution began to impact the dark skies that initially attracted Warner and Swasey A new $200,000 observatory, Nassau Astronomical Station, was completed 30 miles to the east in Geauga County on September 7, 1957. The Burrell Schmidt telescope was relocated to the new facility. To compensate for the relocation, a 36-inch telescope was installed.

An enlargement of the library and office space were completed in 1963.

In 1978, the Astronomy Department at Case Western Reserve University made a deal with the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy to build a new observatory at Kitt Peak National Observatory in Arizona. The Burrell Schmidt telescope was moved from the Geauga County observatory was relocated in May 1979, and the 36-inch reflector from the facility was moved to Nassau in 1980.

Public night lectures, which were open to the public, were relocated to the Museum of Natural History’s Murch Auditorium in 1979.

After the reflector was removed from the facility, the building was used for offices for Case Western. In 1982, the five remaining faculty members who were stationed in the building were moved to the main campus of Case Western. The structure was sold in 1983 to a partnership controlled by Alfred Quarles for the television outfit, TBA, Inc. for $130,000.

The abandoned observatory was sold at a foreclosure auction on September 6, 2005, to Nayyir Al Mahdi and his girlfriend, Stacey Stoutemire, for $115,000. The couple had planned on restoring the building into a residence. The plans were scrapped after the owner was convicted of mortgage fraud and sent to prison in 2007.

School Of Science Still Stands Today In 2024

You can Follow For More on

Instagram - Mantis Lyblaca

TikTok - Mantis Lyblaca

Facebook - Mantis Lyblaca

[krebs-gorlon]

For 2024, my new years wish is for millennials & older gen z to stop parroting the phrase “I hope the housing market crashes so I can afford a home” because oh my god did yall not experience the same 2007-2008 as the rest of us?

I worked as a government loan analyst for fraudulent/mismanaged home loans from the early to late 2000s housing bubble/crisis, and I hate to break it to yall (even myself) but housing issues will skyrocket further than they’re already at.

So much of the US economy is tied into home ownership, more than I thought when I first started working in the housing industry, and while we may not have the same causes (fraud) of the Great Recession, we will have similar outcomes. I.e. high unemployment, depletion of savings/investments for everyday people, houselessness, rampant credit card debt, inflation, and more. My personal prediction is investment home buying will get worse (remember house flipping in the late 00s and early 2010s?). people became predatory on those facing foreclosure, which at one point was averaged at 10% of all homes (!!!!!)

Tldr if the housing market crashes, you will lose the buying power to even be able to afford a home that lost half its value bc the economy will fucking tank like a lead anchor

[mfi-miami]

JPMorgan Chase Is Sparking Up Foreclosures In New York

JPMorgan Chase Is Sparking Up Foreclosures In New York

JPMorgan Chase Is Sparking Up New York Foreclosures! Are You Prepared? Call 888.737.6344 Before It’s Too Late! JPMorgan Chase is sparking up New York foreclosures. This is bad news for New York homeowners because JPMorgan Chase is hellbent on taking your home!  Therefore, MFI-Miami has teamed up with several New York law firm to create a New York foreclosure defense team specializing in…

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS IMPEACHED BECAUSE HIS STAFF HAD THE COURAGE TO SOUND THE ALARM ABOUT THEIR BOSS. WHEN WILL THE SENATOR’S STAFF BE BRAVE ENOUGH TO DO THE SAME?

BY ELIE MYSTAL

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been in office since 2015, and since 2015 he has been one of the most destructive forces in American law. He’s used his office as a Republican wish-fulfillment machine, trying to win through conservative courts the policies that Republicans cannot win at the ballot box. It was Paxton who organized a red-state challenge to the Affordable Care Act in 2018, trying to get Obamacare declared unconstitutional (he lost). Paxton also led the 2018 challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and brought it all the way to the Supreme Court (he lost). And he challenged Obama’s Clean Power Plan in 2017 (he won). During the Trump administration, he turned his attention toward reproductive rights, and he’s been at the forefront of trying to implement Texas’s bounty-hunter law, which punishes anyone who tries to help pregnant people in Texas receive an abortion. So far, during the Biden administration, he’s sued the administration more than 50 times, mainly over Biden’s immigration policies and student debt-relief programs. For Paxton, there is simply no difference between the law and his conservative political agenda.

Paxton has also been one of the most corrupt public officials in America in recent years. He has been under indictment since 2015 for securities fraud. But he has managed to use his status as attorney general, and a number of procedural tricks, to evade facing trial on those charges. We’re talking about a man who once hopped into a getaway truck, driven by his wife, to avoid a subpoena compelling him to testify in an abortion case. His wife, by the way, is a state senator.

All of this is apparently fine with a majority of Texas voters (the same people who have infected this country with Ted Cruz). They elected Paxton to a third term as AG back in 2022, just two years after he came out as an election denier and, in one of the dumbest lawsuits I’ve ever seen, tried to get the Supreme Court to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Given Paxton’s apparent popularity with Texas voters, I was surprised to see that the Republican-controlled Texas House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to impeach him last week and put him on leave from his duties pending trial in the Texas Senate. The vote was 121-23. You don’t often see Republicans turn on one of their own like this.

The credit for this shocking turn of law before party has to go to Paxton’s staff. His own employees sounded the alarm on the misdeeds that led to his impeachment.

The Texas House impeached Paxton on 20 charges of bribery, obstruction of justice, and abuse of public trust. Many of those charges involve favors Paxton is accused of performing on behalf of one of his wealthy donors, a man named Nate Paul. Paul is being investigated by the FBI for real estate fraud, so Paxton decided to green-light a state investigation of the FBI’s actions, going so far as to hire his own outside attorney, over the objections of his staff. The most egregious allegation, to me, involves a COVID-related opinion Paxton allegedly forced his staff to write to benefit Paul. Paxton’s staff claim that he asked them to determine if any of the various COVID-19 legal moratoriums could be invoked to delay foreclosure proceedings. He was told that this would not work. So Paxton allegedly ordered them to rewrite the opinion and argue that foreclosure sales were prevented by COVID-19 restrictions. His staff couldn’t make sense of Paxton’s directive—until they realized that Paul had a number of properties facing foreclosure proceedings.

Members of Paxton’s team brought up these concerns with regulators, and were subsequently fired by Paxton. Those staffers then brought a whistleblower lawsuit and won a $3.3 million settlement from Paxton. Paxton (in an act that must be in the running for the Guinness Book of World Records for hubris) then asked the Texas Legislature to pay the $3.3 million he owed these people. That triggered the House investigation into the charges, which is what directly led to his impeachment last week.

We members of the public tend to treat political staffers as nameless, faceless functionaries who exist only to serve their famous bosses. We don’t expect them to exercise their own moral judgment, and we often give them a pass when they silently and dutifully serve even the most evil and corrupt public officials. Sure, the President’s staffers often become famous, but most people cannot name a single person who works for Clarence Thomas or Josh Hawley or Ron DeSantis, and when those staffers pop up later in some other government role or run for office in their own right, most people don’t hold their prior service against them. We act like political staff cannot be held responsible for the decisions of their bosses.

In reality, the staff is complicit in the policies and decisions of the officeholder they serve, and they know what’s really going on long before the public or ProPublica do. And political staffers, collectively, have a whole lot of power. They are the people who have the option to speak truth to power—or to become mere cheerleaders for the worst instincts of their bosses.

Instead of being complicit in Paxton’s apparent corruption and abuse of power or silent witnesses to it, Paxton’s staff chose to speak out. That’s crucial. A person like Paxton cannot exist without the tacit consent and professional aid of many other people. And, too often, those people justify looking the other way either because of their personal careerist goals, or their supposed dedication to the larger political agenda of the people they work for.

To put it another way: We’re lucky that the people who worked for Paxton are not like the people who work for California Senator Dianne Feinstein. Her failing health prevents Feinstein from doing her job as a leader in a representative democracy. She is being propped up, literally, by her staff. Seeing her wheeled around like this, appearing barely cognizant of where she is or what she’s being asked to do, is tragic in a way that borders on farce.

For wildly different reasons, both Paxton and Feinstein are unfit for their elected offices. Paxton is unfit because he’s a corrupt-o-fascist who couldn’t even find a benefactor wealthy enough to own a superyacht. Feinstein is unfit because she’s not compos mentis—which I believe is Latin for “let’s just make sure she’s comfortable”—and has been unable to participate in basic Senate business for several months. To be clear, there’s no moral equivalency here: Feinstein is a dedicated public servant who got very old and very incapacitated; Paxton is a power-hungry repeat bad actor who got caught. But operationally, neither person should have the jobs that they do. Paxton’s staff knew it, and I promise you Feinstein’s staff knows it too.

By propping Feinstein up like this, her staff is putting their own agenda ahead of the best interests of California voters who deserve to have a Senator who can vote and advocate and make crucial decisions on their behalf. We can assume that Feinstein’s staff agrees with her votes (since they appear to be the ones functionally doing the voting), just as we can assume that Paxton’s staff agreed with his horrible policies and habit of manipulating the law for conservative ends. But at least some people on Paxton’s staff drew the line at self-dealing. Some of them determined that the people of Texas deserved an attorney general who wasn’t in it for himself alone. Some of them were willing to risk their precious jobs, and in fact lost those jobs, for telling the truth about what was happening in their office.

Does anybody working for Feinstein have that same commitment to truth? Who will be the “whistleblower” who goes public and says that Feinstein cannot do the job anymore and needs to be replaced—or is that the kind of thing they’re all saving for the books they will write after the fact? Who among them is willing to put the people of California first, and their own careers on Capitol Hill second? It hurts my soul to write this, but the group of people who showed up to work for the sniveling, corrupt Republican attorney general of Texas showed more respect for the norms of democratic self-government than the people who show up to work for the senior Democratic Senator from California.

The bottom line is that Ken Paxton would not have been impeached but for the willingness of people who worked for him to go public with the truth. Dianne Feinstein will not be replaced until the people who work for her are willing to do the same thing.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Intuit: “Our fraud fights racism”

Tonight (September 27), I'll be at Chevalier's Books in Los Angeles with Brian Merchant for a joint launch for my new book The Internet Con and his new book, Blood in the Machine. On October 2, I'll be in Boise to host an event with VE Schwab.

Today's key concept is "predatory inclusion": "a process wherein lenders and financial actors offer needed services to Black households but on exploitative terms that limit or eliminate their long-term benefits":

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2329496516686620

Perhaps you recall predatory inclusion from the Great Financial Crisis, when predatory subprime mortgages with deceptive teaser rates were foisted on Black homeowners (who were eligible for better mortgages), resulting in a wave of Black home theft in the foreclosure crisis:

https://prospect.org/justice/staggering-loss-black-wealth-due-subprime-scandal-continues-unabated/

Before these loans blew up, they were styled as a means of creating Black intergenerational wealth through housing speculation. They turned out to be a way to suck up Black families' savings before rendering them homeless and forcing them into houses owned by the Wall Street slumlords who bought all the housing stock the Great Financial Crisis put on the market:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/08/wall-street-landlords/#the-new-slumlords

That was just an update on an old con: the "home sale contract," invented by loan-sharks who capitalized on redlining to rip off Black families. Back when banks and the US government colluded to deny mortgages to Black households, sleazy lenders created the "contract loan," which worked like a mortgage, but if you were late on a single payment, the lender could seize and sell your home and not pay you a dime – even if the house was 99% paid for:

https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Plunder-of-Black-Wealth-in-Chicago.pdf

Usurers and con-artists love to style themselves as anti-racists, seeking to "close the racial wealth gap." The payday lending industry – whose triple-digit interest rates trap poor people in revolving debt that they can never pay off – styles itself as a force for racial justice:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/29/planned-obsolescence/#academic-fraud

Payday lenders prey on poor people, and in America, "poor" is often a euphemism for "Black." Payday lenders disproportionately harm Black families:

https://ung.edu/student-money-management-center/money-minute/racial-wealth-gap-payday-loans.php

Payday lenders are just unlicensed banks, who deploy a layer of bullshit to claim that they don't have to play by the rules that bind the rest of the finance sector. This scam is so juicy that it spawned the fintech industry, in which a bunch of unregulated banks sprung up to claim that they were too "innovative" to be regulated:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/01/usury/#tech-exceptionalism

When you hear "Fintech," think "unlicensed bank." Fintech turned predatory inclusion into a booming business, recruiting Black spokespeople to claim that being the sucker at the table in the cryptocurrency casino was actually a form of racial justice:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/07/business/media/cryptocurrency-seeks-the-spotlight-with-spike-lees-help.html

But not all predatory inclusion is financial. Take Facebook Basics, Meta's "poor internet for poor people" program. Facebook partnered with telcos in the Global South to rig their internet access. These "zero rating" programs charged subscribers by the byte to reach any service except Facebook and its partners. Facebook claimed that this would "bridge the digital divide," by corralling "the next billion internet users" into using its services.

The fact that this would make "Facebook" synonymous with "the internet" was just an accidental, regrettable side-effect. Naturally, this was bullshit from top to bottom, and the countries where zero-rating was permitted ended up having more expensive wireless broadband than the countries that banned it:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/countries-zero-rating-have-more-expensive-wireless-broadband-countries-without-it

The predatory inclusion gambit is insultingly transparent, but that doesn't stop desperate scammers from trying it. The latest chancer is Intuit, who claim that the end of its decade-long, wildly profitable "free tax prep" scam is bad for Black people:

https://www.propublica.org/article/turbotax-intuit-black-taxpayers-irs-free-file-marketing

Some background. In nearly every rich country on Earth, the tax authorities send every taxpayer a pre-filled tax return, based on the information submitted by employers, banks, financial planners, etc. If that looks good to you, you just sign it and send it back. Otherwise, you can amend it, or just toss it in the trash and pay a tax-prep specialist to produce your own return.

But in America, taxpayers spend billions every year to send forms to the IRS that tell it things it already knows. To make this ripoff seem fair, the hyper-concentrated tax-prep industry, led by the Intuit, creators of Turbotax, pretended to create a program to provide free tax-prep to working people.

This program was called Free File, and it was a scam. The tax-prep cartel each took a different segment of Americans who were eligible for Freefile and then created an online house of mirrors that would trick those people into spending hours working on their tax-returns until they were hit with an error message falsely claiming they were ineligible for the free service and demanding hundreds of dollars to file their returns.

Intuit were world champions at this scam. They blocked their Freefile offering from search-engine crawlers and then bought ads that showed up when searchers typed "freefile" into the query box that led them to deceptively named programs that had "free" in their names but cost a fortune to use – more than you'd pay for a local CPA to file on your behalf.

The Attorneys General of nearly every US state and territory eventually sued Intuit over this, settling for $141m:

https://www.agturbotaxsettlement.com/Home/portalid/0

The FTC is still suing them over it:

https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/192-3119-intuit-inc-matter-turbotax

We have to rely on state AGs and the FTC to bring Intuit to justice because every Intuit user clicks through an agreement in which we permanently surrender our right to sue the company, no matter how many laws it breaks. For corporate criminals, binding arbitration waivers are the gift that keeps on giving:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/24/uber-for-arbitration/#nibbled-to-death-by-ducks

Even as the scam was running out, Intuit spent millions lobby-blitzing Congress, desperate for action that would let it continue to privately tax the nation for filling in forms that – once again – told the IRS things it already knew. They really love the idea of paying taxes on paying your taxes:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/20/turbotaxed/#counter-intuit

But they failed. The IRS has taken Freefile in-house, will send you a pre-completed tax return if you want it. This should be the end of the line for Intuit and other tax-prep profiteers:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/17/free-as-in-freefile/#tell-me-something-i-dont-know

Now we're at the end of the line for the scam, Intuit is playing the predatory inclusion card. They're conning Black newspapers like the Chicago Defender into running headlines like "IRS Free Tax Service Could Further Harm Blacks,"

https://defendernetwork.com/news/opinion/irs-free-tax-service-could-further-harm-blacks/

The only named source in that article? Intuit spokesperson Derrick Plummer. The article went out on the country's Black newswire Trice Edney, whose editor-in-chief did not respond to Propublica's Paul Kiel's questions.

Then Black Enterprise got in on the game, publishing "Critics Claim The IRS Free Tax Prep Service Could Hurt Black Americans." Once again, the only named source for the article was Plummer, who was "quoted at length." Black Enterprise declined to tell Kiel where that article came from:

https://www.blackenterprise.com/critics-claim-the-irs-free-tax-prep-service-could-hurt-black-americans/

For Intuit, placing op-eds is a tried-and-true tactic for laundering its ripoffs into respectability. Leaked internal Intuit memos detail the company's strategy of "pushing back through op-eds" to neutralize critics:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6483061-Intuit-TurboTax-2014-15-Encroachment-Strategy.html

Intuit spox Derrick Plummer did respond to Kiel's queries, denying that Intuit was paying for these op-eds, saying "with an idea as bad as the Direct File scheme we don’t have to pay anyone to talk about how terrible it is."

Meanwhile, ex-NAACP director (and No Labels co-chair) Benjamin Chavis has used his position atop the National Newspaper Publishers Association to publish op-eds against the IRS Direct File program, citing the Progressive Policy Institute, a pro-business thinktank that Intuit's internal documents describe as part of its "coalition":

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6483061-Intuit-TurboTax-2014-15-Encroachment-Strategy.html

Chavis's Chicago Tribune editorial claimed that Direct File could cause Black filers to miss out on tax-credits they are entitled to. This is a particularly ironic claim given Intuit's prominent role in sabotaging the Child Tax Credit, a program that lifted more Americans out of poverty than any other in history:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/29/three-times-is-enemy-action/#ctc

It's also an argument that can be found in Intuit's own anti-Direct File blog posts:

https://www.intuit.com/blog/innovative-thinking/taxpayer-empowerment/intuit-reinforces-its-commitment-to-fighting-for-taxpayers-rights/

The claim is that because the IRS disproportionately audits Black filers (this is true), they will screw them over in other ways. But Evelyn Smith, co-author of the study that documented the bias in auditing says this is bullshit:

https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/working-paper/measuring-and-mitigating-racial-disparities-tax-audits

That's because these audits of Black households are triggered by the IRS's focus on Earned Income Tax Credits, a needlessly complicated program available to low-income (and hence disproportionately Black) workers. The paperwork burden that the IRS heaps on EITC recipients means that their returns contain errors that trigger audits.

As Smith told Propublica, "With free, assisted filing, we might expect EITC claimants to make fewer mistakes and face less intense audit scrutiny, which could help reduce disparities in audit rates between Black and non-Black taxpayers."

Meanwhile, the predatory inclusion talking points continue to proliferate. Nevada accountants and the state's former controller somehow coincidentally managed to publish op-eds with nearly identical wording. Phillip Austin, vice-chair of Arizon's East Valley Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, claims that free IRS tax prep "would disproportionately hurt the Hispanic community." Austin declined to tell Propublica how he came to that conclusion.

Right-wing think-tanks are pumping out a torrent of anti-Direct File disinfo. This surely has nothing to do with the fact that, for example, Center Forward has HR Block's chief lobbyist on its board:

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4125481-direct-e-file-wont-make-filing-taxes-any-easier-but-it-could-make-things-worse/

The whole thing reeks of bullshit and desperation. That doesn't mean that it won't succeed in killing Direct File. If there's one thing America loves, it's letting businesses charge us a tax just for dealing with our own government, from paying our taxes to camping in our national parks:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/30/military-industrial-park-service/#booz-allen

Interestingly, there's a MAGA version of predatory inclusion, in which corporations convince low-information right-wingers that efforts to protect them from ripoffs are "woke." These campaigns are, incredibly, even stupider than the predatory inclusion tale.

For example, there's a well-coordianted campaign to block the junk fees that the credit card cartel extracts from merchants, who then pass those charges onto us. This campaign claims that killing junk fees is woke:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/04/owning-the-libs/#swiper-no-swiping

How does that work? Here's the logic: Target sells Pride merch. That makes them woke. Target processes a lot of credit-card transactions, so anything that reduces card-processing fees will help Target. Therefore, paying junk fees is a way to own the libs.

No, seriously.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/27/predatory-inclusion/#equal-opportunity-scammers

[howwelldoyouknowyourmoon]

Château Mauny was bought by the UC in France in the 1970s and was sold after a long tax evasion trial.

▲ Château de Mauny, 76350 Grand-Couronne, surrounded by a plot of 13 hectares, was occupied by the UC from the end of 1975 and bought by them for 2 200 000 Francs in 1977.

By the end of 1975, the Moonists thought they would dominate the world in the near future, and began to acquire real estate in France. First it was the Château Mauny, near Rouen, with park and outbuildings. It was to be used to “train” 1,000 recruits at a time. The UC never completely restored it, and it was finally sold after a long trial. The church and its leaders at the time were definitely insolvent.

The AUCM/UC were condemned for tax evasion, so the tax administration placed a legal mortgage on the château, the only visible property of the church. The sale on foreclosure did not take place until October 16, 1992. The buyer paid 2,190,000 F while the AUCM's debt (taxes, late payment surcharges and fines) amounted, at the time of the verdict, to 35 million. Officially, the church no longer had any resources. Will the tax authorities have to draw a line under the 32,810,000 F that is still due to them?

AUCM = L'association pour l'unification du christianisme mondial = Unification Church

(source: Bulles du 1er trimestre 1993) 
L'association pour l'unification du christianisme mondial (dénomination en France de l'" Église de l'unification " du coréen Moon) serait insolvable ! Elle avait acheté en 1977 le château de Mauny entouré d'un terrain de 13 hectares entièrement clos pour 2.200.000 F. Les moonistes l'occupaient depuis la fin de 1975. L'AUCM ayant été condamnée pour fraude fiscale, l'administration des impôts avait placé une hypothèque légale sur le château, seul bien visible de l'association. La vente sur saisie immobilière n'eut lieu que le 16 octobre 1992. L'acheteur paya 2.190.000 F alors que la dette de l'AUCM (impôts, majorations de retard et amendes) s'élevait, lors du verdict, à 35 millions. Officiellement, l'association n'a plus aucune ressource. Le fisc devra-t-il tirer un trait sur les 32.810.000 F qui lui restent dus ?

______________________________

Ch��teau de Bellinglise, Compiegne (outside Paris) was bought by a Moon front organization. It may still be owned by them, but that is unknown.

Moonies secretly bought the French Château de Challain-la-Potherie in 1989