Streamed live on Aug 10, 2014
http://www.thenuclearproctologist.org/ The entire 200 kilometers we checked of Canadian Pacific Coast Line was devoid of all life , recovery is highly unlikely . This presentation will be followed tonight with a Q & A session at 8 pm pacific Canada time on this same site beautifulgirlbydana . Watch the live presentation Aug
Published: April 9th, 2014 at 12:10 pm ET
Bloomberg, Apr. 4, 2014: World Needs to Get Ready for the Next Nuclear Plant Accident– Three major atomic accidents in 35 years are forcing the world’s nuclear industry to stop imagining it can prevent more catastrophes and to focus instead on how to contain them. […] scientists warn the next nuclear accident is waiting to happen […] the causes of the three events followed no pattern, and the inability to immediately contain them escalated the episodes into global disasters with huge economic, environmental and political consequences. […] according to the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev it was a factor in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union […]
Joonhong Ahn, professor at the Department of Nuclear Engineering of University of California, Berkeley: “The cold truth is that, no matter what you do on the technological improvements side, accidents will occur — somewhere, someplace.” […] The consequences of radiation release, contamination and evacuation of people is “clear and obvious” […] That means governments and citizens should be prepared, not just nuclear utilities […] The problem with an engineering solution [is] those defense systems can also fail […] “This is an endless cycle. Whatever is your technology, however it is developed, we always have residual risk.” When the next nuclear accident occurs the world needs to have better knowledge of how to limit the spread of radiation and do the clean-up, including removing radiation […] We also need more understanding of the impact of low-dose radiation on organisms […] “This is about recovery from an accident, not preventing an accident […] It’s completely different. And I think this concept is very necessary for the future of nuclear utilization.”
Gregory Jaczko, ex-chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: “We have this accident and people will say, you know, it was caused by this and that […] But the next accident is going to be something different. Nobody can tell you where or when or what exactly it is going to be […] Once you have an accident, a low-probability and high consequence event, you can no longer call it a low probability event […] It is an event that’s happened and you cannot ignore the consequences simply because it was never supposed to happen. The consequences are real. Probabilities are always hypothetical.” […] The cost of cleaning up Fukushima may be more than the total cost of building all the world’s nuclear plants to date […] “If we look at this technology and we challenge ourselves to make technology that meets this standard then we’ll see that there are ways to do it […] But if there aren’t ways to do it — economically viable ways to do it […] this is perhaps then not a technology that we want to rely on well into the future.”
Published: April 9th, 2014 at 12:10 pm ET
« US Energy Secretary: Tragic Fukushima event had “global consequences” — Report: Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant “is world’s worst nuclear disaster”
Celebrated Physician: Fukushima has humanity “on brink of a possible worldwide nuclear holocaust” — “The world as we know it has changed” — “Effects on our health are incomprehensible”
Infectious disease specialist Dr. Stephen Hosea, MD in the Santa Barbara Independent, October 31, 2013: Radioactive Fallout from Fukushima — The World as We Know It Has Changed […] I believe that humanity is standing on the brink of a possible worldwide nuclear holocaust. The world as we know it has already changed as the result of radioactive material that has been released into the air and the ocean. I am not an alarmist, but I am alarmed. […] I know radioactivity has been and continues to be released into the air and ocean. The effects on our health are incomprehensible because the magnitude of radioactivity released and the extent of spread and contamination are virtually unknown. […] In my clinical career, I have had the good fortune to care for the homeless and the disenfranchised and the rich and the famous. When one is lying in a hospital bed with those special gowns that are wide open in the back, everyone is pretty much the same. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat are gifts of life for all of us no matter what our creed or our color. I know that these precious gifts have been contaminated. The silence from the media and the powers that be has been deafening. […] We have an opportunity to help the Japanese with the crisis in Fukushima. I want the best and the brightest that money CAN’T buy to be making those decisions. This is not a request–this is an inalienable right for the sake of our children and our children’s children. The time to act is now.
More about Dr. Hosea from the Santa Barbara News-Press: Mention Dr. Stephen Hosea and the accolades begin. […] “He is just a phenomenal doctor, as well as just a wonderful guy,” said Dr. Elliot Schulman, health officer and Santa Barbara County Public Health director. “Everyone concurs,” said Peter MacDougall, past president of the Cottage Hospital board of directors. “Not only does he have tremendously strong technical competencies, but his personal modalities with patients, his caring, the deep sensitivity he shows represent just a terrific model for new doctors. “He’s as close to a model physician as you could ask for,” Mr. MacDougall said. “We are, frankly, blessed to have a man of his talents.” […] a leading specialist on infectious disease […] Government officials consider him a go-to guy, regularly seeking his advice on stemming the spread of illness. […] Shortly after his 1973 graduation from Harvard Medical School, Dr. Hosea began his residency at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. […]
Nov. 1, 2013: If you’re anywhere near the Santa Barbara area on Friday, do not miss Dr. Hosea’s lecture, “The Perils of Fukushima: What You Don’t Know Really Could Kill You” — Cottage Hospital, Burtness Auditorium, 400 W. Pueblo St. Santa Barbara at 12:15p.
US BANK ADMITS, IN WRITING FROM THEIR CORPORATE OFFICE, THAT THE BORROWER IS A PARTY TO AN MBS TRANSACTION; THAT SECURITIZATION TRUSTEES ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS; HAVE NO ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OF WHEN A LOAN HAS DEFAULTED; THAT THE “TRUE BENEFICIAL OWNERS” OF A SECURITIZED MORTGAGE ARE THE INVESTORS IN THE MBS; AND THAT THE GOAL OF A SERVICER IS TO “MAXIMIZE THE RETURN TO INVESTORS” November 6, 2013
We have been provided with a copy of U.S. Bank Global Corporate Trust Services’ “Role of the Corporate Trustee” brochure which makes certain incredible admissions, several of which squarely disprove and nullify the holdings of various courts around the country which have taken the position that the borrower “is not a party to” the securitization and is thus not entitled to discovery or challenges to the mortgage loan transfer process. The brochure accompanied a letter from US Bank to one of our clients which states: “Your account is governed by your loan documents and the Trust’s governing documents”, which admission clearly demonstrates that the borrower’s loan is directly related to documents governing whatever securitized mortgage loan trust the loan has allegedly been transferred to. This brochure proves that Courts which have held to the contrary are wrong on the facts.
The first heading of the brochure is styled “Distinct Party Roles”. The first sentence of this heading states: “Parties involved in a MBS transaction include the borrower, the originator, the servicer and the trustee, each with their own distinct roles, responsibilities and limitations.” MBS is defined at the beginning of the brochure as the sale of “Mortgage Backed Securities in the capital markets”. The fourth page of the brochure also identifies the “Parties to a Mortgage Backed Securities Transaction”, with the first being the “Borrower”, followed by the Investment Bank/Sponsor, the Investor, the Originator, the Servicer, the Trust (referred to “generally as a special purpose entity, such as a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC)”), and the Trustee (stating that “the trustee does not have an economic or beneficial interest in the loans”).
The second page sets forth that U.S. Bank, as Trustee, “does not have any discretion or authority in the foreclosure process.” If this is true, how can U.S. Bank as Trustee be the Plaintiff in judicial foreclosures or the foreclosing party in non-judicial foreclosures if it has “no authority in the foreclosure process”?
The second page also states: “All trustees for MBS transactions, including U.S. Bank, have no advance knowledge of when a mortgage loan has defaulted.” Really? So when, for example, MERS assigns, in 2011, a loan to a 2004 Trust where the loan has been in default since 2008, no MBS “trustee” bank (and note that it says “All” trustees) do not know that a loan coming into the trust is in default? The trust just blindly accepts loans which may or may not be in default without any advanced due diligence? Right. Sure. Of course. LOL.
However, that may be true, because the trustee banks do not want to know, for then they can take advantage of the numerous insurances, credit default swaps, reserve pools, etc. set up to pay the trust when loans are in default, as discussed below.
The same page states that “Any action taken by the servicer must maximize the return on the investment made by the ‘beneficial owners of the trust’ — the investors.” The fourth page of the brochure states that the investors are “the true beneficial owners of the mortgages”, and the third page of the brochure states “Whether the servicer pursues a foreclosure or considers a modification of the loan, the goal is still to maximize the return to investors” (who, again, are the true beneficial owners of the mortgage loans).
This is a critical admission in terms of what happens when a loan is securitized. The borrower initiated a mortgage loan with a regulated mortgage banking institution, which is subject to mortgage banking rules, regulations, and conditions, with the obligation evidenced by the loan documents being one of simple loaning of money and repayment, period. Once a loan is sold off into a securitization, the homeowner is no longer dealing with a regulated mortgage banking institution, but with an unregulated private equity investor which is under no obligation to act in the best interest to maintain the loan relationship, but to “maximize the return”. This, as we know, almost always involves foreclosure and denial of a loan mod, as a foreclosure (a) results in the acquisition of a tangible asset (the property); and (b) permits the trust to take advantage of reserve pools, credit default swaps, first loss reserves, and other insurances to reap even more monies in connection with the claimed “default” (with no right of setoff as to the value of the property against any such insurance claims), and in a situation where the same risk was permitted to be underwritten many times over, as there was no corresponding legislation or regulation which precluded a MBS insurer (such as AIG, MGIC, etc.) from writing a policy on the same risk more than once.
As those of you know who have had Bloomberg reports done on securitized loans, the screens show loans which have been placed into many tranches (we saw one where the same loan was collateralized in 41 separate tranches, each of which corresponded to a different class of MBS), and with each class of MBS having its own insurance, the “trust” could make 41 separate insurance claims AND foreclose on the house as well! Talk about “maximizing return for the investor”! What has happened is that the securitization parties have unilaterally changed the entire nature of the mortgage loan contract without any prior notice to or approval from the borrower.
There is no language in any Note or Mortgage document (DOT, Security Deed, or Mortgage) by which the borrower is put on notice that the entire nature of the mortgage loan contract and the other contracting party may be unilaterally changed from a loan with a regulated mortgage lender to an “investment” contract with a private equity investor. This, in our business, is called “fraud by omission” for purposes of inducing someone to sign a contract, with material nondisclosure of matters which the borrower had to have to make the proper decision as to whether to sign the contract or not.
U.S. Bank has now confirmed, in writing from its own corporate offices in St. Paul, Minnesota, so much of what we have been arguing for years. This brochure should be filed in every securitization case for discovery purposes and opposing summary judgments or motions to dismiss where the securitized trustee “bank” takes the position that “the borrower is not part of the securitization and thus has no standing to question it.” U. S. Bank has confirmed that the borrower is in fact a party to an MBS transaction, period, and that the mortgage loan is in fact governed, in part, by “the Trust’s governing documents”, which are thus absolutely relevant for discovery purposes.
Jeff Barnes, Esq.,
Just a Farmer & Farmher, inspiring others to live the homesteading dream!
For Dog Lovers Only
LOVE YOUR PET™
Dog Training Guidance
Digital Products That Work
Where we keep you up to date with the latest information in the 2A community!
Your "Pro Se" Foreclosure Fight Solution!
Rehabilitation is an attitude.
Where Deplorables Hang Out
A United States Supreme Court Blog
an animal's eyes can speak a great language
by not killing them.
you reap what sow
Save The Wolves
Help Protect YOUR Wolves
"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money can not be eaten."
Merry Christmas! @SaveTheWolves