And again out of the park....

Note also that while we have supported a moratorium on foreclosures, this is only to stop the foreclosure frauds -- the illegal seizure of homes by fraudulent means. We do not suppose that financial institutions can afford to maintain toxic assets on their books. The experience of the thrift crisis of the 1980s demonstrates the inherent problems created by forbearance in the case of institutions that are run as control frauds. All of the incentives of a control fraud bank are worsened with forbearance. Our posts on the Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) law (which mandates that the regulators place insolvent banks in receivership) have focused on the banks' failure to foreclose as a deliberate strategy to avoid recognizing their massive losses in order to escape receivership and to allow their managers to further loot the banks through huge bonuses based on fictional income (which ignores real losses).

Yep.

All these institutions are in fact insolvent.  Pretending they aren't won't make them solvent again.  Home prices won't go back up either, which is the only way they could get out of this.  Therefore, the ultimate outcome has to be resolution - or the looting for the purpose of continuing to steal money and cover the ongoing rot will continue - and economic recovery will be impossible.

The data also support our position that fraudulent lenders are delaying foreclosures and the sales of foreclosed homes primarily in order to delay enormous loss recognition.

And make more money (which they then loot) through the PSAs, which give them an incentive to create defaults that were not already there.

If a deficiency action is available against the mortgagor or any other person, CitiMortgage may proceed for the deficiency. CitiMortgage may retain 25% of the net proceeds received from a mortgagor pursuant to a deficiency action as compensation for proceeding with the deficiency action.

Isn't that special?  Writing the PSA in such a fashion that the more people you can get to default, the more money you make!

The fraud scheme inherently strips homeowners of their life savings and finally their homes. It is inevitable that the homeowners would become delinquent; that was the inherent consequence of inducing those who could not repay their loans to borrow large sums and purchase homes at grossly inflated prices supported by fraudulent inflated appraisals. This was not an accident, but rather the product of those who designed the "exploding rate" mortgages.

Yep.  And guess what: By 2006 Citibank was well-aware that the majority of the mortgages they were both making and packaging up were garbage.  By 2007 that number was eighty percent.  Eight out of ten, or nearly all.

Out of these millions of fraudulent mortgages, Bank of America claims to have modified 700,000; of these, 85,000 are under HAMP. Still, the Treasury says that the bank has another 375,000 mortgages that already meet HAMP terms. In other words, Bank of America has been shockingly negligent in its efforts to modify mortgages.

It's not negligence, it's intentional.  The PSA cited above is likely similar to most of them.  That is, BAC has every incentive to further loot the population using HAMP as a foil, since they make even more money by doing so, and further asset-strip the public.

HAMP's parallel goal is funneling more money to the banks that induced the fraudulent loans. Data indicate that neither the HAMP modifications nor those undertaken independently by the banks actually benefit homeowners.

Correct.  The PSAs for the loan pools are written in such a format that if you can induce someone to default and then deny them a HAMP modification you can make even more money by further asset-stripping the customer.

Most importantly, as we reported, half of all homeowners are already underwater in their mortgages, or nearly so.

That's a lot of turkey legs that you can turn into bones....

Does Bank of America hold the "wet ink" notes on any of these homes, as required by 45 states? How many of these homeowners were unemployed or otherwise financially distressed when the loans were originally made? How many of the mortgages were fraudulent from the very beginning: low docs, no docs, liar loans, NINJA's (all specialties of Countrywide)? Without addressing these questions, Bank of America cannot claim to have demonstrated that the foreclosures were appropriate, no matter how many years borrowers might have been delinquent.

The law is immaterial Bill.  It's even immaterial when you commit Hit and Run, provided you're a banker:

EAGLE, Colorado — A financial manager for wealthy clients will not face felony charges for a hit-and-run because it could jeopardize his job, prosecutors said Thursday.

What did he do?

Martin Joel Erzinger, 52, faces two misdemeanor traffic charges stemming from a July 3 incident when he allegedly hit bicyclist Dr. Steven Milo from behind then sped away, according to court documents.

If you did that you'd be sitting in the dock facing a felony charge.  So would I.  But if you're a financial manager for wealthy clients, your job is more important than justice.  The prosecutor admits so.

And by the way, this wasn't a "love tap" either:

Milo suffered spinal cord injuries, bleeding from his brain and damage to his knee and scapula, according to court documents. Over the past six weeks he has suffered “disabling” spinal headaches and faces multiple surgeries for a herniated disc and plastic surgery to fix the scars he suffered in the accident.

“He will have lifetime pain,” Haddon wrote. “His ability to deal with the physical challenges of his profession — liver transplant surgery — has been seriously jeopardized.”

This was a serious incident and the alleged individual responsible sped away instead of stopping after the impact.

Read the bullet points from Bill Black's article.

Then read the article related to what certainly appears to be felony hit-and-run.

Now answer this question: What options do the citizens of this nation have when we not only cannot get felony prosecution for financial frauds, but we also can't obtain them when a bankster allegedly runs down a bicyclist and then flees the scene?

I can think of only two, and of the two, "stick in the teeth" is the only legal one.

Then again, if there is no law that applies to banksters, should the rest of us adhere to it?