houston news, houston local news, breaking news in houston, houston weather at newscast media




















2012 election


Part III-Why Obama and agencies like the SEC settle cases



by Joseph Ernest  October 10, 2012     

Newscast Media HOUSTON, Texas—Before I conclude this series, I would like to explain what a forensic audit is.  A true forensic audit on any property will tell you if the underlying debt obligation was securitized and who the "holder in due course" or holder of the debt obligation is.  If a property was purchased in cash, a forensic audit can still be done, because banks are known to seize properties that were paid in cash due to a broken chain of assignments, that led to a broken chain of title.  It is important therefore even with a paid off property to make sure you have what is referred to as a clear title. Read this story about how a court authorized the house sale of a man in Florida who had paid cash and had no mortgage. (pop-up)


A clear title has no encumbrance on it, because prior to the sale of the property, the lien was perfected, or there were absolutely no clouds on the title.  A perfected lien is one where the person who holds the deed of trust, also holds the note.  If by any chance the person who holds or held the deed of trust is or was different from the one who holds or held the note, then you have a defect in title that can never be cured, because both instruments traveled on divergent paths. Even if you paid cash for it, someone five or ten years down the road who knows about the Law of Mortgages and trust law, can come back and sue for a "fraudulent conveyance." For now, I will just stick to the topic of the Department of Justice and the SEC, including what I discovered during a forensic audit on some property.


After my investigative research was complete, I demonstrated using charts, that several SEC violations happened and trust laws were broken, and that the true owner of the securitized debt obligation was the Depository Trust Company the nominee of whom is CEDE & Company. The judge got scared and immediately sealed the case.  In the end the bank walked away from the property out of fear of being charged with fraud by the SEC under Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 that states: "It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities or security-based swap agreement to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact."


The untrue statements in this case were the ones the bank's attorneys uttered in the court record, claiming the bank owned the debt obligation, and using those statements to unlawfully obtain a piece a property, and legal fees (money) as a result of representing the banks.


Also 17 C.F.R section 240.10b-5 states: "It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,

(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.

Because the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission know that military agents ultimately have the last word in these cases, and because such cases are very sophisticated even for experienced judges, who last went to school in the 70s or 80s before the creation of the Collateralized Debt Obligations in form of mortgage-backed securities, the SEC and DOJ are laying out the fraud and violations before these multi-national corporations, and are succeeding in settling out of court.

You probably are thinking how these military Judge Advocate Generals can control the outcome of a case if it is a trial by jury. Before a case goes to trial, the judge will determine whether it is frivolous, whether you have standing, whether there is enough evidence, and if he or she dismisses it, and it never goes to trial, hasn't the judge controlled the outcome?  We see criminal charges being dropped everyday because there was a mishandling in the chain of evidence or a witness disappeared, and such criminal cases remain unsolved and untried. We also see civil cases being dismissed for failure to state a claim under which relief may be granted, or lack of subject matter or jurisdiction. Isn't the judge controlling the outcome?  

Even when it does finally go to trial, we always hear about "mistrials" happening because of a "procedural" defect, technicality or one side files a "voluntary withdrawal/dismissal" because the evidence is questionable. It only takes one stubborn juror to create a hung jury even when there is clear and convincing evidence that a crime was committed. If conviction requires a 10-2 vote and it is 9-2, that one juror can make the case go one way or the other, resulting in a mistrial or conviction.

In his farewell speech in January 1961 President Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex because of the potential of misplaced powers. Watch:

In the very last sentence, Eisenhower was talking about the military that secretly controls the outcome of every case: "The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We must never let the weight of this combination (Military Industrial Complex) endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

Obama knows what is going on in the courts, being a lawyer himself.  He knows the military Flag in every courtroom and church is there for a reason. He, together with the SEC are not taking any chances so they are winning cases outside court, before they even enter the courts. I believe the only reason John G. Roberts flipped and voted for Obamacare was maybe Obama had some dirt on him, like a tape or photos.

Secondly, companies are willing to settle outside court because they know that the shareholders and investors might start filing class action lawsuits and the prolonged litigation would definitely damage the company's bottom line. The third and perhaps most important reason is the corporations do not want the IRS breathing down their necks.  It would be hard to succeed against these federal alphabet agencies namely: the DOJ, SEC, IRS and risk also having the FBI join the party and start investigating criminal behavior of corporate executives. Right there you are going into RICO territory, and who wants that?

Above all, Obama's Department of Justice and the SEC have succeeded in winning outside the courts, by getting off-the-record confessions after doing internal investigations with the help of whistleblowers, and offering immunity to corporations and executives who acknowledge that violations were made, but don't have to admit to any wrongdoing.  

How come you never hear the media tell people that every court is a profit-making business whose primary function is to sell securites in form of bundled up surety bonds on the secondary market? Because the corporate media is owned by the very corporations that trade the bonds and securities.  Add Comments>>

Related stories:

Part I-Why Obama and agencies like the SEC settle cases

Part II-Why Obama and agencies like the SEC settle cases  






       Find newscast media on youtube for houston news and local breaking news        get newscast media news feeds for breaking news, houston local news and world news.          Get our facebook updates on world news, houston news and houston local news including sports         Twitter

 Join the Newscast Media social networks

for current events and multimedia content. 





 Copyright© Newscast Media. All Rights Reserved. Terms and Privacy Policy