Right to Assemble

Banking procedures vary. Most if not all loans involve some sort of internal verification procedure that the borrower has the means to repay the loan. If this is falsified, we have banking fraud.

In the housing bubble problem, the most common motivation I would suppose is to steal the downpayment money.

The law is talking about false entries in the mortgages themselves. Not in any internal verification. Can you show me any law that would put people in jail for not complying with internal verification procedures?

You mean the law is partly about false entries in the mortgages themselves. There’s this little word in there, “or” which means the crime can be committed in several different ways.

“Whoever, without such authority, makes, draws, issues, puts forth, or assigns any certificate of deposit, draft, order, bill of exchange, acceptance, note, debenture, bond, or other obligation, or mortgage, judgment or decree; or”

A person who has falsified the verification DOES NOT have authority to make a loan on the false pretenses.

Again, cite the exact language of the law that would forbid making a loan while not following internal verification procedures. The part that you cited has nothing to do with that. HOW the bank decides to give the loan or not, if it is not regulated externally, is irrelevant to the statute you cited.

I just did in post #103. You see, the bank has a procedure. They require the employee to follow it. The employee is authorized to make a loan on the conditions whereunder the bank employs him. It follows that he does not have authority to make the loan on false terms.

Illinois is examining fraudulent court filings in home foreclosures.
New York is going to charge fraudulent lending practices, defective securitization practices, faulty foreclosure documentation and illegal home seizures.
Hud is charging that 49 percent of loans were illegally processed.

Ah, I see. So you’re going after the little guys - the employees. For some reason I thought when you talked “bankers” you meant the management. Ok. Good luck with that.

I don’t care if it’s a little guy or a big guy. To the extent that this went on, though, I’d have to say the big had to have known as well.

And it’s also illegal to share in the profits of a banking fraud, so…

And so far, Terr, I’ve only discussed the beginnings of it, the approval of bogus mortgages–we haven’t yet touched on foreclosures, as gonzomax points out, there is the end of it too.

Lobbying.

See here:

And here:

So, that.

Not much more than that, however.

As everyone is aware the New York courts have ruled that the protests can continue but people can’t set up permanent tent cities there.

Public spaces are obviously valid places to exercise freedom of assembly, but at the same time I think the government does (as is evidenced by multiple hundreds of years of historical fact) have some right of regulation and control over public spaces.

Imagine if all the private clubs with their own club buildings decided to erect semi-permanent structures on public grounds to hold all their meetings, and essentially turned part of the public land into their private land. When you erect a tent in perpetuity that is what you are doing.

It’s sort of like with National Forests and National Parks, there are rules on tent camping that require you to move your tent precisely because it isn’t seen as desirable that you turn public property into your private home. So it’s fine if you want to camp all year round but you can’t camp in the exact same spot–because that is essentially you turning a piece of public property into a piece of your own personal property. We could of course think of many other examples (in agricultural societies communal grazing areas being fenced by private landowners–that turns public into private to the detriment of the rest of the public.)

Long term protest occupations aren’t unknown, though. The Bonus Army essentially encamped on Washington (with some 50,000 or so people) until being forced out by the Army.

That’s pretty much how I see it. Public space is there for temporary protests but not tent cities.

Yes and no. Yes, the judge agreed the Occupiers have a right to assemble in a public park. But, no, he didn’t say they have a right to camp. Indeed, the headline of the article you cite is “New York court upholds eviction of Occupy protesters.”

Former Seattle Police Chief says he made mistakes in 1999 others have failed to learn from.

The loan originators commonly changed the info on the documents to assure loan approval. They knew the guidelines and changed the info to suit them. They were paid to write mortgages.

the right to assemble is not the right to obstruct roadways or interfere with the rights of others . freedom to demonstrate ends with the right of others to go about there business. the level of tolerance shown to "occupiers has been above and beyond the scope of there rights. they have cost cities and businesses millions . they don’t have the right to move in on public or privet property on a permanent bases

I think your definition of a bad demonstration also includes any kind of approved protest march that blocks traffic, and it would exclude things like sit-ins at segregated lunch counters in addition to Occupy Wall Street. Does that bother you?

it does not bother me at, all ive taken chances at demonstrations during the 60,s that was my choice . but the right to interfere with the rights of others will eventually get you pepper sprayed or worse.

Did your demonstrations interfere with the rights of others, and do you believe you’d had deserved the same?