First dump of Anon BofA Documents is up(bankofamericasuck.com)
bankofamericasuck.com
First dump of Anon BofA Documents is up
http://bankofamericasuck.com/
128 comments
Yet by burying that in the middle and near the end, bookended on both sides by what can be perceived as whining by an ex-employee, "OperationLeakS" has basically made it cakewalk for Bank of America's PR to deflect this.
I halfway hope that Wikileaks is using Anonymous as a smokescreen and has given them a little bit of info so that BoA can burn their PR on them, then the supposed hard drive that is referenced again here actually comes out later.
I halfway hope that Wikileaks is using Anonymous as a smokescreen and has given them a little bit of info so that BoA can burn their PR on them, then the supposed hard drive that is referenced again here actually comes out later.
Just read though it all. So far, this is unimpressive and not really indicative of any serious criminal activity.
And here's the torrent: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6241472
And here's the torrent: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6241472
I think opinions may differ regarding whether or not that's criminal activity.
See argument here: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/g3hgw/bank_of_amer...
The guy who leaked this information is a former employee of BofA. Since his firing BofA has ruined his life/credit/relationships and he will probably be in court for the rest of his life.
Bank of America made a lot of errors with their loan adjustments due to not updating and/or staying on top of things and subsequently forclosed a lot of homes that should not have been forclosed on. So the emails you see at the bottom of the page are BofA execs asking for the removal of certain DTN records from their Databases (from what i understand DTN's are like information records). The reason they are doing that is because they are being audited, and when the auditors look up the loans that should be tied to those DTN's and find that there is no existing DTN record, they will discount it as a system error and move on. The result of this "deleting of DTN's" was some $60B worth of fraud on the part of Bank Of America in order to cover up the mistakes they made during the housing crisis.
These emails are just the first ones released, but they are clearly TO and FROM BofA execs, asking for the deletion of DTN's from the system and even a response from one exec saying, "Are you sure we can do this"??
See argument here: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/g3hgw/bank_of_amer...
The guy who leaked this information is a former employee of BofA. Since his firing BofA has ruined his life/credit/relationships and he will probably be in court for the rest of his life.
Bank of America made a lot of errors with their loan adjustments due to not updating and/or staying on top of things and subsequently forclosed a lot of homes that should not have been forclosed on. So the emails you see at the bottom of the page are BofA execs asking for the removal of certain DTN records from their Databases (from what i understand DTN's are like information records). The reason they are doing that is because they are being audited, and when the auditors look up the loans that should be tied to those DTN's and find that there is no existing DTN record, they will discount it as a system error and move on. The result of this "deleting of DTN's" was some $60B worth of fraud on the part of Bank Of America in order to cover up the mistakes they made during the housing crisis.
These emails are just the first ones released, but they are clearly TO and FROM BofA execs, asking for the deletion of DTN's from the system and even a response from one exec saying, "Are you sure we can do this"??
Since his firing BofA has ruined his life/credit/relationships and he will probably be in court for the rest of his life.
I'd really like to hear more, as I'm having trouble understanding what they could do other than take him to court for stealing documents or whatever. Specifically, how did they ruin his relationships? Do they call and hang up when his girlfriend answers? Do they call his friends claiming to be him, impersonating his voice, and saying things like, "you know, your feet really smell"?
I'd really like to hear more, as I'm having trouble understanding what they could do other than take him to court for stealing documents or whatever. Specifically, how did they ruin his relationships? Do they call and hang up when his girlfriend answers? Do they call his friends claiming to be him, impersonating his voice, and saying things like, "you know, your feet really smell"?
Apparently, it's this:
http://bankofamericasuck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/boa1...
The moral of the story is: don't be a whistleblower unless it's for some area of industry where the government gives you immunity and a few million in cash. Or, be prepared to never work in that industry again: this is whistleblowing 101, so don't be surprised.
(Not that I think he is blowing the whistle on anything, really. It sounds like he was upset that he was fired so he tried to make his Outlook dump sound interesting enough to get himself some media attention. It didn't work.)
(Not that I think he is blowing the whistle on anything, really. It sounds like he was upset that he was fired so he tried to make his Outlook dump sound interesting enough to get himself some media attention. It didn't work.)
Haha, even the guy who blew the whistle on UBS eventually got nailed to the cross and is serving federal time now.
A lot of rappers talk about talking to the police, they all have great advice.
A lot of rappers talk about talking to the police, they all have great advice.
He also withheld information from the investigators. If you blow the whistle, you're expected to give everything up, not just the stuff that doesn't make you look bad. THAT'S why they nailed him to a cross; he tried to double-deal.
And the people who were and still are committing tax fraud on a scale that blows away what any individual could do on their own?
They're fine, thanks. The guy who tries to blow the whistle gets nailed, though.
That's not why they nailed him to the cross, that's how they did it. The why is evidenced by the fact that they're not going after the actual tax cheats in addition to him.
They're fine, thanks. The guy who tries to blow the whistle gets nailed, though.
That's not why they nailed him to the cross, that's how they did it. The why is evidenced by the fact that they're not going after the actual tax cheats in addition to him.
I think there is an important part of the story missing between: "If I wasn't blocked from the position I deserved..." and "...patrol officers came into my house to accuse me of being a terrorist."
> subsequently forclosed a lot of homes that should not have been forclosed on
I don't understand this bit; what, other than non-payment of mortgage, makes a house a "should have been foreclosed on" as opposed to "should NOT have been foreclosed on"?
I don't understand this bit; what, other than non-payment of mortgage, makes a house a "should have been foreclosed on" as opposed to "should NOT have been foreclosed on"?
I know someone who owned a ton of different houses. Let's say they bought 20 of them for $500k each on avg and put $80k down as deposits.
Once the recession hit, the market value of these homes dropped like crazy. Instead of being worth $500k each, they were valued at $300k. This meant that the loan on the homes were more than the market value of the homes and apparently there was a clause in the bank contract that allows them to call the entire amount of the loan if the loan amount is more than the market value of the house.
That is exactly what they did, which seems crazy to me as he had really good tenants in each of the homes and they all continued paying on time so he was actually making ALL his payments on time for all houses.
This is one way that a bank could forclose on a house even if non-payment isn't an issue. Contract details are crucial.
Once the recession hit, the market value of these homes dropped like crazy. Instead of being worth $500k each, they were valued at $300k. This meant that the loan on the homes were more than the market value of the homes and apparently there was a clause in the bank contract that allows them to call the entire amount of the loan if the loan amount is more than the market value of the house.
That is exactly what they did, which seems crazy to me as he had really good tenants in each of the homes and they all continued paying on time so he was actually making ALL his payments on time for all houses.
This is one way that a bank could forclose on a house even if non-payment isn't an issue. Contract details are crucial.
Wow, thanks; I have never heard of such a contractual clause.
My understanding is that those clauses (or similar ones) are standard. We have one on our house. The point is, the bank doesn't gain anything, usually, by foreclosing. They are (at least in theory) better off receiving the payments they are certain to get rather than trying to find someone new to make them (for probably a smaller loan amount- because the property wouldn't sell for as much).
> My understanding is that those clauses (or similar ones) are standard. We have one on our house.
Really? Where and what originating financial institution?
I read my notes and I don't remember anything like that. (I found a lot of other things that I wasn't happy about.)
Really? Where and what originating financial institution?
I read my notes and I don't remember anything like that. (I found a lot of other things that I wasn't happy about.)
They call it "acceleration." It's applicable as a "remedy" for certain acts the lender doesn't like. My latest was with GMAC, FWIW.
For example, his friend may not have, by law, owned the houses, but may have transfered rights to his business. If the lender somehow knew this and didn't like it (not a "natural person), it may have triggered an "acceleration."
Don't know his contract details, just a possible scenario.
For example, his friend may not have, by law, owned the houses, but may have transfered rights to his business. If the lender somehow knew this and didn't like it (not a "natural person), it may have triggered an "acceleration."
Don't know his contract details, just a possible scenario.
Exactly, so what is the point of such a clause? Just to give them a reason to take away the property whenever they want to if such a condition exists?
I honestly couldn't believe that my friend, who is a very street-smart, intelligent man who built literally an empire in the construction business, would agree to crazy conditions like this. He said that it never seemed like a possibility for him as he was paying down the loans much faster than loan required. I'm really not sure why the banks would do something this stupid to loans that were getting paid on-schedule. My friends theory (just a theory) is that were going to be able to write-off the loan and get part of it back through TARP funds. This way, they'd be able to cash-out faster without loosing much and build up a cash-reserve for uncertain times. I'm not sure what the real story is on why they would pull this kind of nutty behavior.
Yes. Not only are you working for the bank, they can fire you whenever they want for no reason.
Something similar happened to me: I had a house that I bought for $490K had put 80K down and had equity of something like 70K.
I made all my payments on time - had a credit rating of 750 was never late or missed a payment.
One day - I went to make my payment online and the payment button was missing of the page.
Everything else was the same on the sie - just the make payment button was gone.
I called the bank and inquired. They stated very matter-of-fact "Oh, that's because we sold your loan. Your loan is no longer with us - you need to call your new lender"
WTF?!
I had no indication, no notice, no letter.
I said "Who did you sell it to?" They claimed they had no idea - that it was sold "with a whole bunch of other loans - they have no idea who has it now, the new lender should have contacted me."
They hadn't.
For more than 6 months this went on - no notice from my lender, no contact from the supposed new lender. At first - I was calling my lender every day - then every week - continually asking. No info.
Then after six months - I got a notice of foreclosure and a statement saying I needed to pay $30K
I didn't have $30K - and other situations had changed as well (change of job, divorce, change of income level).
The new lender refused to work with me on the delinquency stating "I did not make enough money to qualify for a refinance"
They ended up taking my home and ruining my credit - I still haven't recovered financially, and emotionally form the experience. My credit rating is now poor - and I cant seem to fix this.
As I mentioned, I had a great credit rating of 750 - and had zero debt (I have made it a choice to not carry credit cards) and after this incident I could not get a credit card now that I would need one.
It has totally fucked over my life and I dont see how I can fix this part.
I made all my payments on time - had a credit rating of 750 was never late or missed a payment.
One day - I went to make my payment online and the payment button was missing of the page.
Everything else was the same on the sie - just the make payment button was gone.
I called the bank and inquired. They stated very matter-of-fact "Oh, that's because we sold your loan. Your loan is no longer with us - you need to call your new lender"
WTF?!
I had no indication, no notice, no letter.
I said "Who did you sell it to?" They claimed they had no idea - that it was sold "with a whole bunch of other loans - they have no idea who has it now, the new lender should have contacted me."
They hadn't.
For more than 6 months this went on - no notice from my lender, no contact from the supposed new lender. At first - I was calling my lender every day - then every week - continually asking. No info.
Then after six months - I got a notice of foreclosure and a statement saying I needed to pay $30K
I didn't have $30K - and other situations had changed as well (change of job, divorce, change of income level).
The new lender refused to work with me on the delinquency stating "I did not make enough money to qualify for a refinance"
They ended up taking my home and ruining my credit - I still haven't recovered financially, and emotionally form the experience. My credit rating is now poor - and I cant seem to fix this.
As I mentioned, I had a great credit rating of 750 - and had zero debt (I have made it a choice to not carry credit cards) and after this incident I could not get a credit card now that I would need one.
It has totally fucked over my life and I dont see how I can fix this part.
I admit to being out of my depth here, so this really is just a question and not an assertion. But wouldn't the right thing to have done there would be to continue putting the entirety of your mortgage payment, every month, into an escrow account with your local clerk of court? I know this is the proper thing for a renter to do when there's a grevience with a landlord that could result in him filing eviction. I'd imagine a judge seeing this, when they file foreclosure, would look favorably upon your good-faith efforts to pay a debt you obviously owe.
I did keep the money that I was paying on my mortgage - until I lost my job and was going through a divorce.
My circumstances were farked in multiple ways... The amount I was making on my income was less than required for all my bills - as we had joint income of around ~250K.
After we split, and then later I lost my job - I had to make decisions on what to pay: utilities/food/gas etc.. which took away from what I had saved for the mortgage - when I was finally contacted, via the foreclosure notice - which was the first and only communication from the new lender - I didn't have the total amount and was farked.
My circumstances were farked in multiple ways... The amount I was making on my income was less than required for all my bills - as we had joint income of around ~250K.
After we split, and then later I lost my job - I had to make decisions on what to pay: utilities/food/gas etc.. which took away from what I had saved for the mortgage - when I was finally contacted, via the foreclosure notice - which was the first and only communication from the new lender - I didn't have the total amount and was farked.
What would have happened if your original bank did not sell your loan and kept asking you for monthly payment as usual?
Well, for one - I would have paid until I lost my job and split - and I would likely have had a better "relationship" with the bank as I had never missed a mortgage payment or made it late in the 4 years i had the place.
However - I was obviously just some number to the bank given that they heartlessly sold my loan as some lump sum group of loans out without notification or explanation - so I can only speculate....
However - I was obviously just some number to the bank given that they heartlessly sold my loan as some lump sum group of loans out without notification or explanation - so I can only speculate....
Did you offer them ~$20K (instead of full $30K you owed) in exchange for restructuring your debt?
If yes - what did they reply?
@dennisgorelik :
Yes, I offered them everything I had, asked to refinance - filled out all their forms for refi - got a re-appraisal - sent them new employment info once I got a new job and they refused to work with me.
They said, quote:
"You make too much money for us to help you" - but with divorce, bills, child-support - I couldnt affor the 3600 a month mortgage any longer.... Now I can only afford about 1400 a month.
Yes, I offered them everything I had, asked to refinance - filled out all their forms for refi - got a re-appraisal - sent them new employment info once I got a new job and they refused to work with me.
They said, quote:
"You make too much money for us to help you" - but with divorce, bills, child-support - I couldnt affor the 3600 a month mortgage any longer.... Now I can only afford about 1400 a month.
So now they got foreclosure on their hands?
@dennisgorelik :
Yes, I offered them everything I had, asked to refinance - filled out all their forms for refi - got a re-appraisal - sent them new employment info once I got a new job and they refused to work with me.
They said, quote:
"You make too much money for us to help you" - but with divorce, bills, child-support - I couldnt affor the 3600 a month mortgage any longer.... Now I can only afford about 1400 a month.
Yes, I offered them everything I had, asked to refinance - filled out all their forms for refi - got a re-appraisal - sent them new employment info once I got a new job and they refused to work with me.
They said, quote:
"You make too much money for us to help you" - but with divorce, bills, child-support - I couldnt affor the 3600 a month mortgage any longer.... Now I can only afford about 1400 a month.
Curious when this happened. My parents just bought our first home in fall of 2010 and I'm scared to death that Wells Fargo will try to pull this sort of thing.
It seems the only recourse in this type of situation is to contact your local representatives in Congress for help and to bring attention to your situation, because of the bureaucratic nightmare these mortgage backed securities that your house was rolled into are.
It seems the only recourse in this type of situation is to contact your local representatives in Congress for help and to bring attention to your situation, because of the bureaucratic nightmare these mortgage backed securities that your house was rolled into are.
This happened in 2008
You can only forclose on a home on which you hold a lien. One of the big problems associated with this mess is that banks couldn't figure out which bondholders owned which mortgages. The junk mortgage companies (one of which BOA acquired) were as good with record keeping as they were with underwriting. (That is, really bad)
Many homeowners skated through this mess with a free house because the banks could not actually prove that they have a valid lien on the home. The downside for these folks is that they are trapped in the home, as the title isn't clean.
Many homeowners skated through this mess with a free house because the banks could not actually prove that they have a valid lien on the home. The downside for these folks is that they are trapped in the home, as the title isn't clean.
It's also worth noting that while they couldn't track down the lien, they probably didn't screw up and foreclose on anyone who didn't deserve to be foreclosed upon.
At least, that's what the Fed's audit (of a sample of foreclosures, not all foreclosures in the US, obviously) said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/fed-reports-finds-n...
The bondholders are the real victims in this mess.
At least, that's what the Fed's audit (of a sample of foreclosures, not all foreclosures in the US, obviously) said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/fed-reports-finds-n...
The bondholders are the real victims in this mess.
That was based on a review of only 500 selected mortgages. At the same time, the Defense Department is pursuing JP Morgan for incorrect foreclosures on military personnel overseas. There have been lots of cases (anecdotal) of foreclosures on mortgages that have already been paid off or houses that weren't even mortgaged. It's been a massive, massive screwup.
I can't speak to the numbers, but I've read about foreclosures thrown out of court by judges in the WSJ and Economist, so it has happened -- at least in the early days of the mess.
As you noted above, a foreclosure might fail for more reasons than simply foreclosing on someone who doesn't deserve it. Every case I've read about has simply involved the bank screwing up paperwork and a real estate speculator being permitted to keep the house even though they failed to make payments.
If I screw up the paperwork on my end, the bank slaps me with 20k in legal fees at the drop of a hat. Just for reference.
You will find the following read illuminating.
I’ve been in contact for with attorneys involved in foreclosure defense. One thing they stress is that a significant number of their clients facing foreclosure has made every single mortgage payment. Read that again.
Now how can that be? It’s actually very simple.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/11/servicer-driven-forec...
One number that stood out for me:
Thompson estimates that servicer-driven foreclosures represented about 50% of the cases she handled.
I’ve been in contact for with attorneys involved in foreclosure defense. One thing they stress is that a significant number of their clients facing foreclosure has made every single mortgage payment. Read that again.
Now how can that be? It’s actually very simple.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/11/servicer-driven-forec...
One number that stood out for me:
Thompson estimates that servicer-driven foreclosures represented about 50% of the cases she handled.
There is mountains of evidence of serious criminal activity on the public record without any need to resort to leaks. The problem is not lack of evidence. The problem is lack of prosecutorial action by the state.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Could you link to some of the public records proving criminal activity?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/09/a...
Filing documents containing claims that are false is perjury. Filing 10,000 documents containing false claims is 10,000 instances of perjury. Other corporations have taken similar actions, filing tens of thousands of documents in court, withdrawing the documents, and admitting that they were factually incorrect.
Additionally, knowingly originating securities that do not meet the representations made in their prospectuses is securities fraud. We know because of FCIC-related testimony that this was done at BofA at the very least.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/business/20gret.html?_r=1&... (article is related but not about BofA)
I would normally recommend that you read something at market-ticker.org, but for the most part KD's been light on the evidence lately so I'd be hard pressed to sift through his recent angry rambling to find something substantial.
Filing documents containing claims that are false is perjury. Filing 10,000 documents containing false claims is 10,000 instances of perjury. Other corporations have taken similar actions, filing tens of thousands of documents in court, withdrawing the documents, and admitting that they were factually incorrect.
Additionally, knowingly originating securities that do not meet the representations made in their prospectuses is securities fraud. We know because of FCIC-related testimony that this was done at BofA at the very least.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/business/20gret.html?_r=1&... (article is related but not about BofA)
I would normally recommend that you read something at market-ticker.org, but for the most part KD's been light on the evidence lately so I'd be hard pressed to sift through his recent angry rambling to find something substantial.
It's not perjury if it's not willful; the issue with what you're describing is proving that the factual errors were willful misrepresentations and not, as I'm sure the banks claim, honest mistakes that they made a good-faith effort to correct once discovered.
I can imagine that filing documents with errors in them would really annoy the hell out of a judge, but it doesn't seem on its face like it necessarily crosses into perjury.
The securities fraud seems much stronger, maybe via some sort of breach of duty claim by the bondholders who got stuck holding the bag? They pretty much got sold a bill of goods, so they would seem to have the clearest path to getting their pound of flesh out of the originators.
I can imagine that filing documents with errors in them would really annoy the hell out of a judge, but it doesn't seem on its face like it necessarily crosses into perjury.
The securities fraud seems much stronger, maybe via some sort of breach of duty claim by the bondholders who got stuck holding the bag? They pretty much got sold a bill of goods, so they would seem to have the clearest path to getting their pound of flesh out of the originators.
Regarding the perjury, you're right. I find it somewhat upsetting that after a few years of courts responding to these organizations "accidentally" filing factually incorrect documents by allowing them to foreclose anyway the most we can do is prevent them from gaining anything through further "accidents," but what I think is immaterial to the law.
On the securities fraud side, some action is being taken along those lines. My impression from what I've read is that a group of bondholders whose combined share is a large portion of the offering has to be assembled before they can take any action, so it's moving fairly slowly.
On the securities fraud side, some action is being taken along those lines. My impression from what I've read is that a group of bondholders whose combined share is a large portion of the offering has to be assembled before they can take any action, so it's moving fairly slowly.
I'm not sure how the opinion of a columnist (and not just any columnist, but one well known for being dishonest) qualifies as "evidence of serious criminal activity".
Please point to evidence of this alleged dishonesty.
His hit job on Paul Ryan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html
Rebuttals: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/krugman-... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/paul-kru...
Here is a his attempt to debunk the hypothesis that job losses are concentrated in a few sectors. Of course, he doesn't actually present job loss numbers, but instead ratios of people who want a job and are actively looking to people who have one:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/whos-unemployed/
Of course, if you look at actual job numbers, you see huge losses in construction and much smaller losses in other sectors: http://crazybear.posterous.com/structural-shift-in-the-econo...
Here is Krugman relying on Simpson's Paradox to argue that education is better in Wisconsin than in Texas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28krugman.html?par...
Here are more detailed numbers: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/longhorns-17-ba...
Claims that our current budget deficits are not caused by government spending:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/why-have-deficit...
Rebuttal: http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/10/krugman-wrong-abou...
These are just a few that spring to mind.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html
Rebuttals: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/krugman-... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/paul-kru...
Here is a his attempt to debunk the hypothesis that job losses are concentrated in a few sectors. Of course, he doesn't actually present job loss numbers, but instead ratios of people who want a job and are actively looking to people who have one:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/whos-unemployed/
Of course, if you look at actual job numbers, you see huge losses in construction and much smaller losses in other sectors: http://crazybear.posterous.com/structural-shift-in-the-econo...
Here is Krugman relying on Simpson's Paradox to argue that education is better in Wisconsin than in Texas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28krugman.html?par...
Here are more detailed numbers: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/longhorns-17-ba...
Claims that our current budget deficits are not caused by government spending:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/why-have-deficit...
Rebuttal: http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/10/krugman-wrong-abou...
These are just a few that spring to mind.
That's disagreement, not dishonesty.
Dishonesty is easy to show - and a link avalanche is rhetorically a good way to make it seem like you've shown it, at least to people who don't follow the links. People like me, who are curious and do, will end up resentful of the waste of time.
I have no opinion on whether Krugman is dishonest or not, but if know you can't make a case, please don't respond with a link avalanche. If you can: quote a statement, reference it, quote the evidence that it is factually incorrect, reference it. Argument made.
Sorry for being snarky, but this technique irritates me when I fall for it.
Dishonesty is easy to show - and a link avalanche is rhetorically a good way to make it seem like you've shown it, at least to people who don't follow the links. People like me, who are curious and do, will end up resentful of the waste of time.
I have no opinion on whether Krugman is dishonest or not, but if know you can't make a case, please don't respond with a link avalanche. If you can: quote a statement, reference it, quote the evidence that it is factually incorrect, reference it. Argument made.
Sorry for being snarky, but this technique irritates me when I fall for it.
Since you want quotes, I'll just pick them from the most torrid example:
Krugman: "But in that case, why not ask CBO to score the revenue, to see if it agrees? The answer given is that CBO refused to do an analysis beyond 10 years; OK, but why not at least have the 10-year analysis?" http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/ryan-predictions...
Krugman: "I look at how he [Ryan] has gone about selling his ideas, and I see an unscrupulous flimflammer. Think about that CBO report: getting the CBO to score only the spending cuts, not the tax proposals, then taking credit for being a big deficit reducer, is simply sleazy." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/how-to-spot-a-fl...
Paul Ryan's website: "In fact, Congressman Ryan’s staff did ask CBO to analyze both the tax and spending provisions in the Roadmap. However, CBO declined to do a revenue analysis of the tax plan, citing that it did not want to infringe on the traditional jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). The JCT is responsible for providing the official revenue score of legislation before Congress. JCT, however, does not have the capability at this time to provide longer-term revenue estimates (i.e. beyond 10 years)." http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/News/Documen...
After Megan McArdle pointed this out (see my previous links), Krugman made this response (entitled "Doubletalk express"): "I also see that Ryan is perpetuating the runaround on revenue estimates. If you read either this article or his original response to the Tax Policy Center, you could easily get the impression that nobody would do a revenue estimate, that CBO said it was JCT’s job, and JCT balked. Even Nate Silver has fallen for this.... In other words, Ryan could have gotten JCT to do a 10-year estimate; it just wouldn’t go beyond that. And he chose not to get that 10-year estimate. So it was Ryan’s choice not to have any independent estimate of the 10-year revenue effects." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/doubletalk-expre...
Megan McArdle: "To be honest, I too found that passage ambiguous. Which is why I contacted Ryan's staff, who were happy to clarify that yes, they asked the JCT to do a forecast, and JCT said no." http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/paul-kru...
The factually incorrect claim is that Ryan a) didn't ask the CBO to score the revenue side of his plan, b) didn't ask the JCT to give a long term score and c) didn't ask the JCT for a short term (10 year) estimate.
My second example is misdirection, not an outright lie. He opens by discussing the claim of "shifting workers out of construction", presents a graph which doesn't directly relate to the issue, and then declares victory. A careless reader will easily be led to believe he debunked the claim of a structural shift.
This is Krugman's usual mode of deception - discuss an issue, show a peripherally related graph while ignoring a much more useful one, and declare victory.
He reserves outright lies and character assassination for people he is threatened by (it's really easy to dismiss Palin or Huckabee as dumb hicks, but Ryan is smart and honest enough to admit that we need to make painful spending cuts).
Krugman: "But in that case, why not ask CBO to score the revenue, to see if it agrees? The answer given is that CBO refused to do an analysis beyond 10 years; OK, but why not at least have the 10-year analysis?" http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/ryan-predictions...
Krugman: "I look at how he [Ryan] has gone about selling his ideas, and I see an unscrupulous flimflammer. Think about that CBO report: getting the CBO to score only the spending cuts, not the tax proposals, then taking credit for being a big deficit reducer, is simply sleazy." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/how-to-spot-a-fl...
Paul Ryan's website: "In fact, Congressman Ryan’s staff did ask CBO to analyze both the tax and spending provisions in the Roadmap. However, CBO declined to do a revenue analysis of the tax plan, citing that it did not want to infringe on the traditional jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). The JCT is responsible for providing the official revenue score of legislation before Congress. JCT, however, does not have the capability at this time to provide longer-term revenue estimates (i.e. beyond 10 years)." http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/News/Documen...
After Megan McArdle pointed this out (see my previous links), Krugman made this response (entitled "Doubletalk express"): "I also see that Ryan is perpetuating the runaround on revenue estimates. If you read either this article or his original response to the Tax Policy Center, you could easily get the impression that nobody would do a revenue estimate, that CBO said it was JCT’s job, and JCT balked. Even Nate Silver has fallen for this.... In other words, Ryan could have gotten JCT to do a 10-year estimate; it just wouldn’t go beyond that. And he chose not to get that 10-year estimate. So it was Ryan’s choice not to have any independent estimate of the 10-year revenue effects." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/doubletalk-expre...
Megan McArdle: "To be honest, I too found that passage ambiguous. Which is why I contacted Ryan's staff, who were happy to clarify that yes, they asked the JCT to do a forecast, and JCT said no." http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/paul-kru...
The factually incorrect claim is that Ryan a) didn't ask the CBO to score the revenue side of his plan, b) didn't ask the JCT to give a long term score and c) didn't ask the JCT for a short term (10 year) estimate.
My second example is misdirection, not an outright lie. He opens by discussing the claim of "shifting workers out of construction", presents a graph which doesn't directly relate to the issue, and then declares victory. A careless reader will easily be led to believe he debunked the claim of a structural shift.
This is Krugman's usual mode of deception - discuss an issue, show a peripherally related graph while ignoring a much more useful one, and declare victory.
He reserves outright lies and character assassination for people he is threatened by (it's really easy to dismiss Palin or Huckabee as dumb hicks, but Ryan is smart and honest enough to admit that we need to make painful spending cuts).
I'm sorry but you haven't made a case that Krugman is "well known for being dishonest" by citing one gotcha. You seem to be using character assassination to "prove" that he engages in character assassination.
I followed your links and read this stuff in the first post. On the Ryan thing, he never claimed to have any inside knowledge, he just read Ryan's statement.
"JCT, however, does not have the capability at this time to provide longer-term revenue estimates (i.e. beyond 10 years). Given these functional constraints for an official analysis, staff relied on its original work with the Treasury Department and other tax experts to formulate a reasonable expected path for long-term revenues given the tax policies in the Roadmap combined with the economic growth projections available at the time."
How I read this (and how Krugman read it):
Our staff relied on its original work because of the functional constraint of JCT not having the capability at this time to provide longer-term revenue estimates (i.e. beyond 10 years).
A pretty reasonable read, if you ask me. Or McArdle, as you have pointed out: "To be honest, I too found that passage ambiguous."
I'm not sure if that screams deceptive liar who assassinates people's characters in order to protect himself from the "smart and honest," and if it's the most "torrid" claim, you're pretty easily aroused.
"JCT, however, does not have the capability at this time to provide longer-term revenue estimates (i.e. beyond 10 years). Given these functional constraints for an official analysis, staff relied on its original work with the Treasury Department and other tax experts to formulate a reasonable expected path for long-term revenues given the tax policies in the Roadmap combined with the economic growth projections available at the time."
How I read this (and how Krugman read it):
Our staff relied on its original work because of the functional constraint of JCT not having the capability at this time to provide longer-term revenue estimates (i.e. beyond 10 years).
A pretty reasonable read, if you ask me. Or McArdle, as you have pointed out: "To be honest, I too found that passage ambiguous."
I'm not sure if that screams deceptive liar who assassinates people's characters in order to protect himself from the "smart and honest," and if it's the most "torrid" claim, you're pretty easily aroused.
He's an economist that is not a raving libertarian!
[deleted]
I want to upvote this more than once.
The thing that is impressive to me is how many things are accepted and not considered 'serious criminal activity' these days. Fraud and other white collar crimes aren't even considered criminal anymore since the crash in 2008. We're in a perpetual state of 'look the other way, nothing happening here'.
For example: blow the whistle on the largest tax evasion scheme in history: go to jail. Participate in largest tax evasion scheme in history: no problem.
If we're talking the UBS case that others have alluded to here:
He went to jail because he didn't tell the whole story and tried to cover up his part. Whistleblowing rules require full disclosure of your information to prevent them just being used to take out rivals; by covering up his part in the illegal activity, he forefeited part of his protection and so is in prison. This is normal and perfectly fine.
He went to jail because he didn't tell the whole story and tried to cover up his part. Whistleblowing rules require full disclosure of your information to prevent them just being used to take out rivals; by covering up his part in the illegal activity, he forefeited part of his protection and so is in prison. This is normal and perfectly fine.
It's not so much about the whistleblower being in jail: but rather only the whistleblower being in jail. It seems like retaliation.
If this is the UBS guy, the hole in your statement is he did both and went to jail for the latter. He was whistleblowing on his competitors while actively trying to hide the assets of his clients.
There is literally nothing in what he released that is obviously illegal to me. He says a bunch of it is illegal, but I'm no lawyer and it looks like one person just deleted a bunch of data and another person asked if that was really kosher and we don't know what happened after that.
I'm just not jumping to conclusions I'm not qualified to make. It's impressive to me, that you can do that.
I'm just not jumping to conclusions I'm not qualified to make. It's impressive to me, that you can do that.
I don't know enough about the situation either. But now investigators can subpoena the documents whose numbers were given in the email. The purpose in detaching the DTN's from the loans they referred to, would be to prevent finding those documents even though they could (according to the email exchange) not be entirely deleted. They say in the email that the document will now only show up if you search for it by DTN, not by the loan.
I seriously hope that there's a lot more stuff coming out, because this would be a truly useless thing to spend the rest of your life in court, litigation, judgments, repayments and debts, etc. for.
Yeah - it's ok for banks to engage in minor frauds - only really serious ones matter so we should ignore this. After all isn't everyone entitled to a little fraud now and again?
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
Cached version since it's spotty:
http://bankofamericasuck.com.nyud.net/03/13/ex-bank-of-ameic...
http://bankofamericasuck.com.nyud.net/03/13/ex-bank-of-ameic...
My browser is giving me a phishing warning for this link?
Because a phishing page is basically just a mirror. No successful phishing can really occur unless you provide the page with information, though, so as long as you don't fill in any forms or download any weird applets you should be okay.
(The linked URL was, when I checked, a legitimate and non-malicious mirror of the original.)
EDIT: Obviously a phishing page is not a proper mirror - but they both share the attribute of being very similar to another page, and with "name.tld" as a sub-domain it makes sense that a browser might incorrectly label a mirror as a phishing page.
(The linked URL was, when I checked, a legitimate and non-malicious mirror of the original.)
EDIT: Obviously a phishing page is not a proper mirror - but they both share the attribute of being very similar to another page, and with "name.tld" as a sub-domain it makes sense that a browser might incorrectly label a mirror as a phishing page.
having the words 'bank of america' in the title likely goes towards it being marked as a possible phish
It's from the Coral Cache, which as far as I know is a legitimate and useful service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Content_Distribution_Netw...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Content_Distribution_Netw...
[deleted]
The presentation threw up some suspicion alarms (in a similar way to the Journal of Cosmology for the recent meteor paper), it reads like some kind of weird stream-of-consciousness. I guess I'll reserve judgement until somebody
a) I've heard of
b) presents it logically.
This is just a disgruntled former employee complaining about the common (legal) business practices of large corporations. Am I missing something?
This is the first thing I thought of as well. Sounds like a normal corporation to me.
I guess this explains the frantic "Bank of America Sucks" domain purchases.
http://www.businessinsider.com/wow-bank-of-america-bought-su...
http://www.businessinsider.com/wow-bank-of-america-bought-su...
I thought BoA bought up all these domain names. How does anonymous have it?
How can we verify this is legit?
The primary domain is registered to James somebody, email address [email protected], which doesn't exactly look like valid info.
How can we verify this is legit?
The primary domain is registered to James somebody, email address [email protected], which doesn't exactly look like valid info.
See the reddit link up above. I don't see anything wrong with the email [email protected].
It's not a valid Gmail address. Gmail usernames are between 6 and 30 characters (excluding periods).
I know, but if they were linked to anonymous, wouldn't they want anonymity?
Any idea why most of the images are in the uploads/2011/01 folder and some are in the uploads/2011/03 folder? Probably nothing of course...
Draft post was written back in January, probably, and the files in /03 were only added recently. Wordpress can split uploaded files into this folder structure automatically based on upload time.
But that's the bit I find strange. The datestamps in the images would suggest that the conversation took place recently (march). The wordpress splitting suggests this is not the case.
Well noticed! I wasn't able to look at the images earlier (at work), but at least this image http://bankofamericasuck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/boa1... is interesting - the email is timed March 11, but it's in the January folder. Wordpress doesn't let you upload new versions of the same image, so it can't be that...
Which makes it look like a pre-scheduled hoax?
Weird, no? Could be the timestamp on the server wasn't correct when the content was uploaded or something, but what are the chances of that?
Nothing to see here. Hopefully this is just setting the stage for what's about to be released, but nothing in this first batch is in any way shocking or concerning.
I feel like this wasn't a great time to announce the BofA leaks with Japan in absolute chaos...they would have had better impact in a few weeks.
Why not? It's not like the US SEC is pitching in with JDF and the Red Cross. Hopefully, they start and investigation now and in a few weeks, or months, charges will be brought.
I'm fairly certain people can handle more than disaster porn at any given moment.
I'm fairly certain people can handle more than disaster porn at any given moment.
I'm sure people CAN handle it, but if everyone wasn't flipping out about Japan (for good reason) there would probably be a lot more emphasis on the BofA stuff.
Ex: Go to CNN.com. What's splashed all over the front page right now? Can you find even one link to an article about the BofA leak?
Ex: Go to CNN.com. What's splashed all over the front page right now? Can you find even one link to an article about the BofA leak?
No, they can't. Or at least, the US mass-media can't.
[deleted]
The public already knows banks are evil. If you have evidence, go to court.
Wait, is this from Anon or Wikileaks?
Anon. Edit: Actually, as I understand it, one guy who claims to be associated with Anonymous.
"one guy who claims to be associated with Anonymous."
Which in reality could be snipped to "one guy", and not lose any real meaning.
Which in reality could be snipped to "one guy", and not lose any real meaning.
Specifically, this guy: http://twitter.com/OperationLeakS
You can read the whole stream from the 10th to follow how this was put together. It's not really HACKERS ON STEROIDS material; he was contacted by an ex-BoA employee because he ran http://bankofamericasuck.com/.
Contrast this no-4chan/no-hacking reality with breathless headlines like: "4chan hackers leak internal Bank of America emails" -- http://venturebeat.com/2011/03/13/anonymous-bank-of-america/
You can read the whole stream from the 10th to follow how this was put together. It's not really HACKERS ON STEROIDS material; he was contacted by an ex-BoA employee because he ran http://bankofamericasuck.com/.
Contrast this no-4chan/no-hacking reality with breathless headlines like: "4chan hackers leak internal Bank of America emails" -- http://venturebeat.com/2011/03/13/anonymous-bank-of-america/
What's the difference? I thought anybody could claim to be from Anonymous, and merely making this claim automatically makes this true.
[deleted]
If the allegations that BOA destroyed this guys life and made him a "terrorist" are true, then that is sad. However, I dont know that I can trust the motives of someone who would still be working there if they hadnt personally attacked him.
Maybe there is a link- I couldnt see all of the screenshots to be sure. But the emails I saw were a bit paranoid sounding for me.
Maybe there is a link- I couldnt see all of the screenshots to be sure. But the emails I saw were a bit paranoid sounding for me.
[deleted]
The trail stops as soon as the internal confrontation begins. If it's real at all, how are we to know that it didn't end there?
It's just not thorough. This better be just the tip, because I think it's more damaging to the credibility of this leaker than anything else.
It's just not thorough. This better be just the tip, because I think it's more damaging to the credibility of this leaker than anything else.
The website seems to be already overloaded with traffic.
I get "503 : Service Temporarily Unavailable"
I get "503 : Service Temporarily Unavailable"
Try refreshing the page. I've gotten the images to load by opening it in multiple tabs. Usually one of those requests will go through.
But it also means overloading an already overloaded server with more requests.
But it also means overloading an already overloaded server with more requests.
I opened the page with the intention of mirroring it, but I decided there was not any information worth spreading.
So why screenshots of an email client instead of the emails themselves?
I fear that OperationLeakS probably cannot imagine how screenshots can be forged, so he believes them to be more authoritative than emails.
I fear that OperationLeakS probably cannot imagine how screenshots can be forged, so he believes them to be more authoritative than emails.
They need to remove all ads from this domain, otherwise BofA can easily take the domain for trademark infringement.
Made it half way though and the server went cold. Is there a text transcription of the email screenshots anywhere?
[deleted](1)
The documents may be up but that site keeps on going down.
503: Service temporary unavailable!
Just keep hitting refresh.
Yep, that's the best solution when a website is going offline due to high traffic. Keep kitting refresh.
Don't forget to use multiple machines from different networks. You never know when it's going to come back online and you want to be fist in line!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Let me explain something:
I used to work as a jr accountant when my 2 year degree in CS and Business was first granted for a Home Health firm non profit that received funds from the state and federal governments.
As it was explained to me at the time by a lawyer when I discovered some financial fraud with those state funds at the firm I was employed by..you cannot keep it a secret and expect the state not bring a case against you when they find out as its criminal activity.
This ex BOAf employee is damned if he or she does or not as the state might bring a case against the ex employee when they discover the criminal activity or BOAF makes his or her life hell when they are exposed.
I used to work as a jr accountant when my 2 year degree in CS and Business was first granted for a Home Health firm non profit that received funds from the state and federal governments.
As it was explained to me at the time by a lawyer when I discovered some financial fraud with those state funds at the firm I was employed by..you cannot keep it a secret and expect the state not bring a case against you when they find out as its criminal activity.
This ex BOAf employee is damned if he or she does or not as the state might bring a case against the ex employee when they discover the criminal activity or BOAF makes his or her life hell when they are exposed.
In outline: banks were supposed to be funneling mortgage payments to holders of bonds backed by the mortgages. But they were (allegedly) siphoning off some of that money for themselves or their cronies --- nominally in the form of ludicrously overpriced premiums for insurance policies against default. This would be legally actionable if it held up, and there have been consent decrees in the past.