Artificial Evidence

Fincial Times on August 26, 2014 5:24 pm published an article behind

its pay wall where in part CEO J ohn Stumpf is alleged to have stated the
following or at least implied:
If you guys want to stick with this programme of putting
back any time, any way, whatever, thats fine, were just not
going to make those loans and theres going to be a whole
bunch of Americans that are underserved in the mortgage
market, Mr Stumpf told the Financial Times

Alongside record penalties for banks that acknowledged
wrongdoing, which continue today, officials have demanded
more rigorous underwriting and tightened lending criteria.
But there is a growing body of opinion, among some officials
not just bankers, that credit in the market has become too
tight. Wells Fargo, the worlds biggest bank by market
capitalisation, is lobbying regulators to absolve banks from
responsibility for later defaults that the bank says are often
unrelated to underwriting standards.

If youre going to pick through each one looking for a
technical fault not to pay your insurance policy were not
going to be in that business.

All said and done, the above statement to an average person appears to
be a warning of blackmail. Where is it said that blackmailing the
government is not blackmailing the people? As the following statement
is out of order to the Financial Times article, reference is paramount:
John Stumpf said government-backed agencies that buy
mortgages, such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the
Federal Housing Administration, were too quick to accuse
banks of faulty underwriting on mortgages that default and
force them to repurchase the soured loans, known as put-
back risk.
The world for thousand(s) plus years has lived by you cannot sale what
you do not own. [Nemo Dat] Where it is possible that underwriting has
an error, the bigger issue of violating law is a criminal offense if one
conspires to conceal is such that simplicity of law requires that a
Mortgage Note and the Mortgage Notes Security Instrument (Mortgage,
Deed of Trust, Security Deed) be in compliance with all applicable
federal and state law, it is not a simple underwriting error, maybe CEOs
like Stumpf would rather believe an opinion of counsel, concern would
need to rise if such opinion accounted for all applicable law(s), would a
law firm risk all their money and a RICO violation to avail themselves to
make a Crystal Tower Friday Paycheck. The serious question that all
these same illicit attorneys should concern themselves with, will the
banks sacrifice the law firm for providing an incorrect interpretation of
law as to be a tadpole subject to be fed to the sharks?

Does history repeat? Will thieves lie? Will a sinner make Heaven or
is the soul bound to hell without rest. Will Satan have mercy on a
soul? What question(s) should one ask of oneself?