Watching the Movie “Inside Job” with Members of an Illinois Chapter of MoveOn: Reliving the US mortgage bloodbath Plus -- Sarah Palin States to Eric Bolling That She Would Do What She Could If Tapped At A Brokered Convention

Guest post by KatieAnnieOakley

I received an email early last week by the progressive group MoveOn regarding a screening of the movie “Inside Job” near my home. I hadn’t seen it yet, and having worked in the mortgage industry in various capacities, I knew I HAD to see it.

This Academy Award-winning movie (Best Documentary, 2010) describes the meteoric rise and fall of the Wall Street banks that created The Great Recession.

FromIMDB.com: “'Inside Job' provides a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. Through exhaustive research and extensive interviews with key financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics, the film traces the rise of a rogue industry which has corrupted politics, regulation, and academia.”

If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it.

Prior to the beginning of the meeting I introduced myself to the homeowner. I told her I was interested in the organization, and that I also wanted to write a post for our blog; I’d use no names and / or other identifying information. She said she’d check with the out-going MoveOn representative and co-host for the afternoon, Nadia BlancDaley.

After we all mingled and imbibed in the pot-luck goodies for a bit we settled ourselves into our seats, and the meeting began.  We were introduced to the out-going Move On representative and local Democratic Kane County Board candidate running unopposed for the 14^th District from South Elgin, Nadia BlancDaley. She is a charming, knowledgeable and persuasive speaker.  She thanked us all for coming, then spoke briefly about the movie. She asked the group if it was okay with them if I were to blog about my experience. I spoke up and said that I would not use names (other than Nadia’s, as she was an official Democratic candidate and MoveOn rep) or any other identifying information. Everyone in attendance agreed.  

Nadia spoke for a few minutes about how sad it was, and what a commentary on society today that some of us felt a sense of fear when coming together at meeting like this, that some might fear exposure or infiltrators (if you read my last blog post, it’s a real concern in this day and age – but then again, InMyLife and I were the crashers!).  We all agreed the tactics of the far-right have frightened many into silence. We can’t allow that to continue! 

We had brief self-introductions of those in attendance: 28 people came together to view the movie and to discuss a shared sense of purpose and concern. A few mentioned politicians having once attained power, seeming to forget who they were representing (that was Joe Walsh’s quote, almost word-for-word).  Many expressed concerns for the environment and education. Some were there because of concerns regarding Social Security (“not an entitlement - we paid for it!”) but most shared deep concern for social justice and income inequality and the Citizens United decision. Information distortion and suppression from the far right seemed to be the biggest concerns. 

I was most interested in seeing how progressive reality sat against right-wing myth. We were all, for the most part over 40 years old; there were a couple of 30-somethings, and a couple of 20-somethings. In attendance were four to five retirees, two real estate investing couples, and quite a few small-business owners. There were three present or former teachers / education administrators and there was even a Baptist pastor!  So much for the “every liberal is an atheist” stereotype!  Full Disclosure: There was ONE atheist in attendance. And there was one African American and one person of Latino descent. Bottom-line: we were not a bunch of lazy, unemployed people looking for handouts, or a bunch of young rebellious-types; and none of us were waiting for checks from George Soros. It was a balanced cross-section of middle class society. Everyone was well groomed and well behaved.

There was discussion about the Occupy Movement. I asked the group: “Show of hands: how many of you have not just talked the talk, but walked the walk? I mean, actually have gone to an OWS site and picketed, carried signs?”  14 hands shot up. I learned there are TWO Occupy sites nearby, one in Aurora and one in Elgin… but we all agreed, you wouldn’t read about it in our local, right-leaning newspapers. I suddenly felt my cheeks burn: these people were doing what I was only paying lip-service to: they were fighting the good fight, with civility and dignity. I needed to get involved… 

The movie began. I’m not going to go into a deep discussion about the movie; it WAS outstanding, it WAS everything I thought it would be.  What I will talk about was how it affected me. At certain points in the movie, my stomach became upset: this was personal for me. I lived it, breathed it every day. It brought back so many memories, because I worked in the mortgage industry then.

We peons in the mortgage industry were raising alarms back in 2003; this cannot sustain itself. A new type of buyer was finding themselves seated at my desk: the kind that was being exploited for profit. I used to be at work from 10 to 12 hours many days, closing loans I *knew* didn’t have a prayer of being paid back. 

We couldn’t close them fast enough. I burned through three assistants in less than 2 years time. It. Was. Insanity. I would speak to Mortgage Funders and Underwriters who were as exhausted, exasperated and frustrated as me; they too were looking for other jobs. And like me, they also had many sleepless nights… and a deep sense of guilt for being a part of the impending debacle. 

There was absolutely no motivation for the lenders / mortgage brokers to stop: they didn’t hold the Note, so they had no “skin in the game.” It’s always worked this way, but now it was all about “Churning.”  Their profits came from lending fees: the more loans written, the more money was made. When they wrote the worst loans, commonly known as “sub-prime” (those with the highest chances of Default), they’d charge usuriously high fees, knowing they could roll those fees into the loan and STILL not be required to hold the Note in-house. These “Liar Loans” were sold in bundled securities by the lender to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to free their lending capital to create new loans and begin the cycle anew. If you want to see just how many different types of fees can be charged, see this very simplistic list of fees collected by each and every entity having anything to do with your mortgage loan.  Whether you buy OR sell a home, they all get a cut. Many lenders charged fees I had never heard of previously. Bear in mind, not all named fees are collected on all loans. The list is not all-inclusive, and each and every loan and entity is unique in its own way. Bottom line: It was a mortgage blood bath. 

The movie concluded; about six people left right after the movie ended. The rest stayed for the freshly brewed coffee and lively discussion. We talked about usage of the term “Progressive” vs other terms (I feel it’s a positive term, since liberal is a word used by the right to demonize us); a local film-maker / Precinct Chairperson was there; the discussion was upbeat and friendly. There were some differences in opinion on HOW change should take place, but all agreed the status quo can’t continue.

My cheeks are still blushing from the realization that I need to get involved. In fact, we ALL need to get involved, in whatever way we can! 

From MoveOn:  “Last weekend, thousands of individuals came together to learn about Wall Street’s abuse of power. ‘Inside Job’ is a powerful reminder that we need to take ACTION for the 99% to match Wall Street’s power. Want to get more involved with other MoveOn members in your community? MoveOn Councils are local teams of committed members who organize in their community and build leadership among MoveOn members. Click here to locate or join a council near you!” 

 *********

Note from Kathleen:

Thank you for the very informative post, KAO. 


In addition I have included the trailer for the film and would encourage Politicalgates readers to watch not just the trailer but also the entire film so you can educate yourself further about the issues surrounding the financial meltdown of 2008. 

+++

Please re-tweet:

https://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/169876121591087104


+++++++


UPDATE


What is the quickest, cheapest and easiest way for Sarah Palin to become the GOP nominee for President? It's simple --- accept the nomination from a brokered convention. How unconventional of her!


Here is the conversation between Palin and Eric Bolling: 


BOLLING: Governor, a lot of people are saying it can't happen. I don't necessarily agree with them. If one of the nominees, one of the GOPers, doesn't get enough delegates, it could go the a brokered convention.
If it does get to that and someone said, Governor, would you be interested, would you be interested?

PALIN: Well, for one, I think that it could get to that. And I -- you know, if it had to -- if it had to be kind of closed up today, the whole nominating process, then we would be looking at a brokered convention.
I mean nobody is quite there yet. So I think that months from now, if that's the case, then, you know, all bets are off as to who it will be willing to offer themselves up in the name of service to their country. I would -- I would do whatever I could to help.

BOLLING: That's -- that's fantastic.


It's the nightmare scenario. And it could happen. But we should be cautious -- Palin may just mean that she would help and stand behind whoever was nominated. However earlier, Bolling did tweet the following which implies that Palin may well re-consider:

ALERT! Palin breaking big news... the 15 minutes with Gov Sarah that may change everything.. stay tuned 10p FBN
— ericbolling (@ericbolling) February 15, 2012

Bolling's interview with Sarah takes place in just over an hour at 10pm eastern time on Fox Business News so we will soon know whether or not this is all just another Palin tease in a bid to gain more contributions to SarahPac.

Zucotti Park/Liberty Plaza Open Again To the Public After NYCLU Complaint

By Kathleen

Occupy Wall Street protesters returned to Zuccotti Park Tuesday when the barricades were removed

Last night following a letter of complaint delivered to New York Department of Buildings barricades were removed from Zucotti Park by officers of the NYPD and Brookdale security staff and the park/plaza area is once again open to the public.

The letter is very detailed:

HAND DELIVERED AND SENT VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL


January 9, 2012


Commissioner Robert LiMandri
Department of Buildings
280 Broadway, 7th floor
New York, NY 10007
Re: Violations at 1 Liberty Plaza


Dear Commissioner LiMandri:


The New York Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the National
Lawyers Guild’s New York City chapter write regarding the ongoing violations of city law at 1
Liberty Plaza (165 Broadway), owned and managed by Brookfield Office Properties. Since
November 15, 2011, metal barricades have encircled the perimeter of Liberty Plaza.  In
addition, members of the public are subject to ad hoc, arbitrary and inconsistent rules and
conditions restricting their use of the park.  These practices have substantially modified Liberty
Plaza, making it a wholly inhospitable space for the public.  Putting aside for the moment the
serious constitutional concerns raised by these practices, it is abundantly clear that such
restrictions are in direct conflict with zoning laws, Brookfield’s legal obligations under a 1968
special zoning permit, and longstanding City policy. These restrictions significantly interfere
with the public’s use of Liberty Plaza on an ongoing and daily basis, and should be ended
immediately.

A. Laws governing Liberty Plaza require unobstructed public access and prior approval of

design modifications.

By the terms of a March 20, 1968 special zoning permit, the owner of 1 Liberty Plaza gained
valuable zoning concessions in exchange for constructing and maintaining what is now Liberty
Plaza as a “permanent open park” for the “public benefit.” 1 Under City zoning laws, Liberty Plaza is defined as a “public plaza,” and one over five hundred privately owned public spaces (“POPS”) in New York City. 2 Under these laws, at least 50% of the sidewalk frontage of a public plaza must be free of obstruction, and circulation paths must connect to each of the street
1
City of New York Special Zoning Permit, CP-20222, No. 4, p.215 (March 20, 1968).
2
NYC Zoning Resolution § 12-10.

Page 2 of 4

frontages. 3 In addition, any proposed modifications to public plaza’s design must first go
through an approval process before those changes can be made. 4 Furthermore, an owner’s ability to restrict the public’s use of a public plaza is constrained by zoning laws and by City policy. An owner of a public plaza may not, of course, forbid conduct in public plazas that is otherwise protected by the constitution.  In addition, an owner “shall not prohibit behaviors that are consistent with the normal public use of a public plaza.” 5 Any other restrictions an owner seeks to impose on the public’s ability to use or access a public plaza must be “reasonable,” pursuant to long established City policy. 6 Finally, any prohibition on conduct in a public plaza must be clearly posted in writing.7

B. Blocking Access to Nearly All of Liberty Plaza Violates City Zoning Law and Brookfield’s

Legal Obligations.

For nearly two months public ingress and egress to Liberty Plaza has been blocked by metal
barricades encircling the public plaza. The public is only able to enter and exit Liberty Plaza at
two gaps, and at these points members of the public have been subject to searches of their
personal belongings by security personnel.8


As noted above, to ensure the public’s ability to freely enter and exit public plazas, zoning law
requires that at least 50% of Liberty Park’s frontage be unobstructed, and also mandates
unrestricted access to and from circulation paths. The metal barricades encircling Liberty Plaza
enclose far more than 50% of the frontage and block access to major nearby walkways, in
violation of zoning laws.


In addition, a barricaded encirclement patrolled by security personnel seriously interferes with
the public’s use and enjoyment of Liberty Plaza, in violation of Brookfield’s legal obligation to
maintain the space as a permanent open park.  Any member of the public would be reluctant or
unwilling to enter an area closed in by metal barricades with only two exits. This modification
presents even more serious safety concerns when large numbers of people are attempting to
enter or exit the park through two narrow gaps in the barricades. The barricades have all but
ended Liberty Plaza’s role as a functioning public plaza.


3
NYC Zoning Resolution §§ 37-721; 37-723; 37-726.
4
NYC Zoning Resolution §§ 37-62 et. seq; 37-78; 74-91.
5
NYC Zoning Resolution § 37-752.
6
The New York City Department of City Planning, Jerold S. Kayden, and the Municipal Art Society of New York,
Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience (John Wiley & Sons, 2000), p.38 (“The Department of
City Planning has taken the position that an owner may prescribe ‘reasonable’ rules of conduct”).
7
NYC Zoning Resolution § 37-73 et. seq.
8
Security personnel at Zuccotti Park at various times have included NYPD officers, off-duty NYPD officers employed
by Brookfield, and private security staff employed by Brookfield, who often act in concert with, take direction
from, and rely upon, NYPD officers.

Page 3 of 4

Finally, the barricades constitute a major design modification to Liberty Plaza—and as their
presence at the park approaches two months, a seemingly permanent one—that circumvented
the approval process required before the design of a public plaza can be altered. The
barricades should be removed immediately.

C. Constantly-Changing Unwritten Rules Unreasonably Restrict the Public’s Use of Liberty

Plaza in Violation of City Law.

Brookfield has purported to adopt written “rules of conduct” governing Liberty Plaza.  The
manner in which these rules were adopted raise serious constitutional concerns, as do the rules
themselves.9 Even assuming these regulations could be validly enforced, however, security
personnel go far beyond these written rules by selectively enforcing ever-shifting and unwritten
ad hoc prohibitions. These unjustifiable restrictions are a serious, ongoing and daily
infringement on use of the public plaza.


At the heart of these restrictions is the assertion of security personnel that certain items are
prohibited in the park. The written “rules of conduct” do not, of course, prohibit any particular
item from entering Liberty Plaza. Instead, consistent with zoning laws, the written rules forbid
only conduct. These rules do not, and could not, entitle security personnel to turn an individual
away from a public plaza simply because he or she has a personal item that security personnel
speculate might be potentially used to engage in prohibited conduct sometime in the future.


Nevertheless, security personnel have declared that certain personal possessions are prohibited
in Liberty Plaza. The unwritten list of prohibited items varies daily and is wildly inconsistent.
Individuals have been refused entry for possessing food, musical instruments, yoga mats,
cardboard signs, shawls, blankets, “prohibited containers,” chairs, bags of varying sizes, and
numerous other personal items. To effectuate the enforcement of the unwritten list of
“prohibited items,” security personnel have stopped individuals attempting to enter Liberty
Plaza and forced them to submit to a search of their personal belongings.  Individuals who
refused to permit their personal belongings to be searched have been prohibited from entering
the public plaza.


Almost all the items that have been prohibited in Liberty Plaza—signs, bags, containers, food,
musical instruments, etc.—have also been allowed to enter the park at other times.  Who is
searched and what is prohibited is arbitrary and inconsistent.  It varies by the day, the type of
activity in the park at the time, the attire of the person attempting to enter, and the caprice of
security personnel.


The inconsistent and selective enforcement of unwritten and constantly changing rules, and
preemptive searches of individuals attempting to enter the park, violates the terms of the
special zoning permit which obligates Brookfield to maintain Liberty Plaza as a permanent open
park for the public benefit. These practices also violate zoning laws by prohibiting behavior that


9
In addition, as written and posted by Brookfield, the rules appear to violate City zoning laws governing the
manner and form for “prohibition signs”. See N.Y. Zoning Resolution §§ 37-747; 37-751; 37-752.

Page 4 of 4

is normally permitted in public plazas. Finally, selectively enforcing unwritten rules is patently
unreasonable, and therefore violates longstanding New York City policy constraining the type of
regulations on conduct an owner may adopt in a public plaza.

***

Metal barricades, preemptive searches, and selectively enforcing ever-changing unwritten rules
have become established features of Liberty Plaza.  These practices infringe on clearly
established constitutional rights, and they also violate zoning laws, Brookfield’s legal obligations
under the 1968 special zoning permit, and City policy. As the Mayor has noted with regard to
Liberty Plaza, “we must never be afraid to insist on compliance with our laws.”10 These
practices violate city law and should be ended immediately, restoring Liberty Plaza to its place
as a permanent open park that is open and accessible to all members of the public on an equal
basis.


We request a prompt final determination from the Department of Buildings 11 and/or any other
appropriate New York City agency, in writing, with regard to this complaint.


Sincerely,


Taylor Pendergrass
Senior Staff Attorney
New York Civil Liberties Union


Baher Amzy
Legal Director
Center for Constitutional Rights


Gideon Orion Oliver
President
National Lawyers Guild, New York City Chapter


10
Statement of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Clearing and Re-Opening of Zuccotti Park (Nov. 15, 2011).
11
NYC Charter § 643 (Department of Buildings “shall administer and enforce” zoning laws); NYC Zoning Resolution
§ 71-00 (same); NYC Zoning Resolution § 37-78(d) (an owners’ failure to comply with requirements applicable to
public plazas “shall constitute a violation” of zoning laws and Department of Buildings may enforce the violation by
revocation of building permit, revocation of certificate of occupancy, or any “other applicable remedies”).


++++


The letter makes it clear that the park is one of several hundred "bonus parks" created in a compromise deal between developers and the city council. The parks were created as a place of respite for city pedestrians. The more plaza/park place provided the higher the skyscraper could rise.

By allowing the barricades to remain in place the letter points out that the city was effectively breaking its own laws.

According to CBCNews a representative from the NYPD insists that they have been talking with Brookfield Office Properties since last week about taking down the barriers. It would seem that the letter from the NYCLU had the desired effect which pushed Brookfield and the NYPD in the right direction, although it is unlikely that tents will be seen in Zuccotti Park again.

Recent photo of Occupy Frankfurt taken in January which occupies a public park with permission from the city.They are camped outside the European Bank Headquarters.Photo curtesy of Frankfurt Occupy Facebook.

Tim Pool, who now has his own ustream channel, reported that it is the first time in months that he has seen the Park completely open. He remained filming and reporting for several hours and his coverage is in marked contrast to the mainstream media reports which all seem to echo the same refrain "They're back". Of course anyone following the Occupy Movement knows that "they" never went away and have continued their protests despite lack of mainstream coverage.

The Occupy Movement is not going any where any time soon.