Only time will tell whether he is guilty of securities fraud. But, the reality is that someone needs to be held responsible and this guy has set himself in the right space for it.
Submitted: Jan 20, 2008
Views: 839
Comments: 3
Likes: 1
A few years ago, there was a market collapse. People were seething and needed a fall guy. In order to restore confidence and give people what they wanted the SEC and DOJ were easily able to get a hold of the Enron guys, Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Kozlowski. All were convicted and I believe that all were guilty.
We have a similar situation today, which is in fact in many ways more dire. The collapse of a certain sector of the economy (the housing sector) has now spread throughout the economy like a virus and has taken apart many previously-thought solid financial institutions. It doesn't take long to trace the originator of the current mess. It is Countrywide and it is Angelo Mozilo.
Mozillo recently sold Countrywide to Bank of America at around $6 a share in an all-stock transaction after the stock traded over $45 less than a year ago. The terms of the transaction - which provide Mozillo a $100 million golden parachute are suspect enough. However, it isn't even certain that the transaction will go through. As the Wall Street Journal reports, conventional wisdom is now that Bank of America will bail out of the transaction before closing, leading Countrywide to file for certain bankruptcy.
Regardless of whether Countrywide is ultimately acquired, a lot of people have lost fortunes on Countrywide, and virtually everyone (save about 2 hedge funds that saw this housing collapse coming and shorted it) have been damaged by the housing collapse. It is time for someone to pay the price and there is nobody who has set himself up so perfectly as Angelo Mozilo.
For the time being, Angelo has stopped roaming the halls at Countrywide like a little raving idiot who owns the place. Rather, he is laying low (working on his tan) and avoiding the media hoping that he will be forgotten. He won't be. There are enough people who want to see him behind bars. Indictment coming.
Related Articles:
Email to someone |
Print Content |
Add to reading list
Comments Received:
Shudder
(Unregistered)
What would he be indicted for? You talk broadly of an indictment but there has to be willful fraud in order to bring any charged. If you're going to use such rhetoric at least back if up with more than vague aspirations.
Posted: Jan 20, 2008
Polly
(Unregistered)
Dear Angelo Mozilo, John Vella & Ken Lewis & Team:
In light of my “Absolutely Void� home mortgage 1st memos to you, marked A-Z, which I first began briefing you on in April 2007, like Mozilo, you said to me, on your AD, verbatim:
[John Vella &] EMC Mortgage [Employees] Corporation is committed to helping customers keep their homes, if you can continue some means to make payments and are committed to working with us. EMC Mortgage’s experienced loan counselors will review your situation and offer solutions that work for you....
First, this statement of yours is wholly untrue. Indeed, being on actual notice that I was having difficulty paying my rent, which you call a mortgage, to you and your parent company, the Reserve Incorporated holders, you did exactly the opposite of what you say. You jumped my rent called mortgage by over $1,000 a month by paying, so you say, without a receipt of proof, some back taxes, which has nothing to do me servicing my contract with you and Mr. Bernanke.
Second, the paperwork confirming the details of a litany of contract breaches and false advertising about “being committed to helping� American’s keep their homes I have posted at this link, for others, for your information:
http://cashbonas1.spaces.live.com/files
Third, based on your letters and failures to act and respond, I now present that you - John Vella et al - have maliciously retaliated against me for detailing to you directly a short list of felony Anti-Trust crimes to drive a proverbial stake into my life purse, insuring that I am ousted from my & my kids’ roof. My view is that you have done so based, again, on the miscalculation that my legal briefings to you might erase your exposure by removing me from my home based on your open and shut TD Services and in house false pretences, which isn’t acute business:
Antitrust is supposed to protect competition not competitors. However, because many people fail to realize that this golden rule applies equally to economic regulation, regulatory proceedings should also not be used to advance the interests of competitors through voluntary commitments or involuntary conditions at the expense of [fiduciary client] consumer welfare.
Godspeed,
Posted: Jul 16, 2008
Anna
(Unregistered)
Ken Lewis’ Mozilo & EMC John Vella’s Bearch &
Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress Action
To begin we remind of our file memos to Mozilo (Countrywide) and James Dimon (Bear Stearn’s & EMC) Marked A-Z, two of which are marked and dated:
Ex 04-04-007 To Mr. John Vella/EMC, courtesy Copied to Ken Lewis
Ex 05-03-007 To Mr. John Vella/EMC/Bear Stears 100% Plus
Those files in mind, now present the following Toxic Tort Action for every single foreclosure the above gentlemen have contracted to execute under false contract pretences & elementary fraud:
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is a common law tort claim for intentional conduct that results in extreme emotional distress. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same.
Extreme and Outrageous Void
Bank Contract Drafting Conduct
The conduct must be heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Whether the conduct is illegal does not determine whether it meets this standard. IIED is also known as the tort of "outrage," due to a classic formulation of the standard: the conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to exclaim "Outrageous!" in response. Some factors that will persuade that the conduct was extreme and outrageous are:
A) There was a pattern of conduct, not just an isolated incident;
B) The plaintiff was vulnerable and the defendant knew it;
C) The defendant was in a position of power;
D) The defendant owed the plaintiff a contract protocol faith or fiduciary duty. Taylor v. Metzger, 706 A.2d 685 (N.J. 1998);GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999);
Causation
The actions of the defendant must have actually caused … emotional distress. GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999).
The above known, we thank you Mrrs. John Vella, Mozilo & Ken Lewis et al for your recent letter dated 06-20-08 soliciting, verbatim, DEATH, DISABILITY AND CRITICAL ILLNESS� plus INS on the subject property.
Sincerely,
Anna
Link:
http://cashbonas1.spaces.live.com/files
Posted: Jul 16, 2008
© Copyright 2008 Amelia All rights reserved. Amelia has granted BestCashCow.com, LLC non-exclusive rights to display this work on Bestcashcow.com.
