Wonderful Story, Thanks Whitewolfpack!

From:  http://www.whitewolfpack.com/2014/07/heroic-pit-bull-saves-deaf-boy-from.html?showComment=1405682028244#c1564072031171231199

Heroic Pit Bull saves deaf boy from house fire (VIDEO)

 

Ace the Pit Bull is being hailed as a hero after he alerted a sleeping deaf boy that the house was on fire.

Thirteen-year-old Nick Lamb was at home alone and was sleeping when Ace jumped on his bed.

“My dog licked my face and woke me up,” Nick told WISH-TV Indianapolis. “I was like, ‘Stop it! What? You want to be fed?’ I thought he wanted to be fed or go outside.”

But Ace wouldn’t stop licking Nick and that’s when he noticed the house was full of smoke.

“I couldn’t hear anything because I had my cochlear implants off. … My dog Ace smelled it,” said Nick. Nick grabbed one of his implants and without any shoes he went downstairs with Ace. Nick and Ace navigated to the back door through the smoke and fire.

The blaze destroyed the family’s home, but firefighters were able to rescue the cat stuck inside. The family home was a total loss, but the family is incredibly grateful that Ace saved Nick’s life.
Source

VIDEO 

 

Responses to “Heroic Pit Bull saves deaf boy from house fire (VIDEO)”

  1. nootkabear says:

    Pits have proven to be great search and rescue animals. The people being rescued, are usually scared to death when they see the Pit, but the animal did wonderful job, and the people should just get over their fears. Pits have had a bad rap!

Write a comment

LivingLies’ Neil Garfield Post on Fannie and Freddie

New post on Livinglies’s Weblog

 

Fannie and Freddie Demand $6 Billion for Sale of “Faulty Mortgage Bonds”

by Neil Garfield

You read the news on one settlement after another, it sounds like the pound of flesh is being exacted from the culprits again and again. This time the FHFA, as owner of Fannie and Freddie, is going for a settlement with Bank of America for sale of “faulty mortgage bonds.” And most people sit back and think that justice is being done. It isn’t. $6 Billion is window dressing on a liability that is at least 100 times that amount. And stock analysts take comfort that the legal problems for the banks has basically been discounted already. It hasn’t.

For practitioners who defend mortgage foreclosures, you must dig a little deeper. The term “faulty mortgage bonds” is a euphemism. Look at the complaints there filed. When they are filed by agencies it means that after investigation they have arrived at the conclusion that something was. very wrong with the sale of mortgage bonds. That is an administrative finding that concluded there was at least probable cause for finding that the mortgage bonds were defective and potentially were criminal.

So what does “defective” or “faulty” mean? Neither the media nor the press releases from the agencies or the banks tell us what was wrong with the bonds. But if you look at the complaints of the agencies, they tell you what they mean. If you look at the investor lawsuits you see that they are alleging that the notes and mortgages were “unenforceable.” Both the agencies and the investors filed complaints alleging that the mortgage bonds were a farce, sham or in other words, a PONZI Scheme.

Why is that important to foreclosure defense? Digging deeper you will find what I have been reporting on this blog. The investors money was not used to fund the REMIC trusts. The unfunded trusts never had the money to buy or fund the origination of bonds. The notes and mortgages were never sold to the Trusts even though “assignments” were executed and shown in court. The assignments themselves were either backdated or violated the 90 day cutoff that under applicable law (the laws of the State of New York) are VOID and not voidable.

What to do? File Freedom of Information Act requests for the findings, allegations and names of investigators for the agency that were involved in the agency action. Take their deposition. Get documents. Find put what mortgages were looked at and which bond series were involved. Get a list of the mortgages and the bonds that were examined. Get the findings on each mortgage and each mortgage bond. Use the the investor allegations as lender admissions admissions in court — that the notes and mortgages are unenforceable.

There is a disconnect between what is going on at the top of the sham securitization chain and what went on in sham mortgage originations and sham sales of loans. They never happened in the real world, no matter how much paper you throw at it.

And that just doesn’t apply to mortgages in default — it applies to all mortgages, which is why all the mortgages that currently exist, and most of the deeds that show ownership of the property have clouded and probably “defective” and “faulty” titles. It’s clear logic that the government and the banks are seeking to avoid, to wit: that if the way in which the money was raised to fund the loans or purchase the loans were defective, then it follows that there are defects in the chain of title and the money trail that were obviously not disclosed, as per the requirements of TILA and Reg Z.

And when you keep digging in discovery you will find out that your client has some clear remedies to collect the profits and compensation paid to undisclosed recipients arising out of the closing of the “loan.” These are offsets to the amount claimed as due. If the loan was not funded by the Trust, then the false paper trail used by the banks in foreclosure is subject to successful attack. If the loans were in fact funded directly by the trust complying with the REMIC provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, then the payee on the note and the mortgagee on the mortgage would be the trust — or if the loan was actually purchased, the Trust would have issued money to the seller (something that never happened).

And lastly, for now, let us look at the capital structure of these banks. A substantial portion of their capital derives from assets in the form of mortgage bonds. This is the most blatant lie of all of them. No underwriter buys the securities issued by the company seeking financing through an offering to investors. It is an oxymoron. The whole purpose of the underwriter was to create securities that would be appealing to investors. The securities are only issued when you have a buyer for them, and then the investor is the owner of the security — in this case mortgage bonds.

The bonds are not issued to the investment bank as an asset of the investment bank. But they ARE issued to the investment bank in “street name.” That is merely to facilitate trading and delivery of certificates which in most cases in the mortgage bond market don’t exist. The issuance in street name does not mean the banks own the mortgage bonds any more than when you a stock and the title is issued in street name mean that you have loaned or gifted the investment to the investment bank.

If you follow the logic of the investment bank then the deposits of money by depository customers could be claimed as assets — without the required entry in the liabilities section of the balance sheet because every dollar on deposit is a liability to pay those monies on demand, which is why checking accounts are referred to as demand deposits.

Hence the “asset” has been entered on the investment bank balance sheet without the corresponding liability on the other side of their balance sheet. And THAT remains that under cover of Federal Reserve purchase of these bonds from the banks, who don’t own the bonds, the value of the bonds is 100 cents on the dollar and the owner is the bank — a living lies fundamental. When the illusion collapses, the banks are coming down with it. You can only go so far lying to the public and the investment community. Eventually the reality is these banks are underfunded, under capitalized and still being propped up by quantitative easing disguised as the purchase of mortgage bonds at the rate of $85 Billion per month.

We need to be preparing for the collapse of the illusion and get the other financial institutions — 7,000 community and regional banks and credit unions — ready to take on the changes caused by the absence of the so-called major banks who are really fictitious entities without a foundation related to economic reality. The backbone is already available — electronic funds transfer is as available to the smallest bank as it is to the largest. It is an outright lie that we need the TBTF banks. They have failed and cannot recover because of the enormity of the lies they told the world. It’s over.

Constitutional Scholar: White House Entirely Ignoring Article 1, Section 5 | CNSnews.com

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/constitutional-scholar-white-house-entirely-ignoring-article-1-section-5

Constitutional Scholar: White House Entirely Ignoring Article 1, Section 5

By Fred Lucas

January 5, 2012

Subscribe to Fred Lucas’s posts

Obama

President Barack Obama shakes hands with Richard Cordray before speaking about the economy, Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2012, at Shaker Heights High School in Shaker Heights, Ohio. In a defiant display of executive power, President Barack Obama on Wednesday will buck GOP opposition and name Cordray as the nation’s chief consumer watchdog. Outraged Republican leaders in Congress suggested that courts would determine the appointment was illegal. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

(CNSNews.com) – John C. Eastman, a professor at Chapman University School of Law who is an expert on the constitutional separation of powers, says that the White House simply ignored the section of the Constitution, which governs when Congress can adjourn, when President Obama claimed to use the “recess” appointment power on Wednesday to name a director to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and three members to the National Labor Relations Board.

Eastman says that under the terms of the Constitution Congress was not in recess this week, it was in session.

“They’re ignoring that the recess clause was designed to fill vacancies that occurred during the recess. These did not,” said Eastman. “They are ignoring entirely Section 5, Article 1. The Senate doesn’t have the authority to recess without the House’s approval even if they wanted to. So Carney’s claim that this is just a gimmick completely ignores that the House didn’t authorize them to leave at all.”

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution says: “Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

Because the Republican-controlled House did not allow the Senate to adjourn, neither House was in recess.

Eastman, however, also said that the Senate in the last two decades has given a more expansive meaning to advise and consent than the founders envisioned. The intent, Eastman said, was to provide a check to prevent the president from appointing relatives or other unqualified people to high government posts.

The White House asserts that the so-called “recess appointments” Obama made on Wednesday are constitutional because Congress was out of session for a “sustained period of time.”

“Our assessment is that Congress has been in recess and has made every indication that it will be in recess for a sustained period of time, and that gaveling in and gaveling out for seven seconds does not constitute a recess with regard to the president’s constitutional authority,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday.

“If these gimmicks were all a Senate needed to do to prevent the president from exercising his constitutional authority–any president–then no Senate would, I mean, no president would ever be able to exercise it,” said Carney.

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

Despite this constitutional language, Obama made his appointments without Senate approval.

Obama named former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as director of the CFPB. He also named to the NLRB, Sharon Block, a deputy assistant in the U.S. Labor Department who once worked with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy; Terence F. Flynn, chief counsel to NLRB Board Member Brian Hayes, a Republican; and Richard Griffin, the general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers. Griffin also serves on the board of directors for the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee, a position he has held since 1994.

The constitutional legitimacy of these appointments will be questioned, said Russell Weaver, a professor at the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville.

“My guess is the president’s action is illegal,” Weaver told CNSNews.com. “You can be confident there will be a court challenge the first time this newly, allegedly appointed director takes an action where money is involved. I don’t think there is any doubt this will end up in the courts and go on for years. If it’s struck down, it would undermine everything that’s done in the meantime.”

Both the executive and legislative branches–and both parties–have historically exceeded their roles in the appointment process, said Bob Turner, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

“The clear purpose of the recess appointment clause was not to permit the president to undermine the Senate’s constitutional negative if senators go home for the night or take a three-day weekend, but to permit the government to continue functioning when the Senate elects not to do business for an extended period of time,” Turner told CNSNews.com. “The length of that time ought to be established in good faith and reasonableness based upon the totality of the circumstances–what is the vacancy and how urgent is it for the nation to fill the position before the Senate is likely to return to do such business?”

“I would add that this controversy is a consequence of constitutional impropriety on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue,” Turner said. “Rather than limiting their review to assuring that ‘no unfit person’ be appointed–blocking the appointment of unqualified relatives, college roommates, big financial contributors, and the like–the Senate too often perceives its role as preventing the president from having advisers and subordinates who share his political views.”

Michael Rappaport, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, said recess appointments can be problematic. “I don’t think the Constitution gives the authority under its original meaning,” Rappaport told CNSNews.com. “Even under the precedents, it is a dicey question.  Under the current law, it is not clear, although I would argue that the stronger side suggests the president does not have the authority.”

There is a strong argument that the president’s power to make recess appointments was intended to apply only when Congress was out of session, but it’s not entirely settled, said Brian Kalt, a professor at Michigan State University College of Law.

“That still leaves the question of what to do when, as now, the Senate claims that it is staying in session by holding these pro forma meetings every few days. The president can argue that this doesn’t count as being in session, because the Senate isn’t really ready to do any business like voting on a nomination,” Kalt told CNSNews.com. “Alternatively, he can argue that the time between these pro forma meetings constitutes a recess.”

“The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure because it has never really been resolved in court. Presidents have pushed the boundaries on this and while Senates have protested, nobody has stopped a president yet,” Kalt continued. “This time, the president is pushing the boundaries further. It’s hard to get a reviewable case out of these situations. I think that this time we might get one, though.”

Asked if the White House sought legal advice from the Justice Department, Carney was not specific.

“I think I actually can say that we routinely consult with the Department of Justice on a range of legal matters, but we also routinely don’t delve into the specifics of any confidential legal guidance that the president or the White House in general would receive in the course of those consultations,” Carney said. “So, I mean, I think that’s just standard operating procedure.”

Carney also said, “We feel very strongly that the Constitution and the legal case is strongly on our side. But more importantly, this isn’t about process. This isn’t about whether or not Congress is in session. If I could digress for a minute, I think all of you could run up to Capitol Hill and check out the House and Senate and see if you can find a single member of Congress and tell me on this working day across America if Congress is in session.”

Constitutional Scholar: White House Entirely Ignoring Article 1, Section 5 | CNSnews.com