Posted on 01/18/2010 6:04:48 AM PST by jmaroneps37
Chalk one up for Lady Justice with the decision of a Baltimore federal court judge to toss out a bogus lawsuit brought by the city’s convicted thief Mayor, Sheila Dixon.
The City’s Chief Executive, who was convicted last month of stealing gift cards she solicited from “a wealthy developer”, pressed forward with her ridiculous lawsuit alleging Wells Fargo “triggered millions of dollars in damages… by causing increased foreclosures through racist predatory lending.”
In making his ruling, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz said, “The alleged connection is even more implausible when considered against the background of other factors leading to the deterioration of the inner city… extensive unemployment, lack of educational opportunity and choice, irresponsible parenting, disrespect for the law, widespread drug use, and violence.”
Reverse redlining and the REAL reason Baltimore sued
Bathed in the stench of a typically poorly run Democrat controlled city, (Baltimore has had a Republican mayor for just 8 of the last 79 years) the city brought the first of its kind “reverse redlining” suit in January 2008. Its filing it alleged Wells Fargo, “targeted minority borrowers for bad loans – an illegal practice known as “reverse redlining” – which allegedly led to defaults and a disproportionately high rate of foreclosures and vacancies in black or Latino neighborhoods.”
As described by STEVE H. HANKE and STEPHEN J.K. WALTERS, Baltimore based Economics Professors, b y the end of 2007, the city’s burdensome taxes had placed it in a serious financial decline. It is therefore little wonder that Judge Motz accepted Wells Fargo’s accusation that the suit was merely a way for a cash strapped Baltimore to raise some badly needed cash.
This is another example of the destructive consequences of continuous Democrat Party rule. Will the Democrat rank and file ever awake to reality? Not likely.
(Excerpt) Read more at collinsreport.net ...
If you open up a new market, and use a commission based sales program to address that market, sales people will push their product onto the new market.
It was not reverse redlining, it was exactly what the left wanted. They wanted banks to sell loans to poor people and they got it in spades.
Credit is not a right.
Hmmm ...
“extensive unemployment, lack of educational opportunity and choice, irresponsible parenting, disrespect for the law, widespread drug use, and violence.?
Just a guess.
Correct. In fact the Dems (Deval Patrick under Clinton, IIRC) made it impossible for banks to expand UNLESS they made these loser loans.
Most democrats think they are royalty and thus their behavior is above questioning. I say let THEM eat cake!
This should be shouted from the rooftops. The judge is absolutely correct, these factors are all part-and-parcel of precisely what the Democratic Party has ushered into being.
Its filing it alleged Wells Fargo, “targeted minority borrowers for bad loans – an illegal practice known as “reverse redlining” – which allegedly led to defaults and a disproportionately high rate of foreclosures and vacancies in black or Latino neighborhoods.”
Can you say: Community Reinvestment Act? These lending institutions were doing exactly what they were ordered to do.
Oh, credit IS a right. If you have sufficient assets, income, etc. such that you can pay it back you must be extended credit regardless of your race, sex, religion, etc., etc.
But credit is not an ENTITLEMENT. If you cannot afford to pay a loan back, banks should not be required to loan you the money anyway. Trying to make credit an entitlement was a major contributor to the current mess.
Uh....one "i" in their spelling? ; )
Of course not. Does the Mafia stop extorting their victims? As long as it works, they will push it.
You can add Haiti to the list. This will be the next Democrat constituency. And we will be forced to pay to bring them over here.
Due process and equal protection under the law are rights. Credit is access to other people’s private property. No one individual has a right to another’s private property.
Well, you make a good point. My point is that when people talk about rights in the context of “a right to healthcare”, “a right to housing”, etc., etc., they don’t mean rights as the word is used in the Constitution, where no one can stop you from getting what you want on the basis of your politics, race, etc. They mean that you have to be given something whether or not you can afford it. I am thinking along the same lines here.
Rampant crinimal behavior, as well as widespread single motherhood and illegitimacy, not to mention crime-infested public housing projects? Could it also be: DEMOCRATS???
Maryland "Freak State" PING!
Motz is a stand-up, no nonsense guy and a hell of legal mind. Something severely lacking in Maryland’s Appellate Courts but not in the 4th Federal Circuit. He was one of my profs in law school and he really made the screaming libs in my classes uncomfortable.
Great job, Coach!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.