Tuesday, September 18, 2018

DOJ: Ohio Trafficking Tiny Humans Slave Scheme Busted, Congress Still Refuses To Talk About The Residuals Of The Peculiar Institution

I wonder how many of the kids were tricked out?

Such a shame they did not bring the minors through foster care and adoption, because they would have gotten a foster parent check and the state would have subsidized the wages through, what was that term the Federal Reserve is pushing for Medicaid fraud...yes, "financial health" for all those wonderful child welfare NGOs that helps kids to meet their fullest potential in Social Impact Bonds.

Too bad they did not put a big christian cross on the trailer and cry religious freedom, like what is being used in other child trafficking cases.

See, these kids are being trafficked, yet, no one in Congress wants to talk about the residuals of the peculiar institution.

Just remember, Congress makes law. The Executive branch enforces law.

Oh dear, it looks like chicken prices are going to increase.


Defendant Pleads Guilty in Connection with Ohio Labor Trafficking Scheme Involving Immigrant Minors

Pablo Duran Ramirez, 50, pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court in Cleveland, Ohio, to encouraging the illegal entry of Guatemalan nationals, including unaccompanied minors, into the United States for financial gain, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney Justin E. Herdman of the Northern District of Ohio, and Special Agent in Charge Stephen D. Anthony of the FBI’s Cleveland Division. Duran Ramirez is the fourth defendant to plead guilty in connection with a labor trafficking scheme that forced Guatemalan minors to work at egg farms in central Ohio.
According to the defendant’s plea agreement and admissions in court, the defendant, through his company, Haba Corporate Services, contracted to provide labor to Trillium Farms, knowing that the workers were unlawfully present in the United States. He further admitted to knowing that some of the workers were unaccompanied minors who had been coerced or threatened to enter the United States and then housed in an isolated trailer park in Marion, Ohio. In 2013 and 2014, Trillim Farms paid the defendant’s company approximately $6 million for its labor services.
“Motivated by greed, the defendant violated the immigration laws and contributed to the exploitation of vulnerable children who lacked immigration status,” said Acting Assisting Attorney General Gore.  “The Department of Justice will use its resources to prosecute individuals who unlawfully victimize others for their own monetary profit.”
“This defendant profited off the desperation of children and their parents and other relatives,” said U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman for the Northern District of Ohio. “He knew some of the workers he delivered to Trillium Farms were underage, in the country illegally and were threatened or coerced. We will continue to work to eliminate human trafficking in all its forms.”
“This defendant, in conspiracy with three other previously convicted individuals, coerced and assisted individuals to enter the United States illegally, many of them children, forcing them to live in deplorable conditions and work for little to no wages,” said Special Agent in Charge Stephen D. Anthony of the FBI’s Cleveland Division. “These reprehensible actions are unacceptable and rest assured the FBI will continue to work with our partners to bring to justice those who engage in human trafficking.”
Duran Ramirez faces a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. His sentencing date has been set for Jan. 7, 2019.
Three other defendants—Aroldo Castillo-Serrano, of Guatemala, Ana Angelica Pedro-Juan, of Guatemala, and Conrado Salgado-Soto, of Mexico—previously pleaded guilty for their roles in the same labor trafficking scheme. Castillo-Serrano, the lead smuggler and primary enforcer, was sentenced to 188 months in prison; Pedro-Juan, who oversaw the victims in Ohio, was sentenced to 120 months; and Salgado-Soto, a subcontractor hired by Duran Ramirez, was sentenced to 51 months.
Those defendants admitted to recruiting workers from Guatemala, some as young as 14 or 15 years old, falsely promising them good jobs and a chance to attend school in the United States.  The defendants then smuggled and transported the workers to a trailer park in Marion, Ohio, where they ordered them to live in dilapidated trailers and work at physically demanding jobs at Trillium Farms for up to 12 hours a day.  The work included cleaning chicken coops, loading and unloading crates of chickens, de-beaking chickens and vaccinating chickens. During their sentencing, Senior United States District Judge James G. Carr found that they had threatened workers with physical harm and withheld their paychecks in order to compel them to work. Eight minors and two adults were identified as victims of the scheme.
Three additional defendants, including Duran Ramirez’s son, pleaded guilty for their roles in encouraging the workers’ illegal entry into the United States.
This case is being investigated by the FBI’s Cleveland Office, Mansfield Resident Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. The case is being jointly prosecuted by Trial Attorney Dana Mulhauser of the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Chelsea Rice.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: What Do Conyers, Trump, Whoopie, Kavanaugh & His #MeToo Psyoptic Ex-Girlfriend Have In Common?

Image result for psycho ex girlfriend gif
Brett's #MeToo Psyoptic Ex-Girlfriend
Q: What Do Conyers, Trump, Whoopie, Kavanaugh & his Psyoptic Ex-Girlfriend Have In Common?

A: #perkinscoiesucks

Yes, my dearies, The Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed is bringing you the next chapter in the continuing saga of Perkins Coie Sucks.

Previously on Cocktails & Popcorn, we left off when Brett Kavanaugh & his Psycho Ex-Girlfriend, who just so happens to be a clinical psychologist, from high school over 30 years ago, has a psychological breakthrough in finding that particular repressed sexual attack memory with her clinical psychologist.

Cocktails & Popcorn: The Kavanaugh #MeToo Psyop Nightmare Continues To Unfold & Ignore Trafficking Of Tiny Humans 

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: Cocktails & Popcorn: The Kavanaugh #MeToo Psyop Nightmare Continues To Unfold & Ignore Trafficking Of Tiny Humans http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2018/09/cocktails-popcorn-kavanaugh-metoo-psyop.html#ixzz5RSnOK2NpStop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

Then, we find out Brett's mother had a mortgage foreclosure case with his psycho ex-girlfriend's parents.

Then, True Pundit, which has a bit of a credibility issue going on right now, comes out and says this, in short, that Perkins Coie Sucks and it is starting to look like another one of their famous #MeToo Psyoptical Nightmares.
Kavanaugh Accuser’s Brother Worked for Law Firm that Paid Fusion GPS For Work with Russian Lawyer Who Set Up Trump Tower Meeting 
Ralph Blasey III, Christine Ford’s brother was formerly employed at the D.C. offices of Baker & Hostetler LLP. That’s the same firm that made payments over half a million dollars to Fusion GPS. 
Ralph Blasey III left Baker & Hostetler LLP in 2004. Still, its’ just another rather odd twist to the case of the accuser of Brett Kavanaugh. First it was revealed Ford is a far left, Northern California professor. Then last night it was revealed that Brett Kavanugh’s mother, a Maryland district judge in the 1990’s case against Christine Ford’s parents. 
And now this. Christine Ford’s brother once worked for Baker & Hostetler LLP that paid Fusion GPS $523,651 between March 7, 2016 and Oct. 31, 2016. Even though the payments were made after Blasey III left Baker & Hostetler LLP, one has to wonder (and investigate) his connections with the law firm. He may have had no knowledge at all of the payment. Ralph Blasey might have had ZERO influence with the payment.  
http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2018/01/phase-two-fusion-gps-bank-records.html#axzz5R0jCAlxD 

http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2018/01/what-do-fusion-gps-perkins-coie-russia.html#axzz5R0jCAlxD
Pet the Daily Caller:
 Browder, a London-based banker who helped push through the Magnitsky Act, a sanctions law vehemently opposed by the Kremlin.  
BakerHostetler represented Prevezon Holdings and its owner, a Russian named Denis Katsyv. 
Katsyv and Prevezon sought to limit the impact of the Magnitsky sanctions. 
Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and Fusion GPS founding partner, compiled the research for the anti-Browder project. He worked closely with Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who also showed up at the infamous Trump Tower meeting held on June 9, 2016. 
Simpson’s research ended up in the Trump Tower meeting in the form of a four-page memo carried by Veselnitskaya. She also shared Simpson’s with Yuri Chaika, the prosecutor general of Russia. 
Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee earlier this week that he did not know that Veselnitskaya provided the Browder information to Chaika or to Donald Trump Jr., the Trump campaign’s point-man in the Trump Tower meeting.
But wait, it gets better.

Now, George Webb is making inference in his working theory that Brett's #MeToo Psyoptic Nightmare Psycho Ex-girlfriend's father may have a working relationship with CIA through the universities.


Then, Whoopie said this:
John Conyers was yanked for a lot less than this. So the conversation needs to be had.
So, let's have the conversation...

'Frenzied Republicans' asked Kavanaugh about old girlfriends before Monday's hearing with his accuser

In a congressional hearing...
With lots of testimony...
From lots of witnesses...
From Detroit...

‘The View’ on Kavanaugh: ‘About Time’ Dems ‘Played Hard Ball,’ Conyers Got Canned for Less!



Responding Monday morning to the sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh with predictable hypocrisy, the liberal ladies on ABC’s The View applauded Democrats for finally “play[ing] hardball,” deemed Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s claims to be “very credible,” and defended Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) for not going public sooner with the letter.

“Kavanaugh crisis. Will a woman's attempted sexual assault allegation against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh derail his nomination and put Republicans in a no-win situation,” hyped the show’s announcer in an opening tease.

Co-host Sunny Hostin first declared Ford’s story to be “very credible” and thus made the case against Kavanaugh because “morality and a moral compass is very important when it comes to a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court” since he’d “be opining a lot of issues that affect women.”

Fellow co-host Joy Behar argued that “maybe he should take a lie detector test” without pointing out how polygraph tests (such as the one Ford took) aren’t admissible in court.

“What's the big rush? There’s still 174,000 papers that we haven't seen on Kavanaugh. You know, plus we have this allegation from a rather credible witness. And so what is the rush? This is a lifetime appointment,” Behar added.

New co-host Abby Hunstman agreed that the case against Kavanaugh is “serious,” but she delineated by stating that she’s “frustrate[d]” by “the politics of all this.” She also linked this to how Republicans didn’t confirm Merrick Garland, which is totally irrelevant.

Huntsman did knock Feinstein for having seemingly “put this in a drawer” until they thought it would have maximum impact. Hostin and co-host Whoopi Goldberg disagreed while Whoopi, without evidence, claimed that “Feinstein didn't say anything about this and we don't know who leaked.”

Whoopi also suggested that perhaps Ford’s husband leaked the story to help his wife’s story get told but, at the end of the day, Feinstein was in a no-win situation when to bring it forward (even though, if the allegations were as serious as Democrats claim, waiting since July to take action is irresponsible).

“I don’t think this is DiFi saying, you know, ‘you know, we’re going to put this away.’ I think this was her saying the woman asked me to keep her confidence and that’s what I'm doing. I think that’s what happened,” she continued.

Hostin informed Huntsman that this isn’t political at all and “the timeline really doesn’t support that the Democrats somehow kept this a secret intentionally to sort of, you know, drop a surprise.” Unless Hostin has her months mixed up, July 30 and the last few days (September 13-17) aren’t exactly next to each other.

Goldberg and Hostin also defended Feinstein for having properly handed the matter off to the FBI, but that’s also irrelevant as the agency has chosen not to investigate it.

It was within this part of the debate that Behar made quite the Freudian slip to Whoopi’s dismay, blurting out how pleased she is with how Democrats have conducted this: “Isn't it about — isn’t it about time the Democrats played hardball, come on.” 

After Huntsman seemed to express resignation that Kavanaugh is toast and Goldberg reiterated that Democrats didn’t leak, the segment closed with the four talking past each other and a bizarre Whoopi take about now-former Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) being booted for less (click “expand” for more):
BEHAR: Well, the other thing is that a lot of the students who went to school with this accuser at that high school say that there was this type of thing that went on a lot in those days and that some of them were victims also of this from these other schools. These other — this was a girls school and this — Kavanaugh was in an all boys school and so — and this idea that it was a long time ago, I mean, so when a child is molested or attacked, it was a long time ago too. I mean, a long time ago is not 
HUNTSMAN: I can only imagine the conversation that Kavanaugh had to have with his two daughters in going to school today. It’s tough all around. But you know there are a lot of people’s lives on the line.
BEHAR: Clinton had to have the conversation also. It works on both parties. 
(....)
GOLDBERG:  John Conyers was yanked for a lot less than this. So the conversation needs to be had.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, September 17, 2018

Federal Reserve & DHHS Lied To Snyder Using Privatization Predictive Modeling Crap To Push Medicaid Fraud In Child Welfare

These "Economic Gurus" (trademark pending) up in the Federal Reserve, U.S. DHHS and Michigan DHHS suck because they lied to Snyder, once again, using child welfare propaganda, to pitch their form of Medicaid expansion fraud.

This is not the first piece of statistical, predictive modeling crap to come out the Federal Reserve.

The last time they used University of Southern California.




Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 


Portrait of Sharada Dharmasankar
Sharada Dharmasankar
 The most valuable thing I’ve acquired in my time as an 
AE at the Chicago Fed is a deep understanding of how 
academic research is conducted. Working with my team, 
taking classes, and attending seminar 
presentations have given me a broad perspective on the 
research process: formulating research ideas, learning about new 
and interesting sources of data, 
and how to review and question existing work. 
Doing this on a daily basis with researchers who are 
leaders in their fields has only furthered my interest in 
pursuing graduate studies in economics. 
This time, they are using the University of Michigan.

As much as I respect my alma mater, this has got to be one of the dumbest studies I have seen since that other Federal Reserve hit study on whether or not the banks benefited from TARP.

It is not even peer reviewed because it is a working paper.

Who paid for this study?

Russell Sage Foundation (grant # 94-16-04)

National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development (NICHD) grant #1R01HD081129

Did you know the NICHD is really called the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and they are the ones who make the policies to traffic tiny humans?

This looks like a Public Private Partnership, or rather, I smell the work of Jerry Milner.

How much was this study?

Anything over the price of a 40 ounce brew and a spleef was too much.

Was this study paid with tax dollars and if so, how come I have to pay to access a public document, submitted into state and federal records, used to justify the use of more tax dollars, specifically Medicaid, when there is absolutely no mention of Medicaid fraud, or perhaps there is, if I pay for the study?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272718300707

Guess what, I got the document.
How come a public document which has been generated with public dollars, prescribing social and economic policy recommendations, has a copyright?
© 2018 by Sarah Miller, Luojia Hu, Robert Kaestner, Bhashkar Mazumder, and Ashley Wong. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source.
I am taking this moment to call out Fair Use on the BS copyright because my site is not monetized, I am preserving the annals of history, and I have just formally enter this into my case as evidence, so if anyone has a problem, then you are going to have to motion up.

Why was an undergraduate student running this study?

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health [1R01HD081129-01]. The views expressed here do not represent the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago or the Federal Reserve System. We thank Sharada Dharmasankar for her excellent research assistance. We also thank the editor and four referees for helpful comments.

They used her. They are cranking out their armies through the universities to keep this Public Private Partnership going until they achieve world domination for their glorious leaders who give them pretty shiny sheep skins.

Who was the principal on the study?

"I see Corporate Shape Shifters. Was it Michigan? Was is Sage Foundation? Was it Gates Foundation? Was it the Federal Reserve? Was it the National Bureau of Economic Research? Was it the National Institution of Health? Who is making policies for "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth). Mommy, who owns our data, I'm scared."

Why was individual data sold to a private organization, who authorized it?

Cui bono?

Second, data from TransUnion on consumer credit histories was matched with the Healthy Michigan administrative data using name, address, and social security number. TransUnion credit reports were observed twice per year, in January and July, starting with July 2011 and ending with January 2016, resulting in ten observation periods. Prior to providing the matched data to the researchers, all personally identifying information was removed. See the Appendix for additional details on the match process. page 7.

Oh, wait, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

Yes, they sold the data.

We are grateful to the Russell Sage Foundation (grant # 94-16-04) for support of this project. Drs Kaestner, Mazumder, and Miller also benefited from support from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) grant #1R01HD081129. We thank Tara Watson, Lara Shore-Sheppard, seminar participants at the Federal Reserve Banks of Philadelphia and Chicago and conference participants at ASHEcon for their comments. We also gratefully acknowledge the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services for making this data available, Sarah Clark and Lisa Cohn for helping assemble the MDHHS data set, and Dave Fogata for facilitating the data purchase from TransUnion. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
They now have a viable voting database for manipulation.

Did you know Sharada has her name on another piece of crap Federal Reserve of Chicago study on the financial health of people who lost their homes to fake ass mortgage foreclosures?

Now, you do.

Her other crappy Federal Reserve study, below, failed to identify the fake ass mortgage fraud in Detroit.

In the spirit of fuchsia...

Study: Expanded Medicaid boosted finances of Michigan's poor

Enrollment in Michigan's expanded Medicaid program boosted the finances of many low-income residents as well as their health care status, according to a University of Michigan study released Monday.

It is always wise to keep your chattel alive to maximize revenues my making sure to layer up services, upon administrative fees, to implement studies for more service programs, to service for "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth.)

Can you see the $ocial Impact Bonds?  I can.

Among more than 655,000 residents who gained health coverage after the Legislature approved the Healthy Michigan Plan in April 2014, many have experienced fewer debt problems and other financial issues than before enrollment, according to the analysis of thousands of enrollees' financial records.

If you did not know, they used aggregate data.  They should know very well the biases with MAUP, duh. This means the entire study sucks.

The study found drops in unpaid debts, such as medical bills and overdrawn credit cards, as well as fewer bankruptcies and evictions after people enrolled in Healthy Michigan. The program provides health insurance for adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

You can already tell that they did not use Detroit data. Do you know how many homes were foreclosed upon based on fake property taxes and mortgages in 2012 in Wayne County?

The research team was led by economist Sarah Miller of UM’s Ross School of Business. Their finding were published Monday on the website of the National Bureau of Economic Research with colleagues from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, University of Illinois, Chicago and Northwestern University.

Yeah.  I truly hope Sarah does not get tenured for this crap.

The greatest financial gains were experienced by people with chronic illnesses or who had a hospital stay or emergency department visit after they enrolled.

“Across the board, we saw a pretty sizable effect, not just on unpaid medical bills, but also unpaid credit card bills, and on public records for evictions, bankruptcies, wage garnishments and other actions,” said Miller, a member of the UM Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation.

ASSUMPTION RULEOUT #1: When you are sick and broke, you cross your fingers you get approved in 3 to 5 years for a SSI check.  That means you are poor and do not have credit, so there would be no credit card debt.

“Enrollees’ financial well-being seems to improve when they can get the medical care they need without having to put it on a credit card. And the largest effects are among the sickest enrollees.”

ASSUMPTION RULEOUT #2: "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth), do not have credit. Most of the time, all they have to do is miss one week of work and they will automatically qualify for Medicaid.  Have you looked at the rates of poverty, lately?  $1.00 over the threshold and you are cut off.

The team worked with the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services to obtain data on more than 322,000 enrollees without the researchers’ having access to any individual’s identifying information. Using a double-blind matching procedure, they matched the data with enrollees’ credit reports, and studied them as a group.

ASSUMPTION RULEOUT #3: They lied.  How are you going to obtain metadata then run it in a double-blind with credit reports.  Seriously?  You already know whatever they crank out is going to be on dirty data.  I wonder if they excluded the areas of Flint, Detroit, and the middle swath of the state, you know, the land of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).

The study focused on people who enrolled during the first year of the Healthy Michigan plan, and who had previously been uninsured.  Researchers looked at individual-level financial information from several years before each person enrolled, and for at least one year following enrollment.

The average household income for enrollees in the study was $4,400 for an individual and $7,500 for a family of three. Seventy percent had a chronic illness, and on average they had been to an emergency department once in the past year.

Ah, this is where asset forfeiture policies kick in through guardian ad litems and those wonder corporate parents.  When someone has an average income between $4K and $7K a year, you are probably correct to assume that these individuals were probably in foster care or living in a boarding home and are dealing with mental health issues.

“A goal of the Healthy Michigan Plan is to address social determinants of health in order to promote positive health outcomes, greater independence and improved quality of life," said Lynn Sutfin, a spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

HOW TO PROMOTE POSITIVE HEALTH OUTCOMES: Stop making "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth), poorer!

"This study shows that ensuring Michigan residents have access to quality, affordable health care is reaping numerous benefits.”

No, this study shows another fraud scheme to hustle more money through privatization schemes to shore up the Federal Reserve banks that are going insolvent, like Deutsche Bank.  This is propaganda and I am repulsed that this is the University of Michigan is promoting more insurgency propaganda for the purposes of the Privateering NGOs to swoop in and commence to stealin' through more crappy predictive modeling social programming for the parent corporations.  That is the only place the financial health is focused.

More than 80 percent had credit scores in the subprime or deep subprime range. Their total debt in collections, medical debt in collections and past-due amount was higher than a random sample of credit reports nationally.

Uh...it is called poverty.

According to the study's findings, the Healthy Michigan Plan reduced their medical bills in collections by an average of 57 percent, or about $515. The amount of past due debt not yet sent to a collection agency was reduced by 28 percent or about $233.

How much of this past due debt was based upon bogus water bills or fake mortgages?

Researchers found a 16 percent drop in public records for evictions, bankruptcies, wage garnishments and other financial events.  Bankruptcies dropped by 10 percent among the group studied.

Most individuals do not have enough debt to file bankruptcy.  You cannot get evicted is you are homeless.  There would be no wage garnishments if you already hail from "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).

Enrollees’ were 16 percent less likely to overdraw their credit cards, and their credit scores improved as a group. The number with a “deep subprime” rating fell by 18 percent, and the number listed as “subprime” fell by 3 percent.

Do you mean those deep subprime mortgages that stole the houses from the people, allowing for gerrymandering of congressional districts for the purposes of putting in elected spokestokens to approve crappy studies like this to get more Medicaid money for stealin'?

Enrollees experienced a 21 percent rise in automotive loans, an indication of improved financial well-being.

No, no, no.  This is Michigan, the land of cars and corner car lots where Mohammad will sell you a hoopty and get you that 7 day insurance to get your plates to get on the road to find a good low-paying job and still qualify SNAP benefits.

According to Miller, other studies have found that Medicaid expansion reduced use of payday loans and reduced interest rates for low-income people.

Did Debbie Wasserman Schultz tell you to throw that "Medicaid expansion reduction in the use of payday loans and reduced interest rates for "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).  I someone in your targeted population gets a payday loan, it is because they have a SSI check as collateral.

2016
Have Borrowers Recovered from Foreclosures during the Great Recession?
 Now, nine years after the onset of the housing bust, we think it is worthwhile to assess the financial health of the individuals whose homes were foreclosed on during this period. Have they regained their financial footing, or are they permanently scarred? How different were their experiences compared with those of borrowers whose homes were lost to foreclosure in the years before the Great Recession? Did their experiences differ by their financial success (as reflected in their credit scores) before the Great Recession? And how likely are they to have undertaken a new mortgage?
In this Chicago Fed Letter, we address these questions by using data on a large sample of individuals who experienced a home foreclosure after 2000, with a focus on those who entered foreclosure between 2007 and 2010. We use credit bureau data through 2016 from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax (CCP) database. We build on prior work by Brevoort and Cooper,2

 who also used the CCP database but whose analysis ended with 2010 data. Their study showed that prime borrowers (i.e., borrowers with credit scores 660 and above3) who had experienced a home foreclosure during the Great Recession were especially hard hit and that their rate of recovery was significantly slower relative to such borrowers who had experienced a home foreclosure earlier in the decade. We extend Brevoort and Cooper's analysis through the second quarter of 2016 in order to examine how these patterns evolved over the subsequent years of the economic expansion. Specifically, we examine the entire trajectories of credit scores and credit delinquencies starting from the years before a foreclosure event and also extending many years after foreclosure. We also examine whether borrowers obtained a new mortgage in the years after foreclosure.

Foreclosures surge during the great recession

Our data are based on a 5% random sample of the population with credit bureau reports from the CCP database. These data allow us to study patterns in the number of new foreclosures ("foreclosure starts") each quarter beginning with the first quarter of 2000. Figure 1 shows that foreclosure starts were fairly steady until around the end of 2006. They then began to surge in 2007, peaking in 2009. After 2010, foreclosure starts began to rapidly decrease; by the end of 2012, the number of new borrowers entering foreclosure returned to pre-crisis levels.

1. Foreclosure starts, by home mortgage borrower credit status










figure 1 image
Note: See note 4 for how prime and subprime home mortgage borrowers are categorized.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax.

Before the Great Recession, the majority of foreclosure starts were among subprime borrowers (i.e., those whose credit scores were below 660 4

 Figure 1 shows that the Great Recession led to a striking change in the composition of foreclosures between prime and subprime borrowers. According to our analysis, from 2007 through 2010, foreclosures rose approximately 800% among prime borrowers, but only 115% among subprime borrowers. Over the same period, 40% of all foreclosure starts were among prime borrowers and 26% were among borrowers whose pre-delinquency credit score (see note 4) was over 700. This is one defining characteristic of the Great Recession: A much broader range of individuals, including those who had very high credit scores, were swept up in the collapse of housing markets. Indeed, while the overall level of foreclosure starts has come back down to pre-recessionary levels, the fraction of prime borrowers in foreclosure remains relatively higher than it did before the downturn.

The decline in credit scores at foreclosure

As might be expected, once borrowers enter foreclosure, their credit scores plummet. Figure 2 shows that the declines were very large for both prime and subprime borrowers during the Great Recession (solid lines). The decline in the average score for prime borrowers was about 175 points, and subprime borrowers experienced a decline of about 140 points in their average score.5 Immediately after foreclosure, nearly all borrowers became subprime, with average scores of around 550 for previously prime borrowers and 475 for already subprime borrowers. These declines were a bit larger than those experienced by borrowers who foreclosed between 2000 and 2006 (dashed lines).

2. Credit scores of home mortgage borrowers relative to foreclosure start











figure 2 image
Notes: See note 4 for how prime and subprime home mortgage borrowers are categorized. The black vertical line indicates the end of the seventh year after the foreclosure start.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax.

Recovery after foreclosure

By law, information about any credit payment delinquencies, including mortgage payment delinquencies, must be removed from an individual’s credit record after seven years. Therefore, we would expect that if no other delinquencies occurred, individuals who experienced a foreclosure should see their credit scores recover in seven years. In figure 3, we plot the cumulative fraction of borrowers who reattained their pre-delinquency credit scores (again, see note 4) in the years following a foreclosure and show this separately for previously prime and already subprime borrowers.

3. Share of home mortgage borrowers who recovered pre-delinquency credit score after foreclosure











figure 3 image
Notes: See note 4 for how prime and subprime home mortgage borrowers are categorized, as well as for how the pre-delinquency credit score is defined. The black vertical line indicates the end of the seventh year after the foreclosure start.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax.

What is immediately evident is that subprime borrowers tend to recover their pre-delinquency credit scores relatively more quickly than prime borrowers. First, let's examine the patterns of recovery for those who foreclosed on a home before the Great Recession. Among subprime borrowers who experienced a foreclosure between 2000 and 2006, roughly 60% reattained their pre-delinquency credit scores at some point within two years of foreclosure and roughly 85% within five years of foreclosure. In stark contrast, only about 10% of prime borrowers who foreclosed on a home in the same period recovered within two years and only about 33% within five years. After seven years, when delinquency flags are removed from their credit reports (as indicated by the black vertical line), about 90% of these subprime borrowers have reattained their pre-delinquency credit scores, compared with only about 50% of prime borrowers. After 15 years, nearly all subprime borrowers have reattained their pre-delinquency credit scores, whereas about 15% of prime borrowers have still not fully recovered. (Of course, subprime borrowers have a much lower pre-delinquency credit score to return to.)
When we examine the experience of the huge wave of borrowers who lost their homes to foreclosure during the Great Recession, we see a much slower pace of recovery. Specifically, among those who experienced a foreclosure between 2007 and 2010, irrespective of their credit status (prime or subprime), the pace of recovery was slower in the first three to five years after foreclosure relative to the pace of recovery among those who experienced a foreclosure in earlier years. However, after seven years, the subprime borrowers who foreclosed on a home in 2007–10 were virtually on track with their predecessor cohorts in terms of recovering their pre-delinquency credit scores. In contrast, even after seven years, prime borrowers who experienced a foreclosure in 2007–10 continued to lag their predecessor cohorts in reattaining their pre-delinquency credit scores. By 2016, the prime borrowers who entered foreclosure between six and nine years earlier (in 2007–10) appear to have recovery rates that are converging with the historical rates of recovery among their predecessor cohorts. When we further break down the analysis by subgroups of prime borrowers (660 to 700, 700 to 750, 750 and higher), we find that the lack of full recovery is mainly driven by those prime borrowers with the highest credit scores before foreclosure.

Other delinquencies and measures of financial health

A possible explanation for the slower pace of recovery among those who entered foreclosure between 2007 and 2010 relative to predecessor cohorts is that these individuals encountered difficulties paying their credit obligations on time because of the severity of the Great Recession. Since payment history is a critical component of credit scores, this could explain the especially slow rates of recovery. To address this possibility, we examine delinquency rates on any credit obligations for home mortgage borrowers before and after a foreclosure.
In figure 4, we plot the share of individuals who were 90 days or more past due on one or more sources of credit, including first mortgages, credit cards, and auto loans. Among both prime and subprime home mortgage borrowers, the share with credit delinquencies spikes to roughly 100% at the time of foreclosure and then drops sharply thereafter. Among those who entered foreclosure between 2000 and 2006, the share of prime home mortgage borrowers who are delinquent on their credit obligations tends to decline quite quickly, but never gets back down to the pre-foreclosure levels. Among subprime borrowers, the fraction of those who are delinquent takes much longer to fall, but does eventually get much closer to pre-foreclosure levels.

4. Share of home mortgage borrowers 90 days or more past due on a credit obligation











figure 4 image
Notes: See note 4 for how prime and subprime home mortgage borrowers are categorized. The black vertical line indicates the end of the seventh year after the foreclosure start.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax.

We find that for the first seven years following foreclosure, the share of individuals who were delinquent on any credit obligations among those who experienced a home foreclosure in 2007–10 generally remained higher than this share among those who experienced a home foreclosure in 2000–06. This was the case regardless of the credit status (prime or subprime) before foreclosure. However, after seven years, this pattern reversed.

Implications for the housing market

A question of interest is how the experience of foreclosure has affected housing markets. In figure 5, we show the cumulative fraction of individuals who experienced a home foreclosure but who then managed to take out a new mortgage afterward. When looking at the historical experience of prime home mortgage borrowers who entered foreclosure between 2000 and 2006, we find that just shy of 40% took out a new mortgage in the seven years following. The comparable value for subprime borrowers is notably lower, at around 30%. Among those who foreclosed on a home between 2007 and 2010, the shares with new mortgages seven years after foreclosure are dramatically lower at just over 25% for prime borrowers and just under 17% for subprime borrowers.

5. Share of home mortgage borrowers with a new mortgage after foreclosure











figure 5 image
Notes: See note 4 for how prime and subprime home mortgage borrowers are categorized. The black vertical line indicates the end of the seventh year after the foreclosure start.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax.

These findings suggest that even though the overall credit scores and shares of delinquent borrowers appear to have returned to levels closer to historical norms for individuals who experienced a foreclosure in 2007–10, their homeownership rates continue to considerably lag the homeownership rates of those who experienced a foreclosure in 2000–06. The slower financial recuperation of those who lost their homes to foreclosure during the Great Recession has been one important factor behind the slow recovery in housing markets during the current economic expansion.

Summary

By tracking a sample of home mortgage borrowers who entered foreclosure in 2000–06 and 2007–10, or before and during the Great Recession, we find that the pace of recovery in credit scores was slower in the first few years after foreclosure for the latter cohorts. We also find that prime borrowers who experienced a foreclosure during the downturn were especially hard hit and had the most difficulty recovering. Overall, at least 15% of all prime borrowers have permanently lower credit scores regardless of when they foreclosed on their homes. A significant factor behind the slow recuperation in credit scores for borrowers who lost their homes to foreclosure in 2007–10 was adverse economic conditions during the recession, which led to delinquencies on other credit obligations. The slow rehabilitation of their financial health helps explain the slow recovery in housing markets post-recession. Indeed, following foreclosure, these borrowers have considerably lagged their predecessor cohorts in terms of homeownership rates.


1 Authors’ calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax (CCP) and statistics from RealtyTrac (as cited in http://blog.credit.com/2015/04/boomerang-buyers-is-there-homeownership-after-foreclosure-114803/). Because of the high incidence of foreclosures in 2010, we include them in our analysis of foreclosures during the “Great Recession.” The recession officially ended in 2009 according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
2 See Kenneth P. Brevoort and Cheryl R. Cooper, 2013, "Foreclosure's wake: The credit experiences of individuals following foreclosure," Real Estate Economics, Vol. 41, No. 4, Winter, pp. 747–792.
3 Credit scores (FICO scores) have a range of 300–850; for more details, see http://www.myfico.com/credit-education/credit-scores/.
4
 We categorize prime and subprime foreclosures based on the credit score of the borrower (prime, 660 and above; subprime, below 660) in the nearest quarter in which there is no major mortgage delinquency (i.e., less than 30 days past due) before the foreclosure start. In the text, we refer to this particular measure of the credit score as the "pre-delinquency credit score."
5
 We calculated these declines by taking the difference between the peak average credit score before foreclosure and the average credit score at the time of foreclosure.

I have a copyright, too, you know. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: The Kavanaugh #MeToo Psyop Nightmare Continues To Unfold & Ignore Trafficking Of Tiny Humans

Image result for psychiatrist couch drinks
"What else did Brett do to you so I can write a note?"
Origins of the #MeToo Psyop, The Nightmare,1781
Detroit Institute of Art
Recently, on Cocktails & Popcorn, we experienced the unfolding of another #MeToo Psyop with Brett Kavanaugh.




Cocktails & Popcorn: "The Victim Named The Woman #MeToo-er" Produces Sexual Harassment Evidence Against Kavanaugh In An Anonymous Letter To The Senate

Then, after the prelude of the #MeToo Psyop, the woman emerges, being a clinical psychologist who just so happened to have found a "suppressed" memory, validated, with a note by her very own clinical psychologist.


Then, the pundits emerge.


Then this happened.
Christine Ford’s Parents Paula K Blasey and Ralph G Blasey were the Defendants in a foreclosure case in Maryland in 1996. Guess who the Judge was America? None other than Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Martha G Kavanaugh. You literally cannot make this up.

It appears there was an ongoing judgement starting at least in 1990....7 c cases culminating in a foreclosure case in 1996, for which Martha Kavanaugh was the judge. There was also a 1982 contract case but I can't determine the details there.

Her father appears to have been an attorney...tons of cases referencing that. His relationship professionally with Kavanaugh should be looked I as well. There's more to this story than originally appeared.

It's not so much the disposition of a single case but that there is a lot more going on behind the scenes regarding connections between the blaseys and Kavanaugh than has been yet revealed.


Then, this happened.

GRASSLEY: FEINSTEIN ‘REFUSED’ TO COOPERATE ON KAVANAUGH ACCUSER


I think what we should do is provide an open forum, for all the #MeToo-ers accusers and their targeted individuals to give public testimony, with cross examinations, witnesses, and proofs.

As a matter of fact, why not give Monica Lewinsky her right to due process and allow her to finally give formal testimony on her work in the White House.

You do know that Monica Lewinsky never told her side of the story, right?

You do know this is about Whitewater, right?

You know know Kavanaugh argued on behalf of the U.S. in Whitewater to strip attorney client privilege in the act of a criminal action, right?

Kavanaugh would uphold his own precedent.

I do not believe certain law firms like Perkins Coie would be too pleased with such a SCOTUS ruling in the midst of a legal action, but ask me if Perkins Coie Sucks and see what I have to say about it.

The #MeToo Psyop Nightmare continues to redirect the national narrative away from all the children who have been drugged, raped, tortured in foster care and adoption.

When will the children who have been trafficked through the U.S. and international child welfare systems of foster care, adoption, residential institutions and juvenile facilities be able to have their #MeToo moment?

Obviously, the #MeToo Psyop prefers to make a mockery of the seriousness of child trafficking, which is the real nightmare no one wants to talk about, but then again, this is campaign season and no one cares about children.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Sunday, September 16, 2018

DEFANGO: Jessica Ashooh + Reddit Banout2018 + Censorship Facebook + ACLU Israel? MM vs Def 3

Let us not forget Melanie Slone of CREW.



SOROS EMPLOYEE: Meet The Reddit Executive Who Is Shutting Down Trump Supporters

Current director of policy at Reddit, Jessica Ashooh, is coming under heavy criticism as Reddit bans pro-President Donald Trump voices.

Ashooh started working for Reddit after an executive stint at the George Soros-funded Atlantic Council, which is also reportedly funded by the Chinese. Reddit is run by Steve Huffman, aka “Spez,” following the suicide of free speech-minded Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz, who faced 35 years in prison in a hotly contested computer fraud case.

Jessica Ashooh is believed by some to be responsible for the account “arabscarab,” which has been leading the charge to shut down the Q Anon movement on the Reddit platform. The Great Awakening, the second-largest pro-Trump subreddit, was banned Tuesday night in a move that has rocked the online community.

More than 30 covert left-wing actors have been identified in the censorship Plot, which includes posing as Trump supporters to post intentionally offensive content and flagging it. Some of these activists are linked to Media Matters and the ACLU. An employee of CBS has been identified as a member of the plot but denies involvement. Top Reddit moderators continue to investigate the network of activists who are executing “Ban Out 2018,” an assault on Trump supporters. 

Ashooh, overseeing policy at Reddit, is a veteran of George Soros’ Atlantic Council, where she served as deputy director of the Middle East Strategy Task Force as recently as the spring of 2017, when she moved to Reddit. The January 2017 David Brock meeting in Florida, where he laid out a social media censorship plan, kicked off a period of Silicon Valley aggression against the American people at just the time Ashooh was transferring from the Atlantic Council to Reddit. The Atlantic Council now works with Facebook to police independent news content on Mark Zuckerberg’s social media platform.





In the hours since Q’s banning, a number of top Trump supporters have been banned from Reddit and the tech company is preventing any new pro-Trump subreddits from being created. Reddit is also wiping away the postings and clearing the posting histories of numerous Trump supporters and Trump-supporting forums.

Left-wingers have a formal name for their effort to ban President Donald Trump-supporting subreddits: BanOut 2018. The liberals have announced that they are now in “Phase 3” of the banning project.


Here is one choice quote from the Reddit thread: “Your comment was removed because it isn’t the phrase ‘I fully support banout 2018’ Feel free to make a new comment showing your support of this great cause.”

BanOut 2018 is an even bigger project than some leftists want to admit.

“Every mod on that sub is a power mod who controls many defaults,” a source told Big League Politics, referring to BanOut 2018.

Here is the page for BanOut 2018:




Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, September 15, 2018

Vermont & The Investigation On Trafficking Of Tiny Humans In The Church

These investigations are going from State to State.

Not mentioned in this article are the State of Michigan and Catholic Charities investigations by the Michigan Auditor General and the DOJ.

What you are witnessing are the residuals of the peculiar institution, chattel law, or more intuitively recognized as child trafficking, domestic and international.

This is about foster care and adoption, to key terms eerily omitted from this article

Vermont authorities investigating orphanage abuse, bishop pledges full cooperation


The Diocese of Burlington will cooperate fully with a joint state-local investigation into possible criminality stemming from the stories of abuse told by former residents of St. Joseph's Orphanage, Bishop Christopher Coyne said Sunday morning.

Coyne told parishioners during mass at St. Joseph's Cathedral and then reporters at a rare press conference, that the church erred in the past with its legalistic approach to allegations of abuse by clergy, and that both survivors and the faithful deserve a more compassionate response.

"As someone who loves the church, I’m filled with shame and sorrow," the bishop said not only of the abuse allegations in Burlington, but what he called "scandals" from all across the country, most recently in Pennsylvania.

"The only way we can get to the truth of these matters is to be cooperative," Coyne said, pledging the diocese would turn over any documents it discovered that hadn't already been turned over to the Attorney General's office.

A intensive BuzzFeed News article, "The Ghosts of the Orphanage," published Aug. 27 brought back into the public eye survivors' stories of physical abuse and cruelty by nuns and clergy at the orphanage, which closed in 1974. In two-decade-old court depositions and in interviews, former orphanage residents have detailed beatings, children locked away in attics and even the death of a boy thrown from a fourth-floor orphanage window.

There are even worse events that happen to children in residential institutions.

In the 1990s, the Burlington Free Press revealed many of those stories and followed the survivors' quest for justice in federal and state civil courts, where they were largely not successful.

On Friday, Vermont Attorney General T.J. Donovan, Burlington Police Chief Brandon del Pozo and Mayor Miro Weinberger indicated a joint task force is being created to review what occurred at St. Joseph's all those years ago.

This will be the first criminal investigation into the acts allegedly committed by Burlington diocese officials at the orphanage.



"The believability of the allegations was a lot less" at that time, Coyne said Sunday. Survivors first came forward close to a decade before the Boston Globe "Spotlight" investigation unveiled not only the extent of sexual abuse by clergy but the scope of the Catholic Church's efforts to cover up those acts.

Coyne said he was a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Boston through some of those years.
"One of the largest mistakes we made was we let the lawyers drive the bus,” he told reporters Sunday at St. Joseph Cathedral. "Lawyers do what lawyers do, which is they try and protect their client."



“But that was not the pastoral thing to do,” he said. "The only way, the best way, to respond is as a pastor."

Of survivors of abuse he said, "people who are victims want us to believe their stories because they said for years we weren't believed. Now when someone comes I say to them, I believe you. I want to hear you. I'm not going to just dismiss you."

People want change, Coyne said about rebuilding community trust. "people want bishops to be just as accountable as priests are."

Coyne said some records related to St. Joseph's Orphanage are not in the diocese's possession, but might be in the hands of the Sisters of Providence in Montreal. The order of nuns ran the orphanage from the late 1800s until 1974. The bishop said he'll be calling the Sisters of Providence to tell them of the looming investigation in Vermont.

It stopped in 1974 because of CAPTA, Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act, and foster homes took off.  The churches branched off into into subsidized, privatized Child Placement Agencies for the lucrative opportunities of false claims in foster care and adoption.  This is nothing but the residuals of the peculiar institution.

"I don’t know where this is going to go," he said. "I just trust in God we’ll find the truth as much as possible."
After Coyne spoke to his congregation about the investigation and his willingness to listen a with grey hair man wiped his eyes and bowed his head, the woman next to him reached for his hand. 

'News to us'

State Attorney General Donovan said Friday he'd not been aware of what occurred at St. Joseph's, which operated on North Avenue and later became diocesan headquarters and for some years was home to the now-failed Burlington College.

"I've driven by that place thousands of times," said Donovan, a native Burlingtonian. "I went to Burlington High School a couple hundred yards away. This was a well-kept secret. I think we can say unequivocally that abuse occurred there."

The bishop's decision to speak publicly to parishioners and reporters came about quickly. When asked about the looming investigation on Friday, Diocese of Burlington spokeswoman Ellen Kane said, "This is news to us."



Coyne chose to address the new investigation ahead on Sunday, because he will be attending in Washington, D.C. an executive commuittee meeting of U.S. Catholic Bishops which had been previously scheduled.

Before 10 a.m. Mass  the bishop in green vestments greeted parishioners inside the cathedral, most of them senior citizens with a sprinkling of working-age adults. New Americans clustered together in bright Sunday clothes in the back pews. A parent guided one child up the steps.

Pope Francis named Coyne bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, which covers all of the state of Vermont, in 2014.

'Don't Tell'

The bishop chose on Sunday to read a gospel story attributed to the Apostle Mark in which Jesus performs a miracle and then tells people not to tell anyone else. But the bishop did not address the implications in that story which might ring out to survivors: "don't tell."



"That was certainly a possibility, I knew we were going to talk about this after communion," Coyne said of the allegations. "So I felt that it was better for me to speak to the people words of faith rather than the scandal."

Coyne said he had spoken to the allegations in sermons in previous weeks. And he spoke of the need for a cultural change within the church, exemplified by his openness for a press conference.

But during the mass, leading up to a closing agricultural metaphor in his sermon, the bishop joked about his walking companion, a fellow bishop based in Fairbanks, Alaska.

“What did you do to have somebody send you to Fairbanks,” Coyne's said, repeating a joke the other bishops had used. A few parishioners chuckled.

"It’s a bad choice of words to use," Coyne said. "It’s a turn of humor amongst us."

When pressed about whether it was tasteful under the circumstances, the bishop conceded that he "should be more careful."

More: 
Chicago-area diocese to pay $1.4M to 3 men in priest sex abuse lawsuit

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©