David Trott- Another GOP minion who got rich taking advantage of people.

[Gistok]

That's a broad brush you're using to paint over a very complex and nuanced situation. In many of those cases, borrowers were ADVISED BY their bank to miss payments so they would qualify for modifications. Prior to the advent of the mortgage modification/mass foreclosure law firms, borrowers were accustomed to an environment where banks wanted to retain the revenues generated by interest and servicing fees paid by its consumers. The Trotts of the country helped cultivate a new dynamic where it was more lucrative for them to complete foreclosures than to modify or even maintain the existing mortgage [[if one didnt qualify for modification).

Disclaimer: I am one of those consumers who "successfully" fought Bank of America in getting my foreclosure rescinded because of the obvious railroading and deceptive tactics used by Bank of America and its attorneys, Trott and Trott.

I agree with you mam2009... BOA is the biggest piece of shit for an excuse for a bank there is. But we played nice and bailed their ass out. I too was caught up in their "Making Homes Affordable" scam.... it cost me dearly, although fortunately for other factors I still have my house. As for Trott... I'm content knowing that his chances to get elected are pretty slim... once he's better known....

[Not In MI]

maybe if he got rich being an abortionist you liberals would be more accepting of him?

[Downriviera]

Through no fault of my own, I was a victim of mortgage fraud. Documents were filed behind the scenes at the bank with my forged signature. While I was trying to get this straightened out, Trot & Trot aggressively tried to steal my home. Thanks to my attorney we were able to stop them in Federal Court. Greediest mf's I've ever encountered. I hope there is a special place in hell for Trot and his minions.

[Wesley Mouch]

That's gotta rank pretty high on the list of ridiculous analogies. [[And a rather disgusting one too, if you ask me).

No way that Trott is anything like a "victim". He's a public figure running for office, which by definition opens him to the scrutiny of the press. He then deepened that scrutiny by broadcasting a series of ads that are all about his business experience and success and how it qualifies him to represent his district in Congress, but curiously omit any mention of exactly what business he is in. So, the Free Press investigated and published what they found out. All of which makes him a "victim" of what exactly?

My analogy wasn't very clear -- all I was trying to say is you create the problem [[ad doesn't say what you want), then you blame Trotter for not disclosing it.

I re-read the article. Here's a typical line: "After a three-year legal battle with Trott’s law firm and the bank...".

Of course anyone who understands the legal system even a little bit would realize it should have said "After a three-year legal battle with the bank, who was represented by Trotter's law firm."

Lawyers have a job. They do it. They represent. Trotter didn't create the foreclosure.

The article might as well have said "After a three-year legal battle with Trotter's law firm, Judge Hallowell, the 39th District Court, the local Sheriff, and bailiff, the janitor who cleaned the courtroom, the guy who fixed the plumbing in the court bathroom, and the bank."

[believe14]

How many of you are even in the 11th District? I find it odd that so many of you are so animated by a candidate that doesn't concern you.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

How many of you are even in the 11th District? I find it odd that so many of you are so animated by a candidate that doesn't concern you.

Why is that? Every Congressional rep or Senator affects everyone to some extent. A lot of folks here are fairly political. I, for one, continue to follow Michigan politics all frequently from CA. I'd consider him a stain on the district, the state and the country.

[ABetterDetroit]

The thing about lawyers is that some of them are scumbags that do nothing but skim the deal, others are nothing but orators that just talk really really well. The real problems begin when we start to sift through the 2 aforementioned groups and try to find the good ones to be our political representatives. No wonder why it has gone wrong so many times before.

[Bham1982]

He has no chance of winning, so it's not really important. That district is tough for Republicans these days.

Notwithstanding the DYes stereotypes most of suburban Oakland leans Dem. Only the exurban/rural fringe is solid Republican.

[EastsideAl]

My analogy wasn't very clear -- all I was trying to say is you create the problem [[ad doesn't say what you want), then you blame Trotter for not disclosing it.

I re-read the article. Here's a typical line: "After a three-year legal battle with Trott’s law firm and the bank...".

Of course anyone who understands the legal system even a little bit would realize it should have said "After a three-year legal battle with the bank, who was represented by Trotter's law firm."

Lawyers have a job. They do it. They represent. Trotter didn't create the foreclosure.

The article might as well have said "After a three-year legal battle with Trotter's law firm, Judge Hallowell, the 39th District Court, the local Sheriff, and bailiff, the janitor who cleaned the courtroom, the guy who fixed the plumbing in the court bathroom, and the bank."

I am extremely aware of what lawyers do... usually. However, you misunderstand and minimize the active role of Trott and Trott in pursuing and pushing forward foreclosures and evictions. Their role goes well beyond just representing the banks in court as attorneys, because they have evolved into something much bigger and more multi-layered than a mere law firm.

Trott often does, in fact, actively and aggressively pursue foreclosures that needn't occur, because it is in their self-interest to have as many foreclosures as possible. This is a huge shift from how the banking industry handled defaults and foreclosures in the past.

As the Free Press story says:
"Trott became a leader in the foreclosure industry that boomed in 2008 when the housing market went bust by buying up companies needed to complete a foreclosure from beginning to end."

"Besides his law firm that handles legal work, Trott owns or has a financial interest in the document company that processes paperwork, a newspaper that publishes required legal notices, the title companies that do the deed work, and a large real estate firm that sometimes handles the homes on which his clients have foreclosed."

"he profits at each step of the process."

So, essentially, Trott and Trott are a foreclosure company run by a lawyer, not a law firm that just happens to handle some foreclosure work.

[gpwforever]

Funny, I don't ever recall the Freep devoting that much ink to Obama's background.

[Wesley Mouch]

I am extremely aware of what lawyers do... usually. However, you misunderstand and minimize the active role of Trott and Trott in pursuing and pushing forward foreclosures and evictions. Their role goes well beyond just representing the banks in court as attorneys, because they have evolved into something much bigger and more multi-layered than a mere law firm.

Trott often does, in fact, actively and aggressively pursue foreclosures that needn't occur, because it is in their self-interest to have as many foreclosures as possible. This is a huge shift from how the banking industry handled defaults and foreclosures in the past.

As the Free Press story says:
"Trott became a leader in the foreclosure industry that boomed in 2008 when the housing market went bust by buying up companies needed to complete a foreclosure from beginning to end."

"Besides his law firm that handles legal work, Trott owns or has a financial interest in the document company that processes paperwork, a newspaper that publishes required legal notices, the title companies that do the deed work, and a large real estate firm that sometimes handles the homes on which his clients have foreclosed."

"he profits at each step of the process."

So, essentially, Trott and Trott are a foreclosure company run by a lawyer, not a law firm that just happens to handle some foreclosure work.

I have heard zero about how Trott 'pushes and pursues' foreclosures.

You cite that he also makes money by providing other services [[processing, etc.) That doesn't make him a creator of foreclosures. It makes him a smart businessman who sees opportunity, and then provides a service to OTHERS.

How does working for banks in a variety of ways to handle THEIR foreclosures make Trott guilty of anything but business acumen?

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Wesley Mouch, the defender of all things and people that as he tells it, are "smart businessmen" that happen to wear the GOP badge of honor. You're a joke. Just like Snyder, Trott is a divisive politico and businessman that only cares about HIS bottom line. He doesn't care about the people he puts on the street, when his practices won't even allow them to seek alternate options to keep their homes. Remember the 101 yr old women he put out of her home which she lived in for over 50 years, when her son didn't tell her about the foreclosure notice? You would think Trott would do the right thing, and allow her some dignity to remain there, did he do it, NO.
It's just another home to add to the collection as far as he's concerned. He's pathetic.

[bailey]

You cite that he also makes money by providing other services [[processing, etc.) That doesn't make him a creator of foreclosures. It makes him a smart businessman who sees opportunity, and then provides a service to OTHERS.

How does working for banks in a variety of ways to handle THEIR foreclosures make Trott guilty of anything but business acumen?

All of which is just fine. AGAIN, the SIMPLE point here is that his ad goes out of it's way to be extremely vague on what business he is in and so "smart" about. If, as you say, the background is a example of his fitness for office, then why go to such silly lengths to down play it?

[believe14]

Why is that? Every Congressional rep or Senator affects everyone to some extent. A lot of folks here are fairly political. I, for one, continue to follow Michigan politics all frequently from CA. I'd consider him a stain on the district, the state and the country.

I feel sorry for you if you waste your time caring about all 14 of Michigan's congressmen.

[EastsideAl]

I feel sorry for you if you waste your time caring about all 14 of Michigan's congressmen.

I don't really understand why any American wouldn't care about all 435 representatives.

[swingline]

so he makes his money due to the deregulation of banks and banking standards, makes millions off of foreclosures, then makes an ad saying he knows the problems of government overreach and regulation... what a tool. i get there is a need for his profession and what he does, but lets not act like his business didnt start booming because government was asleep at the wheel letting the banks do whatever they wanted. he doesnt want regulation because that would cut into the bottom line of his foreclosure empire.

if hes so damn proud of his family business and the jobs he has created with it i dont think its unreasonable for people to ask "well, what do you do?" most politicians when bringing up their past job experience do give some detail as to what that was, not run from it. im sure if he was truthful in the first place he would have gotten more support in oakland county...

This is a good post and does a pretty good job of identifying the deceptiveness of Mr. Trott's campaign and its promotion of his business acumen.

Mr. Trott is a fine businessman, no doubt about that. But the explosive growth of his law firm was funded not by providing valuable expert advice and counsel to the "job creator" class. Rather, he seized an opportunity to earn million$$ from federal taxpayers by providing foreclosure services for lenders holding federally insured loans. The 2007-2010 crash generated a wealth transfer from the federal taxpayer/insurers to the insured banks and their service providers like Mr. Trott. His business didn't contribute to GDP expansion. It profited from GDP contraction. Nothing illegal about any of this. There are lots of businessmen getting rich from government transfers.

[gnome]

So the guy's a tool. I don't care and neither should anyone else.

the classic mistake people make is trying to determine if they like a person before they vote. You don't care if you like your plumber, surgeon, cop or garbage collector. It is a plus if you like them, but the thing you should care about is whether they do a good job.

Dick Cheney was a good VP not because he was a good guy, but because he knew the job. Knew how stuff got done.

does the Trott phucker know how to get stuff done? That is the only question to ask.

[jt1]

Dick Cheney was a good VP? Are you serious?

[gnome]

Dick Cheney was a good VP? Are you serious?

You are correct, I should have said effective. 'Good' denotes a value judgement. Effective means TCB.

Dick Cheney was very effective at his job due to his extensive experience as a White House Aide, Chief of Staff, Congressman, businessman ... That is a wealth of experience in getting stuff accomplished; now you may not agree with what he got accomplished, but it is pretty hard to say he wasn't effective.

My point is one should always evaluate a candidate on how effective they can be, not how big a fanboy you are.

[bailey]

You are correct, I should have said effective. 'Good' denotes a value judgement. Effective means TCB.

Dick Cheney was very effective at his job due to his extensive experience as a White House Aide, Chief of Staff, Congressman, businessman ... That is a wealth of experience in getting stuff accomplished; now you may not agree with what he got accomplished, but it is pretty hard to say he wasn't effective.

My point is one should always evaluate a candidate on how effective they can be, not how big a fanboy you are.

Um... taking care of business and knowing what business to take care of are two different things.

Cheney was effective at implementing spectacularly bad policy. I don't see that as a positive.

[gnome]

Bailey, I believe you are placing a subjective determination on what should be an objective process. Otherwise, your bad is just as valid as someone else's good.

the issue facing republicans in the 11th will be to vote for Trott or Bentavolio.

that is a full-size value meal of crazy with a side of assholery.

So, if you think Bentavolio has been relatively benign in his back-benching role, do you go for him over Trott? Or -as a Republican - do you vote for the latest brand of granola offered up by the Democrats?

Likewise in the 13th, do you encourage life-long Democrats to vote Republican when the Democratic choice is Horace Sheffield?

[southen]

So the guy's a tool. I don't care and neither should anyone else.

the classic mistake people make is trying to determine if they like a person before they vote. You don't care if you like your plumber, surgeon, cop or garbage collector. It is a plus if you like them, but the thing you should care about is whether they do a good job.

Dick Cheney was a good VP not because he was a good guy, but because he knew the job. Knew how stuff got done.

does the Trott phucker know how to get stuff done? That is the only question to ask.

im just quoting this because i think people need to read it again.

if you are using dick cheney as an example for why it doesnt matter if we elect a tool then you have made everyone's point who disagrees with you... glad i didnt have to elaborate any further.

[Jimaz]

instead of bailing out the banks, why didnt we just bail out everyone underwater on the mortgages?

the banks would have been fine either way. our taxes would have been used for it either way.

so which one would you vote for out of the two choices?
bank bailout or underwater mortage [[aka your neighbors and friends and family) bailout ?

That's a very good point. I just happened to run across this related article today: Did Washington Rescue the Wrong Economy? [[That server seems to be flaky today so I'll include a quote and some links.)

... Using data and arguments from their upcoming book “House of Debt,” Mian and Sufi essentially argue that former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s recent public statements got the bailout exactly backwards. Geithner has argued that rescuing homeowners who were left underwater after the 2008 financial crisis wasn’t worth the effort, and that rescuing the banking system was our most urgent priority.

... After exhaustive research, Sufi and Mian have concluded that long-term economic damage was not an inevitable outcome of the 2008 financial crisis. Instead, it’s the result of a bailout plan that focused on the wrong segments of the economy.

Specifically, Sufi and Mian believe that the 2009 crisis wouldn’t have been any more harmful than other recessions of recent decades if financial decision-makers had rescued homeowners, rather than only concentrating on bankers. Financial institutions needed to be rescued, but they conclude that aid to homeowners – specifically, mortgage write-downs – were needed to get the economy back on track.

This argument is closely tied to the idea that we now have two economies. One is for the financial sector, an expanding category which is disconnected from job-producing ventures [[and whose rapid-payback, profit-churning mentality is increasingly dominating the management of other industries). The other is the “real world” economy – the one in which people do real work in order to produce real goods and services, and then use their income to purchase those goods and services....

That article links to these:

• The Case Against the Bernanke-Obama Financial Rescue
• Why Tim Geithner is wrong on homeowner debt relief

[Wesley Mouch]

Bernanke, Obama, Geitner did save the financial system from collapse. We won't ever know what would have happened if they had followed another course. I've heard the case against BOG. And just heard Geitner on Charlie Rose the other day. He makes a pretty compelling case that as repugnant as it was, it was better than the systemic collapse we almost experienced.

If you want to try that systemic collapse, elect the 'I'm not running' Elizabeth Warren as President. You might get to see how her anti-bank populist rhetoric works in real life.

[Jimaz]

I don't think that any sane person would deny that the Great Recession was an actual "systemic collapse." But keep trying.