No Evidence He Was Stoned, But Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan Apparently Doesn't Remember Much of the Last Four Years

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

No Evidence He Was Stoned, But Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan Apparently Doesn’t Remember Much of the Last Four Years

No Evidence He Was Stoned, But Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan Apparently Doesn’t Remember Much of the Last Four Years

Rolling Stone-

Thank God for Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan. If you’re a court junkie, or have the misfortune (as some of us poor reporters do) of being forced professionally to spend a lot of time reading legal documents, the just-released Moynihan deposition in MBIA v. Bank of America, Countrywide, and a Buttload of Other Shameless Mortgage Fraudsters will go down as one of the great Nixonian-stonewalling efforts ever, and one of the more entertaining reads of the year.

In this long-awaited interrogation – Bank of America has been fighting to keep Moynihan from being deposed in this case for some time – Moynihan does a full Star Trek special, boldly going where no deponent has ever gone before, breaking out the “I don’t recall” line more often and perhaps more ridiculously than was previously thought possible. Moynihan seems to remember his own name, and perhaps his current job title, but beyond that, he’ll have to get back to you.

The MBIA v. Bank of America case is one of the bigger and weightier lawsuits hovering over the financial world. Prior to the crash, MBIA was, along with a company called Ambac, one of the two largest and most reputable names in what’s called the “monoline” insurance business.

[ROLLING STONE]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8684 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

One Response to “No Evidence He Was Stoned, But Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan Apparently Doesn’t Remember Much of the Last Four Years”

  1. nydeemarie says:

    What an interesting rule…

    To be “inherently undiscoverable”, an injury need not be absolutely impossible to discover, else suit would never be filed and the question whether to apply the discovery rule would never arise. ? Nor does “inherently undiscoverable” mean merely that a particular plaintiff did not discover his injury within the prescribed period of limitations; ?discovery of a particular injury is dependent not solely on the nature of the injury but on the circumstances in which it occurred and plaintiff’s diligence as well. ? An injury is inherently undiscoverable if it is by nature unlikely to be discovered within the prescribed limitations period despite due diligence.

    I wonder…

    To which causes of action has it been applied..??

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives