$250 well spent. While I read the contract, I hardly understood the implications of what I was signing.

...between an individual who signs something they may not fully understand (but makes no false statements while doing so), vs. an institution that has their employees systematically making sh*t up, signing known-to-be-false documents, faking notary signatures, etc.?

Interesting.

...of criminal intent. Individuals who sign something they do not understand may be stupid or ill-advised or just naive; that is not the same thing as professionals who knowingly falsify documents. Please explain why you think a federal investigation is in order in the first case, but not in the second case.

Bottom line, they are not the same actions. Now an individual who actually lied or made false statements of income, things like that, sure. They deserve to be held to account. But in many of the so-called "liar's loans", it was not the individual buyers who lied: it was the mortgage company agents who stated incomes that were false, or who copied tax statements from other loans, and just changed the names and filed the false documents with the mortgage papers so the loans would be approved. It was systematic and it was done by people who knew exactly what they were doing. Furthermore, it was the systematic nature of those actions that resulted in the inevitable collapse of the housing market.

A few dishonest individuals is not what brought the market down.

make up.

...you did not state that the companies should not be investigated.

Now, how about addressing the main point of my post, which is that there is a material difference between an individual who signs an agreement without understanding it, vs. institutions who systematically falsify documents?

Really, that was a classic sidestep. You are right on the lesser point and I am happy to admit it. Now how about it? Do you or do you not see any difference between the two cases? Your statement to that effect is why we are having this sub-thread anyway, I'd think if you really believe it you might want to defend your remarks. But apparently not.

we are talking about were generally the employees of the Banks who were wrongfully tossing people out of their homes, but did not have the proper documentation to do so.

So many of them decided to speed things up, knowing they could not get documents that were not in order signed by actual, real notaries, they simply faked those signatures, making all those documents false. Now, homeowners who lost their homes as a result of this corruption, are entitled to be compensated. It was because of lawsuits by such homeowners who were unable to get proper documentation from the banks, that this was all uncovered.

Who are the other 'robo-signers' you are talking about?

and was assured it wasn't necessary as your realtor is there to look after your interests and knows the ins and outs. Many, maybe most, people would believe that and think they could trust their agent. Friends that have had a good experience with their home buying don't think a lawyer is necessary.

I don't think you can slam someone who put their trust in the wrong person. There's no guarantee that any lawyer hired would be any better.