My initial reaction to this is one of outrage: "How the hell is this even legal?!" Though the article makes it clear that David Glass has found loopholes in the

My initial reaction to this is one of outrage: "How the hell is this even legal?!" Though the article makes it clear that David Glass has found loopholes in the legal system, and that therefore it is technically legal, it strikes me as utterly contrary to the spirit of the financial regulations he's managed to dodge. I would shed about as many tears for him and similar predators being smote by the courts as I shed for Prenda Law. There's plenty of "WTF?" to go around in this article, the usurious interest rates, the confession of judgement, and that people are falling for this. I am sadly not surprised that the banks are offering up their customers funds if said bank has an office in NY, even if not based there. I imagine the banks' legal departments are risk averse and consider that they'd have more to potentially lose fighting such bogus claims than just offering up their customers' money, whether said claims are legitimate or not. IMO, the New York practice of the marshals is some abuse-ripe legal cruft that needs to go. I do find myself wondering if remedy for this couldn't come from a federal angle. The US Constitution says that once affairs cross state lines, they become a federal issue, plus there's Wickard vs Filburn that's been used to make anything a federal issue if the fed wants it to be. I wonder if claims of violation of due process or the usurious interest rates could be used to smite Glass and other predators in this financial space.