States Commence the Inevitable “Tobacco” Litigation Against Banks — Arizona Leading

Sometime back in the early Spring and Summer of this year, I had a series of meetings with Arizona officials from the legislative and executive branch right up to the top, an Alabama Class Action firm of some repute, and telephone conversations with the U.S. Attorney, and several other class action attorneys researching “relater” and class actions.

I presented a plan to Arizona and others whereby if they would take certain actions, a vast sum of uncollected taxes, filing fees, late fees, and penalties could be assessed against the 100 or so of the main perpetrators of the largest criminal enterprise and financial coup d’etat in history.

In Arizona this would have meant recoupment of revenues that would have satisfied the current budget deficit in full and left a surplus in the State’s treasury. The same is true for many other states. The same is true for the Federal government. Foreclosing on the tax liens would have been easy — taking the mortgages claimed to be owned by the pretender lenders, restructuring them to fit with reality, re-funding many of the mortgages with money from local community banks and credit unions who were not playing the derivative securitization game, satisfying the tax liens, creating commerce with the local banks and putting wealth and real money back in the pockets of the homeowners whose pockets had been picked by Wall Street — money that would be spent in a real economy in each state enhancing the financial condition of ALL players, high and low, in the state and federal economy.

The people I met with are now using my plan, unfortunately without attribution, and preparing to commence lawsuits that will look very much like the tobacco litigation and settlements that took place years back. While this is definitely a step in the right direction, my opinion is that you opt out of any such class action, and that you pursue your own cause of action. Many of these people are and were in bed with the banks that caused this mess. It is my opinion that they will avoid the criminal part of the enterprise, avoid the tax revenues that are due to each state and end up with a friendly suit” that settles the “score” with pennies on the dollar leaving homeowners, cities, counties and states in the same awful position they presently find themselves.

The plan had as its premise that both the investors and the homeowners were sold financial products that qualified as securities. A security is ANYTHING (even a cow) that is sold to an investor under the pretext or promise that the investor will receive a passive return without participating in the business (like picking up cow-poop). For the pension funds, hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds the fact that a security was sold to them is easily understood. They bought a bond, whose indenture made it a hybrid security offering return of capital, and interest return, and ownership in the “underlying” (read that “non-existent”) pool of mortgages and notes. This by everyone’s account is a security.

For the homeowners the fact that they also bought a security seems to have been missed and some of the easiest remedies are being overlooked. The myth is that homeowners wanted a loan, applied for it and were approved based upon normal underwriting standards, perhaps with a few twists and turns. The reality is that they were targeted, sought out and sold by a vast chain of “bankruptcy remote” corporate shells fronting for the major players on Wall Street. This started with the sale to the investors of the mortgage backed bonds that also conveyed 100% of the ownership of the alleged asset in the alleged pool long before anyone applied for a loan. It ended with the sale of a financial product that was sold on the premise and promise of a passive return — increase the value of the property, refinance of the note periodically  so that they would continue to withdraw large sums of cash and avoid the crush of the payments that could become due when the loan reset to payments of unimaginable heights, many times far in excess of the income of the homeowner.

Both the investor and the homeowner were deceived in exactly the same way. They both bought securities that were misrepresented, intentionally to be of higher quality and higher value than was the case. We know it was intentional because of the presence of two undisclosed yield-spread premiums. The only way the investment banks and all the other intermediaries could stay out of trouble is if the loans failed and the credit default swaps paid off. This and only this was the source of repayment of principal to the Lenders (Investors): the loans HAD to fail because insurance doesn’t pay off on a performing or modified loan. They had to make absolutely sure the loans failed, and the dire consequences to the nation, the states, counties, cities and citizens be damned.

Now they want to screw you over AGAIN. Stick to your guns and your rights, the more litigation hits the judicial marketplace the more real your claims will appear. Once the Judge accepts your claims as possibly with merit, you will then be able to pursue evidentiary hearings, discovery, orders to compel and TRO’s based upon the contempt of court, violation of statute and other causes of action against the pretender lenders.

Soon the class actions and individual actions of the investors against the investment banks, servicers and other intermediary conduits will meet the class actions, individual actions and state actions for the homeowners/consumers and arrive at the obvious conclusion that if they cooperate rather than fear an internecine squabble, they end this problem once and for all — returning homeowners, cities, counties, states and the nation to true normalcy.

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

November 3, 2009

States Are Pondering Fraud Suits Against Banks

By DAVID STREITFELD and JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF

PHOENIX — Newly empowered by the Supreme Court, the attorneys general of several states hit hard by the housing collapse are exploring consumer fraud suits against major mortgage lenders.

Frustrated by the banks’ inability or unwillingness to stop an avalanche of foreclosures, the states are considering lawsuits over the creation and marketing of millions of bad loans as well as the dismal pace of mortgage modifications.

Such cases would have been impossible until recently, because federal regulators had exclusive oversight of national banks. But a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision in June allowed the states to exercise their own supervision, giving them significant leverage.

“We tried to use the tool to be persuasive with the banks,” Arizona’s attorney general, Terry Goddard, said in an interview. “But their waterfall of excuses, the abysmal numbers of modifications, tells us persuasion is not working.”

As a result, he said, “we’re moving much closer to litigation.”

While statutes vary, those of every state prohibit fraud in consumer lending. The attorneys general are considering the theory that the banks essentially perpetrated a vast fraud on consumers by marketing exotic loans that would prove impossible to pay back.

During the boom, the banks earned short-term fee income from generating the loans, then quickly resold most of them to investors or to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored housing agencies that eventually required costly taxpayer bailouts.

The Mortgage Bankers Association, a trade group, declined to comment on the possibility of state fraud lawsuits. A spokesman, John Mechem, warned that consumers would end up paying for any campaign of stepped-up legal activity.

“Lawsuits add to the patchwork of regulations that increases compliance costs for lenders, which in turn increases the cost of credit for borrowers,” Mr. Mechem said.

The states’ new power to sue banks arose from an effort in 2005 by Eliot Spitzer, then the New York attorney general, to discover whether several banks had violated the state’s fair-lending laws.

The banks balked at surrendering any information. The Clearing House Association, a consortium of national banks, and the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency filed suit, asserting the states had no authority over national lenders.

Mr. Spitzer’s successor, Andrew M. Cuomo, took up the battle. Lower courts agreed with the banks, but the Supreme Court, narrowly, did not.

Already, the states’ victory in Cuomo v. Clearing House is beginning to affect the legal landscape. “The handcuffs are off,” said Ann Graham, a professor of banking law at Texas Tech University. “The states can pursue justice now.”

In July, the Illinois attorney general, Lisa Madigan, filed a civil rights case accusing Wells Fargo of predatory lending. While the case was in the works for 18 months, Ms. Madigan said “it would have been much more difficult to bring” without the favorable Clearing House ruling.

The impact goes beyond housing issues. In West Virginia, a case brought by the state against Capital One, charging deceptive marketing of credit cards, was blocked by a judge in June 2008. The judge said the state did not have authority to pursue the case. After the Clearing House decision, West Virginia filed a request to reinstate the case.

Other states say they are just beginning to explore their new powers.

“We’re back on the field,” said Iowa’s attorney general, Tom Miller. “That’s really important. Certainly there will be some litigation.”

In Arizona, the number of state lawyers working on mortgage issues went from one to eight after Clearing House. “Before the court’s decision, we wouldn’t waste our time looking at national banks,” said Robert Zumoff, senior litigation counsel for Mr. Goddard.

The Clearing House ruling rolled back an expansion of federal authority that began more than five years ago. In January 2004, the Comptroller of the Currency, the agency responsible for regulating national banks, issued two rule changes that had a far-reaching effect on the ability of state banking regulators and law enforcement to pursue violations of state law by large banks and their subsidiaries.

The rule changes broadened the protections afforded to national banks against prosecution for violations of state civil rights and predatory lending laws and other banking statutes. In a statement announcing the regulations, then-comptroller John D. Hawke Jr. said that his agency would take the lead on preventing lending abuses by the banks.

“Predatory lending is a very significant problem in many American communities, but there is scant evidence that regulated banks are engaged in abusive or predatory practices,” Mr. Hawke said then. “Our regulation will ensure that predatory lending does not gain a foothold in the national banking system.”

In the years that followed, as the housing market roared to a peak and then began to plunge, national banks repeatedly and successfully cited the new regulations to turn back lawsuits alleging violations of predatory lending statutes and other laws by state attorneys general and banking regulators.

At other times, they merely switched their charters. When Illinois first started investigating the branches of Wells Fargo Financial Illinois for predatory lending in the spring of 2008, the branches operated under a state charter.

Initially, Wells responded to the state’s subpoena. But on July 26, 2008, the branches were put under the control of Wells Fargo Bank, which is nationally chartered. Wells promptly informed the state of this new situation and ceased cooperation.

With such maneuvers, Ms. Madigan said, “it was much easier for people in the banking industry or any other industry to hide their misconduct.”

While the attorneys general do not say they could have prevented all the shady deals that characterized the housing market at its worst, they believe they might have been able to stop enough of them to limit the scale of the crash.

“For the better part of eight years, the federal regulators were not being aggressive, and at the same time we were disabled,” said the Ohio attorney general, Richard Cordray. “There was nothing holding back irrational and irresponsible practices.”

The Clearing House decision was not a full-fledged victory for the states. The decision limits their subpoena power. While it is now easier to bring cases in court, it might be harder to develop them in the first place.

If the banking industry has its way, the victory will not be a permanent one.

In Washington, the banks are lobbying hard to try to block the states from becoming more aggressive. Lobbyists have urged lawmakers to pre-empt state rules that are more restrictive than federal laws. The Obama administration has opposed those changes.

Two weeks ago, the House Financial Services Committee voted to give the federal government the power to block states from regulating large national banks in some circumstances. Under the compromise, the Comptroller of the Currency would be able to override the states, but only after finding that the state law significantly interfered with federal regulatory policies.

In an interview in his offices here, Mr. Goddard and his top aides spoke repeatedly of their frustrations in dealing with the banks.

After the Clearing House decision, he said, there was “a virtual parade of national officers of national banks” coming through, ostensibly eager to find a common ground to help stanch foreclosures that are running as high as 7,000 a month in Arizona.

But Mr. Goddard, a former mayor of Phoenix, said the lenders were often unable or unwilling to provide him with elementary information, including how many and what kind of loans they have in the state.

The banks have been imploring Mr. Goddard to tell homeowners in default to get in touch with them, opening a dialogue. So he has. But the homeowners say they call and get no response.

“People call and get a runaround,” Mr. Goddard said. “The paperwork gets lost. It’s time to stop this absurd dance.”

He would rather have a solution to the foreclosure problem today than a court victory in three years. But since he is not getting a prompt solution, that leaves only the hope of legal action, in his view. Any case will most likely be a major effort involving multiple states.

“Maybe the banks think we don’t have the gumption to pull the trigger,” Mr. Goddard said.

Stephen Labaton contributed reporting.

14 Responses

  1. Nice and informative refinance, mortgage, marketing information. These should be very helpful for my users.

    Gia

  2. zurenarrh: See this article – New Shockwaves From Courts and Accounting Board: The Next Financial Crisis Hits Wall Street, as Judges Start Nixing Foreclosures
    By PAM MARTENS (at http://www.counterpunch.org/martens10212009.html )

    with a mind toward what another reader had stated about Fannie as “depositor.”

  3. As I recall, the Fannie Mae loan lookup tool states “It APPEARS that Fannie Mae owns a loan at this address.” This language seems to provide her (and others) legal wiggle room. BAC saying “Fannie Mae holds the note” does not necessarily mean “Fannie Mae owns the note.” Fannie may ultimately assert that she is holding the note as a “trustee” or something. “Holding the note” without being the party entitled to receive payments from it means nothing to my non-lawyer, not-giving-legal-advice self.

  4. Dny,
    Thanks for the info. Checked credit reports, they all listed BAC as current creditor on mortgage; that may be due to the fraudulent assignment they filed at the county clerk’s office in their attempt to steal my house (got credit reports a month or two after the “assignment”).
    Fannie Mae says they own the Note in the online Loan Lookup Tool. In a response to my lawsuit, BAC admitted that “Fannie Mae held the Note” at the time I filed my complaint. But I still think that’s hogwash–the loan has been securitized. Currently, the only justification for my thinking that is this: Why WOULDN’T they securitize it? That is their bread and butter.

    I agree with you that Fannie and BAC f/k/a CW are conspiring to steal the house. Every day, I get another piece of the puzzle…but it’s still not complete. I’m working on it, though. BAC turned down my request for a copy of the original Note (including the allonge[s]) because they said that my letter was not worded in accord with the pertinent section of RESPA that defines QWRs. Of course, the section says nothing about any particular wording a QWR must have or what can or cannot be addressed in a QWR. They’re f—ing with me.

    Maineloanmodification,

    Thanks also for your advice. Do you have a copy of your Note or your client’s Note? Or are you referring to the fact that Fannie requires a blank endorsement?

    Two things are seem pretty clear to me:
    1. The Mortgage does not AUTOMATICALLY follow the debt, despite what the article that angry & not taking it dug up the other day said. Otherwise, why would MERS be recording all these assignments, as they did in my case and as you can see across the Internet? MERS’ whole racket is pretending that assignments are unnecessary–until they want to steal your house, and then assignments are indispensable.

    2. As you say, the assignments ARE fraudulent. Mine is a perfect example. As I said above, BAC admits that Fannie Mae held the Note at the time my complaint was filed, which was AFTER MERS recorded an assignment of the Note AND Deed to BAC. Just to be clear, MERS “assigned” the Note and Deed to BAC in order to take my house; I called BS on them and filed a complaint and got a TRO; BAC then admitted that Fannie held the Note at the time I filed the complaint and I know from the online Loan Lookup Tool that Fannie held the Note long before the “assignment.”

    So they apparently only filed the “assignment” in order to make everything look proper to a judge so they’d have less trouble stealing my house. In other words, the “assignment” was filed solely for the purpose of foreclosure, not to give notice of a change in ownership. MERS purports to have given BAC the Note AND Deed for value when MERS had no authority to give BAC the Note and there’s no doubt that there was no value/consideration given by BAC to MERS for anything, since MERS didn’t own anything!

  5. Neil Garfield is a credit to ALL lawyers not because of his techniques, but because of his commitment to ETHICS; Right and Wrong. Yes, it is that simple.

    Neil F. Garfield, Esq quote from above:

    “The people I met with are now using my plan, unfortunately without attribution, and preparing to commence lawsuits that will look very much like the tobacco litigation and settlements that took place years back. While this is definitely a step in the right direction, my opinion is that you opt out of any such class action, and that you pursue your own cause of action. MANY OF THESE PEOPLE ARE AND WHRE IN BED WITH THE BANKS THAT CAUSED THIS MESS. It is my opinion that they will avoid the criminal part of the enterprise, avoid the tax revenues that are due to each state and end up with a friendly suit” that settles the “score” with pennies on the dollar leaving homeowners, cities, counties and states in the same awful position they presently find themselves.” – Neil F. Garfield, Esq

    Another Garfield quote:
    “January 4th 2008, an open Letter to Dean Martin, Arizona Treasurer titled, “You are leaving money on the table – MERS and SECURITIZATION – Hundreds of Millions of dollars in receivables go uncollected”. The article states: “This isn’t a long letter because it doesn’t need length — it needs action.” “The fact remains that companies are getting certificates of title transferred to them when there is nothing in the record to support the chain of title.” “One day, in the not distant future, some lawyer is going to take a close look at these transactions and realize that not one of the modification, refinancings, short sales, foreclosure sales and subsequent third party sales is supported by a proper chain of title in the record.” -Neil F. Garfield, Esq (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/an-open-letter-to-dean-martin-arizona-state-treasurer-you-are-leaving-money-on-the-table-mers-and-securitization-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-in-receivables-go-uncollected/)

    Supporting evidence:
    The Arizona Treasuries Office reported: “Land fraud…and greed surround the history of Cochise College Park subdivision. Some lots were sold twice. Some mortgages were sold twice. Many documents remain unrecorded today. Some owners never received their deed. Some received deeds but never received satisfaction of their mortgage. Some paid mortgages in full and received satisfaction of the mortgage only to learn the mortgage was sold and the second sale never recorded. They paid on an unrecorded mortgage.” (http://cochise.az.gov/cochise_treasurer.aspx?id=174)

    My Pops is a Vietnam vet who made it out with all his sanity. He maintains that in order to survive that war, he had to get over his fear of death. To that point, my Pops strategy for surviving over a year in combat was to move in very small groups (Recon) and stay away from any form on large troop movements gallivanting carelessly through the jungle making noise, stepping on booby traps and alerting the enemy. To me, this is reflected by the statement: “my opinion is that you opt out of any such class action, and that you pursue your own cause of action.” There’s a big difference between “going to war” and “being at war”. Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. Man up!

  6. Zueranarrh,

    I have a similar situation with you.

    I am attacking the attorneys head on, as with a Fannie Mae/Countrywide loan….the Note is endorsed in Blank, so they purport it to be as good as bearer paper, meaning anyone who holds the Note is the Note holder who can then create an Assignment subsequent, THIS IS NOT LEGAL per the UCC laws.

    The Debt does not follow the Note, especially involving a charged off debt. The last several cases pointed out by Neil all highlight this shattering flaw in the Pretender Lender strategy. The Noteholder is the Lawful Holder in Due Course.

    “UCC Law – Holder in Due Course
    a) Subject to subsection (c) and Section 3-106(d), “holder in due course” means the holder of an instrument if:
    ◦ (1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and
    ◦ (2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 3-306, and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305(a).
    ◦ (c) Except to the extent a transferor or predecessor in interest has rights as a holder in due course, a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken (i) by legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy, or creditor’s sale or similar proceeding, (ii) by purchase as part of a bulk transaction not in ordinary course of business of the transferor, or (iii) as the successor in interest to an estate or other organization.”

    So, if you are dealing with Countrywide then you must file a Counterclaim for Fraud and Civil Conspiracy, because they are merely passing around an unauthenticated Blank Note, and they will likely claim that BOA is the Holder. OBJECTION!!!!!!

    Challenge all Assignments as Fraudulent Documents. Challenge all allegations on the part of counsel as HEARSAY.

    Sue them for Punitive Damages, and use Nosek vs Ameriquest as a controling case.

    OF COURSE, I am not an Attorney and this is not advice, this is just a fictional tale of what some other Pro Se Defendant might do.

  7. zurenarrh: Check all of your current credit reports, requesting them directly from each agency (you get a much more thorough report this way). (EVERYBODY should be doing this.) In them, you will see what continues to be reported. Also, if it’s a Fannie whole or MBS loan, you will see a reference to Fannie and a Fannie “loan number” which will be different from the original mortgage number.

    I believe that all these MBS loans – including ones that passed through equally sticky-fingered hands at a GSE like Fannie – were tabled funded (by an interim securitization “trust”) and not, as they constantly tell us, “sold after origination in the secondary market.” If your loan was securitized in a Fannie MBS, then Fannie doesn’t “own” it, probably never did, neither probably did Countrywide ever “own” it either. I believe that Fannie and the “servicer” (Countrywide or now BA Home Loans, or whatever it now calls itself) are conspiring to steal your property.

    I think you are correct to question whether there is a “holder in due course” of the note after all the things that have been done based on your note. I don’t believe that Countrywide or Fannie can simply “take the note out of the trust” and still claim to be a holder in due course because it has already been declared “in default” and to be subject to your defenses (I presume).

    Question EVERYTHING from your opponents.

    But remember, like most of us non-lawyers, I don’t really know what I’m talking about and am not giving legal advice.

  8. zurenarrh,

    I have another question….. Subrogation?
    Considering all the (faux)money flying
    around between different “interested parties”.
    Would any of them try toclaim the Note and
    right to foreclose?

  9. Forgot to add this to my previous comment/query…

    If in fact the PMI/CDS have been redeemed, that would mean that our “loan” has been paid in full and then some. It would also further call into question the identity of the Noteholder.

    I had been presuming the Noteholders were investors in Fannie Mae MBS. But if the Note is paid in full AGAIN by PMI/CDS (as opposed to being paid in full the first time when the Note was purchased by Fannie Mae from Countrywide), then that effectively extinguishes the Note and it is removed from the trust, if I read the Fannie Mae documentation correctly.

    If that is so, who now owns the Note? Is it even able to BE owned–Is the Note finally considered to be paid in full and retired? Does the Note even exist any more?

    Or did Fannie Mae pay off the investors with the PMI/CDS/bailout and then return the Note to itself with the idea that they’re going to still try to collect the amount of the Note from me and/or take the house? That seems to be the most likely scenario…

    If any or all of this has happened, that’s yet another reason why there can be no modification, which our lawyer still thinks is a possibility and the best case scenario given the legal climate here in MS…

  10. My wife and I were talking tonight about our foreclosure situation and she brought up the fact that we no longer receive a monthly bill from our servicer. I don’t think we’ve received one since the attempted foreclosure 2 months ago.

    My wife takes the absence of a monthly bill to be proof positive that the PMI policy and/or credit default swaps have been redeemed by the servicer and/or the Noteholder. I think that is probably true, but I also suspect that they are still keeping charging us every month and that, for the sake of argument, if and when we ever wanted to (or had to) just call the whole thing off and cure the “default,” the “default” amount would have kept accruing every month, making our “cure” payment even higher.

    Any thoughts on that?

  11. Housing values should be dictated by income, during the bubble years it is clear that the loose money was the major factor in the run up of the market. What sucks is that there is a clear human factor with all the home owners losing homes, and credit.
    I am a realtor in Manatee county, and I attended your seminar this weekend because I am sickened when I help sell a short sale for half the price the seller’s owe. At that price the homeowner could have afforded the payment, and would have an incentive to make those payments. When you are 200k upside down on a home worth 200k why would you stay? what’s the incentive. So often these people would have tried to do a loan mod, only to be offered a reduced payment of a few hundred dollars, and never a principle reduction. Then they call me. I can help eliminate the negative equity, but helping save their homes is next to impossible today. To date I have closed over 25 short sales, and saved my customers million’s in negative equity. Good, but it would be great if those that wanted to stay could.
    I hope that common sense can come back to the Judical system and save this country’s homeowners.
    joe murphy
    http://www.manateemoves.com
    short sale expert in Manatee county, FL I am here to help.

  12. are you kidding me???????? why in the world would I let the “government” stick their noses in my business?(again)! they all are the same crap, they are a big part of us being in this mess to begin with! why would or should i trust them? i have no proof to the following but let me assure you that this must be just another load of crap that the bank-gangsters are putting together to go under the radar and screw us all once more, don’t be surprise if there are millions of dollars going to all these “pretender” punishers on the “pretender lenders” ! it’s all a bunch of crap, man!!! this makes me so angry, i am more convinced every day that these politicians really think that we are a bunch of dumb assess just walking around waiting to be escrewed!!
    Now more than ever it’s all clear to me, that this is nothing but another conspiracy to “hush hush” the diabolic wrong doing the pretender lenders have done to our country.
    what in the hell can we do to get all these leaches off our backs? i will not partner in any way with the stupid state to speak for me, that’s exactly what’s wrong with our country ladies and gentlemen, we are so dependent on the government to “protect” us, BULL CRAP!! we need to really start looking out for ourselves, because! it is so clear that we can not and should no longer trust the damn politicians we elected to look after our best interest, they have not done that, and most certainly they are not about to do it now, they are about to get in bed ONCE more with the evil people that planned and executed their evil plan on us.
    How can they think that we would believe this load of crap?? what an insult!! Do you think that it’s coincidental that right before the crap hit the fan a couple of years back the bankruptcy laws started changing??? no way in hell I believe that, that also was part of plan, they saw it coming and wanted to make sure we had no real defense against their wrong doing!! the few cases that are being successful thanks to some judges is because those judges still have some human values and appreciation for their/our country, but notice how they are just a handful, perhaps the only and few people that haven’t sold our precious country to the devil. What in the hell are this idiots thinking?? oh wait! they’re not!!… absolutely agree with Neil, we need to stick to our guns and battles on our own, no one else is to be trusted, NO ONE! I find it laughable how all of a sudden the foreclosure problem our nation is facing it’s not a problem talked about by our high officials anymore, coincidence? NOT! Man I am angry about all this crap!! To victory America!!!

  13. I know for a fact my loan was meant to pass muster up front with the underwriters (if any) and then explode a year or so down the road, and by gum if it didn’t happen.

    Here’s how they did it:

    1. they shorted the escrow for county taxes by half, despite the closing paperwork showing the correct amount for the year before
    2. with my 1003 they did the following, even though I gave them the correct information and all or most of the info would be independently verifiable:
    -inflated by $25K the amount I originally paid for the house (my “loan” was a refinance)
    -did not even list the monthly payment I was making on another house as an expense
    -indicated that I had no children when in fact I had one in daycare at the time, so the daycare wasn’t listed as an expense
    -and so on

    The house I’m living in now is apparently a foreclosure magnet. The people I bought it from bought it out of foreclosure. But here’s an interesting fact about that: the person who sold the house to me was the daughter of the banker who sold the loan to the poor sap who was being foreclosed on! And the daughter said that her family had bought and sold houses in this manner for as long as she could remember!

    Hey, I’m not saying I want my house free and clear, I just want to pay for it how the bank paid for it–with money created out of nothing, money created magically out of thin air!

  14. I agree with Neal that you should stick to your own strategy and fight your case on all the applicable laws noted on this site and many others. When ever you think a governing body will help you, forget about it!. They all have some stake in it and will ultimately do what will benefit the government and or bank, not us! We are working on a class action suit against Well Fargo. Contact Robert @ 860-599-5557. This is a citizens suit not a business or government agency.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: