NY Times: AG Settlement Without Investigation a Sham: $700 billion in negative equity

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

EDITOR’S COMMENT: The Times is finally getting it. They haven’t gone all the way yet, but they are moving in the right direction. There are bumper stickers around saying “Honk if I’m paying your mortgage.” Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But it raises the truth and reality of this situation.With $700 billion in negative equity reported, which is a very conservative estimate of the real amount, we need to ask ourselves who received the benefit of that crash? The answer is clearly the Banks.

If the loans were real and the terms were proper, and the Banks had their own money at risk, they would not have that benefit. If the crash was real and the downturn was normal, then then recession would not have been nearly as severe, the Banks would not have been able to cry wolf and we wouldn’t have given TARP and other bailouts totaling $16 Trillion — $3 Trillion more than the total of all mortgages during the mortgage meltdown.

Many States, without any investigation or with minimal investigation are looking to enter into a settlement with the banks that would absolve them of responsibility except for the money in the deal — now set at $25 Billion — all while the Banks are still raking in huge “trading profits” representing the money they skimmed from investors during the mortgage meltdown. Trillions are at stake and the AGs are considering a tiny fraction of 1%. Why?

Politics. In virtually every AG there is a burning desire for higher office. Contributions from the financial sector, representing approximately half of the nation’s GDP as we currently measure it, are needed for any political campaign to succeed. Being kind to the Banks at the expense of their state and at the larger expense of their country seems like a good idea, especially if you can say we just had this huge settlement with the Banks that provides relief to homeowners and will put a dent in foreclosures.

We don’t need a dent. We need a recovery. And if you and your neighbor are paying on those mortgages through your taxes, then the Banks shouldn’t get the money from the alleged borrowers, assuming there is even a balance left after the payments made by government and insurers. If you don’t like the borrowers getting a “gift” of principal reduction, consider this: you are again giving another gift to the Banks who used investor money to fund the loans, not their own money.

And consider the fact that without reducing the principal the number of foreclosures will be gargantuan bringing housing prices and the economy down even further. Do you want to stop homeowners from getting relief or do you want to continue giving gifts to the Banks? Check the news — FANNIE and FREDDIE are asking for more of your money. When do YOU want that to stop?

Letting the Banks Off Easy

NY Times Editorial

The banks want California, and the Obama administration hopes they can get it.

In September, the attorney general of California, Kamala Harris, withdrew from settlement talks between the banks and federal and state officials over mortgage abuses. Ms. Harris said California was being asked to excuse bank conduct that has not been adequately investigated and to grant the banks an unacceptably broad release from legal liability for the mortgage mess.

Those grave reservations have also been raised by other state attorneys general — including Eric Schneiderman of New York and Joseph Beau Biden III of Delaware. The administration, however, wants a deal. As pressure builds to get on board, Ms. Harris and her like-minded peers should stand their ground and avoid letting the banks off easy.

The administration says a settlement today would quickly deliver relief to needy borrowers. That’s true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. Early word of the proposed settlement indicates that banks would reduce the balances on a million or so underwater loans by $17 billion to $20 billion. They would put up $5 billion to $8 billion to help pay for refinancings, counseling, legal services and other aid to homeowners. And they would have to adhere to tougher standards for loan servicing and foreclosures. That would be better than now but paltry compared with the potential extent of bank misconduct and with the scale of the mortgage debacle. At present, 14.5 million borrowers — and the broader economy — are drowning in some $700 billion of negative equity.

The administration also believes federal and state officials could effectively pursue investigations of unexamined issues after a settlement. We doubt that. The government’s history on challenging banks and holding them accountable does not inspire confidence. And for banks — threatened by crushing legal challenges for their conduct — the whole point of settling is to restrict legal claims.

The proposed settlement reportedly would prevent the states from pursuing claims against banks relating to fraud or abuse in the origination of loans during the bubble. (In some states, the statute of limitations has expired for bringing challenges for faulty originations but not on all loans in all states.) It would also prevent states from pursuing claims for foreclosure abuses, like improper denial of loan modifications. And it would prevent them from pursuing banks’ misconduct in their dealings with the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems database, or MERS, a land registry system implicated in bubble-era violations of tax, trust and property law.

The proposal would not preclude the states from pursuing the banks for wrongdoing in the repackaging and marketing of loans as mortgage-backed securities. But, as a practical matter, the ability to fully press such claims — and to achieve significant redress — could be impeded or blocked by the other constraints. Once one avenue of inquiry is closed off, it can be difficult to ascertain what happened along other points in the mortgage chain.

In effect, the legal waivers being contemplated would let the banks pay up to sweep wrongdoing under the rug.

For the settlement to be fair and meaningful, the redress from the banks must be far greater than the $25 billion that has been floated, or the release from legal liability far narrower. The best outcome would be for government officials to do what they should have done all along: develop the strongest possible legal case by fully investigating the banks’ conduct during the bubble and since the crash and then — and only then — talk settlement. In the meantime, the public is being well served by attorneys general who are willing to say that the deal currently on the table is not nearly good enough.

31 Responses

  1. carie

    We will NEVER have the answer to that question until we have regulation — until the government enforces your right to know your current creditor. Or, until courts realize — they are being conned.

  2. Mayor Bloomberg — today — message on CNBC —- asking to allow distressed debt buyers to more easily purchase the delinquent debt —- (which is already sold to debt buyers). Guess he means — less regulation. Yeah — we have that too.

    Distressed debt buyers — Mayor Bloomberg says — is the answer. They will modify — says Mr. Bloomberg. Mr. Bloomberg — distressed debt buyers — are the CAUSE of the problem. Sorry Wall Street is being occupied — and sorry thousands of jobs in the Wall Street distressed market have been lost, thus, you do not get the revenue you expected.

    Sorry — but, distressed debt buyers — were the CAUSE of the subprime loan (refinance) crisis.

    Regulate them. Until then — fraud will go on and on and on.

  3. Hi Greg H. I would love to know the answer to Carrie’s question as well. I’ve forwarded to her my email address to pass along to you. Will you be so kind to forward me the answer as well. I’m in a non-judicial state.

  4. […] #split {}#single {}#splitalign {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}#singlealign {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}.linkboxtext {line-height: 1.4em;}.linkboxcontainer {padding: 7px 7px 7px 7px;background-color:#eeeeee;border-color:#000000;border-width:0px; border-style:solid;}.linkboxdisplay {padding: 7px 7px 7px 7px;}.linkboxdisplay td {text-align: center;}.linkboxdisplay a:link {text-decoration: none;}.linkboxdisplay a:hover {text-decoration: underline;} function opensingledropdown() { document.getElementById('singletablelinks').style.display = ''; document.getElementById('singlemouse').style.display = 'none'; } function closesingledropdown() { document.getElementById('singletablelinks').style.display = 'none'; document.getElementById('singlemouse').style.display = ''; } Benefits of Investing in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)Listed Real Estate Investment TrustsEmerging Real Estate MarketsNY Times: AG Settlement Without Investigation a Sham: $700 billion in negative equity […]

  5. cariemac9@gmail.com

    Thanks Gary H.

  6. @Carie…..

    “Can anyone here tell me what the foreclosure mills come back with in a non-judicial when you tell them they have no proof of real creditor? How can you foreclose with ONLY a Deed of Trust? No mortgage—just a DOT. Apparently that’s what they are doing?”

    I can help you with your question but I lost your email address and for whatever reason I can’t find it again here.

  7. ANONYMOUS:

    I have asked the servicer and the foreclosure mill over and over—WHO is the REAL CREDITOR??? THEY DANCE AROUND AND WON’T ANSWER ME…

  8. And of course the ultimate solution is to just never borrow, just make the money and buy it. And if a big purchase item, figure it out, borrow from friends and family, and stay away from the big banks, the global banks…………….

    .this is the new economy, if enough people do it. And if enough people do it, why the big banks will loose…………but they will loose nothing, they will only loose profits and bonus’s………….

  9. @E. Tolle,

    I read somewhere here on the internet while researching,

    anything with a cash flow can be SECURITIZED. Before long your local toll booth, yes where you drive your car thru, the booth,,,,,,,,,,,,will be securitzed……………

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitization

  10. @E.Tolle

    in response to to your post.

    I have come across that case about fighting the method of money creation and fighting it out in court. And I agree, get rid of central banks.

    Purpose of my posts regarding the method of money creation in the USA and global now, is not to duke it out in court. But to open people’s eyes that money is not lent from other’s, nor depositor money. But to open their eyes that since it is all book keeping entry, or computer entry, and if you find yourself in your life situation such as loss of job or family problems or whatever the reason, and you find that you can not pay back to one one of these big global banks, why they are not out money,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so one need not commit suicide, or break-up a marriage or break-up a family over make-believe money so called lent or borrowed.

    I am trying to take off the seriousness of it all, while it is still serious, it still doesn’t matter. But, if you borrow from a friend, then you should pay back or work it out.

    It’s a game, since 1913 when Federal Reserve System of Banks started and has expanded to enslave the world in their debt based money system. Realize it is all BS but made to be serious. Learn about it and figure it out. That is all I am saying and hoping people will do, so as to protect themselves and get on with the business of exchanging a product with others so as to get paid..

  11. And it never ends —- quote —“representing the money they skimmed from investors during the mortgage meltdown.”

    From the investors??? Come on — the “investors” were the perpetrators!!!!!
    Not the security investors —they never owned your loan — but the INVESTORS — ie — the banks — and the debt buyers they do proprietary business trading with.

    Let’s finally get real here.

    As to modifications —- no mod by servicer —– identify the CURRENT creditor/investor. A modification is a modification of the original contract — and if the original lender/mortgagee no longer has that loan — they cannot modify it — and neither can their servicer. It is invalid and illegal — and if they do not get you now — they will get you later AFTER you have signed away all your legal rights.

    If you want to believe that the “investors were skimmed” —- you are just buying into the cover-up.

  12. @carie,
    They file a notice of default with the courthouse. Some courthouses will post “Trustee Sales” on their webpage. A filing is not a recording. So a NOD (notice of default) is subject to being destroyed by the courthouse after a pre-designated period of time. A courthouse I dealt with told me they normally destroyed them after a year, but kept them for two years after many people came back to request them.

    This is the first document that appears to give them the false power to do all the other things they do.

    In the document they probably mention that all prior trustee assignments are void and that they are the trustee.

    “If they say that, then there is probably a recorded document from the law firm in the ‘Trustee’ section where one of their attorney, or maybe a list of attorneys with the words ‘any to act’ are identified as Trustee and your name is there as the Grantor. But the signature inside the document is their own. You did not create that contract but they use it to do what they do.

    Next they are there for the Acceleration Sale/Trustee Sale or whatever they want to call it, outside the court house.

    Depending on the home or what’s going on, the trustee may ‘make the highest bid on behalf of their client’ who is supposedly holding the sale. If no bid is higher, the sale is closed to the Trustee, of someone else bids and they consider it sold (either way they will say sold), then they close the sale and the County Clerk records the day, time and amount of the ‘purported’ sale.

    Next if you watch the filings dealing with the Grantor or Grantee where your name is used, you’ll see all kinds of things filed…also search using the name of the purported pretender lender, because they’ll record things between the mill lawyers and the pretender lender and then a day or two later add your name as the Grantor to the pretender Lender.

    Look for Trutee Deed where the trustee who was supposed to manage the Deed of Trust under Contract law and Trust law has handed the title to the one who claimed to be trustee and did the trustee sale, and look ofr Special Warranty Deed to Fannie Mae (most likely…could be to someone else) look for any filings around that time frame using your name as Grantor, or Grantee, or using your property as the description as they pass recorded documents between themselves..sometimes it’s better to search all filings within a certain number of days with Grantor or Grantee using your name or the pretender name or any name from the law firm. You can tell the documents against you by the description of the property in the real estate records.

    After a while, you will get a visit from a Sheriff. She/He will knock on your door and deliver a notice that you are being sued, but he won’t tell you what it is, he’ll ask you to sign for it. He/she may be nice enough to mention that it is a time sensitive document and tell you have a nice day.

    Then you read the allegation and they include all kinds of paperwork and you think they are suing you for money because you are in the home they supposedly foreclosed on.

    You may prepare one case for ‘I don’t owe them, where is the note’, and they have something different in mind.

    At the court house, the lawyer, whoever, any to act, will call out the name of the homeowner they are suing, before it’s time to go into the courtroom. If you identify yourself to him, he’ll try to see if you need more time to move out, or if you are willing to pay them rent to stay there.

    (Puleeze, you owe them no money, why negotiate a contract in the breezeway/hallway so they can tell the judge that you’ve agreed you owe them money and you want to pay them to keep your home)…but…sad to say people will do anything to keep their home and look funny if those (the meek) who were robbed end up being made whole later on by the financial warfare that was waged on them by strangers. Everyone has their path..anyway, back on topic.

    So if you don’t talk to him/her, you end up in the courtroom, and of course the judge wants to swear you in…if you don’t swear, there is an intimidation factor involved….go by your heart, you can always promise to tell the truth and say it’s against your religion to swear to oaths to man because your oath is to your God or Creator…anyway, I’m off topic again.

    So the attorney may show you some documents..and ask you if you’ve seen them..this is his way of telling the judge you’ve been served the exhibits he/she is presenting as evidence before the court. If you tell the judge the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case, the judge will ‘try to get you to speak’ about anything…anything…to get them to have jurisdiction in their eyes to hear the case….technically they are supposed to prove they have jurisdiction without you having to say anything else after challenging them…but if you don’t keep quiet, and you answer anything, they will say they have jurisdiction. I’m no attorney, but they have to have subject matter jurisdiction with they are assuming/presuming they have otherwise why would the case be filed with them, and in personam jurisdiction, which is power over the person (and I do mean person) who appeared in the courtroom. They are very specific in whether someone appeared in person…if you have an attorney, then yes, you appeared in person…if you don’t know the things about the word ‘person’, then there is not much time to learn about that. I can’t do a crash course on the traps of court. Anyway, back on topic.
    The other side will ‘hearsay’ and say their client purchased the home at a foreclosure sale and you are on the property and you won’t get off and they need you to get off the property their client bought. Chances are likely they have filed enough documents to make it appear the home has been sold and transferred to a new owner.

    Anyway, once jurisdiction is assumed over the person, anything the lawyer says (without his client present) is hearsay…technically he should be sworn in and have to testify, but I don’t practice law (wouldn’t want to) but that’s what you are up against. A system that knows the rules and violates them as they play their game of who can overcome who and get the judge to sign in their favor.

    Needless to say, whatever you entered for your answer (hopefully if you’ve signed the document you at least sent an answer, even if it said, I don’t know them I don’t owe them any money…if you gonna enter the contract to go to court (by signing when the sheriff delivers), the least you can do is answer.

    And people who think they can say they didn’t sign the doc, by saying their son or daughter did it without their permission or their old granny signed their name but they have Alzheimers and didn’t tell them…well they have a Maxim…Notice to agent is notice to principal and notice to principal is notice to agent…so they’ll proceed anyway on that day whether anyone shows up or not.

    I learned more about what happened to me ‘after’ it happened. Prior to that I thought the world was fair, and that no one would bring a charge against another if there was no controversy. I thought a judge would view anything that was answered to decide whether the case should be in their court. I thought challenging jurisdiction would give me power, but the judge called me to her bench and asked a simple question and I answered it and with the worst smile you ever want to see from someone that has decided you are going to hell and they are taking you there, you find out that jurisdictional challenges are nothing to play with…if you are supposed to be quiet after you raise the challenge and let them figure it out, you are supposed to be quiet after you raise the challenge. If it’s a court of record, then proceed it with ‘on the record, the court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case’ and shut the f up. Period.
    No one in that room is your friend, otherwise you wouldn’t be in that room. It’s all a racket (court/racket). If they decide jurisdiction, then it don’t make sense to be quiet, you might as well have your say..I am not going to tell you what to say..I’ve spent a lot of time learning about corporate entities and how they make us assume the role of a corporation by making us assume the role of a person without telling us that’s the role we are playing…role playing..role playing..anyway…their corporation is suing your corporation, but they want you to be the one who settles the debt for who’s being sued, and the other side’s attorney is pretending to represent a client (that for all intensive purposes he could not show you a contract with that client’s signature on it, so how is it he represents a client without a contract), but you won’t hear me discussing things that shouldn’t be discussed.

    Anyway, if/when the judge decides to play God…if they decide they want your property, they may tell you that you have a right to appeal the decision but make up your mind fast.

    In my opinion, which this entire answer is an opinion, if you appeal, then you confer jurisdiction over the matter and it seems they had a right to hear the case and decide the controversy.

    Also, if that lawyer is gonna show you stuff and you answer yes you’ve seen those documents, then no matter what’s in your answer as an exhibit, it’s not admitted as evidence, unless that lawyer can see it and decide whether he will allow it to be part of the evidence.

    The judge probably didn’t read your answer, even if you said you don’t know them and don’t owe them any money…but maybe now they have and will and your results are different.

    In my answer, I stated, they were suing the wrong party, but it didn’t matter to that judge. I felt whoever told them they sold the property to them lied and so they had no right to tell me to get off my property when they should have sued the one who did the supposed sale with no standing to do it.

    Now a days, there are judges who are trying to fix what they helped break, but for all the souls (Creators within) they robbed of their right for peaceful existence (and yes, Creators are allowed to peacefully exist, but we also get some life experiences we would not get in the form of a spirit, so it’s all a learning experience in life), they still have to deal with what they do in life to other life. They cannot get away from the things they’ve done..because all is one, so no secret done by one would exist from another…all as part of the same Creator are equal.

    Now some tid bits..learn them if you must..use them if you dare..but realize just like that Judge and lawyer have to answer to their Creator for what they do, so will you…and what’s going on in life is nothing like what you’ll experience in spirit.

    This stuff here is only stuff..it was here before you got here, and it’ll be here after you leave. And The Christ said to get access to the heavenly fortunes you have to be willing to let go of everything, but people are physical attached and so while one is getting their life’s lesson in stealing, you get yours in how you handle the theft.

    Okay, point. What they are bringing to court is not real, it’s not alive…it doesn’t eat, sleep, drink or think…so they have to be fighting the same thing…something that is not real, not alive and doesn’t eat, drink, sleep or think.
    That thing has to be represented..so the attorney on that side is representing it…and they are going to make a ‘presumption’ (an assumption without facts) that you are representing yours…if that side loses, the attorney has to settle up and will probably contact a customer service rep who will cut a check…if you lose yours, you’ll either settle up and let them offer you to stay there and pay rent to them (a new contract so the attempted theft is a moot point because now they aren’t robbing you you agree to let them be the one you owe), or you will have to pay them court costs and get out of the home because what you represent, lost the case in their eyes.

    In about 7 days from the ruling if it’s in their favor, the judge will sing a ‘writ of possession’ or an ‘unlawful detainer’. If you read the definitions of that, it’s amazing how by definition they know they are disenfranchising someone from their property.

    In the mail, you will get a copy of the writ or unlawful detainer and it will say something like ‘attention all sheriffs in the state of (blah), on this day and this time you have my permission within immunity to ‘put your hands’ on all occupants of this property and remove the possessions within and secure the property …blah blah blah…I’m not quoting it right.

    A sheriff is sovereign, he’s real, he’s alive..(I never said we weren’t, but a right not protected is not going to be recognized by one trying to take it from you) – a sheriff is not like the things they played with in court…only someone with hands can put their hands on you, but it’s assumed he’s not putting his hands on someone with hands, otherwise he’d have no immunity for what he did, but you can’t put your hands on him if you are assumed to not be real and to not have hands, so you’d end up in jail for touching a sovereign one who was given immunity by a judge who has immunity, but not when acting against a sovereign

    So by that statement alone they are trying to indicate the one they gave permission to put their hands on you is superior to you, and they use what was discussed/revealed/not revealed/challenged/not challenged in cour tto give them the right to do it.
    Because in their legal definition world, you are nothing but a person and a person by definition (well heck, get a legal dictionary…not online…in your hands) and read what it is…it’s the ‘statutory definition’ because natural person is never pulled into statutory conflicts, and courts don’t have jurisdiction over natural persons unless they are a constitutional court and none of them are so they deal with ‘unreal’ things that have a body like the ‘body of a corporation’ but not real things that have a body, a soul, hands, and feet (do not suffer my feet to be moved), and ‘by my hand on this day’.
    Just saying you are Carie without indicating a status that is not of a person, you will be presumed to have “appeared in person”.

    Unequal things cannot be joined together…a maxim of law.
    Something real cannot be joined with something not real, but how do you prove it and how to you get them to recognize it?
    I ain’t saying nor can I say.

    An equal has no power over an equal…if the Creator in me is the same Creator in you, then I’d say from a spiritual perspective you and I are equal.
    If there is an affinity (look it up) within 3 degrees a judge must recuse their self from a case…affinity can be relationship…cousin, uncle, brother, sister’s husband, great grandmother, or it can be spiritual…but I won’t go there.

    Anyway, hopefully I gave you and idea of how it will (I won’t call it progress), digress in a non-judicial state.

    Everything I stated is an opinion, opinions are protected. If you want facts, you’ll have to witness them so the can be ‘your facts’.

    Unfortunately this will be the only time I’ll discuss this opinion this in depth. There are some paths you can accidentally trespass on by revealing things that One doesn’t know and they must learn it as part of their soul contract, it can’t be handed to them.

    Think of all the quotes that ‘life is the best teacher’ and you’ll know you can’t tell other people how to live their life. You break a Universal Law…the law of Free Will.

    An act that is not of my free will is not my act. One of their maxims. If someone forces you to do something not of your own Free Will (including by some of these laws people like to impose on others..but I won’t go there), you violate a Universal Law, so it’s absurd to expect the Universe to show favor for wrong deeds you do to others by your actions, but also show favor for wrong deeds do, try to do, or have done to you.

    Karma. What goes around comes around.

    I love all of us, One.

    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free, jure divino

  13. Neidermeyer:

    Don’t sign that krap. It is a ripoff in any event. No back end BS. Sue them for Quiet Title.

  14. Louise , Trespass Unwanted ,

    Just received a “perm loan mod” packet from my servicer ,, shaved the rate to 2% ,,,, and back ended a balloon equal to 70% of the original loan … the original loan amount was increased by the “arrears” … They want me to cave and obligate myself to a total debt equal to 3.5 times the current value of the property (and that’s just the principal!!!) …

    Nowhere in the packet was the lender named and there was all kinds of language excusing “paperwork errors” and all other misdeeds…

    Funny how this arrived shortly after the judge admonished plaintiffs counsel that they might “want to consider” settling…

  15. Something else sounded like they wanted me to sign my house over to them. Then the court was made me because I didn’t sign

  16. Yea your right Louise.They tried to give me a forbearance instead of a mod and you to had read some of the stuff they wanted me to sign to.Stuff like I will not be able to bring any future claims against them and something else sounded like they wanted me to sign myhouse over to then the was mad at me because I didn’t sign.

  17. Remember, when you sign one of these “agreements” to do loan mods or whatever the deal du jour is, you are making their fraud go away. Your signature removes the fraud from the banks’ documents. Don’t do it!

  18. If the state ag’s settle.Just imagine their is going to be a massive Exodus.Banks are going to throw everbody out of their houses.Settling with the banks will be giving the banks a green light everybody will be living in the street.

  19. Can anyone here tell me what the foreclosure mills come back with in a non-judicial when you tell them they have no proof of real creditor? How can you foreclose with ONLY a Deed of Trust? No mortgage—just a DOT. Apparently that’s what they are doing?

  20. The state AGs have no right getting involved if they really don’t understand what the Lowlife FAT cats big banks really did with our personal ID. The ag’s Should just shut up and go drive around in their tax payer limousine and let the homeowners and their lawyers take care of their own cases.

  21. Opinion,
    The way I see it, the only thing left for them to do is to create a new contract that replaces the ones in place now.

    After looking over the OCC claim form, I can see how submitting a claim over a theft in the hopes that they would realize the theft and satisfy our claim properly…well…it’s not going to happen.

    The claim form, a new contract appears to me, (thus why I’m calling this an opinion), to be entrapment of some kind, and will place the blame on the homeowner by virtue of the wording on the claim form.

    The AG attempting to settle with the banks, and throwing around a number like 25 billion…well AG, unless it’s $25 billion per bank then that’s a drop in the bucket and probably one CEO’s bonus.

    If the AG gets a settlement, I can just visualize (again an opinion), of them seeking to get signatures of those robbed, first. Then they would say something like, depending on how many people are claiming this settlement we will know how much to distribute to them.

    But a caveat I feel will not be mentioned, yet present (keeping in the mode of opinion), is that of the $25 billion dollar settlement each state AG is going to want to recieve some portion of it in return for the taxpayer dollars spent trying to settle the case, and probably offer some of those that ‘give up rights to be part of the settlement’, an opportunity to enter into a valid contract with one of the rogue lenders of choice for a modification thus creating a new contract and a new obligation…last one in overrides those that proceeded it.

    So people, my opinion is this.
    Any new contract (ahem, claim) will probably redefine your role from victim to perpetrator and recommit you to being fleeced of more money.
    I believe, all the property has been paid for through all the avenues including the Real Estate Investment Trusts, taxes, insurers, sweat equity payments from our own life energy and more.

    I believe the OCC represents the one with the deepest pockets and anyone keeping that claim form as is and returning it signed without modification will be so upset with the settlement and have their self to blame for lack of knowledge of another deceptive practice.

    I believe the AG’s $25 billion settlement may be subject to some cut off the top for the ‘supposed’ work they’ve done to come to the settlement. They say they don’t represent persons or individuals, but I have yet to find an AG that believes there are people for it to represent. Legal definition of State is People. But AG works for a corporate person called ‘State of’, so their interest is not in the real, live, corporeal, people of whom they should represent.

    People who sign onto these agreements will be presumed to be persons…I wouldn’t be surprised if the word person or individual is spread throughout the document to get people to be ‘less than who they are’, and sign on and lose even more rights by the energy of their own hand.

    This part is the only part that is not an opinion but a statement of fact. We’ve been robbed of our right to property that as free people we have, but by the presumption of the system many don’t see, they are privileges that can be taken away.

    Needless to say, the theft is visible and until something else is in place to serve as a replacement, like a modification that gets filed with the homeowner’s signature on it creating a new obligation and attaching them self to the banker/service, then that theft is still visible by all judges, land courts, and title companies.

    The more it sits there, the more it implicates them in the fraud.

    As soon as a new contract replaces it, then all is forgotten and forgiven.

    I am not going to paper over their theft with an agreement that doesn’t satisfy my being made whole from the dispossession and those that created the fraud and participated in the fraud are held accountable for theft of property that doesn’t belong to them.

    It is by man’s energy a home was put on that property. That man was paid in credits, not real money.

    The ultimate fraud is to demand payment in real money (which no one can get their hands on), for the issuing of credits when enough life energy has gone into that home to pay for it over and over and over again.

    Legal tender is not real money. If we are being punished for paying with paper then they should have disclosed that via TILA.

    I have yet to see the real party in interest come forward and say I owe them anything, but a whole lot of people filed a whole lot of paperwork, stating a claim of a loss of a right or an injury and I can’t seem to figure out who lost what or how anyone was injured.

    The judge that sat the bench and by her life energy, issued an order to all law enforcement officials in the ‘corporate state’ to give them permission to touch me and mine, needs to be judged the most harshly in this manner.

    A role of judge is a step beneath that of a God in our matrix. If I have not crossed their God, their God should not have crossed me.
    Their God did not create the heavens, nor the earth. Their God did not create the home I lived in, nor did their God put forth any energy in the care thereof.

    Their God will meet the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the creators of the home and the energy of the care thereof.

    I will not ask for mercy on their soul.

    Their soul contract has been created by their distorted view that they were greater than an equal.

    Namaste — The Creator in me is the ‘same’ Creator in the one who sat as judge. Same = Same. Equal = Equal. An equal has no power over an equal. It is by their own maxims and their own oaths and their own judgment that they will face the harshest judgment, as I am in their book of life, so are they in mine.

    As much as I am them, the same Creator in all life is in all life.
    I’m glad I am not them by the Karmic energy they generated by breaking the Universal Law of Free Will.

    It was not of my Free Will that I was robbed and there is no way to hide that except to get me to contract again.

    I choose to let this stand and make them fix what they’ve created.
    You kicked me out, you call me back and tell me I can go back home. Not, you kicked me out and I fill out forms begging to get what is mine back. No way. No way.

    Be well.

    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, life, corporeal, allodial, in jure proprio, jure divino

  22. Amen

  23. “The banks want California…” yes they want to STEAL it, not just drag it along in the settlement talks via their reluctant AG, then rent it out.

    The NYT editorial’s gist is finally aligning itself with reality, but until the courts, the regulatory agencies and the congress do, there’s nothing very impressive going to happen. The criminals should have their feet held to the fire, as they deserve.

    I get tired of hearing how “counseling” will be foreced on the borrower, when that’s a rediculous slap to an already injured and angry face. We don’t need counseling! Banks who think it’s okay to steal, and then okay to write yourself a deal to get out of your just punishment for stealing and then lying about it, and forging fraudulent documents to cover their own a88es need “counseling” of a different sort. Why aren’t the banks being made to get “counseling” for their criminal activities? If we let them skip jail sentences and continue to blame everbody else for the financial crisis they engineered and profited from, what’s to stop them from repeating their performance? If there wasn’t such a disconnect between congress and the people, the bad eggs on Wall Street would already be behind bars with Madoff.

  24. Could someone clarify something. CA code and elsewhere always uses language “mortgagee or beneficiary”. What is the difference between these two? Aren’t they one and the same? For instance if “lender” and “beneficiary” is the same entity on deed of trust isn’t that the same as “mortgagee”?

  25. Yesterday, the entire country claimed back its rights. All those victories were the result of petitions, door-to-door, pavement-pounding and, in short, action. Until we decide to really act, very little will happen.

    It may very well be that investigations and prosecutions will have to start at home. the price for the feds will be very simple: once we fully realize that they serve little to no purpose, we will ask that they be reduced to the minimum. Their problem, not ours.

    We have the roadmap to change the situation and resolve the foreclosures state by state.

    http://www.pfaw.org/

  26. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: AG settlement, bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, Ny Times, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  27. Ann, I read that one. My head is spinning reading the cases and dumbing down to the points that matter most to my personal situation and find the statutes ect that apply. The devil in the details so to speak. A bit confused with this one. Not every state can “quiet title by default”. Do you have a few sentences to sum up the ramifications of this one?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: