Barry Fagan Presses Harder On Wells Fargo

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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


by Barry Fagan

SERVICE 520-405-1688

Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank re: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint

Information about the company
Wells Fargo Bank NA
United States

Wells Fargo Bank has fraudulently altered Barry Fagan’s Deed of Trust and the attached expert opinion dated 1/12/2012 from Forensic Document Examiner Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel specifically explains that the handwritten page 4 has been altered on two separate versions of that original Deed of Trust. Barry Fagan has recorded all 3 versions of the same deed of trust with the Los Angeles Registrar Recorders Office on November 29, 2011 as instrument no. 2011-1608398.

The recorded Notice of Pendency of Action showing three different versions of that same July 9, 2007 Deed of Trust as originally recorded under instrument no. 2007-1622100. Judge Tarle, of The Superior Court of California, West District has taken Judicial Notice of that Recorded Document. Barry Fagan has submitted credible evidence from a forensic document examiner with over 20 years of experience that multiple fraudulent alterations have occurred on the “Handwritten Number page 4” which is located on page 3/4 of the Deed of Trust. All of the Deeds of Trust now reflect an entirely different handwritten NUMBER 4, and one of the exhibits also has a snake like line drawn on it, which is not present on the other two exhibits.

C.P.A. Shawn P. Adamo stated: “It is my professional opinion that the altered deed of trust is concealing an irrevocable assignment, and explains why Wells Fargo is unable to produce loan level accounting concerning Mr. Fagan’s loan. Wells Fargo claims that any level of detail relating to Mr. Fagan’s mortgage is non- existent. As a result, CPA Shawn Adamo provided two expert opinions, (one an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury dated January 24, 2012 and the other is a Feb. 6, 2012 complaint letter sent to various regulatory agencies) from C.P.A Shawn Adamo explaining that Wells Fargo Bank has failed to provide a loan level balance sheet accounting and is concealing the fact that they do not own Barry Fagan’s loan.

Additionally, forensic document Expert Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel has declared under penalty of perjury on January 2, 2012 that Wells Fargo Bank is robo-signing Discovery Responses by using multiple authors of the name Rhonda Bernard Thomas.(see attached declaration from Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel) I have also attached an affidavit from from forensic loan analyst/expert Javiar Taboas dated July 14, 2011 who is specifically stating that Wells Fargo securitized/sold Barry Fagan’s note and is fraudulently claiming continued ownership without any proof whatsoever.(See attached affidavit of Expert Javiar Taboas) Also attached is an illegally prepared Declaration of Default which is not actually signed by a natural person, but is signed by Wells Fargo Bank NA. This is a blatant California Civil Code Section 2923.5 and 2924 violation in that this illegally prepared document set in motion the entire illegal Non-Judicial Foreclosure.

Also attached is a letter from Wells Fargo Bank dated December 5, 2011 and states that Wells Fargo Bank is reviewing Barry Fagan’s file and will respond on December 15, 2016 (THAT’S 5 YEARS FROM NOW!). Barry Fagan claims that this was a form of retaliatory contact. Wells Fargo is a criminal enterprise that is attempting to illegally foreclose on my primary residence by way of fraudulently altered documents, robo-signed discovery responses, invalid Declaration of Default, no loan level accounting and Barry Fagan’s loan file needs to be investigated at the highest level within your organization to see that a crime has actually occurred! The law offices of Kutak Rock LLP located in Irvine, California needs to have Barry Fagan’s NOTE and Deed of Trust subpoenaed so that your own CFPB organization can inspect those documents to see that they have indeed been fraudulently altered and photo-shopped. Please also visit http://www.fedup99.com/following-barry-fagan/ to see that even Barry Fagan’s loan application was fraudulently prepared by Wells Fargo private banker Dalia Warren.
Complaint history

A Consumer Financial Protection Bureau specialist is reviewing your complaint and may contact you and Wells Fargo Bank NA to collect additional information. This could be a lengthy process, so we ask for your patience.

Thank you,

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
http://www.consumerfinance.gov
(855) 411-CFPB (2372)

27 Responses

  1. Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Re: County of Los Angeles Department of Consumer Affairs Complaint

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/87539568/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Re-County-Of-Los-Angeles-Department-of-Consumer-Affairs-Complaint

    Complaint Summary: Wells Fargo Bank has fraudulently altered Barry Fagan’s Deed of Trust. Barry Fagan has recorded all 3 versions of the same deed of trust with the Los Angeles Registrar Recorders Office on November 29, 2011 as instrument no. 2011-1608398. The recorded Notice of Pendency of Action showing three different versions of that same July 9, 2007 Deed of Trust as originally recorded under instrument no. 2007-1622100. Judge Tarle, of The Superior Court of California, West District has taken Judicial Notice of that Recorded Document. Barry Fagan has submitted credible evidence from a forensic document examiner with over 20 years of experience that multiple fraudulent alterations have occurred on the “Handwritten Number page 4” which is located on page 3/4 of the Deed of Trust. All of the Deeds of Trust now reflect an entirely different handwritten NUMBER 4, and one of the exhibits also has a snake like line drawn on it, which is not present on the other two exhibits. C.P.A. Shawn P. Adamo stated: “It is my professional opinion that the altered deed of trust is concealing an irrevocable assignment, and explains why Wells Fargo is unable to produce loan level accounting concerning Mr. Fagan’s loan. Wells Fargo claims that any level of detail relating to Mr. Fagan’s mortgage is non- existent. As a result, C.P.A. Shawn Adamo provided two expert opinions, one an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury dated January 24, 2012 and the other is a Feb. 6, 2012 complaint letter sent to various regulatory agencies explaining that Wells Fargo Bank has failed to provide a loan level balance sheet accounting and is concealing the fact that they do not own Barry Fagan’s loan. Wells Fargo is a criminal enterprise that is attempting to assert rights over Barry Fagan’s primary residence by way of fraudulently altered documents, and Barry Fagan’s recorded documents needs to be investigated at the highest level within your organization to see that a crime has actually occurred!
    Involves Real Estate Fraud?: Yes
    Recorded Document #: 2011-1608398

  2. Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Re: Six Requests for Judicial Notice Concerning Document Fraud, Predatory Lending, Loan Application Fraud, Discovery Act Abuse, and Robo-Signing

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/86574486/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Bank-Re-Six-Requests-for-Judicial-Notice-Concerning-Document-Fraud-Predatory-Lending-Loan-Application-Fraud-Discovery-Ac

  3. Ian, I think going to the recorder’s office and retrieving dos to try to establish a pattern is a good idea. It may take a while but you could look for your servicer’s / bankster employee (the guy who signed the assignment in MERS’ name) and see if he also signed for other companies in any capacity.
    If B of A, say, (the party after your home) submitted a credit bid at closing, but the trustee’s deed goes to another entity, does this itself demonstrate B of A had no right to make a credit bid? The answer depends on where one stands about Notice. Doesn’t the credit bid assume a fact not in evidence? That b of a were authorized to make a credit bid for another? The authority has certainly not been Noticed.
    Where is it to be found? Aren’t the only governing docs for trusts
    the PSA’s? Who would have had the authority to auth B of A if not found in the PSA itself? Where is it written that B of A had this authority, as surely that authority must be reduced to writing? Chances are, it’s written no where, in which case B of A could only argue any authority, if any, granted in the PSA to foreclose gives them the right to make a credit bid for another.
    I’d sure like to know what happens with the proceeds of the re-sale of a foreclosed home.

  4. chris/johngault- I cannot believe for one second that if each person on this site went to their courthouse, looked up and printed out the last 10 or 15 f/c by their ‘lender’, pointed out and proved the forgeries, backdating,and standing issues, and sent it to the judge(s), recorder’s office, showing a pattern (RICO), you wouldn’t get some attention, To take it a step further, if you went to the sheriff’s office, pulled the records from the sales of those same 10 or 15 properties, and demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the credit bid (most of them are) was not made by a creditor, because there isn’t one, and that the county, on just one sale for 100k for example, lost the transfer tax of 2-5,000 dollars. That’s ONE SALE, and there have been millions nationwide. The counties/cities/states/schools are all hurting badly, I believe they would jump on it right away. I am doing this next week, online retrieval of docs first, (5cents per minute, 5cents per page), and then off to the courthouse. And then file a ‘misprision of felony’ ? suit. That oughta fix ’em. Anybody else have any ideas?

  5. @ johngault

    Really? I’d like to see the evidence of that too.

    If we cannot have a relative bid on our property, then how can the banksters have “ghost” bidders and no money transfers to buy the property. Now, that IS illegal, not selling your home to a blood relative.

  6. stanyley putra said “WF will not let a blood relative bid on a home”.
    From the comments, I take it this is on a short sale? First of all, unfortunately, WF doesn’t have to agree to a short sale. Okay.
    Buuut, can a company discriminate in such a fashion when agreeing to a short sale? 1) I’m just not sure about that, but 2) if people want to be able to do short sales, we don’t want to do anything to mess with them. A short sale is one where the alleged lender is agreeing to take a reduced pay off where there has (generally) allegedly been default by the note maker (and this assumes they have a legit assg’t of the dot but right here, that’s not the issue).
    People who are selling a home may discriminate against a buyer IF they only own 4 or less properties, something like that. But WF
    allegedly owns a gazillion, so may they discriminate, even in a short-sale? I can see why they want to do so, but still hmmmm….
    Are short sale agreements in writing? They must be. Is this where the caveat about blood relatives is found?

  7. stanley putra and everyone:
    Really want to put the ‘balls to the wall’? (if that’s crude, please excuse me – best way to express) Take your blood relative or really good friend to the trustee’s alleged sale and bid yourself or have them. Take a videographer who must capture everything. You must register (probably get a bidder number or like that) and have certified funds in increments of at least 1k, I believe it is. Find out. When your home is up, call out your bid – 1k? 2k? 10K? If the only other bid is the alleged credit bid by some pretender with no right to make a credit bid, yours will be the only legitimate bid imo. If that were to happen to me, if I were the successful bidder over just the pretender with the pretend credit bid, if I got argument, I would then file something, lis pendens?
    on the property and let the battle begin. This is one way I can think of to try to get adjudication on those pretend credit bids if nothing else. Or do it on not your own home, but another, like a condo because:
    One foreseeable problem is that the auction holder on alleged behalf of the alleged creditor/lender may call out a minimum bid, like, say, 100k. That could certainly complicate things and I have no ready solution because the answer to ‘can they do that’ is unknown to me, but I’m certainly wondering. Anyone? Where is it written or what logic or something says that a minimum bid may be required at a trustee’s sale? I’m not at all sure a minimum bid is kosher. Now, the pretender can set the stage by its own bid of, say, 100k, but to set a min bid is not the same thing and I don’t know of any authority or basis for that. If one agrees there is no basis for a pretender or anyone even to set a min bid, this might add fuel to one’s allegation that one’s 2k bid were the successful bid (the only real bid if the pretender is not entitled to a credit bid).

  8. it just so happens i have a scottrade account. I think I might just take you up on that offer.

  9. HKcon
    Wells Fargo will not let a blood relation but a home. I could not bid on a house I lost for $100K and Hudson and Marshall would not let me bid. Then they listed the house for $30K. They sold it for $25K. Wells Fargo and ASC
    robosigned affidavits. I am a shareholder hof Wells Fargo. Why don’t you buy a minimum of 1 share at Scottrade. It will cost you $37. You can now go to shareholder meetings and participate in the lawsuit we shareholders have.
    Stan

  10. These are the Federal Reserve Board orders on the monetary sanctions against 5 banks–Chase, Wells, BOA, Citigroup, Ally—

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/81651559/Federal-Reserve-Board-releases-orders-related-to-the-previously-announced-monetary-sanctions-against-five-banking-organizations-Release-Date-Februar

  11. sorry I needed to post something to get the follow-up comments

  12. I like the idea of a short sale on my house…if it is to somebody who is going to let me live in it for the lower mortgage price that they get like a family friend or a relative…that is a true principal reduction…

  13. @ neidermeyer, that’s not the first instance of that that I’ve heard of, but I can’t for the life of me remember when or where I came across that before.

    Regardless, I think it’s a good thing due to its obvious fraud factor. But, and this is just my opinion, you need a questioned document examiner to go over that thing and tell it like it is. IMHO, it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on for what they had intended, but it’s worth a small fortune in proving exactly the opposite.

    I know a highly trained QDE person (Secret Service/FBI/CIA) who can do the analysis for what I consider a reasonable fee. Let me know if you decide to go that route and I’ll put you two together.

  14. @ Anh

    A win-win…for 2 parties…the bank and the realtor, only. What about the homeowner? Down payments, interest paid, upkeep, upgrades, all gone. What planet are you on? And let’s not forget “clean title”.

    The banks who are selling the home have made 100% profit, as they never loaned the money. So, they will take a short-sale, lose some of their ill-gotten gains, rather than modify and collect 2 1/2 times the value of the note, which by the way, the originators have insured, been paid for and never gave the proceeds to the proper authority/owner.

    I have a bridge for sale in NY, INTERESTED? You’re posting this “snake oil” sale in the wrong place, cupcake!

  15. @E. Tolle ,

    What would you think of a NOD produced by “WF attorneys” that had the defendants name and address in “mirror image” … something I think can only be done in a photo editing program such as photoshop? (YES I have that in my case) .

    P.S. I honesly believe that WF is not materially involved in my case although they are named as plaintiff (trustee) ,, I believe it is all AHMSI pretending to be WF. Maybe the REAL WF should give them a call and cover their butts.

  16. Does anyone have links to the most recent filings or rulings in these cases? thanks

    Bain v OneWestBank, MERS, n Deutsche – Washington

    Vinluan v. Fid Nat’l Title & Escrow – ” “

  17. Hey Enraged, I’m so fucken pissed I can’t see straight. What golden rule should I follow ?Do on to others or, He who has the gold?

  18. @Anh,

    What about KEEPING the house because, when we bought it, we had the money to pay for it and it stopped when we lost the friggin’ job because the banks had tanked the economy?

    Isn’t that a really, really good solution that will definitely get the economy bouncing again? Imagine! We don’t have to pay rent, we don’t have to pay a mortgage, That frees up the money needed to find a job, buy new curtains, get a car and… jump start the economy!!!

    Are you actually implying that the banks SHOULD have the right to foreclose? Have you heard of a little something called fraudclosure? If banks have no right to foreclose, what makes you think that they have the right to force a short sale? And why on earth would you want to sell to a “nice” family a house with a permanently clouded title?

  19. Use the consumer financial protection unit to get a quick response..

    Dear Mr. Davies,

    This email is sent to you to acknowledge receipt of an inquiry on February 13, 2012 from the Consumer Financial Protection Burearu, sent on your behalf, regarding your mortgage concerns.

    Your inquiry has been assigned to Alisha Bender, Escalation Specialist, who will review your file and contact you within 1-2 business days to discuss your concerns. She may also be contacted directly via phone at (866) 363-3091 Ext. 6139 or via email at Alisha.Bender@owb.com Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:00 am and 4:00 pm, Eastern Standard Time.

    You are a valued customer and your concerns are important us. We appreciate your patience and understanding while we review your inquiry.

    Respectfully,

    Monina Fontela
    Corporate Customer Experience
    OneWest Bank, FSB
    Phone: (626) 535-2300
    Email: monina.fontela@owb.com

  20. Short Sales On The Rise; Banks Offering Incentives to Borrowers

    Share|

    Borrowers can avoid this exit with a short sale!

    For 5 years now we’ve been a huge champion of the short sale. We’ve been banging and banging away at the banks because they didn’t share our opinion.

    There has long been an institutional reluctance among our nation’s lenders to embrace the short sale, but it appears they are finally coming around.

    According to Corelogic’s most recent numbers, short sales accounted for 9 percent of all residential transactions last November.

    In January of 2008, they represented only 2 percent. That’s a 350% increase in the amount of homes sold at short sale.

    Hallelujah.

    It may have taken them a while, but the banks are finally letting go of the arcane notion that foreclosing on a delinquent borrower is always the best option for them.

    The short sale has and will always be a much better alternative for the banks. In many cases, when modification isn’t an option, a short sale is better for the existing homeowners as well.

    It’s good for the banks because it’s the fastest way to bring down their massive backlog of foreclosures.

    Now that more and more foreclosures are lingering in the courts, banks now realize its the simplest way to get these homes back on the market, sometimes in just a few months.

    They may not get back the full value of the home but their losses are about 15 percent less than if the home was foreclosed on, according to Bloomberg News.

    It’s good for the borrower because they can walk away, legally, with little or no debt at all. Some banks are even offering cash incentives, as much as $35,000 in some cases, to entice homeowners to sell back their homes.

    It’s win-win! In fact, it’s better than that. It’s win-win-win! The stress, the headaches, the months and years of inaction, can be put to bed with a short sale.

    A short sale, in short, is quite simple. A distressed homeowner can sell the bank their home for less than what they originally owe. Banks will often agree to not go after a deficiency judgment if borrowers agree to a short sale.

    JP Morgan, who approves about 5,000 short sales a month, is giving the largest incentives, but more and more lenders are now agreeing to them.

    There’s a ripple effect here that’s good for everyone. The seller gets to leave foreclosure hell once and for all, and can get money to help them transition into a rental and start fresh.

    A new family gets to buy the home at a nice discount, and the neighbors don’t have to live next to an abandoned home or deal with having a non-caring faceless entity, namely the banks as their neighbor.

    The lawn guy, the bug guy get back to work, and the new owners buy new furniture, new drapes, and suddenly the economy is bouncing back!

    Banks might have thought foreclosing was the right idea. It wasn’t then, it isn’t now, and it will never be.

    http://southfloridalawblog.com/2012/02/08/short-sales-on-the-rise-banks-offering-incentives-to-borrowers/

  21. Every single day the criminality is more astonishing than the day before. The AGs are going to have to get the wrath from each and every one of us tomorrow morning. They CANNOT sign off on this deal, period.

    The release is huge and CANNOT stand. We must refuse to be sold off like cattle to a stockyard. This is surpassing the pre-revolutionary days of old. I imagine this is what 1775 must have felt like.

  22. http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/the-real-estate-forfeiture-settlement-is-a-mirage/

    In one of his articles yesterday at Firedoglake, David Dayen mentioned that the settlement agreement has not been reduced to writing.

    That is astonishing.

    Let me repeat. That. Is. Astonishing.

    The biggest problem with settlement agreements in particular, and all agreements in general, is reaching a so-called ‘meeting of the minds’ regarding the details and ‘chiseling them into stone’ by reducing them to writing. As I used to warn my clients when I was practicing law, we do not have an agreement until it has been reduced to writing, thoroughly reviewed, and signed by each of the parties. That has obviously not happened in this case.

    Experience has taught us that humans dealing in good faith make mistakes, no matter how careful they are, and the potential for mistakes, misunderstandings and subsequent disagreements about the terms of an agreement cannot be overestimated. That potential becomes a certainty when one or more parties to an agreement is dealing in bad faith.

    That, my friends, is why we have a law called the Statute of Frauds, which requires that certain types of agreements be in writing or they are invalid and unenforceable.

    For example, contracts regarding the sale of real estate must be in writing or they are invalid and unenforceable.

    Given the absence of a written agreement and the vagueness regarding its terms, which is virtually incomprehensible to me, I cannot help but wonder if everyone involved in the settlement talks is being less than candid when they say an agreement was reached.

    Obama would not be the first person to declare publicly that an agreement had been reached when, in fact, that was a false statement.

    Why would he do that?

    To pressure reluctant parties to settle. It is a variation on the old ploy, “I have scheduled a press conference in two hours at which I intend to announce that we have reached a global agreement that settles all claims in this case and provides desperately needed relief to homeowners. These discussions have gone on long enough. Agree to these terms now because they are not going to get better and if you do not, I will announce publicly that we would have had a deal except for you. Then you can explain to your constituents why there is no deal.”

    Recall that he wanted to announce a global settlement during his SOTU address.

    Why would the attorneys general agree?

    A better question to ask would be how could they could not agree, given the severe financial limitations of state budgets these days and the practical impossibility of assembling and compensating a team of hundreds of dedicated professionals to work for many years investigating and prosecuting the numerous interstate and international crimes that have been committed. We are talking about millions of people who were defrauded during a period of close to twenty years and probably documents numbering in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. Imagine the resources that would be required to investigate and, figuratively speaking, get your arms around this vast coast-to-coast conspiracy that eventually went international in the form of exotic financial instruments of mass destruction that may yet still blow-up the world economy.

    Practically speaking, only the Department of Justice has the capacity to investigate and prosecute the heinous crimes committed by the criminal banksters, and that has not and will not happen because Obama, Holder, and Breuer have decided not to do it.

    This is why we have not seen a realistic and credible effort by any organization to thoroughly investigate this case. The little investigation we have seen by dedicated professionals working alone or in small groups has produced a few snapshots of wrongdoing in individual cases and resulted in a few lawsuits and indictments of low-hanging-fruit underlings, but that is all.

    Having been involved in defending people in many complicated paper-intensive white collar racketeering and fraud cases, I do not believe the state attorneys general had the ponies they needed to ride in the race.Obama called their bluff and they caved.

    I respect those who tried to do something, but I am not happy about their decision to not only acquiesce in approving of this apparent settlement agreement, but to try and sell it publicly. We are not stupid and we deserve to know the truth.

    The truth is that Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer, and Barack Obama are corrupt and the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. The Department of Justice has refused to investigate and they casually brush aside all questions by saying no provable crimes were committed.

    Come on, now. How in the hell could they know that, if they have not investigated the case? It is long past time to, figuratively speaking, slam them up against the wall, call bullshit, and hold them politically accountable for their lies. They insult our intelligence when they tell us that no provable crimes were committed.

    I am an experienced trial lawyer with knowledge and experience defending people charged with white collar crimes and I know what it takes to prove a case. I am calling them on their bullshit.

    I suspect Obama desperately needed two things: Money and a favorable settlement for the banks.

    If you have been paying attention, you would know that Wall Street donations to Obama’s campaign for reelection have slowed to a trickle and he cannot win reelection without substantial financial support from the criminal banksters.

    He needed to do something dramatic to open the spigot and restore the flow of their cash into his coffers.

    He also needed to find a way to conceal their identities and how much they were giving so that we the people would not know that the money was a payoff for effectively cutting off bank liability for Forfeiture Gate.

    What else has happened recently, aside from this ridiculous unwritten settlement agreement with a few numbers waved around that kind of sound impressive until one considers the vast scope of this criminal conspiracy?

    Obama announced that he ‘regrettably’ must accept Super PAC money in order to compete with Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president. Super PACs are instruments of mass electoral corruption because there are no limits on the amount of money they can contribute and their donors can remain anonymous. That means the criminal banksters can anonymously pay him off with millions.

    When I step back and look at this deal, I do not see an enforceable deal. I see the mirage of a deal. I do not believe anything has changed. The forfeitures relying on forged documents will continue. The states will get some bankster cost-of-doing-business bribe money to shut-up and few, if any, homeowners will ever see the ridiculous and insulting $1800 bribe.

    And that, my friends, is yet another monstrous con.

    Classic Obama extend and pretend.

    And to the state attorneys general, I say: Tell us the truth and save your self-respect and professional reputations. Do not go down with this con.

  23. This is us, in a few months. Actually, I was thinking that the best way to get rid of all the banks is to declare, state by state, a secession. Each state becoming an independant, sovereign country, with its own money, its own bank, it own government. We already know how to do it: Isn’t N. Dakota the only state to have escaped the desolation of foreclosures by virtue of the fact that they… have they own banks and don’t allow nationwide monsters in their states?

    There is our answer. I’ve always said that it would come to that: the return to human scale, controllable entities, one way or the other. Let’s secede!!! Lets form the Separate States of America! The money of my state will be the Ohbuck. Next door, they will have the Kentybuck. Let’s get back to autarchy. We produce and cultivate for our own consumption and export the surplust. We import what we need and don’t produce here. We develop our states the way we want to go. We assess taxes on imports, we don’t pay IRS anymore (what for? We don’t want to go to war against China or Iran, right?), no need to look at Romney, Gingrich or Obama, we become a sovereign state.

    Let’s watch Greece very closely and see how they pull out of Europe. Then, if they are successful, we can reproduce what they did and kiss anything federal goodbye.

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2012/02/greece-will-leave-eu-they-should-do-it-now/

  24. Hi! I filed a complaint with the CFPB against Wells and Wells gave me some BS response. I don’t think the CFPB does anything else besides tell me Wells responded. Aside from that, I have been amassing documents showing forgeries and my own situation has some unusual documentation as well. Please contact me if you want additional information and the results of my investigation on Wells. I’d love to share. Contact me at jordanalipscomb@gmail.com

  25. @Eule,

    Anything Chase has to repay is music to my ears… although 27 millions is peanuts. We need hundreds of class actions like this one to accomp.lish what gov doesn’t want to do: get rid of the banks.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: