Dividing Into “Them and Us” Keeps Housing Market Falling and Bankers Fat

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:


Living lies is a way of life in American politics. You take the truth, turn it on it’s head, and put out myth loud and often and it is often eventually taken as true — even those who are hurt by the lie will come to believe it if they hear it often enough. That is how most borrowers feel guilty about the mortgage mess and why they are willing to pay more for their homes and loans than the property or loan product is worth.

The Ayn Rand controversy is over before it begins. Rand’s writing is largely misinterpreted in my opinion but it did serve as the basis for maintaining “them and us” mentality — largely to our detriment as recent facts clearly disclose.

The myth grows as these red voters convince each other that the people in the blue states are ruining the country and siphoning off all the hard earned money of people who think government should stay out of their affairs. It is in the red states that people insist on keeping the government out of their Medicare without realizing that their media and educational system have been dumbed down to the point where they don’t realize that Medicare is a single payer government run healthcare system funded with taxpayer dollars. Taking government out of Medicare is the same as taking turkey out of thanksgiving.

The fact is that blue states have consistently produced more federal tax revenue than the red states — and specifically more than the blue states get in Federal expenditures. Conversely, the red states produce less revenue and take more Federal expenditures than they pay. These states have been subsidized for decades by the blue states who even allow taxpayer dollars to be spent on such controversial items as creationism in textbooks. In plain terms the blue states pay the expenses of the red states and without the blue states the red states would collapse into financial chaos. People in blue states have no objection to this arrangement because we are all one country. People in red states object to this arrangement because they are exposed to misinformation.

In similar fashion, mortgage fraud is being defined in terms of those who cheated the banks out of money by a variety of deceptions. We can all agree that those who practice fraud should be punished and their ill-gotten gains should be distributed back to the victims in some fair way. But the big mortgage fraud came FROM the banks and never happened TO the banks because they first defrauded investors and THEN committed fraud on the American consumer, taxpayers and the budgets, pension funds, state and local governments.

We can all agree that when a borrower actually deceives a bank into thinking he has more income and more assets than is the truth, that borrower should suffer many consequences. But the facts, like the blue state subsidy of red state self-reliant citizens, show another living lie at work here.
The facts show that the banks working through mortgage originators misrepresented the income of borrowers usually without the borrower even knowing the application had been changed. And the facts show that the consumer and investor lender relied upon appraisals that we’re dictated by the banks instead of being dictated by reality. So the shoe is factually on the other foot again. The lying and cheating was done by the banks.

Somehow the banks have spun the myth that the borrowers should be punished for wrongdoing even if the banks and not the borrowers were the wrong doers.

The convoluted logic for this injustice comes from the idea that it is just fine for the red state to be supported by blue states whom the red states say are draining America of its future. The bulk the mortgage fraud by the banks happened in high density population centers which means primarily blue states or Blue parts of red states.

By playing the red state living lie for all it’s worth, the banks have convinced many people that by punishing the banks and returning the Ill-gotten gains to the pension funds and homeowners, these blue state Free loaders will be getting another windfall at the expense of the red state. In reality, the reverse is true. Money that would otherwise go to revitalize the economy of all states — red and blue — is going to the banks because we don’t want to let those blue free loaders from getting anything.

And that is our story. The facts go one way while the lies go the other way. Right now the lies have it. Motion passed – we will continue to punish the borrowers for the bank misdeeds no matter how much it hurts the country — or how much it diminishes the ability of the blue states to continue subsidizing the red states.


Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts: Blue States Are the Providers, Red State Are the Parasites
http://www.alternet.org/visions/154338/ayn_rand_worshippers_should_face_facts%3A_blue_states_are_the_providers%2C_red_state_are_the_parasites/

8 Responses

  1. COUNTERFEIT BONDS, LORD BLACKHEAT OF UK PARLIAMENT, $16 TRILLION TRANSFER FROM THE FED—AND THERE IS EVEN A PETITION ASKING OUR GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE IT ALL

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83524833/Lord-Blackheath-Questions-the-16-Trillion-Transfer-From-the-Fed-is-This-Money-Laundering-or-Worse

  2. CALIFORNIA AG KAMALA HARRIS ANNOUNCES HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS 2-29-2012 PRESS RELEASE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83231093/2-29-2012-Press-Release-Kamala-Harris-Homeowner-Bill-of-Rights

  3. Divide and conquer–works every time. However, separation is an illusion. We have to join together to defeat these people who don’t understand that by hurting us, they are hurting themselves.

  4. Conservatives are actively lobbying for the passage of HB12-1156 and SB12-71 in the Colorado Generally Assembly.

    These bills support property rights and are being driven by the Colorado Progressive Coalition.

    http://progressivecoalition.org/legislative-work

    We are not red or blue. We are Americans under siege by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    We need help in Colorado to pass SB -71 and HB -1156.

  5. I fail to see how violations of the fifth amendment due due process and takings clause is a red or blue thing.

    In case one has failed to notice, conservatives and the TEA party support property rights and oppose the federal government insuring anything. Especially mortgages and the GSEs.

    Conservatives support enforcement of the contracts non bank lenders entered into with the U.S. Department of Treasury as they received TARP funding.

    Conservatives oppose fraudulent inducement and breach of contract.

    In my case, Nationstar Mortgage Llc is in breach of Fannie Mae Servicing Directive 09-36 (lender must notify borrower if HAMP loan modification is denied) as Nationstar receives HAMP money and its parent, Fortress Investment Group (stock: FIG) shorts the very mortgages that Nationstar originates.

    TEA opposes fraud.
    TEA opposes breach of contract.

    VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE
    AND JURY DEMAND

    Introduction: This complaint alleges inter alia that Nationstar Mortgage wrongfully foreclosed on real property commonly known as 81 Greystone Trial, Black Hawk, Colorado, 80422. Specifically, Nationstar repeatedly and falsely told Plaintiff that his loan modification was either in-process or had been approved, failed to inform plaintiff that his loan-modification application had been denied, and that this failure prevents plaintiff from exercising legal rights, including but not limited to, Chapter 13 bankruptcy, that would have allowed him to retain title to his home, which he largely built with his own hands.

    Plaintiff, Keith Cabaniss, pro se, for his complaint against Nationstar Mortgage, swears and affirms that:

    1. Defendant, Nationstar Mortgage, is a national mortgage lender that has transacted business in the state of Colorado.

    2. Plaintiff, Keith Cabaniss, is an individual who resides in, and previously owned and occupied real property located in Gilpin County, Colorado.

    3. The real property that Cabaniss previously owned has a common street address of 81 Greystone Trail, Black Hawk, Colorado, 80422 (the “Home”).

    4. The Home is known as parcel no. 1711-031-01-213, in the public records of Gilpin County, Colorado.

    5. The legal description of the Home is:

    S: 3 T: 2S R: 72W Subd: LA CHULA VISTA RANCH Block: 002 Lot: 013A & IMPS A TRACT OF LAND CREATED BY BLE 04-09 RECPT #122305 & CORRECTED BY BLE 04-09A RECPT #124137 FORMERLY KNOWN AS BLK 2 LOT 13 & EAST 1/2 OF LOT 18.

    6. Cabaniss was the first owner of the Home.

    7. The Home is located in the mountains of Gilpin County, Colorado.

    8. The Home has a unique and spectacular view of the Continental Divide and Longs Peak.

    9. Cabaniss designed the Home, and largely built and finished it with his own hands.

    10. Cabaniss purchased the land on which the Home resides in November, 2003; built the home from July 2004 through January 2007; and completed its interior and first occupied the Home in January 2007.

    11. On May 25, 2007, Cabainss signed a promissory note to Nationstar for the amount of $230,431.01 (the “Note”).

    12. The Note was secured by a Deed of Trust on the Home.

    13. Nationstar filed an action on January 17, 2008, to recover title to the Home by having the Gilpin County Public Trustee conduct a public sale of the Home (the “Foreclosure”).

    14. On information and belief, Nationstar did not own the Note or hold the corresponding Deed of Trust when it filed the Foreclosure.

    15. On information and belief, Nationstar sold the Note and had previously assigned the Note and/or the corresponding Deed of Trust at the time when it filed the Foreclosure and thereafter.

    16. On information and belief, Nationstar acted only as the servicer of the Note, i.e. Nationstar did not own the Note, but contracted with the Note’s owner to administer the Note, including to collect payments made on the Note.

    17. From January 2008, when Nationstar filed the Foreclosure, through mid-February 2010, Nationstar consistently and repeatedly postponed the sale date in the Foreclosure action.

    18. Cabaniss entered the Streamlined Modification Program Loan Workout Plan (“SMP”) February 19, 2009.

    19. Nationstar’s agent, Vessia, told Cabaniss on February 27, 2009, that his SMP modification had been approved.

    20. Cabaniss made one payment under the SMP.

    21. Thereafter, Nationstar called Cabaniss and informed him that SMP had been cancelled, and Cabaniss would instead enter a Trial Period Plan under the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”).

    22. Cabaniss entered HAMP in August 2009.

    23. HAMP requires that applicants complete a three month trial period by making the payments that would be required under a proposed modified loan terms. If a HAMP participant makes these required trial-period payments, the participant’s loan may be modified to reflect the trial-period’s payment terms.

    24. Cabaniss timely made his August and September payments under HAMP.

    25. Cabaniss pre-paid his October HAMP payment with his September payment.

    26. In September of 2009, Cabaniss called Nationstar to ensure that it had received his August, September, and October HAMP payments.

    27. By timely making his August, September, and October payments to Nationstar, Cabaniss successfully completed the HAMP trial period.

    28. Assuming that Cabaniss met other HAMP program requirements, Cabaniss’ successful completion of the HAMP trial period entitled him to have his loan modified in accordance with the trial-period payment terms.

    29. Nationstar confirmed to Cabainss that (a) it had received his August, September, and October HAMP payments; and (b) it was sending his plan to another Nationstar department to draft new loan documents for Cabaniss’ new and modified HAMP loan.

    30. Cabaniss’ HAMP loan-modification application was denied on or about Septmber 28, 2009.

    31. On or shortly after Cabaniss’ HAMP application was denied, Nationstar knew that Cabaniss’ HAMP application had been denied.

    32. Nationstar did not notify Cabaniss that his HAMP application had been denied.

    33. Nationstar was required to notify Cabaniss that his Hamp application had been denied.

    34. Cabaniss did not receive new HAMP loan documents from Nationstar.

    35. Cabaniss did not make further payments to Nationstar while he was waiting to receive his new HAMP loan documents.

    36. Nationstar consistently told Cabaniss that his new, modified, HAMP loan documents were in progress. The communications between Cabaniss and Nationstar, include, but are not limited to the following communications:

    a. Cabaniss called Nationstar on December 10, 2009, and informed it that he had not yet received any new, modified, HAMP loan documents. Nationstar informed Cabaniss that it was “still working to prepare new loan documents, could take another month.”

    b. Cabaniss called Nationstar again on January 26, 2010. He informed Nationstar that he still had not received the new, new, modified HAMP loan documents. Nationstar told Cabaniss that “everything is ok.”

    c. At the time Nationstar made the statements in the immediately preceding paragraphs (a) and (b) to Cabaniss, Nationstar knew that these statements were false.

    37. On or about four days after the January, 26, 2010, telephone conversation in which Nationstar told Cabaniss that “everything is OK,” Nationstar set a sale date for the Foreclosure.

    38. The Gilpin County Public Trustee held a Public Trustee’s sale of the Home on February 25, 2010 (the “Foreclosure Sale”).

    39. February 26, 2010, was the last date on which Nationstar could schedule the Foreclose Sale without having to file a new action to request a Public Trustee Sale of the Home.

    40. At the time of the Foreclosure Sale, Cabaniss had no notice that Nationstar intended to continue with the Foreclosure.

    41. Prior to the Foreclosure Sale, Nationstar provided no notice to Cabaniss that Nationstar had set the Foreclosure Sale, or that Nationstar otherwise intended to proceed with the Foreclosure.

    42. Cabaniss learned of the Foreclosure Sale on March 3, 2010, when he discovered a notice that Phil Heter, a Denver-based repossession/eviction processor and REO broker, that Fannie Mae now owned the Home.

    43. If Cabaniss had had notice of the Foreclosure Sale, he would have been able to exercise legal rights, filing a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, which would have allowed Cabaniss to prevent the Foreclosure Sale and keep the Home by restructuring his debts and becoming current on the restructured Note over time.

    44. After Cabaniss learned of the Foreclosure sale, he again called Nationstar. On March 9, 2010, Cabaniss spoke with Thomas Brown of Nationstar. Cabaniss asked Mr. Brown to have Nationstar rescind the Foreclosure Sale because Nationstar had (a) failed to provide Cabaniss with any notice that it was proceeding with the Foreclosure Sale and (b) had made multiple misrepresentations to Cabaniss regarding the status of his HAMP modification and of his Note to Nationstar.

    45. Brown and Cabaniss went through Nationstar’s records of the communications between Cabaniss and Nationstar.

    46. Brown stated that Nationstar’s records of its communications with Cabaniss comported with Cabaniss’ own records of these communications, which are reflected in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. Brown also confirmed that Nationstar had not notified Cabaniss of the Foreclosure Sale or of that Cabaniss’ HAMP application had been denied.

    47. Despite his concurrence with the facts as Cabaniss presented them, Brown and Nationstar refused to rescind the Foreclosure Sale. More specifically:

    a. Cabaniss asked Brown, “What Happened?”

    b. Brown responded, “Something transpired.”

    c. In response to further questions from Cabaniss, Brown would not reveal what transpired, refused to rescind the Foreclosure Sale, stated that he was going to terminate the telephone call, and then hung up.

    48. On May 17th, Cabaniss held a conference call with Geraldo Hernandez of Nationstar and Jeff Plaine of Money Management (a HUD-certified loan counselor).

    49. During this May 17th conference call, Hernandez again affirmed that:

    a. Nationstar’s records of its communications comported with Cabaniss’ own records of these communications, which are reflected in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint;

    b. Nationstar did not notify Cabaniss that his HAMP loan-modification application had been denied.

    c. Nationstar did not notify Cabaniss of the Foreclosure Sale date or that Nationstar was proceeding with the Foreclosure Sale.

    50. On May 20, 2010, Cabaniss spoke via telephone with Chelsea Giles of Nationstar Mortgage’s legal compliance department in Dallas, TX. He asked why Nationstar proceeded with the Foreclosure Sale despite having informed Cabaniss that “everything is OK.”

    a. Chelsea Giles responded that there had been a “miscommunication between [Nationstar’s] Loss Mitigation and HAMP department[s].”

    b. Thereafter, Cabaniss asked Chelsea “Why am I being held accountable for miscommunication within Nationstar?”

    c. Chelsea Giles responded, “There is no explanation.”

    First Claim for Relief
    Wrongful Foreclosure

    51. Cabaniss repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs.

    52. Nationstar’s Foreclosure Sale was wrongful.

    53. Cabaniss has been damaged by the wrongful Foreclosure Sale.

    54. As a result of the wrongful nature of the Foreclosure Sale, the Foreclosure sale should be rescinded.

    Second Claim for Relief
    Breach of Contract (covenant of good faith and fair dealing)

    55. Cabaniss repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs.

    56. As part of the Note, Nationstar had an obligation to deal fairly and in good faith with Cabaniss in its efforts to enforce the Note.

    57. Nationstar did not deal fairly and in good faith with Cabaniss in its efforts to enforce the Note.

    58. Cabaniss has been damaged by Nationstar’s lack of fairness and good faith in an amount to be determined at trial.

    Third Claim for Relief
    Fraudulent Non-disclosure

    59. Cabaniss repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs.

    60. Nationstar represented to Cabaniss that (a) his HAMP loan application was in process; (b) he would receive new loan documents from Nationstar that complied with the term of the HAMP trial period that Cabaniss had successfully completed; and (c) Cabaniss’ loan from Nationstar and the processing of his HAMP application was “OK.”

    61. Nationstar’s misrepresentations detailed in paragraph 60 above are false.

    62. At the time that Nationstar made the representations details in paragraph 60 above, Nationstar knew or should have known that these representations were false.

    63. Nationstar made the representations detailed in paragraph 60 above with intent that Cabaniss rely on these representations.

    64. Cabaniss relied on Nationstar’s misrepresentations to his detriment.

    65. Cabaniss has been damaged by Nationstar’s misrepresentations and his detrimental reliance on these misrepresentations in an amount to be determined at trial.

    Fourth Claim for Relief
    Fraudulent Non-disclosure

    66. Cabaniss repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs.

    67. Nationstar had a duty to disclose to Cabaniss all material facts that were relevant to the Foreclosure Sale before the Foreclosure Sale proceeded, including, but not limited to, the fact that the Foreclosure Sale was proceeding and that Cabaniss’ HAMP loan-modification application had been denied.

    68. Nationstar failed to disclose the material facts detailed in paragraph 67 above to Cabaniss.

    69. Nationstar’s failure to disclose the material facts detailed in paragraph 67 above to Cabaniss was willful and intentional.

    70. Cabaniss has been damaged by Nationstar’s willful and intention non-disclosures in an amount to be determined at trial.

    Jury Demand

    Cabaniss demands a trial by jury.

    FOR THESE REASONS, the Court should vacate the Foreclosure Sale, restore title to the Home to Cabaniss as title existed prior to the Foreclosure Sale, award Cabaniss economic and punitive damages, award Cabaniss all costs and attorney fees incurred in this action, and award Cabaniss all such further relief that the Court deems as is just, proper or appropriate.

  6. AFFIDAVIT OF DANIELLE STERLING–SHE DID NOT ENDORSE THE NOTE–IN JUNK V CITI

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83109881/Affidavit-of-Danielle-Sterling-she-DID-NOT-ENDORSE-THE-NOTE-JUNK-V-CITI

    NOT HER!! BUT SOMEBODY USED HER SIGNATURE

  7. Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo re: Motion to Reconsider Superior Court Judge Norman P Tarles’ Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83153190/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-re-Motion-to-Reconsider-Superior-Court-Judge-Norman-P-Tarles-Order-Denying-Plaintiff-s-Motion-to-Compel

    Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Re C.P.A. Shawn Adamo Regulatory Letter and Affidavit Concerning Accounting Fraud by Wells Fargo Bank

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83123630/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Bank-Re-C-P-A-Shawn-Adamo-Regulatory-Letter-and-Affidavit-Concerning-Accounting-Fraud-by-Wells-Fargo-Bank

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: