Illinois case demonstrates failure to follow the money trail.

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm


LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Notes and Analysis:  

This is the type of decision that can be expected almost every time when the homeowner or counsel focuses on the documentation rather than the money.  By not alleging the absence of a transaction with the foreclosing party and the absence of a transaction with any predecessor to the foreclosing party, the property owner essentially conceded its case before it began.

I agree that the Bassman case represents a problem, but only in the same sense as all other negative cases present problems, to wit: bad law arises out of bad lawyering.

Lawyers tend to skip through a decision until there is a discussion of the law.  They should be reading the facts.  This court assumed the existence of the subject mortgages and assumed the existence of a default.  in its discussion regarding choice of laws between one state and another, it assumed from the record that an obligation or debt existed.  Litigants are just not getting the message–the courts are not going to provide any substantial relief to borrowers on the grounds that there are defects in the documents upon which the fore closer relies.  Most judges and most appellate courts essentially subscribe to the view that the only way to discharge a debt or attack it in bankruptcy is by a) alleging facts supporting an allegation that the mortgage lien was never perfected and that therefore the obligation is unsecured–an argument which is unlikely to be accepted without the second part which is b) the borrower denies any financial transaction with the forecloser and further denies any default, debt, obligation, lien or any other right to enforce an obligation that does not exist.  This usually should be accompanied by some statement that the borrower denies the signature on the note, mortgage or other “closing documents” unless it was procured by deceit and trickery in which the borrower was unaware of the true facts of the transaction.

Borrower’s counsel must take control of the narrative with objections even to preliminary argument.  And the question which frequently comes form the judge as to whether or not counsel or the borrower will concede that the borrower accepted the benefits of a loan should be met with an answer sounding something like this: “The borrower has had many loans in the course of his or her life, but has never entered into a transaction nor accepted any funds from the party seeking to collect on a nonexistent debt.  The borrower denies accepting any money from the named originator of the loan.  Further borrower denies that any intervening assignments were supported by either facts or payment.”

The lawyers in the Bassman case got stuck in the rabbit hole of standing and other technical issues while the real rabbit scampered away.  Unless the forecloser can plead and prove the elements required as the foundation for the documents upon which they rely, which means proving that the financial transaction recited in those documents actually took place, they are precluded from proceeding any further.  As an alternative, even the most doubtful judge could be persuaded to allow discovery to proceed and for the borrower to survive preliminary motions based solely on the denial of the debt, denial of the default, and denial of the foreclosers right to collect or enforce through foreclosure.

Bassman-ILL APP Bof A vs Bassman





32 Responses

  1. 241414 52911I enjoyed reading this a lot I truly hope to read much more of your posts in the future, so Ive bookmarked your blog. But I couldnt just bookmark it, oh no.. When I see quality websites like this one, I like to share it with others So Ive developed a backlink to your website (from 281105

  2. […] Read more… Posted in Banks, IL, MERS, News Around The Country, States « Szymoniak: Honesty Pays $46.5 Million in Whistleblower Suit It’s over for the banking cabal. 4.jul.2012 » You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  3. Prove the elements which are the foundation to the documents upon which they rely. Fight this thing from an accounting point of view and place less emphasis on the documentation submitted into the record.

    An affirmative defense and issue of material fact would be to contend and believe the plaintiff has sold its rights to receive periodic loan payments to a third party stranger under a separate and undisclosed agreement apart from the borrower and that plaintiff collects and processes periodic payments for the benefit of the stranger. Under the Generally Accepted Accounting Principals, receivables are considered sold, under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 140, when the buyer has “no recourse”. The seller must report a realization event whereby the loan liability is derecognized from its books of account since its payment rights have expired and no longer has risk or reward of ownership. Deny a default to the plaintiff and contend that a look under the hood to examine the balance sheet treatment of the subject note will reveal its not recognized as a financial asset on the plaintiff’s books despite holding certain loan documents. Defendant should demand strict proof with clear and convincing evidence the plaintiff recognizes both the subject note along with the corresponding liability on its balance sheet ledger. Without owning the asset, plaintff cannot state a cause of action to avail itself to jurisdiction of the court because it has not suffered economic injury or default to its payment rights. In addition, plaintiff cannot transfer the loan documents to a successor in interest if it doesn’t represent economic value on its books of acccount.

  4. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: Bassman, BofA Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  5. Interesting you should talk about this case from Illinois. From the beginning denying the debt ever existed was always a great strategy. Before I even read this post I was doing so and I actually drafted a prose answer and an amended answer for a woman in chicago on 7/9/2010. Where she actually denied the debt exist or that anyone has personal knowledge of the debt. It is two years later and they have switch attorneys, file a motion to dimiss, defaulted on admissions and the case is still pending. To see a copy of said pleadings if your in chicago. Look up 2010-CH-24009 OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC v DINAH JACKSON

  6. Really? Then you guys should all do that!!!

  7. @ Carie: NOBODY

  8. @Ray

    Did you transfer the Deed Of Trust? Seems like we could get in trouble for that…just wondering who would come after you for that…

  9. Carie It is 100% TRUE that you have to proof sub prime is only collection rights, Carie I remember telling you that I have fought my foreclosure for almost 6 years as Pro-per litigant and in 5 different courts, I also told you that I hired an Attorney for the Supreme Court of Appeals Second Circuit State of New York, my Attorney filed a defective document and my Appeal was Stricken, therefore I fired my Attorney and I took my case back as a Pro-per litigant the Court accepted my case back, nevertheless GMAC filed Bankruptcy and my case STAY, so I went to the city of New York Recorder county and transfer the Deed from my wife to me she died in pain an suffering on the 20 day of February 2012 Helen Quiroz died for this abused, after transferred the DEED to my name the Debt vanished from the city of New York court records, today I own my home clear of any debts.

  10. compare this eviction with the previous link to see where these gangster cops trained:

  11. @ all
    This is an excerpt from a bank employee Declaration she stated the documents attached hereto are true and correct copies of records that are kept by bank xyz in the ordinary course of business. It was in the regular course of business for an employee of representative of bank xyz who had knowledge of the act, event, condition, or opinion recorded, to transmit information to be included in such record. The record was made at or near the time of the act, event, condition, or opinion recorded or reasonably or reasonably soon thereafter. The records attached hereto are exact duplicates of the originals. The bank employee is referring to the Note and Deed of Trust. However, in response to our QWR, over a year ago prior to the bank initiating foreclosure proceedings the bank attorney provided us a true and correct copy of the original Note and Deed of Trust. The bank employee Deed of Trust has been altered. The Deed of Trust we received in response to our QWR has not been offered into evidence yet. Please correct me if I am wrong I do believe the bank employee committed perjury.

  12. This is huge. It protects freedom of speech and privacy laws and it is a major blow to big pharma.

    ACTA killed: MEPs destroy treaty in final vote
    Politics World — 04 July 2012

    Following is a description of this atrocity called “ACTA”, that was just defeated in Europe. Of note: ACTA would never have protected

    The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), was a multinational treaty for the purpose of establishing international standards for intellectual property rights enforcement. The agreement aimed to establish an international legal framework for targeting counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet, and would have created a new governing body outside existing forums, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, or the United Nations.

    The agreement was signed in October 2011 by Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States.[3] In January 2012, the European Union and 22 countries which are member states of the European Union signed as well.[4] No signatory has ratified (formally approved) the agreement, which would come into force after ratification by 6 countries. After entry into force, the treaty would only apply in those countries that ratified it.

    Supporters have described the agreement as a response to “the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works”. Large intellectual property-based organizations such as the MPAA and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America were active in the treaty’s development.

    Opponents say the convention adversely affects fundamental rights including freedom of expression and privacy. ACTA has also been criticised by Médecins Sans Frontières for endangering access to medicines in developing countries.[5] The secret nature of negotiations has excluded civil society groups, developing countries and the general public from the agreement’s negotiation process and it has been described as policy laundering by critics including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Entertainment Consumers Association.

    The signature of the EU and many of its member states resulted in the resignation in protest of the European Parliament’s appointed chief investigator, rapporteur Kader Arif, as well as widespread protests across Europe. In 2012 the newly appointed rapporteur, British MEP David Martin, recommended against the treaty, stating: “The intended benefits of this international agreement are far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties”. On Wednesday 4th of July 2012, the European Parliament rejected the agreement in plenary session, with 478 voting against the treaty, 39 in favour and 165 MEPs abstaining.[6

  13. Subject: SPREAD THE WORD!!!

    See below a template to send in a criminal report to the Sheriffs department to pursue felony charges against the banksters. This may be one of the most important powers you have as individuals to stop this crime against us all. Spread the word and cause massive reports to be sent to the sheriff in every county to push for criminal charges to be pursued. A massive public outcry is going to make a difference please pass this on. READ TO THE BOTTOM AND PRINT THE TEMPLATE TO DO THE REPORT!!!

    Those who REALLY fight, sometimes win; those who quit, give up and walk away, ALWAYS lose.


    From: “Randolph Frodsham”

    The Moneysburg Address
    This post first appeared on July 11, 2011
    Remarks rumored to have been delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia at an Opus Dei gathering on July 4, 2011
    Eleven score and fifteen years ago our Incorporators brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in free markets, and dedicated to the proposition that all corporate persons are created equal.
    Now we are engaged in a great financial and legal crisis, testing whether those markets, or any markets so conceived and so dedicated, can long remain totally free. We are met on an inflated balance sheet of that crisis. We have come to extend a mighty portion of assets, as a book value preserving holding place for corporate persons who finessed enormous fortunes through beggaring men and women so that those corporate persons might prosper. It is altogether fitting and proper that we, the free market acolytes of corporate persons, should do this.
    But, in a larger sense, we cannot hypothecate — we cannot market rate — we cannot estimate – these assets. The financially engineered persons, living free on the indebtedness and taxes of men and women, are the true heroes who innovated here. They have hypothecated and traded these derivatives far beyond our poor imaginations to do more than extend and pretend. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us their nominal trustees, rather, to be dedicated to the unfinished work that they who morally hazarded and secreted away so much have thus far so nobly advanced. It is for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining — that from these free and mighty and untaxed persons we take increased devotion to that cause for which every day they insist on the last full measure of Constitutional personhood — that we here highly resolve that these legal persons shall not have incorporated in multiple jurisdictions in vain — that our free markets, under Mammon, shall have a new birth of corporate freedoms — and that government of the persons, by the persons, for the persons shall not perish from the earth.

    Randy Frodsham

    Those who REALLY fight, sometimes win; those who quit, give up and walk away, ALWAYS lose.
    It is long overdue for homeowners to FIGHT BACK against the banks. In well over 90% of all foreclosures in California, I believe homeowners are victims of a felony perpetrated by the banks and trustees. You can get a FREE template, with instructions, to prepare a Felony Criminal Report that you take to the District Attorney for review and possible filing of a criminal complaint against the lender and trustee where the fin can be up to max $75,000.00. It is available for the asking by writing your request to Do it NOW! Remember, it’s FREE.
    I can also help homeowners (both in distress and also those that are doing OK), to challenge the Deed of Trust recorded against a property. (It is the DOT that allows your property to be foreclosed non-judicially – no one goes to court.) Often, the Deed of Trust can be voided thereby removing non-judicial foreclosure as an available option to foreclose. If the party in interest MUST take you to court to foreclose, YOU can then FORCE them to prove they have the legal standing to be there and to take your property. (This is NOT required in the normal non-judicial foreclosure.)
    Other alternatives are also available that may avoid foreclosure AND bankruptcy, and help you get on with your life. If, as it occasionally occurs, it is not possible to save their current residence, by using an alternative to foreclosure, You will typically qualify for a new mortgage to purchase a new home more than a year sooner than would be possible otherwise.
    If you cannot afford an attorney, you can still fight, AND WIN. Under our Constitution, you have every right to represent yourself in a court of law. It is called “pro se.” It’s sad that a lot of people feel fearful when it’s so easy to do it yourself. The best system I’ve seen at any price (It’s downright cheap compared to attorney fees!) for this is found at: . (Copy & paste to a new IE window, if necessary.)

  14. HuffPost take on the JPM-Enron new and improved scandal. Where will that end? And when? I think we’re nearing it…

  15. @E.Tolle

    I love what you wrote—can I send it around?

  16. Big Banks’ $76 Billion Per Year Federal Subsidy And What We Need To Do About It

    July 4, 2012 | 13 comments
    by: Avery Goodman | includes: BAC, C, GS, JPM, MS, WFC

    According to Bloomberg News, the top 18 banks in America are receiving what, in practical terms, amounts to a welfare check in the amount of $76 billion dollars each and every year. This number is approximately the same as the entire profits of the banking industry over the past 12 months. About $14 billion went to JP Morgan Chase alone. Tens of billions went to Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C), Goldman Sachs (GS), Morgan Stanley (MS), Wells Fargo (WFC) and many others.

    These numbers do not include extraordinary benefits given during the bailouts of 2008, such as FDIC insurance guarantees on bank-issued bonds, Fed purchases of then-nearly-worthless mortgage backed bonds at much higher than market rates, near zero interest loans directly from the Fed, etc. Add all that and the number would be a lot bigger. The $76 billion arises solely out of the implicit guarantee that the government will not allow “too-big-to-fail” banks to go under. A study by the IMF, cited by Bloomberg, showed that the expectation of government support shaves about 0.8 percentage point off large banks’ borrowing costs.

    Using the sum of assets owned by the 18 biggest banks in the USA, the collective government welfare check, each year, amounts to about $76 billion. For those of us who believe in free enterprise, markets and fair competition, this is disheartening. How banking executives can justify typically excessive pay rates, when all their profits are coming from the government? They are, essentially, the highest paid “civil servants” in the history of the world. Some bank CEOs are pulling down “civil service” salaries of $20-$60 million a year!

    Recent banking scandals have brought this issue into the light of day, but it is nothing new. The banks have been subsidized for many decades. But, the extent of the subsidy has gotten bigger and bigger over time. Banking “entrepreneurs” like JP Morgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon and his underlings, as well as others with similar propensities, abuse the subsidy even more, by gambling big with taxpayer backed FDIC guaranteed deposits. They’ve learned that they can flip the coin, and tell us: “heads I win, tails you lose. We keep the profits. You keep the losses.”

    It was disheartening to watch our “elected representatives” prostrate themselves when Mr. Dimon testified before a Senate subcommittee. The Senators were supposed to be cross examining him on severe losses taken on derivatives housed in JP Morgan’s FDIC insured depository division. A handful of Senators asked some pointed questions. But, far more fawned, begging for advice on how to legislate and one even suggested that his state would be an attractive spot for one of JP Morgan Chase’s back-office operation.

    Of the 18 biggest banks in America, five can be characterized as running full-fledged “casino-banking” divisions, wherein a multitude of speculative bets are made and taken, using derivatives. These are among the most dangerous banks in the world. JP Morgan Chase is king of that hill with over $70 trillion worth of derivatives stored in an FDIC insured depositary division. Thanks to the generous giveaway programs, described in paragraph 2, that saved its counter-parties from bankruptcy, Dimon’s bank managed to get through the Panic of 2008 better than many other banks. But, recently losses that may total almost $9 billion were taken on just one tiny subset of the derivatives book. JPM’s previous success appears to have been a combo of pure luck and political pull.

    We are led to one inevitable conclusion. There is only one way to protect the US and the world economy from casino-banking. We MUST break up the “too-big-to-fail” casino banks, including JP Morgan Chase. Neither fantasy numbers, nor stricter measurement of the so-called “value at risk” (VAR) metric, nor changes to so-called “tier 1 capital”, nor passage of so-called “Volcker Rules”, will ever solve this problem. Clever people, like Mr. Dimon, will always find a way around every one of them.

    America has laws these days about nearly everything. Too many laws. Too much regulation. It is almost impossible to do business without falling afoul of some obscure law or regulation, no matter how innocent the intent. The passage of a host of new laws won’t do much more than provide jobs for newly minted lawyers. The rule of law is critical for the smooth operation of any economy. But, excessive regulation inhibits the entry of new blood into highly regulated industries. That does the opposite of what is intended. It enhances the ability of legacy players to exclude others, and increase already hefty profits.

    Only two new sets worth of laws are needed, and they aren’t the ones that have been created by Congress. First, we need much tougher anti-trust laws. They need to be strong enough to break the back of the banking oligopoly. It would be much better if the UK followed in America’s footsteps and broke up its own mega-banks. To the extent that foreign mega-banks continue to exist, they must be prohibited from operating in the USA. Otherwise, the more honest banking system we create in America will face unfair competition. Furthermore, our own casino bankers will just move across the Atlantic to ply their trade from bases overseas.

    All big banks, including but not limited to ones that run hefty derivatives casinos, must be broken into parts that are too small to pose a risk to the financial system. Breaking up banks would be a favor to their shareholders. The problem of waste, inefficiency and dupication of effort which often characterize mega-institutions would be solved. Huge unmanageable banks are a drag on the economy. Their existence concentrates financial power and facilitates corrupt practices. Ill conceived government sponsored market rigging schemes, like the one we see unfolding in the Barclays Libor scandal, would become more difficult to put together.

    Some argue that large bank size is essential, in order to adequately serve large customers. That isn’t necessarily true. Plenty of large customers existed before the age of runaway derivatives, international casino-banking, and multi-trillion dollar banks. The business world functioned perfectly well without them. Groups of banks have always participated in sharing (syndication) of large loans, and the need to cooperate in making large loans may increase. Certainly, in a world of much smaller banks, syndication will be much more important, and grow more popular.

    Fund raising for highly speculative activities may become harder. More decision-makers means more discussion and the need for broader agreement. With many players holding power, who may have different opinions, getting them to agree may become more difficult. But, that will simply serve to stop a lot of bad loans from being made. It would be a check and balance upon unbridled optimism and stupidity. The system would be safer.

    A second set of new laws must address the revolving employment door. Too many alleged “regulators” move to and from the US Treasury/CFTC/SEC and Wall Street’s banks. Regulators should not slip back and forth from government service into well-paid positions inside those they are supposed to be regulating. That is a recipe for corruption. The door needs to be sealed shut. We have minor controls now, but they don’t work. Laws against such conflicts of interest need to be much stronger.

    Many economists are now saying that the world of finance is not rational, and this led to the World Financial Crisis. That is foolish to say, without first acknowledging that western finance is characterized by oligopoly and crony capitalism, not perfect competition. The oligopoly enjoys the benefits of central planning at the expense of everyone else. After mega-banks are broken up, and the revolving door closed, the financial system won’t be perfect, but it will be a lot more rational, cleaner and more efficient than it is now.

    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

  17. @E.Tolle

    I hear ya. When I noticed that the deputy sheriff (when he served me papers saying we had to leave) was wearing a huge bullet proof vest—it kind of freaked me out because I realized he was wearing it to protect himself from ME!!!

  18. And for those afraid of “whacky” sites, here it is again… from Dow Jones Newswire.

    JP Morgan probe focuses on $73m in improper payments
    Dow Jones Newswires

    04 Jul 2012

    US regulators disclosed yesterday that a JP Morgan Chase subsidiary may have received at least $73m in “improper payments” as a result of potential manipulation of electricity markets in California and the Midwest.

  19. Why not? Enron did it and almost got away with it. I can very well see JPM doing it too, along with WF, BofA and all the confirmed criminals. We’re about to uncover things most of us never even considered possible. Hard way to lose once’s trust and innocence. The result will be simple: because we will have learned so completely to distrust banks and government, nothing they will offer to do will pass mustard from now on, without solid documentation. What it also means is that the need for regulators and bean counters will be so great that employment for everyone should resume fairly rapidly in this country, starting with cleaning up the mortgage mess, clearing all titles, dismanteling banks, styudying how far reaching their operations were and hjow detrimental, replacing those with people’s-approved and run agencies, etc.

    Personally, i think it would be a good thing. Read on why.

    JPMorgan’s Troubles Multiply: Firm Hit With Energy Manipulation Probe And LIBOR-Fixing Investigation

    July 4, 2012 | 13 commentsby: Colin Lokey | about: JPM

    When it rains, it most certainly pours. It’s been nearly two months since Jamie Dimon disclosed that JPMorgan’s (JPM) CIO office had accumulated $2 billion and counting in losses on a credit derivatives trade gone awry, and the largest U.S. bank by deposits just can’t seem to catch a break. Just when the media had the public convinced (by way of a questionable interpretation of increased activity in the IG9 prior to single-name CDS and index option expiration) that the firm had sold-off three quarters of the assets responsible for the outsized losses, Reuters reported Tuesday that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has subpoenaed the firm for e-mails relating to its power trading activities in 2010 and 2011.

    Put simply, JPMorgan has resorted to claiming attorney-client privilege in seeking to prevent the FERC from accessing some 53 e-mails that the Commission believes could shed some light on claims by California grid operators that JPMorgan traders manipulated energy prices to the tune of $73 million. Allegedly, JPMorgan used a bidding strategy that allowed it to trigger a 50% overpayment of bid-cost recovery. While the investigation is ongoing, aggressively asserting attorney-client privilege in order to stymie the requests of a federal agency certainly does not make the firm look innocent.

    In addition to this, the bank was downgraded Tuesday by well-known banking analyst Meredith Whitney who said she would have downgraded the firm sooner had it not been mired in the fallout from the CIO debacle. Notably, Whitney did not seem optimistic about the firm’s upcoming earnings report:

    “…we don’t think there will be incredible appreciation in book value. These banks are not even earning their cost of capital. In light of what happened with this proprietary loss, who knows what it will be when the company reports next week. You have to see what these companies really earn…I think that’s going to be the most disturbing part of next week’s results…The fundamentals for the group are so bad not only in flat yield curve environment, but in investment banking…the fundamentals are lousy.”

    That’s about as downbeat as you can get and it’s a far cry from the rosy predictions of those who claim that the JPMorgan naysayers are simply fearmongers. Additionally, Whitney’s skepticism about the firm’s ability to increase its book value is important as those recommending the shares often cite the stock’s price relative to its book value as a reason to jump on board.

    There is also the lingering issue of the ongoing LIBOR-fixing fiasco. Although the media has largely focused on Barclays, JPMorgan has admitted it is also being investigated.

    When you combine all of this with the distinct possibility that the firm is still holding onto a sizeable portion of the Whale trade (via the original super senior tranche bet, any remaining short positions in high yield, and the remnants of the IG9 long position), and the fact that the firm has chosen to forgo future revenue in order to window dress the current quarter’s earnings via asset sales, and you have a stock that is nearly impossible to like. Short JPM or long JPM puts.

    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

  20. Again, from the fringe but with solid evidence (the kind of evidence MSM won’t mention. Gotta take your info where you can get it from… And if people want to qualify it as “whacky”, that’s fine with me. Lord of Blackheath was also called “whacky” in November, when he exposed the 15 trillion scandal to the British parliament. Look what is happening there now!)

    There are a couple of movies worth watching.

    The City of London Banking Cabal Implodes

    Things are moving so fast in the UK now I don’t think even I can keep up with it. I found this interesting web site at The Guardian that is updating the news in realtime so rather than re-write all this coming out, I’m just going to direct you to this amazing URL directly:

    Barclays blames ‘senior Whitehall figures’ for Libor scandal
    as Bob Diamond resigns – live feed

    • 2008 email implicates Bank of England and Labour government in Libor manipulation
    • Barclays briefs media on CEO’s departure – 3.25pm onwards
    • COO Jerry Del Missier also resigns – full details
    • Sir Mervyn King implicated…..
    • Will Diamond now ‘declare war’ on Bank of England?
    • Boris Johnson still values Diamond
    • Barclays statement here

    Note: The Bank of England is Rothschild . It is, like the Federal Reserve (co-owned by blood-line families along with the Rothschilds) , anything but Government owned, despite its official sounding name. All central banks are Rothschild owned but 2 (I believe Russia and China). The BIS is also a Rothschild enterprise.

    Posted by AMERICAN KABUKI at 7:24 PM 5 comments:
    Labels: Bank of England, Barclay’s Bank, Bob Diamond, LIBOR, LIBOR Rate, Libor Scandal, Whitehall

  21. Electricity back. Finally. Waiting for AC to kick in. Taking it easy in the meantime: it’s 94 in the damn house.

    For those who aren’t clear yet on the extent of bank fraud,. here is an article that send you to many others.

    Posted at
    The Many Ways Banks Commit Criminal Fraud
    Submitted by George Washington on 07/03/2012 20:57 -0400

    The Libor scandal seems to be waking people up to manipulation and fraud by the big banks.

    There are many other types of fraud they’ve engaged in as well …
    Here is a partial list:
    Committing massive and pervasive fraud both when they initiated mortgage loans and when they foreclosed on them (and see this)
    Pledging the same mortgage multiple times to different buyers. See this, this, this, this and this
    Cheating homeowners – especially veterans – from laws meant to protect people from unfair foreclosure
    Engaging in mafia-style big-rigging fraud against local governments. See this, this and this
    Cooking their books
    Bribing and bullying ratings agencies to inflate ratings on their risky investments
    Pushing investments which they knew were terrible, and then betting against the same investments to make money for themselves. See this, this, this and this
    Engaging in unlawful “frontrunning” to manipulate markets. See this,this, this, this, this and this
    Engaging in unlawful “Wash Trades” to manipulate asset prices. See this,this and this
    Otherwise manipulating markets. And see this
    Shaving money off of virtually every pension transaction they handled over the course of decades, stealing collectively billions of dollars from pensions worldwide. Details here,here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here and here
    Participating in various Ponzi schemes. See this, this and this
    Laundering money for drug cartels. See this, this and this (indeed, drug dealers kept the banking system afloat during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis)
    Owning and largely running the Federal Reserve … which is itself arguably a Ponzi scheme
    But at least the big banks do good things for society, like loaning money to Main Street, right?
    The big banks no longer do very much traditional banking. Most of their business is from financial speculation. For example, less than 10% of Bank of America’s assets come from traditional banking deposits. Instead, they are mainly engaged in financial speculation and derivatives. (and see this)
    The big banks have slashed lending since they were bailed out by taxpayers … while smaller banks have increased lending. See this,this and this
    A huge portion of the banks’ profits comes from taxpayer bailouts. For example, 77% of JP Morgan’s net income comes from taxpayer subsidies
    The big banks are literally killing the economy … and waging war on the people of the world
    And our democracy and republican form of government as well

    Posted by AMERICAN KABUKI at 5:10 PM No comments:

  22. Right on E.T. But, Sheriff Mack’s message is that honest county sheriffs can block and prevent these corruptions, all the way up to the presidential level. Currently, according to my info, head sheriffs you describe stealing homes are mostly trained on site in the mid-east evicting, while killing, Palestinians from their ancestral homes, even though they never owed any penny on them.

  23. As to the county sheriffs being America’s last hope….ask yourself where your sheriff has been in all this illegality. Mine’s been leading the charge with battering rams knocking down borrower’s homes at 4:00 am leaving injured kids in their wake. Even the heavily decked out paramilitary police squad was called in to rope off a 20 block area to stop Occupy from sending in reinforcements. For a fucking contract dispute?

    This is war people, you just don’t see it on TV, hear about it on the radio, or read it in the newspapers. A perfectly oiled oligarchy denies truth being told, it’s dangerous to their goals. We’re there people.

    The quaint little New England town of Keene New Hampshire has been trying to apportion funds to buy their own tank….now ask yourself….municipalities everywhere are cutting services….why would any small town need or want a quarter million dollar tank? What kind of society trades libraries for tanks?

    Independence day? I say we need independence from these kinds of mindsets. The use of force against the citizenry over contract disputes, millions of empty homes and millions of homeless people, the highest incarceration rate in the world, the private ownership of prisons with quotas guaranteed, all financed with the tacit approval of our congress and president by the same bad actors Chase, Wells, Sachs, and B of A. Fall behind in your payments? Go directly to jail. And if you think that’s a stretch, it’s happening where I live. Be careful to stand tall during the pledge, allegiance just might be enforceable as well.

  24. County Sheriff America’s Last Hope…

  25. is this guy up for reelection? i don’t believe anymore of this press releases. just like in San Francisco report of fraudulent documentations last march by Phil Ting, i have not read any follow up on this investigation. for me, to see is to believe. if an elected official announcing in pursuing criminal investigation on foreclosure fraud, that official should have no political agenda whatsoever. we have been burn out by these politicians promise. hopefully, these will not use this investigation for his reelection campaign.

  26. Yeah for Lynn Szymoniak, she has done a lot of good for America, and I give her kudos for doing it and Oh Happy Day for her rewards.

    We can not all be that lucky. She is just lucky! and deserving of her wins!

    Please fill out the review for the OCC.
    Even if you are in litigation this is not suposed to prevent you from litigating for more.

  27. Chicago, Illinois?? You expect a win for a victim, where even Al Capon ended up a victim?? Also, crooked judges know damn well there ain’t no money to follow, so they beat the victim on the head any way they can to kill her case. These lawyers were apparently typical of millions of pro per victims who are kicked out because they don’t follow the Satanic/Masonic court rituals referenced mildly in this case: where the dissenting judge says:
    “Lest the citizenry lose faith in the substance of the
    system and the procedures we use to administer it, we
    can ill afford to confront them with a government
    dominated by forms and mysterious rituals and then tell
    them they lose because they did not know how to play
    the game or should not have taken us at our word.”
    Moore v. Price, 914 S.W. 2d 318, 323 (Ark. 1996),
    Mayfield, J., Dissenting

  28. discovery- denied, set aside – denied, recuse yourself judge – denied, due process denied, can i have my money back, denied ( kiddin i did not ask for my money back whats the point )

  29. PSA is not a good argument because the mortgagor are not the party to the contract. just denied the debt, denied you owed money to the foreclosing entity denied everything. i think it will works.

  30. Here’s your damn money trail:

    “I have the proof that subprime is only collection rights. No prior loans paid off by subprime refinance (and some new purchases) — because all that survived was collection rights from GSE documented (false) default.
    The key is, that I did not sent the government agencies this info — THEY SENT IT TO ME!!! My SEC securities investor fraud “tip” was forwarded from the SEC to the OCC. When the OCC got the referral from the SEC, they researched… and THEY tell ME my Freddie Mac (of 10 years ago) was never paid off by me and is in DEFAULT!
    What the OCC did not bank on is that I have the canceled check!!! Highly unlikely after 10 years that anyone has the canceled check, but I HAVE IT. And, I have my payment canceled checks too. When I told the OCC (after they told me that I am in default) that I have the canceled check, they went DEAD silent. They did not know what to do. They were dumbfounded.”

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: