Millions Over 50 Now Hit with Foreclosure



Editor’s Note: The CNN article is one of many that broke this weekend about senior citizens faced with foreclosure, moving in with children, having their life savings wiped out by “modification” promises and other scams both by the banks and servicers and by private scam artists.

So many people who thought they had dodged the bullet are now finding out that they are stuck in quicksand. But it is an illusion created by Wall Street and if you simply DENY AND DISCOVER, (the subtitle of my workshop tour starting Thursday), you will find out why they fold every time when forced to open up their books and records. The reason is very simple. There are no books and records, there were no transactions and all the papers are fictional including the note and mortgage signed at closing. Practically nobody did a transaction in which money exchanged hands between the homeowner and the party shown on the note as the lender and the party shown on the mortgage as the secured lender.

And the reason this is important is that if investors and borrowers got their act together the foreclosure problem would vanish. It is clearly in the interest of the investors to modify these mortgages to fit with reality rather than to lose even more of their investment in a foreclosure.

The banks and servicers are luring and duping the public and the press into believing that there are serious modification programs underway. It isn’t true. The banks don’t want modifications, they want foreclosures because they don’t give a damn about the investor who bought bogus mortgage bonds and they don’t give a damn about the homeowners. What they care about is being too remote to jail (as opposed to the popular expression of Too Big To Fail, which is also a lie, along with Libor which is now known as Lie-bore).

Once they get a foreclosure they think they have a get out of jail free card. After all the state authorities put their stamp of approval on the foreclosure, Tittle MUST have been as represented in order for the experts in each state to have done that. But there are no experts in the states on what Wall Street and that is why pensions are getting slashed, cities are going bankrupt, homeowners are going bankrupt and why millions more people weary of paying under ht yoke of a debt that can never be covered by the asset they were told was worth so much more, are walking away in greater and greater numbers.

Millions of older Americans at risk of foreclosure
By Les Christie @CNNMoney July 20, 2012: 2:15 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — A growing number of older Americans are falling into serious mortgage debt, with more than three million borrowers over the age of 50 at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure, according to a recent report from the AARP.
Since the housing crisis started, more than 1.5 million homeowners age 50 or older have already lost their homes to foreclosure, pushing the foreclosure rate among this group to 2.9% in 2011 from 0.3% in 2007, according to the AARP’s Public Policy Institute. And another 3.5 million have found themselves underwater, owing more on their mortgage than their homes are worth.
Long believed to be cushioned from the blow of the housing crisis — because they owned their homes outright or hold large equity stakes that they could draw from in case of financial hardship — older Americans are “carrying more mortgage debt than ever before.”
“As the mortgage crisis continues, millions of older Americans are struggling to maintain their financial security,” the report said.
Underlying the problem is that more older Americans have mortgages than they did 20 years ago — and the amount of debt they owe is much greater.
The percentage of families with mortgages held by someone age 75 or older, for example, jumped to 24.2% in 2010, up from 6.3% in 1989, according to the Federal Reserve. Over the same time period, the amount of mortgage debt this group of borrowers owed jumped to a median of $52,000, up from $11,800.
Many of these older borrowers were saddled with toxic subprime loans issued during the latter years of the housing bubble, said David Jones, president of the non-profit Association of Independent Consumer Credit Counseling Agencies.
Older homeowners were often convinced to refinance their mortgages for more than they owed and use the extra cash to repair their homes or pay bills.
Related: ‘Retiring in 7 years. Am I prepared?’
These subprime loans were often enticing because the interest rates were low for the first few years. But the rates jumped after that and borrowers soon found themselves saddled with unaffordable monthly payments.
Compounding the problem was the sharp decline in home values. Nationwide,home prices have fallen about 34% since the mortgage meltdown began in mid-2006, according to the latest S&P/Case-Shiller home price index. But they were specially hard hit in states that attract retirees, like Florida, Arizona, Nevada and California, pushing many of the borrowers that live there underwater on their loans and making them more vulnerable to foreclosure.
Less time to regain ground: When older borrowers lose their homes, there’s less of a chance that they will recover financially.
“Foreclosures unduly weigh on older borrowers because so many are on fixed incomes,” said Kathleen Day, spokeswoman for the Center for Responsible Lending. “They have little time to rebuild their finances.”
Older workers who lose their jobs, for example, have a harder time getting hired than younger workers. And those who do find a job often end up taking a pay cut, making it more difficult for them to afford their mortgage payments, the report said.
And while the economy is slowly recovering and home prices are starting to stabilize, it may be too little too late for many older homeowners — especially the 3.5 million who are currently underwater on their mortgages.
Many of these borrowers don’t have enough time left to rebuild their finances before declining health or disability forces
1 of 2    7/22/12 11:19 AM
AARP: Millions of older Americans at risk of foreclosure – Jul. …
them into retirement and starts eating away at their savings.
Related: Where home prices are rising the fastest
The AARP offered up a few recommendations for easing the mortgage problems of older homeowners, including the use of principal reduction, or forgiving some of the mortgage debt that is owed on the home. The group cited growing evidence that default rates decline when mortgage balances are lowered to better reflect current market value of homes.
AARP also said more states should introduce mandatory foreclosure prevention programs. Under these programs, servicers cannot pursue foreclosures until a review and mediation is conducted.
It also recommended stepped up enforcement against foreclosure prevention scams that offer to save people’s homes, collect a substantial up-front fee and then do little or nothing.
A recent report by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights revealed that nearly half of these scams roped in older Americans, who lost a collective $16 million to these types of fraud.

77 Responses

  1. We offer our Loans to our clients In USD($), GBP(£) Euro(€) or ($) Singapore Dollars and in the following categories.

    Auto ,Mortgage ,Business ,Personal ,Real Estate Loan.

    Contact us for more information with the Contact below,

    Loan Agent: Mrs. Chua Tang.


    Thank you for your response.

    Yours Faithfully,
    Mr. Lim Koh (C.E.O).


  2. @ Anaheim gangster cops: are typical Orange County cops most of whom I heard are hired of mercenary killers of Iraq & Afghanistan who were there killing for the same BanGsters interests against whom you are fighting here….

  3. Yes, John Gault your right, no way to stop the dissemination, so they were expecting this. And if it is–that the lower lien holders – are doing the f/c for a purpose.
    Its all about hiding the priority’s and the redemption, which though this market, the redemption is nil, especially in Cali.

    ts very complex, and yes an attorney is great for somethings, except no attorney is going to say squat without a full title report, and that can be done yourself with just pulling the docs, if you know what the rules all mean, and who is on first.

    Thats what I am trying to sort out. who is on first and are the still there!

    I have a real idea how this was going to go down. The next month afte i PAID IN FULL, The old FIRST would have said “hey what about me?” I have been getting payments all these years, (the SERVICER) and I had no idea what was goin on, but I am still FIRST.

    So, about that house you thought you just “paid off” there is about another 100k OWED!


  4. Stop analyzing everything to death and ACT!!! It’s now or never!

  5. It looks like this to me: non-judicial foreclosure eliminates a deficiency judgment for that lender, but it also eliminates the borrower’s right of redemption. Making two loans to a borrower at the same time may come to have new meaning, with the borrower possibly being the loser…again.
    Most borrowers don’t know much about deficiency judgments, so would they have known that at least CA would rule in favor of a def judgment on a second if the bum who made you that second would sell it to another party before f/c on their first, and that that other party could come after you? I got a real problem with this. The lender did it for two reasons:
    avoid pmi (and more scrutiny) on the first loan and 2) the higher yield on the second. Or maybe they knew how this would work and they could
    get some otherwise unsalvageable dollars out of a sale of the second.
    Talk about a rip to the unwary consumer. If they had made but one loan, they would get what they get from foreclosure if non-j and no one could bother the borrower for a deficiency j. This is really frosting me. With my limited understanding, it looks like they avoid the one-action rule because the second is seeking to enforce a (unsecured) note, not involving the property. I shouldn’t put this here, but there’s likely no way to stop the dissemination of the material by the white paper guys for the network attorneys, and anyway, they’ve probably just been waiting to lay this on us for their own reasons.

  6. John Gault. Your barking up the right tree I think. We need to look into this a bit I think. You have found something~

    However…for most that get to this point, who would even want to redeem an underwater house, with zero chance of ever owning it. be it even with a clear title. Why pay more then it will EVER be worth again?

  7. I dont know the whole story so I can not judge. I know a lot of adults need rubber bullets shot into their booties. Especially banksters. The moms hopefully were not using the children to protect themselves. They should not have had them in danger, if it were possible and planned. Looked like it was organized and a group of outsiders came to it to start trouble, not the neighborhood. One real bad thing about this story is people like one of my hairstylist, that came in here and began making up her own story. She is why I looked it up. Her story was….. people are getting so stressed out financially they are beginning to riot and shoot each other. That is not a story that needs to be spread around. Totally not true and could cause unneccesary panic. Sounded like people were just shooting everyone and for no good reason. ALL UNTRUE. i quickly looked it up and read her the news. According to her the riots were beginning and mass panic would be taking place all over the U.S. soon. Her made up fear mongering. I dont like a child being shot with a rubber bullet. Better a rubber bullet than a real one. I would be protecting my children from confrontation. I have never seen any article in the news that was correct that I knew the whole story to. I put it on the web so people could see what is was and not riots due to the economy. My hair stylist was not the only one who brought this up and had it way out of proportion. From their discussions you would think the entire world was going into chaos. It is in chaos, but not the rioting kind of chaos. Financial and government chaos. Outsiders that traveled there to create a problem were the majority arrested. Organized trouble makers.

  8. @Martha – if you don’t want to hear ‘how are you damaged”, don’t look for
    that kind of answer from the competent r.e. attorney you go see. All you want for your consultation and poss follow-up is to get a professional opinion on the state of title. He doesn’t have to be ‘retained’ $$ for that, I don’t think. You’ll have to pay for his opinion of title, but it will be worth it if he knows his business.
    Skip what you signed or didn’t. Get to that later if necessary. You’re interested for now in what has happened with this property up til the loan your spouse got. Get there first. Lay opinion.

  9. I’m reading another CA deficiency case and now, Oh Mon Dieu! Could it be that the right of redemption (lengthy) survives judicial foreclosure, whereas there isn’t one in non-j f/c, where the time to cure is a very limited time certain BEFORE the f/c sale? There is a clue in the case I’m reading. (B of A v Mitchell, CA 2nd A District Div 4).
    Wouldn’t this explain why the banksters ‘favor’ non-j foreclosure (in regard to the loss of the right to def judgment), even if it cost someone (else, like the guy whose money is being mishandled) the right to a def judgment: they want to eliminate the right of redemption and get on with it. Hot dang.

    “…utillize its power of sale to foreclose the senior lien, thereby eliminating the Simons’ right to redeem; and having terminated that right of redemption…..” (I’m taking it this means by the process of non-j f/c)

    Now, I could be making a rash conclusion here, or I could be right. If I’m right, at least in CA, (I can’t know this minute about how this would work elsewhere – probably the same) those foreclosed upon with judicial f/c may have a right of redemption alive and kicking for whatever that might be worth if only some path to a new lawsuit. Obstacles surely. Impossible? maybe not. Probably take 5 more yrs to figure out a path and it’ll take some work by very good minds. Many rights of redemption, if i got this right, will have expired, but, some not.

    If one went to court and lost, did the court issue an order of foreclosure or did the bankster proceed on non-j f/c? I think this is important as it may go to one’s right of redemption re: non-j or was it really judicial foreclosure pursuant to the judicial battle? Must one be apprised of such a right of redemption, then? I don’t know, but it seems to me that if your f/c came about after litigation, and was in fact a judicial foreclosure, you should have been apprised of the right of redemption (that is, IF I am reading this right). Sure don’t want to give anyone a bum steer, but it seems a pretty important issue to me.

    I wonder if the folks who really paid for these loans know their right to
    deficiency judgment is being traded for non-j foreclosure by parties whose interests are very likely at odds with their own.

    In Mitchell, the orig lender assigned the 2nd to B of A after it had f/c’d on the 1st, which I believe is a distinction from the other case I ref’d yesterday wherein the CA ct ruled the holder of the 2nd could pursue a def judgment . (I have to go back and look.) The court said the orig lender in Mitchell, who had made two loans to the borrower at purchase was not a sold out lienholder because it had chosen to foreclose on the first non-judicially and relinquished any right to def judgment. B of A could then not exercise something which the orig lender could not. mol. I think. But, I hope I am in fact missing something regarding this CA deficiency judgment business, because if not, a holder of a first could lickeddy split assign the second to an unrelated (uh-huh) party, f/c on the first, and then the new holder of the second might be entitled to deficiency judgment.

  10. @Johngault.
    about my earlier “question to my peers and neighbors”

    Its all very ODD, and I know there was a loan,with him/David- making payments( re: the last party in question,) yet there is no record of a trust deed or a loan in the records, with his name, so it looks like the original (100K= I am using round example figures) was just reassumed and reassumed with them getting new notes and such along the way.

    Is that really not a NEW LOAN, that should extinguish the prior though? I would think so. I mean a new note IS a new loan -to be securitized right?

    Why would an apparent THIRD, with only 30K foreclose when there is on the record the 60K and 100K ahead? Makes no sense—Oh wait, yes maybe FRAUD!

    And why did the Title company-in my 99 escrow-list the 60K explicitly as an exception? And then at the “recording” provide this bogus, and questionable 60k satisfaction, via Strangers to it?
    and they knew there was NO SATISFACTION in the record of the 100k.

    There is no logic in a third of 30K foreclosing. NONE.

    This is all very sketchy, and this is why (per the wonderful wisdom of KC, and that is not meant to be sarcastic) the “lender” of my husbands last loan-refi refused my offer of tender, on the last re-fi, as the title is clouded and messed up.

    We were told by a lawyer,(October?) that as soon as we went in default, that he could get us an easy modification. and that it did not matter that they had switched our sigs to a loan with diff terms, as if we wanted to keep it, we had to agree to modify.

    Then in January I started to see title issues, and now know there was no way we ever would have “owned the house”

    This is a mess, and I could not even begin to retain a lawyer, as I do not know what the situation really is.
    I need the facts first, as the very first issue is: ‘How are you damaged,” and the thing is he/hubby wanted to MODIFY like the lawyer promised, but thats impossible now.

    It was a set up from day one.
    Or right after Adam complained of a stomach ache.

  11. SHELLEY,
    per that cop shooting link, I don’t know if you aware, But Anaheim is a very bad neighborhood. There are people all over that walk around wearing masks at night, and some very scary stuff happens there. I have been there, and I was very scared one day as some pirates tried to attack our car.

    The police need to get things under control and those four-year olds are just little gangsters, and the ones in strollers- those are just as bad! More moms need rubber bullets shot into there faces, and do

  12. And JG,

    Don’t worry about that guy. It’s only the Swiss AG that’s looking for him. I bet at home, he’s held as a hero! Extradition is a very arduous, lengthy and complicated process. It will take years and by then, there very well may be no further reason to go after him. 🙂

  13. We need to see this kind of support here in the U.S. Make their boots and booties shake.

  14. JG,

    The guy is French. Believe me, he is not looking for prosecution and a lengthy and drawn out process. They don’t believe in it. They want immediate result. He is looking for people to be so pissed that they DEMAND immediate action from the government. Usually, that’s what works there. Hot-tempered Latin guys who know what they don’t want and will do what it takes to get rid of it…

    Since Hollande was elected, his message has been loud and clear: people first, austerity next. Bankers are shaking: they have been told in no uncertain terms that government will, from now on, regulate their earnings.

  15. Martha – don’t forget to take your purchase contract to the lawyer’s.
    You / spouse may have agreed to informally assume at least the 60k, which might account for why it’s listed on the exception page instead of its payoff being req’d.

  16. @martha – lay opinion here. In order for a second to f/c, it has to cure the first (if it’s in arrears and f/c has begun, think is how that would be) and maintain payments on the first, which I believe it then has a right to do. If the second doesn’t maintain the first, the second will be almost but not quite right back where it started – behind a senior lienholder with a priority claim. Actually, this IS a tad complex, at least to me, and as you apparently know, doesn’t happen often, unless the second has a whole lot to lose (or there is something underhanded going on, I suppose). A holder of a 30k second will not generally cure a first of 100k unless there are extraordinary circumstances which might include major equity beyond all encumberances. If the second has f/c’d and if it were the successful bidder at the f/c sale, title is quieted in the second (h.o. lost his and has nothing to convey), and app in your case, the holder of the third foreclosed, vesting tilte in its subsidiary by way of the trustee’s deed. Can’t speak to that.
    But that title is taken subject to the interests of the first; it is not taken free of the first. It doesn’t matter who’s in title or how many times the legal title name changed: title is subject to any recorded lien and their pecking order is well-established by recordation (generally).

    I just read the rest of your comment. At one time, l90k was owed on the house, app to 3 diff entities. The 60k Brad took out (of his 90k) may or may not have been paid off at some point. Why did the holder of the 30K f/c? What did they know, if anything, you don’t? Else why would they do that with 100k and maybe 60k, also, ahead of them? Does look odd.
    What encumberances are of record? You need a lawyer, and I’m sure you’re tired of hearing this. There is a competent attorney out there who practices real estate law and that’s the guy you need. This is not rocket science, and anyone who knows s from shortcakes about r.e. law if given complete copies of the public record and your title reports and everything else relevant should be able to get a bead on this. Alternatively, you could throw yourself on the mercy of a title company examiner, not from the title co. involved in your mess.
    ps – why the 60k was shown as an exception to title, instead of its release being called for on requirements page, got me. Indicates one of two things to me: the title co. couldn’t verify it had been paid off or the other worse which I shan’t say. Why a new lender to your spouse, or anyone, would let this ride, got me. I know nothing of the first, except someone appeared to be making payments to it by your account. Get thee to a r.e. lawyer, docs in hand. I wouldn’t start off with I didn’t sign anything. Just try to get the record straight first.
    Remember, lay opinions here.

  17. tnHarry, I definately promote objection defenses. I did not get past first base with my case and am in the Appeals court due to not knowing the difference of arguing my case and objecting to the authority to represent, and objecting to all claims each and every individual claim made by the opposition. I would not exclude the FDCPA letter and violations. The FDCPA cases I listed won their cases. I have learned the hard way to object to all claims and deni owing the debt collectors the alleged debt they are claiming. Not promoting show me the note defense. I may wind up in a motion for new trial due to fraud upon the court over not using an objection case. I did not make it to first base due to not knowing to object and ask for more information being necessary to determine whom has the authority to represent the alleged debt. This is why if you can find a good skilled attorney, that gets it you should put all your effort into paying an attorney. Not as easy to find as it sounds. Not in the State of Washington, at least a couple years ago. Think we have found a couple now. A couple of years ago the attorneys that are good found the rule of law not being followed in the courts. I am told there is a better chance in the Washington courts now. A lot has changed in the last two years as you all know that have fought this battle for so long. I am saving up as much money as possible to hire pay for legal help to refile a new trial due to fraud upon the court if I recieve a disappointing answer from the Appeals court.

  18. re: the disgruntled employee turning in stolen evidence. It’s my limited understanding that while the docs were stolen, the prosecutor can still use them because the plantiff against the criminal had nothing to do with the theft, and therefore they are not ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’, like something flowing from when a thing is taken by police in an unlawful search and seizure. Still, the guy got arrested for theft. If his goal were prosecution, why didn’t he mail them to the d.a.( or whomever) anonymously? Seems like that would have accomplished a prosecution of tax evasion or w/e goal while keeping himself out of it. Maybe if mailed anonymously, they’re not authenticated as evidence. But I wonder if that would be enough to begin an inquiry?

  19. I missed! Great benefits, if caught immediate resignation is demanded with a hundred million in severence pay. Can repent just before death therefore a conscions is not necessary. no conscions at all,is preferred. Prefer business attitude of it’s just business nothing personal. Must be willing to extort kill murder, bribe and make people homeless, must be willing to steal the wealth of every man woman and child in the name of money, at all cost for the good of the the powerful. If you fit these qualifications please call Jamie Dimon, George Bush or anyone listed as bankster/ILLUMINATI/ cabal mafia family member. Or send to PO Box H-E-L-L of a life!

  20. @shelley – did you seriously just post something advocating the “produce the note” defense? that alone is a consistent losing argument. standing, which partially incorporates a “show me the note” component, is a viable defense. all of that presumes judicial sales. in non-judicial, there’s no real opportunity for a defense. you have to go offense.

  21. John Anderson:
    July 24, 2012 at 1:45 AM
    Is the USA now a Despotic nation?

    The link below is a Open Source Public Domain documentary made shortly after the 2nd world war in 1946 shows the tipping scales that neatly sum up where America stands today on the Despotic scale.
    This 10 min film measures how a society ranks on a spectrum stretching from democracy to despotism. Explains how societies and nations can be measured by the degree that power is concentrated and respect for the individual is restricted.

    It is titled ” DESPOTISIM ” and was an Erpi Classroom film produced by Encyclopedia Britannica Films Inc.

    Why are films like this not shone in public schools?
    Are civic and history class’s being dropped in favor of math and science for the purpose of creating and controlling a new generation of slaves?

  22. They are making money on private prisons, food stamps until the government goes bankrupt, and funds on stealing our property after all the money they made at every peel of the onion on ponzie scemes involving the mortgages,servicing bids at auction, insurance moneyh you name it, it goes on and on and on. What a disgrace! All con artist are making big money for these criminal entities, they are not in jails where they belong. Job app, must be a great con artist, con artist needed, job pays well, millions beleive it or not. Corruption pays well! No accountablity!

  23. I am having issues with my computer that need to be looked into so i am not able to pull up everything right now. My computer tech is looking into why.

  24. .

    case law for non compliance with FCDPA law:

    Supports both Appeallants claims of FDCPA violation and non compliance with Washington state laws for not being registered to be doing business in Washington State.See :

    This FDCPA case is the U.S. Supreme Court. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    No. 08–1200. Argued January 13, 2010—Decided April 21, 2010
    The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U. S. C. §1692 et seq., imposes civil liability on “debt collector[s]” for certain prohibiteddebt collection practices. A debt collector who “fails to comply withany [FDCPA] provision . . . with respect to any person is liable tosuch person” for “actual damage[s],” costs, “a reasonable attorney’sfee as determined by the court,” and statutory “additional damages.” §1692k(a). In addition, violations of the FDCPA are deemed unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act(FTC Act), §41 et seq., which is enforced by the Federal Trade Com-mission (FTC). See §1692l. A debt collector who acts with “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective cir-cumstances that such act is [prohibited under the FDCPA]” is subjectto civil penalties enforced by the FTC. §§45(m)(1)(A), (C). A debt col-lector is not liable in any action brought under the FDCPA, however, if it “shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such er-ror.” §1692k(c). Respondents, a law firm and one of its attorneys (collectively Car-lisle), filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court on behalf of a mortgage com-pany to foreclose a mortgage on real property owned by petitionerJerman. The complaint included a notice that the mortgage debt would be assumed valid unless Jerman disputed it in writing. Jer-man’s lawyer sent a letter disputing the debt, and, when the mort-gage company acknowledged that the debt had in fact been paid, Car-lisle withdrew the suit. Jerman then filed this action, contending that by sending the notice requiring her to dispute the debt in writ-

  25. Hungry for profit

    More Americans going on food stamps means a windfall for JPMorgan
    By Benjamin Carlson Monday, July 2, 2012

    [Pin It]

    PHOTO:Mark Lennihan/AP

    Data suggests JPMorgan makes a significant profit from its food stamps program.
    PHOTO:Bloomberg/Getty Images

    Food stamps are meant to subsidize healthy foods, but it is impossible to know if this is how they are used.

    Wall Street’s biggest bank is getting fat off food stamps.

    As the number of Americans eligible for the antipoverty program surged to 46 million this year — a record high — banking giant JPMorgan Chase has made a mint, according to a new report.

    With exclusive contracts in 26 states and territories, JPMorgan Chase is the largest processor of food stamp benefits in the country, enjoying a five-year, $83 million contract in Florida, and a seven-year, $125 million contract in New York, which was recently increased by 13 percent.

    “[The U.S. Department of Agriculture] does not have even data on how much money banks are making on this,” says Michele Simon, president of California-based watchdog EatDrinkPolitics, which issued the report. “But I don’t think banks like JPMorgan engage in this business out of the goodness of their heart.”

    While JPMorgan Chase does not disclose the total profit it makes off the food stamp program — officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — the available data suggest it is a healthy sum.

    “Volumes have gone through the roof in the last several years,” Christopher Paton, managing director of JPMorgan’s food stamp program, said on Bloomberg TV earlier this year. “This business is very important to JPMorgan. It’s an important business in terms of its size and scale.”

    According to the bank’s most recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the division of the company that handles the food stamp contract has increased its profits markedly over the last several years. The Treasury & Securities Services division made a $542 million profit in 2011, up 11 percent over 2010.

    The revenue comes mainly from processing the debit cards that, since the early 2000s, have served as “food stamps” instead of the original slips of printed paper.

    JPMorgan Chase is not the only processor of food stamp transactions. A Xerox subsidiary administers the cards in 13 states, enjoying a $69 million contract in California, and defense contractor Northrop Grumman runs food stamp programs in Montana and Illinois that entail a contract of $38 million.

    Given the surge in federal food stamp funding since the recession hit, it is perhaps no surprise that private businesses have found a way to benefit. In fiscal year 2011, the government spent $76 billion on SNAP, more than double the $30 billion distributed in 2007. And in the last two years, the number of Americans eligible for food stamps increased by 10 million.

    The most popular destinations for food stamp users include chain retailers and grocery stores like Walmart, Kroger and Costco. Walmart in particular has reaped a windfall from food stamp users. In Oklahoma alone, the chain collected half of the billion dollars in food-stamp aid distributed in the state over two years. A single Tulsa Walmart Supercenter took in over $15 million in SNAP aid during that period.

    But because of weak transparency rules, critics say, it is impossible to know exactly how that money is being spent — namely, whether it is being used to buy junk food and soda, or the sort of healthy fare SNAP is supposed to subsidize. In fact, the USDA says it is illegal to collect information about specific retailers under current law.

  26. Well i posted two of these and one is in moderation:

  27. If they get everyone on food stamps then pull the plug? What then? If people slowing use the support of food stamps. the “[trusted?]” government, instead of fighting to support themselves and not rely on the government, then all at once get a surprize the government is broke and the food stamps are cut off what then? Raffles for food stamps or no food stamps at all. Dont rely on someone you dont trust. Look for a way to survive on your own asap! Food stamps are government control and that is why the big push to put us on food stamps.

  28. @shelley – would you please re-post links to the fdcpa cases and also to the new form of the fdcpa itself? would really appreciate it. thanks

  29. Ever wonder why there’s such a big food stamps push right now? I think it’s because the government knows people will start rioting if they can’t even afford food…if they keep food in their bellies they might not riot when they figure out the truth of this massive fraud…also—I’m sure that some entity is making money off of the food stamps program…just not sure who…

  30. This is prob not someting anyone can answer. or guess, as not looking for legal advice, just trying to sort out the situation so i can make sense of it.

    what happens to the larger first or seconds when the smaller third forecloses?

    can they just assume the payments, and is the conveyance valid to them with the larger loans unsatisfied, or can they come after whomever down the line, in another foreclosure if the payments are stopped?


    Joe gets a 100k first, with Mutual Savings
    then he conveys the prop to Adam, with the conveyance subject to the first of MUTUAL

    Adam then conveys it to Brad, no mention of the outstanding first
    but i am assuming Brad had assumed it but no records in the chain.
    Brad then gets a 60 loan with X then he gets another with Y, a few years later to build a pool, for 30 k.

    no payoffs in the record for any loans.
    then the THIRD forecloses on the 30k with a 30k credit bid, and they convey to a subsidiary, via a trustee deed to the sub.

    then the subsidary conveys it to David and David has no loans in the record for this, so its got to be a cash deal or something else off record. but there is a paper trail, of David making very large payments to the *i am assuming the first, as the checks went to the name of the very first lender, on the record MUTUAL SAVINGS

    no payoff of any loan is in the record except for a bogus satisfaction of the 60k, of that loan was listed as an EXCEPTION on the prelim title report on a purported conveyance to me By Davids estate, of that turns out was forged.

    now, here I am, in CA, with a *loan, made to my husband, in 07, that has filed a very vague default, not really saying who is in default, and then they have filed a document called the Trustee sale, except they warn the bidders, that the un named/secret beneficiary MAY NOT BE THE FIRST that is foreclosing, and that they are NOT selliing the property at the auction but just the LIEN, and the buyer may have to pay other priority liens, and this sale will not give them clear title.

    its like a fake foreclosure it seems to me, as they clearly state they are not selling the property.

    I am just trying to make sense of this, and its the oddest thing, as I am pretty sure that 100k has been getting payments all these years, but no real proof, and yet no payoff is in the chain.


  32. I love disgruntled employees with principles and a sense of civic duty. They know enough to be… dangerous! And they’re willing to take risks. Maybe that’s what this country needs…? Boy Oh Boy! This will turn so ugly!

    “Former HSBC worker Herve Falciani arrested over stolen account details
    A former HSBC worker who stole bank details of 24,000 account holders and gave them to French prosecutors investigating tax evasion has been arrested.
    A boy plays on one of the two lions guarding the HSBC bank headquarters in the Central district of Hong Kong on March 3, 2008
    Herve Falciani was working for HSBC’s Swiss private bank when he took the information on the bank’s clients Photo: AFP

    By Jonathan Russell

    7:00AM BST 25 Jul 2012

    Herve Falciani was arrested in Barcelona and now faces an extradition request from the Swiss authorities. Mr Falciani was working for HSBC’s Swiss private bank when he took the information on the bank’s clients.

    Swiss authorities confirmed they were carrying out a criminal investigation into the matter, which dates back to 2008.

    In a statement, the Berne-based Federal Department of Justice and Police said: “The Office of the Attorney General opened a criminal probe into the former information technology worker of HSBC’s private bank regarding the theft of HSBC bank details. The inquiry began after Herve Falciani went abroad.”

    Mr Falciani claims he took the customer details in order to expose tax evasion among HSBC’s customers.

    In an interview with French television in 2009 he said the action was his civic duty.”

  33. Many people tell me they have no idea what the Independant review is about and some tell me it is a trick due to they dont trust the governmnet and bankstas. I personally feel everyone should fill it out that qualifies. The family that was being harrassed at gun point by a BOA represenative I mention in this post earlier, was told by her attorney this family did not qualify due to they were in litigation now. Not true. I asked her to check on this and have attorney check to confirm this and they found this family does qualify. So even attorneys are confused.You can still be in your home or foreclosed and not in your home. You can be in litigation or not in litigation. No matter what if you were being threatened foreclosure during the time frame they state you qualify for this review, even if you walked away, did bankruptcy or did short sale, Be sure to object to alleged debt and owing the unlawful foreclosing debt collectors and deny the alleged debt. Show the losses of income due to the economic crimes of the banksters. Show equity loss, all losses. I am told by some they are told by their freinds it is a trick to get you served foreclosure papers. There is a total lack of trust and communication. Wonder why? “IN AMERICA WE NO LONGER TRUST” If the banksters advertise enough to get the truth out the truth will get out on main media news. Banks dont want that!

  34. The banks do not go by the law and fight the Bk and continue to attempt to steal the house. The law does not stop them. There are no consequences if they are caught. All the consent orders have been ignored as well. In spite of all the exposure to their fruad and crimes the foreclosers are still foreclosing with the fraud robo assignements. Nothing has changed. A freind and I recently discovered a local family being harrassed at gun point,by a repres from BOA being foreclosed on by RECONTRUST, here in Buckley. They were so braizen that after this family wound up in the news, BOA contacted them and told them BOA would be gracious and recind the foreclosure and withdraw the sale at auction and would agree to a modification. Then the family thinking BOA is beiing nice, while decieving them they had commited a crime and unlawful foreclosure by RECONTRUST, and sent a thug to their house, the family recieves a summons and complaint from BOA in a [NON JUDICIAL STATE], think about this one!!!! Asking the court for quiet title to the families house due to the family is agreeing on a modification and agrees BOA can recind the (hidden unlawful foreclosure]. WOW! The family now knows what is going on and their attorneys does also. Why oh Why would the forecloser ask for a court order for quiet title if they own the mortgage and note? This family would have never known this deceptioin if I and friends had not brought the truth and facts and Washington V RECONTRUST case to them and asked them to ask their attorney why would they be sending a summons and complaint for quiet title. She had just secured the attorney and she had just recieved the summons and complaint. This attorney had several others she was trying to help that this information changed their cases for them. Makes me want to stangle these banksters for their errogance. And even more for the unconscionable crimes they are committing right under the noses of the judges. This family has multiple docs of proof of robo signed docs matching the same G. Hernandez robo signer and different signatures and different jobs cliamed by G. Hernandez now also. In Washington state the unlawful foreclosures can not be undone without going to court as i am understanding it. They can disconinue and withdraw on county records but they can not undue the unlawful foreclosure by recinding it without going to court. I have heard of one case claiming recind without going to court and am wondering since the attorney sent the motion and summons to recind unlawful foreclosure, and the banksters did that it was actually finalized through the court. The man that had this luck will not share his paperwork with us. It was not a withdrawl. My sons has been withdrewn by RECONTRUST and discontinuance of sale by RECONTRUST. His case is still sitting in the Appeals court. The withdrawl and discontinuance happened after it went into the Appeals court due to fraud upon the court. I exspect an answer sometime soon.

  35. From Mandelman. As usual, the guy has an uncanny ability to put his finger right on it… If we’re too dumb to understand the OCC docs, what makes anyone believe that we were smart enough to understand our closing papers? Hugh?

    “GAO Study Finds OCC Foreclosure Review too Hard for Us to Understand

    Apparently, the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) has been studying the possible reasons why so few victims of foreclosure in 2009 and 2010 chose to submit their cases for review by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) as part of the regulator’s Independent Foreclosure Review process.

    The GAO’s report, released earlier this month concluded that the OCC simply made submitting a complaint too difficult for us to understand. We couldn’t figure it out. It was over our collective heads. And so, completely befuddled by the instructions, we didn’t participate in their Independent Foreclosure Review process. Don’t you hate it when that happens?…

    …However, the GAO’s conclusions are somewhat interesting, as the WSJ explained that they, “echoed concerns raised over the past year by several Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill.” And anytime you have the GAO and lawmakers on Capitol Hill reaching the same conclusion, I think you cannot ignore the possibility that they are right.

    So, if the homeowners we’re talking about here were in fact reading at such a rudimentary level that they were unable to understand the OCC’s letter, Website and form, it would seem to me that they could not possibly have understood the loan documents they signed that put them in this mess in the first place. In which case, what we have here is an entirely new ball of predatory shithead, wouldn’t you say?

    So, which is it? Did they know what they were signing and therefore borrowed irresponsibly and deserved to lose their homes? Or, were they unable to read at a level that would have allowed them to understand what it was they were signing? Did they gamble and lose, or were they raped for fun and profit?…”

    Read the whole column at

  36. @tony: Detailed proof fresh off Bankruptcy-Press: click on: (page for Central California Bankruptcy Tentative Rulings). Click on judge Wallace & then on his July 10, 2012 posted rulings: a page comes up which you can save as pdf-file. I have copy pasted the second ruling which elaborates a whole lot more than I said earlier:

    United States Bankruptcy Court
    Central District of California
    Judge Mark Wallace, Presiding
    Courtroom 225 Calendar

    Tuesday, July 10, 2012 Hearing Room 225
    9:00 am
    6:10-41917 Jose Nicolas Campos and Denise Marie Campos Chapter 7
    McCarthy & Holthus, LLP – movant attorney
    Motion for relief from stay
    Nationstar Mortgage LLC vs. Debtors, Arturo Cisneros, Chapter 7 Trustee
    (Motion filed 6/13/12)
    RE: 6760 Sandy Lane, Riverside, CA 92505 .
    Docket #: 44
    This motion was set for hearing in accordance with Local Bankruptcy Rule (“LBR”) 9013-1(d).
    The failure of the debtor, the trustee, or any other party to file a written opposition at least 14 days
    prior to the hearing pursuant to LBR 9013-1(f) is deemed consent by such party to the granting of
    the motion. LBR 9013-1(h); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because
    the court is granting the relief that the moving party requested and for which a prima facie case has
    been established, an actual hearing is not necessary. Boone v. Burke (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592,
    602 (9th Cir. 2006). The court will resolve the matter without oral argument. LBR 9013-1(j)(3).
    The motion is denied as moot as to the debtor(s). The stay as to the debtor(‘s/s’) interest in the
    subject property expired by operation of law when the debtor received a discharge on March 14,
    2011. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C).
    The motion is granted in part as to the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and (d)(2) to
    permit movant, its successors, transferees and assigns, to enforce its remedies to foreclose upon and
    obtain possession of the subject property in accordance with applicable law, unless the debtor pays
    all arrearages in full on or before the hearing date on this matter. Movant may not pursue any
    deficiency claim against the debtor or the estate except by filing a proof of claim pursuant to 11
    U.S.C. § 501.
    when stay relief is sought under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) is whether the debtor has equity in the
    property. See e.g., Nev. Nat’l Bank v. Casbul of Nev., Inc. (In re Casgul of Nev., Inc.), 22 B.R. 65,
    66 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1982); Ramco Indus. v. Preuss (In re Preuss), 15 B.R. 896 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.
    1981). The subject real property has a value that is less than the value of the perfected deed of trust
    or mortgage in favor of the movant. The court finds there is no equity and there is no evidence that
    the trustee can administer the subject real property for the benefit of creditors.
    The movant may contact the debtor to comply with California Civil Code § 2923.5.
    The 14-day period specified in Rule 4001(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure is

  37. I have been squaking for over a year on these sights to check the foreclosers status for being registered as corporations, financial institutions and as debt collectors being registered to be doing business and to send in the FDCPA letters to these debt collectors whom have not answered any debt collectors letters and are violating state Deed of Trust laws and State CPA laws and FDCPA law. And posted on this sight the Cases won against the foreclosers for these violations The FDCPA cases won have been posted. This is a battle that can be won by these violations. If you find an honest judge. There is case law on it now. My FDCPA letter and many I know including my son never had a reply to the FDCPA letters.

  38. Guest,

    You are wrong about bankruptcy, you need to study history and case law more, this is all I will say on this subject. Stop ranting and start checking history and case law on this subject. This ranting because you are angry with nothing to back it up is not good for the people that are looking for help.

    7 bankruptcy is the best thing anyone can do period. Again PLEASE read history of case law and transcripts. This form over debt wipe out has been going on for over 4000 yrs.

  39. Here is the article of the AG champaign funds he later after exposure refunded.

  40. Bankruptcy is a criminally organized scheme of BanGsters to steal houses, commercial & industrial properties. If chapter 13, or 11, turn into chapter 7, and borrower still living in home he loses the house unless he pays all arrears!!! (no wipe outs). The best proof is that banks can’t file bankruptcy because they are there to bankrupt everyone else for their own benefit!!! only petty debts get wiped out, and those to legitimate personal lenders who have no protections like mortgage-banks do.

  41. I don’t like bankruptcy but there is some good in it. If you prove the contract is void and you dont owe the debt, I am not sure if that debt was never any ammount owed due to being void at inception by void PSA or LIBOR, so no taxes are due. Need to ask a BK that gets it. OR if the entire ammount wiped out due to being unsecured debt cand be taxed unless it is wiped out in Bankruptcy. They I understand no taxes are due. If the government can come after you for the taxes and charge the interest rates to you theyt charge you are vulneralbe to loosing the house to the government for the taxes on the unsecured debt unless it is done in bankruptcy. Something to think about and talk to the bankruptcy attorney. You are considered to have earned money by wiping out the debt on the house. Those earnigns are taxabel even if you recieved zero money. People in Washington state had to do BK because they thought walking away from the house was the only option they had then they received a bill from the government for their gains by walking away from the debt. Doesnt sound right when forced into this by our government and lenders. But it is what it is.

  42. Brazilian farmers battle Monsanto

    Wednesday, 25 July 2012 08:06

    Attention: open in a new window. PrintE-mail
    1. Monsanto meeting resistance to royalties for Intacta soybeans
    2. Brazil, Monsanto and a dispute over royalties worth 6.2 billion euros
    3. Monsanto faces $7.5 billion payout to Brazilian farmers

    NOTE: Since GM soy was legalised for cultivation in Brazil, Monsanto has charged Brazilian farmers 2 percent of their sales of Roundup Ready soybeans, which accounts for over 80 per cent of the country’s soybean crop. Monsanto is also careful to test even those soybean sold as non-GM, and if they turn out to be Roundup Ready, it charges the farmers a higher trait fee — 3 percent of their sales.

    In April this year, a judge in Rio Grande do Sul ruled in favour of the producers and ordered Monsanto to return royalties paid since 2004 or a minimum of $2 billion.

    Monsanto appealed and the dispute escalated to the Supreme Court of Brazil. Monsanto objected that the dispute should be handled as a unique case between a specific farmers’ association and the company — in other words, the ruling should not universally apply across Brazil. This objection was rejected by the Supreme Court on June 12 (see item 3, below).

    So now up to 354 farmers unions involving about 5 million soy growers could potentially join the dispute, meaning that Monsanto could face a royalties payback of a massive 7.5 billion Euros.

  43. Even if it doesn’t look like anything is happening, it is moving worldwide. Finance, big pharma, Monsanto, many, many corporations are under the gun. Let’s just do what we each can individually, knowing that what we can’t do is being handled by those who can.

    Lawsuit Filed Against Monsanto and Recruiter Over U.S. Worker Exploitation Scam



    added this

    Seven Texas farm workers are alleging a wide range of crimes committed by biotech giant Monsanto.

    Courthouse News Service is reporting that lead plaintiff Jose Cardenas has filed a lawsuit against Monsanto recruiter Milo Inc. and Milo Inc.’s president, as well as Monsanto itself.

    Cardenas is one of seven field workers who are attempting to show a wide-ranging exploitation scam that made promises which were later withdrawn. According to the plaintiffs:
    Monsanto promised (the) seven Texas field workers and their children free housing with kitchens in Indiana, then charged them $300 a room, exposed them to pesticides and underpaid them, the men claim in Federal Court.
    The abuses also included unsanitary conditions that violated agricultural safety and health codes; among the violations, a school bus that was converted into a kitchen facility:

  44. this source may be useful for extracting info such as: “215.23 Disclosure of Credit from Correspondent Banks to Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders”

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

  46. This entire situation was by design. Then the cover-up and no enforcement or punishment. Does anyone get this yet? I think this financial terrorism is called “realigning America”. We are not nearly paranoid enough yet!

  47. […] Read more… Posted in AZ, Banks, MERS, News Around The Country, States « Nocera: It’s Time to Give Eminent Domain a Try You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  48. @shelley – well, quality loan services was busted in NV for operating as a debt collector without a license. They got the license but still fought. don’t the outcome of the battle. I’d bet they lost. Do know the license was NOT retro-active so brings into question the propriety of its pre-licensure “activities”.

  49. @wrpinda – I just (10 mins ago) posted one of those cases – Herrara – on this site under I forget what, but you can find it easily enough and of course I gave my layperson impression, which succinctly is ‘bah humbug’!

    I was reading mccandless’ case updates and it got me thinking. You know how in some states if a lender forecloses using non – j f/c, it loses the right to seek a def judgment, possibly under the one-action rule? But, they all use non-j, anyway.
    The loan on the house is 500k, but ends up netting only 300k after f/c and resale. That’s a 200k loss (supposedly), right? So if I own that loan, why aren’t I gonna pay an attorney 10k, say, to f/c judicially so that I retain my right to a deficiency judgment?! If I pay 10k in legal fees (and given the network attorneys set fees, that’s probably not realistic – it’s prob high, unless there’s a fight). I can then get a def judgment, a one-action rule notwithstanding. Even if I never collect on the def judgment but get one, spending another 10k, I still have a hefty tax deduction. Percentage wise, how many homeowners fight f/c? .001%? 1% 5%? And no, you can’t get blood out of a turnip, but one can legally attach a certain percent of wages. Oh, I know! We don’t have jobs! But, I’m also wondering if those loan-owners don’t have an obligation to get a def judgment before taking a write-off without it because who’s to say it’s uncollectable? If I loan you money and you don’t pay me back, it’s my understanding that in order to write it off, I must be able to show that I have tried to collect. Is non-j foreclosure all that’s necessary to
    establish an attempt to collect before taking the write-off? Maybe it is since there is no right to a def j in many if not all states, I don’t know, when non-j is used. Still seems like a crock to me to get the write-off with what I deem limited effort.
    Here is a cursory look at the one-action rule, which I note with alarm claims that a lender may get a def judgment after a short sale.

    “Short sale is not considered one-action hence potentially the lenders can still obtain deficiency judgment after a short sale is approved and executed.” yikes! But, now that I think about it, they won’t do that
    because it would be a JUDICIAL affair and they don’t want that, do they? Link to article:

    Btw, California just put another dagger in the homeowner imo. they ruled that if a party buys a second mtg from an unrelated entity, mol,
    that party may seek a def judgment or sue on the note, however they framed it, from the homeowner when it’s lien is snuffed, “sold out”, by the first’s foreclosure. I believe the court has not considered everything in these recent stinky decisions on this issue and some of it is trying to get to my memory but it’s not there yet. So file 13 and strip the wholly unsecured second, and the debt of the second, being newly unsecured, is snuffed. (but watch out for that newly unsec’d debt putting you over unsec’d debt limit of a 13 as I’ve seen – see good bk att) Might as well if they’re going to trash you with a judgment, anyway. Lay opinions, as always.

  50. I think the “how do debt collectors foreclose is a damn good question – do you or anyone else know?

    Its called under color of badge and authority by appointment of the US Government. (want proof) …ask

  51. The brokers enticed the elderly into Reverse Mortgages promising them a fixed intrest rate. When it came time to sign .. the wise borrowers who read the note pitched a fit .. 5yr fixed to ARM. The less fortunate who could barly see the print did not catch it. I always read the note terms allowed to them. Most refused to sign afterwards. All reverse mortgages are ARMs. A large majority of folks that age do not even know what an ARM loan is. Very sad days in our Country!

  52. Recently in California in june and july two appellate courts have held mortgages are distinct from deeds of trust ., thus Calif. Civl Code 2932.5 does not apply to deeds of trusts! Any comments out their please!?

  53. The older male star in “THE NOTE BOOK ” also needs to be hung out to dry for pushing reverse mortgages on the elderly.

  54. Remember debt collectors have to be registered and licensed as debt collectors to collect a debt. There was a case just won by the plaintiff, due to the debt collector was not registered to be collecting the debt. I will try to find it. And post. This goes for houses also. MERS AND RECONTRUST AND DEUTSCH BANK ARE NOT AND WERE NOT REGISTERED IN WASHINGTON STATE. NOT AS A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN WA EITHER. Violation of WA Deed of Trust law. They used CT corporation as an agent in Olympia only and no local offie or a phone number or individual to answer or communicate with. All WA Deed of Trust Act violations. This is why RECONTRUST has left WA.

  55. AMEN!

  56. Carie

    Regarding your 1133am post

    In my humble opinion there is no point In asking, rhetorically or otherwise, how debt collectors can foreclose

    “Legally” doesn’t apply to the 99% you know…

  57. I saw Robert Wagner peddling that shit on the evening news break. I’d like to see him reversed by hanging him upside down till his head turns blue and explodes for peddling that crap. Crimes against humanity.

  58. Why Are Amerikans Not Rioting In The Streets- The LIBOR Scandal As Foreclosure Defense!
    July 24th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

    We have been warning judges for years now that the fraud a declining few are content to ignore in foreclosure courtrooms is just the tip of the iceberg. It took some time for most of them to believe or comprehend the magnitude of what we were saying, but the vast majority that I see now really get it.

    The LIBOR scandal should draw a very fine circle around all the abuse..and the damage to you and I in foreclosure ….and frankly every single one of us since LIBOR impacts what we pay for everything from flushing the toilet to our car payment….could not be more clear.


    Any note tied to a LIBOR should be challenged based on fraud. No foreclosure with a LIBOR loan should be allowed to continue.

    We’re working out the counter claims and defensive pleading right now….and when it hits we’ll hit it strong and hard……stay tuned.

    Scridb filter

  59. Enraged yes reverse mortgages are another tool of corruption. People were tricked they could have the good life and spend a little extra befor they died. Decieved again by the deception of the contracts and intention of the corrupt unconscionable banks. I tried to talk everyone out of doing them, that I could. A bit of the poisoned apple is what they bit into. Yes supported by a trusted well known actor or two. Shame shame on them for this also..Deception at every peel of the onion.

  60. In Washington State and I believe this state is not alone, the judges dont rule by the rule of law, and the attorneys are afraid of the corrupt bar association whom threatens them if they take our case, taking away their licenses. At least that is what I have been told by attorneys and I know of one attorney who was threatened not to speak at a clouded titles meeting. It is due to corruption, flat out corruption and fear. It is not just LIBOR that is rigged. We just hope and pray the right judge does the right thing and has compassion, and integritiy and we win a case now and then. Some cases are won out of court. There are brave attorneys and judges out there. Just a lot that are not. They are putting their jobs their incomes and their saftey on the line when they help us. A lot of them just dont think you can pay them or you would not be in trouble with the house. And some just dont know how to help. Some that do their job are beating their heads against a brick wall of judicial corruption. We are making gains. Judges have judged infavor of homeowners and against the banks. The truth is getting out. I believe the judges use their prejudice biases opinions to adjudicate in some courts, instead of unbiased judgment per the rule of law. This injustice is based upon fraud up on the court and fraud upon the court can be filed over and over with no statutes of limitations due to the crime, deemed so bad. Therefore can be filed over and over until justice is done or you feel justice is done. New trials can be motioned due to fraud upon the court. A friend of mine was studing to be a paralegal and she was one quarter away from graduation. She was my witness who served the city and city mayor in October of 2006, and she came to testify for me on a fraud upon the court case. After the hearing she looked at me and asked how can you deal with this corruption? The event in the court room was life changing for her. She quit school and opened a shop. She tells me it was my case that changed her mind and lead her away from the judicial system.She had witnessed case after case while schooling to be a paralegal. She said my case did her in. She saw no justice at all. She saw a crime scene in Judy Careys court room. Back to topic! If justice prevailed and the rule of law was upheld. Our Constitution in tact. Our government doing it’s job, there would be no crisis. Their would be no foreclosed homes in the milions and people over fiftey would not be losing their livelyhoods, their pensions and homes. Corruption is a cancer!

  61. […] Association of Independent Consumer Credit Counseling Agencies. … Read the original: Millions Over 50 Now Hit with Foreclosure « Livinglies's Weblog ← What to Do When Confronted With […]

  62. 24%? Apparently, the elderly jumped on reverse mortgage and borrowed on their house in an unprecedented amount. The worst possible atrocity ever concocted by banks and it is still being peddled and pushed on them today by the Robert Wagners of this world. The same way that homeownership is being pushed on young couples with a decent (but precarious) income earned in the shaky financial sector, where lay offs are becoming routine…

    It’s insane. I keep wondering if this country is trying to push insanity to its limits just to test how far down we can go.

  63. […] these mortgages to fit with reality rather than to … … Go here to see the original: Millions Over 50 Now Hit with Foreclosure « Livinglies's Weblog ← How to Prevent Your Home From Being Repossessed | Millionaire […]

  64. @Martha

    Because the lawyers know the courts don’t care about the homeowners.

  65. why is that this site seems to have so many valid issues with the situation, yet I never ever hear of any laywers that will represent anyone?

    I know KChas now ,based on a few posts and a percieved conception of me, claims that no one will take my case as I am Demanding.

    but that is only as i was foreced into this as i discovered the facts, and. i did not choose this .

    i really would in a heartbeat retain an attorney, if one was found, that could do this, and heck yes, i want to not have to continue this, but i was not given a choice. i was a victim, and did not have any idea what was happening, and so they di dthis, and yes i was harmed.

    as for the OLD house, I have hoped and prayed to get away for years, and i canot fight my husband. i will not try sue on it, as i want to get away from it! I understand that hey, he did not pay for IT, but that is out of my control,

    I do not want to bite the hand that feeds me, as KC says, but the room is so dark, i have no idea who that is.

    no one has sent me any names of any lawyers, that hare even familiar with this… or not that i recall a least.

    I demanded the truth, and I have it.

  66. Not too long ago, I posited that trust law says a loan must be seasoned six months, that is, the borrower, and no one else, must have made six mos. payments before a loan could be securitized (monitized = yes, securitized = no). I said it was trust law, but now my info is that it is contractual, as in in the contract between the seller and the buyer, the bond pool trustee (for the trust), having to do with the ratings on the loans. I’m also told it is the trustee who has the responsibility of assuring compliance for the bond holders. I said the seller fashioned its own cure so they wouldn’t have to comply with that and wait six months. I said they did this by way of a guarantee (of the six mos. payments). Now I’m told that what the seller actually did was make a seller contribution of six mos. payments (which I have a hard time with because that is a lot of money x a gazillion loans, so in my opinon, the guarantee is more probable). If either is true, the seller breached the agreement. By faking the six mos payments, in any form, the seller also willfully contributed to the illusion (illusion for other known reasons, also: garbage paper set or at least due to fail) for Moody’s et al that these were grade A investments (many claim the rating agencies knew this). I’m told B of A was the worst offender considering the CW junk no doubt, with CW’s other “irregularities” like retention of the notes etc. by CW. At a glance, one might think that the remedy for this bs only goes to the investors, whether by suit against the trustees or the sellers or everyone, but I’m told there is a path to salvation for the homeowner in here and which has already been implemented by some. Wish I knew the formula.

    Also a hint of something about which I am also no authority and which some people already know, I guess: the accounting principles were suspended in 2009, continue to be suspended. The suspension allows a B of A to not mark to market its junk. I’m told B of A, as many, is carrying defaulted loans and even foreclosed loans on its books at face value. (and here I ask, and significantly at least to me, what loans? since they allegedly sold them off to investors). If the banksters had to mark to market, i.e., follow real accounting standards, they would have to file bk, they’re insolvent.
    They get a dispensation, but we must pay, and not even for our own sins, if any, but for others, and pray tell, in the interest of just what exactly? In 2012, in whose interest is the continuation of this purported dispensation? Is it kind of like “in for a penny, in for a pound?” Can’t halt this ungodly train?

  67. Kathy Charlotte, you are correct about the pension being used to pay their bills also. One of my friends husband was in partnership, (one of the owners)} of a local bank here. Which of course went belly up. She was just telling me this very pension issue has them worring about their home. They go no where on vacation now. My husband has a pension supplementing our income from Boeing. I wonder everyday if the Boeing pensions are going to be effected. And how about social security? Our government is not to be counted on. A lot of fifty year olds and older had savings, that are now being depleted. All falling like dominoes to deception and corruption,.

  68. Part of this problem I am seeing with friends and customers is they have had their property taxes raised so high it is causing the entire house payments to sky rocket. The mayor of this small town I live in held private behind the door sessions to bully the council into pushing untility taxes and property taxes that did not have to get a vote to the top inorder to fund the cities extravagant exspenses. There is much more to the story of this city and the criminal mayor running it. But that is part of the problem in my neighborhood. People are also telling me the bank claimed they recieved their check late so their credit cards interest went from something reasonalbe to 29 %. Do ya think this is a scam also. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! The banks would not do that!!!! The people are trying to do the right thing and keep their credit good and pay those cards. Sorry I know what these bankstaS HAVE DONE. AndIi say pick up the Kevin Trudeau “Debt Cures” book. Stop paying your cards and in 120days tell the debt collectors where to put it.Your credit report is a set up and an illusion anyway. Eventually it is going to go bad. So pay the house payment let the cards go. Before you can pay neither. And never never use credit again. When you dont use credit who needs a good credit report. S&P is a scam. Libor is a scam. Experian & Transunion are scams, and the third one is a scams. They are all tools to steal and create ineaquality and discriminate, allowing credit seekers to up lower your credit score, that go onto it without your permission. Fraud reports by debt collectors that you dont owe. A constant battle to keep your credit score in good standing and part of the battle is fighting the credit score company giving out your personal info to someowne you dont approve to get it and then your score lowered due to they checked your credit score. The identity theives selling your identity is probably linked to the banksters also. If you shop banks for your house loan your credit score is reduced. That only makes good common sense to shop banks. You are penalized if you do it. From Libor to the signature it is a scam at every peel of the onion. So dont use credit. Cut the credit monsters off at the juggler. And if it is not to late teach your children and grandchildren to do the same. You wont need a credit score.

  69. <— is not easily re-directed from the Real Truth in the last two articles. <— is not a self centered or a self serving individual. <— is not on Neils payroll.

  70. Exactly Carie, junk debt buyers.


    In 1913, before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, Mr. Alexander stated:

    “But the whole scheme of a Federal Reserve Bank with its commercial-paper basis is an impractical, cumbersome machinery, and is simply a cover, to find a way to secure the privilege of issuing money and to evade payment of as much tax upon circulation as possible, and then control the issue and maintain, instead of reduce, interest rates. It is a system that, if inaugurated, will prove to the advantage of the few and the detriment of the people of the United States. It will mean continued shortage of actual money and
    further extension of credits; for when there is a lack of real money people have to borrow credit to their cost.”

  72. These pension investors were using their pension payments to pay their mortgage…. get it? Ding! Ding!Ding! Now they can not pay their own mortgage payments ….. POOF!

  73. Knock, Knock, anybody home? The Pension Investors DID NOT GET THE NOTE! The title was held in MERS for the Investor NOT the banks!

  74. “It is clearly in the interest of the investors to modify these mortgages to fit with reality rather than to lose even more of their investment in a foreclosure…”

    What investors are those, Neil? The junk debt buyers or the security investors? Neither is the real creditor…or lender…so how can they legally modify? Or foreclose?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: