BofA Coerces Homeowners Into Keeping Quiet About Their Victory

Most lawyers, most judges and most homeowners are under the mistaken impression that they cannot win a foreclosure battle. They don’t hear about all the homeowners who were successful. There are tens of thousands of them. Any news, like the $45 million verdict described in the article below, is squelched.

This time the Judge is not so interested in accepting the settlement that includes a news blackout. He thinks the world should know just how brutal BofA acted in flagrant disregard of law, procedure and basic decency.

Homeowners who won are silenced through coercion — in order to get the fruits of their victory they feel they must sign an agreement in which they will be restricted by total confidentiality (blackout) of any news or information about their case. Their attorneys understandably advise their client to sign the agreement because that is the safe thing to do for their client. The impact on millions of other people facing foreclosure is not taken into account.

The sqelching is achieved through coercion and domination by entities with limitless resources against a homeowner who has been drained dry by the financial, mental and emotional impact of defending their home against people and entities that use the foreclosure system as part of a larger fraudulent scheme.

So the rest of us go on thinking that we don’t have a chance and that the law favors the banks. Not true. The law favors perseverence.


Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!

The additional reason for the confusion is that common sense dictates that when you accept a loan, you need to pay it back. There is no rebuttal to that simple proposition. And THAT is how the banks played a “gotcha” strategy.

They knew that the borrower didn’t understand the real deal because they withheld all of the information necessary to understanding the deal.

The banks knew that all judges would rebel at the idea that once you get a loan there is some scenario under which you don’t need to pay it back. That gives the homeowner a free house, or so the story goes. Like all magicians know, the essence of their craft is in misdirection.

The strategy of the banks started off with this premise: “What if you could separate the lender and the borrower so that neither one knew about the other?” The answer is that the intermediary parties could claim ownership and rights over the loan even though they had no such rights. The beauty of the idea is that by creating the fiction that the intermediary bank owned the loans, it could then sell the loan without ever having loaned any money.

In fact loans could be sold multiple times because the only place where any “information” (i.e., fraudulent representations) could be found was in the sole care, custody and control of the intermediary bank who assumed whatever role was necessary on paper to keep control.

One of the main vehicles was the illusion of the creation of a REMIC Trust. The basic trust document was a Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The Trust was never created — it was merely printed words on a page. No business activity of any kind was actually conducted with real money or value in an account belonging to the “Trust.” In truth virtually all of the “REMIC Trusts” were nothing mroe than ficitious names — i.e., BofA d/b/a XYZ Trust.

So in this example BofA has a PSA printed out and then claims the “Trust” is in operation when it knows that the trust never started. Then BofA causes certificates to be referenced on computer reports and then convinces investors that their money was used to buy the certificates. Those certificates are completely worthless artifacts from an inactive nonexisitenttrust that holds nothing “in trust.” The money is mostly used not to buy mortgages but to originate them through back channels that the borrower and closing agent know nothing about, leaving barely a hint of a clue.

The lender is unfortunately the investors, but they don’t know it. The borrower thinks he/she is borrowing money from the originator when in fact the loan is being funded from an enormous slush fund controleld by BofA. BofA is not the lender. The originator is not the lender and knows it. The lender is a group of investors nearly impossible to define because the slush fund, in order to avoid detection as a fraudulent scheme, contains the money from investors for multiple trust illusions. But the world thinks that BofA is operating legally.

The foreclosure is an important part of bank strategy. A foreclosure judgment and/or sale is the first legal document in the entire chain. Even though it was procured by fraud, the judgment stands unless vacated. The sale stands if not challenged. When a Judge puts his signature on anything resembling a final order or judgment, he/she is in actuality ratifying dozens of illegal acts that previously occurred. The judgment and /or sale starts with the legal presumption that everything that transpired previously was legal.

When these fake derivative products most fund managers did not take the time to “peek under the hood.” Those that did take the peek despite the representations of an insured investment of the highest quality found the truth — that if they put their money in the scheme it would disappear like quicksand. No deal, they said.

Borrowers were completely unaware that their name, private information and financial reputation were going to be used as commidities with the sole benefit going to banks like BofA. Borrowers were completely unaware that banks were manipulating housing prices far above housing values. Borrowers were completely unaware that there was a guaranteed crash in which BofA and similar banks would benefit in the largest economic crime in human history.

The real victims were the investors and the homeowners. Removal of the “intermediaries” would instantly provide an opportunity for investors and borrowers to work out loans without foreclosure.

12 Responses

  1. Doesn’t surprise me. We won our case, but had to get the Oregon Department of Justice and a Senator involved. Was told to keep quiet in “so many words”.

  2. Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac are in on this in my court case. My foreclosure is identical to
    The claims in the 10th circuit ruling on substantiating racketeering claims. It’s not one bank it’s a fraudulent system they’re all a part of. We need to write a book called “stealing homes for profit”. Tell about the epic failure to protect people from banks that were too big to fail . They took the bailout billions and committed mass fraud against us. Mass confusion ensued and banks settle to keep victims quiet while others are ffinancial mass destruction casualties who are kicked out of their homes.

  3. 1. LBAC LoanID. 60xxxxx763
    iSeries LoanID 87xxxxx28
    Creditor. FHLMC BAC133.
    Do any of these above IDs for BOA internal documents mean anything to anyone ???

  4. The Morrow Case and the 10th Circuit Court Ruling in Colorado last year on August 15, 2016 are cases that involve nasty old Bank of America and its co-conspirators like Urban Settlement Service, Shellpoint Mtg. and Seterus. Also let’s not forget our very own government being in all this up to their eyeballs- FHAF, CSE. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and many Congress people!!! I say Semper Fi and we all need to band together and write letter after letter as I have done and still no good response from the current administration or the USDOJ!!!



  6. Someone start a Go Fund Me for the couple and they will get substantially more that the BOA settlement silencing offer. The whole country can stand against them. Neil can spearhead another “write the judge” campaign.

    BTW, louise, the case is noted

  7. Reblogged this on The Most Revolutionary Act and commented:
    Deliberate suppression of successful foreclosure verdicts discourages victims from challenging them in court.

  8. LBAC LoanID

    iSeries LoanID

    Creditor FHLMC BAC133.

    Do any of these above IDs for BOA internal documents mean anything to anyone ???

  9. It would be a good thing if we could see some of those winning cases. What is the name of the case referenced here?

  10. Would be interested to see evidence of Garfield winning any of these tens of thousands of cases. We could find only losses.

  11. LBAC LoanID. 60xxxxx763

    iSeries LoanID 87xxxxx28

    Creditor. FHLMC BAC133.

    Do any of these above IDs for BOA internal documents mean anything to anyone ???

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: