The simple answer is because they are robbing you blind. And you are blind because they are hiding behind multiple layers of curtains.
*
*
The article in the above-referenced link says that regulators need to pull their heads out of the sand. The obvious problem is that legislators and regulators are prospective employees of the originators of the worst economic crime in human history. Thus each PR confrontation is actually an audition for a new job. And practically every legislator on federal and state levels has been paid serious money to support their campaigns for election and reelection.
*
The reason that such money was available to spread around within the marketplace, legislatures and regulatory agencies, is that securities brokerage firms who originated the current iteration of “securitization” have been converting the money of investors and the money and wealth of homeowners.
The article above is the tip of the iceberg. The absurdity of reported revenue from trading exceeding actual economic activity is not apparent to most people. And those who understand the fundamental defect are either directly or indirectly suppressed from speaking or taking any action. So as we now stand, only 50% of GDP consists of economic activity in the form of goods and services and 50% of “financial services.”
In the time before securitization was claimed to be implemented in the credit markets involving transactions with homeowners, such financial services and trading activity consisted of only 16% of GDP. Now it is 50%.
The effect on individuals has been profound. Wages have stagnated as debt was persistently and aggressively marketed as a reasonable substitute for rising wages. All efforts to educate the public as to the risks of accepting this infrastructure were successfully suppressed. And now people find themselves more interested in their FIFO scores than in the amount of money they have in any savings account – if they even have a savings account.
In addition, this love affair with debt has completely clouded the judgment of consumers, investors and law enforcement. They are all literally invested in this infrastructure as long as they have retirement or pension benefits. Nearly every stable managed fund is heavily invested in unregulated certificates with a value far less than the amount paid.
Consumers are agreeing to pay back money that should’ve been paid to them in the first place as a fee for assuming the risk of participation in a scheme whose principal objective is the creation, sale and trading of unregulated securities. And everyone is calling these transactions “loans.”
This infrastructure is undermining the basic economic strength of the country. The Nobel prize awarded to Ben Bernanke may be well deserved for his insights into the real reason behind the behavior that produced bank panics in the 1930s.
But no award should be granted for the policies he adopted that completely ignored the rights of investors and homeowners who were victims of illegal and fraudulent behavior on the part of multiple securities investment firms that, in my opinion, are erroneously referred to as “investment banks.”
Homeowners, in my opinion, should not simply be successfully defending legal proceedings that carry the label of “foreclosure.” they should be attacking such efforts as extortion. The fact that they are not doing so is only a testament to the fact that they are ignorant of the finer points of investment banking.
But nothing can change the fact that the money they received at their “loan closing” was money that was due to them for taking on and assuming risks that they did not know were present.
Filed under: foreclosure |
Thank you Neil. That is exactly what I have re-labeled my case as, extortion and been arguing for quite some time. If the Plaintiff, who has never existed gave the false label of foreclosure for the unlawful action at the onset but can’t meet any of the requirements of a “foreclosure” then it isn’t one. Just because a foreclosure-mill attorney says so doesn’t make it so. I am finding this to be one of the most difficult things to get the Judge to accept. Like Javagold wrote – “It’s hard to get a man to understand the problem, when his salary depends on him not understanding the problem.” So perfectly stated! The Judges’ retirement fund/pensions are dependent on these falsely labeled cases.
It’s hard to get a man to understand the problem, when his salary depends on him not understanding the problem.
This article you wrote makes a lot of sense. I will explain what is transpiring in my 2nd foreclosure case and hopefully it can help anyone in this fight reading it. I was Reviewing the first foreclosure complaint filed in 2011 by RCS. ” Plaintiff is the holder of all real beneficial interests in the subject promissory note and mortgage by way if an unconditional transfer. Plaintiff only filed an electronic version of a note never certification of possession of an original or notice of filing by US mail. The electronically filed note was rejected by the clerk and they were asked to file in paper form, which they never did throughout the case. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgement prior to the final summary judgement which was granted to me. In that motion Plaintiff filed, they said they were still in possession of the original and would deliver it to the court. A hearing was set for a motion to substitute Plaintiff which we didn’t make due to a conflict which the court and Plaintiffs attorney was notified about. Plaintiff sent an attorney for them from my county to go before that hearing and say we were not contesting the foreclosure as well and that they had filed a motion for final judgement prior to the motion for substitution for Plaintiff. The judge took their word for it and granted the motion for summary judgement. Basically, the attorney lied to the judge. My house was then put up for auction which we later got reversed through a motion explaining they were notified we had a conflict. Through my court reporter records Plaintiff did not bring to the court the Original Promissory note and Mortgage and again LIED to the judge and said it had been recorded in the court records May of 2013. The Judge nor us knew any different at the time if that was true or not just taking their word for it. Needless to say Plaintiff change 3 more time to the final trial and new Plaintiff WSFS for Primestar H Fund I Trust was there only per assignment and 4 years payment history lost and unexplainted. Final judgement was granted to us July 15, 2015 and in the judgement it said the note and mortgage was in the court records. FACT: Only there by being Electronically filed. The Judge didnt know this at the time. Later, Primestar motions for the release of the note and mortgage because they forgot to ask for it at trial. A hearing was set for their motion and was heard before a different Judge who never had the court file before him and granted the release of the mortgage and note to Damine Waldman esq, by FEDEX. Damien Waldman files new foreclosure 6 months later with a copy of the promissory note in mortgage . The one released to them had a stamp by the clerk of May 2, 2013. This one attached did not. TWO years later they finally file a certification of having the SO called ORIGINAL promissory note and mortgage with a crazy story with dates that do uphold their story why the wrong one was filed. The story is they only got an Imaged Electronic filed Copy because they never file the original in paper form by US MAIL this was noted by the clerks notice to GLADSTONE LAW FIRM to remove and file in paper form. I put this all together prior to meeting with attorney the day before trial and it was like a light bulb went off. We werent sure what Plaintiff was going to be bringing to court because they hadnt filed it with the clerk. I just had my trial which is now going forward to a 2nd trial at the end of November. Plaintiff brings the So-called Originals to trial in which we examined and low and BEHOLD it says May 2, 2013 and IMAGED( in red ink at the bottom. We argued why they are not originals and should not be admitted in as originals. The Judge at this point is questioning all of this and thank goodness appears not biased. I feel he admitted them in as the originals and has them being held where we can have them examined. I have hired two Experts. A Chemist and a Hand writing analyst with great credentials The chemist meets the “Daubert and Frye standards and evidently is only 1 of 4 in the country used in many high profile cases. This may not be very good for Plaintiff if it is found that these documents are fraud. Plaintiff took an oath and swore under penalty of perjury they had ORIGINALS under Fl. Statute 702/015. I also will have an expert appraiser testifying at this trial. He was hired to do a testimonial before the financial crisis committee about the 2007 financial meltdown. This would be the same year I received an appraisal to close on my home I just built. His testimony stated that 90% of the appraisals were fraudulently over appraised. Through his Retrospective analysis he showed my home was over appraised by $140k. Fraudulent inducement into the mortgage. We have filed appraisal fraud a defense in recoupment. No statutes of limitations for fraud.It was 4 years or from the time I found it was from when i had the retro appraisal done. I would love any feedback you have and i will be contacting the APON group to see if anyone will be attending. Justice will prevail