ARE YOU A VICTIM OF WELLS FARGO'S PAIN?: BOA, BAC, RECONTRUST ALL ONE ENTITY. FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, READY, SET, GO.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

BOA, BAC, RECONTRUST ALL ONE ENTITY. FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, READY, SET, GO.

BOA Feeling the Heat is Striking Back at Foreclosure Defense Lawyers as Lawsuits are Filed Against Firms Who Represent BOA

Posted on July 20, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

EDITOR’S NOTE: The battle is heating up. BOA, for example, is stepping up efforts to cause as much trouble as possible for those foreclosure defense lawyers who are getting traction in the courts. This started some time ago as some people were actually indicted for using tactics that were essentially the identical to the bogus filings of the pretenders. The indictments were dismissed.
Now they are using Bar complaints and anything else they can think of to go after the people who are creating “good” law — i.e., cases in which the Judges follow the law without regard to the consequences to the bank that has has filed fabricated, forged or adulterated paperwork in its quest to get a free house from a homeowner.
The good news is that BOA is finding it necessary to attack those who help homeowners. The bad news is that they have a lot of clout and a lot of money. The likelihood is that they will draw some blood — some lawyers will get into trouble because any law practice that involves volume probably has some things that slip through the cracks. So my suggestion is that lawyers for foreclosure defense do a risk assesssment and make sure they have no red flags that the Bar can make hay with.
The article below is one such example but I have been receiving reports like this for 2 years. Coming on the heals of various state actions (Florida a few days ago and New York a few months ago) where the bank’s lawyers must certify that the paperwork is real and thus that the creditor is actually the creditor and that the amount demanded is actually due, it looks more like BOA is trying to balance the appearance of excesses by BOA, BAC, Recontrust and its lawyers. At the moment, it appears as though they are all one entity.
Submitted by Jake Naumer:

An attorney who represents victims of foreclosures and mortgage fraud
claims a senior partner with the law firm Bryan Cave LLP who
represents Bank of America and Countrywide Mortgage is using
underhanded tactics to try to put him out of business.

In the case filed in Orange County, Calif., Superior Court, attorney
Gary Lane says the bank’s lawyers have used intentional and malicious
tactics to prevent him from representing underprivileged defendants.

Lane operates a non-profit legal clinic, the Consumer Protection
Assistance Coalition, in Irvine.

Lane, who has been in practice for 39 years, says that over the last
three years his clinic began to handle a large number of cases
involving homeowners wrongfully threatened by banks and mortgage
lenders and has filed a number of suits against Bank of America and
Countrywide.

Stuart Price, a senior partner at Bryan Cave, is responsible for
handling Bank of America’s mortgage and foreclosure cases, the suit
says and it alleges that in every case filed by Lane, Price files
responses that include untrue and defamatory statements about Lane.

Lane’s suit lists actions that he alleges were taken solely to
undermine his reputation and damage his business, including:

•failure to file a stipulation delaying a hearing, causing Lane to be
sanctioned for not appearing;

•directed a witness to perjure herself, causing Lane to be sanctioned
by the court;

•filed a motion asking that Lane be ordered to seek a judge’s approval
before filing any additional actions against Bank of America; and

•filed a complaint with the State Bar taking issue with 78 lawsuits
Lane had filed against Bank of America, causing Lane to be required to
respond separately to each and every complaint;

Lane says that as a result of the law firm’s tactics, he has been
required to spend “countless hours” responding to the tactical
roadblocks.

In the case of the 78 complaints, Lane notes that the State Bar
normally allows an attorney one month to respond to a complaint,
anticipating that it will take that long to assemble a proper
response. But since Price filed 78 complaints in a single document,
Lane is being given only one or two months to respond.

Lane cites provisions in California’s civil procedure rules noting “a
disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid
exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech,” and alleges
that the purpose of Price’s actions is to block Lane from bringing
further lawsuits against Bank of America on behalf of troubled
homeowners.

The suit seeks injunctive relief, legal fees and dismissal of the
State Bar complaint.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor,Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure,foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee,WEISBAND

« FREE HOUSE MYTH DEBUNKED BY PORTER AND LEVITIN BOA’S COUNTRYWIDE GETS BANGED FOR FRAUDULENT FEES AND CLAIMS FOR AMOUNT DUE »

One blogger likes this post.

23 Responses

E. Tolle, on July 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm said:
@ Pat, the liability for the borrower’s bad decisions are abundantly clear when he’s facing three foreclosure actions, as I understand it. His liability begins and ends there, or with whatever the courts decide.
I never brought up fudiciary duty in my comment. However, courts have implicitly recognized imposing fiduciary duties on lenders based on certain circumstances such as when the lender undertakes to perform a task on behalf of the borrower, then it is likely that the lender has made itself a fiduciary for the borrower, based on the law of agency. I’ve had many an occasion when purchasing a house that the lender/broker has decided that different underwriters and appraisers would serve the situation better. I simply went along with this determination. This situation could easily cross the line into an agency relationship.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, fiduciary relationships usually arise when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first. Could that not be the result in my expectation that the lender is seeking just the right fit for my loan needs? You betcha’!
Your follow-up also implies that Carlos would more than likely continue the search for a creditor willing to underwrite his purchase. This is simply more gasoline on the flames. In my reply to you, I mentioned a builder allowing the future homeowners being allowed to pick and choose which building codes to use. In that scenario, when the house later falls down killing and maiming, it would be the builder carted off to a federal pen for a lengthy stay, not whichever nitwit homeowner picked the wrong codes and managed to survive the destruction.
As to the Fannie Mae argument, even considering whether or not Carlos was the product of our legislators zeal for affordable housing takes attention away from the point at hand. Should Carlos have been given three loans based upon his inability to repay the loans? And if not, where does the fault lie?
Joyce Cauthen, on July 20, 2011 at 1:56 pm said:
To Pat:
I don’t think it is correct in that you state the lender does not have a fidiciary duty under the traditional lending role. Under the DTPA, the borrower does have to establish that he has a relationship with the lender who elected to approve his loan. And there are rules under the applicable law section of each federal and state jurisdiction that do protect the borrower’s rights so that lenders cannot carry out acts that would harm the borrower.
You are however correct in that they have a fidiciary duty to the investor and stockholders – that is exactly why there are hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits against the lenders because of the dangerous loan programs which they knew the borrower could not repay. It is not consistent to say that the lender can mistreat or mismange the terms of the underwriting of a loan to include a borrower that is not qualified and then turn around and accept liability to an investor for makng the dangerous loans that resulted in the stockholder losing money. I don’t think you have that right.
Pat, on July 20, 2011 at 1:46 pm said:
What must also be considered is the actions of the Federal Government in all of this. Gretchen Morgensen’s book certainly goes a long way to showing how Fannie Mae and the government created the environment for this to occur.
The government has been for all purposes proposing that home ownership is almost “a right”. In 1994, with home ownership at 64% of the population, Clinton, with Fannie Mae comes out with a new program promoting ownership for low income or bad credit people. Failure for lenders to comply meant further action against the lenders, both by government and by homeowner advocates. This created the environment for what happened later.
Now, if people had been properly evaluated for loans, and had been denied, how likely would it be that people would file lawsuits alleging discrimination? And how likely would it have been that the government would take enforcement actions?
This was a no win scenario, and so the lenders played along, to their own benefit. If they did not play along, they suffered the consequences. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Easier to be damned for doing it.
Pat, on July 20, 2011 at 1:38 pm said:
First off, I am not an attorney, and I only work with and for them.
Second, there has to also be liability for a borrower’s own bad decisions.
Third, a lender has no fiduciary duty to a borrower when in a traditional lending role. Their duty is to their investors, and stock holders. Those are the people that have the ability to hold the lender responsibility, and they should take action.
Now, consider this. If Carlos had been turned down by one lender, would he have given up his quest to buy other homes? No way. He would have continued looking until he found a lender. This happened all the time. Buyers would not be denied. So, do they not have a responsibility for their actions?
E. Tolle, on July 20, 2011 at 1:22 pm said:
Of course Carlos is responsible for his mess….he didn’t have to buy all of those properties, and I’d venture a guess that he’s been paying for those mistakes many times over while tossing and turning over what to do about it now. Not to mention his damaged credit and so on.
But when Pat writes, “Yes, the bank should not have given you the money for the loan, but ….” But what? There’s absolutely no explanation or excuse worth continuing that statement with.
The banksters all knew their extreme lack of underwriting was exposing them and everyone else both up and down the line, from investors to borrowers, to the possibilty of losses of unfathomable magnitude. Is there any “but” that can excuse even the remote possibility of the kind of devastation foisted upon not only their own banks or what’s left of them, but on society as a whole?
Traditionally and for good reason, banks had underwriters who were so anal retentive about quality that you couldn’t pull dental floss through their collective asses…and that served their banks and society well. Anyone like myself who’s always been self employed knows exactly what I’m talking about. Getting a mortgage, traditionally speaking, has always been a very tough row to hoe (or floss to pull).
Enter the 2000′s….and all that is out the window. Money is free bigtime to whomever can write the most loans in the shortest amount of time. Because the origination is now totally disconnected from the risk. Who cares if the unthinkable happens, and all of these loans explode like a neutron bomb?
Analogies would be the building contractor allowing the future homeowners to pick and choose what building codes the builder would adhere to….the flight instructor letting the student decide if landings were really a necessary part of the instruction.
Pat, your statements reveal why I wouldn’t choose you as an attorney. Your narrow view and willingness to let bygones be bygones when it comes to the economic implosion we’re living through proves to me that you can’t see the true underlying causes of this mess. Carlos didn’t do it. Of that I’m sure.
carie, on July 20, 2011 at 1:19 pm said:
Oops, I mean “Thousand Trillion Dollar Question”!
carie, on July 20, 2011 at 1:18 pm said:
…and the answer to your “Trillion Dollar Question” is, of course, YES.
carie, on July 20, 2011 at 1:10 pm said:
Thanks for that, @Frank N. Fair…GOOD STUFF.
Joyce Cauthen, on July 20, 2011 at 12:48 pm said:
tn:
Not by any means am I absolving Carolos – the truth of the matter is though, the banks had no right to do that which would create some damage to our economy. Carolos is of course responsible to a degree and he cannot expect justice for his part that he played. That will be clear if the loans are looked at in such a way that all of this comes out and the banks do not get a pass.
In all my years in the financial services business, we selected the programs, determined that they were beneficial to the borrower, would not harm the market and most importantly our economy. In this case, the banks deserted what was morally right and ethical to permit them to pull off the scam of a life time, all at the cost of this nation as a whole.
Yes, borrowers were to a degree irresponsible for their actions and that will be factored into the consent decree now being utilized by the OCC (which by the way I am against), but the blame lies strictly on the shoulders of the banks and Wall Street as a whole.
You may a good point about the borrower’s responsibility and that, in itself, will add to the overall resolution to this problem, whether it be in favor of the banks or the homeowners. It must be weighed and measured, but it will be far less critical of an issue, when you have a bank determined to produce a loan product for Wall Street under any cost.
Thanks for your comments – I have always appreciated your views and postings. They are meaningful and truthful.
tnharry, on July 20, 2011 at 11:47 am said:
Joyce c’mon – with the phrase “Carlos should have been stopped” you absolve Carlos of any semblance of personal responsibility. The banks approved his loans and did so at their own peril and risk, but so did he in taking them. Carlos may have a great story and may have some real issues in his property dealings, but his posting was lacking anything of substance. Blaming the agent and the bank for getting him into 3 properties when he couldn’t afford them doesn’t equal the personal hell some people on here have been through in their own mortgage issues.
Joyce Cauthen, on July 20, 2011 at 10:59 am said:
If I have said it once I have said it a thousand times – the banking facility that originated the loan (or purchased it) and then funded the loan are the people responsible for the mortgage meltdown. Certainly Carlos should have known better, no question – but here is the deal -
The borrowers do not dictate to the lender that he must approve and fund his loan (s). Now, if the borrower committed fraud and that fraud could not be discovered at the time the loan was funded, then the borrower would be held responsible – Most banks know whether or not fraud is involved – in the past 7 years – not only did they overlook in an effort to produce a loan product for Wall Street, but clearly the OCC, the FDIC, the Office of Thrift, HUD and the internal auditors, all made sure the banks could continue to original and fund fraudulent loans or loans whereby the borrower did not qualify. It is as simple as that.
Carlos should have been stopped at the time he walked through the door and in 1987, our talks with Fannie Mae assured me at least that this would not happen again due to the programs for oversight of their seller servicer agreements (guidelines) – It is my opinion that in 1998, Fannie and Freddie absolutely to get in on market share of those subprime loans (that used to be A loans but fico’s maniputlated) began to engage in such purchasing of these portfolio loans – What a group huh, they make me sick. Now why have the Feds, the congress, and all of the regulatory not done something – they never intended to once the deregulation took place – It was the pathway to the destruction of this economy and they let it happen – Move them out. If not before the election, then at election time.
I have given up believeing in any political party. With the republican candidates now coming to the fore to run for presidency – not one word about the punishment for the banks, the restitution for the homeowners that were harmed along with the rest of the homeowners who suffered property decpreciation and of course, the do nothing regulatory –
Fannie and Freddie believe it or not need to stay in tact, but all persons having any leadership role, need to be immediately replaced and a review by the private sector before they can be approved to do business again. They were once a great entity and we did the right thing putting them in place in 1978 – but 20 years later, the wrong leaders led them down a different path with the Congress following close on their heels. I don’t want to hear another word about the Congress and Fannie and Freddie being in bed together – it doesn’t make any difference now – what does make a difference is that we rebuild the once very purposeful and meaningful entity that helped America grow. And when I tell you they had the right programs in place, I would steak my life on it, but I would also steak my life on the fact that they turned a different leaf in 1998 as the pressures to make money (bonuses and incentives for themselves) became front and center of their goals. And now we let them walk away with the huge bonuses – Rest assured what can the Congress say or do about them – clearly their hands are tied unless they are ready to admit they intentionally dropped oversight of these two agencies.
I laugh every time I see Franklin Raines at that congressional hearing when he said “oh yes, no Mr. so and so, the Congress didn’t make us make those loans and then they show the very next day I believe how Barney Frank was up their ranting and raving about the good shape that FAnnie and Freddie were in – Right. – One blaming the other and all have gotten off the hook even while bringing this country’s economy to its feet. Oh they may have paid some penalty, but how about we go over that again for the people.
Joyce Cauthen, on July 20, 2011 at 10:33 am said:
When will the people understand that most of those in office need to be replaced except for those that were recently elected in the last election. Now, having said that, it is time to think about restitution of for the homeowners that have been so harmed by Wall Street. And in doing so, the stockholders in those Wall Street entities are going to have to get used to the idea that the people are not going to give up the rule of law so they can earn their dividends. However, those stockholders (like all investors) are subject to risk in their investments and if their CEO’s etc., mismanaged the companies, then it must be the stockholder that goes after them, but first, the homeowner issues must resolved so that we can begin to recover in the housing industry. The housing industry represents a substantial percentage of the success of the American economy and we will not let the greed of those who have bestowed such acts upon us to ruin this country’s economy and good name.
I am sick of the senators and representatives who have done nothing about the OCC that reports by the way directly to them. The administration’s economic advisors need to be held personally responsible where applicable for what happens to this economy and it goes on and on. Now it is time for the people to take the country back and instill the moral and ethical values required to assure the success of this economy.
Pat, on July 20, 2011 at 10:00 am said:
Tn & Carlos,
This is the type of client that I have problems with, and do not work with. How could you not know that you could not afford the properties?
Why were you even thinking of buying three properties on $3500 per month? Going to rent them out and make payments that way? Then,you should have done your own due diligence.
Yes, the bank should not have given you the money for the loan, but you were just as complicit with using little common sense. You got wrapped up in the moment like so many others did. Now, you blame the lender and the real estate agent. Are you also blaming yourself?
The simply truth is that EVERYONE was complicit in what happened, except in very few cases. Everyone got greedy, and we now see the end results.
Frank N. Fair, on July 20, 2011 at 8:56 am said:
Neil, et als: Stand firm, keep fighting the good fight, keep spreading the word. There is a reason why such objectionable behavior plays itself out, although it’s not always clear at first blush.
From George W. Mantor:
Wringing Chaos out of Order
Why does it always seem as though given two options, elected officials will always chose the one that inevitably inflicts the most damage on their constituents?
A. Because everything is so unpredictable that despite their best intentions they just can’t get anything right.
B. Because they are boneheads who are incapable of digesting the mountain of research they buy, with our money, which invariably warns of the consequences of their intended actions.
C. Because they are part of a conspiracy to create a new world order based on global profiteering and the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a ruling elite.
D. Shit happens.
Is that your final answer?
Fundamental test taking theory says that when in doubt, always chose C. But I can understand wanting to assume no criminal intent and just go with B.
I’ve never understood otherwise bright people who zealously defend government as though it were anything other than the natural enemy of the individual.
How much do you need to see? The news isn’t even news anymore; it is simply a growing list of calamities for which the people we elect and pay are directly responsible.
A levee failing is not an “act of God”; it is the predictable consequence of continuing to allow our infrastructure to deteriorate and collapse, taking us and our lives with it.
Don’t let them tell you we can’t afford it. We can, but more importantly we must, simply to protect ourselves and preserve our investment for the future. Have you seen any pot holes lately? Just imagine what you can’t see.
We had everything going for us until we let them start telling us what to think, stopped informing ourselves, stopped voting, got fat, got lazy and turned our ever growing backsides to the responsibilities of representative government.
And in the void left by the absence of our participation they have become almost unstoppable in their quest for a consolidation of all wealth and power into the control of a handful of global elitists.
In California, where the “Impregenator” has been screwing everyone including the maid, 33% of registered voters bothered to cast a vote in the primary. Let that sink in.
You know that voting is perfectly legal, right?
That’s just registered voters; there are a bunch of the rest of you out there who argue that it doesn’t have anything to do with you. I understand your argument but you are wrong. Now, voting may not be enough.
The collateral damage will be unavoidable. You cannot get far enough off the grid to avoid the impact of the next ten years as, one by one, the full impact of seriously bad decisions comes home to roost. Did I mention that I am an optimist?
We squandered our rights to self-government and now a gang of thieves has, in little more than a decade, looted America and left it weakened to its enemies and more hated than ever.
A third of our men don’t have jobs. Those still young but war-weary, disciplined, returning veterans have a higher unemployment rate than the rest of their age group. Thanks for your service and sacrifice, now go enjoy life on the streets with the other 250,000 former service members. How can we stand for this?
And recent college grads face the same bleak job picture. Education for what? A PhD. will get you a job as the head Barista at Latte Land.
You can ruminate on quantum physics or the astral plane while you whip up a double, half-caf, banana, walnut, caramel chai frappe with a triple shot of espresso.
Why? We exported every job we could to countries with no labor rules and then imported ignorant cheap labor to do the jobs that could not be exported.
That’s why the bankstas and their abettors hate unions and blame them for America going broke. And unions tend to organize people…oh, they really hate organization.
So while our big corporations generate even higher profits, our leaders make sure that they pay no taxes.
It is either criminal or evidence of a raging incompetence so pervasive in government that we should simply turn all of the decision making over to a computer.
And what is the government’s response to its critics? More secrecy, less access by citizen tax payers and a test of the iron fist for those who pose a threat.
I’d like to get a few answers out of these people but the following topics are off the table.
Why is there a tax payer funded program that trains foreign workers to take our jobs?
It’s called the United States Agency for International Development and its stated purpose is to assist American corporations in outsourcing more jobs to countries with lower labor costs.
Why are we running guns to Mexican Drug Cartels and if we call it “gun-walking” does it change the answer?
Now I’m certainly no expert on combatting international narco-terrorism but, if it were me, I’d make them get their own guns.
It’s a little thing, but I think it sends a powerful message. Hey, Sinaloa Cartel, you Zetas, get your own fucking guns.
If we give them guns, it makes it look like we aren’t really serious about this war. And, the fact that we don’t control our border means that more and more Americans are at risk of being killed with guns supplied to the criminals by the victims very own government. Who do the families see about that?
Maybe we would win more wars if we didn’t arm the other side. Just sayin’.
Why is everything a big secret?
The answer to that seems pretty obvious when you consider the above. In my lifetime we have never witnessed the level of government secrecy that now exists in almost every area of government. The main justifications are that if we knew what was really going on, we couldn’t handle it; it would compromise our security and leave us vulnerable.
Isn’t it because they know they are engaged in activities that American citizens would be mad as hell about, if we knew? That is called guilty knowledge.
Why has the truth fallen into such ill repute with the government?
It’s just one big lie after another from our leaders, aided and abetted by a lap-dog media that can’t even figure out how to run spell check.
Why did we suddenly turn on our old buddy and regional stabilizer Muhamar Gadhafi and not the other Middle Eastern scoundrels we like to “Oil Party” with?
Before we get started on this I need to mention something I discovered during my research; there is no agreement on the spelling of this guy’s name. Every news agency spells it differently. There are about a dozen widely used versions but and one of the news agencies has posted a list of 112 versions.
Now, I don’t really care so I just spelled it anyway that came to mind. Now, back to why Libya and why now?
Was it because Lloyd Blankfien of Goldman Sachs screwed Kadaffi out of $1.3 billion in one of those GS/BS guaranteed to fail investment programs?
Kaddafi sent two of Goldman’s minions back from Libya with a message to Blankfien that it was either his $1.3Bn. or Blankfien’s testicles.
Blankfien was so scared he offered Gaddhafi a big stake in Goldman Sachs. Even an ignorant Arabian goat herder knows that old con. After the “Mark” is taken the first time, you offer an opportunity to get a whole lot more in the next big score. In the words of the South Park banker, “And it’s gone.”
So Blankfien calls Paulson, Paulson to Obama, Obama to Gates and we are off to Libya on a “humanitarian mission to prevent civilian deaths” as terrorist sparked anarchy is now referred to as pro-democracy in the Middle East. If you call a mid-east wide uprising of Al Qaeda a democracy movement. “Arab Spring” my ass. More like “Springtime for Hitler.”
We have singled out one of the more benign Middle Eastern terrorists and let the rest continue their reigns of terror. Why?
A lot of people have asked me why doesn’t the Securities and Exchange Commission do anything about the massive fraud going on all around them?
I have always responded that the SEC was a bunch of jerkoffs.
I was right again. Last month the inspector general of the Securities and Exchange Commission said his office has investigated three more SEC employees, including two staff attorneys, and an agency contractor for using their government computers to view pornography.
What’s really obscene is that we live in a time of the most rampant and blatant securities fraud and they cannot find anything to investigate and prosecute.
If they were firemen, their own building would burn down around them before they noticed.
What about this? Homeland Security has a new toy to abuse you with.
Apparently it has come to the attention of DHS that some people are starting to get a little frustrated having their children molested at the airport and other similar indignities to which we are now routinely subjected.
Well they have a name for people like you and me and now a means of detecting us: “Malintent.”
And you thought you still had rights. Well bless your naïve little heart.
A Malintent is a malcontent who is detected by a machine. A Malintent can be identified by one or more of the following: elevated blood pressure, rapid heart rate, shifting gaze, steadiness of gaze, certain facial expressions such as smiling, frowning, laughing, talking loudly, not talking, heavy breathing, and other non-verbal clues that might indicate that individual was thinking about committing a crime.
Unfortunately, I’ve been in a teeming rage for thirty years and you don’t need a machine to detect it. I don’t dare go near an Airport.
According to scientists, the MALINTENT detection system uses a barrage of non-invasive sensors and imagers to detect and evaluate a person’s behavior.
(Nice of them to keep it to the “non-invasive” sensors, more on the invasive options in a moment. Will the anal probe be next?)
So now the TSA has a means of detecting thought crime. If you sweat a lot, you can be detained and interrogated before any crime is committed.
Homeland Security feels that in order for us to be safe, we need to isolate people who demonstrate physical signs of stress. Where you could previously be arrested for saying “Hi, Jack” at an airport, you can now be arrested for thinking it.
There are going to be a lot of people being detained and a lot of false positives.
If you aren’t going along with the program cheerfully, the device can predict if you are frustrated by government incompetence, government bullying and the increasingly intrusive direction our country is headed in. You cannot make this stuff up.
Why do our local governments need LRADS?
Also known as “noise cannons”, LRADS produce a literally ear splitting sound that is being used virtually everywhere for crowd control. How invasive is a ruptured ear-drum?
In San Diego, the Sheriff drags one to every meeting of government officials. One vendor’s web site refers to it as a “behavior modifier.”
At the same time, cash strapped cities all around me are finding the money to buy armored vehicles that they have never needed in the past. Presumably, they see a time fast approaching when they will need to deploy such weaponry against their very own citizens.
Chaos is eroding the order of our lives.
The Banks are financial ENRONS propped up with our money and paying themselves huge bonuses for cleverly engineering a bailout.
And my still unanswered, “Thousand Trillion Dollar Question”.
If a derivative is an investment that has no value but is based on something else, ergo derived from that thing, and given that according to the World Bank of Settlements there are approximately $1,000 trillion in these investments that have no value, and given that the total value of everything on the planet is about $165 trillion does that mean that the world economy is a Ponzi scheme?
The medical/pharma/chemical complex delivers the poorest quality health care for the greatest cost on the planet. That is quite a distinction, first in cost, last in quality. Why?
There are kids in high school who cannot recall a time when we were not at war and they have no idea why…and neither do the rest of us.
Our local governments are bankrupt, unable to provide even the most necessary functions. They have laid off entire police forces, taken emergency response vehicles out of service and turned off street lights.
And not because we can’t afford these things, our elected officials just decided to spend the money on other things and while they were at it they spent money they don’t even have. Now the problem is that there isn’t any money left in our communities to pay the taxes that have already been spent.
We are on the verge of reaching critical mass and change, inevitable, massive upheaval awaits us. The message is pretty clear. Even our elected officials know that chaos is now unavoidable and they are getting ready.
George W. Mantor
The Real Estate Professor
Founder, American Foreclosure Resistance Movement
http://www.realtown.com/gwmantor/blog
http://www.gwmantor.hersid.com/
1611A South Melrose Drive, #134
Vista, CA 92081
760-758-0802
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” — Mahatma Gandhi
tnharry, on July 20, 2011 at 8:40 am said:
That’s quite a story Carlos. What type of gun were the agent and bank holding to your heads to make you buy 3 different properties when you were only making $3500 a month?
Carlos, on July 20, 2011 at 8:10 am said:
Between a realestate agent and the bank Countrywide got me into 3 properties, my wife and I we did not make more $3,500 per month. The bank push us to file for bankruptcy I filed 3 separete complaints in state court and the bank law firm Cave LLP moved the cases to the federal court in L.A. the judges dismissed my cases, judges don’t respect you when you filed and fight prosee. I contacted a dozen of attorneys no one wants to take my case unless I will come up with 5 to 8k this law firm Cave LLP is so unethical of course they go after the money not the law. Lets keep fighting for what is right and for a better future for our sons and daughters. God Bless America!
E. Tolle, on July 20, 2011 at 7:59 am said:
USEDKARGUY, add that the the nearly $9 billion loss BAC posted for the 2nd quarter. BAC’s looking a little jaundiced….their 3 month chart looks like the anvil found the weak spot on the table. Revenue down 54% from last year….
Schadenfreude? So what? This is war….when they pull out all the stops and attempt to cripple every conceivable avenue for distressed homeowners simply trying to stay in their homes during desperate economic times….when their attorneys turn the legal system upside down in an attempt at illegally strangling what small chance homeowners have….when the government sides with the criminals at these banks at every turn, it’s time to strike back in every way possible.
Jail these Bastards now! Keep up the pressure. No peace
Louise, on July 20, 2011 at 7:46 am said:
Yes. I was waiting for the cost of litigation to really sock it to the pretender/lenders. It is here, and it will continue to go up. More foreclosure mills need to bite the dust as well as the attorneys using illegal practices against foreclosure defense attorneys.
The A Man, on July 20, 2011 at 7:25 am said:
They are doing us a favor. They are weeding out the bad attorneys who claim to be on our side or can’t get the job done anyways They are alsopissing off more and more competent attorneys that will know how to deal with them. The good news is now they are going after the homeowners with money that can afford attorneys.
Darwinism.
NEVER AGAIN
USEDKARGUY, on July 20, 2011 at 7:18 am said:
YOUR DAILY DOSE OF DEFAULT SERVICING NEWS WED JUL 20, 2011
“Foreclosure Litigation Cost Wells Fargo $428M in Second Quarter”
Wells Fargo says its second quarter expenses included $428 million of operating losses, substantially all driven by litigation accruals for mortgage foreclosure-related matters. Loan losses, though, were down substantially, supporting a 29 percent increase in net income to $3.9 billion for the three-month period. The company says credit quality continued to improve, marking its sixth consecutive quarter of declining loan losses and third consecutive quarter with fewer nonperforming assets.
Yes, my friends. Hit them where it hurts. I’m doing my part!
The A Man, on July 20, 2011 at 7:13 am said:
WE can not wait for election times the politicians need to be recalled or
impeached.
NEVER AGAIN
Marie, on July 20, 2011 at 5:33 am said:
This is not just about the bank. It’s about the lawless attorneys who are willing to destroy another lawyer (in this instance) with baseless accusations and unethical tactics
The law license of anyone engaging in these tactics should be revoked. Let them sully some other venue. They need to taste their own medicine
I was evicted from my property by a bank attorney who used a government agency to remove me without the benefit of a court ejectment action. I’m familiar with lawless attorneys. Perhaps there’s a special circle of hell for them. I hope so.
Geanette, on July 20, 2011 at 5:03 am said:
I am happy to read that there is a lawyer willing to take on Bank of America. I am also not surprised to read about the under handing tactics used by the lawyers of Bank of America. Their practice is indicative of how Bank of America been operating….as if is a country unto itself and is above the law of the land!!
Bank of America MUST be broken down now!! They are too big to exist!! Their corporate leaders need to have criminal changes brought against them and serve jail time for breaking the laws!! We the people of the United States need to stand together and collective demand that action be taken against Bank of America and all other mega banks.
Our elected officials are duty bound to do something about this now…or suffer the consequences when election time rolls around!! Elected officials are here to protect the interest of the majority not cater to the minority.