ARE YOU A VICTIM OF WELLS FARGO'S PAIN?: May 2014

Friday, May 30, 2014

I LOVE MY HOMEOWNERS.

HAPPY HOMEOWNERS
IS WHAT MY LIFE IS ALL ABOUT.

by Kelly L. Hansen

I came across this letter from a homeowner the other day. The letter was written a while ago, however, the meaning won't be lost on those of you who are still fighting for your homes.

I am publishing it again, today, because it sounds like foreclosure filings are increasing. I believe we are in for the next waive of foreclosures. Please do not lose heart. There will always be, I believe, people employed by the big banks who will be willing to help homeowners. Good advocates will know who those people are.

This letter has motivated me through some difficult times. I come back to it, and remember, God is always working. He works good for those who love him. His will is not always our own. Sometimes that is hard to accept. But remember, there are many more advocates now who work to assist homeowners in saving their homes. We understand what you are going through. We know your heart is breaking.

Hi Kelly,Where do I start? I read your letter to my family tonight (taking a deep breath with every new sentence) Thank you! And yes, you can post any, and all of my stories. We're in this together.

The blog you posted saved our future! The key to ASC success was dealing with one individual, and after sending emails to Wells Fargo's President, VP, And CFO, I had a response in four days from ASC! My wife was the one who took the call that morning while I was out dropping off the kids at school, and when she called me on the road with the news which was:"We are calling you from the executive department of ASC, and are very sorry you have had to go through this, we are assigning you to an individual who is going to get things straight, and it doesn't get higher than this", I could not believe what I was hearing, something that we worked months on with nothing but confusion, misunderstandings, three months delinquent, then all of the sudden...this? It was like seeing 911 all over again, I don't believe what I'm seeing, and hearing!

I wept behind the wheel to the point of almost having to pull over, but continued driving because I needed to get home to my wife and hear it again in detail. As I walked through the door, I saw this look of disbelief in her eyes mixed with a joy I have not seen for a long, long time. When I sent those emails out, I never thought a reply was coming, but something happened. In the subject line of those emails read "Why do you want my home?" I proceeded to explain the 100's of horror stories written by ASC victims, and how they all sounded alike, as did mine. The one question they had to ask when contacting my wife that morning was "how did he get that email information?", and my wife's reply was "you can get almost anything off the internet these days", which is how I found you Kelly.

All I did was Google "ASC Complaints", and OMG, there you were, along with more than I could handle. Fox Television even contacted me based on a blog I submitted, and had been getting so many calls, yet mine stood out, and wanted to do a live interview with me at my home, but I had to decline, for that was the day we were to get the news on the Special Forbearance Option that was about to be put into motion. We got the forbearance, yet within a week, ASC called back, and based on a plan I suggested they use, was submitted to the investor, and they approved it three months ahead of schedule.

All of the delinquent payments were then rolled back into the loan, interest reduced, payments reduced, and the rest goes into the history books. I've got you to thank for this Kelly, and I have passed this info to others whom have contacted me, and told me that they are starting to move forward in a positive way. ASC has also told me that the plan I suggested they implement for us, will now be used in other situations. A plan that has never been used before. I'm a Realtor, suffering like everyone else, yet WAMU agreed to a loan mod on another property that I own, and worked so well, I had to tell ASC where they were falling short, and how this plan could make it a win, win situation for the both of us. 3% year one, 4.5%, year two, 5.7%, year three, and every year thereafter.

So there you go. It's snowballing, and God used you, as he has used me to help those who are at a total loss as to who to trust, and which direction to go. I still look back on that morning when I got that call from my wife, and immediately thought of you. I saved your blog in Microsoft word, and was able to retrieve it. I needed to say thank you over and over again. I'm a firm believer that when you do good for others, good comes back to you. You're a God send Kelly, and I owe so very much to you for what you have taught me. If not for that information I just happened to stumble across that day while on a last chance mission, our home would now be gone. A million hugs and kisses to you my dear, you to are a totally awesome person!

A wonderful Christmas to you and yours!

I believe in miracles Kelly, and whether you know it or not, God appointed you as my guardian Angel!

Warmest regards,

Jeff Taylor

See? Jeff was really proactive, and helped himself in presenting a payback plan. Awesome idea. The lender new he was very serious, and capable, of saving his home.

Be happy, healthy and prosperous, but most of all, be good. *~^o^~ cheer

Kelly L. Hansen

FRAUD CAN'T HIDE

Jurisdictionary^{® just click on the link}

Kelly L. Hansen
HOMEOWNERS HELPING HOMEOWNERS

33605 W. 88th Street
De Soto, KS 66018
913-269-0399 Phone
888-881-2349 Fax

http://mortgagefraudvictims.org/

http://portal.fraudleaders.com/

"BOOKMARK" LIVINGLIES! NEIL GARFIELD IS A FAVORITE. HTTP://LIVINGLIES.WORDPRESS.COM

People Who Were Wrong Are the Winners — SO FAR

Posted on May 27, 2014 by Neil Garfield

First of all I don’t think Geithner caused the financial crisis. He certainly contributed to it but it probably would have happened even if he had not undercut Sheila Bair at every opportunity; and yes he should have listened to other people who were saying that the corruption on Wall Street had reached epic proportions.

Second, I think that neither Geithner nor his predecessor, Hank Paulson, as Treasury secretaries, had a real understanding of the crisis at any time up through today. And their bosses, Presidents Bush and Obama were even more clueless. And while they are probably culpable for their negligence and mismanagement of the crisis, the foreclosure madness would have occurred anyway.

Third, it is my belief that the culprits on Wall Street with all their tentacles stretched out across the globe were unstoppable by anyone except a good government with the resources to actually get to the bottom of it. What was missing was the desire to get rid of the problem and the naivete of the leaders in government in failing to notice that the entire banking industry was engaged in faking transactions and documents — and failing to ask why that was necessary.

Fourth my opinion is that the fault lies with the failure of anyone in government to learn anything relevant about the industries they were supposed to be regulating. If they had done so, starting in 1983 when derivatives became adolescent, the adult would have been far more tame and the crises would have been averted entirely.

Homeowners did not create the crisis. Tens of millions of homeowners did not congregate in a room thinking up 450 loan products when there were only 4 or 5. And saying they had bad judgment would absolve almost any perpetrator of economic crime because his victim was too stupid.

The laws were already in place. It was knowledgeable people that were missing. We needed and had faithful servants of the people — but as a society and as a nation each country contributed to the enormous problem that has now been created. And we will keep paying for it as banks take over all commodities we hold dear and “legally” corner the markets with stolen cash and property.

In Nocera’s article on Bankrupt Housing Policy, he points out that ” in the course of perusing another new book about the financial crisis, “Other People’s Houses,” by Jennifer Taub, an associate professor at Vermont Law School, I was reminded of an effort that took place in the spring of 2009 that could have made an enormous difference to homeowners, one that would have required no taxpayer money and might well have become law with a little energetic lobbying from the likes of, well, Tim Geithner. That was an attempt, led by Dick Durbin, the Illinois senator, to change the bankruptcy code so that homeowners who were underwater could modify their mortgages during the bankruptcy process. The moment has been largely forgotten; Taub has done us a favor by putting it back on the table.”

He goes on to say that he had correspondence with Sheila Bair who was undermined and stomped on by the Obama administration for even thinking about relief to homeowners. She was head of the FDIC and prevented from doing her job by a bankrupt policy of save the banks and damn the homeowners. “Because, as Bair told me in an email, “It would have been a powerful bargaining chip for borrowers.” Without the ability to file for bankruptcy, underwater homeowners unable to pay their mortgages were helpless to prevent foreclosures. With it, however, servicers and banks were far more likely to negotiate the debt load. And if they weren’t, a bankruptcy judge would rule on the appropriate debt to be repaid. For all the talk about the need for principal reduction, this change would have been the easiest way to get it.”

According to Adam Levitin, in the same article by Nocera, this should have been a “no-brainer.” I take that too mean that as I have explained above, brains were in short supply during the worst of what we have yet seen of the economic crisis that most of us think is not even half over. Obama may be leaving the crisis as his legacy not because he caused it but because he didn’t do anything about it — or at least anything right.

And I obviously agree with Nocera’s ending comment — “Why is it that the fear of moral hazard only applies to homeowners, and not to the banks?”

Gretchen Morgenson says Geithner admitted he was inept at times. ““We were human.” But this fails to address head-on the possibility that he was a captured regulator, a man locked into the mind-set of the very bankers he was supposed to oversee.”

Gretchen reports without objection from Geithner — “Last week, I asked Sheila C. Bair, the former chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, for her recollection of these events. She replied with an email recalling that in 2006, she attended her first Basel Committee meeting, the international negotiations that Mr. Geithner was referring to. While there, she pushed unsuccessfully to raise bank capital levels.

Why was she unsuccessful? “I was actively undermined by the Fed, the New York Fed and the comptroller of the currency,” she said. “I later complained to Tim about the way his representative on the Basel Committee had undermined me. He was unapologetic.”

Gretchen has not been given the resources to prove the corruption on Wall Street, but she knows it is there and as the fourth estate the NY Times should have provided her with a blank check for what would have been a Pulitzer or even a Nobel prize. for now we can only agree with her — “We were the lenders of last resort and should have been paid an enormous premium for the use of our money. We were not.”

There are suddenly a spate of articles on what went wrong because Geithner wrote a book and is selling it enhancing his own fortunes while he presided over the worst hit the middle class has had in our history.

Here is what investigators should have been looking for:

Behind door number 1 were the fools. These are the money managers who for reasons the defy explanation did no due diligence and bought empty mortgage bonds issued by a trust that was never going to receive the money, the loans or the property.

Behind door number 2 were the wolves of Wall Street including all the different brokers, dealers, banks, rating agencies and insurers, all the mortgage brokers, real estate brokers, and closing agents and title companies all in league to take as much money as they could out of the system and the hide it behind shadow money equivalent to ten times all the actual money in the world.

Behind door number 3 are the victims. These are the people who knew nothing about mortgages, derivatives or anything else. In the end they were convinced by super salespeople that they could never understand how they could afford the loan nor could they even understand why they must do it anyway. In Florida alone 10,000 such sales people were convicted felons. And yet when we talk of moral hazard we speak of people, and not banks. Why is that?

About these ads

Filed under: AMGAR, education, escrow agent, foreclosure, Occupy Movement, Title Tagged: |Barack Obama, George W Bush, GRETCHEN MORGENSON, Hank Paulson, JOE NOCERA, New York Times, Sheila Bair, Timothy F. Geithner

Where Do I Start in Foreclosure Defense?

Posted on May 28, 2014 by Neil Garfield

I recently received a specific request from an attorney in Massachusetts for litigation support there. He was interested, fascinated, but didn’t know where to start. After responding to him I decided to publish my response here for the assistance of others. He was asking for case law, but I redirected him to start with preparing his strategy and narrative.

There are plenty of cases across the country, including Massachusetts. In order to tailor it to your case, we would need to be retained for litigation support. Please speak with my staff about these options. It usually starts with a title and securitization report and then a consultation for an hour and then we offer varying levels of support depending upon what is required. Each state is different not just on the legal analysis but even more on what gets traction in a particular location.

As for the research, you need to know about securitization to know which questions to ask and what points to use as your focus. And discovery is a big part of this, but first you must make sure that in the pleadings you don’t admit the validity of the loan (i.e., the actual cash transaction because it probably came from a third party), the note, the mortgage, the default or the right to enforce. Keep reading my blog and go back in time as far as time permits and read the articles which usually have references to cases and other articles about this tragic misapplication of law and common sense.

You must build your case with a narrative that fits your case. The basic premise here is that the party on the note designated as payee, the party designated as mortgagee (or beneficiary under the deed of trust), the party that was the alleged assignee from the originator, the party who allegedly sold the loan all have one thing in common — no actual transaction that occurred in reality. They neither loaned money to the borrower nor did they buy the loan afterwards. The money that appeared on the closing table came from a third party not in privity with the borrower or the alleged lender at closing.

The foreclosure is simply another step in the theft, conversion or diversion of money, title and legal process to people and entities that perpetrated a huge fraud starting at two points of origination, to wit:

(1) — the sale of bonds to a pension fund or other investor where the money was never turned over to the issuer of the bonds (REMIC trust) and then was applied in ways described as pure fraud by those investors, insurers, counterparties on third party “sales” of the bonds and government agencies and

(2) the sale of mortgage loan products that were highly complex, lacking in required disclosure, violative of the prohibition of table funded loans and other laws against deceptive and predatory lending practices, using funding from an unrelated third party source leaving the investors with no note and no mortgage, and no bond — allowing the investment banks to claim ownership over all of it and leading to the creation of tens of millions of fraudulent, documents fabricated, forged and executed without authority for the sole purpose of getting the system to approve the forced sale of both personal residences and commercial properties where they could say the deal failed and avoid liability to the multiple buyers in multiple disguised sales of the same mortgage — directly or indirectly.

Both originations have this in common: the actual monetary transaction was NOT what is described in the paperwork that was used to lure the investor or homeowner into the transaction. The transaction trail and the monetary trail are the same. But the paper trail matches neither the transaction trail nor the money trail. Your goal is to show that to be the case when it is the case, which appears to be 96% of all loan “transactions” commenced between the years 2001-2009.

By showing that there can be no application of equitable mortgage solutions because no state allows equitable mortgages (it would disrupt the marketplace and undermine title), you proceed to show that the mortgage was never owned by the parties shown by the foreclosing side, and secures a note that does not describe the parties or the terms of repayment to an unrelated third party investor.

This negates enforcement of the mortgage altogether because it attacks the perfection of the mortgage lien as discussed in several cases, and leaves the note open for general litigation enforcement — but as an alleged holder, which is an admission that the party allegedly holding the note has admitted they didn’t buy it, they knew of borrower defenses (including lack of consideration) or both. Either way they cannot win unless they show the money trail (from origination to present day) which in my experience they have NEVER done in thousands of cases I have tracked.

For more information on litigation support, expert witness services and other assistance please call 520-405-1688, or 954-495-9867.

About these ads

Filed under: foreclosure

Do Equitable Mortgages Exist?

Posted on May 29, 2014 by Neil Garfield

Consult with a lawyer licensed in the jurisdiction of the dispute before deciding or acting upon anything on this blog.

I was taken to task for one of my comments by a person who is extremely knowledgeable in the banking industry and with respect to mortgages. He was thrown off by appellate assertions that in certain states and in certain situations assignment of the note is a virtual or “equitable” assignment of the mortgage as well. That is true certainly as between the parties to the sale of the loan — if a sale of the loan occurred.That is my point. If a genuine sale occurred the presumption of enforceability is almost irrefutable. Without the sale of the loan, an assignment is virtually nothing. All you need is a warm body to deflect the spurious assertions of the would-be forecloser.

It is true that endorsement and delivery of the note allows the holder to sue on the note. But it is also true that some appellate courts have gone off the reservation allowing foreclosure (enforcement of the mortgage) even in the absence of a genuine transaction anywhere in the chain of “securitization” . That is not what was intended by commercial transaction law, the UCC or anything else. In some states the presence of facially valid documents may allow for suit to be brought — subject to all possible defenses of the “borrower” including his denial that he is a borrower. “Did you get the money” is used synonymously with “then you owe the debt” with horse blinders on the question of to whom the debt is owed.

One lawyer in New York seemed to have gotten the Judge’s attention when he asked the Judge who was his cellphone carrier. The Judge said it was AT&T. And then the lawyer said, so what would you say to Sprint if they came in and demanded payment? You would say that as to Sprint, you are NOT a cell phone customer just as you are NOT a borrower in relation to someone who has neither loaned you money nor spent money purchasing your debt.

Starting with a fraudulent transaction and allowing it to be compounded by wrongful foreclosure is clearly not what any legislature, any court precedent, or any government policy was intent on doing.

Equitable mortgages do not exist in the law, per se. But there are numerous cases in which the idea was used to justify the result sought by the Court as the “proper” result.

And while if you push it there is no such thing as an equitable mortgage, there are particular circumstances under which it will be regarded as such — namely between a limited number of parties as litigants in the same lawsuit rather than “notice to the world” with nobody else on the horizon making a claim. In other words for purposes of a specific case and specific parties the mortgage is deemed effective — much as one might do when they enter into an IT agreement and they agree to treat the idea or business plan as patented in favor of one of the parties even though no application was made.

Thus spawns the idea that equitable mortgages are permissible. They are not. Equitable assignments operate in much the same way. They cannot operate against the world, but they can operate against specific parties because the circumstances are deemed to demand it. The error in the courts is that are skipping a step and lured into doing so by skillful avoidance of the distinction between a holder, a holder with rights to enforce and a holder in due course.

To that extent, appellate courts who have either fallen into that trap or been trapped by the lack of proper presentation by the borrower, have nonetheless committed a grievous error based upon the assumptions that there PROBABLY WAS A REAL TRANSACTION INVOLVING THESE PARTIES OR SOMEONE IN THEIR CHAIN. MY POINT IS THAT IN MOST INSTANCES NO SUCH TRANSACTION EXISTS AND FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS SHOULD STOP ADMITTING ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE UNTRUE AND UNSUPPORTABLE.

If an attorney doesn’t understand securitization, fact and fiction, then he or she should neither render an opinion nor act on it.

So the analysis comes down to the fact that there are no equitable mortgages, and there are no equitable assignments of mortgage — or else public records don’t mean anything — and then the entire marketplace would be uncertain as to title to virtually anything where a loan was collateralized. BUT a party can show that the instrument should nonetheless be enforced against a specific party whether properly executed, properly recorded or not using parol evidence, circumstantial evidence etc. to arrive at the truth. Just because it wasn’t in writing, unless the statute of frauds applies, doesn’t mean you don’t have a duty to perform under an oral contract. And if the writing was wrong and it is obvious from the facts presented by the parties that the writing was incorrectly drafted, then it is the SUBSTANCE that counts, not what is in writing.

To be specific, imagine that in an ordinary loan, the bank forgot to record the mortgage. Without some third party interposing a claim of superiority over the bank, the bank can nonetheless enforce the mortgage. If there were mistakes made, then the bank could simply ask for reformation of the contract and then foreclosure.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF (PERSUASION) IS ON THE BANK NOT THE BORROWER: In order to do ANY of the things described above the bank would be required to show the real transaction and the real facts and the real money trail — unless the “borrower” failed to deny the allegations and object to anything but best evidence, non-hearsay, credible testimony and real business records presented by someone with complete access to all the records relating to this particular loan.

For more assistance please call 520-405-1688 or 954-494-6000 and remember to ask about our AMGAR program.

About these ads

Filed under: foreclosure

« REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS CREATE TRAP DOOR FOR BANKS Where Do I Start in Foreclosure Defense? »

13 Responses

Guest, on May 29, 2014 at 11:30 am said:

Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, Greenspan & rest of them are ANTHRAX virus & “the most evil financial terrorists” who planned the whole thing which got off the ground with Summers’ secret memorandum he called “THE END GAME” as revealed & explained by Greg Palast: …

Keiser Report: CIA, NSA & Economic Espionage (E498)
Ray Shelton, on May 29, 2014 at 5:56 am said:

Dear Pam Bondi,
There are two lawyers out of Coral Gables Florida named Andrew Braaksma supervised by Paul McKenna who we believe may have broken State and Federal Laws. We also believe that they may have severely violated many rules of the Florida Bar. We also believe that they are destroying the integrity of our courts and our legal system. They along with their clients (US Bank and SN servicing) have uttered forgery and submitted Forged deeds in court and that is a crime because they know and have now seen the evidence. Very credible well known highly respected Notaries have come forward with sworn affidavits proving that the documents they used are forged. If these document are in fact forged and have crossed state lines which we believe they have, then why aren’t these people being prosecuted for federal anti forgery crimes? I have spoken to many victims of US Bank that are saying the same thing that their deed are forged, How can this keep going on In America? We have to file a criminal conspiracy lawsuit against these attorneys when it is clear that the state should step in a stop them from what they are doing. We believe that RICO charges may apply, please defend the good people of Florida against this type of fraud on our courts. Most people will lose their homes when they shouldn’t, most people lost their homes because the banks have a mountain of money and they beat down anyone who fights them. They just keep hiring other attorneys who can claim that they didn’t know the documents were forged, but you know most are, the OCC knew they are and any reasonable person now knows that crimes are being committed by the banks and no one is going to jail. The Board of Directors of US Bank, SN Servicing and their attorneys like Andrew Braaksma and Paul McKenna need to be prosecuted if they have broken the law. Please investigate these men and put a stop to this. Ray Shelton
Ian, on May 27, 2014 at 9:52 pm said:

Neil- of course when we “speak of moral hazard, we speak
Only of the borrowers, never the banks”. This is just another crystal-clear example of how stacked the deck is against the borrower. The judges as well as a good percentage of attorneys really must be idiots. Plain and simple, people with an IQ comparable to the common sea sponge, or toasters and other small household appliances. I mean enough is enough. Can’t they extrapolate outward to infinity and see the damage and looming consequences of their actions or lack thereof? Foreclosures, broken homes, suicides, deteriorating neighborhoods, insolvent or poorly performing pension funds due to purchases of MBS bogus REMIC’S?
Get on your horse and do something . In too busy paying
My ” mortgage”
The A Man, on May 27, 2014 at 9:28 pm said:

Can you blame the Banks? No! Because they know the Judge District Attorney and the SherifF wont do anything.

http://www.moneylife.in/article/us-banks-continue-to-steal-homes/37472.html

ACHTUNG
NEVER AGAIN
Venu, on May 27, 2014 at 7:45 pm said:

Bank of America wrote to us in an unsigned letter that the alleged mortgage was sold to Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (SLS). This company today sent something like a monthly statement showing money owed in which it states, ” This statement is for compliance and/or information purpose only and does not constitute an attempt to collect debt. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC is required by law to inform you that this communication is from a debt collector. However, the purpose of this communication is to comply with the truth in lending act regulation Z requirements for periodic statements.”

Could someone kindly explain in legal context what the statement in quote mean? Why would a debt collector sending something in which it is saying that this is not an attempt to collect debt. What is the motive behind sending this?
concerned21, on May 27, 2014 at 7:26 pm said:

Why aren’t people as concerned about people like us that were never in arrears on their mortgage and actually paid it off early? Also MGL ch 244 sec 14 was ignored because they couldn’t send a NOD because we weren’t in default, and never sent a Notice of Sale nor did they publish the sale in the newspaper! Unethical Lawyers & Judges are the ones that are allowing our homes to be illegally stolen!
The A Man, on May 27, 2014 at 4:20 pm said:

Dont blame the banksters Geithner etc…. Blame ourselves for allowing a Judge who has a financial Social etc…. relationship with the bankster to continue……… We can’t continue playing the fool.

This has to come from the property owner(s) community.

NEVER AGAIN
Nuremberg Trials.
The A Man, on May 27, 2014 at 12:53 pm said:

What kind of an attorney would let his/her client walk into a courtroom when the Judge has a financial interest (or a any relationship with the opposing side)in the outcome? That is not in your favor.

That is called walking into an ambush.
So no wonder the banksters are getting away with it. It doesnt take a genius to figure it out. You have no chance. Just like any team playing against the Harlem Globetrotters.

NEVER AGAIN
Charles Reed, on May 27, 2014 at 11:36 am said:

Sheila Bair could not properly deal with the situation because she got blood on her hands with the Washington Mutual Bank sell or non sell to JPMorgan.

She cannot rewrite history as if she was the good cop! Bair left with a job where she could have done the right thing for homeowners, but when she alleged to sell $308 billion in assets for $1.9 billion, but this con gave cover to Wells Fargo illegal handling of all the government insured loans!
Guest Again, on May 27, 2014 at 11:34 am said:

Husband had a Heart Attack, doing well. Hell has NO FURY like a woman stolen from! Many a Blessing
The A Man, on May 27, 2014 at 11:32 am said:

Just like Neil Asks for us to check originations we must also do our due diligence as to the Judges.
https://darwinbondgraham.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/california-appellate-court-judges-ownership-of-stocks-and-bonds-of-financial-companies/

NEVER AGAIN
Lauren Tratar, on May 27, 2014 at 11:31 am said:

here’s Part 2.

Sincerely, Lauren Tratar
Lauren Tratar, on May 27, 2014 at 11:29 am said:

In all due respect Neil, you are still a victim of naivete. People have been cunningly indoctrinated to “believe” in old U S of A and the alleged “ethics” and our moral superiority. A

When you further and deeper though, when you open your eyes to not only foreclosures, but beyond that to the extensive loss of pension funds, the manipulation of LIBOR of gold and silver prices, of American manufacturing jobs being sent overseas, of the intentional â€˜dumbing downâ€™ of our children, the rising cost of college until it is out of reach of an average American, the inability to go bankrupt on student debt, the crucifixion of Unions, the absurdities touted by both Democrats and Republicans, the privately owned Fedâ€™s manipulation of interest rates and our monetary supply thereby affording them access to create bubbles and burst them when â€˜necessaryâ€ while simultaneously touting that bubbles are natural…..

You must ask yourself: â€œWhat is the effect of these â€˜causes?â€ And the answer is CONTROL. Why is the judiciary not following their vows? Why are they allowing the big banks in 2008 get bigger through the acquisition of the ‘sacrificial lambs’, Countrywide and Wamu? How could Chase acquire Wamu’s assets of 320 BILLION for a mere $1.9 billion?

When I initially heard what I deemed to be “conspiracy theories” about a larger ‘agenda’ unfolding by a â€˜cabal of powerâ€™, I thought that these people must simply be delusional, â€˜believingâ€™ what they read on the Internet and interpreting it as “truth.” So, as an author of books on Amazon and Barnes and Noble, I went to Google Scholar and decided to go to the Source and read books from the 1700′s-1800′s-1900′s and OH MY GOD….. these people weren’t “crazies”, they had indeed discovered the real truth…

Attached is Part 1 of a lecture I gave at a local college. If you want to consider a more encompassing perspective, please view for until and unless you can identify the problem, you cannot solve it. Part 2 exceeds the 25k allowed so I will send it separately.

You are a brilliant lawyer and I know, want to help homeowners but in order to do so you must be aware of the bigger picture.

Sincerely,

Lauren Tratar