It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge blasts bad bank, erases 525G debt

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Judge blasts bad bank, erases 525G debt




A Long Island couple is home free after an outraged judge gave them an amazing Thanksgiving present -- canceling their debt to ruthless bankers trying to toss them out on the street.

Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments demanded by a California bank, blasting its "harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive" acts.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
A small bit of faith in the system has been restored today.
It seems that a judge has stricken a huge debt from a family who says the bank used unfair and harassing tactics to collect on their debt.

The couple "refinanced" and ended up paying only interest every month and couldn't get ahead.

Apparently the bank is also in a dispute about trying to foreclose on an 89 year old woman who as well has court orders to stay the foreclosure.

These refinance companies are just loan sharks and finally they are being dealt with as such.


(visit the link for the full news article)

www.nypost.com...

[edit on 25-11-2009 by conspiracyrus]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Refreshing news indeed. It's disgusting how banks were given so much taxpayer money to clean up their books, while still keeping ownership of the homes attached to the loans and evicting the occupants anyway, to sell the house for cheaper to somebody else. It's nice to see a few members of the government still looking out for the people.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
That judge deserves a beer and then some.

I hope an appeals court uphold this decision.

Banks are ruthless when it comes to collecting their debts.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
agreed, This is one of those things were i saw it and said ... what? that doesnt happen in america anymore ... the people winning? Its a comforting article



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracyrus
agreed, This is one of those things were i saw it and said ... what? that doesnt happen in america anymore ... the people winning? Its a comforting article


I agree! The banks hold too much power in this country. I have a strange feeling they are going to go bankrupt soon though...

Omni

PS- I'm eating a rice crispy treat, its delicious.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
On paper it sounds good. However, it will be appealed and the appeals judge will no doubt overturn the ruling. The Mortgage IS a legally binding contract. Even if there was harassment on behalf of the bank, they had money owed to them. I personally have no love for the bankers of this planet, but if these people don't pay, guess what...it affects all of us financially in the end.

It's nice to see the bank get told off...but sounds to me that the judge let his personal feelings get the best of him.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Banks are ruthless when it comes to collecting their debts.


When someone owes money and won't pay...how would YOU collect your personal debts? I would go to no end...even get shady characters involved if need be...wouldn't be the first time.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


your right its far from over ... but having the initial judge strike down the debt, it at leasts shows hope. It also does look good that they are in another legal battle against an 89 year old woman...

Plus if you noticed they bought the house for 200,000 dollars and after refinancing owe 500 thousand? there is a lot of questions to be answered and i just hope that the appellate court concurs with the judge

[edit on 25-11-2009 by conspiracyrus]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracyrus
 


Thanks for posting this.

"Dealing with the bank, he said, was "like dealing with organized crime."

Indeed. Looks good on the banksters

Good work judge!




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Erasing the debt? What a joke.

If anything, a more reasonable payment plan...

This reminds me of ridiculous law suits I have heard. Spill some hot coffee while you are at it...



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I 100% agree with the sentiment of what the judge did. The banks are not innocent business people in any of this...However, the people signed the contracts in full knowledge (supposedly, I hope they didn't sign something they didn't understand) and understanding of the risks involved with such a venture...Therefore I ask...Where and the hell is the personal responsibility in all of this?

I agree with the previous post that said the judge should have made a more realistic payment plan. Remember a judge is supposed to interpret standing law. You punish someone for violating a law. What crime or breach of contract as this is a civil matter, is he punishing the bank for?

Finally, don't start flaming me about being for the bank. The banksters are all a bunch of crooks. But just because they break and distort the laws doesn't make it alright for us to.

C'mon ATS'rs, we are better than that!


C'mon ATS'rs, we are better than that!



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixDemon
 


The only thing scarier than bankers out of control is judges out of control. Is this REALLY what ATSers want?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I would have to say though look at the principle 290k ... and interest and fees was 235k? something is a bit off about their billing methods and hopefully thats what the judge saw



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracyrus
 


They refinanced their home...from briefly skimming over the article, it appears that they refinanced in order to have overhead for a start-up business. Mistake # 1 on behalf of the home owner...also mistake one on behalf of the bank...lending more money than something is worth...you know what they say:

"a fool and his money are soon parted"

Seems to me that both parties were fools in this case. However, a contract is a contract is a contract is a contract....should be a lesson to all...don't over extend yourself financially.


MBF

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

When someone owes money and won't pay...how would YOU collect your personal debts? I would go to no end...even get shady characters involved if need be...wouldn't be the first time.


What if you do NOT owe somebody and they still demand payment?

I had payed a truck off and a year later they demanded another yearly payment. It took nearly a year before they realized that they had made a mistake.

I had got a loan from the government and repaid it. I got a letter from the govt saying that I was $69,000 delinquent and I had to pay that amount or they would foreclose. I went to the loan officer and told him what was going on and he checked the records and they showed that I had repaid the loan. He told me that he didn't care what the records showed, that I had to repay the loan again or he would take everything that I had. Funny thing is that he was arrested for a coc aine trafficking charge and the drug task force told me that they knew that he had paid a man between $200,000 and $300,000 to go to jail for him, but they didn't know where he had got the money from. This man has cost me about $1.5M already and I have been fighting them for 10 years now. Some people NEED a good slap on the hand.....or just cut it off.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MBF
What if you do NOT owe somebody and they still demand payment?


I will stop you there...because this isn't about what someone ALREADY paid...it's about contracts and payment due.

w/o doubt, I feel for you...but your situation is COMPLETELY different...apples and .....golf balls



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Wow. You seem to show up like batman to a crime scene whenever there's a thread about government corruption, or large corporate entities raping the little guy, to defend the government and corporations. Agenda much? Granted, a contract is a contract, but ALL contracts that are not strictly between law professionals, should be written and broken down IN PLAIN ENGLISH. Not legal jargon. As far as i'm concerned, any contract that is intentionally confusing in order to take advantage of those with less education, should be null and void.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


I don't think Aggie is "defending the government". I think it comes down to we live by a system of laws. Just because the law isn't good or you don't like it doesn't mean you ignore it. If its a bad law you work to get it changed.

I do agree that contracts should be written so that anyone with a high school education should be able to understand it.

But don't you see the slippery slope that this case takes us onto? A judge who doesn't like how someone is treated, regardless of the activity being LEGAL can override the law and do what that judge pleases. Look at the power you would be giving to the bench.

I understand everyone wants to crush the evil banksters...But this is not the way.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixDemon
I don't think Aggie is "defending the government".


Not in this thread, in this thread he's defending the corporate crooks. But in countless other threads, regarding the government, he sure does. Everytime.



I think it comes down to we live by a system of laws. Just because the law isn't good or you don't like it doesn't mean you ignore it. If its a bad law you work to get it changed.


Any amount of work attempting to change laws that benefit the corporate puppet masters of the current 2 party scam, is in vain, unfortunately. When the people vote for or against a law they don't like, the vote is ignored and overturned. Everytime.

Hopefully enough people will grow tired of being ignored, and basically sold off as livestock to various entities that make billions off our labor, and throw us table scraps. Maybe enough people will realize that those entities would be NOTHING without us, and we don't have to accept it as "just the way it is". Then the people will hold the power again, and maybe one day will figure out a way to stamp out corruption in the government for good, and work on a system where everybody truly has a chance to succeed.



I do agree that contracts should be written so that anyone with a high school education should be able to understand it.


I'm glad you agree with that, because the way legal contracts are composed now is meant to confuse people into signing unfair agreements. Most regular folks don't have the money for a lawyer to read and translate documents for them. You can't trust those who are pushing the loan to lay out the cons of an agreement for you. You never see the true bottom line written in the contract, after all the jumbled interest and percentage rates, probably because the number is usually grotesque, and at least triple the amount of the loan. They take advantage of people's dreams, and rake them over the coals, because they can.



But don't you see the slippery slope that this case takes us onto? A judge who doesn't like how someone is treated, regardless of the activity being LEGAL can override the law and do what that judge pleases. Look at the power you would be giving to the bench.


Sorry, in this case i won't disagree with the judge. Sure, it may just be the personal satisfaction i get from seeing a judge stand up for the little guy, but i won't disagree. Like i said, the laws won't change, even if the 100% of the people want them to. At this point, i see no other way the little guy can get a fair shake, without help from the bench.



I understand everyone wants to crush the evil banksters...But this is not the way.


I'm open for suggestions, just please don't bring up voting. Like i said, if they don't like what the people have to say, they tell us we don't understand the impact of our decisions and they will not let the decision stand. It happens time and time again.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join