Bank Of America Forecloses On House Couple Paid Cash For

Originally posted by djvexd
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Point taken. However both of those CEO's were convicted of crimes of a larger scope and for things that they had a direct hand in controlling. 1 house foreclosure generally doesn't even become detected on a CEO's radar unless the foreclosure of a major business and it's associated properties. Granted they could in theory trace it down to the actual account rep, however then it it becomes the arguement of who authorized what and then generall it is a he said/ she said.

Yep, true enough, but this shouldn't stop the couple from filing a verified complaint anyway. Also, theft of property and obstruction of justice are two very serious crimes. Further, the couple should also file a verified complaint against the individual LEO's who conspired with the bank to make this happen, as well as any judge who signed legal documents to allow this to happen. All parties involved are liable for either trespass, (LEO's and process servers), theft of property, (bank President), obstruction of justice, (all parties involved), simulation of legal process, (LEO's and any judge involved), malicious prosecution, (same as the last), and impersonating a government official (same as the last).

There are numerous laws on the books that could be used to put justice back in on this matter, and that is just on the criminal side, there is then the matter of civil suits. While the civil suits can be settled, by filing criminal charges, if the couple is inclined to settle, those criminal charges only up the ante, so to speak.

Originally posted by Signals

I hope they have a darn good lawyer.

ARE YOU INSANE!!!! NEVER hire a lawyer, THEY ARE IN ON IT!!

There are seven demands for Discovery questions to ask all lawyers, attorneys, counselors, esquires:
(1) Please produce the legislative act and its implementing regulations that precipitated this cause.
(2) Please produce the legislative act that created the office of lawyer, attorney, counselor, esquire. Please give me the address of this office where I may go and get a License for Practicing Law.
(3) Please produce a copy of your Oath of Office as an Officer of the Court and where you filed it into Public Record
(4) Please produce the contract signed by Myself, Proper name of the living soul, and you (name of the lawyer), in which I agreed to give up My constitutional rights.
(5) Please give Me your name, address, and phone number.
(6) Please give Me your bond number and your bonding company.
(7) Please send to me an acknowledgment that you understand that you have perjured your oath of office and are committing Constructive Treason against the constitution of the united States of America, the
State of ________ and the American Peace Flag.

AND

The proper response to "You have been sued" is the Redemption Process orRejection, Returning their Contract unsigned in full accord with Truth In Lending. Never let an Attorney or Lawyer send you any document without "Accepting it for Value" or Rejecting, Returning without a Signature in full accord with Truth In Lending.

BAR = British Accredited Registry ALL lawyers, judges, attorneys are british agents, traitors!!

reply to post by Signals

But BOA is the culprit here, not the naive couple.

I haven't said anything to the contrary, have I?

I submitted the source link to Drudge. Hopefully they post that story and millions of people see it.

The problem with this that I keep seeing all over this thread is something along the lines of this... "Boy I hope they sure get a good settlement for all these terrible things they've been through..."

Now don't get me wrong,I think they should be duly compensated (and then some) for what BoA has put 'em through, but a little settlement for literally stealing a couples home that they own completely. But a settlement really won't mean s#!t to BoA. Do you think, at maximum, say $1,000,000 will even faze them? Not in the slightest! There needs to be a criminal investigation of this!

The point of a settlement is just a much to compensate the victim as it is to punish the offender, and a fine against one of the largest corporate banks in the world won't do squat. There needs to be severe discouragement against BoA so they can't pull this cr@p again!

NEXUS

A one million dollar settlement won´t faze them, but the potential damage to their reputation could cause tens to hundreds of times that one million in lost business. If this story hits the MSM, it will throw their PR department into red alert mode.

Originally posted by NoEXcUseS
The problem with this that I keep seeing all over this thread is something along the lines of this... "Boy I hope they sure get a good settlement for all these terrible things they've been through..."

Now don't get me wrong,I think they should be duly compensated (and then some) for what BoA has put 'em through, but a little settlement for literally stealing a couples home that they own completely. But a settlement really won't mean s#!t to BoA. Do you think, at maximum, say $1,000,000 will even faze them? Not in the slightest! There needs to be a criminal investigation of this!

The point of a settlement is just a much to compensate the victim as it is to punish the offender, and a

fine

against one of the largest corporate banks in the world won't do squat. There needs to be severe discouragement against BoA so they can't pull this cr@p again!

NEXUS

While there has indeed been much discussion in this thread along the lines of "settlement", there has also been a very pointed discussion about the criminality of the act on the part of BofA. Indeed, not just BofA, but the LEO's and any judge that may have been involved. Further, while you are calling for an "investigation" of the criminality, the prior discussion called for the couple directly victimized by this to file a verified complaint forcing justice to move forward, with or without an investigation.

We the People are not at all helpless and dependent upon departments of justice and District Attorney's to put justice in. Any one of us has the power to file a verified complaint and such an action must be answered by force of law.



[edit on 13-2-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Digital_Reality
reply to post by Signals

 

Wow, I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. So they owned the house and BOA just took it by mistake and couldn't be bothered with the details.

Surreal...

No.. what's surreal is the municipality LET THE BANK DO THIS.

Tax records... hello?

The couple should sue the Bank, and the city. I hope they can retire millionaires off these disgusting institutions.

reply to post by Hypntick

Even if BOA dropped a check with 10 figures on it in front of me to settle out of court it would never happen. In a situation like this, they need their name drug through the mud. I would take this right to the federal level and keep pushing. Even if I got no money out of it, I would do anything to damage those jackasses for a mistake like this.

The problem is, it would never work. BOA would buy their 'good corporate neighbor' image back by admitting a mistake, paying you off, and setting up some bogus 'home counseling division' for the 'benefit of consumers'.

After all, everyone makes a mistake..

Then you would look like a case of sour grapes if you refused their 'generous offer'.

There was a time when we had good lawmakers who would fight to change the laws like this, but not anymore. They are all in BOA's back pocket now.

[edit on 13-2-2010 by mishigas]

This is ridiculous. As my dad said when I read this story to him: I would OWN BofA if this happened to me. I would sue the living daylights out of them until there was NOTHING left.

reply to post by fockewulf190


Good Job!



Thanks!

reply to post by NightGypsy


No, of course not.

Just wanted to make sure you agreed

Originally posted by daddio
ARE YOU INSANE!!!! NEVER hire a lawyer, THEY ARE IN ON IT!!

Yes, most likely!

What should they do, represent themselves?

You lost me there...

Originally posted by Teddo
There is one more thing I realize as well though...That the concept I presented above is not just in one person's thoughts, the concept is alive and circulating in the minds of a lot of people lately worldwide. Planting a reminder of that on this post just spreads it a little farther, and brings it that much closer to a reality.

Everyone I talk to I steer the conversation to banks big corporations and politics. I then present how we cannot live like this anymore. Then I mention revolution as our only resort.

Not one person I have talked to has disagreed.

Its coming sooner than we think.

Originally posted by Signals

Originally posted by daddio
ARE YOU INSANE!!!! NEVER hire a lawyer, THEY ARE IN ON IT!!

Yes, most likely!

What should they do, represent themselves?

You lost me there...

Actually my friend, if you look at what you wrote in your reply and think about what is being said you will find your answer. Represent is simply defined as:

"take the place of or be parallel or equivalent to"

An attorney or lawyer should act, first and foremost, as competent assistance of counsel. If you or I are suing another person, wouldn't we be in the courtroom ourselves? Wouldn't that be in our best interest? If we are there in the courtroom, why would we need any representation?

Ah, but you might argue, how could you or I possibly know the law in this regard in order to ensure a successful verdict? To that, I would argue, that we are all presumed to know the law anyway, and this is why we obtain competent assistance of counsel. However, in order to have an attorney "represent" us, we would be asked to sign over "power of attorney" allowing that shyster to control the legal arguments made in the suit.

As foolish as it is to place ones own health in a physicians hands, without first accepting responsibility for ones health, it is equally as foolish to place ones own legal matters in a lawyers hands without first accepting responsibility ones own knowledge of the law. Indeed, it is foolish to place such matters in a lawyers hands at all, as an attorney need be licensed in order to practice, and this licensing scheme suggest an improper relationship between state and attorney. That attorney is bound by the terms of his or her license, where We the People are not.

It has often been said that a man or woman who represents himself in court has a fool for an attorney. I suspect that is just clever sloganeering and advertising propaganda for lawyers. Yet, there is some truth in the remark, for if a man or woman goes into court with the mindset they are "representing" themselves, they have entered the strange worlds of a paradox. How odd it would be to take the place of yourself in order to represent yourself, or even odder still to be parallel to or equivalent to yourself.

If you or I go to court in order to sue another, there is no need to "represent" ourselves, nor any need to be "represented", as we are there, and we are there to gain justice.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It seems to me this case goes well beyond tort law and civil suits, and has ventured into criminal law, and the couple should go to the Sheriff's Department and file a verified complaint, for illegal trespass, theft of property, and obstruction of justice.

You're on the right track. Bank of America and its agents committed felony trespass and burglary. If they so much as touched these innocent homeowners they're guilty of criminal assault.

The arrogance of these corporate money grubbing morons is beyond description. These folks need great lawyers not only to get justice and a very healthy damage award, but to make an example of Bank of America with a punitive damages award they won't soon forget.

Originally posted by Realtruth
Federal decision trump state laws, so any decisions made in Federal circuit courts effect all states and most other federal courts.

Foreclosure procedure is governed by individual state's laws not by federal law.

My roommate had a pretty good idea. This family should be awarded BoA's CEO's house. He tried to steal their home, so they should be given his. The Bible says "an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind," but isn't justice supposed to be blind?

Originally posted by kyred
reply to post by kozmo

 

Concerning the old lady stuff and McDonald's

The woman eventually settled for about 665,000 dollars

Even further than that. It was thrown out on appeal because it was obviously a frivolous suit. Suing a company for serving coffee hot Last I read, she got nothing.

reply to post by Signals


Banks, particularly the size of BofA, Wells Fargo and others, are too big for their britches. They are too big to handle things correctly and corporate rules steamroll over established law, making people file suit in courts to correct the problems. Very costly and no one gives a tinkers damn.