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.

 

Wow! I guess Bank of America does care.

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by narwahl
 


Thanks for posting that article, narwhal.

I've added it to the library of articles I'm collecting in regards to this fiasco.

It seems as though CookieMonster subscribes to Chicago Politics.




posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


Again, it's your word against theirs


Again, you're making up facts.
There is no My Word v. Their Word.

Allow me to recap.
I have evidence of the deferment.
I have evidence of my initials being forged.
I sent the mortgage investigator approximately 50 pages of solid documentary evidence proving how the banks have poorly conducted themselves.

Have you checked out your Note recently to see if yours contains any forgeries?

Lastly, I really loved the way you assumed that Countrywide shredded my deferment agreement. What fantasy world do you live in? You must work for BOA since you're willing to place blame on anyone but them. Don't you think Countrywide had enough issues to worry about than shredding my deferment agreement? What would they gain by doing this?

I have nothing to gain by posting this story publicly. I just wanted people to know how the banks use our public services for absurd purposes because they are nothing but bullies and crooks.

Also, I loved the way you recommend working at any job in order to make your mortgage payment. For your information, I was in sales management when I purchased my home when my area was bombarded by four hurricanes. Nobody was buying what we were selling, so I moonlighted at a gas station.

So, in conclusion, you should stop assuming that everyone who gets in over their heads is a dead beat.
I won't harbor any hard feelings about you though because you'll get screwed eventually, too. I know plenty of people and families who are now living with relatives or have become homeless who never ever thought they'd be in such a situation. You need to wake up and realize you aren't immune to this economic meltdown that's been perpetrated by those you rub elbows with.
edit on 3-7-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   


FBI Estimates 80% of Mortgage Fraud Involved Industry Insiders

Nonsense. Your link is not from the FBI web site.

Let's take a look at what the FBI says was going on in 2006:

www.fbi.gov...

"Mortgage Fraud is defined as the intentional misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission by an applicant or other interested parties, relied on by a lender or underwriter to provide funding for, to purchase, or to insure a mortgage loan."

The patsy in a mortgage fraud is the Lender, (i.e., the bank). The applicant is the criminal.

"...The most common form of mortgage fraud is illegal property flipping which entails false appraisals and other fraudulent loan documents."

Again, the patsy is the bank. The criminal is the borrower and the mortgage broker, appraiser, and sometimes the title company.

"Lenders are plagued with high foreclosure costs, broker commissions, reappraisals, attorney fees, rehabilitation costs, and other related expenses when a mortgage fraud is committed."

Lenders are defrauded in mortgage fraud. That means the banks were defrauded by rampant mortgage fraud.

"BasePoint Analytics, a fraud analytics company, analyzed more than 3 million loans and found that between 30 and 70 percent of early payment defaults (EPDs) are linked to significant misrepresentations in the original loan applications."

So, as much as 70% of all of these loans were based on a borrower misrepresenting their capacity to repay the loan. This is straight from the FBI.

Remember, a lot of this mortgage fraud is perpetrated by organized crime rings that have inside knowledge of the real estate markets and how banks operate.



I have evidence of the deferment.

.......albeit, from a company, Countrywide, that no longer exists. And we have no proof that the deferment granted is a legally binding contract upon the successor institution.



I sent the mortgage investigator approximately 50 pages of solid documentary evidence proving how the banks have poorly conducted themselves.

Really? Is that the best you can do?

Why should anyone believe you? After all, you have already proven that you don't have the ability to keep your word, let alone a written contract.

"Poorly conducted themselves", eh? Yeah, well, what gives you the right to point the finger at the bank, when you are the individual that defaulted on the loan and left the bank holding the bag? You're not exactly blemish-free in the scenario, now are you?

In most mortgage defaults, the bank loses big-time. They not only have to try to re-sell a rapidly devalued asset, but they also get to pay the unbelievably astronomical costs of repairing the home that was trashed by the evicted borrower. They have to fork over attorney costs, title costs, real estate commissions, repair costs, etc., all to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.

Listen, borrowers play all kinds of games with banks -- claiming hardship when they are not in hardship, skipping payments, reneging on promises all the time. Don't think you are so innocent in this process - It takes two to tango, and I am sure that the bank has a file a mile long about promises you broke to them, starting with the defaulted mortgage loan and late payments.



What would they gain by doing this?

Countrywide would have had a lot to gain by shredding a deferment agreement or repayment plan. First of all, it would be able to command a higher price in the sale of its assets. The more delinquent loans it can hide, the higher the price it could command. Countrywide had every incentive and motive to cover up as many of these bad loans as possible for the sake of getting the highest price possible in the sale of its assets. And, it turns out now that we know factually that Countrywide was notorious for criminal activity in writing bogus, fraudulent mortgage loans, so who wouldn't put it past them to cover up your deferment agreement?



Nobody was buying what we were selling, so I moonlighted at a gas station.

So, in other words, you admit that you did not have the capacity to repay the loan due to a reduction in income. In that case, the bank should definitely foreclose because you cannot meet your financial obligations.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


I see someone has issues with reading comprehension.
The part about me working at a gas station was related to the year I bought the house. I didn't want to dip into my savings, so I acquired a 2nd job. I didn't request the deferment until a few years later.

I'm done bantering with you. The evidence speaks for itself and I don't have to prove anything to you. As far as I've seen, you're just as unreasonable as the banks. If you lived near me, I would be willign to meet with you and show you all the convoluted BS the bank has pulled on me. Alas, you won't ever believe that the banks are capable of such twisted practices until they happen to you.

No need to contribute any further to this thread. You believe I'm a criminal and I think you're kissing banksters' arses so you can live the life you think you deserve.
If it makes you happy to look down on me and consider me a criminal, fine. Just don't let it ruffle your feathers that I think you're a frat brat who only got to where you are because your daddy had friends. Now, you're too brainwashed to believe that those you're rubbing elbows with are a bunch of white collar criminals who amass their fortunes by screwing their clients.
At least I'm not afraid to fight against this crooked establishment you find no fault with. I'd rather be poor and have nothing than play for the team you bat for.
By the way, are you so sure you're playing for the right team? Are you willing to go down when they all do? Will you really be that surprised when you're also charged with fraud and deceptive financial practices along with your crooked bankster friends?
I hope you really like your buddies. You might be sharing a cell with them once everything's said and done. After all, what makes you believe that those you're defending won't throw you under the bus to save their own skin?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
BoA, not a fan.

I once (a few years ago) received a check in payment for work I did for a company. Driving home, I saw BoA branch and thought I would stop and cash the check. (less then $200).

The check was written on a BoA account but the teller told me that since I didn't have an account with the bank I would have to pay a five dollar fee. So to get my money from one of their bank account, I have to pay.

I told them what I thought of their nonsense and deposited in my bank. I do my best now to have nothing to do with them.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
BoA, not a fan.

I once (a few years ago) received a check in payment for work I did for a company. Driving home, I saw BoA branch and thought I would stop and cash the check. (less then $200).

The check was written on a BoA account but the teller told me that since I didn't have an account with the bank I would have to pay a five dollar fee. So to get my money from one of their bank account, I have to pay.

I told them what I thought of their nonsense and deposited in my bank. I do my best now to have nothing to do with them.


Actually that fee is pretty standard.
On the other hand skank of america is the company who's CEO half a year ago declared that the durbin amendmend on swiping fees was infringing on his divine right to profit.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Good for you!

It's a shame that such a huge corporate entity has to nickle and dime people who are cashing checks written against their own establishment. I'm happy to hear you gave them an earful and kept your five dollars.

At this point in the game, I don't know how anyone can work for a bank and still hold their head high.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I had never encountered a fee for cashing against a bank's account. It is more standard for a bank to charge to cash another banks check when you do not have an account at the second bank issuing the money. Another words, you are not an account holder at the bank issuing the money for another bank.

Other wise, who would accept a check without adding a fee to the total. The fee concept got firmly into place by getting people to use credit cards, so some institution can get a fee and the payee takes a loss.
edit on 7/3/2012 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/3/2012 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


It is more standard for a bank to charge to cash another banks check when you do not have an account at the second bank issuing the money. Another words, you are not an account holder at the bank issuing the money for another bank.

Exactly! I truly think that the big banks just make up the rules as they go along. They are betting on the fact that people will simply pay their stupid fee in order to get their money. I hate to say it, but you telling them to stuff it probably isn't what the majority of people do when confronted with this type of strong arm tactic.

One of my favorite stories is when my sister tried to cash a BOA check for about $3000. The first two branches she went to said they didn't have enough cash on hand, but the 3rd branch finally cashed it without issue. I don't know if they charged her a fee or not, but you'd think that a major bank should at least have a few thousand on hand at all times. It sure seems as though they are trained to give people the run around -- especially when it comes to people wanting to get money from them. Then, you have me on the flip side where they won't take my money. Beats the hell out of me what they want. I think the Twilight Zone resides in BOA headquarters.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Concerning the OP, the employee calling the police, which might have saved the bank money, a law suit, a life, the employee probably got fired.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
One of the officers asked me if it was a local BoA branch.

They were going to go arrest the someone for making a false 911 report, if it had been local.
Nice that the officers were going to back you up though.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 

I am starting to see that employees are either untrained or love acting under their own rules. More often then not, several conversation with a company will yield all different answers to the same question. Perhaps not caring about the job is also a big part of it.

Some clerks act so troubled by having to take you money for a purchase.

edit on 7/3/2012 by roadgravel because: typo



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I have to confess that I haven't cashed a check that often (Only once had an employer who gave me those things)

I recall going to the bank of my employer, and the teller telling me: "You aren't a customer here, i would have to charge you. why don't you just go to your bank?"

Anyway: @afterthought: I admire your spirit! I don't think you have to justify yourself. Best wishes from me.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   


I recall going to the bank of my employer, and the teller telling me: "You aren't a customer here, i would have to charge you. why don't you just go to your bank?"


It defeats the whole point of the system. That bank is stating, by setting up the checking account, to honor paying money for that paper (it the writer has it on deposit). It's their bank paper.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   


The evidence speaks for itself and I don't have to prove anything to you.

You've presented no evidence on this thread. Just your version of events from your perspective.



Alas, you won't ever believe that the banks are capable of such twisted practices until they happen to you.

Yeah, kind of twisted like defaulting on one's contractual obligations, then blaming others for their failure to take personal responsibility for their situation. I completely understand.

What is common with threads like yours is a complete denial of personal responsibility.



You believe I'm a criminal


No, I think you're someone that got in over their head, and won't take personal responsibility for your actions. Instead, you try to shift the blame to others instead of owning up to your mistakes.



only got to where you are because your daddy had friends.

Funny accusation. I guess when you are called out on the carpet, your true colors shine. No frat connections here, sorry.

It used to be in this country that people would be embarrassed about failing to honor their obligations to others, business or otherwise. You have no sense of personal responsibility. You won't acknowledge that, by defaulting on your mortgage, you have now lowered the property values of all of your neighbors.

All these foreclosures have also made financing more difficult, more costly, and more prohibitive, because of individuals such as yourself that walked away from their contractual obligations. Everyone else in society gets to pay higher costs now because of your actions. Thanks. We appreciate it.



Will you really be that surprised when you're also charged with fraud and deceptive financial practices along with your crooked bankster friends?

First I am a frat boy, and now you accuse me of fraud. Your true colors shine. Good luck with that. If you had any sense, you would at least form a logical, coherent, intelligent argument to support your false claims. Instead, you resort to personal attacks. Classy.



The check was written on a BoA account but the teller told me that since I didn't have an account with the bank I would have to pay a five dollar fee.

Yeah, this is kind of like stopping into a McDonald's restaurant and wanting to use their restroom facilities, but then never paying for a Happy Meal. Kind of the same concept. (Don't want to poop where you eat is the justification, right?)

"Here's a check, let me dump this on you, Bank of America. I don't bank with you, don't do any business with you, don't make any profit for you, but you should, of course, bend over backwards to cash my check.

Oh, and goodness forbid, don't charge me for cashing that check -- You might actually make a profit, and we simply can't have profits in our politically correct, utopian, socialist world."

Right. Sure. Goodness forbid that you pay a measly $5. We simply can't have that happen.
edit on 3-7-2012 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


On the check thing I do see your point and gravelroads point.

But on the profit thing I have to ask you two questions:

1)What is the profit on any product in a free market model?
2)What is the price of any product in a free market model?

Shall I add spoiler space here?
Yes, these questions are answerable without knowing what the product is if you ever took econ 101.




1) 0$
2 )Marginal costs of production
edit on 3-7-2012 by narwahl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   


"Here's a check, let me dump this on you, Bank of America. I don't bank with you, don't do any business with you, don't make any profit for you, but you should, of course, bend over backwards to cash my check. Oh, and goodness forbid, don't charge me for cashing that check -- You might actually make a profit, and we simply can't have profits in our politically correct, utopian, socialist world."


What a crock. That is what the bank does when setting up an account for a person to uses that bank to issue checks.

They pay the money to the person hold the check. If they want to tell their customer, the check writer, 'we will charge you $5 for each check you write' then fine. Other wise, every payee should add $5 to the invoice to cover their loss.

Lame is just lame. Every bank charging $5 on every check would be a great racket.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   


1)What is the profit on any product in a free market model? 2)What is the price of any product in a free market model?

Whatever price the market will bear.

In this case, Bank of America has determined that it shouldn't shift the cost of cashing the check onto its existing customer base. No, instead, the person attempting to cash the check should pay a fee to absorb the cost of utilizing the bank's assets - the teller, the computer system, the building, etc. - if it wants to cash the check there.

If the person attempting to cash the check objects, they are more than welcome to take the check to another bank.

Banks are for-profit enterprises. For some reason, people seem to think that banks are non-profits. I don't know where this concept originated, but it is patently false.

Would you approach a shoe shiner and say, "Please shine my shoe. After all, my boss pays you every week to have his shoes shined, so you should shine mine as well." Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Why would anyone think a bank should give away free banking services to non-customers?



That is what the bank does when setting up an account for a person to uses that bank to issue checks.


No, the bank set up the account so that the check writer can write checks from that account. It doesn't follow that the depositor of the check -- an unrelated third party -- is granted free banking services as a result.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I own someone $10.

That person or their agent comes to collect. i hand then $5 and state 'there is a $5 fee for me handing you the money'.

The payee has a contract with the bank to honor the amount they write on that check paper. Why should someone be forced to open an account with that bank in order for them to cash that bank's check. That mean a person needs an account with every bank from which someone may pay.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Afterthought
One of the officers asked me if it was a local BoA branch.

They were going to go arrest the someone for making a false 911 report, if it had been local.
Nice that the officers were going to back you up though.


That's what I think, too.
It just so happened that I needed to make a police report about a year after this incident for an unrelated incident. The officer who came out into the lobby to talk to me was the female officer who came to my house during this incident. When I reminded her of this, she burst out laughing and said that she also remembered me and the circumstances. She went on to tell me that she and the other officers were truly disgusted that the bank sent them out for trumped up reasons. If I need anyone to testify in my defense, she's one I'm calling and I bet she wouldn't have a problem speaking on my behalf. The police report is one of the documents I sent to the investigating officer.
Thanks again for posting your thoughts about this. Have a great 4th!



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join