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.

 

I am suing Citimortgage.....follow along as I hang these bastards.

page: 11
175
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

And, remember, during this whole period of time, CITI isn't getting paid one red cent while this borrower dickers with them and plays these ridiculous games.


I don't think he would go through the trouble of contacting his representative to help with the matter if he couldn't substantiate his side of the story.

He had made payments under the (2) new trial loan agreements so Citi "losing" his modification agreement not once, but twice, is clearly ahead in the games department.

I don't remember any great detail about the house being underwater, but otherwise, logically, he would certainly have attempted to sell it in order to pay off the entire mortgage.

I would be interested in reading a follow up to the article to see how or if the situation has been resolved.




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by lostviking
 


You have far more supporters here than non. Don't let the obvious bank shill poster scare you off. There are far more of us cheering you on and interested in your story. Don't respond to them, just put them on ignore


You don't have this many stars and flags because you are not supported!
edit on 6-12-2010 by Julie Washington because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09



So when a bank makes out a loan, does it loan against its assets as collateral, or does it simply "create money out of thin air" by giving the Federal Reserve a printing order? I think we can all agree that the Federal Reserve is america's semi-private central bank as they have admitted so themselves.


If a bank could truly "create money out of thin air" (it can't, by the way), then no bank would ever fail. We have had an unprecedented number of bank failures in the past couple of years, and more to follow. I am sure that if the CEO and Board Members of these failing banks could magically make money appear out of thin air to prevent their bank from failing, they would. Unfortunately, such is not reality, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary aplenty on the web.


Banks do indeed create a significant portion of that money by creating a journal entry and holding the note on the home as the asset, hence the term "fractional reserve" banking.

Here's a nice lesson provided by the Federal Reserve on how it all works:
www.philadelphiafed.org...

The banks that are failing are doing so because their losses exceed their RESERVES (actual money) and their other assets (real estate included) aren't liquid enough. This is only significant because most of these banks did not continue to hold the note, they sold it to investors (pension funds, mutual funds) who now expect to be paid.

You're wrong about so many of the things you try to point out. Makes it really difficult to know where to begin.

The banks were rolling in money, outsourcing the brokerage of the mortgages and packaging and re-selling them to investors. If you loan $20 to your notoriously deadbeat cousin and it doesn't get paid back, are you surprised? When these banks allowed their underwriting criteria to deteriorate, they knew they were loaning to deadbeats. They didn't care - they were going to pass it to the investors anyway. There is sworn testimony from a Citi rep that they knew in 2007, 80% of the loans they were writing were no good.

With their loose credit standards, all of a sudden everyone qualified for a loan. This it allowed real estate to climb to an unreasonable and unsustainable level. This created demand that didn't really exist, which created jobs which qualified more home buyers.

Because of this vicious cycle, people that were very responsible have been hurt too. Ususally because that job that was created by the banks pulling demand forward no longer exists. Or maybe that job was just shipped overseas. That's another discussion altogether.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   
finance.yahoo.com...

Apparantly this woman has staved off foreclosure for the last 25 years! Wow. Interesting read. Some of her arguments
are beingused today and it'll be interesting to see what happens if more people do this.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by lostviking
 

Anyone know how I block a member? I will keep posting if I don't have to read the garbage this troll posts. This post is about people who have been victimized by unethical lenders. Thanks guys.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scalded Frog

Originally posted by CookieMonster09



So when a bank makes out a loan, does it loan against its assets as collateral, or does it simply "create money out of thin air" by giving the Federal Reserve a printing order? I think we can all agree that the Federal Reserve is america's semi-private central bank as they have admitted so themselves.


If a bank could truly "create money out of thin air" (it can't, by the way), then no bank would ever fail. We have had an unprecedented number of bank failures in the past couple of years, and more to follow. I am sure that if the CEO and Board Members of these failing banks could magically make money appear out of thin air to prevent their bank from failing, they would. Unfortunately, such is not reality, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary aplenty on the web.


Banks do indeed create a significant portion of that money by creating a journal entry and holding the note on the home as the asset, hence the term "fractional reserve" banking.


Yes the promissory note the bank is holding is a credit to their assets account, but the cash dished-out to the buyer to be given to the seller of the house is a liability for the bank. In other words they are giving out hard cash just like a depositer walking in and demanding to cash-out his checking/savings account. Am I wrong here?

I think the confussion stems from the fact that money is not backed up by anything such as gold and/or silver. That is exactly what fiat money implies! Fact of the matter is money is just a bartering tool and could be substituted with monopoly money if we all agreed to do so. The only obvious crime is that central banking has fallen to private hands and we have to pay two layers of interest rather than one.



Here's a nice lesson provided by the Federal Reserve on how it all works:
www.philadelphiafed.org...


Can you tell me the size of the file and/or how many pages it is? I have a slow connection and it could take forever to download.....thanks!



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by lostviking
 


I guess you can no longer block a user on AboveTopSecret.com. So trolls are permitted. The best we can do is to IGNORE THE USER- COOKIE MONSTER. It is obvious that he is paid by a bank to protect their interests. If you look at his posts, he demonizes loan brokers while defending the banks. It is easy enough to find data to defend any lie you wish to promote. This isn't a thread about who is responsible. This is a thread about people who have been victimized, and who are fighting back. This is about the FACT that MOST LOANS TAKEN OUT AFTER 2000 HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY SECURITIZED, WITH THE NOTE NO LONGER FOLLOWING THE MORTGAGE.

In fact, if all of us could come together, most of us WOULD own our homes free and clear based on the way our note and mortgage were separated. That is a HARD, COLD fact in most states. You separate the note and the mortgage- YOU NO LONGER HAVE STANDING. We didn't force the banks to do that, they did it because they got greedy and sloppy.

Foreclosures are being vacated daily because the Banks cannot prove that they have the right to foreclose.
Banks did this because they got lazy, greedy or both.

Don't take it from me. Google the topic. Look at the boards of people who have been denied modifications that meet the HAMP criteria. Look at the run around these people get.

I encourage everyone who has had a bad experience with a mortgage lender to post here.

edit on 7-12-2010 by lostviking because: spelling



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by peter_kandra
If you had excellent credit and a strong income, why were you attempting a loan mod? You also say the payments were either returned to you or put into a suspense account. Where did that money end up? Did you ever try going to a bank branch to have them assist, or just make your payments there? Every time I have an issue with my bank (BoA), I usually go into the local branch and bitch and moan until I get it resolved.


you must be a professional by now



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   


I don't think he would go through the trouble of contacting his representative to help with the matter if he couldn't substantiate his side of the story.

Regardless, there are always 2 sides to a story, and we don't hear the bank's side of the story due to privacy reasons - The bank cannot talk publicly about a client's private finances.



He had made payments under the (2) new trial loan agreements so Citi "losing" his modification agreement not once, but twice, is clearly ahead in the games department.


Again, this is the borrower's claim. We have no evidence, just the borrower's claims.



I would be interested in reading a follow up to the article to see how or if the situation has been resolved.


Agreed.



Don't let the obvious bank shill poster scare you off.

I don't know the intimate details and intricacies of LostViking's particular circumstances. However, the title of this thread is advocating violence against banks and bankers, which I clearly find offensive.

Banks foreclose for a very simple reason - They aren't getting paid, and the borrower broke the contract. It's pretty straightforward. All I am asking is for just an iota of objectivity.



Banks do indeed create a significant portion of that money by creating a journal entry and holding the note on the home as the asset,


Banks earn interest on the loans that they make. What do you think happens to this earned interest? Yes, it goes to pay some operational expenses, and bank officer salaries, but it is also utilized for future growth, which includes using these profits to make more loans.

The bank has to actually wire money to the seller (via the title company) before they can write the journal entry showing the loan as an asset on their books.

That asset is called a loan receivable. A loan receivable is an asset, not a liability, for the bank. The loan receivable is based on the legally enforceable contract signed by the borrower. The bank also has a 1st lien position on the house once the loan closes.



I will keep posting if I don't have to read the garbage this troll posts.

Dude, chill out. And, gee, here I thought you had stated earlier that you were going to stop posting. Was that a head fake? : )

I don't know your situation, Mr. Viking, but when you advocate "hanging bankers" and promoting violence in the name of your thread, then someone needs to step in and bring some objectivity to the conversation.

This is a discussion forum, where points are debated and discussed. This is not a totalitarian forum where you get to dictate and shove your opinion down every reader's throat. Have a beer and loosen up, big guy.



but the cash dished-out to the buyer to be given to the seller of the house is a liability for the bank.


You are mistaken. Once the loan is closed, it becomes an asset, not a liability to the bank. Ask any accountant, and he will confirm this to be true.



It is obvious that he is paid by a bank to protect their interests.

I only wish this were true. Please let me know where I can pick up my check, lol!

Instead of insulting people that disagree with you (I don't, by the way, because I don't know anything about you), try listening for a change. You might learn something in the process.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by lostviking
 


I would bet my life Cookie monster is some type of paid PR person. He/she either works for a bank or a banking lobby.

Right away, this person wanted to characterize all borrowers who want a modification as criminals.

People who recieve mods honest people who want to stay in their homes.

And the central issue of this thread was that banks were taking payments and not applying it to accounts. Fraud - plain and simple.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

I don't know the intimate details and intricacies of LostViking's particular circumstances. However, the title of this thread is advocating violence against banks and bankers, which I clearly find offensive.


No it's not - it's an expression - no reasonable person would assume he implied physical violence. He is suing them and he hopes he get justice. For you to imply something else is unethical.

Cookie monster, I think you work for a bank or a banking lobby. If you want to give the banks side that's fine, but you have went too far this time.

Does your employer know you are calling people who ask for modifications criminals or do they ask you to do this?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Daughter2
 


I refuse to read Cookie Monster's propaganda, but I can deduct from the other threads that he says I am inciting violence? Cookie Monster's desperation is pathetic. It is obvious that he is a paid blogger, whose job is to trivialize stories like mine, while defending the 'victimized' banks who he claims are suffering horribly from evil consumers like me.

Obviously he is trying to silence me. It almost worked because I have little time for people without conscience. As my case picks up speed, and I post some of the findings- Cookie Monster will become more aggressive. My goal is to assist other homeowners who have been screwed over.

Today, I had my first victory. The robosigner company lied in a deposition. We know they lied, we have proof that they lied, and we will present this evidence at trial.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by pavelivanov22
 

The loan was in foreclosure. My only option was to modify, because once a Notice of Default is filed, it is nearly impossible to find someone who will loan money on a loan considered to be in 'default'. My credit score was 723, and my income was over 200k- but they shot down every loan modification I attempted. It wasn't like I was in over my head and had taken out a huge mortgage. My mortgage was under 500k. Unfortunately for me, I was fired from my job while on an approved medical leave. I sued my employer and won....however, I had gotten behind on my payments. My credit score is still in the low 700's, and I am again making good money.

This is my last justification of the circumstances. From now on I will post about updates, and the outcome of my case. Upon case completion I will post the case, in it's entirety online. I have already informed my attorney that I will refuse to sign a confidentiality agreement. I want people to know what happened. I want attorneys to use my case as precedent.

edit on 7-12-2010 by lostviking because: revision



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by elfie
 


My home isn't underwater. I had done major renovations, increasing the value by around 200k! My equity, and the condition of my home is the issue.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by lostviking
 

Cookie Monster might want to refer to the FTC's policy on paid blogging. If he is being paid, he is incompetent and doing more damage for his client than benefit. Cookie Monster's belligerence and fanaticism for his cause makes it blatantly obvious that he is working on behalf of someone who doesn't like my posts.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by lostviking
[more
In a foreclosure, the borrower really doesn't know if the lender/servicer foreclosing on him has subject matter jurisdiction or legal standing to even bring an action.

Here is case law that PROVES THE original note must be shown & produced. This case was before all of the mortgage fraud of lenders was exposed to the media in 2010. This requirement is more true today to protect the borrower and to ensure his rights are followed according to the UCC and that he doesn't end up paying twice for the original debt.

MCCay v. Capital Resources Company LTD. 96-200 S.W. 2d 1997

"Whether appellee apparently never possessed appellant original note as provided in Ark. Code Ann 4-3-309(a)(i) (Repl. 1991), BUT WAS REQUIRED, even if it had, to have proven all three factors specified in 4-3-309 (a) and did not do so, APPELLEE COULD NOT ENFORCE THE ORIGINAL NOTE'S TERMS BY THE USE OF A COPY, EVEN IF ALL THREE REQUIREMENTS IN 4-3-309(A) HAD BEEN PROVEN, the trial court was still obligated to ensure that appellee provided adequate protection to the appellants from ANY FUTURE CLAIM, and this, too, was not done. First, as previously discussed, we intention the unfairness in these circumstances that, if a duplicate was allowed in place of the original note, the McKays would later be SUBJECTED TO DOUBLE LIABILITY if the actual holder of the note appeared. Next we add that the Rules of Evidence are rules of the court involving legal proceedings, while the UCC is composed of statutes of law that established the rights and liabilities of persons. Again, as previously discussed, Capital Resources, as an assignee of the McKays note, could not sue on the underlying debt the McKays owed to Landmark Savings. For Capital Resources to have prevailed in enforcing the McKays note, it was REQUIRED EITHER TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL or ratify the requirements for a lost negotiable instrument under 4-3-309(a) and (b). Because Capital failed to do either, we MUST REVERSE AND REMAND.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lostviking
reply to post by elfie
 


My home isn't underwater. I had done major renovations, increasing the value by around 200k! My equity, and the condition of my home is the issue.


That is great! I wish you the best and hope you prevail. It's sounding good from your recent update.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by elfie
 

Here is another post for Cookie Monster....about evil people who had their homes wrongly taken by innocent banks. Oh yeah, the banks are poor victims in all of this. Cookie Monster you make me sick.

Illegal Foreclosures



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by lostviking
 


I find myself in much the same situation as you are in and am in the process of trying to find an attorney to take up my fight. I was permanently modified by Citimortgage for eight months and since day one of the permanent modification I was showing as delinquent. After four months of trying to prove my case that I was totally current Citimortgage unbooked my permanent modification and stated that I did not qualify. Now they are threatening foreclosure. I would like to know if possible who is representing you so I may seek either representation from him or her or a suggestion on who I may contact in my area, northeast Pennsylvania, that could take up this fight. If that is not an option I would be interested in either talking with you or emails giving suggestions on what has been done that I may do if I need to do this for myself.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   


I would bet my life Cookie monster is some type of paid PR person. He/she either works for a bank or a banking lobby.

False on both counts. But nice try! : ) LOL



Right away, this person wanted to characterize all borrowers who want a modification as criminals.

Not all borrowers seeking modifications are criminals. Naturally, some borrowers fell on hard times through no fault of their own. Nonetheless, there are certainly a plethora of borrowers in the criminal sphere. Don't take my word for it - Just read the FBI reports about the prevalence of mortgage fraud these past few years.

Again, I don't know Mr. Viking's situation at all, and I wish him all the best. Unfortunately, he took my posts as a personal attack, instead of understanding that yes, there are 2 sides to every story. Calling banks bastards is painting with a bit of a broad paint brush, eh? : )

I can't help that Mr. Viking suffers from paranoia, anger management issues, an "entitlement" philosophy, and a "victim" mentality, and thinks everyone is out to get him. He would have been better off settling for a pleasant mediation, but instead, he had to hire a big shot attorney, and now wants to go public with his case. What an ego! : )



And the central issue of this thread was that banks were taking payments and not applying it to accounts.

We must not be reading the same thread.



No it's not - it's an expression - no reasonable person would assume he implied physical violence. He is suing them and he hopes he get justice. For you to imply something else is unethical.


Okay, then why don't I post a thread entitled, "Criminal Borrowers - Follow along as I hang these bastards!" How about that? : ) LOL



Does your employer know you are calling people who ask for modifications criminals or do they ask you to do this?

Don't put words in my mouth. I simply stated that borrowers that committed mortgage fraud are criminals, and don't deserve loan modifications. I also pointed to evidence - The FBI web site and links - that clearly show that many borrowers lied to banks to obtain the loans in the first place. Why don't you try reading the link to the FBI web site I posted earlier?



....however, I had gotten behind on my payments.


In other words, you broke your contact. Now you want the bank to pony up and give you a loan modification. I find it funny that you find nothing wrong whatsoever with breaking a contract. No remorse or guilt about it at all. Speaks volumes about your character, not to mention your potty mouth! : )



Cookie Monster might want to refer to the FTC's policy on paid blogging.


I am not a paid blogger. Quit defaming me, pal. Just because you don't have a coherent argument, and can't hold your own in a debate, doesn't mean you have to result to insults, name-calling, and false allegations. You only make yourself look ridiculous.



Cookie Monster you make me sick.


The feeling is mutual. : ) I guess you are all in favor of breaking contracts, blaming the bank for your problems, and have no issue with people that committed mortgage fraud. Okay, I get it. At least we know where you stand, right? : ) No hard feelings, pal. Like I said earlier, you need a beer, dude! Loosen up.
edit on 8-12-2010 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
175
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join