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.

 

Ever Seen a Fraudclosure Auction?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
A good friend of mine sent this in email of them defending thier "fraudclosure" auction.

Here is in part what she said in the email:


Please note how the auctioneer expresses that there is NO promise of a
clear title. Please note the auctioneer places the minimum bid FOR the
bank, and that the bid is the absurd, inflated price that NO citizen
would pay. Please note that they fulfilled their legal obligation by
telling me the auction was Monday. Now they can hold the auction
whenever and wherever they please, and they do not even have to tell
me again. Please note 2 people came and stood as our witnesses. They
did not have to do a thing, just stand there. That made **** and I
KNOW we had support in our efforts, and it made the auctioneer know
that. Now he will take that message back to the banksters. We hold
that lesson in our hearts. THAT is how you love your neighbor.


I would love to see millions of people doing this across the nation. And millions showing up to these auctions speaking truth and maybe even shouting down the auctioneer. The banksters cannot steal the wealth without henchmen to execute thier decrees. I would love to see this video go viral and hundreds of others pop up like it.

I also love the term "fraudclosure" because that is what it is. Lets make that term mainstream!





posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
This is really convoluted and starts in the middle of whatever issue she has. Apparently there are two houses involved along with the IRS. Apparently there was a "loan modification" offered. She says she only paid "a couple of years" on the current house. We are deluded unless we believe in whatever conspiracy theory she is talking about. That's all the information we have, so it's difficult to figure out what happened.

MY GUESS as to what happened, based on the information presented.

1. Somehow she has two houses.
2. If the IRS is involved, that means they put a lien on at least one house for back taxes
3. She stopped paying the mortgage on the second house.
4. She says she was offered a loan modification, which means reduction in interest rate.
5. She wants to see some papers.
6. The bank is auctioning the house.

She said she wanted to see the promissory note. That sounds kind of strange to me. Wouldn't she have that? In all the loans I've done there are two basic and important pieces of paper. The promissory note and the Deed of Trust. The latter sets out the terms of the loan, including the interest rate, the total amount, the obligations of the lendor and the lendee, and what happens if you stop making payments. Deeds of Trust tend to be from 15-25 pages long and are full of legalese, of course, but the bottom line is that if you stop making payments, the lender takes the house.

She says she stopped making payments because the bank could not furnish her with what she considered to be the proper paperwork. I'm not quite surer why she felt she needed additional paperwork that she should have already had.

What else? I dunno. We don't know what led to her current situation.
edit on 3/9/2011 by schuyler because: add detail from watching full video



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
What a beautiful and brave woman ! People need to support her and support her now .If you don't there will be nobody left to support you when it comes for you and it will . Contact her , get the details and hound those parties until their phone server collapse .Pull any accounts you may have with them and tell them why ! I would gladly support her but I am of no assistance from overseas . It comes down to you locals as no Oprah Winfrey is going to save her .Thank you OP for drawing attention to her story .



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 



Sounds like you are a in the loan business in some capacity so I would not expect you to understand. She asked the the supposed mortgage holder to prove their claim, she has the paper trail over months and they have refused to give her the proof. And that is to prove they are the holder in due course by providing the wet ink signature note. Copies are not proof of claim. However here is another thread I started that might help you understand better what is going on:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 9-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by schuyler
 



Sounds like you are a in the loan business in some capacity


Thank you for the link to the other thread. However, I don't understand why you would accuse me of being in the loan business simply because I asked for clarification on what is going on here. I am not in the loan or banking industry at all. I have had loans, and those loans have been sold to other parties. My approach was to keep paying on the loan until it was satisfied as I had promised to do. It doesn't really matter to me who "owns" the loan. As long as I kept up my end of the bargain I expected to be treated well.

Worked for me.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by schuyler
 



Sounds like you are a in the loan business in some capacity


Thank you for the link to the other thread. However, I don't understand why you would accuse me of being in the loan business simply because I asked for clarification on what is going on here. I am not in the loan or banking industry at all. I have had loans, and those loans have been sold to other parties. My approach was to keep paying on the loan until it was satisfied as I had promised to do. It doesn't really matter to me who "owns" the loan. As long as I kept up my end of the bargain I expected to be treated well.

Worked for me.


Sorry It wasn't meant as derogatory, it just sounded to me like perhaps you were. Also the loans that you think you got were not loans at all, you were defrauded into thinking you got a loan, when there was no loan and the bank cannot prove they gave you a loan. The note you signed AND THE BANK/MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT SIGN was the money created that funded the property. The bank sold it because they knew it was an asset and they knew you did not, hence they led you to believe it was, that is fraud. The owner was paid in full and the bank was paid ten times over and you got 20- 30 years of slavery for funding all that while the banks made millions on your credit. Read the link I gave you.


edit on 9-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Sounds like someone trying to take the bank on at their own game without understanding the rules and getting mowed down.

I worked for a big mortgage bank, and I know they are as unethical as they come, and many of their practices are purposefully to screw people over for profit..

But I cannot support someone trying to game the system for monetary gain, then loosing and getting upset about it.

Don't take the banks on, regardless of how right you are or how right you THINK you are unless you have a very powerful attorney to represent your case. Otherwise you're simply playing a time game with the banks and eventually they will notice you and will shut you down.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I did read the link and frankly, it's more convoluted reading than a Deed of Trust. I really don't understand anything you are saying there. It seems like complete gobbledegook to me. To me it's very straightforward. I see a house for $110,000. I've only got $10,000. I go to the bank and say, "Loan me $100,000." They say, "OK. We'll charge you 4.875% interest over 15 years. That means you'll make payments of $784.00 a month for 180 months. Can you do that?" And I say, "Sure. It's cheaper than renting."

So I sign a Promissory Note and a Deed of Trust. The Deed of Trust is recorded at my county office as kind of a potential lien on my property if I fail to pay it off. The bank gives the $100,000 to the owner of the property. It's real money. He goes off and does whatever with it. Buys another house, a motor home, or takes a vacation to Europe. I don't care. He's got his $100,000 as a certified check from my lender. It's real money he's got to go play with. I agreed to the deal. There's the $100K right there. It's not just on paper. You seem to be ignoring that in your other link. What about the seller that got the $100K?

So now I have a $100,000 debt to pay off in 15 years. Let's just say I do that, so I pay a total of $141,120 to the bank. So they make $41,120 off of me minus any expenses, which are likely very little. At the end of 180 months they sign a "re-conveyance" over to me saying I have satisfied all requirements for my debt. That gets recorded at the County. The house is now mine "free and clear" (except for those pesky property taxes.) I haven't been a slave. I just lived in a house for 15 years on borrowed money. In most cases the house is worth a lot more after 15 years than all of my payments combined. If someone got caught with prices going the other way, oh, well. You might have a case against some real estate brokers who misled you, but, hey. You were taking a risk, huh? It's your responsibility. This happened to my son-in-law. Sorry; he was stupid.

So if the Bank sells off my mortgage to someone else, even several times, is that grounds for me not owing the $100K? Of course not. I still owe that money under the original terms of that promissory note. My debt doesn't suddenly disappear and it's really not necessary for me to even know the particulars or see signed papers proving the note was sold properly. If they screwed up, hang 'em high, but them doing so does not relieve me of my debt. One way or another I still owe that $100K under the original terms of 4.875% for 15 years. I can pay it off early or see it through, but the basics do not change.

What appears to be happening in this case is that the woman stopped making payments based on the idea that she is owed the intermediary paperwork showing just how her bank sold her loan. She went into default on the loan "because they did not furnish the paperwork" and is now complaining that the bank has no right to foreclose. Apparently the IRS is involved in this, though she may have said MERS, the loan recorder guys that have been in the news lately. I couldn't quite tell. It could have been both.

But the bottom line is that she stopped making payments, so they foreclosed. If she lost her job through no fault of her own I might feel sorry for her. If she over-extended herself by buying too expensive of a house because she thought the bubble would keep on growing, I might not feel sorry for her. I don't know the circumstances so I can't really say one way or another. But I don't see how that makes her a martyr.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


So your claming a deed of trust is so convoluted you can't understand it but your sure you got a loan of real money LOL!


Keep reading that thread you might catch on, or listen to the audio link I posted in there somewhere. The fact is you and everyone who has a mortgage are being defrauded by the banks. No money was ever loaned there is no money in the system all notes are evidence of debt. The create supposed money by creating notes out of thin air whether they are federal reserve notes or mortgage notes. In fact mortgages notes are the main source of money in the system which is how they blew up the bubble so large.

reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Oh she understands the rules, however most of America does not, or you would not be asking these questions. Many are taking on the banks and some have won. They are committing fraud and it is relatively easy to prove. It is just not as easy to get the judges, attorney generals, and police, etc. to enforce the law against such fraud because the fabric of our society is built on this very fraud. it is the greatest ponzi scheme in the history of the world it is the driving force of our monetary system and economy which is why we are n such dire straights. It can't go on much longer before it self destructs. I wish people would educate themselves on it. Many are but not enough.


edit on 10-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
No money was ever loaned


Very wrong, just how was the original owner paid $110,000 for his house? $10,000 from the buyer, $100,000 loan from the bank, so $100,000 WAS loaned!



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by hawkiye
No money was ever loaned


Very wrong, just how was the original owner paid $110,000 for his house? $10,000 from the buyer, $100,000 loan from the bank, so $100,000 WAS loaned!


No banks can prove they loaned any money to anyone. And it is against the law for banks to loan thier assets. So that leaves the question where did the fnds come from? The answer? IT WAS CREATED ON THE SPOT! How? The promissory note. I know this goes against everything you have ever been taught but how else could they perpetuates such a scheme for so many decades without the people coming unglued and lynching them. Education education education...


edit on 10-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
So that leaves the question where did the fnds come from? The answer? IT WAS CREATED ON THE SPOT!


So you now claim the bank printed the $100,000 the seller walked away with... just how much sillier can you get?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 




Oh she understands the rules


Not at all by the sounds of it. I've seen people with legitimate cases get shot down unfairly.. she sounds like she's trying to scam the system, find a loophole if you will.



or you would not be asking these questions.


Firstly, I've asked you no questions. Second I am very, very intimate with mortgages, as I was a point of contact between the bank and it's clients that tried every varied excuse they could think of, which I would then have to pull out their mortgage, highlight and fax to them. Most people that try to play the banks think they find a loophole and run with it .. like taxes .. Yes, many times the case is legitimate and still goes nowhere. The vast majority of the time people fail to realize ... the bank is the full force in the transaction, and you signed most of your rights away.



it is the greatest ponzi scheme in the history of the world


Yes, I agree, personally I am against any form of usury. However, it's a legal ponzi scheme. Unethical, for sure, but not illegal. Banks retain the right to sell your mortgage, it's a clause in the mortgage that can be negotiated out of the contract, though I've never seen a bank do it. Also there is no law that I've actually found that says a bank must provide the original document for the transaction, only a copy .. I get a copy of every document the bank has except for the deed, which I sign over to them because well... they bought the house, not me. All these transactions are done through a 3rd party which represents both the lender and borrower, they usually retain a copy of everything as well, and make sure I get what I need, the bank gets what they need, and the county/city get their docs as well. I can look through my mortgage and find the exact paragraph that says my mortgage may be sold to whoever for whatever reason and that I must continue to service said loan.

It sounds to ME that YOU read a few websites, watched a few to many you-tube vids and suddenly think you're some kind of expert on mortgages.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by hawkiye
So that leaves the question where did the fnds come from? The answer? IT WAS CREATED ON THE SPOT!


So you now claim the bank printed the $100,000 the seller walked away with... just how much sillier can you get?



No no .. they really do "print" the money.. that's a fact. The big reason why the banks failed was they "over leveraged".. they can loan more money than they actually have on the basis that they have enough assets/investment and or holding that at any given time certain amounts can be furnished. If however to many come for their money, a run on the bank occurs and it becomes insolvent. Before the crisis many banks were 50:1 leveraged, meaning they loaned $50 for every $1 held in reserves, when loans defaulted the assets became a liability and was an effective electronic "run" on said banks. Exacerbated by the fact that loans were not the only leverage, but exotic instruments like "Collateralized Debt Obligations" and "Credit Defaults Swaps" created a vast web of tangled assets, liabilities and absurd insurance on those assets. This is why AIG, an Insurance company, was the hardest and most expensive liability to our Government (IE, you and I) even though they didn't actually furnish the mortgages -- the insured the leveraged spread.




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
So if i understood her correctly,she took out a loan for a house,for the first couple of years she made her repayments,then one day for what ever reason she asked to see the contract to prove she owed a debt,the papers weren't given to to her for whatever reason,she stop's making her loan repayments and ignores all letters from the bank,the bank begins foreclosure and intend to auction her house,

Why did she believe she did not have a debt to the bank?
Why did she not have the copy's of her contract with the bank?
Why is she so surprised the bank is selling the house to recover the debt owed to them?

What am i missing?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
why couldn't they bank produce the note? Why did they have to resort to robosigners to foreclose?? why have I found myself wondering for close to a year now weather or not the bank WILL BE ABLE TO PRODUCE AN UNTARNISHED DEED when we pay off the mortgage??

as far as I am concerned, if they haven't maintained the integrity of the deed and c an produce a note that has the same integrity as it did when we signed the note.....ummm....
it's them that have broken the contractual agreement....
case closed....
they can have the house, I owe them nothing, matter of fact, I expect a little of what we have paid for the house back, thank you!!!!

one more question...
I read a few days ago that the republicans in congress are raising holy heck because of the settlement offer that the State Attorneys have sent to the banks....
why are they covering the fraudsters arses??
could it be possible that they are also involved in the fraud in some way???



edit on 10-3-2011 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2011 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I don't see much of a case here. You can put all the
s in your post you want deriding what I and others say, but you haven't really made a case. It APPEARS (and I'm not really sure) that you are claiming there's no real money, therefore there is no real debt. It APPEARS you are saying a person owned his house free & clear in the middle of the transaction and then immediately signed it away.

I can kind of see where you are getting this in that when you make a real estate transaction, you actually wind up "owning" the house. It's in your name and yiou already have what you're calling the "Deed," but the Deed of Trust acts as a lien recorded on the property that just sits there and does not affect you UNLESS you stop paying. The bank never owns the house, but it has the right to foreclose and take the house to satisfy the debt. Banks are the ones in trouble today because such a large percentage of loans are for more than the house is worth. If people do default, the bank is left with a bunch of houses they do not want that are worth less than the loans. THAT'S the house of cards in this whole issue and why, I would maintain, banks are even willing to consider "loan modifications."

I suppose you could make the case that the money is funny regardless. Since it is not backed by anything tangible, a dollar is just a mutual agreement. But this idea of the money being "created on the spot" seems nonsensical to me. A bank gets money from depositors and pays them a certain (now paltry) amount of interest for holding that money. The bank then lends out that money to borrowers. When the transaction happens, the debt is recorded and the bank's books reflect $100,000 less "on deposit" and a $100,000 debt it is owed. The seller gets a certified check for $100,000 and does what he wants with it. It's real money. He can spend it.

The bank then begins to collect principal and interest, at first mostly interest (fairly low these days, hence the paltry CD interest rates), but if you consider their $100K outlay, it still takes them over ten years to break even. If the borrower defaults any time in those first ten years, the bank has a serious problem. They are underwater on the loan for two-thirds of its life. Now the whole thing is usually favorable to the banks. Because the interest is heavily front-loaded, even if the borrower pays off the loan early, the bank still makes a tidy profit. They get back their entire principal of the loan and keep the interest they have collected. In order for the borrower to benefit, he must be in it for the long haul. Paying off the loan early amounts to his paying rent.

Of course, it's more complex than that because of what banks do after they make the loan. They tend to sell them to another entity at a discounted rate. Why? To get out from beneath the risk. SOMETIMES the borrower gets a whole new lender. One of my loans was with the Gibbons Company originally and they sold it to Weyerhaeuser so suddenly my statements came from Weyerhaeuser, which "serviced" the loan until I sold the house. And sometimes the bank continues to service the original loan even though it's been sold on the secondary market.

The entire issue above appears to be because this woman says the original bank does not have the right to foreclose because the bank sold the loan to someone else. So REALLY it's the "someone else" that should be the one with the right to foreclose. Since the route is convoluted and, in the case of MERS, subject to error, this lady figures she doesn't have to pay any more.

THAT'S the fallacy right there. SHE signed the note. SHE said she would pay according to the terms of the note. The bank never said they wouldn't sell the note. The bank has the right to sell the note. yet she says because the bank sold the note and can't quite come up with who did what when, then that relieves her of the obligation to pay.

What utter nonsense! Did the Promissory Note contain a clause that said, "If we sell this note, that relieves you of the obligation to pay." No, of course not. the Promissory Note stands by itself. Does the Deed of Trust say anything similar? No, again.

This is a scam. Think of the possibilities here. All you have to do is find the biggest house you can, get a bank to give you a loan, pay for a few months in the hopes the bank will sell the note and it will get very complicated, then refuse to pay and claim your FREE HOUSE! Then you can claim the grandkids are being forced out on the street and it's all the fault of the greedy banks. And a lot of clueless people will feel sorry for you.

There are some real hard luck stories out there where people have gotten themselves into serious trouble, but this story is not one of them.

Lady fails to pay. Bank forecloses. That is as it should be.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Ah ignorance is bliss... If the bank actually loaned money they should easily be able to prove it. BUT THEY CAN'T. How many of the nay sayers have actually asked the bank to prove they loaned money? NONE. I can prove it in anyone of your deeds its actually written right in there. But they literally bank on the same ignorance displayed by some in this thread.

The bank did not loan you any money. What you all think is money was created when you signed the promissory note. THE NOTE IS THE SO CALLED MONEY. It is in fact the main way money is created in the fraudulent system. FRN's are just the petty cash of the system. You paid for your house in full right then and there according to the laws see public law 72 or HJR 192. The bank brought nothing to the table but the fraud that they were somehow loaning you money and you got snookered into 30 years of slavery while they made millions using your note, and you have been brainwashed to believe you were loaned money and you owe money and you defend it in your ignorance as "how it should be" never having done the research, never even having read your deed before you signed it, not understanding any of it yet here some of you are defending ignorance instead of denying it.... Sigh!

edit on 10-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Oh, nonsense! I did not pay for my house in full because I did not have the money to do so. I only had 10% of the price. Are you telling me $10,000 was sufficient to buy a $110,000 house? Of course not. Do you think everyone gets a free house when they sign a piece of paper? That's basically what you are telling me here, that I bought a house with no or little money. Your fond of calling people ignorant. Allow me to return the favor and call "people" completely delusional.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 





but the Deed of Trust acts as a lien recorded on the property that just sits there and does not affect you UNLESS you stop paying.


The deed is predicated ON MONIES RECEIVED, no money was ever received real or funny money. You did not receive any before or at signing or even afterwards. This is the slight of hand. You assumed there was some money sitting in an account somewhere they they were going to use on your behalf to pay the owner for the house and you had to pay them back. This is not what happened. Your note was the only money in the transaction that is why it takes a a couple days to close so they can deposit your note and adjust the books USING YOUR MONEY/NOTE. The only so called money received was the bank receiving your note. They quickly deposited it into an account and then using fractional reserve increased thier assets times 9. Now why if this note was given to them for money received meaning they loaned you money would this be an asset? it would be a liability until repaid. But they know different and they know you do not know and they took advantage of your ignorance.

Why do you think the economy is melting down. IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS SCHEME. Wait till commercial so called fake loans hit the skids and derivatives. Please do your homework. Ask your bank to prove you were loaned money instead of just speaking in ignorance.
edit on 10-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join