Hello group. This is actually my first post (excepting my introduction), and this topic is actually what spurred me to finally become a member as I had some things to share which may help.

First, the assertion that banks do not want your property is simply not true. Now they may not be interested in trying to unload it into the open market at present, but that's an entirely different question (Do they want it vs Do they want to sell it now). In the US, we just witnessed one of the greatest heists of all time and it doesn't appear too many people have still caught on to what really happened.
Lest I wind up writing a novel here, I'll paraphrase and answer any questions it spurs as I can.
Notice: Nothing herein should be construed to render legal advice.
1st, Centralized Banks operating under a fiat currency DO NOT actually loan money. Every bank has a capitalization rate to maintain (usually 12-20% depending on their charter). Say it's 20%. That means for every
$20 worth of "assets" on it's books it can loan out $100. So where does the other $80 come from? The borrower's signature creates it, or borrows it into existence. There was never $100 in an account with the original lender backing the loan before hand.
2nd, so the bank has loaned you $100, and has $20 worth of their own assets on the line for it but also now has a security (lien) against the property you bought with it. Now the lending Institution turns around and sells this $100 security interest (your mortgage) into the open market, for say $70. The buyer who paid $70 is now the holder in due course with all the pertinent rights to foreclose the original "lender" had, and the original lender has divested themselves of the interest by operation of the sale and recouped their initial $20 outlay while adding another $50 to their balance sheet in the process.
3rd, By operation of the original bank having lent you $100, which should mean they have less money to lend out right? But what actually has happened is that now the original lender has $70 on their books instead of $20 (their original $20 investment in your loan + the $50 they made off the sale). But in reality what has happened under this operation in a perpetual debt system is that now that original lender has the ability to loan out another $350! ($350 X 20% capitalization rate = $70 on their books). and so it continues ad nauseum.

It was this process which froze up the foreclosure process' on BofA for over a year. Because they tried to foreclose on properties for which they had already divested themselves of the interest. Simply, they had no skin in the game.

Now to a refusal of payment. First, the tender, or offer, must be in accord with the terms of the original agreement (partial payments don't apply). But that if the account is current, and the payment is being tendered in form, and accord, with the terms of the original agreement then this applies;
U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS , PART 6. DISCHARGE AND PAYMENT

§ 3-603. TENDER OF PAYMENT.
(b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.

A very interesting side note: I used to have a copy of a court case but wasn't able to find it, he won but I would suspect they've since closed the loophole. The essence of what took place was that in a foreclosure process the borrower opened the record with "Your honor, I would like to settle this matter and the balance in full if the Plaintiff agrees. To which of course they did. He then asked, on record, if they would accept gold or silver as payment (they can't, try it sometime) they refused on record, he then offered a privately issued, non-redeemable note of debt, to discharge the obligation instead of satisfy it. They refused, he got that refusal on record, noticed the court of their refusals to accept the payments tendered, and then proceeded to prove that what he had described and offered is exactly what a Federal Reserve Note are, and showed the court he was without access to any remedy (law cannot compel one to do the impossible). The refusals by the bank and his lack of other options prescribed at law prohibited the bank from proceeding and the case was dismissed.
Check and M8
Apologies for the length, but I lacked the time to write fewer words.

bank of america accepts cash at some of its atms.
put 1000 into an atm in tempe az 5 days ago.
puts it into your checking account.
counts it.
gives a receipt.
you can then transfer cash to another account, that day.

Please go to
Analysis of the Occult Symbols Found on the Bank of America Murals
at vigilantcitizen dot com. read it.

then you can deposit cash too.

I apologize in advance for any discomfit this observation may cause.

"Legal Tender for all Debts Public and Private"

I guess banks are above monetary policy and federal law.

Where did they get those cops from the cast of Jackass...was waiting for Johnny Knoxville to roll-up.

It was bad acting all the way around. lmao

Without wading through all the replies, I don't think my local bank, even if it was the same company as my mortgage provider, would accept any form of payment. That doesn't even make sense. Why would you think they would? The mortgage end of BoA is most certainly connected with your local BoA branch in name only. Payments must go to the address on the envelope and that is usually not a local branch.

The title is misleading at best.

It's hard to find a borrower like this credible. When you raise your voice in a bank lobby, use profanity, create a rabble-rousing ruckus, then post your sad, sordid tale on YouTube, you make yourself look pathetic.

How about trying to make your mortgage payments in a timely manner? How about that idea? Then you won't have to make such a pathetic public nuisance of yourself.

But, yes, let's blame the Big Bad Bank. Yep, they are at fault here for you not making your mortgage payments. Yep, let's even blame the Banking Center Manager in the video for not accepting your partial payment -- Yep, he is definitely at fault.

Can anyone see what is going on here? The bank just wants timely payments of principal and interest. That's all. They don't want this guy's house, which would probably be trashed to smithereens anyways if the bank ever did take possession.

These borrowers are frauds, plain and simple, and an embarrassment to their friends and family. Get a job. Pay your bills. And, please, quit whining about your situation. Be a Man. Pay your bills, buddy, and you won't have to post these lamentable videos on YouTube.

The bank is a liar? You signed the mortgage. Why aren't you living up to your end of the bargain by making your payments on time? You're right. It's the bank's fault.

Seems banking has been a problem for thousands of years. Even in Athens B.C., the interest rates, taxations, debt and deficits of thousands of years ago seemed to devastate the agricultural economy back then.

look at this email from wellsfargo I just got.

Our "Transfer to Another Customer" service is changing
We're sending you this email because you've used Wells Fargo Online® or Mobile Banking to transfer money to another customer.
What's new
Starting in March, you'll be able to send and receive money using an email address, mobile number, or account number.
We're expanding our service to include both Wells Fargo and Bank of America customers.
What you need to know
Once you've signed on to online banking, you'll select the "Transfers" tab under "Transfers & Payments," then the "Send & Receive Money" tab (formerly "Transfer to Another Customer").
Your existing recipient information will remain available.
Some delivery times and transfer limits are changing. In most cases, you'll be able to send more money to your recipients.

Seems banking has been a problem for thousands of years. Even in Athens B.C., the interest rates, taxations, debt and deficits of thousands of years ago seemed to devastate the agricultural economy back then.

Bad banking has been a problem for thousands of years - Yes, agreed. But there are good banks, and good bankers that know how to lend money properly without all of the egregious and abusive practices we have witnessed this past decade.

A good banker can help an entrepreneur to grow a small company into a mammoth organization, employing thousands. With the proper guidance, counsel, and advice, a banker can be invaluable resource to an entrepreneur. Without access to capital, few entrepreneurs would have any success. And access to capital traditionally comes from a sound banking system, and, ultimately, a banker.

Originally posted by nongoogleable1


A very interesting side note: I used to have a copy of a court case but wasn't able to find it, he won but I would suspect they've since closed the loophole. The essence of what took place was that in a foreclosure process the borrower opened the record with "Your honor, I would like to settle this matter and the balance in full if the Plaintiff agrees. To which of course they did. He then asked, on record, if they would accept gold or silver as payment (they can't, try it sometime) they refused on record, he then offered a privately issued, non-redeemable note of debt, to discharge the obligation instead of satisfy it. They refused, he got that refusal on record, noticed the court of their refusals to accept the payments tendered, and then proceeded to prove that what he had described and offered is exactly what a Federal Reserve Note are, and showed the court he was without access to any remedy (law cannot compel one to do the impossible). The refusals by the bank and his lack of other options prescribed at law prohibited the bank from proceeding and the case was dismissed.
Check and M8
Apologies for the length, but I lacked the time to write fewer words.

I don't believe that, and if that did actually happen, you can sure as hell guarantee the bank appealed on the basis that the judge misdirected himself as to the law. You do not get to simply walk away from a mortgage - most states allow the 'equity of redemption' i.e. you are allowed to pay off the missed payments + interest + costs, OR, where there is an 'acceleration clause', the bank can demand the full balance once one payment has been missed, and if the mortgagor cannot stump up, he is screwed). Mortgage results in the bank recording a lien over the house, and a buyer does not get to escape his liability simply because he missed loads of payments and then decided he would try to pay in brass buttons. It just doesn't work like that. You also don't get to miss loads of payments and then come back with a few hundred dollars saying you want to pay some money.

If folks are going to be providing their legal opinion, you really need to be doing more research ... on several threads, we have seen people doling out absurd legal 'advice' which posters have actually gone on to use in court. This is dangerous, and irresponsible.

Fake.

Biggest red flag? Their own Facebook page. Take a look at the front, where it clearly says (next to their location) "Community Page about Occupy Together." They're "Occupy" movement people. Other red flags in this amateur shoot include, but are not limited to, the following:

A) Tripod in the background in the "bank."

B) People don't usually go to a desk to pay a mortgage in person; the tellers can handle that.

C) Everything about that supposed law enforcement officer screams "fake," including how patient he was with the guy when he refused to produce identification.

D) If they really ONLY cared about keeping their home...they wouldn't be making a big deal out of a cash payment; they'd just pay the damn mortgage.

Not a BoA fan here, and definitely believe the government is pushing for a cashless society. Just don't buy into this story, that's all.