Home Owners Across the Nation Sue All Bank Servicers and Their Offshore Havens; Spire Law Officially

page: 2
53
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Here's a link to the full PDF file of the lawsuit:

www.msfraud.org...

It's 390 pages (!) and takes a minute to download.




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
All fine and dandy, but did you ever stop to think if the banks are brought to their knees and file bankruptcy, how every living thing in the world will perish with it. Your talking about a complete financial collapse beyond repair. Or in the words of Dr. Peter Venkman- "Human Sacrafic, dogs and cats living together....mass hysteria!" Time to stop pointing the finger and look in the mirror. Its easy to screw up and blame someone else, but one who knows from the inside, that 99.9 percent of the cases in fc start with the borrower, not the bank.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


There's plenty of honest banks and credit unions out there. These entities are criminals and we've known that for a very long time.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


I disagree, that is just the kind of propaganda the banks want you to believe.

In fact, all deposits are insured by the FDIC (the CDIC here in Canada), so in fact, no the sticky stuff would not be hitting the fan as some would like you to believe.
(Yes, the link reads $250 000 per depositor... and that is per bank account, so if you have more than 1/4 million in savings you can spread that among different accounts!) Still believe that prosecuting a guilty bank will lead to a doomsday scenario?

As Signalfire pointed out above, this action is not aimed toward the law abiding institutions, only those that have committed fraud and/or theft. And it would seem, there are many.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the petty fines and penalties handed out to institutions in the past (which have been proven guilty, ad many cases admitted guilt), have only encouraged them to create their entire business model around questionable (being nice here) activities.

Hopefully the lawsuit will help to change this disturbing reality.

the Billmeister



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


You do understand that any law or lawsuit you file or create against a financial entity will only turn and pass it off to the consumers. It’s naive and idealistic thinking that you can control a bank through creating more laws or filing lawsuits. I’m not saying it can’t be done; it’s just that the consequences are passed on to you and me. If that is what you want, go for it. I’m not saying that banks are perfect and shouldn’t go uncheck. Yes there must be some regulation. All I’m saying is be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.


FDIC? Really? You have faith in more Government? You have faith in their financial backing? With 15 trillion in debt? LMAO
edit on 1-5-2012 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 


This lawsuit found that this illegal trap was allowed by the government. IMO this goes along with the plan to slowly take Americans away from their homes as the UN Agenda 21 is slowly implemented.

The government, and the Obama administration were in with the banks on this illegal scheme. Meanwhile they were claiming these modifications would help homeowners in reality there were no modifications, or very few done, if any.

My parents tried a modification on their home, which is a small townhouse, and the financial institution involved just ignored their petitions for over a year, almost two. They kept saying the paperwok got lost, and kept trying to ignore them even after my parents got lawyers. Even when the lawyers themselves sent in the paperwork the financial institution kept claiming they never got the paperwork, or it got lost, and at the end the financial institution involved threatened my parents with foreclosure...



edit on 1-5-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


I don't have faith in the government more so when they were involved in this scheme, however I hope the law still can be used to fight both the government and these financial institutions.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by kellynap43
All fine and dandy, but did you ever stop to think if the banks are brought to their knees and file bankruptcy, how every living thing in the world will perish with it. Your talking about a complete financial collapse beyond repair. Or in the words of Dr. Peter Venkman- "Human Sacrafic, dogs and cats living together....mass hysteria!" Time to stop pointing the finger and look in the mirror. Its easy to screw up and blame someone else, but one who knows from the inside, that 99.9 percent of the cases in fc start with the borrower, not the bank.


Not really. Since we have a fiat currency solving the problem would be exceptionally easy. Just nationalize handling of the real financial assets in a bank, bank accounts(while leaving debt and other baggage sink with the bank in question).

Then you establish a few quasi-public banks, similar to Credit Unions, and transfer the positive accounts to those banks: Net result= Failed institutions collapse and society keeps moving.

There is no reason to protect corrupt trash. No moral, ethical or rational reason. Only someone with a vested interest could come to the conclusion that mafia bankers should be protected to "save society".



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kellynap43
reply to post by Billmeister
 


FDIC? Really? You have faith in more Government? You have faith in their financial backing? With 15 trillion in debt? LMAO
edit on 1-5-2012 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)


I don't understand. The FDIC has existed since 1933, so it is in no way, shape or form "more" government.

I was showing you that all our savings are protected, and therefore would not disappear with the criminally guilty institutions. The money that these banks hold for us would not magically disappear with them, so the government would not have to borrow anything.

Therefore NO, the system would not collapse if justice was served to the institutions who have acted in a criminal fashion, in fact I would argue that it would not affect our day to day lives in the least.

(Of course, as Korathin also pointed out, if governments did not borrow from private institutions, the whole question of public debt would not be an issue, but I guess that is for another thread.)

the Billmeister



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns

Home Owners Across the Nation Sue All Bank Servicers and Their Offshore Havens; Spire Law Officially Announces Filing of Landmark Lawsuit


www.marketwatch.com

NEW YORK, NY, Apr 23, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- In a lawsuit alleged to involve the largest money laundering network in United States history, Spire Law Group, LLP -- on behalf of home owners across the Country -- has filed a mass tort action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Kings. Home owners across the country have sued every major bank servicer and their subsidiaries -- formed in countries known as havens for money laundering such as the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, Luxembourg and Malaysia -- alleging that while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan mod
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
builder-implode.com< br /> ma rkets.financialcontent.com
us- society.com
edit on 30-4-2012 by fnpmitchreturns because: tey to fix link unable but it works
edit on 30-4-2012 by fnpmitchreturns because: 2nd attempt to fix link break


GREAT post. Thanks.
I filed with the UCC TRUST division and the SEC Enforcement on April 15th. Haven't heard back from anyone yet.

What I have is a letter from the Comptroller of Currency, in 2005 regarding a Wells Fargo case that he supported. He stated that "TRUSTEE Banks lend no bank money for mortgages"! and that they are gaining title by other means.

It is actually called "Covet Means", and this was a crime punishable by death because it was a specific method of WARFARE on populations created in Babylon by the Covens of Azazel, the Corporations and Banks.

What I found is that a securitized audit will locate and show that the money was disgorged from the Bond Account called the Security of the PERSON which is part of the SS-4 agreement and backed by the National Bank ACT the banks were made trustees of these accounts. So like the guy that bought the Eiffel tower and then split it and sold the land then the structure..that is what all of them have been doing and in mortgages this is called bifurcating the mortgage. So the Note is actually unsecured..except for one thing. The Bank LENT no money..not even for the NOTES! This was your money, your account with your Name and SS# which is the cusip number, and is basically under the Bills of exchange act (BECA 1959-latest vers) it is called a check 'drawn on own self'.

So they sold the title to your house, and it was not theirs to sell, not by the Social Security Act and not by the rules governing checks drawn on self.
Then they securitized each and every 'Note" that you probably threw away...that 'bill' is a REMITTANCE. This is a document of title, and when you threw your copy in the trash, they were holding it on their side, then securitizing those instruments and bundling them into insurance packages and selling them on the market..for another profit. You see--IT had your name and account number on it! So they simply stole your identity and tapped your bond again, and again, and again.
In my case I found they also were redirecting my property tax refund checks and cashing them the same way.

So all of this money is stolen...becuase the premise of a 'contract' is fraudulent--they lent you no money, it was drawn from your own account (you cant steal or be called stealing from your own account) But generated for themselves and all their 'companies' multiple streams of income, based on a fraud. There was no loan.

I forgot to mention that this is 'Breach of Trust' and when they failed to inform the courts that they were trustees and other like..and then securitized, traded, etc, those instruments--this is classed by the SEC as Insider Trading. They had privileged inside knowledge of the Security of the Person, (while everyone else is now told it doesn't exist, I had it in school--and so knew who to write to--the UCC TRUST) and they knew that they lent no money and could tap it at will.
edit on 9-5-2012 by YellowRoseTx51 because: forgot to mention



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Another thing that is important to realize is that this is called a COMPANY STORE SYSTEM. It might look like a free market system, but when all benefit and profit is to the Corporation, that is called a company store system.
The only ref. I could even find to that, was "McQuade against Company Stores, 1898"
All these servicing agents, I also pointed out, are laundering the money and the titles by passing from one service agent to another (my property tax history show 7, I never even knew about) they claim 'lost' titles, but are awarded by courts the title as 'last' holder in due course on record. And all the while, the profits--and it is ALL PROFIT because they LENT NO MONEY--are funneled to the "Holder in Due Course" (the Trustee Banker)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 


The current "lender" is about the 7th or 8th since I took out the original loan. The loan was in 2002 and they were not involved as they are one the "stock" bundles. They never filed an assignment. The company that made the original loan went bankrupt within 2 years. I didn't know about any of the other lenders until I went to the tax office and copied all the records. The lost assignment wasn't even filed until they went to file the foreclosure suit in the county.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by seaside sky
reply to post by TXTriker
 


I caught the first news of this on Friday- I sent it to my attorney too. Like you, I'm in a fight with the bank and servicer. I'll let you know what I hear- let me know if you get any interesting news?



I'll will let you know what I hear. The only thing so far is not good. The attorney says it really doesn't matter about the lost assignment. The courts don't care. She did say that my servicer had their hand slapped by the justice dept for what they call "dual tracking" which is illegal. It consists of one dept working on a modification and another dept working on the foreclosure and neither talking to the other. Whoever gets it done first wins.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Rereading this & didn't see any updates, so passing it on ..

About joining Abeel:
- The case is a Mass Tort Action, NOT a Class Action.
- To be a plaintiff, your mortgage had to originate from 2000-2009. (Although the firm's letter does say that if your mortgage was serviced in that timeframe, you should probably be in some suit or other.)
- They claim they had over 15,000 hrs in the suit before filing.
- They're charging $5,000-$17,500 per property (not including foreclosure mitigation), plus up to 30% of win (which may include your Note! .. hmm)
- Their fees are normally $500-$1000/hr, so they claim a $10,000 retainer would only normally cover 20dys work on the low side.
- Plaintiffs must sign a Retainer and a Retention Agreement (for the additional % of win).
- If they win you a monetary judgement, they take the 30% off the top. (Not uncommon)
- BUT .. here's the part that'll make your hair stand on end .. if they win a non-monetary judgment (ex win your mortgage) - they may hold the Note! (Understandable maybe, but could be frying pan to fire.)

Overall, it doesn't appear to be much of an option for the "lil guy", but still worth following & kyping the arguments says I :-)

Cheers!



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Apologies for going off topic here for a second, but since there's some discussion about the FDIC..

They (FDIC) just filed three lawsuits against a large group of banks (mortgage securitizers). This is supposed to be the first round, and another "tip of the iceberg/open the floodgates" scenario.

That's the good news.
The bad news is that all these danged icebergs & floodgates don't seem to have done homeowners a whit of good.

Still, we watch.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtlasShrugging
Overall, it doesn't appear to be much of an option for the "lil guy"
Your stuff changes hands from 1 thief to another, and you go deeper in debt. Money is supposed to be the great motivator in capitalism, so this is all par for the course. What a country!
edit on 29-5-2012 by gentledissident because: comma



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by seaside sky
 


A small update. We did file suit for the dual tracking issue. I haven't received any info yet but we are just past the response date so hope to hear something soon. I did look at the suit linked in the thread today and my current servicer, the owner of my past servicer and the bank that holds the "trust" are all listed as defendents.

How is your case going? Anything interesting that I could pass on to my attorney?

Will post more when I hear about the answer.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I've been trying to modify for over a year. The first servicer, Litton, said I would qualify when I called but when I sent in the paperwork, the investor said no - for the very same reasons I was supposed to be able to qualify. I couldn't get any information on who that investor was at the time.

Litton was sold to Ocwen and I've been trying with them. Everytime I send in information, I get two letters. One saying I don't qualify for the program (one I did not apply for) and one asking for the same information again.

Everytime they ask, I send. I have to be cooperative to prove they aren't. In the middle of the modification process they filed foreclose and at that time they filed the "lost assignment" affadavit.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   



GREAT post. Thanks.
I filed with the UCC TRUST division and the SEC Enforcement on April 15th. Haven't heard back from anyone yet.

What I have is a letter from the Comptroller of Currency, in 2005 regarding a Wells Fargo case that he supported. He stated that "TRUSTEE Banks lend no bank money for mortgages"! and that they are gaining title by other means.

It is actually called "Covet Means", and this was a crime punishable by death because it was a specific method of WARFARE on populations created in Babylon by the Covens of Azazel, the Corporations and Banks.

What I found is that a securitized audit will locate and show that the money was disgorged from the Bond Account called the Security of the PERSON which is part of the SS-4 agreement and backed by the National Bank ACT the banks were made trustees of these accounts. So like the guy that bought the Eiffel tower and then split it and sold the land then the structure..that is what all of them have been doing and in mortgages this is called bifurcating the mortgage. So the Note is actually unsecured..except for one thing. The Bank LENT no money..not even for the NOTES! This was your money, your account with your Name and SS# which is the cusip number, and is basically under the Bills of exchange act (BECA 1959-latest vers) it is called a check 'drawn on own self'.

So they sold the title to your house, and it was not theirs to sell, not by the Social Security Act and not by the rules governing checks drawn on self.
Then they securitized each and every 'Note" that you probably threw away...that 'bill' is a REMITTANCE. This is a document of title, and when you threw your copy in the trash, they were holding it on their side, then securitizing those instruments and bundling them into insurance packages and selling them on the market..for another profit. You see--IT had your name and account number on it! So they simply stole your identity and tapped your bond again, and again, and again.
In my case I found they also were redirecting my property tax refund checks and cashing them the same way.

So all of this money is stolen...becuase the premise of a 'contract' is fraudulent--they lent you no money, it was drawn from your own account (you cant steal or be called stealing from your own account) But generated for themselves and all their 'companies' multiple streams of income, based on a fraud. There was no loan.

I forgot to mention that this is 'Breach of Trust' and when they failed to inform the courts that they were trustees and other like..and then securitized, traded, etc, those instruments--this is classed by the SEC as Insider Trading. They had privileged inside knowledge of the Security of the Person, (while everyone else is now told it doesn't exist, I had it in school--and so knew who to write to--the UCC TRUST) and they knew that they lent no money and could tap it at will.
edit on 9-5-2012 by YellowRoseTx51 because: forgot to mention


I've seen this referenced elsewhere on the UCC. I've yet to understand exactly what it is and what it can do for you. Could you please give a "Dummies" explanation?

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 


Its too bad the Supreme Court in NYS is one of the lower Courts in the state





new topics
top topics
 
53
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join