Georgia Family evicted at gunpoint at 3am

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


You do understand that the reason they drew there guns where because she refused to open the door and they didn't know how many protesters might be in there. Almost any time you force entry to serve a warrant, guns are drawn. Even more so when the person is openly courting a group that has been caught on video throwing bottles at police and charge police barricades.

Not all occupy protesters are peaceful. Not all people being evicted act sanely. You even say you thought about blowing up the block when you were evicted. Why should these guys risk their safety by going in unprepared? You do not risk your life by going in to a low light situation with people that are already refusing to obey legal orders. The danger only increases when you add in political activist that may see this as there chance to stand up to "the man."

The procedure would be to enter with your weapons drawn. Once you "clear" the house and establish there are no threats you holster your weapon and proceed as necessary. Nobody held a gun to her head and screamed, "get dressed now." The choice of phrasing in the article is intended to fan the flames of passion. It sensationalizes the incident to draw readers and sell a political point of view.

My family was evicted as a teenager. I won't go in to the details here. They are too personal. I know how devastating it was. To be forced out of a place I had lived for five years in the midst of other emotional turmoil left me feeling lost.

I truly hate the situation these people are in and wouldn't wish it on anyone. I also refuse to say the Sheriff was wrong for handling things the way he did.

Originally posted by 1plusXisto7billion
I'll be that guy and stick up for the banks. First off, if she paid $240k for a $40k loan it is because she signed the loan agreement for that. If she didn't agree with it, she shouldn't have signed it. Another reason I agree with the banks is because why should they let people live in the house for free?

Maybe you missed this part?

Investors One Corporation—the fourth company that bought her mortgage in an eight-month period—allowed the eviction to proceed even thought it was "negotiating" new loan terms with her attorney one day before the police raid.

The reason there was no renegotiation on the mortgage was because her loan was being thrown around, written off, sold, etc., so more than one player could make money on it....

And why did she pay over 240,000 for a 40k Home?

That document that the bank sent me that said my house is now worth $40,000. That is called depreciation. That is a tax write-off for them. Their bread got buttered on both sides. But me and my family; what kind of justice is that?”

Well, that's because unscrupulous lending of subprime mortgages over the past decade artificially inflated the housing market, and when lenders repackaged those loans and sold them as AAA securities, it created a scenario doomed for failure. Eventually collapsing housing values.

In this case, her mortgage has been a write off for multiple banks. Who stand to earn more because of it. It's bet it's not even as profitable for them to have her pay it.

Sorry, but

No reason to defend the banks in this situation. The woman was hosed like millions of other people. And you know what, I might back the Sherrif and the banks position, but only if the Sherrif and his cohorts stopped outside wall street or congress.

Maybe they should have been there when banks execs admitted to fraud and predatory lending, among a bunch of other crimes that wont be prosecuted because they were discussed in a public hearing.

So the house is valued at $40,000 and she has paid $240,000 in payments.

I have never bought a home for this very reason. I knew it was a scam, but this is simply insane.

You can't buy a chicken coop in Atlanta for $40,000.
Something about this story is not right.
That said, this kind of situation is all too common.
People try to do the right thing and negotiate with the lenders but they can't even find out who it is it's been re-sold so many times.
So while the fat cats who sell these mortgages ( I know one personally) live comfortably in their McMansions ordinary people who fall on hard times and can't find work get thrown in the street. The system is so messed up at this point it's unfixable in it's current condition.
4 generations of 1 family scattered to the four winds for what?
Destroying the family unit is a priority with these people.

Just is insane to read some of these posts. I mean clearly for anyone to come on here and state this is ok, needs to have their head checked. To take away anyone's place to live, in the 21st century, is rather ass-o-nine. I mean have things become so cold and calculated, that even the majority has been bullied into thinking it's ok for a non-living entity to take away a living entities means to survive in the civilized world?

I just watched a Steven Hawking Sci Fi master's story about a futuristic society, that had mastered genetics, and so much that the rich, and companies, employed genetically plastic humanoids, and made them drones so to speak. Sum it up, a rich women wants to buy one, to save it from being " recycled " only to find out she needs to sue the company and prove this " half Genetic material half plastic " being is truly human, and win's by having the being's negative traits being what defines him as human, He was a mine finder, walked in zig zags to find mines, but was shown on video, pushing another drone onto his course and taking the other's as to avoid the mine he saw on his course, thus preserving his life.

Seems that the worker class and non-worker ( silverspoon ) class will be greater than we think some day, maybe even to the point of being another species.

When one signs a contract (i.e. a mortgage), one accepts responsibilities enumerated in that contract. Any deviation from the terms of the contract are at the sole discretion of whoever one signed the contract with.

That means the mortgage holder had full authority to foreclose, and that made the occupants of the home trespassers, subject to forcible eviction by the police. The time is irrelevant. She did not make the payments, so she defaulted on the mortgage.

The above is the law. Reality, now that's a slightly different story.

Over the years, house prices have skyrocketed, due to several different factors. Environmental fanatics have managed to reduce the areas where logging can occur, raising lumber prices dramatically. Increased regulation of building practices have increased the complexity of building homes inside municipalities, again raising prices. individual expectations of what a 'normal' home is have changed astronomically as homes are becoming larger and more decorative in order to keep up with the neighborhood and present this external facade of wealth. And in this process, home ownership has given way to home equity...most homes are actually owned by mortgage lenders rather than by the inhabitants.

There are three levels of authority on real estate: governmental, which is limited by the legal system although in some ways far too absolute IMO; ownership, which controls all authority not specifically enumerated to the other two levels; and habitation, which is limited but also enumerated by both contract and criminal law. When one signs a mortgage, they relinquish their ownership authority in return for money and habitation authority.

Is it any wonder that lenders are so anxious to loan money in return for mortgages?

A mortgage is actually a deed to the property being mortgaged. It transfers ownership, in full, to the mortgage holder just like a warranty deed does, with one exception: a single clause that states the transfer is null and void as long as payments are made according to the attached payment agreement. In other words, contrary to what the banks will tell you, the banks do not own 'your' property when you default on on payments; they legally own it when you sign on the dotted line. At that point, all you 'own' is the right to live there as long as you make the agreed-upon payments.

Don't believe me? Read your mortgage.

The real conspiracy here is that people do not understand this; in the eye of Joe Public, he can take out a mortgage and nothing changes... money for free as long as he pays it back. And if he falls on hard times, the bank will work with him, right? Right?

Wrong. At one time they would, but not today. More and more, banks are using the letter of the law to maintain their bottom line rather than concentrate on satisfied customers to promote future sustainability of their business model. Those sitting in the big chairs know that as long as building prices are so high, most can never hope to own a home without borrowing money, which means of course they don't own anything until every dime is repaid. So since their service is a necessity rather than a convenience, they have a captive clientele.

Just as captive as auto insurers who know full well that their service is required by law. Just as captive as the pharmaceuticals who produce drugs some cannot survive without. Just as captive as taxation enforced by law. One must have it to survive. Thus, there is no incentive to work with customers.

The only real solution is to stop doing business with the banks. No more mortgages. Pay everything off and refuse to buy with anything except cash. Prices will drop like a rocket sled on rails and the banks will again be required by economic reality to conduct business in favor of their clients. But the downside is that new home construction would plummet, new car sales would wither, and the economy would further degrade.

We stand at a crossroads: to one side is a continuation of this type of story, with banks becoming feudal lords of yore and the population becoming the serfs. To the other is economic disaster. Those are our choices. But in the time-honored tradition of humanity, we will take neither path; we will blaze our own path through untraveled wilderness to make all this right with more regulation and laws and ever-increasing prices... until our machete breaks through the last line of undergrowth and we find ourselves at both destinations simultaneously... slaves to those with green paper and numbers in the right place in a database, and still unable to feed ourselves.

Looks like alien contact is still far off... no self-respecting species would ever choose to participate in such madness.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

When one signs a contract (i.e. a mortgage), one accepts responsibilities enumerated in that contract. Any deviation from the terms of the contract are at the sole discretion of whoever one signed the contract with.

That means the mortgage holder had full authority to foreclose, and that made the occupants of the home trespassers, subject to forcible eviction by the police. The time is irrelevant. She did not make the payments, so she defaulted on the mortgage.

That's fine. Now where did she sign a contract with the person her mortgage was sold to? If someone wants to sell a contract to another party, all parties should have to resign.

The ninth amendment comes to mind:

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.[5]

*

There is nothing wrong with contractual obligations. And if someone doesn't meet a contract requirements, surely they should be penalized.

However, in the case of the housing fiasco in the states. The banks inflated, then sabotaged an entire market. And when everyone walks away, there is a redistribution of wealth. As it is increasingly difficult for lending now, what the banks have done is inflate a market, destroy the market, and they are left foreclosing on homes that are undervalued.

In 10 years time, it will be the banks that one, as regular people that should have been able to afford their homes were destroyed by a rigged game.

Regarding the ninth amendment, a person should have the right to enter into honest contract. And by honest contract, I mean ones that aren't designed to screw them in the end.

Would that be such a bad law?

Throw in one for prosecuting the people behind the mess to... Seems there isn't one.

All this reselling debt....is usury run totally amok.

It seems that when entering any valid contract - both users should have the right to negotiate.
We need better consumer laws.
We shouldn't have to abide laws that are not just. In criminal cases, we can simply refuse, as jurors, to prosecute. Is there nothing similar in civil and consumer matters?

Or, have all these laws been set up to only benefit the banks?

reply to post by hadriana


There are a lot of families across the US who are in the same situation and are hanging onto their homes by a thread. Most people have fixed mortgages, but what happens to the others when the interest rates start to rise? Finding a job is easy if you have an education in the right field, but that's not the case for most of the population over 40 or 50 who have been blue collar workers and have no advanced skills.

The laws being signed into effect signal that the US is expecting worse to come. A number of cities are already nearing bankruptcy. What happens when the banks get ready to evict entire neighborhoods? It seems they would need the military to enforce the law if local and state police lose their jobs and become just like everyone else.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by 1plusXisto7billion

 

First off, if she paid $240k for a $40k loan it is because she signed the loan agreement for that. If she didn't agree with it, she shouldn't have signed it.

Ok fine she should not have signed it, but the banks, the entire world creates a situation where you have no choice but to take such loans at times to survive on. Yes she was guilty for signing the loan statement but the banks are also guilty for providing such an easy target to prey on peoples hopes especially when they have the inabiltiy to pay such loans. They could have provided zero percent interest loans (as advocated in islam). No wonder why islam is being demonized because they do not allow such despicable practices.

Lets look at the final tally:
Bank gets: house + 240,000
She gets: homelss - 240,000

Who are the victims here really? By creating an easy predatory lending environment, preying on peoples hopes, entrapping them in USURY and debt and then confiscating their possessions, yea its the womans fault all right..

edit on 013131p://5America/ChicagoTue, 08 May 2012 01:40:30 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

Seriously? When do 2 wrongs ever make a right? And she has other options besides agreeing to a loan that is over priced. How about renting instead of owning? She would have a roof over her and her family's head. At the end of the day, thats whats important; right? Or how about, they rent for a few years, while SAVING the vast majority of their income (FROM ALL 3 FAMILY MEMBERS) and purchase a home in the future with cash?

I find it amazing how many people today rely on banks as though saving is virtually impossible. Trim the fat from your lives people. You don't need automobiles (use a bike or public transportation like a do), get rid of your credit cards (I don't have any), stop going to the movies and/or eating out (you can watch tv and eat at home like people used and like I do). Before you judge, know this: I pratice what I preach! Everything I suggest, I do.

And on a side note, if you say you don't make enough money to save, I'm calling BULL#! Show your cards! If you make the same amount of money as a high school student, then maybe its time you realize you need to become more of an asset to society than a teenage. Get an education, learn a trade, work harder if you have to but stop pointing the finger with one hand while holding the out.

reply to post by 1plusXisto7billion

Get an education, learn a trade, work harder if you have to but stop pointing the finger with one hand while holding the out.

Easier said than done. What is the cost of a formal education these days? With that you have to take more loans on USURY/Interest. How will you pay them back when there are no jobs. There was a thread about a week ago in which 53 percent of college grads are unemployed. It is not the education that is the problem, it is the lack of jobs. Also a the best Ivy leaage schools like NYU have a lot of rich peoples kids who can afford it and have contacts to get in. Do you see joe schmo from some backwards hick town getting into NYU even if he had the best grades? Its about money and contacts.

Well, that's because unscrupulous lending of subprime mortgages over the past decade...

In my opinion, this is the heart of it all. Are the banks partially to blame for loaning money to subprime candidates? Yes.

But are individuals also to blame for accepting more money then they can pay back? Absolutely.
And I believe that personal responsibility trumps "unscrupulous lending".
For example, my wife and I knew how much we wanted to spend on a house. When we applied for a loan, we qualified for almost three times the amount we wanted to spend, but we stayed at the amount we knew we could afford even if one of us lost our job. But there are too many people who took what the bank offered. Should the bank have offered me more than I could comfortably afford? No. But it was my responsibility to say "no".


Perhaps I'm seeing things too simplistically....Two people enter into a contract. One person does not hold up their end. The agreed upon contract says the lender can reposses the house. Case closed.

Originally posted by canselmi

Well, that's because unscrupulous lending of subprime mortgages over the past decade...

In my opinion, this is the heart of it all. Are the banks partially to blame for loaning money to subprime candidates? Yes.

But are individuals also to blame for accepting more money then they can pay back? Absolutely.
And I believe that personal responsibility trumps "unscrupulous lending".
For example, my wife and I knew how much we wanted to spend on a house. When we applied for a loan, we qualified for almost three times the amount we wanted to spend, but we stayed at the amount we knew we could afford even if one of us lost our job. But there are too many people who took what the bank offered. Should the bank have offered me more than I could comfortably afford? No. But it was my responsibility to say "no".


Perhaps I'm seeing things too simplistically....Two people enter into a contract. One person does not hold up their end. The agreed upon contract says the lender can reposses the house. Case closed.

No. You are missing it. The real crime wasn't committed until those loans were repackaged and sold as AAA rated debt. They could have lent money all they wanted, and it would have been them that suffered in the case of defaults. That is risk associated with lending, and it keeps both sides on even ground. That's the reason why you avoid situations like this, because there can only be so much risk in a portfolio.

You see, if they held on to it they would have a vested interest in the loans being paid back. But because it was repackaged and sold off, they actually had a vested interest in the debts bottoming out.

2 reasons.

Kill your competitor that buys is. Buy back property for cents on the dollar. Even though the market was overinflated, it was undervalued after the crash. Not only that, but then you have the bailout loans too, which helped all this go through a smooth transition for the winners and the majority of losers were the people sucked into the scheme. (and a number that had nothing to do with it)

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by hadriana

 

They collected $240,000 for a $40,000 home..judge should have gave it to her.

And "collected" their gold and jewellery to boot:

“They hired some off-the-wall great big jerks to come into my home,” she said. “My daughter had a little piggy bank. She was saving those gold dollar coins. They broke it on the floor and took that. I have no idea where some of my jewelry is—

Sounds an awful lot like Nazi Germany to me. Didn't they help themselves to the "loot" as well?

..and it would have been them that suffered in the case of defaults.

I agree with what you are saying. But, as you said in the above quote, the banks would have suffered in the case of defaults...yet the deliquent payer would still have been evicted. It doesn't matter how many times the mortage was bought and sold. The lendee still did not meet his/her obligation. It doesn't matter who owns the mortgage. If you don't make your monthly payments, you don't get to live in the house.

The lendee signed a contract to repay borrowed money. And the contract contained a clause that allowed the original loaner to sell the mortgage to the 3rd party. By agreeing to borrow the money, the lendee is taking a chance that he/she won't be able to repay the loan in full, but the bank is also taking a chance that they won't be paid back. Therefore they make a profit by exposing themselves to risk.

So what should the bank do? Take a loss because someone can't pay them back?

And in this particular case, I'm not saying it's the lendee's fault for not paying back the money. I know she would if she could, but that's just life. The sun doesn't always shine and life isn't fair.

reply to post by canselmi


No. Again you are ignoring the circumstances around the lending. If the borrower cannot pay the loan back, then yes, the bank takes a loss. That is why the loan is backed by the value of the house, and why their is a lien on it.

Why should a bank take a loss you ask? Because, the bank is making money on the deal. Two identical houses, mortgaged at 10 and 25 year rates can be a difference of half a million dollars. But in both cases, the bank is being paid back more than the original loan. That is where a lender makes money. In some cases, banks borrow against how much they hold in debt, because it's considered an asset.

A lender will lose money by giving loans to people that cannot pay them. Then they are left with the collateral, the value of the house. Which means it is not a total loss. As a lender, it is in my best interest to see the housing market be stable over time. It is also in my best interest to lend to people with low risk. But I can also lend to high risk clients and charge more interest to offset the risk.

-------

Lets go back to your statement:

------

But, as you said in the above quote, the banks would have suffered in the case of defaults...yet the deliquent payer would still have been evicted.

You would need a crystal ball in this case. Because if the subprimes were not packaged as AAA, and the market wasn't completely destroyed by this scheme, there would have been a number of factors that wouldn't be in play here. It is quite possible that woman might still have her home...

------

The sun doesn't always shine and life isn't fair.

Yes, so we are supposed to ignore the crimes of large and small banks that created this mess? If I set up a slot machine that is set to pay out 10 percent of what it takes in, I would most likely see federal agents knocking at my door. The reason being is that gambling machines are regulated to pay out a high percentage, so it is not a rigged game.

With the selling of mortgage backed securities, and all the fraud associated, the housing market in the past ten years has been a rigged game.

The contracts signed are void IMO, as they were made with fraudulent actions/intentions.

And as far as 3rd party sale of contracts go, just because it is normal practice, does not mean it has to be normal practice.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

But I think this is one of those cases where law enforcement was legitmately trying to avoid violence. The OWS movement has become increasingly militant and they're starting to wreck stuff. Outright violence can't be far off.

If OWS wasn't camping on the frony lawn there would have been a normal eviction.

We all saw that on May Day as the traditional Communist Holiday was celebrated with violence and destruction of property by the Occupy folks. Nationwide they could only gather a few thousand total, even with the Unions help. Occupy is now just a criminal group and something for corrupt politicians to use as a tool.

I think your correct on this one. They had no choice due to the Occupiers involvement. In particular because those fanatics think that the world owes them free houses and a check so they can sit around and contribute nothing at all. They need to change their name to "Leaches" or "Freeloaders" a more apt description.

Occupy should get back to earning their worthless Liberal Arts Degrees so they can never have a job or contribute to society as they line their pockets with others money and "Leach" of others hard work. God forbid they learn a skill in demand and take one of the millions of high paying jobs that sit vacant, ready to hire.

reply to post by Blaine91555

We all saw that on May Day as the traditional Communist Holiday

May Day was started in America. Just because it is Union does not mean it is Communist. You can thank the people involved in the original May Day for the 8 hour work day.

was celebrated with violence and destruction of property by the Occupy folks.

Those committing vandalism were not Occupiers, they were Black bloc. Occupy is non violent, non destructive.

Nationwide they could only gather a few thousand total, even with the Unions help.

Absolutely false, there were tens of thousands each in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle and smaller groups throughout the US in smaller cities. Just because the MSM ignored it doesn't mean you have to and certainly not if you're going to be commenting about it. There's plenty of images and video from the day to make your claim utterly wrong and there's simply no excuse for you not to know otherwise.

I think your correct on this one. They had no choice due to the Occupiers involvement.

Ridiculous. There is no justification for evicting a family in the middle of the night.

In particular because those fanatics think that the world owes them free houses and a check so they can sit around and contribute nothing at all.

Again, ridiculous, you only show how little you know about this movement of which you condemn so ruthlessly. Many banking and trading practices that have lead to millions of foreclosures have been deemed illegal. Occupy asked that moratorium be placed on foreclosure while investigations to be done and the whole mess sorted out. They have never asked for free homes or checks. In the meantime they have actually saved families from being foreclosed on.

They need to change their name to "Leaches" or "Freeloaders" a more apt description.

So seeking an end to corruption such as lead to the mortgage crisis is leaching or freeloading?

Occupy should get back to earning their worthless Liberal Arts Degrees

While I don't have charts and statistics to disprove your claim, neither have you to prove it. I have my involvement and research that tells me there are many who aspire to be or are...journalists, doctors, nurses, lawyers, techies, engineers, and sure lots of artists and writers as if the world should not have these?

God forbid they learn a skill in demand and take one of the millions of high paying jobs that sit vacant, ready to hire.

Sure. Would you prefer them to go to China or become an inmate in of our fine rapidly growing private prisons?

You are of course entitled to your opinion and free to express it, just know that is baseless, extremely misinformed, not to mention insulting. While you sit looking down your nose at other human beings, some of us are actually trying to do something about the increasing tyranny we are under. You sir are riding a mighty tall horse, take extra care that you don't fall off.

To accentuate my last post as well as to maybe help clarify the issue for some, I just came across this article on Occupy LA

An independent audit recently conducted by Phil Ting, Assessor-Recorder for the county of San Francisco, indicates a “crisis of compliance” within proof of bank ownership of many foreclosed properties. Ting cites what he calls “pervasive and widespread issues,” finding at least one “clear legal violation” in 84% of foreclosure files, with multiple violations in 66% of files. The audit also found that 60% of documents were back-dated in some fashion, which is significant because every such document is filed under penalty of perjury. “Here in California,” Ting writes, “these lax standards are particularly damaging because lenders do not need to seek a court order to force a foreclosure. With little direct court oversight, we must rely on administrative procedures and state regulations to protect owners from fraud.”

84% of foreclosure files contained at least one clear legal violation.
66% with multiple violations.
That's just in San Fransisco.

The prevailing undercurrent within the mainstream media is that homeowners primarily are to blame for the mortgage crisis. This oversimplification glosses over an inconvenient truth within the mortgage market: lenders knew they were engaging in predatory lending and were encouraging offering predatory loans to individuals they knew could not pay. By cutting necessary legal corners in the rush to consummate the ensuing land grab, these banks have created a legal entanglement so huge that the courts are afraid to address it.

So basically, screw you mortgage holders...it's too big of a problem to deal with.

A Predatory Environment

To understand the birth of the predatory lending environment, we must first understand leverage. For every dollar someone deposits in a bank, the bank is permitted to loan a larger number of dollars. The amount a bank has spent in outstanding loans or investments, divided by their cash on hand, is known as the bank’s leverage. In April of 2004, thanks to a tremendous amount of lobbying by the banking industry, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began to relax leverage limits. Between 2003 and 2008, the leverage of giant investment banks roughly doubled. When Bear Sterns eventually collapsed in 2008, it was leveraged 33:1, meaning that if just 3% of money invested in Bear Sterns was called in, or if Bear Sterns’ investments depreciated by just 3%, the company would be insolvent.

I can't quote the whole article so I'll stop here, well worth clicking the link and having a good read.