Georgia Family evicted at gunpoint at 3am

reply to post by boncho

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.

Where did the bank give up the right to sell their assets? You see, this argument can go both ways. Once a contract is signed to repay a loan, who it is repaid to is not the issue; the issue is that it must be repaid. As an example, if the contract is with bank A and bank B buys bank A, does it make sense to just wipe the contract out? No... it makes sense to transfer ownership of that contract to the new owner.

I don't like this spinning mess of switching owners any more than you do, but let's be realistic: a contract is an asset, and assets can be sold. Some companies I know of have tried in the past to sell the concept of agreeing not to transfer such assets, but they simply could not muster enough business to make it a viable business model. Not that many people thought it was important, so none of the companies I remember managed to stay in business for very long.

The ninth amendment comes to mind:

That is not the Ninth Amendment. This is:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Source: en.wikipedia.org... (same as yours)

The US Constitution limits powers of government, not powers of businesses. Businesses are restricted by laws, not by the Constitution. The Constitution restricts what laws may be made.

However, in the case of the housing fiasco in the states.

If you're looking for an argument, that's not gonna get one from me. The banking industry has been out of control for at least the past 25 years, and it seems to be worsening. Of course, when the very government that is supposed to be protecting the people from fraud (See the preamble, specifically "promote the general welfare") is refusing to enforce anti-trust legislation, happily bailing failed business out of bankruptcy with taxpayer money, and standing idly by while banks run rough-shod over ordinary people, all because the banks in general have excessive power over the Federal government via the Federal Reserve, what do you expect?

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.

The problem (besides this having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any Constitutional Amendments) is that someone has to determine exactly what is meant by "designed to screw them in the end". How many have taken out mortgages in the past in order to allow them to live in a nicer home than they could afford until they could afford it? That contract, if "designed to screw them", was an abject failure, but a neighbor who signed the same contract but lost his job and was foreclosed upon could say the contract was "designed to screw him".

So what's the answer? Do we just allow people to pull out of contracts by saying "it was designed to screw me"?

Where the real problem lies is with the people themselves. Because someone wants something badly enough, they seem to feel it is (or at least should be) some 'right' that they should have it. Too many will sign anything to get what they want (or what they feel they are entitled to), and this often ends up with them receiving the results of that arrogance.

Back in the early 80s, I had my first experience with CitiBank (before it became CitiCorp). I had a revolving charge account with the local Goodyear dealer; I used it for tires, alignments, and occasionally an appliance or repair I didn't have time to make. My credit limit was $1000, plenty for my needs, and I always paid my bills on time.

I walked into Goodyear one day after having a flat to get new tires. I picked out a nice set of Uniroyal TigerPaws and told them to charge it as usual. They couldn't. All their accounts had been sold to CitiBank and my limit was dropped to $100 with no explanation. Now, I could have called CitiBank and cried about it, but I didn't. I went to my bank, borrowed enough money to both pay off the balance (less than $100 at the time) and buy a new set of tires from another tire shop. I never went back to that Goodyear shop.

(continued)

reply to post by boncho (continued)

That's when I realized I was relying too much on credit... and within a couple of months, I made sure I had a few hundred in cash. But, being a slow learner, I still was happy to accept credit. A few months later, I decided to get a Radio Shack account... in the middle of filling out the form I noticed the word "CitiBank" and tore it up. I refused to do business with them, to the amusement of most people who knew me. According to them, I was just being petty and silly. According to me, this was an organization who had wronged me, albeit in a small way, and I didn't want them to wrong me in a larger way.

To this day I have never done any other business with Citi-whatever, and to this day I have never had them take advantage of me because of that. Did I have to survive without some store cards? Yep, but that was a lot better than letting them rip me off or destroy my credit. Several others who had scorned my decision back then have lost a lot of money to CitiCorp.

The point is: I did not sacrifice my future stability in return for immediate satisfaction. Others do this all the time then complain about how badly they were treated. They were treated badly, but who put themselves in that situation? Would you feel as bad for someone who purposely walked into a snake cage and was bitten by a rattler as you would for someone who simply stumbled across one in the wild?

Maybe that makes me seem a little cold, but it's the honest truth. And as long as people allow these banks to continue their practices by dealing with them, these banks will continue to exist, to continue such practices, and "screw by design" their customers. We get what we are willing to accept as a society.

We don't need more laws. We need smarter citizens.

TheRedneck

reply to post by HIWATT

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—

That's a whole horsey of a different color. That is theft and should be prosecuted. But it also undermines the old concept of never give anyone too much power over your life... which, incidentally is what laws and regulations do.

Isn't that a large part of why the country was founded in the first place?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

The US Constitution limits powers of government, not powers of businesses. Businesses are restricted by laws, not by the Constitution. The Constitution restricts what laws may be made.

I think I meant that more in the regards that businesses committed a fraud by repacking risky loans into AAA securities and selling them, with the government actually helping them in the end

In other words, the people do have a right not to subjected to scams, schemes and be liable as tax payers for the money lost in such practices.

That contract, if "designed to screw them", was an abject failure, but a neighbor who signed the same contract but lost his job and was foreclosed upon could say the contract was "designed to screw him".

No, a standard contract where two parties agree on terms and either the terms are met or they are not, is not an issue. In this case, the banks lent money and sold off those "assets" as something they weren't. It was a fraud. And in the grand scheme of things, actions that would lead to the housing market crash, and they bloody well know it. And you can't tell me or anyone else that their astrophysicists that were hired to make economic models, couldn't figure that out when they sat around in rooms thinking up new financial speak.

In fact, you don't have to. As I watched the public hearings where they joked about selling absolute # to each other and their competitors. They knew what they were doing.

The banks, how they run, the fed, how money is lent, is all tied into this. And while I only quoted the ninth amendment, there are others that come into play too. The point being, is that an entire industry and the government that backed it, goes against the rights of the people. As the people got robbed in this case. Full out, robbed. Even if you didn't own a house, you got robbed.

The consequences of this were far greater than most admit.

reply to post by TheRedneck

Once a contract is signed to repay a loan, who it is repaid to is not the issue; the issue is that it must be repaid. As an example, if the contract is with bank A and bank B buys bank A, does it make sense to just wipe the contract out? No... it makes sense to transfer ownership of that contract to the new owner.

I meant re-sign, not resign. Not sure if that changes your response to what I wrote.

reply to post by TheRedneck

The US Constitution limits powers of government, not powers of businesses. Businesses are restricted by laws, not by the Constitution. The Constitution restricts what laws may be made.

This would entirely make sense. Had there not been a bailout for the financial institutions.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Since you are talking letter of the law, the truth is that the majority of mortgages are legally invalid. If transfers in ownership were not recorded at the county courthouse and those fees paid, there was no legal transfer of the mortgage. This means every MERs mortgage which make up about 70% of mortgages outstanding and most of the others which were packaged and resold are legally invalid. Just because people don't have the money to fight on those grounds doesn't mean the banks should get the property.

I love how you always come on here telling people they have the legal responsibility to pay their mortgage when in fact their mortgage is no longer an enforcable contract. I know you are smart enough to know the facts. So what gives? Should only homeowners be held accountable of the law and not the banks? That is basically what you keep saying.

reply to post by boncho

I think I meant that more in the regards that businesses committed a fraud by repacking risky loans into AAA securities and selling them, with the government actually helping them in the end.

Of course that was fraud, as you or I define it. But here's the rub: legal matters rarely entail even the slightest resemblance to common sense.

Who rated these packages as 'AAA'? The very banks that were buying and selling them, of course. No one complained because the only ones engaged in the scheme were the ones who orchestrated the scheme, so no one in the government (who should be regulating this mess) bothered to investigate. But the good news is that while playing dodge ball with bad securities, apparently several of the loan documents were lost!

In a court case, if you cannot produce the document where the money was borrowed, you cannot (successfully) make a claim it is owed. If you cannot produce the mortgage, you cannot claim the property (of course, since most mortgages are recorded,this part is hard to do). In other words, it is your word against theirs, and they have the initial burden of proof.

Unfortunately, most do not realize this, or do not understand how to make it work in their favor.

None of this would have ever happened though, if the people were not so happy to sign contracts they could not possibly fulfill. And the present social solutions typically involve the government being responsible for fixing the problem... the same government that allowed it to occur, the same government that bailed the banks out after their little bubble collapsed, and the same government that supposedly 'fixed' the problem earlier by setting up a program that allowed this poor soul to think she was being helped when she was actually being helped out of her home.

Really? That's like letting the fox guard the weasel because the weasel got in the henhouse while he was guarding it.

The only way to solve this is to quit dealing with crooked companies, even if they are peddling something you think you have a right to.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I agree with your views on personal responsibility. Not any fault in it at all. But I feel as though you might make light of the fact that it was an artificial market being created by the banks.

Yes, there were knuckleheads taking loans that they couldn't afford, but because of the artificially inflated market, they could kinda afford them.

Although, someone should have asked themselves, "Why can I buy a 200k house this year and next year it will be worth 400k?"

But in that climate, most people fail to ask themselves things like that. There were winners and losers in the market. But it wasn't a real market. If suddenly pennies are going to be worth $100 tomorrow and steadily increase in value 50% yearly after... Imagine all the pennies people would hoard.

The problem I have, is that a penny is worth a penny.... And everyone who ought to know those securities were worth a penny, knew, and they didn't give a damn.

Mind you, in regular market, that isn't being manipulated... You have winners and losers based on their choices, not on the fact that a penny is worth $100.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

For better or worse, the letter of the law is what applies in a court. That is a fact.

You seem to think I want this woman tossed out into the street and her belongings either lost or stolen. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing would make me happier than for everyone on the planet to have everything they need, free and clear.

But that cannot happen as long as people are not held accountable for their mistakes. It will only happen if and when people take responsibility for their own futures instead of depending on government mercies which we all know never come without strings. I do not make light of this woman's plight! I simply want others to understand that everything comes with a price, even if that price is not measurable in dollars.

You want to drive a car instead of walk or ride a bicycle? Fine, but accept that price includes oil being located, pumped, delivered, refined, and delivered again.

You want to live in a nice home? Fine, but accept that the price is very high.

You want easier schools so more can make good grades? Fine, but realize the price is that they will know nothing despite those grades when the time comes to make their own way in the world.

You want a pill for that ache? Fine, as long as you understand it will cost you money and may have undesirable side effects.

You want the government to take care of you when you make a mistake? Fine, but realize it means the loss of your freedom to be who you want and do what you want.

You want the police to leave you alone? When you need them to protect you, remember that decision and protect yourself.

You want guns outlawed? Fantastic! Just remember that when the crime rate skyrockets around you and you find yourself facing an illegal weapon helpless.

You want others punished for profitable business decisions? Sure, just remember you asked for it when you finally get a break and are punished for it.

The list goes on and on. Yes, I feel for this poor woman, and I think it could well have been handled better from what I know. I have already stated that the confiscation of valuables and the wanton destruction of property is and should be illegal and prosecuted. But what I won't say, and what I really hope others will not say, is that this poor woman is a pure victim and the only way to stop this is to bring on more regulations... because I for one am not interested in paying the price you apparently think everyone should pay for such an action.

One of the things that has changed over my lifetime, in lockstep with the increase in economic despair and corporate carte blance, is the concept that a person's word is their bond. I would like to return to those days when people valued their word; that price, economic strength and lower crime rates, I am more than happy to pay.

TheRedneck

reply to post by boncho

Mind you, in regular market, that isn't being manipulated... You have winners and losers based on their choices, not on the fact that a penny is worth $100.

Isn't that in itself a choice, however? If someone tries to sell me a penny based on the claim that it will be worth $100 in the future, is the decision whether or not to believe them and buy not a choice I make? Was this foreclosure not allowed because the woman made a decision? Sure, the banks are doing some seriously stupid stuff, sure the banks are playing fast and loose with others' livelihoods, but you cannot legislate morality. If you could wave a magic wand and cause this bank to go out of existence, cause everyone associated with it to lose everything, another one would simply arise to fill the social desire.

Heck, if you confiscated everything in the world and distributed it equally among everyone, 99% of people would be right back where they are now within six short months. The only way to change things is to change peoples' attitudes, because everyone will make bad decisions occasionally and too many want to take from others.

I have made a lot of bonehead choices in my life. Some I just screwed up on, some would have turned out much better had it not been for forces beyond my control, and a few I just let someone rip me off. Yet, whether or not those choices turned out wrong by my decision or not, they were still my choices... and my responsibility.

I have been sitting in high cotton in my life, a successful business owner, and I have been destitute. Right now I am much closer to destitute than anything else; My income last year barely broke $10K, I have been unemployed for three years now (not counting part-time minimum-wage-or-less temporary grunt jobs), and in the middle of all that I have had some serious medical bills roll in. Money is tight, to say the least. And yet you have never seen a post from me complaining that the government should somehow make things better.

I... me... myself... the old Redneck... will make things better if they are to get better.

When I was so destitute and suffering from chronic depression, I pulled myself and my family out of that hole. I worked a carnival for peanuts to get enough money to buy parts to fulfill a contract I managed to land to provide 9 computers for a business expansion. I used that money to eat on while I attended a truck driving school that guaranteed a job. I took a student loan to pay for the school, which was paid back by my first company. I worked long and hard for 8 years, sacrificing time at home and a normal life, but I got my shop and a little nest egg to fall back on.

When I had to come off the road for family reasons, I took a local job that laid me off unexpectedly. I turned to whatever work I could get to make a dollar, grunt jobs, menial jobs, part-time jobs, dirty jobs... but in the process I landed a scholarship to attend college. In three days, I will have a degree in Computer Science along with a dozen or so reference letters and a 3.87 GPA. I worked my butt off for that degree, juggling my time between work whenever I could get it, family when they needed it, and class.

That's twice I have pulled myself up by my bootstraps, and that's not all of them. I have gone without food for an entire week, while attending school full time and working one full-time job plus doing work on the side for individuals. I have chased checks to the bank, desperately trying to make sure the power company check didn't bounce. I have gone without sleep, without rest, without decent tools to work with... and have never claimed the government owed me anything.

Yet, when others make bonehead decisions, they seem to immediately try to get someone else to bail them out.

I would hazard that out of everyone on this forum, I can empathize more with this woman's plight. I know how bad it hurts! But I also know that the only way to stop the pain is to stand up and take responsibility for yourself. And I want to stop all the pain, not just place a band-aid across a gaping wound.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Misleading title. Makes it sound like it was a total surprise to them that they were being evicted.

I'm not saying I agree with the banks, far from it actually, just that the thread title is misleading. They obviously have tried to get them out before.

The thread title is, "Georgia Family evicted at gunpoint at 3am" which is what happened. How is that misleading?

And who the **** cares, anyway? American citizens are being thrown out of their homes so I don' give a flying **** what the title is as long as it's not, "The banks are doing the right thing and good things are happening".