I have spent a good deal amount of energy posting that Barack Obama has committed an impeachable act by forcing homeowners to fall behind on their mortgage payments before they can apply for HAMP (Home Affordable Mortgage Program).
The Federal Hobbs Act has an extortion clause that makes it illegal to use the "color of right" to evict a homeowner. This means that using falsified foreclosure paperwork, including running up unethical penalties and fees to make it impossible for the homeowner to catch up, would be a violation of the Federal Hobbs Act.
It would also be a violation of the Federal Hobbs Act to lure people into a taxpayer funded program by forcing them to first trigger parallel foreclosure before the homeowner can even apply for the HAMP program.
However, what if the Barack Obama administration simply denied that homeowners were forced to get behind in their mortgage payments before they could apply for HAMP? HAMP actually states that banks cannot continue with the foreclosure process while the HAMP evaluation is going on, yet we know banks violated this part of the HAMP program as well by practicing Parallel Foreclosure.
Parallel Foreclosure is another smoking gun that is still not being called parallel foreclosure. Although last night I read that in Arizona they are calling Parallel Foreclosure, "Simultaneous Foreclosure".
So what if the white house and the (do I even need that second the?) banking industry denied that mortgage payments had to be missed, triggering parallel foreclosure, before a homeowner could apply for HAMP? Could home foreclosure lawyers prove otherwise? If a homeowner is being told over the phone that they cannot apply for HAMP until they are three months behind on their mortgage, is phone conversation proof enough that homeowners were forced to miss payments before becoming HAMP eligible?
Barack Obama and his 2008 campaign were notorious for changing or removing items on their website if the issue became controversial. The HAMP, HARP and UP combined website page seems to tap dance around the issue of falling behind before becoming eligible.
Also, when Barack Obama promoted HAMP, I don't recall him ever mentioning HARP. HARP does not require homeowners to fall behind on their payments!
HARP simply tries to refinance a homeowners home loan to a lower interest rate and better terms for those who feel they are in danger of defaulting in the near future.
Why was HARP not mentioned more often? Worse still, those who fail HAMP cannot then apply for HARP. There seems to have been an agenda in place to prematurely encourage homeowners into HAMP when HARP may have been all that they needed.
So my question is, has Barack Obama, his administration, the banksters, note holders, mortgage servicers and investors pulled a fast one by not officially putting in writing that a home owner has to fall three months behind on their mortgage before being able to apply for a HAMP loan, even though this appears to be have been a requirement for a homeowner to eligible to apply for HAMP?
I suggest you lawyers collect as many of the three months behind demands that were put in writing that you can find. Otherwise one of the biggest violations involving HAMP, the three months behind on mortgage payments before being eligible to apply for HAMP that resulted in Parallel Foreclosure actions, (which could lead to a HUGE class action lawsuit), could go away.