SWARM The BANKS (bookmark here)

Separate Wells Fargo Bank Protest Groups just miss each other's protest by minutes at the Same Wells Fargo Branch.

2012-02-08T22:30:00.000-08:00

Separate Wells Fargo Bank Protest Groups just miss each other's protest by minutes at the Same Wells Fargo Branch.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Bank Protests: Separate Wells Fargo Bank Protest Groups just miss each other's protest by minutes at the same Wells Fargo Branch!

2012-02-08T22:06:00.000-08:00

Bank Protests: Separate Wells Fargo Bank Protest Groups just miss each other's protest by minutes at the same Wells Fargo Branch It has come to this, two completely different Wells Fargo Bank Protest groups just missed meeting each other today, February, 8th, 2012, a...

Wells Fargo refuses mortgage payment, then forecloses and sells home one month later.

2012-01-15T21:59:00.000-08:00

People don't believe that Wells Fargo would refuse a mortgage payment and then foreclose on a home and resell it a month later. Please go to HSI Trust and see for yourself. Doubt them in the comments section if you like.

But please, please, do go to change dot org and add your name to the petition to have Wells Fargo rescind their apparently boorish action. If you don't feel comfortable leaving your real address and zip code, don't, make it up! But I think it is effective to use your real name and real email address. I was the third person to sign the petition.

Let's keep it going!

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Robert Reich (Why We Shouldn't be Selling the Right to Live in America)

2011-12-16T00:49:00.000-08:00

Robert Reich (Why We Shouldn't be Selling the Right to Live in America)

I found many more reasons than the ones Reich cites for not allowing foreigners citizenship if they spend 500,000 dollars on real estate purchases in the United States.

The false pumping up of home values can't be sustained because the money used to purchase U.S. real estate did not come from our local economies and infrastructure.

Additionally, it is more likely that whomever has that kind of money to spend in the U.S. is possibly also looking to set up an IMPORT business so they can simply displace existing local businesses by importing lower cost products from their own country of origin.

When I first heard of this bill earlier today, I correctly guessed that both a democrat and a republican were behind it. I found it interesting that my google search could not find the number of the bill. Now if only I could remember the site that mentions all of the congressional bill proposals.

When Schumer states that this bill is "neutral" for the U.S. government, he illustrates the out of touchness that afflicts so many congress people.

Is Barack Obama a Banker?

2011-12-13T21:14:00.000-08:00

Three things that would instantly help main street and the 99%; lower interest rates on mortgages, lower interest rates on credit card debt for anyone that can PAY DOWN their debts, and lower interest rates on student loans as well.

These three interest rate reduction moves would instantly provide a surge in local economies as people would have more of their own respend money that they themselves EARNED to then re-spend locally even as they continue to pay down their other debts.

Lower interest rates would in turn would stabilize city, state sales tax revenue streams and property taxes as well. Ironically, lower interest rates would benefit the federal government income tax receipts as well since income tax interest rate deductions would probably slightly reduce.

It appears that Barack Obama is not interested in either reducing mortgage interest rates or extending the time to pay back a mortgage, nor in reducing credit card interest rates for those who can pay down their credit card debt every month!

Even the new student loan changes really don't deal with the main issue of lower interest rates, only having to pay when one is employed, and no more penalties and fees tacked on to existing student debt along with student debt relief for those who have paid into the system only to see what they owe, rise!

For those who believe in ending the fed, another equally effective approach is for main street to have much less debt to begin with. Less main street debt means the fed and their cohorts won't have their debt claws into the 99% nearly as deep.

According to congress person Dennis Cardoza, Obama seems to be against reducing the interest rate charges on prevailing types of consumer debt, even when the consumer would then be in a position to actually pay down all of their debts rather than simply tread water or slowly drown because of the interest rates being charged on their debt.

Obama seems to be in favor of continuing, engulfing debt for the 99%, resulting in massive profits for his friends and supporters on wall street via the interest rate charges and the penalties, fees and foreclosures that result when a consumer falls behind on their payments.

It seems to me that Obama thinks and acts like a banker.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

What is Inflamed Debt? Should Dylan Ratigan run for the 2012 democratic nomination?

2011-12-10T12:49:00.001-08:00

INFLAMED DEBT (my phrase) occurs when huge amounts of money are tethered to interest rate charges to create an ever growing debt that cannot be paid down. That is the key.

At the very least, remove the interest rate charges on anyone who has debt and who is also capable of paying down their debt, and that will free up local economies to begin to grow in a myriad of ways.

In this youtube video, Dylan Ratigan does not use the phrase "inflamed debt", but I think that is what he is actually describing when he proclaims that there may be more debt than money in the world, and that the United States is having it's wealth suctioned out by the banks, trade imbalance, and excessive taxation.

Hat tip to Neil Garfield of "living lies" blog who posted this Dylan Ratigan video on his site.

Ironically, it was MSNBC who chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton back in 2008 BEFORE the democratic voters could decide for themselves. Bill Clinton has been the only president in the past 80 years to actually lower the yearly budget deficit for 8 consecutive years, the only president.

I am certain that Hillary Clinton would have done the same as Bill Clinton while also helping the 1%.

I just did a google phrase search and only 56 hits came up when the two words "inflamed debt" have quotes around them, (thereby creating a phrase).

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Sixty Minutes Transcript, Prosecuting Wall Street segment, and a question.

2011-12-04T19:38:00.001-08:00

Kudos to Sixty Minutes for printing out the actual transcript of the Prosecuting Wall Street segment. (it's 8 pages long.) This makes it much faster and easier to find important quotes and content than having to wade through the actual video segment. A very nice, time saving gesture from 60 minutes.

Here is a quick transcript edit from two different news articles, see if you can spot the irony.

From 60 Minutes.... (Quote is on the final page at the end)

Kroft: The perception. I mean, it doesn't seem like you're trying. It doesn't seem like you're making an effort. That the Justice Department does not have the will to take on these big Wall Street banks.

Breuer: Steve, I get it. I find the excessive risk taking to be offensive. I find the greed that was manifested by certain people to be very upsetting. But because I may have an emotional reaction and I may personally share the same frustration that American people all over the country are feeling, that in and of itself doesn't mean we bring a criminal case.

Kroft: If you had said two years ago that nobody was gonna be prosecuted on Wall Street for the subprime mortgage scandal, I think people would think, "It's not possible."

Breuer: Sometimes it takes a number of years to bring these cases. So I'd say to the American people, they should have confidence that this is a department that's working hard and we're gonna keep working hard, so stay tuned.

From the New York Times...

....Especially when mortgages were securitized and sold off to investors, he said, senior bankers turned a blind eye to shortcuts...

...One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans (versus) prime mortgages.

So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.

Theckston, who has a shelf full of awards that he won from Chase, such as "sales manager of the year," showed me his 2006 performance review. it indicates that 60 percent of his evaluation depended on him increasing high-risk loans.

End of New York Times Quote.

So isn't that enough to prosecute?

Wouldn't a mass wall street plea deal offer right now cause hundreds of wall street executive rats to come running and confess their crimes rather than be found out later and possibly receive a sentence that will be much much longer?

How about a Wall Street ad by the Justice Department, "Wall Street Bankers, confess your illegal activities now and receive a sentence that will only be 25% as long as what it will be if you wait until you are found out, tried and convicted. Confess now and get a 2 year sentence, wait, and you will get no less than 8 years - guaranteed".

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Notary who blew whistle on foreclosure fraud found dead

2011-12-01T12:18:00.000-08:00

Notary who blew whistle on foreclosure fraud found dead.

LAS VEGAS (KSNV MyNews3) -- The notary who signed tens of thousands of false documents in a massive robo-signing scandal case was found dead in her home on Monday.

The notary, 43-year-old Tracy Lawrence, was supposed to be in court at 8:30 Monday morning for her sentencing hearing. When her attorney did not hear from her for more than an hour, Sr. Deputy Attorney General Robert Giunta asked for a bench warrant to be issued for Lawrence. The judge denied the request.

Read the rest of the story at the link provided above.

JP Morgan Chase Disgrace, the never ending tale of the damage Chase Bank has done to their customers over the past several years.

2011-11-21T11:02:00.001-08:00

Just start reading some of the comments about Chase Bank and their banking practices and it makes you want to fume. Or, Occupy.

If Justifiable Debt Restructure were allowed, ALL of these people could have fought back. Right now, they have no tools to fight back.

Read it and weep, get angry, occupy, but remember that this is what people have been dealing with for the past several years.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Irish Banks Face Mortgage Strikes.

2011-11-18T16:46:00.001-08:00

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid billionaires and trillionaires.
Let it go.
Reasonable interest rates or just die. Seriously. Do us all a favor and either accept reasonable interest rates, or just die. Click here to go to the story below.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE ABOVE STORY.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Why did the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Government step aside 10 years ago and let Wall Street and their "investors" run the home mortgage show over the past Decade?

2011-11-08T17:32:00.000-08:00

(Edit note Sat. Nov. 12, 5:16:00 pm, I have changed the title of this article to more accurately reflect the content that was created).

Why did the government and the federal reserve step aside and allow wall street to move in and become the direct beneficiary of mortgage securitizations while also allowing wall street's "investors" to be the direct underwriters of home mortgages as well?

If the federal reserve (a non governmental agency), or the U.S. government had offered mortgage securitization bonds to wall street, homeowners would have still been protected and insulated from the past 10 years of wall street investment shenanigans because they would have been PROTECTED by our own government from such dangerous nonsense.

Instead, a little over ten years ago it appears the government and the federal reserve simply stepped aside and allowed wall street's influence and their investor's money direct access to the homeowner. Wall street and wall street investor's "profit at all costs" agenda was diametrically different to the federal reserve and our own government's home mortgage track record.

Our own government might see the value in restructuring a mortgage so that the homeowner can keep making regular payments on time. Wall Street didn't care, and our entire economy caved in even as Wall Street rewarded itself with obscene amounts of bonuses.

Wall Street seemed to have created quite the mortgage ponzie scheme. If homeowners make their mortgage payments on time, wall street would profit handsomely from wall street mortgage securitization investment deals that were already in place. If the homeowner failed to make their mortgage payments on time, Wall Street had other investment schemes in place in which they would also profit handsomely based on homeowners' failing to make their mortgage payments!

Mortgage servicers also started profiting from the excessive fees and penalties they tacked onto struggling homeowners for the most minor of infractions. One homeowner lost his home over a 13 cent mistake! This would never have happened when the government and the federal reserve were directly involved in all mortgage agreements.

So why did the federal reserve and the government not keep doing what they had been doing for well more than half of a century? Was the rescinding of Glass Stegall the reason that the government and the federal reserve seemed to become disinterested parties regarding what went on with home mortgages?

Just because Glass Steagall was rescinded does not excuse the U.S. government or the Federal Reserve from becoming disinterested in the home mortgage industry, yet that is exactly what the federal reserve and our own government did to the american people.

Maybe allowing the federal reserve and our own government to print money without parallel responsibilities makes having a working relationship with homeowners...kind of boring???

Why have a working relationship with the 99% if you can just print money at will and hand it out to your billionaire and trillionaire friends and let them do the work for you! And we all know that every billionaire and trillionaire out there earned their all of their wealth in a completely righteous and honest manner. (sarcasm alert).

Did our own government and the federal reserve simply get out of the home mortgage business so they could get into the "print money for wars" scenario instead? Did the government stop being directly involved in home mortgages so they could print money for other purposes such as war? Did our own government and the federal reserve aid and abet specific companies that profited handsomely from war and who may have then contributed to the politicians who made them rich? If this is the case, people need to be tried, convicted, and jailed.

Welcome to the Occupy Movement.

Who approved absolving the federal reserve and the U.S. government from directly backing U.S. mortgages? Did the U.S. government and federal reserve's lack of responsibility when it came to backing home mortgages rise to the level of conspiracy against U.S. citizens?

Presently, debt restructuring first requires a default by the debtor, no doubt because that is what wall street and their greedy investors wanted. Yes, you are a greedy investor if you happily forced homeowners to pay huge penalties and fees on poorly constructed home loans, or cause the homeowner to lose their home if they didn't pay the huge penalties and fees.

Our own government's direct involvement in home mortgages would have afforded more flexibility in offering justifiable debt restructuring without first requiring a default by the debtor, especially when it became clear that the economy was not doing well.

So again it must be asked, why did the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve step aside and expose homeowners DIRECTLY to the seedy hands of wall street and their investor's "profit no matter what happens" scenario almost 11 years ago?

The 99% needs to fight to get a debt restructuring without a default declaration passed into law plan or millions more americans will unfairly lose their homes to the same unseemly wall street characters that caused their need for debt restructure in the first place.

If our government and the Federal Reserve continues to drag their feet over justifiable debt restructuring without a default, they too need to be put on trial.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Trillionaires, Billionaires, Higher Taxes, and interest rate charges are to blame for the world wide economic problems.

2011-11-04T12:46:00.001-07:00

The more corporations are taxed, the less they will spend on new employment, even less than they currently do.

I believe our economic issues are entirely related to interest rate charges. The endemic belief that interest rate charges are normal and ongoing is destroying everybody but the trillionaire's wealth base.

Democrats like to talk about how past taxation created successfully run government public jobs programs over the past 85 years. However what fails to get mentioned is that whenever the government used taxation to create a public jobs program, that program actually helped increase the efficiency of some aspect of our industrialized nation.

Whether it was making roadways, laying down sewage pipes, phone lines, building the Hoover Dam, dredging the Mississippi River or buildinga new suspension bridge where one did not exist before, anytime the government converted tax money into job generation they were creating new and more efficient ways for small and large businesses to create commerce.

85 years later, and much of the country and the world is built out. The types of government projects that resulted in increased commerce 85 years ago either are now too costly to perform or would directly compete with businesses already doing the same kind of work.

The answer to our present economic woes is for all the trillionaires and billionaires to accept the concept that their money is NO LONGER NEEDED. Trillionaires and billionaires no longer need to be getting the highest rate of return on their deposits or investment opportunities.

Until lower interest rates returns on secured bank deposits happens, the trillionaires and billionaires are to blame for the present economic destruction of main street. Trillionaires and billionaires should be getting the LOWEST rate of return on their secured bank investments.

Higher taxation and paying the highest interest rate of return to the trillionaires and billionaires puts too much pressure on wall street and other investment portals to find higher profit margin investments.

The result is a strong and steady U.S. companies are blindsided by wall street and the investment fund managers who then try and create the same company in other countries where profit margins are higher and the work force is paid much less. All in the name of meeting the profit requirements as dictated by the trillionaires and billionaires.

NOBODY ever talks about interest rates dividends and charges and the destruction they are teeming on a global scale, and it just freaks me out.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Hat Tip to Zero Hedge for exposing the Chase Bank, "Housing, a Time To Buy" investment document.

2011-10-26T00:21:00.000-07:00

Zero Hedge found this interesting Chase Bank Document called, "Housing, a Time to Buy", by Dr. David Kelly and David Lebovitz.

The excerpt I found particularly revealing was the revelation by Chase Bank that "Since the first quarter of 2006, the value of home equity (in the United States) has fallen from 13.5 trillion to 6.2 trillion, a 54% decline".

U.S. Homeowners have lost 7.3 trillion in home equity between the first quarter of 2006 through 2010. Factor in that at least 5 million homeowners were foreclosed upon during that time period and that it was a new homeowner that benefited by buying the home at a fraction of what the prior homeowner had paid for the home.

The argument could be made that the loss of home equity was even greater than 7.3 trillion since the banks have repossessed so many homes.

In some instances, employees of the banks could have prioritized placing their own families, friends or business associates into homes that had been repossessed and were incredible values.

So it is possible that the 2006 homeowners lost even more than 7.3 trillion, perhaps as much as 8 to 9 trillion.

Meanwhile, the ratio of Credit Card debt to home equity has doubled, crippling the buying power of main street.

Yet, to this day, no debt, be it credit card, student loan, or home mortgage, can be restructured unless the debtor is first defaulted upon by the banks.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Why the Economy won't get much better anytime soon, and yes it's entirely the bank's fault.

2011-09-26T00:50:00.000-07:00

I was watching Conan Nolan on KNBC in Los Angeles less than an hour ago and UCLA economist Jerry Nickelsburg said something that I found amazing, and very troubling as well.

The UCLA economist said "When you restructure debt, that's technically a default".

View more videos at: http://nbclosangeles.com.

You can find the exact comment at 3 minutes and 26 seconds. I set the embed code to that point but it does not appear to be working. However you can scroll to that spot if you like. Maybe you can, or maybe not. NBC seems to have 2 to 3 month curve before they fix problems like this. It's really sad actually.

Well, there it is, the bible of what makes banks tick, and how they are ruining the planet. "When you restructure debt, that's technically a default".

There are hundreds of millions of people who lost half of their wealth in a relatively short amount of time back in 2008. While bankers can argue that what these millions of people lost was falsely inflated wealth, these millions of people borrowed money knowing they had the assets to back up their borrowing.

Once a tremendous amount of assets were lost almost overnight, the debt people had taken on still existed.

Assets were cut in half for millions upon millions of law abiding citizens, yet according to the narcissistic banking and governmental interests, the debt and the interest rate on the debt stays the same. And lets not forget it was the banks that created the false rise and real crash of wealth worldwide.

One simple banking rule, that restructuring debt is considered a default, is paralyzing the world's economy.

Ask anyone who applied for HAMP if they were not first required to default before they could even apply for a Home Affordable Mortgage Payment.

In 2008 and 2009 Chase Bank changed terms on a few million of their own credit card customers who had life of the loan low interest rate agreements, yet Chase Bank denied it had defaulted.

Chase Bank's Change in Terms robbed their customers of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in SAVINGS by forcing the customers to pay off their Chase Bank low interest rate card before their higher interest rate cards.

Somebody needs to step in and slap the bankers and change the rules. Bankers and the government use the term default to destroy people's credit ratings and force them into higher interest rate loans if they simply ask for a change in terms on an existing agreement.

To use the term default ANYTIME a consumer requests a change in terms, when bankers themselves change terms all the time with no punishment, is creating a double standard that needs to change.

Change anyone?

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Homeowners not underwater may face greater loss of wealth than those who are underwater.

2011-08-12T10:37:00.000-07:00

There are MORE HOMEOWNERS who ARE NOT underwater than are underwater. The continual laserlike focus on those who are underwater while not publicizing the plight of those who could lose significant amounts of built up home equity, is a divide and conquer technique that many bloggers appear to have fallen for.

Losing one's job can freeze a homeowners line of equity that may have taken years to create via an initial down payment and years of making monthly payments.

Losing one's job, or perhaps not being employable because one is caretaking for a family member (as 70 MILLION americans presently do) can lead to the loss of WEALTH through foreclosure.

The continual overfocus by the media and bloggers on homeowners who are upside on their home mortgage while virtually NO PUBLICITY is given to those who are actually being robbed of their own earned wealth serves the banking interests.

Not discussing the loss of actual wealth for homeowners who are out of work or are taking care of another family member actually weakens the position of those underwater by dividing and conquering the various homeowner situations that presently exist.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Standard and Poors confiscates the excessive consumer credit card interest rate profits U.S. banks were charging american consumers.

2011-08-06T12:29:00.000-07:00

For years I have been advocating the United States government and banking institutions quit relying on excessive consumer credit card interest rate charges as a way to profit from the poor and middle class. Apparently Standard and Poors agrees with me and they have now confiscated the credit card interest rate profiteering that the banks and our government have been engaging in in ever increasing volume over the past decade and a half, by lowering the U.S. credit rating.

The Standard and Poors U.S. credit rating reduction may result in an annual surcharge of 75 billion dollars against main street and those already in debt. I estimate that every year consumers pay around 100 billion to 175 billion in credit card interest rate charges.

Instead of cutting the interest rate obligation for those who would agree to keep paying DOWN their overall credit card debt, Standard and Poors just stepped in and STOLE what should have been credit card debt interest rate relief for main street.

We live in a time when LESS overall consumer debt IS A GOOD THING, yet the government, news media and wall street continues to bray out loud that main street is desperate for access to additional high interest rate credit card debt. Our own government and wall street has allowed their own credit card interest rate greed to hit main street america once more in the pocket book.

The extra profiteering that the banks and the U.S. government were making off of credit card interest rate charges has just been siphoned off by Standard and Poors. Sadly, bankers, wall street and the government will use the standard and poors U.S. credit rating reduction as an excuse to RAISE interest rates against main street, when it is painfully obvious that those who are in debt need some type of RESPONSIBLE RELIEF.

A reduction in main street's debt would be achieved by lowering credit card interest rates on debt that has already been accrued, which would actually improve the United States economy moreso than raising interest rates in general.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency hits the ground running, tell them your story.

2011-07-31T12:31:00.001-07:00

I emailed the Consumer Financial Protection Agency my story, and they sent me an email back asking if I knew anybody that needed their story told. Here is the response that I got from the CFPA.

"Thank you. We're working to make markets for consumer financial products and services work in a fair, transparent, and competitive manner and your story is invaluable to that work.

Are there others we should hear from? Forward this message to them and ask them to visit https://help.consumerfinance.gov/app/tellyourstory

The information you've given us will help us understand your experiences as a consumer and give us an up-to-date picture of the consumer marketplace.Thank you,Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

consumerfinance.gov--If you need help, file a complaint: consumerfinance.gov"

(End of email)

I suggest that you structure your comments so that it briefly tells your story but don't give every bit of information, and conclude your letter with what you think SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

I think you summarizing your letter with what you think SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED, after briefly telling what did happen, is very very important. If you spend too much time in your email being angry, or giving out way too much information, you may lose them before they get to your terrific SUMMARY OF WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

When you think about it, the reason you are angry is because you have a sense of what would have been fair, and what you thought would have been fair was IGNORED and possibly not even considered by the bankers.

If you stick to what you think would have been a fair solution regarding how the unmotivated, lazy bankers screwed you, the CFPA can possibly propose solutions based on your experiences!

It's the bankers that hide behind rules and regulations as excuses for why they cannot change anything, yet spend tens of millions (and probably way more) lobbying congress all the time to keep their fat bonuses and salaries, and the CFPA may be our chance to fix what the lazy bankers don't feel like fixing.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Bank of America agrees to $8.5 billion settlement on fraud claims

2011-07-02T01:20:00.000-07:00

World Socialist Web Site reports on Bank of America 8.5 billion dollar settlement with "investors".

Bank of America agrees to $8.5 billion settlement on fraud claims

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Homeowners, tell your story! Be inspired by the Chase Bank, David Lowman firing.

2011-06-24T02:14:00.000-07:00

Lets celebrate not only the David Lowman firing, but the protestor who was arrested for calling Mr. Lowman a liar at the Nov. 16, 2010 congressional hearing on home mortgage services and practices.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Calling all homeowner bloggers, Swarm the Banks wants to feature your blog!

2011-06-14T17:46:00.000-07:00

It has become painfully aware to me that NOBODY is championing the right of a homeowner who is NOT underwater to be able to tap home equity if they are not working. Even if the home equity amount being tapped is still well within the prescribed 2/3's value of total built up home equity that ensures a bank can re sell the home and get back their money if the homeowner skips, banks won't allow an unemployed worker to tap any home equity from their home.

I would be ok with this if the government did not allow banks to STEAL built up home equity and the original down payment when they repossess a home. Virtually NONE of the blogs featured on swarm the banks is concerned about homeowners who may lose built up home equity and their down payment as well when a foreclosure occurs.

If you are a homeowner and feel you did the right thing by taking care of a family member, or perhaps are one of 15 million americans taking care of a family member with alzheimer's, and cannot work for that reason, maybe you should consider blogging about how the banks and the government are squeezing you out of your home and all the built up home equity you have in your home.

I'll create top priority blog placement for bloggers involved in keeping their home who are being denied fair access to home equity and their original down payment.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Reader Pattie Pinpoints the EXACT ISSUE regarding the REAL HOUSING CRISIS in a Swarm The Banks commentary.

2011-06-03T17:28:00.000-07:00

Pattie has left a new comment on your post "NACA Los Angeles Convention Center "Save the Dream...":

"NACA is back in LA June 2-6. We went to try and get help numerous times last time they were in LA. But received no assistance at all. Seems that they only help people that are behind on their loans. Not those who have tried to keep current on their loans by borrowing from family, draining savings, selling everything they have, doing without food and medical necessities..... Just to keep current on their mortgage.

We definitely can not keep up with our bills and mortgage due to pay and hour cuts and high medical costs. Yet we were told by Naca, the only way they could help us is if we stop paying our mortgage. On top of everything else, we do not want to take a chance in losing our home. But that is what NACA is asking to MAYBE help us get a lower interest rate and lower the payment.

Can this deceptive practice be looked into? Shouldn't they (NACA) also be helping the people who are "trying to do the right thing" and pay the people they owe? Is it right for them to ask you to stop paying creditors just to get help from them?"

Thank you so much for your time,
Patricia R (she continues below)

"Its not about buying more than you can afford. Its about pay cuts, hour cuts, and just plain layoffs. Who can plan for that? If you plan to be jobless……then your mortgage should be zero dollars a month. Is that possible? Our mortgage was only 20% of our income until my husband experienced pay and hour cuts and I got a cut in disability payments. I cant work and my husband took on a second job. We are trying…..but still not making ends meet. Definitely NO money for much needed medical care. Is this OUR fault? "

Patricia, what you are experiencing is the triangulation of our country into three segmented communities, two of those communities, die hard republican and die hard democrats, are being represented, but there is a third component which is being completely ignored by Barack Obama, the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Media as well.

What you are also experiencing is what I have been warning about for the past couple of years. The media news outlets have purposely carved out ultra right and ultra left positions on virtually all news stories, forcing those in the middle to "choose" one side or the other, or be left out in the cold.

Main street IS NOT necessarily connected with being a union worker with a government job, yet the media has purposely merged these two groups together in an epic struggle against the budget cutting republicans.

The REAL issue is, if you present a monthly budget that proves you could pay your monthy bills, pay down your debts, and pay your mortgage with lower interest rates on your credit card debt and mortgage, the government is less interested in helping you than the people who allow parallel foreclosure and dual track foreclosure to commence before they can even apply for help.

Barack Obama and his administration appears like he is helping homeowners when he is actually helping enable a massive theft of homeowner property of the likes unseen before. A republican president would have been just as bad, maybe worse.

Hillary Clinton represented true main street and the media has tilted to the far left and right, marginalizing tens of millions of people into nothingness.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Red Cross Helps Tornado Survivors Cope With Tragedy

2011-05-27T01:13:00.000-07:00

Red Cross Helps Tornado Survivors Cope With Tragedy

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Barack Obama knowingly cut Mississippi River dredging budget in half a few months ago. Barack Obama's Munchausen's Disease by Proxy flaring up.

2011-05-15T10:56:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama knowingly cut Mississippi River dredging budget in half a few months ago. Barack Obama's Munchausen's Disease by Proxy flaring up.

If you are planning on creating or broadcasting a commercial and want an objective, outsiders point of view about your commercial, contact Alessandro Machi about his consulting services at...

info at alexlogic.com

You can also view more

commercial critiques

by Alessandro Machi at

Super Bowl Consulting

Calling BS on Banks taking homeowner built up home equity and down payment.

2011-05-08T10:20:00.000-07:00

I believe that whenever you see a post or comment defending the taking of a homeowners home equity and down payment via a short sale, you are simply reading the words of one who profits from this form of theft.

Yes, theft.

If a homeowner has built up any home equity in their home, and has already made a down payment on their home, they should be allowed REASONABLE ACCESS to that equity BEFORE a foreclosure is implemented. I have yet to hear the Barack Obama administration deal with this issue.

50% of american homeowners are NOT upside on their home mortgage, but were they to lose their job, they would be ineligible to tap their earned home equity line. This could result in either a short sale, (which can result in unhappy results for a myriad of reasons), or foreclosure and the loss of the home's entire down payment and built up home equity line.

If you are one of 70 million americans care taking for a family member, or 15 million americans caretaking for someone with alzheimers, and as a result are limited in your work options, the government will still deny access to your own built up home equity and down payment, and the government will do nothing if the bank swoops in at some point and simply takes your home and all the value you have built up in it.

I believe Hillary Clinton, based on her 2008 campaign speeches, would have initiated more reasonable terms for homeowners so the banks could not just take what they did not earn, and a re-election of either Barack Obama or the republican candidate will probably spell continued disaster for homeowners who are out of work.

(edit update May-9, 2011 10:50 am - click here for another home values are dropping story line that DOES NOT MENTION homeowners with equity, instead the article focuses on those who are upside on their mortgages. The media boycott is pervasive against highlighting homeowners with home equity and who also made a sizable down payment but are presently jobless and could lose everything to the banksters. -end update)

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Somewhat off topic, The man who stole George Costanza's raisins is having a FREE movie premiere in Los Angeles on May 05, 2011.

2011-04-26T13:41:00.000-07:00

CLICK ON EMMETT DEEMUS MOVIE POSTER TO ENLARGE

Larry Hankin, the man who stole George Costanza's raisins in one of the more famous scenes from the Seinfeld television series, has an alter ego named Emmett Deemus. You can see Mr. Hankin's "Emmett Deemus" free movie premiere May 05th, 2011 at the Talking Stick Coffee Lounge in Culver City, CA.

Click here for more info or get it right off the Emmett Deemus Free Movie premiere poster up above.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

TaxMasters: Do They Deliver on Tax Debt Promises?

2011-04-14T01:19:00.001-07:00

If you want to read the accompanying ABC News article, please click here. I was surprised to hear that the cable and broadcast channels already carrying Tax Master commercials are going to continue to carry them.

70 million americans are taking care of an elderly family member, 15 million are taking care of a family member with alzheimers.

2011-04-09T23:41:00.000-07:00

70 million americans are taking care of an elderly family member. 15 million americans are taking care of an adult with alzheimers. If any of these kind hearted americans are unemployable because of their family situation, the government offers nothing to them.

Our government will actually steal these kind hearted american's homes, even if there is plenty of home equity still left in them, under the loophole that anyone not working is not eligible to tap any existing equity in their own home.

Here is the worst part. The group most likely to have equity in their home, are the elderly, yet the government won't allow their children to help them even if it means SLOWLY tapping the home equity to help pay monthly bills.

We cannot afford four more years of either Barack Obama OR the Republican Party or the destruction of millions of more lives will be the result. Accept no substitutes, Hillary Clinton is THE ONLY CANDIDATE that can intelligently fix the present situation.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Sixty Minutes April 03, 2011 Mortgage Paper Signature Fraud Story.

2011-04-06T10:32:00.001-07:00

Here it is, straight from Sixty Minutes. 11 months after their strategic default piece that made some homeowners look like the bad guys, Sixty Minutes exposes the faux Linda Green signature was apparently put on anywhere from 50,000 documents to perhaps well over a million documents.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Almost a full year after their Strategic Default hit piece against homeowners, 60 minutes finally decides to do a piece on the dishonesty of the banks

2011-04-02T00:37:00.001-07:00

Last year I complained that Sixty Minutes was going after the Homeowner with their Strategic Default Story while letting the banks off of the hook.

Hey 60 minutes, about a year too late with your story about mortgage fraud by the banks, no? Will we see Chase bank advertisements during the show?

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Does Samsung Think they Co Own every keystroke you perform on their laptops?

2011-03-30T19:39:00.000-07:00

Uh oh, here comes trouble. Samsung might have pre-installed keystroke detection software on their lap tops that sends out emails about what you are doing with "their" computers. Click here to read the Time Techland Story. You'd think that once you buy the computer it would be "yours", but evidently, that is not the case.

This isn't just about invasion of privacy, its about invasion of other people's thoughts, ideas, and future plans.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Glenn Beck Would Rather Talk About His Made-Up Foreclosure Crisis.

2011-03-29T14:16:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck Would Rather Talk About His Made-Up Foreclosure Crisis.

I have been critical of Barack Obama and his mishandling of HAMP, and I trust the Republicans even less. I can't say it enough, the best presidential candidate in 2008 was Hillary Clinton, and that is why Wall Street supported Barack Obama instead.

There is a HUGE moderate middle base that supports Hillary Clinton, but the cable news media is pandering to progessive Whack-A-Noodle democrats and ultra conservative republicans.

In today's installment of the far left versus the far left, it's George Soros funded Media Matters griping about how Glenn Beck said very little about the home foreclosure crisis over the past year. Glenn Beck Would Rather Talk About His Made-Up Foreclosure Crisis.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Court Grants "Godfather Privileges" in a Stunning Gutting of the Federal Hobbs Act in March 25th, 2011 Rennell vs Rowe Ruling.

2011-03-28T08:55:00.000-07:00

CLICK HERE TO ENLARGE IMAGE.

I believe that the Federal Hobbs Act may have just been gutted by a March 25th, 2011 ruling in Rennell v. Rowe.

In sum, extortion under the Hobbs Act can occur outside of the labor context when a person uses physical violence or the threat of violence to obtain property, whether or not the defendant has a claim to the property. If a defendant has no claim of right to property, the use of fear to obtain that property—including the fear of economic loss—may also amount to extortion.

In contrast, where the defendant has a claim of right to property and exerts economic pressure to obtain that property, that conduct is not extortion and no violation of the Hobbs Act has occurred. See United States v. Sturm, 870 F.2d 769, 773 (1st Cir. 1989);Brokerage Concepts, Inc. v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 140 F.3d 494, 523-24 (3d Cir. 1998). We consider Rennell's assertions against this backdrop.

------------------------------

"...exerts economic pressure is no violation of the Hobbs Act"...??? Are you kidding me!!! Exerting economic pressure could mean ANYTHING.
"Exerting economic pressure" could be no different than being in a poker game in which the other player has more chips than you and you can't match their raise and lose by default.
THIS ISN'T POKER! Rowe and Rennell WERE BUSINESS PARTNERS. The court seems to have forgotten that mercenary actions against business partners would be no different than the bailiff plotting against the courtroom judge that they work with.

Quickly recapped, Rowe and Rennell were business partners running a successful business. Rowe decided to replace Rennell and gave Rennell 24 hours notice to either take a $300,000 dollar buyout, or get nothing. The acknowledged value of Rennell's role in the business was approximately TEN TIMES the $300,000 dollar offer.

If Rennell refused the offer, he would get nothing, and might have difficulty raising funds for a legal battle. Rennell agreed to the forced buyout, and was also forced to agree to not sue if he took the "buyout".

On appeal the judges have sided with ROWE and against Rennell!

What if Rennell had refused the 10 cents on the dollar settlement offer? Two possible outcomes could have been; Rennell is escorted by force from the locations where Rennell and Rowe conducted business together, or, Rowe could have simply stopped paying Rennell.

The first of those two outcomes would be a Hobbs Act violation because of the use of force needed to escort Rennell from the premises. The second of those two outcomes, suffocating Rennell economically, would appear to be a Hobbs Act Violation under the extortion clause as well.

Is it ethical for the courts to allow one party with a superior financial standing to starve out their business partner or force them to accept whatever offer is being given?

The court itself cited the situation as "an offer Rennell "couldn't refuse", a direct reference to the movie "The Godfather". Yet the court than grants "Godfather Privileges" to Rowe! Does the court even get the outrageousness of referring to a mafioso practice, then handing down a verdict that sanctions mafioso activity?

It appears that what the judges are saying is that if you extort someone vis a vie paper or currency, it is not considered a Hobbs ACT extortion because the "threat" was not physical in nature.

Simply withhold currency, and no Hobbs act violation has occurred, what a horrible court precedent to set.

I also found the fruit store, "dollar a peach" analogy flawed as well. The judges were implying that the storeowner does not have the right to refuse service to a customer, and therefore the storeowner was not acting in good faith. A store owner can refuse the right to serve anybody. But the scenario cited above involves a different set of circumstances since it involves a business owner versus a customer, rather than owner vs partner, or employer vs partner. Very odd of the judges to use such a non conforming analogy.

The bigger issue is that if this ruling stands, extortion by paper or currrency becomes the order of the day, and the Federal Hobbs Act will have been gutted, big time.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

The Future of Manufacturing is Local...

2011-03-27T18:46:00.001-07:00

A very powerful, earnest article about local manufacturing by Allison Arieff, click here to read it.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Swarm the Banks Blog is designed to help everybody fighting Wall Street to stay informed in the fastest way possible.

2011-03-25T23:39:00.001-07:00

I set up Swarm The Banks for those interested in getting as much current mortgage watchdog information from close to a hundred different blogs in the fastest time possible.

Unfortunately, of the approximately hundred blogs that are listed on swarm the banks, perhaps fewer than five have bothered to put a Swarm the Banks link on their own site. So, it breaks my heart when a fellow blogger mentions they have an "important" event coming up, and want me to write about it on swarm the banks, but they have not even bothered to put a link to swarm the banks on their own blog.

Isn't this the very definition of narcissism?

It appears that many "bloggers on a mission" somehow think their own cause is the most important, so "please help them get publicity for their own cause". Yet, in some cases these bloggers haven't even contemplated the importance of helping to send traffic to Swarm the Banks so that when they do get featured, MORE people will ultimately see it.

Anyways, here is a Bank of America Protest event going on tomorrow (March 26, 2011) that most people will miss because the bloggers that actually get hits from Swarm the Banks, are not sharing traffic back.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Barack Obama's 30 billion dollar bribe to the american people to make up for a few million illegal home foreclosures, is it worth it?

2011-03-17T01:37:00.001-07:00

Shame the Banks is reporting that the Barack Obama administration is proposing a 30 billion homeowner bailout (or bribe out as I call it), that would require the banks to provide a couple million homeowners who are in "distress" on their home mortgages and even home equity lines some type of mortgage debt forgiveness or reduction.

I can make an educated guess that whatever credit is offered, it will only be offered to those WHO HAVE A JOB! Imagine you have a 100,000 home equity line all tapped out, and the government is willing to drop it to 25,000. Sounds good, right? (or, view Naked Capitalism's take on how far 30 billion will actually go)

So I'm guessing the gotcha will be that one can only get the reduction if they can begin making payments on the remaining 25,000 dollars. Tell that to the 15 MILLION american citizens who caretake for family members with alzheimers and can't be away from home for more than an hour or two.

If there is going to be any kind of mortgage forgiveness, how about giving the unemployed an opportunity to have the mortgage foregiveness put into an escrow account and be tapped in small monthly amounts to make monthly payments on core bills such as water, power, food, and insurance.

What about the UNPAID CAREGIVERS, how will this legislation help them?

What is further disgusting is the TIMING of this proposed solution. It's now been almost TWO YEARS since Barack Obama took credit for HAMP. After tricking nearly a million homeowners into the accelerated loss of their home by following the HAMP guidelines, Barack Obama will now time his "solution" to be in full swing when he is running for re-election.

I think I'd rather see Mr. Obama tried for Federal Hobbs Act Violations, the extortion clause, under the color of right, for his public personal promotion of HAMP, and for possibly instructing HUD to lie about how successful HAMP was, then accept this latest 30 billion dollar homeowner bribing tactic to help get himself re-elected.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

All Money is not Created Equally, and that may be the biggest part of the home mortgage scandal.

2011-03-02T10:56:00.001-08:00

(update March 31, 2011, the theme of this article has just now been corroborated by a Living Lies blog article).

During the fall 2010 congressional hearings on mortgage servicing and home foreclosures, some of the committee members who took statements from the experts would recite how their own home loans were processed. In some instances they were talking about events that took place in the 1970's and the 1980's.

It seemed to me that these congress people's experiences with their own home loans were before securitization happened in the late 1990's. It seemed to me that the congress people thought that their own home loans were funded by money from the fed and backed by the government.

The banks were supposed to qualify potential homeowners and use the discount in the interest rate they get from the fed as their profit margin, that was then, and this is now.

It seems to me that once securitization entered the scene in the late 90's or early the next decade, that suddenly non fed sources of money could be used to "back" home loans, and that these non fed sources of money had supreme power over the homeowner's mortgage.

Replacing fed money for home loans with investor money that apparently was less flexible when it came to refinancing, is where the fraud began in my opinion.

The moment a homeowners relationship with the loan origination source is compromised by a new entity who is not concerned with helping the homeowner, the system broke down and the judges need to step in to save the homeowner.

It's as if all that pension investment money floating around that is looking for a solid but safe investment is in competition with the fed itself. The Pension money is beholden to the pensioners who fund it, the fed is beholden to the homeowner's promise to be a solid citizen and pay back the home loan.
If the homeowner struggles, the fed has MORE OF A MOTIVATION TO HELP THE HOMEOWNER than does investment money that comes from a pension fund.

I think we need to identify and separate fed funds from private investment funds when getting a home loan. The blending of these two money sources and pretending they are the same may be the smoking gun fraud that needs to be unwound.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Legalized Gambling Debt Can Suffocate a Cities or State in the same manner as the lottery and future pension obligations can.

2011-03-01T00:38:00.000-08:00

Just like the lottery can promise instant wealth to those who win, or the promise of exorbitant pensions in the future in exchange for a contract settlement today, higher taxes in the future may result from , the lottery, future pension costs, and legalized gambling.

Lets start with a state run lottery program. Lottery winners in the first year who take their money over the next 20 years create a false profit margin for the state in the first year of operation. While year one of a lottery program will produce high traffic and minimal payouts, by year twenty the lottery program is now paying out 20 years worth of winners, not one year's worth, while still taking in approximately the same amount of money as in year one!

Some may argue, "the lottery has more winners in the first year because they have no other obligations". Well, that just means the lottery is a bait and switch in which the number of winners is kept artificially high the first few years to lure people in and addict them, and then it is switched to a lower overall payout as more and more winners have to be paid on an annual basis.

So the lottery starts off with a bang in year one, and ends up as a whimper in terms of what the state gets as the years pass.

But it's worst than that! The lottery money in California was pledged to go towards public education and only public education, yet politicians allocate the lottery money to public education to help meet the yearly budget obligation. In essence, the lottery money becomes a yearly foundational part of the budget rather than as a "bonus". This then allows politicians to then siphon other pre-allocated public education monies, elsewhere, while making it look like the lotto money actually went to public education.

It appears that most state pension plans will require down the road tax increases or they cannot honor those pensions. Making a promise today, in exchange for the requirement of a future tax increase, seems unethical to me.

Elements of both how the lottery works and how future state pensions are funded may be present when it comes to legalized gambling.

Gambling can only sustain itself if it creates consumer debt among the participants. Consumer debt that requires time to pay off results in more and more interest rate profits going to the banks, and not the city. With each passing year, the citizens of a city or state must incur a bigger and bigger debt for the gambling facility to remain profitable, and this means that with each passing year those same debtors will have less and less spendable income to spend in their own cities and within their own states while more and more INTEREST RATE CHARGES are going to the banks.

Yes, that gambling entity will presumably pay their own share of state taxes, but it still appears to be a one for two state tax trade off. Even if the casino pays state taxes, the consumers who frequent the casino will have an ever shrinking money supply to pay their own debts, and in turn, they will CUT DOWN on the purchases they make at other local stores THAT ALSO PAY STATE TAXES.

One way that gambling's overall harm to a city or state's future tax base could be minimized is if each citizen was assessed a maximum amount of debt they could incur that is based on their income. If the citizen agrees to never go over that assessed maximum debt, and the associated interest rate on that debt would have to be well under 10%, then legalized gambling might not be an economic drain.

Does this mean I am against Las Vegas? Not at all. I think its fine to define gambling as something one does as a "vacation". But when gambling locations start to spring up in every state, and gambling centers become so close to most americans that they can visit a gambling location within an hour's drive, in my opinion that potential gambling habit will ultimately hurt a state's revenue stream, not help it.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Cash Flow Circulation versus Debt.

2011-02-20T09:18:00.000-08:00

Economic innovation requires knowing when it is more important to sustain real cash flow circulation versus creating more debt via excessive interest rate charges. It is time to focus on cash flow circulation rather than debt creation from interest rate charges.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

How Swarm the Banks can save you time.

2011-02-19T02:37:00.000-08:00

I sometimes wonder if some visitors actually understand the biggest benefit that Swarm The Banks provides to them. Swarm the Banks actually does not compete with any other mortgage watchdog blog for your attention. Instead, Swarm the Banks allows you to instantly track dozens of other blogs by viewing a short excerpt of their latest blog article.

Even better, the most current blog articles from all of the blogs listed on Swarm the Banks are found at the top of the two columns that are located next to the center column. The most current article from all the blogs listed can be found by simply scrolling down the page.

Better still, Swarm the Banks doesn't store content from any other blog site, this is the best way to avoid stealing other bloggers content. As the various blog article links update with new content blurbs, the prior content can only be found on the bloggers site.

People who get it, really get it, and like the time saving ability to keep in touch with dozens of blogs. Checking in 2 or 3 times a day will inevitably result in at least a dozen new article excerpts appearing at the top of the two columns located on each side of the main column.

The main center column is used by myself to write content that I hope will contribute mortgage awareness articles of interest as well. Plus, the center articles is how google sends readers to Swarm The Banks. Even though I have been an internet forum contributor for the past 10 years, and a blogger for the past almost three years, I still am surprised at the lack of reciprocal links that Swarm the Banks gets.

If some blog was sending me hits every single day, at some point, I would seriously consider listing them on my blog. Amazingly, of the several dozen blogs listed on Swarm The Banks, I don't think anyone has ever listed a reciprocal link on their site without my first asking, and even then, that still is only a couple out of several dozen.

Am I complaining, not exactly. And, I'll take a moment and thank those who have taken the time to twitter the Swarm the Banks link.

I just don't understand that apparently smug layer that lies in all of us that worries most about how many hits our own blogs get, rather than how many hits our blogs give out.

I can pretty much bet a million dollars, and win, that at present time Swarm the Banks gives out a HUNDRED TIMES MORE HITS than it receives from other blogs, so I have a clear conscience about the purpose of Swarm The Banks and how helpful it is to the mortgage fraud issue. I just struggle with the smugness others might be feeling knowing they get hits from here, but having no desire or inclination to give back with a reciprocal link.

Some bloggers don't track their hits and may be completely clueless as to what I am talking about, but in this day and age, it is a good thing to know where your hits come from, and give back when it doesn't cost anything.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Why HAMP failed, and how can we trust politicians who use taxpayer funds to set up taxpayers for failure.

2011-02-09T00:12:00.001-08:00

Up until 2007, increasing levels of consumer debt was rationalized as a vital part of a growing economy because home values and 501K's overall value were easily keeping pace.

Homes once worth 150,000 had gone up to 300,000, 400,000, even 500,000 dollars.

In warmer markets, homes originally purchased for 120,000 to 150,000 in the late 70's, peaked at 800,000 - 850,000 dollars in 2007. Much of the consumer debt that was taken on was in proportion to the home equity and/or 501K savings that consumers had accrued, which means consumers were actually BEING RESPONSIBLE with their debt.

Once home values and 501K's reduced anywhere from 35% to 70% from their peak value in 2007, the stock market then crashed in the fall of 2008. Meanwhile, consumer credit card debt levels remained the same. Suddenly, consumer credit card debt in relationship to overall wealth spiked by an amount that I would guess to be anywhere from 200% to 500%!!!!

Wealth reversal began exploding since the beginning of 2008. Although credit card companies now offer balance liquidation programs at single digit interest rates, they have left out a key component. The problem with these credit card balance liquidation programs is that many consumers need to be able to respend a SMALLER PORTION of what they are paying down every month for new purchases.

Simply put, a consumer pays down their credit card debt approximately 2.5% every month (minus the interest rate charges), but that consumer would benefit immensely if they could they respend a modest portion of what they are paying down.

This monthly respend component for credit card balance liquidation programs have been COMPLETELY overlooked by everybody, and is why we must conclude that indeed, keeping everybody in debt, and continuing to favor the rich billionaires and their investments, is what wall street, and Barack Obama, are most pre-occupied with these days.

I have offered a four point economic program that requires no bailout and basically addresses the points made in this article.

Not only would this 4 point economic plan have an instantaneous positive affect on the economy without any needing any bailout money, this program would offer mid term and long term relief as well.

There has been a slight very decrease in overall consumer credit card debt in the past year, and even that tiny decrease has sparked some renewed enthusiasm for the economy. Imagine if Barack Obama actually supported legislation that made it REASONABLE for consumers to pay down their debt loads, rather than just write it off, like the banks do all the time.

Without a real consumer credit card debt paydown incentive program, HAMP had less chance of working for those who were fortunate enough to actually qualify for the program.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Satellite Map of Foreclosures in the Phoenix area, wow.

2011-01-29T01:35:00.000-08:00

CLICK TO ENLARGE.

Click here to read the story about satellite photos of foreclosures in the Phoenix, Arizona area and to see more foreclosure map links from Carpe Diem.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Barack Obama's 2011 State of the Union Address reminded me of the old Night Gallery Episode starring Clint Howard as Herbie.

2011-01-27T14:16:00.000-08:00

I only watched the first 15 minutes of Barack Obama's 2011 state of the union speech. The pace, tone, and content reminded me of the above video clip from the old Night Gallery series, the episode starring Clint Howard.

Clint Howard (the child prodigy Herbie, who can predict the future), is Barack Obama.

Herbie's grandfather is Harry Reid.

The crazed female TV executive is Nancy Pelosi.

The women psychologist who gets Herbie to reveal he reads lots of books, is Oprah Winfrey.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Barack Obama could recycle his Absent African American Dad speech and insert the phrase absent american banker in its place.

2011-01-21T02:20:00.000-08:00

Banksters just don't want to give up the securitization of mortgages.

My guess is Banksters prefer to make a million dollars in two year's time rather than 3 million dollars over 30 years time because they can then immediately reinvest that one million on a new deal. The problem is by skimming such a huge profit off the front end of a cluster of 30 year securitized mortgages, there is less of a driving force remaining to make sure the mortgage agreement stands up for 30 years.

Example: The customer service for a securitized mortgage account suffers as the reduced profit margin now has to last for almost the same amount of time. It would be like buying a car from a dealership, and then 3 months later that particular dealership is gone.

Sure, you can go to another dealership, but because you did not buy the car from them, they made no profit from you when the car was sold and subsequently will have less interest in you than customers they actually sold cars to.

Worse still, because securitizing mortgages allows banksters to take their entire cut up front, the bankster can then cut and run. The bankster may then reinvest their prematurely ejaculated profits, either inadvertently, or intentionally, and create new investment ventures that may actually reduce employment opportunities that would have helped sustain the mortgage deals they already made and then walked away from.

Example: Banksters arrange mortgages for a small town that has a steel plant that employes many of the home buyers. Banksters then securitize the mortgages, but take their own cut up front, and run.

Banksters then use that upfront profit and invest in a plant in another country that can undercut the factory that is helping homebuyers pay off their homes.

It is of no advantage to the homeowner to have a disaffected bank that took their entire cut off of the top, and then resets their priorities elsewhere, it's like giving a drug user a pre-paid credit card with almost unlimited funds.

Example: You hire someone to do your taxes, and you really like them. You like them so much that you refer your friend to them. It turns out your friends tax return is much more involved than your own, and the person you hired ends up prioritizing your friends account over yours. That's what banksters are doing when they bundle and securitize a group of 30 year mortgages so they can just take an up front cut, and walk away.

Securitization equals the future foreclosure of the very homes that were securitized because flexibility to help the homeowner has been eradicated.

Yet Banksters continue to clamor for securitization, and it reminds me of Barack Obama and his speech about Absent African American fathers. Maybe it's time Barack Obama recycle his absent A.A. fathers speech and aim it at absent american bankers who don't want to be around the very brood they assisted in the purchasing of a home.

When listening to this Barack Obama speech, replace the phrase absent african american dads with absent american bankers.

Why don't absent american bankers want to hang around and raise their own mortgage deals, watch them turn from infant to child to teen to young adult, to maturity?

Why do the Absent American Bankers lust for securitization and playing the field even as they lure people 30 year mortgage deals? Does Barack Obama have the guts to stand up to the banksters and give them a tough love speech of the kind he has already given to african american dads?

Barack Obama seems willing to talk directly about the dereliction of fatherhood duty in the african american community, Barack Obama seems willing to talk somewhat condescendingly about gun loving bitter americans, when do we get to hear Barack Obama challenge the banking industry to keep their investments local.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Breaking News, Opinionator reports that Arizona is proposing a Borrower's Bill of Rights.

2011-01-19T21:22:00.000-08:00

Opinionator makes a great point when they assert, What is Good for GM is good for Homeowners as well. Arizona Homeowner's bill of rights is an essential starting point, but it is just a starting point.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

DealBreaker dot com, the place where investment bankers hang out, ridicule, and ban main street responders.

2011-01-18T20:03:00.000-08:00

I have RSS feeds from both Deal Book and Deal Breaker listed on Swarm the Banks. I guess I mistook Deal Breaker for Deal Book this morning as I rushed to check out some blogs before heading out for a very buys day. lol, Deal Book and Deal Breaker are not the same thing.

Yes, I was banned from Deal Breaker. Would be nice if a few people visited them and absorbed their old school narcissism about investment banking and their lust for huge bonuses they allegedly "earn". If you banter, be polite, I'm curious if they ban anyone who disagrees with them.

Deal Book is open to various points of view, whereas Deal Breaker reminds me of the scene from The Fugitive when the bus careens off the road.

Imagine as the bus is flipping over and over down a never ending mountainside that people inside the bus are fighting each other to see who can grab onto the steering wheel to steer, that is the type of mentality I encountered at Deal Breaker, people seem completely oblivious to the plight of main street and their role in it, and they're arrogantly proud of it.

Check them out, then perform a full body scrub.

But know your enemy, because they really don't comprehend how out of touch they are, and the damage they continue to do to the country and the world with their securitization sleight of hand.

I doubt the posters are that old as they think nothing of ridiculing someone who uses a real name while they pose as anonymous.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

Washington Post Article wants us to believe that Investors are now aligned with homeowners!

2011-01-16T03:15:00.000-08:00

Washington Post Article wants us to believe that Investors are now aligned with homeowners!

You are viewing Swarm The Banks blog . Please check out UNfair Foreclosures blog and Parallel Foreclosure blog as well.

So many important foreclosure related articles in just the past day or so, here are links to just some of them.

2011-01-13T21:52:00.001-08:00

January 13, 2010 and all of these important stories have come out in just the past day and a half.

Bankers, Quit Selling your Homes.

All Value is Perceived Value.

Banks Walking Away from Houses.

More Time on Ransom (Supreme Court Case)

The Term Investors is a Fraudulent Term when describing investments in Securitizations. Securitization Investors are actually REINVESTORS.

Bad Real Estate News Ignored to Spin Bright Future.

The Fed has Spoken: No Bailout for Main Street.

Non Profits Getting First Shot at Foreclosed Homes.

My Own FraudClosure Story (from Foreclosure Hamlet)

Breaking News, the most important article regarding the future of our banks and homeowners you may read in 2011 has been written by Eleanor Bloxham.

2011-01-12T02:39:00.000-08:00

Click here to read the entire article by Eleanor Bloxham

I fell in love with the headline, Bankers: Quit selling your loans, and I loved the simple, straight forward approach Eleanor Bloxham takes regarding the banks infatuation with securitization.

So, can Wall Street explain to Main Street why their ongoing addiction to mortgage securitizations are a good thing for Main Street?

Mortgage mess: Worried your bank may go after your other assets if you're in foreclosure? - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

2011-01-11T14:05:00.000-08:00

Mortgage mess: Worried your bank may go after your other assets if you're in foreclosure? - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com by Doreen Hemlock

The article link above is another reason why I think the government's non response is to the mortgage crisis is basically criminal. Not only are some homeowners losing their original down payment and any actual equity built up in their homes, and not only are the new "homeowners" getting an incredible deal on their foreclosed home, the foreclosed homeowner may then become an indentured servant as well.

I believe members of our government have violated the Federal Hobbs Act, the extortion clause, by sanctioning the removal of property assets from homeowners under the color of right, even when they were apprised that wrongdoing was going on.

Swarm the Banks dot com and Parallel Foreclosure dot com welcomes UnFair Foreclosures dot com to its anti-financial terrorist family of blogs.

2011-01-10T13:20:00.000-08:00

I don't know if it is a good day or not when I can launch another foreclosure blog called Unfair Foreclosures dot com and not have a problem finding material for it. During the month of January 2011, Unfair Foreclosures will be focusing on Cancer foreclosure victims who have to take their precious stamina reserved for fighting their cancer and instead have to divide it up so they can also fight the banksters trying to take their home.

Amazing isn't it, Banksters learned how to split and re split and split again the same home properties into wall street securitization investment schemes, while cancer victims have to learn how to split their remaining strength to fend off their own cancer, and the banksters foreclosure actions.

Our president appears to have spent the first half of his term fighting for healthcare reform while doing little to nothing for cancer foreclosure reform.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Securitization Ruling was one that Swarm The Banks predicted in articles from late November and early December of 2010.

2011-01-08T02:53:00.001-08:00

There have been many established bloggers over the past few years who have been warning about how fragile the securitization process was.

Swarm the Banks is pleased to have taken its own, less educated path to the same conclusion. In late November and Early December of 2010, Swarm the Banks simply stated that any change in terms to an original banking note should not be considered valid without the expressed written consent of the mortgage payer each and every time the mortgage note changed hands.

While it is easy to dismiss such a simplistic view of a complicated securitization process, the point Swarm the Banks was making is that no matter how convoluted a series of securitization processes are, there should be a common sense solution. It appears the Massachusetts Supreme Court is saying that there can be no change in terms without the approval of the mortgage payer with each and every transfer of the note.

If the Massachusetts Supreme court is not saying A Change in Terms with out the expressed written consent of the mortgage payer is prohibited, they should!

Foreclosure Mediation being forced down the banksters throats one way or another.

2011-01-06T02:20:00.000-08:00

Back in August of 2010, Swarm the Banks questioned why Florida Mediation proposals appeared to have been ignored. Now it appears that that city of Boston is also beating the same foreclosure mediation drum as well. Swarm the Banks applauds the City of Boston for initiating foreclosure mediation legislation.

Swarm the Banks also applauds The Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio for filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of John Sinclair. Their contention is that foreclosure mediation was not offered before foreclosure was initiated.

The mediation issue is huge. Suing for the right to negotiate prior to a foreclosure could result in untold numbers of homeowners filing copycat lawsuits who were also not given the chance to negotiate prior to foreclosure.

Lack of mediation rights falls in line with my overall criticism of securitizations. So perhaps my take on the Government using HAMP to swindle homeowners out of their homes may be valid as well.

Yes, Hillary Clinton had a better home foreclosure plan than Barack Obama, and that is why Wall Street Chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

2011-01-02T01:37:00.000-08:00

Does anyone still wonder if the wrong democrat was nominated for president in 2008?
Does anyone still wonder why Wall Street backed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton?
Does anyone see what a thorn Hillary Clinton would have been over the home foreclosure issue to Barack Obama's administration if she had stayed in Congress?
Does anybody understand now, why Ted Kennedy publicly dissed Hillary Clinton in 2008 by bypassing her for the healthcare commission chair in the Senate, making it easier for her to accept Barack Obama's secretary of state role?

Does anybody see the hidden conspiracy in all of this, probably orchestrated by George Soros to keep Hillary Clinton out of the senate and out of the presidency as well?

I've written extensively about the democratic caucus cheating that went on during the 2008 democratic presidential nonmination process and how nothing has changed for the 2012 democratic presidential nomination process.

Maybe the best hope we have for 2012 is if several democratic challengers emerge and they all reduce Barack Obama's appeal to the point where Hillary Clinton is asked to be the nominee.

Sad way to end 2010, Tornados devastate communities in Arkansas, Missouri and possibly more states as well.

2010-12-31T19:16:00.000-08:00

Bankers should look at this footage over and over so they can see the kind of damage they do to people everyday using electronic and paper documents that add up to foreclosure, even when they should not. I feel badly for the people in these small communities that lost their homes.

On second thought, if bankers were to look at the devastation, i wonder if they would try and come up with a hedge fund for future Tornado devastation.

As for us everyday folk, it becomes easy to think, it's new years eve and nothing bad should happen, but they do. There was another version of this news story that mentioned a man being lifted in the air and carried a quarter of a mile, he is expected to survive.

There was also a shot of furniture in a tree, an awful counterpunch to the Christmas tree that may have been inside the home with small ornaments decorating it. I could not find those last two stories in this version of the youtube video but thought I would share what I heard as those are two powerful stories to know about as well.

In Barack Obama's home town of Chicago, Local Banks work with families to Redo predatory loans.

2010-12-29T09:16:00.000-08:00

I discovered a quaint bank in Chicago that probably helps explain how Barack and Michelle Obama worked their way into several philanthropic foundations in and throughout the Chicago, area. It is also an excellent reminder on how banks can work locally to stabilize local communities.

This local Chicago area bank's mission may also help explain why Barack Obama doesn't seem too pre-occupied with helping the rest of the country with their foreclosure problems. You see, the people Barack Obama grew up with in Illinois, the people who he collaborated with while a community activist, the people who supported and launched his political career, had a financial base to work from.

And that financial base was called Shore Bank. So when you hear Barack Obama say, "You would have defaulted anyways even if you had gotten your HAMP mod", remember, Barack Obama would NEVER say that to the communities he served while a Chicago area community activist.

Meanwhile, Banks belonging to ING Direct say NO to HAMP and redoing predatory loans, that's what you and I and the rest of the country get.

I can't prove a connection exists, I don't know if a connection exists, but I wonder if Barack Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize came with any quid pro quo attached to it involving companies like ING group. Sort of like, here's your nobel peace prize, you go ahead and offer HAMP in your country, but understand that our banking region will not support HAMP in any way and reject any attempt by americans to try and get a HAMP modification loan from securitization funds that came from ING direct investors.

Barack Obama's adult life was spent in Chicago, a region that provided financial assistance for homeowners that other parts of america can only dream of.

ING GROUP and the Nobel Peace Prize are not necessarily connected in any way that I know of other than they reside in the same relative geographical area. Was the Nobel Peace Prize a way to "soften up" Barack Obama so that he just looks the other way over all the HAMP abuse such as parallel foreclosure that americans are being put through because after the fact investors such as ING Group don't want to see their profit margin cut?

CTWatchdog - Bank Of America’s Christmas present: Foreclose Even Though Not A Payment Missed - But its much much WORSE than that!

2010-12-28T01:42:00.000-08:00

CTWatchdog - Bank Of America’s Christmas present: Foreclose Even Though Not A Payment Missed - But its much much worse than that!

This is the probably the worst story I have read about HAMP, Bank of America, Foreclosure, and the RUSH TO DAMAGE A HOMEOWNERS CREDIT SCORE just for applying for HAMP.

THIS HAS TO BE A FEDERAL HOBBS ACT VIOLATION, THE EXTORTION CLAUSE ! The mere act of applying for HAMP SHOULD IN NO WAY ADVERSELY AFFECT ONES CREDIT SCORE WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE HOMEOWNER OF THE CONSEQUENCES, FIRST.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

NPR "A Mistake that Stole Christmas? A Foreclosure Story, also a Parallel Foreclosure Story.

2010-12-24T01:49:00.000-08:00

NPR "A Mistake that Stole Christmas? A Foreclosure Story, also a Parallel Foreclosure story!

I'm thinking of doing a comedy skit about my desire to see a SECOND foreclosure news reporter actually use the phrase "Parallel Foreclosure" (as publicly defined by both Chase Bank and Bank of America) since parallel foreclosures may have become the biggest blight against the HAMP program.

Reporter Sarah Buduson broke the story behind "Parallel Foreclosure" in the fall of 2009, and now over a year later, and its as if her television report never happened.

Dec. 15, 2010 Mortgage Services and Foreclosure Practices - CSPAN link

2010-12-23T01:31:00.000-08:00

If the video is not working up above, please click here.

Two of the "stars" of this video are supposed to be Vanessa Fluker and Sandra Hines. I had a bit of a problem with both of their testimonies. Sandra Hines gave no financial details about what actually happened in her situation, and actually admitted she had relatives in

real estate that she found after being evicted from her home. Ms. Hines also mentioned that her mom had said to never refinance the house after it had been paid off.

Vanessa Fluker gave a powerful accounting of why banks may want to foreclose rather than modify a mortgage, but was she correct when she said that the banks collect 100% from mortgage insurance, and that it was 100% of the mortgage, not what the house's value may have plummeted to?

I want to give props to CSPAN for the embed feature that allow bloggers to embed a shorter clip if they desire, very cool. I wish Youtube had that feature, however, it appears that the embed feature is not working!

Can someone who know about mortgage insurance reimbursement please share their knowledge as to what is actually paid out when a claim is made by the bank? I had read that mortgage insurance only covered 20% of the value or 20% of the actual mortgage. That 20% figure seems low to me, but, is it 100% as Vanessa Fluker claims?

Banksters Give new Meaning to "Foreclosure Freeze" during the Christmas Season.

2010-12-20T18:55:00.000-08:00

While many think the above article means the banksters are being kind for Christmas, the Boehm family of St. Louis now understands the true meaning of a Bankster Christmas, and a Foreclosure Freeze.

As the Boehms just learned, when a Bankster says there will be a foreclosure freeze, they mean, put on your galoshes, down jacket, mittens, cap, and a scarf, because you're going to be freezing this Christmas after you're evicted.

Unless you choose to be arrested so you can spend your Christmas behind some cold, steely bars. Once again, not the kind of bar where everybody knows your name, the kind reserved by bankster criminals, for decent folk.

How much longer will banksters continue to put honest families on thin ice?

Why Banks Don't Care about Home Foreclosures, could it be the oversecuritization games they played for the past several years?

2010-12-20T04:45:00.000-08:00

As we follow the bouncing mortgage note from one mortgage servicer to another mortgage servicer, and then to another, and to another, maybe the answer to why banks don't care about home foreclosures is blowing behind the bouncing mortgage note.

What if each time a mortgage note was resold a whole new group of securitization bonds were created? Would not that mean that there are homes out there that could have been securitized several times over? What if securitization bonds exist on PROJECTED values of homes over the next 30 years?

Example, what if in 2001, a homeowner bought a home for 300,000 and 4 years later that home was "worth" 500,000 dollars. What if in between those 5 years that home was sliced into several different securitization bonds, and with each re-securitization the value of the home was increased to match what the home was being appraised for at that same time?

What if securitizations stretch out into the future for another 25 years, and the value of that 300,000 dollar home 25 years from now was estimated to be 2,000.00 dollars? Heck, if the value of the home went from 300,000 to 500,000 in five years time, one could produce mathematical calculations based on the first five years that showed that same 500,000 home being worth 2 million dollars in another 25 years.

Is it possible that banks would rather foreclose on the formerly worth 300,000 dollar home, now worth 500,000 home, so they can generate the 17 income streams I mentioned in a prior article? Do the banks want to control their own oversecuritization evidence by foreclosing on oversecuritized homes. What I can't figure out is, what if the original homeowner never sells their home, then all of those securitizations would have to be based on the original 300,000 dollar mortgage?

Or, do securitizations kick in everytime a home is resold or refinanced? Could that be the way new securitizations are created? Anytime a home is either refinanced or sold, a new securitization is created? Once the prices on the homes start to drop, the banks MUST repossess so at the very least, they have the product in their own possession?

I am just asking these securitization "what if" questions because it seems to me that the banks have little interest in helping homeowners who actually have been responsible for the past 10, 20, or 30 years, have built up huge equity in their home, and may need to tap just a small amount.

Evidence about how little banksters care about the home owner can found in the relationship between the size of the banksters yearly bonuses versus how many millions of homeowners the yearly bankster bonus money could be allocated towards lower mortgage payments.

Robo-signing may just be the tip of the iceberg, we still need to expose theREASON behind the ROBO-SIGNING.

Rortybomb Reports: Federal Reserve Proposing Mortgage Rule to Eliminate Key Foreclosure Protections...

2010-12-17T21:58:00.000-08:00

Rortybomb Reports: Federal Reserve Proposing Mortgage Rule to Eliminate Key Foreclosure Protections...

As Mike Konczai reminds us, is this an end around by the Fed to pass a law before the consumer financial protection agency is up and running?

STUNNING REVELATIONS about Home Foreclosure and Mortgage Servicing Conflicts from APRIL 16, 2007 by Tara Twomey.

2010-12-15T19:48:00.000-08:00

The more I research the foreclosure fraud issue, the farther back I can go and still find documentation warning of exactly what ended up happening.

How about Tara Twomey's Home Foreclosure and Mortgage Servicing testimony from April 16, 2007! (Edit update: Dec.17, 2010) I was wondering if the date on the report was correct. I think it was supposed to be April 16, 2008 based on data in the report which refers to information from early 2008 - That still would be 2 and 1/2 years ago!)

If everybody is warned three years (or even 2.5 years ago) earlier about the wrongs that are about to happen, and they all happen exactly as described, have we not entered the home foreclosure class action lawsuit zone?

Banksters Biggest Lie about Credit Card Debt is Harming HAMP's ability to work and is also prolonging our economic downturn as well.

2010-12-14T13:53:00.000-08:00

Banksters claim that if they don't charge exhorbitant rates on credit card debt, their money supply will shrink and there will be less high interest rate credit card money to sprinkle onto other deserving souls. Lets put this ridiculous argument to rest.

First off, banks can get free money from the fed. I don't know if it is as easy to get free money for unsecured debt as it is for home mortgages, but the interest rate the banks charge on unsecured debt is astronomically higher which should make up for the fact that the loan is unsecured.

However, it is time to realize that credit card debt cannot continue to rise forever. Consumer credit card debt needs to be a closed loop system. At some point, the credit card debt NEEDS TO BE PAID BACK, this is a fact the banks REFUSE to acknowledge.

If ever there was a time when consumer credit card debt needed to be paid down and paid back, it would be now. However, now is the worst time for many consumers to be paying back their credit card debt as many are struggling to just pay their mortgage, utilities and food bills each month. This is why the banks, and our government, need to step up and offer consumers credit card debt interest rate reduction incentives.

The consumer, the banks, federal governments and local governments WOULD ALL BENEFIT from a credit card debt interest rate reduction incentive program, I'll outline how, AND NO NEW TAXES WOULD BE REQUIRED.

If one wants to avoid artificial methods to fake an economic recovery, (such as raising taxes that create pork projects), the best way in my opinion is for people to pay back what they owe, but in a manner which does not cause them economic hardship. Because consumers would actually be paying DOWN their overall credit card debt (with a severely reduced credit card interest rate incentive program), a higher percentage of unsecured debt would actually be paid back rather than lost to default, and many, many, many good things would happen as a result.

Consumers who are in a position to pay down their credit card debt if the interest rate were reduced to near zero percent, (how about 2.9%), would be able to both begin paying down their credit card debt while still respending a modest portion every month as well. The ability to pay down an existing credit card debt while also being able to respend a smaller amount than what is being paid down every month is the entire key to a main street economic recovery.

1. The banks benefit from a more stable income of money each and every month from their unsecured accounts.

2. The consumer benefits by being able to stretch their income so they can still make small purchases every month even as they reduce their overall credit card debt.

3. The consumer is in a better position to make their HAMP or mortgage payments as well as they reduce their overall consumer credit card debt load.

4. Local cities and states benefit since less foreclosures result in a SIGNIFICANT increase in property tax income and less strain on their court system as well.

5. As the credit card debt interest rate reduction incentive program ages, consumers will have more and more of their own income staying in their own wallets, resulting in an increase in savings, and or spending on local products and services, which in turn may help reseed small businesses.

6. Consumer reliability begins to grow, which once again benefits the banks and their long term investments in home mortgages.

7. As a certain percentage of consumers are able to get out of debt, their spending power begins to create green shoots for other consuers who are still looking for work. The result is more and more people now have a better chance at a long term job and can be relied on to take care of their own financial obligations.

8. Small businesses can begin to create green opportunities without use of massive amounts of federal funds or "tax breaks" as more and more consumers actually have spendable money and also ok with the idea of long term savings.

9. Best of all, NO NEW TAXES or pork projects would be required!

Until a credit card debt interest rate reduction incentive program is offered to those who can afford to pay down their credit card debt, I believe we are being deceived by those in power into believing it will take other sources of income to fix what consumers could actually fix themselves.

You can read the SHORT, four point economic program that incorporates the above ideas plus two other simple, logical ideas that would accelerate economic stability at Wall Street Change.

Banksters Causing Huge Revenue loss: Governments across state lose revenue when banks get repossessed homes' tax breaks - OrlandoSentinel.com

2010-12-13T02:11:00.000-08:00

Revenue loss: Governments across state lose revenue when banks get repossessed homes' tax breaks - OrlandoSentinel.com

Not only do banks get repossessed homes' tax breaks in Florida, but foreclosed homes throughout the entire United States sell for approximately 32% less than unforeclosed homes, so once the bank actually sells the home, the property tax loss to the state becomes even greater.

In other words, once a home is foreclosed upon by the banksters, the state loses money by either giving the bank a homeowners tax break, or by having the home resold at a 32% price reduction. Lets not forget that the banksters are also using taxpayer resources to fund the actual foreclosure process through the state courts.

And to think that close to a million homeowners have actually been accelerated through the foreclosure process by the Parallel Foreclosure procedure that the banksters adhere to.

Foreclosure Settlement to benefit Kansas - Pittsburg, KS - Morning Sun

2010-12-12T00:15:00.000-08:00

Settlement to benefit Kansas - Pittsburg, KS - Morning Sun

While it is probably good news that a "deal" has been struck to benefit homeowners who are trying to lower their mortgage payment, what about those already victimized by Parallel Foreclosure?

50 Attorneys General initiate an investigation of the mortgage services industry.

2010-12-11T08:51:00.000-08:00

Click here to read the Beasley Allen article about the 50 state attorneys general mortgage services industry investigation.

With No Funds for Lawyers, Brooklyn Homeowners Must Represent Themselves

2010-12-10T02:09:00.000-08:00

With No Funds for Lawyers, Brooklyn Homeowners Must Represent Themselves.

Where are all the students who passed the bar and are looking for work. Why not take a few of these cases? Isn't that better than waiting for a job offer that maybe isn't going to happen? And if a job offer does come, wouldn't it be better to show the firm some actual courtroom experience?

It also gives someone who passes the bar a legitimate excuse to contact a legal firm for some simple advice. I bet legal firms would rather give small amount of time helping out someone who is learning the ropes, then taking endless calls from people who are looking for work.

If you're a not yet hired but passed the bar kind of person, why not get involved in this type of a case and make a NAME for yourself.

US Bank vs Mathon, it appears that Parallel Foreclosure is frowned upon by the courts, even if the courts don't call it Parallel Foreclosure.

2010-12-09T01:19:00.001-08:00

"Here, the Court has serious and grave concerns regarding Plaintiff’s conduct in this matter, which appears to be rife with bad faith. This can be amply seen by the acceptance of multiple payments following the three trial payments, the promise albeit unfulfilled of the permanent modification and the verbal assurances that the modification had been approved juxtaposed with the vague denial issued one year after the trial agreement, the spurious claims of non-cooperation by Defendants, the seeming offer of a “new” modification and the withdrawal of the motion for judgment in an apparent attempt to divest this Court of jurisdiction to deal with this Order To Show Cause."

Is it correct to state that Parallel Foreclosure actions by banks are "rife with bad faith"?

You can read the entire article and ruling here. You can learn more about the public discovery of Parallel Foreclosure here.

In US Bank vs Mathon, it seems to me that if the mortgage servicing company had accepted the loan modification payments for three months, but then refused to do the home loan mod and also refused to accept any more payments, that it would have been up to the homeowner to set up a bank account and make a monthly mortgage payment deposit to demonstrate to the court that they were still making their payments. The mortgage servicing company instead continually accepted the mortgage payments up until foreclosure, which appears to have not have set well with the judge.

This may explain why mortgage servicers will stop accepting payments when they have resolved they want to foreclose. It looks better in court if the mortgage servicer can say the homeowner has lived for "free" in the home for the past number of months or longer.

if the homeowner did not make a monthly mortgage deposit for every month their payments were being refused by the mortgage servicer, the judge might be more favorable to the mortgage servicer side and less so to the homeowner, (that is just my opinion).

Of course where this last point can get sticky is if the monthly mortgage amount is in dispute.

Main Street vs Wall Street, the board game edition.

2010-12-07T02:49:00.000-08:00

Ok, I don't have the time or the focus to come up with a board game called Main Street vs Wall Street, the board game edition, but what a wonderful tool this could be to educate people on what has gone wrong in the past decade or so with wall street, main street, and our economy.

If some of the well known economic blogs combined forces and came up with a board game about main street vs wall street, it could be one of those fundraiser type of deals where readers buy the game from their favorite economic blog.

Federal Reserve 3.3 trillion dollar magical mystery tour, not a drop for main street, USA.

2010-12-06T03:23:00.000-08:00

CLICK HERE TO GO VIDEO.

Frank Garay and Brian Stevens of Think Big Work Small make an excellent point about how little attention was paid to Ben's Bernanke's bombshell that 3.3 TRILLION DOLLARS was "donated" to international banks with no recognizable paper trail.

(Update, Friday 8:19 am, Dec. 10, 2010 - In retrospect, donated is too harsh of a word. The money is supposedly going to be returned, but the point is, no public timetable for disclosure is set, nor are any terms made public. The reason that no initial publicity is given is to prevent a "run on a bank", but that does not mean that a year or two down the road we can't automatically be told who got what, when, and where, without having to sue to get that information.)

My additional concern involves the possibility of a political donation boomerang that 3.3 trillion dollars could bring, back to the United States. Just the "exchange rate" fee from 3.3 trillion dollars could be enough to fund a 2012 presidential campaign coffer in the United States.

3.3 trillion dollars could also easily lead to Federal Hobbs Act violations down the road.

Reviewing Link Etiquette when scraping copyrighted articles.

2010-12-04T11:29:00.000-08:00

As a general rule, bloggers probably tend to obey "less rules" then news sites such as the A.P. and Reuters (although whose to say if AP writers don't occasionally news scrape from bloggers without giving credit, or ignoring salient points in their own report that a blogger has already discovered).

If the AP had it their way, everybody would pay for everything at all times, but this is not realistic. The AP, and Reuters, and so on, provide original content, then this content is purchased by regional newspapers all across the world.

However, if it were not for bloggers commenting on local and national news stories that they are interested in, The AP articles would have less impact. Bloggers actually provide a service called "Curation".

The problem of theft occurs when A, bloggers lift articles in their entirety, or even when over 20-25% of the article is lifted aka news scraping, and B. when no link back and credit is provided for either photo or articles that come from a news bureau or someone who has Paid for the right to publish the article.

If you blog, curate responsibly and give story and picture credit where it is due.

CSPAN Transcript and Archived Video Coverage of the Dec. 1, 2010 Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Mortgage Service & Foreclosure Practices Hearing.

2010-12-02T07:16:00.000-08:00

CSPAN Transcript and Archived Video Coverage of the Dec. 1, 2010 Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Mortgage Service & Foreclosure Practices Hearing links can be found by clicking here!

Why Homeowners in foreclosure because of Predatory Interest Rate Loans, Buying "too much House", or because of "Securitization" are not at fault.

2010-12-01T17:13:00.000-08:00

Why are homeowners being blamed for the foreclosure mess?

"They bought too much house" is one common accusation. If the homeowners are married, it sounds like what they really did was think ahead and decided to GROW INTO THEIR HOME. One rule of thumb that applied before 2008 was that the longer one lived in a house, the actual cost of property taxes compared to newer homeowners becomes less over time.

Moving expenses can justify buying a long term house. Moving is EXPENSIVE. Moving costs can be as much as 50,000 dollars when ALL COSTS (including realtor costs) are considered. So homeowners who "bought too much house" were many times planning for the long haul and would have RECOUPED significant savings from not having to move for quite some time, and they would also have lower property taxes compared to those who move more often.

Buying "too much house" also allows for a parent, grandparent, or son or daughter to move back in if the economy goes south. ahem.

Buying "too much house" also allows for the possibility of a start up small business venture, long term storage, possibility of renting a room out, even converting a room or two for exercise to promote long term health.

"They should never have agreed to a subprime loan".

BANKS WERE NOT GOING TO GIVE UP ON THEIR CRAZY SUBPRIME OFFERS UNTIL THEY MET THEIR SECURITIZATION QUOTAS BECAUSE THEY WERE MAKING FRAUDULENT, MASSIVELY EXCESSIVE BONUSES AND PROFITS.

It was homeowners trying to do the right thing and be cautious that caused the banks to keep upping and upping and reupping their crazy offers until homeowners gave in to the fact that, THIS WAS A BANK, GOVERNED BY RULES AND REGULATIONS, and homeowners CORRECTLY ASSUMED that the banks could not make these offers if they were not legitimate.

When banks could mathematically show that the homeowner could move into a home for equivalent cost to renting, but it required a predatory loan to accomplish this, the banks crossed the line, not the homeowner.

Predatory loans are masked as low credit score punishment loans when the real risk is that the loan simply has too high of an interest rate attached to it. Did you know that if one homeowner receives a 4% interest rate, and another homeowner receives an 8.08% interest rate on the same amount of money, the 8.08% loan will need to be paid off in twice the time, even though the monthly payments and down payment are identical!

It's important to understand just how predatory the above example is. Imagine that two homeowners receive loans for an identical amount, and their monthly mortgage payments are identical. One homeowner pays off their home in 15 years, while the predatory loan will require 30 years to pay off, even though the loan amount and monthly payments are identical. That is a predatory loan!

An effective way to reduce predatory loans is not allow predatory percentage rates to exist, rather, just don't offer as much loan money and keep the interest rate more competitive.

"Investors need to be paid for securitizing mortgages no matter how bad the mortgage deal was that the homeowner signed." This is the scandal of all scandals.

There can be NO CHANGE IN TERMS to an original, pre-securitized mortgage agreement unless the homeowner agrees to it. If anything changes regarding the mortgage agreement, securitization included, without the homeowner's expressed, written, consent, the securitization should be voided and the homeowner should incur no consequences that result from change in terms that the homeowner did not agree to.

I'm not saying the homeowner does not have to pay their mortgage, I am saying that the terms MUST REMAIN UNCHANGED to what they were at the time the home owner signed their mortgage papers.

In my opinion, ALL securitized mortgage loans MUST RETURNED BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TERMS, and any payments, fees or predatory tactics that accelerated a foreclosure MUST BE UNDONE, investors CANNOT BE PRIORITIZED over the HOMEOWNER, and restitutions need to be offered to every homeowner affected, including those who have already lost their homes to foreclosure.

Adam Levitin, Barry Ritholtz, Karl Denninger, Calculated Risk, Matt Weidner, Neil Garfield, Meet Karen Gelernt and her take on Title Transfer Law 101.

2010-11-30T03:34:00.000-08:00

CLICK HERE TO SEE ARTICLE.

Adam Levitin,... Barry Ritholtz,... Karl Denninger,... Calculated Risk,... Matt Weidner,... Neil Garfield...

...Meet Karen Gelernt and her position paper on Title Transfer Law 101.

I am not as well versed as any of you on possibly opposing Karen Gelernt's pro banking, pro securitization position, but I wanted to make you are all well aware that this position paper does exist, AND SHOULD BE REFUTED.

In my opinion, I find Gelnert's position refutable, but I would be using mere logic to refute Gelernt's position, whereas perhaps you six can cite law and all that legal stuff that matters to the court.

If you know any of the pick six I named up above, or frequent their blogs, maybe you can pollinate this article onto their forums or blogs so we can expose the banksters misguided position. I could leave the messages on their blogs and websites myself, but I'm NOT going to because it can be seen as spamming.

The internet needs more pollinators, BEE a Pollinator and pollinate this particular topic far and wide because I think it is ground zero for exposing just how out of touch the banksters really are and now we have a position paper to prove it, or in this case, disprove.

CLICK HERE TO ENLARGE IMAGE

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE WEBPAGE.

And if you want to learn more about "American Banker", click here.

Courthouse News Service

2010-11-30T00:48:00.000-08:00

Courthouse News Service

Click above to read story about a couple that pays a LOT OF MONEY to catch up on their home mortgage payment but Bank of America refuses to accept the money because it is not the "exact amount". Bank of America will not reveal what the "exact" amount is. CLICK HERE TO GO TO COURT DOCUMENT.