Barack Obama administration will have to deny that homeowners were forced to fall behind 3 months on their mortgage before they could apply for HAMP.

I have spent a good deal amount of energy posting that Barack Obama has committed an impeachable act by forcing homeowners to fall behind on their mortgage payments before they can apply for HAMP (Home Affordable Mortgage Program).

The Federal Hobbs Act has an extortion clause that makes it illegal to use the "color of right" to evict a homeowner. This means that using falsified foreclosure paperwork, including running up unethical penalties and fees to make it impossible for the homeowner to catch up, would be a violation of the Federal Hobbs Act.

It would also be a violation of the Federal Hobbs Act to lure people into a taxpayer funded program by forcing them to first trigger parallel foreclosure before the homeowner can even apply for the HAMP program.

However, what if the Barack Obama administration simply denied that homeowners were forced to get behind in their mortgage payments before they could apply for HAMP? HAMP actually states that banks cannot continue with the foreclosure process while the HAMP evaluation is going on, yet we know banks violated this part of the HAMP program as well by practicing Parallel Foreclosure.

Parallel Foreclosure is another smoking gun that is still not being called parallel foreclosure. Although last night I read that in Arizona they are calling Parallel Foreclosure, "Simultaneous Foreclosure".

So what if the white house and the (do I even need that second the?) banking industry denied that mortgage payments had to be missed, triggering parallel foreclosure, before a homeowner could apply for HAMP? Could home foreclosure lawyers prove otherwise? If a homeowner is being told over the phone that they cannot apply for HAMP until they are three months behind on their mortgage, is phone conversation proof enough that homeowners were forced to miss payments before becoming HAMP eligible?

Barack Obama and his 2008 campaign were notorious for changing or removing items on their website if the issue became controversial. The HAMP, HARP and UP combined website page seems to tap dance around the issue of falling behind before becoming eligible.

Also, when Barack Obama promoted HAMP, I don't recall him ever mentioning HARP. HARP does not require homeowners to fall behind on their payments!

HARP simply tries to refinance a homeowners home loan to a lower interest rate and better terms for those who feel they are in danger of defaulting in the near future.

Why was HARP not mentioned more often? Worse still, those who fail HAMP cannot then apply for HARP. There seems to have been an agenda in place to prematurely encourage homeowners into HAMP when HARP may have been all that they needed.

So my question is, has Barack Obama, his administration, the banksters, note holders, mortgage servicers and investors pulled a fast one by not officially putting in writing that a home owner has to fall three months behind on their mortgage before being able to apply for a HAMP loan, even though this appears to be have been a requirement for a homeowner to eligible to apply for HAMP?

I suggest you lawyers collect as many of the three months behind demands that were put in writing that you can find. Otherwise one of the biggest violations involving HAMP, the three months behind on mortgage payments before being eligible to apply for HAMP that resulted in Parallel Foreclosure actions, (which could lead to a HUGE class action lawsuit), could go away.

Why Banks appear to be so eager to foreclose on as many homes as fast as possible, perhaps its the Fifteen revenue streams that are created.

Why do Banks want to foreclose on so many homes so quickly?

I have come up with a list of possible foreclosure income streams that get generated when a bank forecloses on a homeowner. This list could explain why the banks are in such a rush to foreclose on a homeowner and not so interested in helping the homeowner.

1. The banks keep the original down payment once a home is foreclosed, which can be anywhere from 5% to 20% of the possibly over inflated value of the home when the foreclosure victim first purchased the home.

2. Home Equity lines, yes, there still are PLENTY of homes that have home equity value in them, which gets forfeited back to the banks as well. Think of it as filling up a piggy bank, and once full, it's all yours, but instead, its broken into and all of the contents go back to the big pig. In many instances, the piggy bank, (the home), is not broken and can be resold again.

3. Fees - lol, I know they exist because they are mentioned in practically every article I read about home foreclosures. The mortgage servicer may try and tack on an additional home insurance policy or pay for legally suspended property taxes then demand payment, which may include additional fees for creating the unnecessary charges.

4. Penalties - such as losing a home because a monthly payment was fourteen cents short and the resulting penalties equaled over 2,000 dollars, when this penalty cannot be paid, future mortgage payments are refused and foreclosure actions are initiated.

5. Accruing Interest charges on fees and penalties. If a fee or penalty is too much to pay, the fee/penalty debt begins accruing interest rate charges and possibly additional penalties as well.

6. Assessing charges for reselling the foreclosed home, such as the ads that are required to resell the foreclosed home and all ensuing paperwork.

7. Professional service fees that can range from attorneys & accountants, to appraisers and home improvement services.

8. MORTGAGE INSURANCE claims on the foreclosed home by the bank, called PMI's, can pay out 20% of the value of the home when originally purchased.

9. Banks can claim Income tax deductions from alleged losses from a foreclosed home.

10. Possibly an infusion of money from the government to the banks that we don't know about that replaces the "lost income" from the foreclosed upon home,

11. A new homeowner's down payment,

12. Monthly payments from the new homeowner,

13. Collecting money from the foreclosed upon homeowner and soon to be indentured debtor since they still owe the difference from the sale price of the house (many times less than 50% of what the foreclosed upon homeowner purchased the home for), plus accruing penalties and fees, and the original mortgage,

14. The foreclosed upon homeowner now has to rent, creating an income stream for some other bank owned property.

15. The foreclosed upon homeowner's credit is ruined and any future credit they do get will be with the worst possible terms, meaning the highest possible interest rates.

By foreclosing on the homeowner, the mortgage servicing company, the holder of the note, and the banks appear to be able to generate 15 income streams!

When Barack Obama helped pioneer HAMP (home affordable mortgage protection) the banks were offered 1,000 dollars to help homeowners reduce their home loans.

If you were either a note holder, investor, or bank, which would you prefer, fifteen income streams for foreclosing on a home, or a shiny 1,000 dollar bill from our government?

If anybody out there has additional forms of income from foreclosure actions that I am unaware of, please contribute them in the comments section.

Foreclosures: Homeowners who get loan modifications still losing to (parallel) foreclosure - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Foreclosures: Homeowners who get loan modifications still losing to (Parallel) foreclosure - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Sigh, I have actually had to resort to inserting the word "parallel"(in parenthesis) in front of foreclosure in the above title link because I just don't know how to get the word out, or phrase out, about the destructive power of parallel foreclosure and how I believe it could and should lead to Barack Obama's impeachment.

A president just can't use taxpayer money to create a taxpayer funded program supposedly for that same taxpayer, such as HAMP, but then expose that taxpayer to the actual risk of LOSING THEIR HOME just so they can take advantage of this federal program.

And even if one were to say, "oh, parallel foreclosure was a mistake and Barack Obama fixed it", the answer would be, "No, Barack Obama has not fixed the mistake and he has had 18 months to find the parallel foreclosure "mistake" and fix it".

"Parallel Foreclosure exists" and there may be anywhere from 250,000 to a million victims of this process, and that surely has caused enough devastation to warrant an impeachment.

Aussies Get the American Deal of the Century, American foreclosure victims pick up the tab, Barack Obama and the Republicans pretend everything is ok.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE.

The Aussie couple pictured above is very very happy.

The Australian dollar is at an all time high and they've just gone shopping for American Homes for 15-20 cents on the dollar! And the news gets even gooder!

The foreclosure victims will be hit with the loss of their original down payment and any built up equity, additional foreclosure debts such as paying for the ads to sell their foreclosed upon home, additional filings and paperwork and late fees piled on top of all kinds of penalties as well.

Rumor has it the american foreclosure victims may even get to serve as butlers and maids for the Aussies so they can pay down their foreclosure debt in 19 years, rather than 20.

Cashed up Aussies buy up big in the States!

When Barack Obama was asked what he thought of the foreclosed upon, displaced americans who may need decades to pay off their own foreclosure debt while the Aussies get such a great deal. Mr. Obama was rumored to have replied, "Shucks, we offered the banks A THOUSAND DOLLARS for every HAMP deal they could complete, who would have thunk that investors holding the note would not want to cooperate over such a generous offering to the bank!" (the bank and the note holder are not necessarily the same entity)

When Mr. Obama was then asked if perhaps the note holders would rather foreclose on the homeowner so they can keep the initial down payment, any accrued equity, charge fees and penalties including all the real estate ads needed to resell the home, plus resell the home so they can collect another down payment, Mr. Obama paused for a long moment and allegedly said "hmmph, maybe we should have offered the banks 1,500 dollars for every HAMPSTER, er, for every HAMP deal they made."

Thanks to ABC Australia for the report and Matt Weidner for getting the word out.

The Two headed Barack Obama, helping Wall Street and Main Street battle each other with the help of Elizabeth Warren.

I found an interesting article that explains the quagmire Barack Obama was in regarding how to select and actually install Elizabeth Warren to run the new consumer financial protection agency. The article also reinforces my belief that Republican politicians never met a banker they did not like.

"What Playing Gotcha can Getcha"

What do Charlie Gasparino, Frank Garay and Brian Stevens have in common, they think home foreclosure protestors are scum.

It appears that author Charlie Gasparino's newest book, "Bought and Paid for - The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street", and "Think Big Work Small" daily video co-stars Frank Garay and Brian Stevens believe home foreclosure protestors are trivial scum that are gumming up the inevitable "correction" that is due in the home foreclosure industry.

Um, pardon me, but wasn't there already a 30 to 50 percent "correction" in the price of everybody's home in the country? Now these financial media darlings want ANOTHER one?

I bring the issue of those who are against the home foreclosure freeze to remind the home foreclosure movement that just because you are in the spotlight doesn't mean you can't be taken down several pegs and marginalized by the media, overnight.

All it takes is a couple of news stories about home foreclosure squatters who owe money and are simply trying to stall leaving their home and will use every paperwork trick available to do so, to turn public opinion around on the home foreclosure issue. Don't think that our friends at 60 minutes are not thinking hard about doing such a story as a follow up to their "strategic default" story they did a few months ago on home owners who walk away from homes they can afford to make the mortgage payments on.

I believe it is important to try and frame legitimate gripes and issues within the home foreclosure debacle before they are framed for us by the banksters and the BIG media. Local media and nightly news media might do the story from the homeowners point of view, but it is the BIG media like 60 minutes that may attempt to paint the homeowner as the scum bag.

What is the biggest issue regarding the banks and home foreclosures?

Did the government set up a home foreclosure prevention program knowing in advance that it would not help the majority of people who attempted to use it? Is this an impeachable offense if the president of the United States knew this program would not work but created it anyways to look good, knowing that hundreds of thousands of americans would lose their home because the program was a fraud?

And yet, who would impeach the president, congress? The same congress that is in bed with Wall Street as well? Whether you like Barack Obama or not, there are plenty of well to do financial puffeteers who can make their living bad mouthing homeowners who are attempting to try and stay in their home through the congress sanctioned, president approved home loan modification program that appears to be wrought with fraud from the banking side.

It is too bad that republican politicians never met a banker they did not like, because they could probably move to impeach Barack Obama over his botched handling of the home loan modification program. Barack Obama is probably smiling like a cheshire cat knowing that he has beaten the republicans at their own game.

I absolutely one hundred percent believe that if Hillary Clinton had been elected president, her home mortgage modification would have performed to EVERYBODY'S satisfaction and you may want to look at yourself and ask just who might be the most capable person to handle the job of actually being president in 2012.

Should homeowners be foreclosed upon if they have built up equity in their home?

It is a struggle for me to understand how homeowners are being foreclosed upon if they have built up equity in their home. Example, a home is worth $200,000, and the homeowner has either paid either made a healthy down payment of $75,000, or over the years has built up $75,000 dollars worth of home equity. Is it really fair for the banks to foreclose on the home, short sell it for $125,000 dollars, and basically rob the homeowner of the $75,000 dollar down payment or the home equity that they have already built up?

I consider the above scenario insane and until Barack Obama and Congress deal with this issue head on, they are frauds in my book, ALL OF THEM. How dare they give out tax credits to first time home owners while they allow the banks to steal built up wealth from existing homeowners.

I am pretty certain Hillary Clinton would not have allowed this plundering to occur, and that is why her campaign was sabotaged behind the scenes by democratic higher ups during the 2008 democratic primary.

Why Politics and Unions do not Mix Well.

A New Way Forward is a growing grass roots movement that wants to see the too big to fail banks broken up.

I am not sure the real core issue facing beleaguered homeonwers is breaking up the "too big to fail" banks. I think the "big four" (Wells Fargo, Citibank, Chase and Bank of America) might actually be an asset to the country IF intelligent financial rules were put in place.

Perhaps we are facing the irony of the "gift of the magi" because the "too big to fail banks" could instantly be a huge asset to the country, if they would not fight the real financial reform that is needed.

And of course, just who actually knows what the real financial reform is, that is needed?

My personal reservations about A New Way Forward is that it may be seeded too strongly with union groups. On top of that, I am no longer interested in community activism if the primary thing the activists do is figure out how to get their community a bigger cut of the tax pie. Apparently, at the recent rally pictured below in Illinois people were allegedly chanting "Raise our Taxes".

The problem is the Unions are having it both ways. The unions appear to prefer both political parties fight over their union members' vote, but then they also are involved in "grass roots" movements as well.

I would suggest that when the unions forced their members to vote for Barack Obama during the 2008 democratic primary and caucus contests, they created the present problem. Barack Obama was a worthy democratic candidate in 2008, but it is ridiculous to presume he actually beat Hillary Clinton fairly and squarely. If the 2008 democratic primary and caucus races had been fairly conducted, Hillary Clinton would have ended up with between 52-54 percent of the vote, and a similar delegate advantage as well.

Instead, democratic caucus cheating was rampant. I studied the caucus vote counts and basically Barack Obama's entire delegate lead over Hillary Clinton came from tainted caucus contests that never came close to representing what the polling companies were getting.

At one point, the polling companies actually did not want to disclose their results regarding caucus contests because they knew that Hillary Clinton was being shortchanged and they did not want to look so inaccurate in their pre-caucus poll results.

Then we have the strange case of Illinois (Barack Obama's residence state) moving up its 2008 primary date by 7 weeks to early February, while Michigan and Florida (Hillary Clinton states) were penalized for moving their date up. Barack Obama's landslide victory in Illinois gave him an advantage that he trumpeted in the 10 caucus contests that immediately followed that primary.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton had nothing to show for Michigan other than the mudslinging from Barack Obama to New Hampshire and Iowa voters condemning Michigan for trying to move up their primary date too close to theirs, and condemning Hillary Clinton for keeping her name on the ballot in Michigan as well.

The Michigan and Florida primaries were going to go to Hillary Clinton, Illinois was going to go to Barack Obama. Barack Obama got his bounce, Hillary Clinton was denied hers. the messing with these three states alone stole the democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton.

Factor in the caucus cheating, in which Hillary Clinton was either tied or leading in the polls in virtually all caucus contests but ended up losing the caucus delegate count by a 2-1 MARGIN to Barack Obama and the result was clearly in Hillary Clinton's favor.

I believe the unions paid a deep price for possibly contributing to several unethical maneuvers in 2008 to get Barack Obama selected over Hillary Clinton. (Research 2008 Las Vegas democratic caucus, Iowa caucus vote totals from precincts that border Illinois, and the late voter primary counts in Indiana precincts that also border Illinois).

Now the unions don't like what they see and they want a do over.

Hillary Clinton would not have let the banks walk all over her and that is why Barack Obama started to get large Wall Street donor campaigns.

When a self professed documentary filmmaker such as Michael Moore says nothing about the abuse his own state of Michigan was put through during in the 2008 democratic primary race, and also says nothing about Illinois moving its own primary date up 7 weeks to game the system, we can reasonably assume that SOMETHING WAS GOING ON.

I would suggest that the biggest political problems unions face is the idea that all of their votes are supposed to go to one candidate to maximize their influence. Why treat union workers so miserably by forcing them to go with one candidate? Why should union workers be treated as mindless minions whose vote can only go to the union committee selected candidate?

When politicians try to win the Union Vote, or when they try to win the Chamber of Commerce Vote, and so on down the line, it just contributes to all the political divisiveness that we presently are facing. If the Unions are for breaking up the banks, than for sure republicans will be against it.

If the unions had let the voting public decide who was the stronger candidate in 2008 between Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, then backed that candidate, they probably would be in a better position right now. AND, they would not have set a horrible precedent of prematurely manipulating the selection of the democratic party presidential candidate before the democratic voters of the country had voted.

So what does all of this have to do with the April 29th, 2010 protest march on Wall Street? The unions have created a polarized environment, which means any effort they make, no matter how legitimate, will automatically result in a backlash from those who have dealt with the unions in the past and not gotten the union vote.