GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 1 of 3 1 23 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Facing foreclosure? What the banks don't want you to know (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=992337)

onwebcam 10-13-2010 03:58 PM
Facing foreclosure? What the banks don't want you to know
 
1. They never lent you anything. A bank works on a fractional reserve basis. Up until the "collapse" when a person deposited $1000 in the bank, the bank holds those funds in reserve and then loans you back that $1000 and 9 other people $1000. After a period of time the bank then claims the funds abandoned. Now the banks have no limit to the amount they can loan out since the likes of JP Morgan which have become bank holding companies and are leveraged out 150 to 1.

2. In most cases the bank doesn't have the original note. They just have a copy of the note and in some cases they can't even produce that because they have purchased the loans in derivitive packages and the loans are serviced via a loan servicing company.

So if you are facing foreclosure visit the site below and ask your lender/bank for the note. If they can't produce it you're on your way to winning your case.

http://action.seiu.org/page/speakout...henote?js=true

It all started as a "conspiracy theory" but once again it's being proven as a grand conspiracy which is now causing major lenders to freeze all foreclosures and all 50 states joining together in a class action lawsuits.

TheLegacy 10-13-2010 04:00 PM
Interesting - sure there are a few who can use this info

fatfoo 10-13-2010 04:02 PM
It sucks when banks collapse. A person should choose a trustworthy bank.

epitome 10-13-2010 04:12 PM
Old News and nothing will change.

I haven't gotten a chance to watch Wall Street 2, so I can't quote that, but watch the original again. It is a zero sum game.

woj 10-13-2010 04:27 PM
What difference does it make how it's structured on the backend? You sign a contract that you will pay $x per month for 30 years... how the rest is structured, who makes money, how, etc is irrelevant, it's not your problem...

onwebcam 10-13-2010 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woj (Post 17604323)
What difference does it make how it's structured on the backend? You sign a contract that you will pay $x per month for 30 years... how the rest is structured, who makes money, how, etc is irrelevant, it's not your problem...

For one we just bailed out the banks with tax payer money and they were already making money from nothing. The making money from nothing increases the cost of living/devalues the currency.. The original signed contract "note" is what they can't produce..

woj 10-13-2010 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604333)
For one we just bailed out the banks with tax payer money and they were already making money from nothing. The making money from nothing increases the cost of living/devalues the currency.. The original signed contract "note" is what they can't produce..
fractional reserve banking is nothing new, that's how banks have worked since beginning of time... What does the "note" have to do with anything? It sounds to me like it's just some loophole to weasel out of a contract?

Quagmire 10-13-2010 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatfoo (Post 17604228)
It sucks when banks collapse. A person should choose a trustworthy bank.
I pooped and some corn came out, but I don't remember eating corn.

onwebcam 10-13-2010 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woj (Post 17604369)
fractional reserve banking is nothing new, that's how banks have worked since beginning of time... What does the "note" have to do with anything? It sounds to me like it's just some loophole to weasel out of a contract?
The Federal Reserve system has only been in place since 1913. And since then the American people have been robbed of their wealth. But yes it has been attempted since at least the bible days.

The note is the agreement between the two original parties. I can produce a copy of any ducument you want, what about you? Must be original. If they can't produce the original then the contract is null and void and they have no claim.

Sausage 10-13-2010 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604391)
The Federal Reserve system has only been in place since 1913. And since then the American people have been robbed of their wealth. But yes it has been attempted since at least the bible days.

The note is the agreement between the two original parties. If they can't produce it then the contract is null and void.
Correct. The fractional reserve system is a fairly new scam, up there with the reserve banking scams

woj 10-13-2010 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604391)
The Federal Reserve system has only been in place since 1913. And since then the American people have been robbed of their wealth. But yes it has been attempted since at least the bible days.

The note is the agreement between the two original parties. I can produce a copy of any ducument you want, what about you? Must be original. If they can't produce the original then the contract is null and void and they have no claim.
Having a "central bank" (the Federal Reserve) has nothing to do with fractional reserve... banks would operate in a similar way whether a "central bank" exists or not...

wikipedia explains how fractional reserve banking works quite well I think:
"Prior to the 1800s, savers looking to keep their valuables in safekeeping depositories deposited gold coins and silver coins at goldsmiths, receiving in turn a note for their deposit (see Bank of Amsterdam). Once these notes became a trusted medium of exchange an early form of paper money was born, in the form of the goldsmiths' notes.[3]

As the notes were used directly in trade, the goldsmiths observed that people would not usually redeem all their notes at the same time, and they saw the opportunity to invest their coin reserves in interest-bearing loans and bills. This generated income for the goldsmiths but left them with more notes on issue than reserves with which to pay them. A process was started that altered the role of the goldsmiths from passive guardians of bullion, charging fees for safe storage, to interest-paying and interest-earning banks. Thus fractional-reserve banking was born."


So you are saying that's it's ok to weasel out of a contract because of some technicality like that?

Bill8 10-13-2010 05:12 PM
what an ironic mix of philosophies and world views.

i bet that goes over huge at the rallies.

and I bet you will never fucking see that in a corporate money attack ad.

cykoe6 10-13-2010 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604216)
1. They never lent you anything. A bank works on a fractional reserve basis. Up until the "collapse" when a person deposited $1000 in the bank, the bank holds those funds in reserve and then loans you back that $1000 and 9 other people $1000. After a period of time the bank then claims the funds abandoned. Now the banks have no limit to the amount they can loan out since the likes of JP Morgan which have become bank holding companies and are leveraged out 150 to 1.

2. In most cases the bank doesn't have the original note. They just have a copy of the note and in some cases they can't even produce that because they have purchased the loans in derivitive packages and the loans are serviced via a loan servicing company.

So if you are facing foreclosure visit the site below and ask your lender/bank for the note. If they can't produce it you're on your way to winning your case.

http://action.seiu.org/page/speakout...henote?js=true

It all started as a "conspiracy theory" but once again it's being proven as a grand conspiracy which is now causing major lenders to freeze all foreclosures and all 50 states joining together in a class action lawsuits.


Your first point is sheer nonsense as usual but your second point is somewhat accurate. The banks in many cases lack the proper paperwork to prove clear ownership of the loan and this is causing a huge problem for the banks right now. Obviously if you are facing foreclosure it would be wise to try and investigate if the foreclosing bank has all the proper paperwork.


It is interesting to see that the link you provided is from the Service Employees International Union. That helps clarify your agenda a bit I think. :winkwink:

TidalWave 10-13-2010 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604391)
The Federal Reserve system has only been in place since 1913. And since then the American people have been robbed of their wealth. But yes it has been attempted since at least the bible days.

The note is the agreement between the two original parties. I can produce a copy of any ducument you want, what about you? Must be original. If they can't produce the original then the contract is null and void and they have no claim.
MEANING YOU DON'T ACTUALLY OWN THE HOUSE THAT YOU PURCHASED USING THE MONEY THEY LENT YOU EITHER!

If the contract to purchase the house using borrowed funds is NULL AND VOID, you didn't actually purchase the house either!

rowan 10-13-2010 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woj (Post 17604323)
What difference does it make how it's structured on the backend? You sign a contract that you will pay $x per month for 30 years... how the rest is structured, who makes money, how, etc is irrelevant, it's not your problem...
I guess the point is that if the bank cannot prove the debt, it doesn't exist.

Does seem pretty shifty, and certainly not conducive to stimulating the economy...

onwebcam 10-13-2010 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TidalWave (Post 17604442)
MEANING YOU DON'T ACTUALLY OWN THE HOUSE THAT YOU PURCHASED USING THE MONEY THEY LENT YOU EITHER!

If the contract to purchase the house using borrowed funds is NULL AND VOID, you didn't actually purchase the house either!
Correct, you are listed as a tennant on the deed. Slaves can't own anything.

File a civil claim on the property. It has been done. Even a news agency laid claim to the Empire State Building I believe it was.

rowan 10-13-2010 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TidalWave (Post 17604442)
MEANING YOU DON'T ACTUALLY OWN THE HOUSE THAT YOU PURCHASED USING THE MONEY THEY LENT YOU EITHER!

If the contract to purchase the house using borrowed funds is NULL AND VOID, you didn't actually purchase the house either!
Wouldn't the title prove ownership? The bank wouldn't be able to foreclose and force you out since it's "your" house, but they could still sue to recover the remainder of the loan. I guess anything is worth a try if you're about to lose your home.

onwebcam 10-13-2010 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woj (Post 17604421)
Having a "central bank" (the Federal Reserve) has nothing to do with fractional reserve... banks would operate in a similar way whether a "central bank" exists or not...



So you are saying that's it's ok to weasel out of a contract because of some technicality like that?
It has been attempted since the bible days. Each time has lead to disaster, revolution and collapse.

John 2:13-16 "Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by cykoe6 (Post 17604436)
Your first point is sheer nonsense as usual :
The first claim is 100% fact..

Quote:
Originally Posted by rowan (Post 17604455)
I guess the point is that if the bank cannot prove the debt, it doesn't exist.

Does seem pretty shifty, and certainly not conducive to stimulating the economy...

More shifty than saying they are loaning you something they are not and booting you off your property after a few months of hard times?

Brad Mitchell 10-13-2010 05:31 PM
Perhaps all of the original sellers who got checks at closing should be required to return those funds too. What a bunch of nonsense. What I am curious about, though, would be if any portions of active notes have otherwise been liquidatd, written off or bailed out.

Brad

onwebcam 10-13-2010 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowan (Post 17604472)
Wouldn't the title prove ownership? The bank wouldn't be able to foreclose and force you out since it's "your" house, but they could still sue to recover the remainder of the loan. I guess anything is worth a try if you're about to lose your home.

You are listed as a tennant on the deed, not owner. Same goes for your car. You turn the title over to the STATE. Slaves can't own anything. And the best slave to own is the one who doesn't believe he is one. A slave to debt created out of thin air..

cykoe6 10-13-2010 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604475)
The first claim is 100% fact..
I am sure that you believe it is. :1orglaugh

I am more interested in what your feelings are about the SEIU....... interesting that you would post a link from there of all places. :winkwink:

Barry-xlovecam 10-13-2010 05:47 PM
Most Mortgages/Deeds of Trust now include the note on their face, e.g., $129,000.00 payable at the rate of 9% per annum (payment amount) until date or until paid in full.

A copy if this instrument is recorded on the property's land title (County Registrar of Deeds in most cases). A certified Mortgage or Deed of Trust by county records (that contains this amount, rate of interest and term) is adequate for evidence in a court of law or in a non judicial foreclosure.

A note can be secured by a Mortgage (or Deeds of Trust in some states) and the note unrecorded but often, a note is also recorded after the Mortgage (or Deed of Trust).

In order to foreclose on a Mortgage (or a Deed of Trust in a non judicial procedure) you must first assert and prove if challenged on your ownership of both Mortgages or the Deed of Trust and its Note to bring the action (prove to be a competent party and produce the instrument to bring the action). Assert this and the affidavit of your personal knowledge of the default is prerequisite to the action continuing.

The law protects the person lending the money to its return on term and to its performance on its security in the property (Mortgage or Deed of Trust) while guaranteeing the right to due process of the property owner/borrower.

In simple terms, as a lender you will be asked "Where is the beef?" and you have the burden of proving that to foreclose on your loan.

This is USA UCC code may vary some by state.

*** Deeds (Warranty, Quitclaim Deed, etc.) convey an ownership interest in property here. A lease or month to month rental agreement establishes tenancy. After a judicial foreclosure an
eviction of the borrower might be necessary to gain possession of the property.

This is a brief explanation not covering all contingencies and is not to be construed as legal advice — it is offered only for informational and discussion purposes.

onwebcam 10-13-2010 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cykoe6 (Post 17604493)
I am sure that you believe it is. :1orglaugh
I believe it because it's true.. You don't because you can't believe you've been conned all your life.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cykoe6 (Post 17604493)
I am more interested in what your feelings are about the SEIU....... interesting that you would post a link from there of all places. :winkwink:
The link provided makes it easy for a person to do as suggested.. That's the agenda.

NemesisEnforcer 10-13-2010 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604216)
If they can't produce it you're on your way to winning your case.
What would the case be? You're still out of the house if you're not paying for it.

cykoe6 10-13-2010 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604514)
I believe it because it's true.. You don't because you can't believe you've been conned all your life.
No one has conned me. I have read Rothbard. Your misrepresentation of his points are fucking sheer nonsense. It is you who has been conned by internet hustlers like Alex Jones selling pseudo intellectual nonsense to high school dropouts such as yourself while they laugh all the way to the bank (the ones that you so revile). You are a fool and a tool.


Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604514)
The link provided makes it easy for a person to do as suggested.. That's the agenda.
Posting a link from the SEIU makes me wonder who you are a tool for........ likely you don't even know. Fucking Marxist trash. :disgust

theking 10-13-2010 06:21 PM
There is the real world...a world of reality...and then there is onwebcam's world...where he apparently believes he is a "slave". Poor guy.

onwebcam 10-13-2010 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cykoe6 (Post 17604493)
I am sure that you believe it is. :1orglaugh
:
A pretty good explaination of how it all works. I just speed read over it but I don't think he is aware the original depositor is also loaned back his money and all deposits are held in reserve or of the abandonment of funds .

A Simple Example
Suppose a teenager, Bill, is rummaging in the attic and finds $1,000 in physical currency in an old chest. Bill is ecstatic and runs to the local bank, where he opens a checking account and deposits the green pieces of paper.

Under a 100-percent-reserve banking system, this would be the end of the story. In the act of making the deposit, Bill's currency holdings would fall by $1,000, while his checkbook balance would rise by $1,000. Putting the money in the bank wouldn't affect the total amount of money in the economy.

However, in our current system, Bill's bank would see a new profit opportunity. After the bank put the $1,000 of paper currency into its vault, its reserves would be that much higher, while its outstanding deposit liabilities would have risen by $1,000 as well (in the form of Bill's new checking account). But since banks in the United States are subject only to a reserve requirement of (approximately) 10 percent, the bank would have new excess reserves of $900. If it found a suitable borrower, the bank would have the legal ability to grant a new loan for this amount.

Suppose the bank found such a borrower, Sally, and charged her 5-percent interest for a 12-month loan. Assuming she paid off the loan in a timely manner, here is what the bank's balance sheet would look like at various stages in the process:

Continued..

http://mises.org/daily/4499

onwebcam 10-13-2010 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking (Post 17604597)
There is the real world...a world of reality...and then there is onwebcam's world...where he apparently believes he is a "slave". Poor guy.
No debt=No slave.... Thanks for playing. But whether you want to believe it or not those manipulating society with these scams do see us all as slaves... And they intentionally made us all slaves to debt with their fractional reserve paper money debt scheme. And they also believe that everything you own is theirs because we as a collective society were too stupid to figure out their schemes. And technically they are right if you allow them to continue to manipulate you.. Or you can choose to not go along with their schemes and find the "loopholes" to get out.

theking 10-13-2010 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604617)
No debt=No slave.... Thanks for playing.
Do you or do you not consider yourself to be a slave...or is that reserved for everyone other than yourself?

minicivan 10-13-2010 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604617)
No debt=No slave.... Thanks for playing.
Slave meaning "i want to borrow money to buy a big huge house and I promise to pay it back on the terms we agree to"?

There was a time when "slave" meant "we've raped your mother, killed your father and most of your family and we are going to sell you as property to someone who will do with you what they please, including killing you and torturing you just for fun"

onwebcam 10-13-2010 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicivan (Post 17604633)
Slave meaning "i want to borrow money to buy a big huge house and I promise to pay it back on the terms we agree to"?
They never loaned anything or risked anything of their own.. They created it out of thin air and are charging interest in doing so.. There was a time when congress created money, banks held 100% reserves and America was debt free.. But that doesn't make the money changers rich from doing nothing and you a slave to them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by minicivan (Post 17604633)
There was a time when "slave" meant "we've raped your mother, killed your father and most of your family and we are going to sell you as property to someone who will do with you what they please, including killing you and torturing you just for fun"
The best slave to own is the one who doesn't believe he is one.. That kind of slave knows he is one.

cykoe6 10-13-2010 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604601)
A pretty good explaination of how it all works. I just speed read over it but I don't think he is aware the original depositor is also loaned back his money and all deposits are held in reserve or of the abandonment of funds .

A Simple Example
Suppose a teenager, Bill, is rummaging in the attic and finds $1,000 in physical currency in an old chest. Bill is ecstatic and runs to the local bank, where he opens a checking account and deposits the green pieces of paper.

Under a 100-percent-reserve banking system, this would be the end of the story. In the act of making the deposit, Bill's currency holdings would fall by $1,000, while his checkbook balance would rise by $1,000. Putting the money in the bank wouldn't affect the total amount of money in the economy.

However, in our current system, Bill's bank would see a new profit opportunity. After the bank put the $1,000 of paper currency into its vault, its reserves would be that much higher, while its outstanding deposit liabilities would have risen by $1,000 as well (in the form of Bill's new checking account). But since banks in the United States are subject only to a reserve requirement of (approximately) 10 percent, the bank would have new excess reserves of $900. If it found a suitable borrower, the bank would have the legal ability to grant a new loan for this amount.

Suppose the bank found such a borrower, Sally, and charged her 5-percent interest for a 12-month loan. Assuming she paid off the loan in a timely manner, here is what the bank's balance sheet would look like at various stages in the process:

Continued..

http://mises.org/daily/4499

If you continue studying then perhaps you will eventually understand that your initial example of reserve lending in this thread was entirely incorrect (and extremely misleading) and then perhaps you will have actually learned something...... not that it is likely to do you any good. :winkwink:

minicivan 10-13-2010 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604645)
They never loaned anything or risked anything of their own.. They created it out of thin air and charging interest on the air.. There was a time when congress created money, banks held 100% reserves and America was debt free.. But that doesn't make the money changers rich from doing nothing.
Fine. But that has nothing to do with the obligations of the borrower.

Quote:
The best slave to own is the one who doesn't believe he is one.. That kind of slave knows he is one.
And for you, the best hat to own is tinfoil

Phoenix 10-13-2010 06:51 PM
i dont believe this at all...maybe in the 1930's but it seems that the banks would know where their contract is...or the lawyer you used would etc etc

potter 10-13-2010 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604645)
They never loaned anything or risked anything of their own.. They created it out of thin air and are charging interest in doing so.. There was a time when congress created money, banks held 100% reserves and America was debt free.. But that doesn't make the money changers rich from doing nothing and you a slave to them.
So if someone buys a house, they are a slave in your eyes?


If I want to buy a pepsi, but don't have a dollar on me. So the guy next to me gives me a dollar but says tomorrow I have to give him $1.50. That doesn't make me a slave. It just makes two parties who made a financial agreement. It doesn't matter how that lender got the money, what they do with the money, or how they make money.

Why don't you try to explain how that situation makes the person buying the pepsi a slave. We'd all love to hear it.

onwebcam 10-13-2010 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicivan (Post 17604654)
Fine. But that has nothing to do with the obligations of the borrower.
What did they borrow? Can the bank source the funds?


Quote:
Originally Posted by minicivan (Post 17604654)
And for you, the best hat to own is tinfoil
And I'm quite sure you will identify yourself here


Sheeple: Signs That You Might Be Part Of The Herd…
http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=287



Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix (Post 17604662)
i dont believe this at all...maybe in the 1930's but it seems that the banks would know where their contract is...or the lawyer you used would etc etc
In 1933 Roosevelt seized the people's gold and gave them paper after the Federal Reserves 20 year charter bankrupted America as you know it and became permanent. This is when another scam began.. The current UCC legal system. Contract law.. Legal not lawful..

Quote:
Originally Posted by potter (Post 17604674)
So if someone buys a house, they are a slave in your eyes?


If I want to buy a pepsi, but don't have a dollar on me. So the guy next to me gives me a dollar but says tomorrow I have to give him $1.50. That doesn't make me a slave. It just makes two parties who made a financial agreement. It doesn't matter how that lender got the money, what they do with the money, or how they make money.

Why don't you try to explain how that situation makes the person buying the pepsi a slave. We'd all love to hear it.
You're not borrowing someone else's money.. Your guy gave you something he considered of value so he asked for a return.. The banks have nothing of value at risk.. No intrinsic value in the money.. They just print it off and make computer entries all day..

camperjohn64 10-13-2010 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woj (Post 17604323)
What difference does it make how it's structured on the backend? You sign a contract that you will pay $x per month for 30 years... how the rest is structured, who makes money, how, etc is irrelevant, it's not your problem...
Simply put, if the bank note has changed hands so many times that the bank can't prove that you actually owe them money then you can win a case to stop paying them.

I have heard of this too, more than once. This doesn't mean it's true, but I have heard several stories from as many sources.

minicivan 10-13-2010 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604688)
What did they borrow? Can the bank source the funds
Thats some pretty flawed logic. The person started with 10% of the total amount. They went to the bank and the bank gave them the remaining 90%. Whether they plucked it from the magical tree of bubblegum and rainbows or printed it themselves, it changes nothing. The borrower borrowed money and agreed to the terms of which he was borrowing it.

Can you source the bandwidth you are using right now?

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/image...7999253-69.jpg

potter 10-13-2010 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 17604688)
You're not borrowing someone else's money.. Your guy gave you something he considered of value so he asked for a return.. The banks have nothing of value at risk.. No intrinsic value in the money.. They just print it off and make computer entries all day..
No... You're getting into the how/why the guy had that $1.50.




I'll say this again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by potter
If I want to buy a pepsi, but don't have a dollar on me. So the guy next to me gives me a dollar but says tomorrow I have to give him $1.50. That doesn't make me a slave. It just makes two parties who made a financial agreement. It doesn't matter how that lender got the money, what they do with the money, or how they make money.

Why don't you try to explain how that situation makes the person buying the pepsi a slave. We'd all love to hear it.

onwebcam 10-13-2010 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicivan (Post 17604746)

Can you source the bandwidth you are using right now?
Yes it's called an IP trace.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 AM.
Page 1 of 3 1 23 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123