Explanation, such that it is, as requested:
“We are cautious as to what we post because not everyone here is a good guy. We mostly are victims. Some are predators. All we ask before we go further is an explanation or reference. The good guys here are out to help.”
-Not everyone anywhere is a good guy, and I’m aware that only victims of MS fraud would create a site to expose MS fraud, and the majority of users would be victims of MS fraud who would be very knowledgeable about MS fraud through personal experience and the sharing of others’ experiences; thus, be considerable as a source of guidance on the subject. People ignorant of MS fraud would not have created a site specializing in MS Fraud.
“I've reviewed your site and it looks like many of the foreclosure assistance scams that the AG's across the nation are looking into.”
-Thank you for taking the time to review the site and to point out that its look was aesthetically displeasing to you. I can not refute whether or not a series of specific HTML codes look aesthetically pleasing to the end user or not, although I’ve taken the statement into consideration. As we are discussing website aesthetics, please note that the MS fraud website home page does not show up correctly on Mozilla Firefox browsers with a version number of 22.214.171.124, effectively making 5-7% of the internet-using population unable to view the forum, legal lounge, and other sections of the site. I had to view the site in IE7 to see there was a menu on the left side of the screen. And that was the last time I used IE7. But other posts can address aesthetic questions, such as the poetry of Shakespeare’s language, art collection of the Museum of Modern Art, or guitar-playing ability of Dragonforce.
“These scammers will do anything to scr** homeowners out of their money. Business must not be too good for someone to come on to this site and try to reach someone unimformed.”
“No one will touch you until you have been investigated and found to be a good guy.”
-With all due respect, you implied I was a “scammer” trying to “reach someone uninformed,” and will not be touched until I have been “found to be a good guy.” I find that largely impossible to answer, as your determination of me came before your offer of investigation. If your judgment is clouded by your assumption of me based on the actions of others whose actions and intentions I also deplore and find revolting, then I am defending myself needlessly against a verdict that has been decided in advance: all in all, an argument I can never win.
“[P]lease provide me with a few references and a few people you have "helped" with contact info and we'll get back with you.”
“If I am wrong, I will apologize and refer business to you.”
-Wait, that’s not the point at all! I don’t want business referred to me by anyone here as some sort of payment for being given credence, or as an apology for being labeled a “scammer” who will “do anything to scr** homeowners out of their money.” Refer business locally to someone you trust, if you want to refer at all.
“So we should point you to information on this site, that you will take with you for free and then charge a victim of mortgage servicing fraud?”
-Actually, I was planning on referring applicable people whose situations warrant sufficient cause to raise the issue of MS fraud, and then point homeowners who feel they may be victims of MS fraud directly and unequivocally to this website. I wouldn’t take information from a source on any site that is free and charge someone for it. However, this is a question of intent, and debating what you assume my intent to be is another argument I can not win, except to state on my side that it was not the intent and to have offered the explanation above.
“[I]t would appear to ms fraud victims who are knowledgeable you have a financial interest in the continuation of ms fraud and other related scams.”
-I understand the concern and apologize for the appearance. Money only represents the ability to do work. The ability to do work is energy. If I could find a way to generate electricity for free, not depend on transportation, and obtain/grow food on my own, and dedicate my time to personal interests only, these issues would still be something I would try to learn more about. If that was the case, I would need no energy, therefore, no work. Unfortunately, due to the nature of our economy, nearly anyone who has a retirement, mutual fund or savings account has a financial interest in the continuation of MS fraud, not to mention drug dealing and other organized crimes.
“If you have a genuine plan to bring fraud perpetrators to to justice to create greater prosperity and stability for the market that would be great and we all would benefit.”
-No, I don’t have a plan. In fact, I wouldn’t know where to begin coming up with a plan to dispose of the corruption and bring the perpetrators to justice. Getting the word out, creating more information, or exposing the issue only goes so far. The political system is broken, unfixable, and won’t come to the aid of a victim in most cases. The public is unaware a problem exists, and even if they voted on laws to stop MS fraud, the public doesn’t count the votes or enforce the laws. Ironically, the people writing the laws are the same ones enforcing the laws and counting the votes. In addition, the judicial system, as seen in posts and stories on this site, is paid for verdicts in advance by utilizing judges with conflicts of interest who are sympathetic to the corporations conducting the fraud.
“This fraud is destroying the market, especially inner city areas.”
-I agree, as are drugs (CIA), gangs (organized crime), high energy prices (peak oil), money laundering (correspondent banking), the housing bubble (Federal Reserve), financial corruption (Wall Street (= CIA)), and a list of other issues. Destroying the housing market increases the stock market. And isn’t that amazing? Between the two choices, what will people who aren’t victims choose: Give up the fraud, give up your retirement savings? Hold onto and allow the fraud to increase, increase your 401(k)?
“Private lending where investors risk their capitol is a great idea as long as its honest and the borrower does not get scammed.”
-This is singularly the best statement made on the discussion so far, and specifying local investors is well worth the effort, as local investors have an interest in the local economy and society. As housing markets become more and more localized (as transportation costs go up), having a local economy for everything is the best idea.
I agree that anything to do with stopping foreclosure can be seen as solving a symptom, instead of solving the underlying problem, such as large-scale health conditions may only result in localized symptoms.
And you’re all absolutely right: no national or multinational corporation: GE, Coca-Cola, Bear Stearns, Citigroup, Disney, BP, VeriChip, or otherwise is ever going to help a homeowner with their finances, mortgage, health, or life. We’re in a land ruled by dragons and dependent on fire for our very lifestyle.
But people seem to want help only when a problem manifests itself, and, even then, can not trace the problem to the cause. Health is only confronted at the point of cancer or heart attack, with bad “genes/virus/bacteria” being blamed, rather than a lifetime of the easiest, most convenient choice being fast food, snack food, and processed food offered by these corporations, instead of exercise and food growing.
But homeowners seem to want help only when a problem manifests itself, and, even then, can not trace the problem to the cause. The mortgage is only confronted at the point of foreclosure or sheriff sale, with “missed payments/not accepting payments/taxes weren’t paid/insurance increased” being blamed, rather than a lifetime of the easiest, most convenient choice being conventional mortgages, FHA/HUD, mortgage servicing offered by these corporations, instead of local investors and simply paying cash for a home.
But when one finally finds their way out of the dark for a brief second, realizes a problem with the world, and seeks out experts for guidance, and is greeted with calls to the effect of “I don’t like your look,” “You look like a scammer,” or “Prove you deserve our help or leave now,” then all one can do is offer a feeble defense (see this post), apologize for the offense (see previous post), and wait for the response from the experts. New monks requesting to join an order, no matter their involvement with the world and its corruptions, regardless of the foul smell of the world that clings to them, are evaluated first, then judged; not the other way around.
And is it even possible to stop feeding the tapeworm? Have we perpetuated fraud ourselves by posting comments here? Is the fee for the bandwidth charge the owner of the site will pay going to be used to pay an employee who will then pay an MS company, invest it in or with the companies that own MS companies, or support the products or services of a company that invests in or with MS companies? Are the people driving to their computers at work to post on this site supporting the tapeworm economy by purchasing oil to fuel their cars, which profits companies like Halliburton, BP, Shell, who are in charge of our foreign policy of waging wars to gain oil, and giving the drug dealers more opportunities to steal the money of the poorest citizens of the planet and investing those profits, laundered through correspondent banks, into the very same MS fraud companies they’re attempting to expose the corruption of?
In essence, by attempting to expose the problem by using the weapons of the enemy, are we just supporting the enemy? Is an evidently futile attempt even worthwhile? Is it even an attempt? Admittedly, I don’t know. But I was here to explore, discover, and find out the answers to those questions that I have, regardless of financial, political, personal, or other gains.
Again, thank you for the site, the opportunity to post, the information, the responses, and the help (such that it has been). I’m sure everyone on the board will have an awareness of all the information I’ve posted. I sincerely hope that I am not holding myself out to be an expert on any of the issues raised.
Regards, good luck. You have every right to be cautious and I respect many of the statements made here.
p.s., in terms of reading material for this week, Catherine Austin Fitts’ online book “Dillon Reed & The Aristocracy of Prison Politics” is recommended, although not directly relating to MS fraud. She’s the “CA” from the interview in the pinned post “WHY THIS IS ALL HAPPENING TO EACH OF YOU.”