Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
We need to have a meeting with the President, we need to tell him or at least make him aware of what's ''Really'' going on. We need to have evidence, and we need to have a plan.
I like Stephen's idea to get together in a Group.
Quote 0 0

Look who was the biggest contributer to the president and then think about why he is not listening to us. Does any one not see that when we were to blame it was all over the news. Now that the fraud is coming out, we are finding articles tucked away hoping that they will not be seen. Or a 10 second spot on the news occasionally. It is not such big news now that it is not us little folk being blamed.

Quote 0 0
Until a meeting happens, don't see how it can hurt to launch all out internet campaign to "inform" POTUS and staff re: extent of past and ongoing MSF.


If you want to write letters, his staff does read them and selects 10 letters each week for POTUS to read and respond to.  Usually his response is something like "I share your concern. . . blah blah blah" but maybe if he got enough of them . . . who knows? 


Quote 0 0
No chance
CONTACT that sort of hopeless approach has no chance.

Quote 0 0
I already discussed the issue with him and his supporters at his birthday party in 2005.

I'm a limited government, low tax Constitutionalist so I certainly have differing political views and financial views than President Obama. He and his supporters seemed to have a genuine concern and understanding of the banking dictatorship looting our country and dictating politics and its consequences unlike all the other candidates except Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich. I met with Ron Paul twice and Dennis Kuchinich once on the issue of unlawful foreclosures and implementing a stable savings based economy.

Where he and his camp differed from myself is that they preferred  government  control  of corporate crooks  and I advocate establishing true free market capitalism and  a genuine  checkbook dictatorship  over the corporate crooks  by the common man, rather than trusting benevolent  elites to feel compassion for us and do the right thing.

Other than George Bush's 2004 election being illegally funded by Roland Arnall setting up 53 shell corporations to help buy the White hose in 2004, Senator Lincoln Chaffee was the most instrumental in getting the owner of the nations largest sub-prime lender out of the country to evade investigation, prosecution and derailing the crises before it had a chance to B.K. our country and transfer financial and political control over our country to those holding the debt to  pay for the Bush/Clinton/Greenspan plan of artificially creating homeownership through government subsidies the GSE's Fannie and Freddie.

Lincoln Chaffee stated in the nomination process of Roland Arnall that Roland Arnall had no responsibility for his company since he was the sole owner rather than a corporate director. Senator Lincoln Chaffee made the assertion that since Roland Arnall had sole control and ownership of AMC the he had no legal or personal irresponsibilities for Ameriquest and it's subsidiaries actions.

I feel then Senator Obama made a good faith effort to derail the financial crises before it happened despite my differences with his current response and solutions which he attempted to avoid in the first place. George Soroka, Scott Reckard, and Mike Hudson along with our forum and of course others got the information out to the public so there is plenty of blame to go around. The question is do we put a band-aid on the debt or write down the debt, recover the assets and rebuild a savings based economy. Ron Paul had the only true solution to our economic woes, but that would mean making hard choices and sticking to them despite harsh public and political opposition and not getting hung up on wedge issues and short term needs.

Just my opinion it makes more sense to attach liability to those who caused the damage than those who are trying to fix it. The Centrist Democrat and Compassionate  Republican economic and legislative policies had the same foundation letting the government grant a monopoly over our assets and let them have a Wall street free for all with no accountability and let them transfer our assets overseas. The philosophy was to let foreign interests support our spending and borrowing free for all and let the public enjoy the short term "profits" of auctioning off our country to foreign interests. BTW I supported Bush in 1999 and accept the fact I made a mistake in not reviewing his and his families background in lending fraud,  attacks on U.S. interests and transferring U.S. assets overseas.

Bush Financial terrorism of U.S. residents

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:03 PM


Add sender to Contacts


Message contains attachments

FILE0427.jpg (114KB), FILE0169.jpg (114KB)

Dear Congressman Kucinich:

This is Greg Collins. It was great meeting you at Matthew Weisman’s dinner party and I very much appreciate your concern and action on mortgage fraud relating to the subprime crisis. Right in your own neighborhood of Cleveland ; Ameriquest and other predatory lenders and servicers have wreaked havoc on neighborhoods, the economy and housing values. This fact has been addressed by ESOP (East Side Organizing Project).

Losing your home can be a traumatic experience, and in some cases life threatening, especially when the homeowner did nothing wrong but were thrown out of their home anyway.

Much of the foreclosure finger-pointing is being directed toward the borrower for lying to get loans they cannot afford. That might be true in a few cases, but most were defrauded and pressured into believing they could afford the loan.

There is another case of fraud we call “mortgage servicing fraud”; where the lender or servicer manufactured the default in order to profit by adding fees to the account that are both unwarranted and unlawful. Expensive “forced placed insurance” is usually charged to the borrower, even though the consumer already has their own insurance.

Many people have even lost their homes due to scams the lenders and insurance companies and/or contractors were involved in, that’s pretty cold hearted to view a hurricane victim’s ordeal as an opportunity to steal their home.

What may be the motive behind foreclosures don’t the lenders lose money?

Well that is the biggest fallacy of the real state and lending industry.

Lenders have many methods to profit from foreclosures mostly by leveraging the mortgages as collateral and transferring the properties though trust relationships and placing hedge bets against the pooled servicing agreements going into default and then creating the default. This action would violate Sec regulations as well as incurring civil and criminal penalties for the partners knowingly involved in these transactions.

These aggressive and fraudulent lending and investment activities affect not only the homeowners but the greater economy and housing values as well inclusive of the stock market.

Not only that but they endanger foreign investment in the U.S. and endanger our fractional reserve fiat monetary system which is primarily backed by the confidence in U.S. property and business values. The subprime and predatory lending and servicing and investment industries convert these mortgages into mortgage backed securitizations and threaten to chop the roots out of our entire financial system.

The problem is much bigger than local and foreign investments and lending fraud. The problem is really based on the fact that our monetary system is structured on monetized debt and the fractional reserve system and encourage risking capitol, which is collaterized by other people’s money primarily though mortgages.

We ultimately need to consider sound money principles and a savings based economy to create wealth for the lower and middle class and encourage wise financial behavior. No government agency will hold everyone’s hand and review every financial deal, nor would we want them to. The key is to establish a self-correcting system coupled with aggressive enforcement of financial crimes.

Quite simply, this would benefit borrowers, lenders and long range investments rather than short term quarterly profits and leveraged investment and lending scams.

I know this sounds radical, but we need to replace the debt-based private banking system with a government fixed monetary system that is transparent to the public. This system will allow economic mobility and freedom and ensure social stability and reduce trade disputes due to international monetary manipulation/currency valuation. This system will stem the flow of businesses out of the country and outsourcing and help rebuild our manufacturing base and help reduce reasons for going to war.

This may sound oversimplified and naïve, however, it has worked well in the past and the current debt-based system has always failed and created poverty, wars and to me the worst situation of all -- debt slavery. It makes the ultra rich richer and the poor poorer.

 I know this is a complex issue that covers many subjects, and while my claims of intentional fraud by the lending system may seem harsh, we have conclusive evidence verified in court documents from around the country.

Big stumbling block won’t the rich protest this no, because they will have less taxes and greater personal wealth, may not the poor protest because they will lose freebies and entitlements, not if they are educated to the fact that most of the money goes to interest and looting the economy and there is less for them under a debt based monetary system.

Therefore I propose a government issued transparent bond/interest free lending system as a solution to the majority of the nations problems.


Here are couple pictures of my home it was a one room school home built in 1863 and I spent about 7 years rebuilding it from the ground up.
I had several hundred thousand in equity and Ameriquest transfered it into their name and immediately initiated foreclosure. Roland Arnall the owner of Ameriquest was sheltered from by being given diplomatic immunity in the Netherlands in exchange for 12 million in Presidential donations. He was know to have defrauded millions of Americans and his company was found guilty of fraud by 49 A. G.'S.

I feel George Bush helped facilitate this crime against U.S. citizens and is an actual threat to my life as well as others so I really appreciate your efforts on the impeachment.

Again thanks for your time and efforts and it was great meeting with you.

Sincerely,  Greg Collins

- On Mon, 1/9/06, <> wrote:

From: <>
Subject: Message from Senator Barack Obama
Date: Monday, January 9, 2006, 6:07 PM

Dear Greg:

Please accept my sincere apology for the delay in my response to your email regarding the nomination of Roland Arnall to be Ambassador to the Netherlands. I'm afraid I'm still working on the challenge of responding efficiently to as many as 2,000 letters, emails and calls a day from my Illinois constituents.

The first session of Congress ended on December 22nd with the opposition to the Arnall nomination holding firm. You may be sure I will stay on top of this nomination in the new year.

Again, Greg, I apologize for the inordinate delay in my response and do greatly appreciate your kind comments. I hope the delay won't deter you from staying in touch.


Barack Obama
United States Senator

Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
Big Mac,

What evidence do you have that supports the idea of any branch of the federal government being responsive to the will, complaints or petitions of the people? The same question could be asked of lesser jurisdictions also (states, cities, counties).

I've seen little to indicate much in the way of responsiveness to citizens.

The first bailout, last fall, was a clear and strong enough indication to me. The majority of people (depending on the poll at the time between 66% and 75% of those polled were not in favor of a "bailout") were against a bailout. In Presidential elections percentages of popular votes in the 55% range are considered to be a mandate.

Yet 66% to 75% of the citizens expressing opinions and desires gets no appropriate response.

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law... and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." When such petitions are ineffective I'm not really sure what options there are.

Quote 0 0
I agree with equitable one. We all have our theories and opinions but it's clear the government of the people has been high-jacked the bailout is prima facie evidence of that, and so is the existence of ms fraud and the Kelo v New London ruling.

The so-called right and left wing parties have empowered two groups of mobs and are charging us protection fees for the racket they have created. Divide and conquer it's an ancient strategy for leaders to sell the public on a threat or create a need we need them to resolve.

We need to be united in the freedom of a low tax, limited government that's not a right wing patented position it's a position of freedom. We need to build a sustainable savings based economy. Social services and war are two sides of the same coin the both facilitate debt slavery and dictatorship. The banking monopoly was granted power under the guise of providing our needs and for military expenditures. People grant power to the banks to borrow out of crises such as war and economic crashes and to provide perceived needs.
The current crises was allowed to happen or worse yet engineered. No sense in granting even more power to the wolves in charge of the hen house in the hope they will have compassion for the chickens.

An exploitative debt based economy always leads to war and/or economic crashes, and so does an economy based on social services. 
Quote 0 0

Obama Sought to Enlist a Wide Consensus on Finance Rules

Published: June 16, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s plan to reshape financial regulation, which he will unveil on Wednesday, is the product of weeks of meetings among government officials, financial experts, lawmakers, industry executives and lobbyists, many of whom were invited to help the White House draft the proposal.

Skip to next paragraph
Brendan Smialowski/Bloomberg News

President Obama in the East Room of the White House in Washington on Tuesday.

Readers' Comments

Mr. Obama told reporters on Tuesday that a “lack of oversight” allowed what he called “wild risk-taking.” He said it led to “very dangerous” conditions that imperiled the global economy.

But executives from an array of industries caught up in the financial crisis came to Washington over the last several weeks to make their case for how the new regulatory landscape should look. They came from big banks and small ones, insurance companies and stock exchanges, hedge funds and mutual funds, and were joined by officials from consumer groups and big labor — often with conflicting views.

Now, lobbyists who lost the initial skirmish inside the administration will head to Congress to try to influence the final product.

The plan the president will formally announce on Wednesday would give the Federal Reserve greater supervisory authority over large financial institutions whose problems pose potential risks to the economic system. It would separately expand the reach of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to seize and break up troubled financial institutions. And it would create a council of regulators, led by the Treasury secretary, to fill in regulatory gaps.

In doing so, the plan seeks to give Washington the tools to police the shadow system of finance that has grown up outside the government’s purview, and to make it easier for regulators to head off problems at large, troubled institutions or take control of them if they fail.

“Unfortunately the growth of the nonbank sector as well as all the complexities and financial instruments outstripped those old regulatory regimes,” Mr. Obama said in an interview on Tuesday with The New York Times and CNBC.

Although it would strikingly reorganize the regulatory architecture, the president’s plan results from many compromises with industry executives and lawmakers, and is not as bold as some had hoped.

Mr. Obama seemed to acknowledge as much when he posed the question: “Did, you know, any considerations of sort of politics play into it? We want to get this thing passed, and, you know, we think that speed is important. We want to do it right. We want to do it carefully. But we don’t want to tilt at windmills.”

At the White House and the Treasury Department in recent weeks, some insurance companies sought a law that would enable them to get a single federal charter instead of multiple state charters. The insurers lost. Consumer groups argued against the banks in favor of a consumer financial protection agency with broad new authority to protect homeowners from unsuitable loans. The consumer groups prevailed.

The mutual fund industry successfully argued against a proposal by some banks — which are competitors to mutual funds — to give the Securities and Exchange Commission’s authority over mutual funds to the new consumer agency.

Hedge funds and dealers in derivatives sought to minimize the extent to which the government will intrude into their businesses. They partly won; the administration will leave many of the details of that authority to lawmakers and regulators. Savings and loan associations argued unsuccessfully against a proposal by the administration to eliminate federal savings and loan charters, which have been subject to less regulation than bank charters.

The administration, which has sought to reduce the corrosive influence of lobbying on policy making, actually encouraged the tussle by inviting executives, academics, former officials and others to the series of meetings overseen by the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and Lawrence H. Summers, the president’s top economic adviser. The meetings were often attended by their top aides: the deputy Treasury secretary, Neal S. Wolin, and Diana Farrell, a deputy director of the National Economic Council at the White House.

In the last two weeks alone, the administration has heard from top executives from Goldman Sachs, MetLife, Allstate, JPMorgan Chase, Credit Suisse, Citigroup, Barclays, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Travelers, Prudential and Wells Fargo, among others. Administration officials also discussed the president’s plan with the top lobbyists at major financial trade associations in Washington.

The raucous process of overhauling a system that oversees the nation’s most influential and affluent corporate interests is not without precedent. In 1913, the year he signed the law creating the Federal Reserve in response to an earlier market panic, President Woodrow Wilson lamented to a friend about banking reform.

“There are almost as many judgments as there are men,” Mr. Wilson said. “To form a single plan and a single intention about it at times seems a task so various and so elusive that it is hard to keep one’s heart from failing.”

President Obama’s plan would not consolidate all the banking agencies into one, but it would take some of the existing agencies’ powers to oversee mortgages, credit cards and other kinds of consumer debt and give them to a new regulator, tentatively called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

The president, however, will ask Congress to merge the Office of Thrift Supervision, the beleaguered agency that missed problems at IndyMac, Washington Mutual and the American International Group, into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a Treasury unit that supervises the largest banks.

The plan would impose tighter rules on banks that package and sell securities that are backed by mortgages and other debt. It would require that companies that issue mortgages retain at least 5 percent of them on their books to discourage companies from marketing unsuitable loans.

It would also require all advisers of hedge funds and private equity funds to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and open their books to regulators. And it would impose new conflict of interest rules on the credit rating agencies.

The plan is largely the product of extensive conversations between senior administration officials and top Democratic lawmakers — primarily Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut. The two lawmakers head the Congressional committees that will take the first crack at drafting the legislation necessary to make the plan work.

John Harwood contributed reporting.

Quote 0 0
4 Justice Now
The plan the president will formally announce on Wednesday would give the Federal Reserve greater supervisory authority over large financial institutions whose problems pose potential risks to the economic system.

OH PLEASE! The so-called "Federal Reserve" itself happens to be the biggest problem of all!



Quote 0 0
OH PLEASE! The so-called "Federal Reserve" itself happens to be the biggest problem of all!

LOL! Yup, we not only have the foxes guarding the henhouse, we have gone one step further and locked the foxes IN the henhouse!

Cluck, cluck, squawk, bwaak, bwaak, BWAA...*BURP* goes the grinning fox.
Quote 0 0
ha ha ha!!!  the perfect analogy!

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...