I am a victimized consumer who for months has been in an intense legal investigation regarding my personal lenders business practices. In light of clear federal statutes which have and continue to wantonly be violated, it is imperative I proceed in such matters ASAP. It is my hope your experts can offer such.
Included in this letter is an overview of my case including the latest information and the violations of law that have occurred that consist of FDCPA, TILA, HOEPA, RICO, Fraud, etc. Added now is a violation of my legal right for a statutory postponement which was also denied as an illegal foreclosure took place Thur Aug 13th.
I must counter-attach that which has occurred. While I am not an attorney I have a commitment to ensure this lender is stopped hurting those it victimizes under the guise of “banking” as lenders capitalize on the ignorance and misinformation being fed to the public.
To begin the following is a summary of the events:
When I purchased a tract of land, a bank loan for $55,000.00 was taken out and aggressively paid down until 1997, where a small balance of about 12k was rolled into an approved 65k (I believe) loan for a 7300 sq ft home being built. Most of the expense on the home was paid for out of pocket which attributes why the loan was so small.
What the bank has never produced is a complete loan file despite repeated requests for such. The docs are grossly incomplete per federal regulations.
In Sept ’97 a construction loan was issued and in Sept ’98 the construction loan was rolled into perm financing of 87k which was $8,700.00 more than was requested and approved for. Why? Because when signing the loan docs the bank’s loan officer said, “the bank errored $8,700.00 in accounting and let you have 8,700.00 more than you were approved for on the construction loan. We would sure appreciate it if you would pay for this and not make the bank pay for the error since you received the money”. They provided no verification of the claim and as an uniformed consumer I knew no better than to sign the docs because the next violation….
Ironically because of this “accounting error” the bank never provided the right to recision, and because I as the borrower knew better than to sign the agreement so I accepted the loan. Under TILA civil liability section [15 U.S.C. 1640(e)] regarding violations it says that any action under that section may be brought in any United States district court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation. But, that subsection does not bar a person from asserting a violation of this subchapter in an action to collect the debt which was brought more than one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation as a matter of defense by recoupment such as foreclosure. Each consumer is entitled to rescind and must be given a copy of the TILA Disclosure Statement with all material information accurately and correctly disclosed, 15 U.S.C. § 1602(u); Reg. Z § 226.23(a)(3) n.48, and two (2) copies each of the rescission notice, 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a); Reg. Z § 226.23(b),
I was given nothing and the foreclosure which has now occurred is the recoupment which the law provisions to start the right to rescission. As such we are seeking a rescission based on this fact and more.
The “lender” is a small local bank who claims to never sold the loan and services it as well. The terms are fixed for 15 yr at 8.75%.
Let’s jump to April 2008 where a natural disaster caused damages to the home which later were followed by a shut down in the economy in Sept as you know. Both situations combined to created a severe economic impact on causing a default.
The disaster was a flood which displaced my family and FEMA (after 9 months) paid rent for living elsewhere because damages to essential services (sewer, heat and water) occurred as we had no flood insurance because according to FEMA we were out of the flood zone.
In Jan after 5 mo I believe of defaulted payments I was notified of a foreclosure sale. At this time I was able to negotiate with the “lender” a 1st stop in foreclosure proceedings by offering pending income tax refunds which were coming as documented in the file by the Taxpayer Advocate Service.
I used the documentation to verify tax monies where coming and upon receipt would be surrendered. The lender agreed to the offer using the refunds for the back payments and the negotiation agreement included a lowered interest from 8.75 to 7.5% and payments from 859.00 to -300.00 or 530.00 per month as part of the negotiation workout.
Unbeknown to any of us at this time, inc. the taxpayer advocate employee, it took the IRS 7 mo to process the refunds. The excessive delay created a new set of problems because according to the terms of the new agreement the bank wanted me to make original payments beginning in Jan until the money arrived. The original payment of 860.00 was paid per the agreement in Jan. as noted in the file per the agreement.
In Feb the lender was notified (see docs) that I could not make the original payment because of the disaster and displacement issues and rent expenses. So I requested the lowered payment be applied. Instead they required not a modified payment but what they called a “partial payment” of 650.00 which was combined with a previous partial payment to make the original full payment for Feb.
In March I was financially unable to make the full payment and I again advised the lender. I requested the lender lower the payment to the agreed upon new amount as the IRS refunds were being processed and would be surrendered as soon as they arrived which I provided them correspondence accordingly.
The lender refused to accept the negotiated lower payment until all IRS monies were applied. Also they refused to accept a lower payment which then forced a 2nd default.
In June when the tax monies were received I paid the property taxes past due and provided the lender receipt of such in person which they signed acknowledgment in writing of as this was one of the two reasons they used to foreclose.
Despite paying the taxes and offering to now make the back payments up with the now received IRS refund monies which had finally arrived and they had been advised of, the “lender” continued with the foreclosure sale and in writing their trustee/attorney stated a clear refusal to accept the refund money and set a trustee’s sale date of June 25th.
Because a 2nd foreclosure sale was looming I prepared paperwork for Chpt.13 BK emergency filing to stop the foreclosure sale. Because MO is non-judicial this was successful and 2 hours before the sale the BK filing set aside the sale. I had the lender and their attorney acknowledge in writing on the bk certificate “sale canceled”.
The BK court verified the filing and then provided 15 days for the workout plan for the rest of the filings. BK was filed June 25 and the deadline for the rest of the plan was July 10th.
Upon receiving confirmation of the filing and knowing there was a July 10th deadline, on July 8th I drafted a request for an extension of time because we filed (July 6th) a UCC-1 which is part of the “fiscal issues” regarding the UCC-1 which is a whole study in itself.
Because the UCC filings had not come back yet from the county recorders office nor the Secretary of States office, this provided sufficient reason to request an extension to the bk court.
I prepared all the initial filing schedules required for the emergency filing. When I filed BK the BK clerk went through the punch list of required forms line item by line item to ensure every thing was being filed. Per the homeowners report, “the court clerk wouldn’t accept the filing unless it was complete with all forms, schedules and signatures”. Only because it was complete did the clerk accept the filing.
The strategy of BK was to stop the foreclosure sale as this was the only way I knew of how to stop the sale because I hadn’t completed enough research yet to know how else to stop the foreclosure.
During this process the bk court sent a package of docs back they didn’t file and noted so by a post it note which said “these docs not filed”. On July 8th the BK court dismissed the filing because “the creditor matrix was not filed”. Contrary to their issuance per the bk clerk who verified all forms upon my filing and accepted the filing after noting all docs were in place with the filing, the matrix was there. For now we’ll attribute the dismissal to “BK clerical error ” or of course there’s always the “pro se prejudice” issue.
Because of the dismissal the BK court didn’t respond to nor filed the request for additional time so there was no ruling on this issue.
Wasting no time as soon as the dismissal occurred, the trustee for the for the 3rd time reinstated the sale this time for Aug 13th and despite filing for injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order which the judge denied on Aug 13th at 2:30, the 2:00 sale proceeded.
I was there at the sale and advised all present that there is a 70k tax lien from the State of MO (which the buyer has not paid) on the title plus at least 1 other lien of 15k. I was exercising the statutory postponement by a temporary restraining order to be signed by the judge which was dismissed without cause as shown by the docket sheet.
The attorney/debt collector trustee continued with the sale flagrantly as he said “you better hurry up cause we’re going on”. The property was then purchased by a 3rd party bidder for 125k with a 74k payoff, my home is worth of 500-600k. I’m sure these should have been filed in federal court but I filed in county court to at least start a judicial process as verified by the file date of Aug 11th;
As I stated the BK was a strategy to start an administrative remedy process because at the helm of all of this, is a lender who has a fraudulent loan they foreclosed on. I would consider re-filing a chapter 7 and challenging the validity of the debt as I’ve seen mortgage dismissed under this technique but don’t know how to proceed.
This is where it all gets interesting because while I consider myself only a student, what I’ve learned is that the bank committed a series of violation ranging from Breach of Agreement, to the Concealing of Material Facts, to Bank Fraud from inception, to violations of TILA, RICO, RESPA, Regulation Z & FDCPA.
I draw these conclusions for the following reasons:
According to the FDCPA the lender must verify and prove the debt in order to have a valid claim. The loan docs do not provide such verification. I put them on notice and they defaulted on our demand July 15th. The demand included formal 30 day notices sent with specific questions regarding the verification of the debt they claim owed. According to 12 USC § 2605 RESPA: banks must acknowledge & respond to a “qualified written request”.
Additional facts show federal statues say it is illegal for a “lenders to loan credit with the intended purpose of “creating” credit as “money”. But this is what they did when they made what they call a “loan”;
This simple fact is virtually unknown to most of us as banks simply take a signature to the Federal Reserve who provides them credit of usually 8 times the original “loan amount”. This system is called “fractional banking”. Newer info I’ve come across says they used conversions of $50 to every $1 and other said its now unlimited. So when we see why banks and CC companies want us to borrow it starts to all make sense because this is how they make wealth. How cleaver this is for them. Banks get money simply from printing it in the way of a “loan” then collect interest on what they never risked!
This is why I demanded via certified mail and notary process the banks proof of the debt it says it’s owed is verified by accounting. The facts are under fractional banking at best this bank only “lent” me of the 87k, 1/8 of the capital (which is where the concealing of material facts and fraud from the inception comes in) and where the RICO violations occur as they charge interest on 87k and not 10k, which possibly is the only investment they make. But because they charge interest on the entire balance, this is where exorbitant interest is received and RICO occurs because they do not provide material disclosure of the double entry bank records.
Because Generally Applied Accounting Principle (GAAP) requirements imposed upon all Federally-insured (FDIC) banks in Title 12 of the United States Code, section 1831n (a), prohibit banks from lending their own money from their own assets, or from other depositors. So where does the money come from? Let’s continue…..
This lender never gave any accounting evidence where they made an investment in this loan because what they provided is not a “loan” but is instead “credit”. Banks don’t want exposed for the double book keeping, but the facts are simply this is what they do because promissory notes are converted into a ‘negotiable instrument’ by the bank and become an a asset on the bank’s accounting books. This is how it works:
A signature on a note makes it ‘money’ according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), sections 1-201(24) and 3-104 where the promissory note (money) is recorded as an asset of the bank and sold by the bank for cash – without ‘valuable consideration’ given. 12 USC § 1831n(2)(A): Requires banks to follow “Uniform accounting principles consistent with GAAP”. We are not told that the bank creates an account that contains the “money” that we now created with our signature which was created when we signed the promissory note. Furthermore we are not disclosed with the facts that a check from this account is issued with our signature and that this account would be the source of the funds behind the check that was given to us as a “loan”. Conveniently confusing wouldn’t you agree? Well that’s the way the Federal Reserve likes it so it’s not understandable. Think about it, because of public ignorance the right environment is created that allows banks prosper no matter the economic climate.
But explore how courts have ruled on the issue of whether banks are prohibited by law to loan their credit; see Citizens’ Nat. Bank of Cameron v. Good Roads Gravel Co., 236 S.W. 153, 161 (Texas App. 1922); National Bank of Commerce of Kansas City v. Atkinson, 55 F. 465, 471 (D.Kan. 1893); Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F. 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1899); Merchants’ Bank of Valdosta v. Baird, 160 F. 642, 645 (8th Cir. 1908); First Nat. Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe, 69 S.E. 1123, 1124 (Ga. 1911); American Express Co. v. Citizens’ State Bank, 194 N.W. 427, 429 (Wis.
1923); Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens’ Nat. Bank of Union, 130 S.E. 758, 759 (S.C. 1925); Farmers’ & Miners’ Bank v. Bluefield Nat. Bank, 11 F.2d 83, 85 (4th Cir. 1926); Best v. State Bank of Bruce, 221 N.W. 379, 380 (Wis. 1928); Norton Grocery Co. v. People’s Nat. Bank of Abingdon, 144 S.E. 501, 503 (Va.App. 1928); Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. L’Herisson, 33 F.2d 841 (8th Cir. 1929); First Nat. Bank of Amarillo v.Slaton Ind. School Dist., 58 S.W.2d 870, 875 (Texas App. 1933); and Ferguson v. Five Points National Bank of Miami, 187 So.2d 45, 47 (Fla.App.
It’s illegal yet it continues to occur.
The proof of the double book keeping system is spelled out in Federal Reserve Bank publications “Modern Money Mechanics”, page 6, and “Public Debt: Private Asset”, page 2. Many other publications on this subject also admit banks create new money when banks use our promissory notes as new money which the bank deposits into our checking account with our name on the checking account as a deposit records the loan from us to the bank.
Clearly such violates FDIC CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION ACT 15 USC § 1601 et seq.: Truth in Lending requires banks to disclose all details of the transaction 15 USC § 1611 Whoever willfully and knowingly (1) gives false or inaccurate information or fails to provide information which he is required to disclose under the provisions of this subchapter or any regulation, or (3) otherwise fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Business and Professions Code 17200: lists violations of unfair and deceptive business practices, because the bank was given 30 days to produce their claim and despite providing nothing to validate the claim, they proceeded illegally with foreclose, never exposing themselves. Interestingly such bank issues have been proven many times and this case from the 60’s was the landmark case to expose such yet it continues to occur:
I learned so much about banking by 2 CPA’s who teach full exposure of bank accounting practices and have been experts at trial.
Thus I need a strategy to reverse an illegal foreclosure because the bottom line is, this loan was fraudulent from inception. Full disclosures were never provided and violations of TILA, RICO, RESPA, Regulation Z & FDCPA mean federal violations which translate into juries awarding multi-million dollar settlements to victims of predatory lending.
The facts are; every bank under the Federal Reserve including Credit Card company’s scam the public. The more you dig into this matter the more you’ll find how all of us have been conned by institutions like the Federal Reserve, who is not a division of the federal government but instead is a privately owned bank corporation who “conveniently” created the national debt so the U.S. gov. must borrow money on interest which can never be repaid while it uses the IRS to collect from taxpayers monies it then gives the FRB!! The Federal Reserve has wielded its power and has collapsed economies and redistributed wealth to its owners in 2008, 1929, 1920 and in other instances as well.
This needs stopped and only by forcing these issues through the courts are any of us going to be set free from what is going on.
In closing I want to thank you for your time because what I seek to do with this information is to gather a team of top litigators who together in a unified fashion can effectively challenge the financial system which we are all suffering under. This case for me is the first step in making that happen.
Before I close there are more arguments I have researched which include:
a. Demand the lender produce the Title Page which shows the mortgage has been satisfied.
b. Intent to Deceive: Which is the altering of a signed document after the fact with the intention of changing the document’s value which constitutes forgery and fraud.
c. Deliberate Theft by Deception: Is having altered the original document, the (now) promissory note and depositing it at the local Federal Reserve Bank as new money. “Generally Accepted Accounting Principals” states: “Anything accepted by the bank as a deposit is considered cash.” This “new money” is now a fraction of what the now creates so the “loan” minus the original amount they may add is then in the commercial bank’s coffers where with this scheme they take an asset, deposit it, multiply it and exchange it for an alleged loan. This is deliberate theft by deception when in reality there is no loan that exists.
d. Fraudulent Conveyance: The bank transfers and deposited the note as an asset with the Federal Reserve Bank where the note will permanently reside and be concealed. Since they pilfer our promissory note it is we who is actually the creditor. This deceptive acquisition and concealment of a valuable asset amounts to fraudulent conveyance.
e. Racketeering & Money Laundering: Because the lender perpetrates fraudulent conveyance, the creditor establishes a demand deposit transaction checking account in our name where the newly created/acquired funds are deposited. It’s all bookkeeping entries because the money is backed by nothing as money laundering encompass financial transactions which generate an asset or a value as the result of an illegal act which may involve false accounting.
f. Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud: Since receipt of the first “statement” each thereafter perpetuates the notion of indebtedness. These assertions did not disclose a remaining balance owed as would a checking account. Mail fraud is a scheme to unlawfully obtain money/valuables which the postal system is used in the commission of a criminal offense such as when claiming a delinquent payment which constitutes wire fraud where interstate wire communications facilitate fraudulent schemes.
g. Lack of Contract Consideration: New money was brought into existence by the deposit of a agreement/promissory note. If we pay-off the loan we never receive our original deposit/asset back or the value of the promissory note. In essence we pay the loan twice. If no consideration is present the contract is generally void and unenforceable.
h. Lack of Contract Disclosure: The bank never explains the facts nor divulge they loaned anything. There was no disclosure of exchanging a promissory note to fund the newly created money. Contract law states that when an agreement is made between two parties each must be given full disclosure of what is transpiring and that an agreement is not valid if either party conceals pertinent information.
Thus I seek contingent representation to take this case from here and stop the illegal conveyance of my property which has just occurred.
I need help ASAP.