Comments on: Fraudclosure | “Nobody under this agreement will go to jail for that theft.”

By: kravitz

kravitz — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:46:58 +0000

“A mortgage-servicing settlement proposal sent to banks represents a “mixed bag” for investors in home-loan securities, making a “mockery” of some bondholder concerns, Amherst Securities Group LP analysts said.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-09/mortgage-proposal-with-investor-benefits-has-lien-mockery-amherst-says.html

So investors aren’t happy either.

But we can count on The Obama Administration to legalize theft and fraud.

By: l vent

l vent — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:30:27 +0000

In reply to indio007.

Funny thing is now the eliteists with the blessing of OUR OWN GOVERNMENT are trying to turn us into DEBT SLAVES. check out yesterdays Keiser report. Max is spot on as usual. http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/ It is episode #127

By: Katheryn

Katheryn — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:32:55 +0000

Instead of sending letters and files and proof of what these fraudsters have done to politicians and the legal eagles (no offense intended to any attorneys out here) we shoulld start a major network of sending our documented cases and proofs of illegal deeds and so on to every potentially interested journalists. Let them investigate and dissect what has been done. It just would offer so much more exposure showing how much damage has been caused and is continuing to be caused. If we can dig up specific information about pensions of real people who have been robbed, the public can relate. We need real stories of real people with real facts.

By: Katheryn

Katheryn — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:25:51 +0000

In reply to Tim Bryant. I will be the first to pay for tickets to that event

By: Tim Bryant

Tim Bryant — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:43:53 +0000

They would be an interesting target for Wikileaks and Anonymous, A group like that might be able to bring down Wall Street.

By: Katheryn

Katheryn — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:05:28 +0000

no necessity for them to lie to the government; they are all in it together

By: indio007

indio007 — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:23:48 +0000

In reply to l vent. Lincoln made slavery unmarketable. It still exists in a "non-profit" sort of way. Counties get money for kids that go into foster care and for adoption. Only if the child has a birth certificate does the counties get federal funds. Try not to get a BC for your kid. The state will steal the child knowing the parents don't know how to assert there rights and force a BC on the child. All the states have made an adoption mandatory if the child is under 4. They have to in murder to be available for FED adoption incentive funds. Then they are sold to adoptive family . Effectively twinning a stream of revenue. The property right to a human child.

By: Jason Werner

Jason Werner — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 18:30:13 +0000

Very good article, but we are making progress. It is a fact that these banks will now piss on regulators, investigators, and the government directly on their fact now, so that will eventually make them mad. The banks will lie to our government, so they are about to fall into their own hole that they dug.

By: Tim Bryant

Tim Bryant — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:25:47 +0000

Just wondering if we formed groups to protect homeowners from being forcibly removed from their homes, due to parties that actually do not own the note by law, if the RESCUE DOCTRINE is applicable.

Essentially, in its pure form the Rescue Doctrine boils down to 4 main elements – all of which must be met in order to bring it to bear for the person asserting its privilege;

1. There must be peril or the appearance of peril to a third party, caused by the defendant.
2. That peril or appearance of peril must be imminent
3. A reasonable person would recognize the peril or appearance of peril and the plaintiff must also have actually recognized it.
4. The plaintiff must have exercised reasonable care in effecting the rescue.

A homeowner can do this invoking MOLITER MANUS IMPOSUIT, which states;

MOLITER MANUS IMPOSUIT, pleading. In an action of trespass to the person,
the defendant frequently justifies by pleading that he used no more force
than was necessary to remove the plaintiff who, was unlawfully in the house
of the defendant, and for this purpose he gently laid his hands upon him,
molitur manus imposuit.
2. This plea may be used whenever the defendant laid hold of the
plaintiff to prevent his committing a breach of the peace.
3. When supported by evidence, it is a complete defence. Ham. N. P.
149; 2 Chit. Pl. 574, 576; 12 Vin. Ab. 182; Bac. Abr. Assault and Battery, C
8.

By: tremendous view

tremendous view — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:20:32 +0000

AND COOKIES DOWN BELOW TOO!