hahhahaha my lying community bank

[chad]

:D

i closed on a house in may. community bank assured me my loan wouldn't be sold and would be kept by them.

got a letter today from freddie mac.

hahahahaha, what a bunch of liars.

[sirgonzo420]

:D

i closed on a house in may. community bank assured me my loan wouldn't be sold and would be kept by them.

got a letter today from freddie mac.

hahahahaha, what a bunch of liars.


They probably also tried to convince you that they actually loaned you money.

[chad]

no, i wasn't dumb enough to believe that. :D

i figured they would do it, that's why i made a big spectacle of asking them 10 times, but man, that was FAST.

[Gaillo]

no, i wasn't dumb enough to believe that. :D

i figured they would do it, that's why i made a big spectacle of asking them 10 times, but man, that was FAST.


When it comes to banks and banking "ethics" - if it isn't in writing, it isn't so. Sometimes it isn't so even if it IS in writing! ::)

[Libertytree]

Do the words banking and ethics deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence?

[Gaillo]

Do the words banking and ethics deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence?


Nope. Thus the quotes! ;D

[Ponce]

Is like my tiny town bank, they told me that they only would charge me $7.50 to exchange my US fiat for a more secured Canadian dollar and then I find out that they are charging me 3.6% on top of the $7.50, 3.6% of $5,000 is $150.00 (or more)...........I found this out by checking out the exchange before going to the bank, even the teller didn't know this because they only go to the banks exchange site.

[Serpo]

no, i wasn't dumb enough to believe that. :D

i figured they would do it, that's why i made a big spectacle of asking them 10 times, but man, that was FAST.


When it comes to banks and banking "ethics" - if it isn't in writing, it isn't so. Sometimes it isn't so even if it IS in writing! ::)






for example cash.......hahahah

[Joe King]

:D

i closed on a house in may. community bank assured me my loan wouldn't be sold and would be kept by them.

got a letter today from freddie mac.

hahahahaha, what a bunch of liars.


They probably also tried to convince you that they actually loaned you money.

All they did was to allow him to spend his own future earnings, today.
That way he can spend those future dollars into the economy now in order to earn them back as inflated dollars in the future.

IMO, as long as enough people have confidence in their earning potential, this is a way to allow all of us to have the advantage of a bigger economy than we would othewise have.
Without it, just imagine at least 9 times less of almost everything you see.
...but it also condemns us to a rat race of ever-increasing speed, and people get tired after awhile of running that race.

So it is a kind of double-edged sword, as we do all benefit to some degree from having an expanded economy.
That is until we get to the point where more people want to get off the treadmill of debt than wants to get on it.
Which is where we are now with the abyss on one side and a gov on the other working like the dickens to re-inflate.


It's as though we've been hiking up a mountain and upon reaching the top, we find the gov there trying to build more mountain for us to climb.
As Marc Faber would say, that's CrRaZy!
lol

[the riot act]

If they were not able to sell the loan to the gooberment, you would not have gotten the loan.

90% of all morts are sold to the gov. Imagine how few homes would be bought and sold if they didn't do that.

Now what are you going to do with that house that is going to devalue 50% more in the next year when the gov stops underwriting these loans?

[chad]

If they were not able to sell the loan to the gooberment, you would not have gotten the loan.

90% of all morts are sold to the gov. Imagine how few homes would be bought and sold if they didn't do that.

Now what are you going to do with that house that is going to devalue 50% more in the next year when the gov stops underwriting these loans?


get me some 'bama money! :banrasta

seriously though, i could care less if it goes down in value. i have to live somewhere.

[the riot act]

get me some 'bama money! :banrasta

seriously though, i could care less if it goes down in value. i have to live somewhere.


Yo buddy with the bama bucks.

Apologize for not using the :sarc: smiley. I'm in the same boat as you. Who knows maybe they will just forgive all the morts! :sun:

[chad]

get me some 'bama money! :banrasta

seriously though, i could care less if it goes down in value. i have to live somewhere.


Yo buddy with the bama bucks.

Apologize for not using the :sarc: smiley. I'm in the same boat as you. Who knows maybe they will just forgive all the morts! :sun:


i can only hope we get off! i guess it's good in a way, at least bailout central owns me now instead of wells fargo. hey, at least i have fruit trees. ;D

[ximmy]

I bought from a small bank too that quickly resold to citimortgage... problems with escrow account ever since... >:(

[chad]

that's why i'm glad they sold it to the feds and not wells fargo. at least the government will maybe lose the records or something. :P

[palani]

bank assured me my loan wouldn't be sold and would be kept by them.

If you had demanded a receipt from the bank for the original note and mortgage I have a theory that they would not be able to sell these documents.

Imagine several months after closing walking into the bank with the entire amount to close the account ON THE CONDITION THAT THE ORIGINALS CAN BE PROVIDED. Not an unrealistic condition as you have a receipt for these documents. Bank cannot provide the originals. You offered to repay and were denied because of the condition precedent. VOILA ... loan vanishes in an instant.

[chad]

interesting idea. i'd like to see the original pieces of paper from wherever. staten island, the florida keys, etc. i bet nothing could really be produced. i mean, are there pieces of paper floating from france to the united states via the louisiana purchase? maybe there are, i don't know. it'd be a good documentary or something to try and find the piece of paper that ceded long island away from the native americans...

[palani]

interesting idea. i'd like to see the original pieces of paper from wherever. staten island, the florida keys, etc. i bet nothing could really be produced. i mean, are there pieces of paper floating from france to the united states via the louisiana purchase? maybe there are, i don't know. it'd be a good documentary or something to try and find the piece of paper that ceded long island away from the native americans...


The reason you insist on an original is because the one who signs it is the ONLY one who can claim the document is an original. A document cannot be entered into evidence without someone (the signer) pointing to it saying "that is the document I signed". When it comes to historical documents you might have a hard time producing someone to attest to a signature.

Why is this important? Because without evidence all you have is opinion and boy, there is sure a lot of that floating around these days.

[Stop Making Cents]

Same thing happened to me with my credit union who i've always had good service with. So i told them to F off and I refinanced with a bank that had a lower interest rate.

[Phoenix]

interesting idea. i'd like to see the original pieces of paper from wherever. staten island, the florida keys, etc. i bet nothing could really be produced. i mean, are there pieces of paper floating from france to the united states via the louisiana purchase? maybe there are, i don't know. it'd be a good documentary or something to try and find the piece of paper that ceded long island away from the native americans...


The reason you insist on an original is because the one who signs it is the ONLY one who can claim the document is an original. A document cannot be entered into evidence without someone (the signer) pointing to it saying "that is the document I signed". When it comes to historical documents you might have a hard time producing someone to attest to a signature.

Why is this important? Because without evidence all you have is opinion and boy, there is sure a lot of that floating around these days.


Your theory assumes a "judge" will care what you say v. a bankster. Some "judges" just take "judicial notice" that banksters speak gospel truth.

[palani]

Your theory assumes a "judge" will care what you say v. a bankster.
My "theory" depends upon someone who has the balls to stand up for himself rather than finding a reason to be defeated from the beginning.


Some "judges" just take "judicial notice" that banksters speak gospel truth.
Some "judges" refer to anyone without attorney as "pro se" which THEY have interpreted as latin for LOSER. As you probably don't know this you fail to object and your action means you agree.


PRO SE

Lat. "for himself" "on one's own behalf" A person who represents himself in court

alone without the help of a lawyer is said to appear pro se. (2) Lat. for you lose. also pro per

[Phoenix]

Your theory assumes a "judge" will care what you say v. a bankster.
My "theory" depends upon someone who has the balls to stand up for himself rather than finding a reason to be defeated from the beginning.


You're another of these types that think that magic words control the apparatus of the state.

Most often, this is what is called delusion.

Make the arguments, and hope that the "judge" still has a shred of honor or sense of justice. He might.





Some "judges" just take "judicial notice" that banksters speak gospel truth.
Some "judges" refer to anyone without attorney as "pro se" which THEY have interpreted as latin for LOSER. As you probably don't know this you fail to object and your action means you agree.


I never call myself "Pro Se," but "In Pro Per."

If the "judge" has already decided against you, you can "object" all you want, you only invite sanctions, or even contempt of court.

[palani]

You're another of these types that think that magic words control the apparatus of the state.

Most often, this is what is called delusion.

Make the arguments, and hope that the "judge" still has a shred of honor or sense of justice. He might.

Wrong. I'm more of a "The reason is the same respecting things which do not appear, and those which do not exist" type of guy.


I never call myself "Pro Se," but "In Pro Per." I guess if you are comfortable losing the right to counsel then that is your choice.


If the "judge" has already decided against you, you can "object" all you want, you only invite sanctions, or even contempt of court. Only in equity. I see you are the type that are impressed easily by threats. Grow a pair. Stay away from soy. It wreaks havoc on male hormones.

[Phoenix]

You're another of these types that think that magic words control the apparatus of the state.

Most often, this is what is called delusion.

Make the arguments, and hope that the "judge" still has a shred of honor or sense of justice. He might.

Wrong. I'm more of a "The reason is the same respecting things which do not appear, and those which do not exist" type of guy.


I never call myself "Pro Se," but "In Pro Per." I guess if you are comfortable losing the right to counsel then that is your choice.


If the "judge" has already decided against you, you can "object" all you want, you only invite sanctions, or even contempt of court. Only in equity. I see you are the type that are impressed easily by threats. Grow a pair. Stay away from soy. It wreaks havoc on male hormones.


You want to play games I see.

I'm going to put to you the same thing that has scared off two other cowards.

CITE CASES WHERE YOU HAVE ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED USING YOUR "TECHNIQUES." Case name, docket number, and court, please.

[palani]

You want to play games I see.

I'm going to put to you the same thing that has scared off two other cowards.

CITE CASES WHERE YOU HAVE ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED USING YOUR "TECHNIQUES." Case name, docket number, and court, please.

Sorry. I don't perform like a trained monkey on command.

Prove you possess a pair.