Occupy foreclosed homes? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

boxcar

12-04-2011, 08:40 PM

I wish they occupy some chain gangs with the crooked bankers. Right now they aren't even being fined. I might even vote for republican if I thought there was any chance they would go after them. But so far I have nothing about that from any of the GOP hopefuls.

Talking about "going after" someone...Who goes after the crooked politicians? I haven't heard any Dems or Republicans taking up that charge.

Boxcar

Tom

12-04-2011, 09:22 PM

I wish they occupy some chain gangs with the crooked bankers. Right now they aren't even being fined. I might even vote for republican if I thought there was any chance they would go after them. But so far I have nothing about that from any of the GOP hopefuls.

What I have from Obama is "Thank ya'll fer da contributions." then he goes to NY and begs for more money from the 1 percenters. This slimeball is bought and paid for by Wall Street.

Actor

12-05-2011, 02:18 PM

I think it's time to occupy some jail cellsThat's exactly what they want.

Tom

12-05-2011, 02:41 PM

In GITMO.

NJ Stinks

12-05-2011, 07:10 PM

Guess what's next ? They are going to Occupy foreclosed homes.

If they cut the grass, I'll be happy.

johnhannibalsmith

12-05-2011, 08:13 PM

If they cut the grass, I'll be happy.

So they can smoke it?

bigmack

12-05-2011, 09:04 PM

So they can smoke it?
Negative. Because unsightly grass is bringing down the prop values in Hoboken.

mostpost

12-05-2011, 09:15 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57336223/pushed-out-occupy-movement-plans-next-move/

Guess what's next ? They are going to Occupy foreclosed homes. Then An Occupy Candidate..........

watch the vid..........

I think it's time to occupy some jail cells
Make sure you leave some room in those jail cells for the bankers who are foreclosing on homes using forged and fraudulent documents. And foreclosing on homes for which they no longer even hold the mortgages. Somehow you think that is perfectly fine.
http://www.newenglandpost.com/2011/12/01/national-banks-sued-ag-coakley-connection-illegal-foreclosures-loan-servicing/

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is suing five national banks for fraudulently foreclosing on homes in her state. Among the fraudulent procedures being used by the defendants are:
• Pervasive use of fraudulent documentation in the foreclosure process, including so-called “robo-signing”;
• Foreclosing without holding the actual mortgage (“Ibanez” violations);
• Corrupting Massachusetts’ land recording system through the use of MERS;
• Failing to uphold loan modification promises to Massachusetts homeowners.
The lawsuit was filed today in Suffolk Superior Court against Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and GMAC. It also names Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”) and its parent, MERSCORP Inc., as defendants.

Much more detail can be found at the link.

This is only one state. The same thing is going in all over the country. If Occupy Wall Street concentrates on properties like this, I am all for it.

sammy the sage

12-05-2011, 09:22 PM

What I have from Obama is "Thank ya'll fer da contributions." then he goes to NY and begs for more money from the 1 percenters. This slimeball is bought and paid for by Wall Street.

Funny...yet thoust SCRILLS mightly about the OWS movement along w/the REST of the cons/pugs here.... :lol: :rolleyes: :D :faint:

oh THE irony of IT all...

Really...we need to GET RID of BOTH sides...bought and paid for.

mostpost

12-05-2011, 09:37 PM

Occupying homes crosses the line from peaceable assembly to petition for a redress of grievances and free speech, to violation of property rights.

I would think that a right which is specifically guaranteed by the Constitution (first Amendment) would have precedence over a right which is not.
Also, would property rights apply if one does not own the property in question.
If Citibank bundle my mortgage with a thousand others and sold that bundle to someone else, then Citibank does not have any right to foreclose on my mortgage. Yet that is what they are trying to do.

Just to be clear, I'm speaking hypothetically here. I live in an apartment.

johnhannibalsmith

12-05-2011, 10:10 PM

I would think that a right which is specifically guaranteed by the Constitution (first Amendment) would have precedence over a right which is not.
Also, would property rights apply if one does not own the property in question.
If Citibank bundle my mortgage with a thousand others and sold that bundle to someone else, then Citibank does not have any right to foreclose on my mortgage. Yet that is what they are trying to do.

Just to be clear, I'm speaking hypothetically here. I live in an apartment.

I can't tell what you are actually saying here because it is obviously the case that the first amendment doesn't grant an individual immunity from the laws of the jurisdiction in which they are alleging to be invoking those rights.

You cannot trespass and then claim that you are exercising the right to free speech by trespassing and expect that to fly.

Likewise, as you well know, even lawful expression is often contingent upon the individual or group expressing themselves in an orderly, structured fashion and not simply creating a disturbance. Think of those nutjobs from the church of satan that yell at the families of dead soldiers.

As far as the CitiBank theory (including in part a response to something you posted earlier in this thread) - since when does it suddenly become virtuous to emulate the practices of something that is blatantly wrong?

If Citi did something unethical and possibly criminal then all bets are suddenly off when it comes to laws that protect not only Citi but society at large? Can we just go burn down banks and use your justification? Do you even have information that compels you to believe that the homes to be targeted are those that were forclosed upon in the manner you describe or are you just ranting?

This all seems a little off the rails for you. You pride yourself on being analytical and this comes off as anything but, just fiery emotion that doesn't make sense to me... maybe I'm just misunderstanding.

mostpost

12-05-2011, 11:24 PM

I can't tell what you are actually saying here because it is obviously the case that the first amendment doesn't grant an individual immunity from the laws of the jurisdiction in which they are alleging to be invoking those rights.

You cannot trespass and then claim that you are exercising the right to free speech by trespassing and expect that to fly.

Likewise, as you well know, even lawful expression is often contingent upon the individual or group expressing themselves in an orderly, structured fashion and not simply creating a disturbance. Think of those nutjobs from the church of satan that yell at the families of dead soldiers.

As far as the CitiBank theory (including in part a response to something you posted earlier in this thread) - since when does it suddenly become virtuous to emulate the practices of something that is blatantly wrong?

If Citi did something unethical and possibly criminal then all bets are suddenly off when it comes to laws that protect not only Citi but society at large? Can we just go burn down banks and use your justification? Do you even have information that compels you to believe that the homes to be targeted are those that were forclosed upon in the manner you describe or are you just ranting?

This all seems a little off the rails for you. You pride yourself on being analytical and this comes off as anything but, just fiery emotion that doesn't make sense to me... maybe I'm just misunderstanding.

If OWS picks properties which have been legally foreclosed, they would be on doubtful legal ground. They need to concentrate on those properties which fall into the categories discussed in the Massachusetts story. In those cases the property rights remain with the homeowners. Occupy Wall Street would be acting in the interests of those people. The banks forfeited any rights they have by acting in an illegal manner.

Dave Schwartz

12-05-2011, 11:28 PM

The banks forfeited any rights they have by acting in an illegal manner.

What happened to "due process?"

Just sayin'.

johnhannibalsmith

12-05-2011, 11:38 PM

... In those cases the property rights remain with the homeowners. Occupy Wall Street would be acting in the interests of those people. The banks forfeited any rights they have by acting in an illegal manner.

Is this your opinion?

If the home, in your opinion (?), is legitimately the property of the original mortgage holder, and that person did his/her due diligence in accordance with the law to reclaim that property, are you presuming that homeowner wants members of the OWS group inhabiting their property?

Or is this actually the case? That the group is ONLY intending to occupy the homes of people that have been victimized unlawfully and have been given consent to do so?

When these people "protest" or "express themselves" on someone else's private property with the intent of inhabiting it indefinitely, do you not believe that they need permission to do so?

You seem to want it every which way here to justify an unsupportable position. If the banks own it legally, they have no right. If they own it illegally and you contend that it is actually the property of the victim, they have no right without consent.

In your "best case scenario" - the one that assumes the property is not actually owned by the bank - you are endorsing victimizing the victim twice.

Trashing, or to be overly optimistic, occupying, the house isn't going to help anything or anybody and will only paint this group even more negatively.

mostpost

12-05-2011, 11:51 PM

What happened to "due process?"

Just sayin'.

I'm sure you mean what happened to due process for the homeowners whose homes were stolen by the banks. Right? :rolleyes:

johnhannibalsmith

12-05-2011, 11:54 PM

I'm sure you mean what happened to due process for the homeowners whose homes were stolen by the banks. Right? :rolleyes:

Seriously, be honest, since you seem to be in the mood to shoot straight:

Would you have any problem whatsoever with someone burning down a home "stolen" by the bank?

Be honest.

bigmack

12-06-2011, 12:04 AM

Perfect topic for mosty. They weren't served in the proper fashion so they were illegally foreclosed. OK, maybe on a technicality.

Were they grossly behind on their notes or not? Sure they were. No person in their right mind would go along with foreclosure if they knew it wasn't justified.

For every 1 of Coakley/Mosty victims there are 20 hanging out in their homes without having made a payment in months. Sometimes years.

Maintaining a presence on the property for the purpose of drawing attention to the individual problem and the overall problem can be very effective.
We're taking over this house. It's for a cause. :lol:

mostpost

12-06-2011, 12:06 AM

Is this your opinion?

If the home, in your opinion (?), is legitimately the property of the original mortgage holder, and that person did his/her due diligence in accordance with the law to reclaim that property, are you presuming that homeowner wants members of the OWS group inhabiting their property?
If the home has been legally repossessed, OWS has no place there.

Or is this actually the case? That the group is ONLY intending to occupy the homes of people that have been victimized unlawfully and have been given consent to do so?
I'm saying what I think the focus should be. Do you have evidence this is not the case?

When these people "protest" or "express themselves" on someone else's private property with the intent of inhabiting it indefinitely, do you not believe that they need permission to do so?
If someone has been illegally evicted from their home, why wouldn't they want whatever help they can get to get it back?

You seem to want it every which way here to justify an unsupportable position. If the banks own it legally, they have no right. If they own it illegally and you contend that it is actually the property of the victim, they have no right without consent.

In your "best case scenario" - the one that assumes the property is not actually owned by the bank - you are endorsing victimizing the victim twice.

Trashing, or to be overly optimistic, occupying, the house isn't going to help anything or anybody and will only paint this group even more negatively.

I think you are misinterpreting "Occupy." Of course "squatting" in someone's home accomplishes nothing except bad publicity. Maintaining a presence on the property for the purpose of drawing attention to the individual problem and the overall problem can be very effective.

I think you are intelligent enough to understand the differences between the two scenarios.

mostpost

12-06-2011, 12:12 AM

Seriously, be honest, since you seem to be in the mood to shoot straight:

Would you have any problem whatsoever with someone burning down a home "stolen" by the bank?

Be honest.
And I just said you were intelligent. :rolleyes:

mostpost

12-06-2011, 12:25 AM

Perfect topic for mosty. They weren't served in the proper fashion so they were illegally foreclosed. OK, maybe on a technicality.
You mean a technicality like:
• Pervasive use of fraudulent documentation in the foreclosure process, including so-called “robo-signing”;
• Foreclosing without holding the actual mortgage (“Ibanez” violations);
• Corrupting Massachusetts’ land recording system through the use of MERS;
• Failing to uphold loan modification promises to Massachusetts homeowners

In some jurisdictions those are called laws.
Were they grossly behind on their notes or not? Sure they were. No person in their right mind would go along with foreclosure if they knew it wasn't justified.
A person who is unable to pay his mortgage is unlikely to be able to fight an illegal foreclosure even if he realizes it is illegal. How many people in those circumstances know that the bank they took out the mortgage with is the entity that still owns the mortgage? How many know if the documents are real or forged? How many can afford a lawyer?

For every 1 of Coakley/Mosty victims there are 20 hanging out in their homes without having made a payment in months. Sometimes years.
I'm sure you have a link to that factoid. :rolleyes:

We're taking over this house. It's for a cause. :lol:

The banks are taking over the house for a cause. Their bottom line.

johnhannibalsmith

12-06-2011, 12:25 AM

I think you are misinterpreting "Occupy."...

My interpretation is based mainly upon what I have seen of the other locations which have been occupied.

I'm not exactly a devout liberal nor an "Occupy" fan, but I would probably find having one of these chaotic home invasions next door to me mildly entertaining.

I'm thinking that most people, regardless of affiliation, would not. Even if they defy the existing images of mass mess in parks and streets when it comes time to infiltrate neighborhoods, I just can't see how the negative impact on the others just by being a constant presence will be overshadowed THIS TIME by the message.

If the goal is to "open the dialogue" or "spread the message", I think the supporters really want to believe that they are accomplishing that. But that seems to be the case only because they already agree with and believe in that message.

The message that they've spread to those unindoctrinated that they allege to be trying to reach seems to have largely been quite different and predominately negative.

This just looks like yet another step in that direction, not necessarily because the message is wrong, but because the method of delivery is an overwhelming distraction from the message itself.

And if you think making the neighbors mad might get ugly, wait until they piss of the homeowners association.

johnhannibalsmith

12-06-2011, 12:30 AM

And I just said you were intelligent. :rolleyes:

Well hell, if you want to commit a crime, justify it, make a statement and draw attention while disregarding the impact on the property itself and the neighborhood to do so, it seems like the way to go.

bigmack

12-06-2011, 02:38 AM

The banks are taking over the house for a cause. Their bottom line.
Yeah, that's one way of looking at a business trying to recoup loses. They're selfishly looking out for their 'bottom line.' :rolleyes:

Occupy foreclosures!

You're coming unglued.

Tom

12-06-2011, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by mostpost
I'm sure you mean what happened to due process for the homeowners whose homes were stolen by the banks. Right? :rolleyes:

Point us to three homes stolen by a bank.
With specifics.

JustRalph

12-06-2011, 05:03 PM

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/brooklyn+foreclosure

So it begins

Tom

12-06-2011, 10:18 PM

Following Obama's leadership, the country plunges into the depths of mediocrity.
A great nation crumbles from the cancer that is liberalism.

Dave Schwartz

12-06-2011, 11:06 PM

I'm sure you mean what happened to due process for the homeowners whose homes were stolen by the banks. Right?

Gee, Mosty, I thought you believed in due process for everyone. I mean, murderers deserve it, right?

Or is that only when it suits your agenda?

NJ Stinks

12-07-2011, 12:30 AM

Following Obama's leadership, the country plunges into the depths of mediocrity.
A great nation crumbles from the cancer that is liberalism.

Change your username to Dr. Doomangloom and get it over with. :rolleyes:

newtothegame

12-07-2011, 03:32 AM

Change your username to Dr. Doomangloom and get it over with. :rolleyes:
Or he could just stick with reality, which he does a fine job! Unlike yourself I might add! :bang:

highnote

12-07-2011, 04:03 AM

How about occupying your brain?

This would have prevented a lot of the problems in the first place.

When people signed these liar loans did their attorneys actually take the time to read the documents before the closing?

Why were people so willing to take loans that would reset with higher payments than they could afford? Why did people think they could keep flipping their homes forever?

Why didn't people just wait for about 5 years until the market crashed and then buy their homes at a deep discount?

What was the big hurry to buy? How about a little patience? How about using a little common sense? How about occupying your brain?

I suppose this is how bubbles always form.

highnote

12-07-2011, 04:04 AM

Tom

12-07-2011, 07:44 AM

There is a subtle humor in your posting this twice.....;)

HUSKER55

12-07-2011, 08:19 AM

IN CASE you missed it the first time.....nice touch!:lol:

highnote

12-07-2011, 12:12 PM

There is a subtle humor in your posting this twice.....;)

I need to find a faster CPU to occupy my computer so I don't have to keep hitting the submit reply button because it looks like my computer is not responding. :(

Tom

12-07-2011, 12:41 PM

Made my morning! :D

badcompany

12-07-2011, 04:41 PM

Point us to three homes stolen by a bank.
With specifics.

As usual, the perspective in Marxist fantasy land is completely divorced from reality.

Improperly foreclosed homes are the exception. All of the Fed's machinations over the past three years were designed to keep people in the their homes and prevent banks from having to foreclose.

They're banks, not REITs. Taking on all that inventory is a nightmare both financially and logistically.

Of course, any lame excuse to confiscate private property can be rationalized by the left.