By Kimberly Miller
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Posted: 5:54 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 9, 2010
Scores of Palm Beach County homes were sold to investors at foreclosure auction this month for as low as $200 following the collapse of the David J. Stern law firm and ensuing confusion as thousands of its cases are reassigned.
It’s yet another muddle for the already overwhelmed foreclosure courts to sort out as former Stern cases went to auction with no bank representation, bids or proper public notice.
The result on Wednesday was 56 percent of winning offers were from investors or individual buyers who in some cases spent no more than a month’s mortgage payment to get homes that sold for upward of $240,000 during the real estate boom.
During a typical foreclosure auction, investors or individual buyers purchase between 3 percent and 13 percent of the homes, with the majority bought back by the banks.
But it is nowhere near certain the rock bottom prices will stick. Some of the sales were done without the required public advertisement. The Palm Beach County Clerk of Court will not issue a certificate of sale without proof that the auction was advertised once a week for two consecutive weeks before the sale.
Still, it takes a judge’s order to vacate or verify a questionable sale.
According to a Certification filed by NTC’s counsel, on November 17, 2010, the trial court contacted via e-mail and requested that a one-hour hearing be set on Friday, November 19th, to hear the pending motions. App. Tab 10. NTC’s counsel learned that Mr. Forrest was traveling outside of the country and would not return until the following Monday, November 22nd. Id. As NTC’s counsel explained: …
Along with the amendments to form 1.996(a), rule 1.110(b) was amended to require verification of mortgage foreclosure complaints involving residential real property. One of the primary purposes of this amendment was to ensure that plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel do their “due diligence” and appropriately investigate and verify ownership of the note or right to enforce the note and ensure that the allegations in the complaint are accurate.
In light of recent reports of alleged document fraud and forgery in mortgage foreclosure cases, this new requirement is particularly important. The Court also adopted new form 1.924 (Affidavit of Diligent Search and Inquiry) to standardize affidavits of diligent search and inquiry and provide information to the court regarding the methods used to attempt to locate and serve the defendant and new form 1.996(b) (Motion to Cancel and Reschedule Foreclosure Sale) to provide the court with an explanation of why a foreclosure sale needs to be cancelled and request that the court reschedule the sale.
Professor of Economics and Research Director of the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri–Kansas City
Posted: December 9, 2010 06:04 PM
In two recent pieces I harped on the problems at MERS, the Mortgage Electronic Registration System. (“Support Representative Kaptur’s Bill: Time To Shut Down Mers And To Restore The Rule Of Law” and “Shut Down MERS“). Briefly, MERS purportedly offers an alternative to paperwork, maintaining an electronic record of mortgages that are usually packaged into mortgage backed securities (MBSs). When mortgages go delinquent, MERS helps mortgage servicers foreclose on homes.
I argued that MERS was created to run multiple frauds, a topic I will discuss in more detail in part two of this series. However, one of the big puzzles of the ongoing foreclosure crisis concerns the whereabouts of the “wet ink notes” — the IOUs signed by borrowers. In foreclosure cases across the nation, the banks have been filing “lost note affidavits”, certifying that they cannot find the notes that are required to prove that they have the right to take away someone’s home. In some cases, the notes miraculously appear, seemingly out of nowhere, and in others “Burger King kids” have been manufacturing them for robo-signers. By law, the notes are supposed to be at REMIC trustees, held against the MBSs sold on to investors — and must be presented to foreclose.
The real mystery is why these trustees cannot produce the notes. I think we have finally found the smoking gun. An interested reader alerted me to MERS’s instruction manual, “MERS Recommended Foreclosure Procedures — State by State”, originally written in 1999, updated in 2002 and available on MERS’s website (accessed by clicking on: Recommended Foreclosure Procedures).
Per a tip SFF received: This Bill should boil it down to where the GSE’s should only accept loans where there is a proper Chain of Title recorded in Public Records and a Chain of Indorsements showing a proper Chain of Negotiation to the GSE’s where both chains match from Origination to final purchase by the GSE’s.
The National Association of Independent Land Title Agents (NAILTA) has released a white paper on the recent troubles with the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) mortgage registry and a position statement in favor of the premise behind a bill sponsored by Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) known as H.R. 6460, or the “Transparency and Security Mortgage Registration Act of 2010”.
——————
——————
111TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 6460
To prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from owning or guaranteeing any mortgage that is assigned to the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or for which MERS is the mortgagee of record.
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM THE GREENE SUPERIOR COURT
Honorable Dena Benham Martin, Judge
Excerpt:
Likewise, the Lucases assert third-party claims against Litton for breach of contract and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. In addition, the Lucases maintain that Litton violated FDCPA, RESPA, and that they are entitled to relief under the Civil Damages Statute because Litton committed conversion.
Congress enacted FDCPA because “[t]here is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a). Accordingly, these consumer protection statutes exist not only to make the consumer whole, but also to deter practices and behavior that negatively impacts society. In light of the nature of the claims, the rights and interests involved, and the majority of the relief requested, we cannot say that the essential features of this cause are equitable.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the Lucases’ motion for a jury trial on their legal claims.
As plaintiff points out, it is not at all clear who US Bank was a successor to, since “Wachovia Bank, N.A. Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1,
2004. Asset-Backed Pass-Though Certificates Series 2004-WWF1” does not appear to refer to an entity who could be a trustee or security holder, but rather appears to refer to an agreement of some sort. More importantly, there is nothing in the record to show how US Bank, Wachovia Bank, or “Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2004” came to be the holder of this note. As noted above, the original lender shown in the Deed of Trust is Argent Mortgage Company LLC and the original trustee is Lenders Management Corp. The forbearance agreement that Schwend later signed is with America’s Servicing Company. From the record here it is not at all clear that US Bank was the lawful holder of the note with the power to foreclose, and if it was not, the claim for wrongful foreclosure is more than plausible. See, e.g., Cobe v. Lovan, 92 S.W. 93, 97 (Mo. 1906) (foreclosure sale void when foreclosing defendant did not hold title
to the note).
Christopher Marconi was in the shower when he heard a loud banging on his door. By the time he grabbed a towel and hustled to his front step, a U.S. marshal’s sedan was peeling out of his driveway. Nailed to Marconi’s front door was a foreclosure summons from Wells Fargo, naming him as a defendant. But the notice was for a house Marconi had never seen — on a mortgage he never had.
Tom Williams was in his kitchen thumbing through the mail when he opened a letter from GMAC. It informed him that the bank would confiscate his house unless he immediately paid off his mortgage balance of $276,000. But Williams had never missed a mortgage payment. And his loan wasn’t due to mature until 2032.
Warren Nyerges opened his front door to find a scraggly haired summons server standing on his stoop. He plopped a foreclosure notice from Bank of America in Nyerges’ hands. But Nyerges had paid for his house in cash. And he’d never had a checking account, much less a mortgage, with Bank of America.
By now, you may have heard the stories of bank robo-signers powering through hundreds of foreclosure affidavits a day without verifying a single fact. But most of those involved homeowners who had stopped paying their mortgage. They were genuine defaulters. Now a new species of homeowner is getting pushed into foreclosure hell.
People have always loved to complain about their banks. The push-button circus that passes for customer service. The larding on of fees. But the false foreclosure cases are hardly the usual complaints. These homeowners paid their mortgages — or loan modifications — on time. Some even paid off their loans. Worse, those on the receiving end of a bad foreclosure claim tell similar stories of getting bounced from one bank official to the next with no resolution while the foreclosure process continues apace.
Many have to resort to paying a lawyer, even after presenting documentation. They say they have to sue not only to stop the wrongful foreclosure but also to attempt to win back their costs.
There are no official statistics for these homeowners, but lawyers, real estate agents and consumer advocates say their ranks are growing. In November, during foreclosure hearings on Capitol Hill, senator after senator scolded the banks about wrongful foreclosures. They said their offices were deluged with complaints from people who had done everything right but were being treated by banks as if they had done everything wrong. And the Florida attorney general’s office is also investigating the issue as part of its foreclosure probe.
“This is the worst I’ve ever seen it,” says Ira Rheingold, an attorney and executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. Diane Thompson, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center, has defended hundreds of foreclosure cases. “In virtually every case, I believe the homeowner was not in default when you looked at the surrounding facts. It is a widespread problem throughout the country.”
This Article examines in detail the disappointing first year of the Obama Administration’s foreclosure mitigation effort, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), including its premises, mechanics, slow start, and ultimately modest results. The Administration committed $75 billion to try to help three to four million struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure and reduce the spillover effects of the foreclosure crisis on the economy as a whole. After a year of operations, ending in March 2010, only about 230,000 borrowers had entered into permanent HAMP modifications, and even these were not necessarily truly permanent. Government agencies predicted a redefault rate of 40% or more because HAMP borrowers were typically left owing more on their homes than their value and with high and difficult-to-sustain debt burdens overall. HAMP is a compelling illustration that prevention is easier than cure; the challenges of getting relief to millions in a short period of time proved daunting. A partial front-end regulatory fix was adopted, applicable to future subprime home loans, but if policymakers and regulators are ever tempted again to ease up constraints on high-risk financial products such as subprime mortgages, they should remember the cautionary tale of HAMP.
By Thom Weidlich and Karen Freifeld – Dec 8, 2010 12:01 AM ET
Steven J. Baum’s New York foreclosure law firm has attracted lawsuits and fines for its actions during the housing crisis, with one judge likening its conduct to something out of the “Twilight Zone.”
As recently as last month, Baum’s firm, which one lawyer for homeowners said processes about half the foreclosures in New York state, was ordered to pay $14,532.50 in legal fees and costs and a $5,000 fine by Nassau County District Court Judge Scott Fairgrieve in Hempstead, New York.
The judge said that when Paul Raia refused to vacate a Garden City co-op after foreclosure, Baum’s firm filed an eviction petition that misidentified the lender.
“Falsities were contained in five paragraphs out of only ten paragraphs in the entire petition,” Fairgrieve wrote in his Nov. 23 decision.
All 50 U.S. state attorneys general are investigating whether banks, loan servicers and law firms properly prepared documents to justify hundreds of thousands of foreclosures. The probe came after JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Ally Financial Inc.’s GMAC mortgage unit said they would stop repossessions in 23 states where courts supervise home seizures and Bank of America Corp. froze foreclosures nationwide.
Steven J. Baum PC, located in Amherst, New York, just north of Buffalo, has been accused of overcharging, filing false documents and representing parties on both sides of a mortgage transfer. Baum runs the firm his father founded in 1972, according to a fact-sheet provided by Earl V. Wells III, his spokesman.
Syracuse Grad
Baum is a graduate of Syracuse University, got his law degree from the State University of New York at Buffalo and was admitted to practice law in 1987, according to Martindale.com, a legal directory. Baum answered some questions via e-mails.
“Consumer activists and attorneys representing homeowners have their own agenda in this process, including degrading the legal work we conduct on behalf of our clients by using terms like ‘foreclosure mill’ which I find personally and professionally insulting,” he wrote.
At a continuing-education training session a couple of years ago, “Steven Baum himself said they did 49 percent of foreclosures” in the state, Rebecca Case-Grammatico, staff attorney at Rochester, New York-based Empire Justice Center, which represents poor people in foreclosures, said in a phone interview. A complaint in one lawsuit against Baum’s firm says it is “believed to be the largest foreclosure mill in the State of New York.”
Baum declined to comment on the size of his business.
Pillar Processing
A company that processes foreclosure documents shares an address with his law firm. That company, Pillar Processing LLC, is owned by Manhattan private-equity firm Tailwind Capital LLC, according to its website. Brooke Gordon, spokeswoman for Tailwind Capital, declined to comment.
“He’s opposing counsel for us on a huge percentage of our cases,” Meghan Faux, project director of the Foreclosure Prevention Project at South Brooklyn Legal Services, who represents homeowners in predatory-lending cases, said in a phone interview.
New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur M. Schack in Brooklyn called the firm’s explanations in one case “so incredible, outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous that they should have been authored by the late Rod Serling.”
Schack threw out the case in part because he said the assignment of the loan had been done improperly. The assignment was made by a Baum lawyer on behalf of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. as the nominee for the mortgage bank, according to the judge’s opinion. The same day, the Baum firm represented the buyer of the loan by filing the foreclosure action, the judge said. Schack said it was a conflict for the firm to represent both sides.
‘Parallel Mortgage Universe’
“Steven J. Baum PC appears to be operating in a parallel mortgage universe, unrelated to the real universe,” the judge wrote in that May decision. “Next stop, the Twilight Zone,” he said, quoting from Serling’s TV series about science fiction and the supernatural.
HENRIETTA J. MONDAY, an Individual, Plaintiff,
v.
SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC, a Texas Corporation; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF ABFC 2007-WMC1 TRUST ASSET BACKED FUNDING CORPORATION ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATED, SERIES 2007-WMC1, an Ohio Business Entity; T.D. SERVICE COMPANY, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants.
No. CIV. 2:10-989 WBS KJM.
November 29, 2010.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Excerpt:
Plaintiff may therefore proceed under the First Amended Complaint on her claims for negligence against Saxon; cancellation of instrument against Ocwen, U.S. Bank, and TDS; setting aside the trustee’s sale against all defendants; and violations of the UCL against Saxon and U.S. Bank. If plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint to cure the defects explained above, she may do so within twenty days from the date of this Order. Otherwise, the case will proceed under the First Amended Complaint.
Found another interesting affidavit/ foreclosure deed in Massachusetts Land Records. Some might recall back on June/2010 SFF made a post on this address here.
What all information is in these walls? Maybe ya’ll can fill in the missing pieces. 🙂
–Form of Affidavits; Further Testimony. Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith. The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or by further affidavits.
updated 12/6/2010 2:10:09 PM ET 2010-12-06T19:10:09
.
JACKSONVILLE, Florida — Lender Processing Services is riding the waves of foreclosures sweeping the United States, but in late October its CEO, Jeff Carbiener, found himself needing to reassure investors in the $2.8 billion company.
Although profits were rolling in, LPS’s stock had taken a hit in the wake of revelations that mortgage companies across the country had filed fraudulent documents in foreclosures cases. Earlier in the year, the company, which handles more than half of the nation’s foreclosures, had disclosed that it was under federal criminal investigation and admitted that employees at a small subsidiary had falsely signed foreclosure documents.
Still, Carbiener told the Wall Street analysts in an October 29 conference call that LPS’s legal concerns were overblown, and the stock has jumped 13 percent since its close the day before the call.
But a Reuters investigation shows that LPS’s legal woes are more serious than he let on. Public records reveal that the company’s LPS Default Solutions unit produced documents of dubious authenticity in far larger quantities than it has disclosed, and over a much longer timespan.
Questionable signing and notarization practices weren’t limited to its subsidiary, called DocX, but occurred in at least one of LPS’s own offices, mortgage assignments filed in county recorders’ offices show. And rather than halt such practices after the federal investigation got underway, the company shifted the signing to firms with which it has close business ties. LPS provided personnel to work in the new signing operations, according to information from an LPS spokeswoman and court records including an October 21 ruling by a judge in Brooklyn, New York. Records in county recorders’ offices, and in the judge’s opinion, show that “robosigning” and preparation of apparently false documents went on at these sites on a large scale.
In one instance, it helped set up a massive signing operation at the nearby office of a major client, a spokeswoman for the client, American Home Mortgage Servicing, confirmed. LPS-hired notaries who worked there said in interviews that troves of documents were improperly handled. They said that about 200 affidavits per day were robosigned during the two months the two notaries remained there.
A spokeswoman for LPS confirmed to Reuters that it had helped other firms establish operations that performed the same function. LPS spokeswoman Michelle Kersch didn’t specify which firms. But beginning early in 2010, county recorders’ records show, signing shifted also to law firms under contract with LPS.
Interviews with key players and court records also show that pending investigations and lawsuits pose a bigger threat to the company than Carbiener let on.
The criminal investigation in Jacksonville by federal prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is intensifying. The same goes for a separate inquiry by the Florida attorney general’s office. Individuals with direct knowledge of the federal inquiry said that prosecutors have impaneled a grand jury, begun calling witnesses and subpoenaed records from LPS.
The company confirmed to Reuters that it has hired Paul McNulty, former deputy U.S. attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, to represent it in the investigation. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s office declined to comment on the probe.
The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency’s office, which is responsible for supervising national banks, also announced in November that it had teamed up with the Federal Reserve to conduct an on-site examination of LPS.
PRESS RELEASE OF IRVING H. PICARD TRUSTEE FOR LIQUIDATION OF MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES SEEKS $9 BILLION IN RECOVERIES, AND ADDITIONAL DAMAGES AT TRIAL, FROM HSBC, RELATED ENTITIES, FEEDER FUNDS IN MADOFF PONZI SCHEME
NEW YORK, NY, December 5, 2010 – Irving H. Picard, the Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”) today announced the filing of a complaint in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging 24 counts of financial fraud and misconduct against HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, and affiliated entities (collectively “HSBC”).
The complaint alleges that HSBC enabled Madoff’s Ponzi scheme through the creation, marketing and support of an international network of a dozen feeder funds based in Europe, the Caribbean, and Central America, which are also named in the complaint (collectively, the “Feeder Fund Defendants”). Other Defendants named in the filing include the management companies and service providers of those feeder funds, as well as certain of their directors and managers, namely Sonja Kohn, Genevalor, Mario Benbassat and his sons, Albert and Stephane, as well as Bank Medici and Unicredit, who together with other defendants helped fuel and extend Madoff’s Ponzi scheme across international borders.
Exhibit from the Harris CaseSFF published in 3/2010:
Excerpts from complaint:
1. This case involves the undisclosed kickback/sharing of bankruptcy creditor attorney fees to a non-law firm corporate entity.
2. Mortgage servicers routinely appear in this Court seeking relief from the automatic stay or in opposition to proposed chapter 13 plans. The Mortgage servicers appear through counsel who announce their appearance on behalf of those mortgage servicers.
3. But, unbeknownst to this Court, those counsel often answer not to the mortgage
servicers on whose behalf they appear, rather these counsel answer to an undisclosed
middleman such as the Defendants.
4. Defendants provide what is known in the mortgage-servicing industry as default
servicing. Loans which are subject to default servicing include loans which may be
subject to foreclosure and loans which are in bankruptcy.
5. Some of the services which are provided by default servicers such as the Defendants
include: 1) executing documents on behalf of the original servicer; 2) ordering and
providing broker price opinions; 3) track and provide fees for payoffs and
refinancings, and; 4) provide centralized billing to vendors.
6. An additional function of default servicing is the identification and retention of legal
services which may be necessary for any particular mortgage in default, e.g. noticing
and posting a property for foreclosure or seeking relief from the automatic stay in a
bankruptcy proceeding.
7. In managing the performance of the legal services for their mortgage servicing
clients, Defendants require law firms to execute a “Network Agreement,” which
details the agreement for services between the Defendants and the particular law firm.
8. The claims covered in this Complaint relate to the illegal fixing of fees in the
bankruptcy context and the requirement that law firms that execute the “Network
Agreement” to kickback a contractual prearranged fixed portion of their attorney fees
to the Defendant.
Paperwork error complicates home sale, raises questions about process
By Diane C. Lade and Doreen Hemlock, Sun Sentinel
5:00 p.m. EST, December 4, 2010
Real estate investor Marjorie Oster was pleased when she snagged what looked like a good deal through a Miami-Dade County foreclosure court auction: a four-bedroom house in Cutler Bay, with a swimming pool, for about $95,000.
But when her husband drove by the next day to check on the property, he saw “someone cleaning the pool, a lawn service cutting the grass and a note it was being tented for termites,” said Oster, a Miami resident who has been in real estate for 15 years.
It turns out the house she thought she had purchased had been sold in a short sale the week before to someone else — Osberto Jimenez, a 40-year-old Cuban-born truck driver. The law firm handling the foreclosure for the lender mishandled the paperwork and never canceled the auction sale.
“So we both own the same house and I’m frustrated as hell,” said Oster. “Someone screwed up.”
why an Order should not be granted directing plaintiff:
(a) to comply with this Court’s Order dated September 8, 2010;
(b) to immediately file a Stipulation of Discontinuance;
(c) to immediately file a consent to vacate the lis pendens lien
filed against 8024 13‘h Avenue, Brooklyn, New York and
defendants Carlo Scissura a/k/a Carlo A. Scissura and/or
Sinagra Management, Inc.;
(d) to issue the final loan modification documents;
(e) imposing sanctions against the plaintiff, pursuant to 22
NYCRR 130-1.1; and
(9 whatever and further relief the Court may deem just and
proper.
Secretary of State William F. Galvin plans to submit a bill next month that would force Massachusetts mortgage lenders to get court approval before seizing homes, in an effort to protect homeowners and address concerns about how foreclosures are conducted.
Galvin said he will revive a proposal that state lawmakers rejected two years ago because of new questions about the validity of titles for foreclosed properties — an issue housing specialists say is hampering the state’s real estate market.
“Unless we do something to clean up the titles in these properties we are going to have a big continued problem,’’ Galvin said. “You aren’t going to straighten out the economy of the state until this housing thing gets figured out.’’
Massachusetts is one of 27 states that do not require foreclosures to be reviewed by a judge.
Any issues with “Defendant MERS VP Roger Stotts” signing an affidavit for “Plaintiff ONEWEST”?? See image below 🙂
ONEWEST BANK, FSB AS SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO INDYMAC‘ BANK, FSB
Plaintiff,
-against-
JESUS GARCIA,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR INDYMAC
BANK, FSB,
Excerpt:
Plaintiffs failure to provide a note or notes reflecting the amount it claims is due from
defendant-mortgagor precludes the Court from granting the relief requested. It is well settled that in
order to make a prima facie case in a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must show the existence of the
note and mortgage and that it is the owner of same. Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB v Miffer, 18 AD3d 527
(2d Dept 2005); MERS v Coakfey, 41 AD3d 674 (2d Dept 2007); Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537 (2d
Dept 1988). The note provided here reflects only partial proof of the amount allegedly owed.
Additionally, with regard to the proof necessary on a motion for default in general, CPLR
321 5(f) requires that the applicant “shall file … proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default and
the amount due by affidavit …” Neither the affirmation of Jason E. Brooks nor the affidavit of Roger
Stotts satisfies that requirement. Such failure is particularly striking in view of the confusion present
here by virtue of allegations which are inconsistent with documents, and documents which are
submitted without explanation.
Continue below… Make sure you see the image down below as well…
Please take the time to watch this video in it’s entirety. It is amazing and will give you goose bumps!
Excerpt:
Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world. Millions of despairing men, woman and little children. Victims of a system that makes man torture and imprison innocent people.
For those who can hear me, I say Do NOT DESPAIR…
The misery that is now upon us is by the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress, the hate of men who will pass and dictators die and the power they took from the people will return to the people as so long as men die liberty will never parish.
Soldiers don’t give yourself to brutes men, who despise you and slave you, who regimen your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel, who drill you, tire you, who treat you like kettle, use you as canon powder don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men with machine minds and machines hearts you are not machines, you are not kettle, you are men, you have the love of humanity in your hearts, you don’t hate, only the unloved hate, the unloved and the unnatural…
IF EVERYONE WERE TO BUY JUST ONE OUNCE OF SILVER WE COULD CRASH JPMorgan Chase – the most dangerous and damaging gang of ruthless BANKSTERS in American History.
Thomas Jefferson said that BANKSTERS were more dangerous than standing armies. Turns out he was right.
![[NYSC] Judge Orders JPMorgan Chase “TO SHOW CAUSE”: JPMORGAN CHASE v. SCISSURA](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2010/12/showcause.jpg&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
![[NYSC] Judge Finds Issues With “NOTE AMOUNTS”, Robo Signer “ROGER STOTTS” Affidavit: ONEWEST v. GARCIA](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fudgepaper.jpg&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
![[VIDEO] Eat My Naked Silver Shorts – Crash JPMorgan Chase by J Glenn Lowe](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2010/12/EATMYNAKEDSHORTSJPM1.jpg&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
Recent Comments