Incidentally, the youtube video that Sicarious quoted does not contain any of those stats. There's one 'stat' of Marcy Kaptur saying 'I believe 99.9 % of the people did not have good legal representation.'

The story was about a single homeowner, who admits to not reading her paperwork and not have a lawyer when she bought the house and took the mortgage out. Her payments jumped from $800 to $1500 after a couple years.

So again I ask Sicarious, where does the stat of 95% not being the fault of the homeowner come from. Is the above scenario the fault of the homeowner? I believe it is the fault of the homeowner that she is being foreclosed on. It is the fault of the bank they are not getting their money back. The fault of the bank does not relieve their responsibility.

Had the bank been more cautious with their money, they would have never loaned the money to this woman in the first place. The market is correcting its mistake. This woman should never have been in this house in the first place.

'The fault of the bank does not relieve the homeowner of their responsibility'

What we're trying to tell you, Sicarius, is that you are full of shit. Go graffiti Arlington National Cemetery (That seems like something you would do. It was also a joke. Please leave our fallen heroes alone)

Wow, ML, you should enter the Prosaic Teenage "Wit" competition!

Sicarius may be correct. In Florida there are 2 documents to have a mortgage, the promissory note and the Mortgage deed. Both documents must be executed (signed) and the signature acknowledged(witnessed by a Notary or Justice of the peace). The Mortgage Deed is filed with the court and later held with the promissory note by the holder of the mortgage.

In Florida, if the original promissory note can not be produced in court during foreclosure – the foreclosure petition is dismissed. This requirement exists in other states. However, it is not universal to all states. Also, the homeowner must request that the note be presented in court. If the homeowner does not contest the foreclosure – lack of a promissory note does not become an issue – the foreclosure proceeds.

Usually the enforcing officer (sheriff) should be supplied with an original of the court ruling granting ownership to the mortgage holder if the foreclosure is granted. Also an eviction proceeding takes place. There are documents to be presented in that case, as well. Ohio may well indeed require a deed to be presented – or something similar.

There are a lot of procedural and documentary requirements in these kinds of proceedings - requirements that stem from histories of fraud and abuse of the legal and law enforcement system. The sheriff is an independent office of the county – how he enforces court judgments is by state law and to some degree his on policy. If he is shown that there is a defect in the paperwork he probably will not enforce the judgment. It will have to be taken back to the judge and fixed. There are numerous way that a foreclosure can be stalled. If defects that exist are not brought to light by the defendant, it is not an illegal foreclosure. Homeowners have many opportunities to present their case and many don’t.

If Sicarius’ crew is helping people block or forestall an eviction related to a foreclosure – that sounds like what is happening – they may have some additional remedies that can be applied on the spot. If they are working within the law and helping people who don’t know they are the victims of a violation of due process – fantastic. If they are there to protest the wrongness of the system – great. If they are just there to be dicks to a cop doing his job – not good!

sorry if the stat wasnt in the video I dont hsve sound to check it.
I know for a fact she said it though I read the transcript.

but honestly I dont give a shit, she could have never existed and all foreclosure could be completely legal and I would still do it.
maybe it is just 'the system correcting itself" but I am not a capitalist
and again, I care about people having roofs over their head, not money in the bankers pocket. what, wasnt 2 trillion enough??
its not like thery're making nay money from the foreclosures anyway, theyre doing it for the slim chance of maybe making a little moiney at some point in the future

If they are just there to be dicks to a cop doing his job – not good!
====================================================
The "I'm just doing my job" excuse was worn out at Nuremberg, and rightly so.

Are you seriously comparing police officers carrying out a lawful court order to Nazis? Really?

Yes, I am.

Where does the comparison fall short?

The genocide. It falls short with the genocide.

Goodwin's law says that ML loses.

The Holocaust was *slightly* more extreme, and justified disobeying orders. In this case, there are legitimate arguments on both sides regarding whether the people should be evicted, so it isn't even clear that disobeying orders would be a good thing, much less that they can be blamed for not disobeying orders.

Sicarious, I am for people having roofs over their head too. It just doesnt need to be a $500000 roof. Perhaps you should be fighting against the conspicuous consumption here that trains people they need mansions. A smaller house would have been good enoiugh.

The Shoah makes people justifiably emotional.

Killing people is morally wrong. The excuse given, "I'm just doing my job", is insufficient. The Nazi scumbags would have likely been shot for not participating. I suspect that a police officer would not face this sort of discipline.

The police are tools of enforcement(I do not mean this as a pejorative), in that they are sometimes called upon to do the dirty work of the government(or anybody with $$$ that props up the government) WITHOUT the option of exercising their OWN moral judgment. Sometimes, they are doing the right thing; sometimes they are not. My point is, that one must CARE whether they are doing the right thing or not.

When you give up your RESPONSIBILITY to exercise your moral judgment because of a JOB, then you deserve to have the Nazi comparison shoved down your throat until you choke on it.

Period.

I certainly do not compare ALL police officer to Nazis. Some are heroic.

Sic, when you rail against "banks", who do you think owns them? Who are the actual people not getting their money, if you managed to prevent a bank from foreclosing?

mapleleaf, I'm sorry but I just can't accept that logic.

I'm not going to keep arguing with you because I don't know how to talk to someone who equates police officers enforcing a foreclosure on someone who didn't pay their mortgage with concentration camp Nazis. I just can't wrap my mind around that.

Fair enough.

We can agree to disagree.

Why did these people borrow money from the evil banks? Because they didn't have all the money required to pay for the house.

What happens when banks don't loan to them anymore? They can't get the money for the house.

If the precedent was to just to screw the lender, it would by extension screw future home buyers.

If the police think that what they're doing is extremely morally wrong, then I can see the comparison, but I doubt that they see foreclosing on a house as wrong as the Nazis who used the defense saw genocide. If they even think what they're doing is wrong, which, given the range of opinions here, is uncertain.

So, they aren't giving up their judgment for the job, they're using they're judgment and it agree with what the job tells them to do.

We do have methods of correcting the law. Its called an election. It is the most powerful weapon of change.

If you think the law needs changing - become active, become persuasive, become knowledgeable, organized, purposeful and directed. create a network of like minded folk and grow a movement that can sustain itself.

Make politicians fear your influence at the ballot - that is all they understand. They are fear based. All they fear is losing an election.

Notice the reaction on this forum. You have a lot of people that are sympathetic, but loathe your methods. Doing a little anger jerk off for the camera may make you feel good, but it turns off the very people that could help you where it really counts - at the ballot.

Most professionals don't count on the youth vote - because the youth don't vote. Our government looks and talks like a lot of old farts because the old fart votes every time. You should be registering these folks to vote and developing a coherent policy on dealing with the problem.

Everyone cries about the influence of money on our election process - including me. But if people actually got involved and organized on a street level no amount of lobbying or campaign money from big interest could prevail. We set on our lazy asses and let the greatest innovation in political change go unused. It just sets in the corner rusting.

I have said it already. I think political protest is useful. Helping people to not be unjustly thrown out of there home ( I am assuming there are people who shouldn't be thrown out - but didn't know how to stop it) is wonderful display of brotherly love. Making a point about how much support there is in the community is also great.

Don't leave it at that. Demonstration is a tool to back up organized political action. Without the organized political action you are basically just a wanker.

bump

when I prevent a half a million dollar home form being foreclosed I'll let you know, but I dont think it will happen.

actually we said that exact same shit to the sherrif.
we said he was using nazi tactics, he said he was just doing his job.
I informed him of the nuremberg trials

here is kindof an update

http://www.foxtoledo.com/dpp/news/wupw_Home_foreclosures_Stay_in_your_homes_040309

man, I lost my confidence in the voting process when I was 11 years old

Sicarius, I inform you of Godwin's Law.

I mean, I'm all for populist rage and all that, and while there are holes the size of the sun in every one of your arguments, the same could be said of the sort of Hayekesque classical liberal counter-arguments, so I suppose you go with what you go with.

But really, Nazi tactics? While I'm sure you can draw distinct parallels in specific acts (as we could do the same with any security measures), you know as well as the rest of us that accusing someone of "Nazi" anything has all shades of meaning you're implying beyond any specifics. Not a fair or intelligent attack at all.

Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.
http://www.jewcy.com/post/i_seem_be_verb_18_years_godwins_law
==================================================
lulzworth, I inform YOU of Godwin's Law.

I do not need to think any harder about the Holocaust, thank you very much.

Law my ass. Some lawyer comes up with a cute debating "rule", and ALL of the simple minded fools jump all over it.

Godwin's Law aside, it's still not a proper or a fitting comparison.

What does "agree to disagree" mean to you, Invictus?

It means that I agree that we disagree. I still think you're wrong, though.