Home Forum Contact Create an Account Sign In Create a Trust

Banker Commits Fraud on the Witness Stand

Home Forums General EHTrust/EHT Topics and Creative Real Estate Financing Banker Commits Fraud on the Witness Stand

This topic contains 24 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of dave salcido dave salcido 11 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #6214
    Avatar of dave salcido
    dave salcido
    Member

    SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW THIS, MANY DON’T.
    SHARE TO ENLIGHTEN THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW.
    You can not longer keep your head in the sand after this!

    From http://www.tinyurl.com/davesalcido

    For those that really have wondered how a loan works in a fiat currency debt based banking system here it is. Some may be amazed and feel that of a dupe and others are already very aware that this is how it is. More and more people are waking up to this and starting to question business as usual.

    It Really Works Like This — No Joke

    This is the way a “bank loan” really works.

    Interviews with bankers about a foreclosure. The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in. The plaintiff’s (borrower’s) attorney asked the banker the routine questions concerning the banker’s education and background.

    The attorney asked the banker, “What is court exhibit A?”

    The banker responded by saying, “This is a promissory note.”

    The attorney then asked, “Is there an agreement between Mr. Smith
    (borrower) and the defendant?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Do you believe the agreement includes a lender and a borrower?”

    The banker responded by saying, “Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower.”

    The attorney asked, “What do you believe the agreement is?”

    The banker quickly responded, saying, ” We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a check.”

    The attorney asked, “Does this agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or money within the agreement?”

    The banker responded by saying, “Sure it does.”

    The attorney asked, `”According to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written agreement?”

    The banker responded by saying, “The lender loaned the borrower a $50,000 check. The borrower got the money and the house and has not repaid the money.”

    The attorney noted that the banker never said that the bank received the promissory note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. He asked, “Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Do you believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the right to enforce payment from the borrower?”

    The banker said, “Absolutely we own it and legally have the right to collect the money.”

    The attorney asked, “Does the $50,000 note have actual cash value of $50,000? Actual cash value means the promissory note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the ordinary course of business.”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “According to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally fulfill the agreement and legally own the promissory note?”

    The banker said, “$50,000.”

    The attorney asked, “According to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan the borrower $50,000 actual cash value, would the bank or borrower own the promissory note?”

    The banker said, “The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the money. The bank gave the borrower a check and that is how the borrower financed the purchase of the house.”

    The attorney asked, “Do you believe that the borrower agreed to provide the bank with $50,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay the bank back $50,000 plus interest?”

    The banker said, “No. If the borrower provided the $50,000 to fund the check, there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge interest on money it never loaned.”

    The attorney asked, “If this happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal payments?”

    The banker said, “I am not a lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions.”

    The attorney asked, ” Is it bank policy that when a borrower receives a $50,000 bank loan, the bank receives $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, that this gives value to a $50,000 bank loan check, and this check is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower must repay?”

    The banker said, “I do not know the bookkeeping entries.”

    The attorney said, “I am asking you if this is the policy.”

    The banker responded, “I do not recall.”

    The attorney again asked, “Do you believe the agreement between Mr.
    Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith provides the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which is used to fund a $50,000 bank loan check back to himself which he is then required to repay plus interest back to the same bank?”

    The banker said, ” I am not a lawyer.”

    The attorney said, “Did you not say earlier that an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney handed the bank loan agreement marked “Exhibit B” to the banker. He said, “Is there anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing where the borrower gave the bank authorization or permission for the bank to receive $50,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the $50,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $50,000 plus interest?”

    The banker said, “No.”

    The lawyer asked, “If the borrower provided the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which the bank used to fund the $50,000 check and returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in your opinion, did the bank loan $50,000 to the borrower?”

    The banker said, “No.”

    The attorney asked, “If a bank customer provides actual cash value of $50,000 to the bank and the bank returns $50,000 actual cash value back to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000.”

    The banker replied, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Did the agreement call for an exchange of $50,000 swapped for $50,000, or did it call for a $50,000 loan?”

    The banker said, “A $50,000 loan.”

    The attorney asked, “Is the bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks grant loans.”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “What are the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?” The attorney handed the banker FED publication Modern Money Mechanics, marked “Exhibit C”.

    The banker said, “The promissory note is recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is created. Then we issue a check from the new deposit back to the borrower.”

    The attorney asked, “Is this not a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000?”

    The banker said, “This is the standard way to do it.”
    The attorney said, “Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange of $50,000 actual cash value for $50,000 actual cash value? If the note funded the check, must they not both have equal value?”

    The banker then pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

    The attorney asked, “If the bank’s deposits (liabilities) increase, do the bank’s assets increase by an asset that has actual cash value?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Is there any exception?”

    The banker said, “Not that I know of.”

    The attorney asked, “If the bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank’s books having actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?”

    The banker thought for a moment and said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new liability?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney said, “Does the promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank loan check?”

    The banker said “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Does this bookkeeping entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank loan check?”

    The banker said, “Yes, the bank president told us to do it this way.”

    The attorney asked, “How much actual cash value did the bank loan to obtain the promissory note?”

    The banker said, “Nothing.”

    The attorney asked, “How much actual cash value did the bank receive from the borrower?”

    The banker said, “$50,000.”

    The attorney said, “Is it true you received $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or other depositors’ money to obtain the promissory note in the first place? Is it true that the borrower financed the whole transaction?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Are you telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $50,000 actual cash value for free and that the banker returned the actual cash value back to the same person as a bank loan?”

    The banker said, “I was not there when the borrower agreed to the loan.”

    The attorney asked, “Do the standard FED publications show the bank receives actual cash value from the borrower for free and that the bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank loan?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney said, “Do you believe the bank does this without the borrower’s knowledge or written permission or authorization?”

    The banker said, “No.”

    The attorney asked, “To the best of your knowledge, is there written permission or authorization for the bank to transfer $50,000 of actual cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for free?

    The banker said, “No.”

    Does this allow the bank to use this $50,000 actual cash value to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, forcing the borrower to pay the bank $50,000 plus interest? “

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney said, “If the bank transferred $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the bank loan anything of value to the borrower?”

    The banker said, “No.” He knew that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash, check, or promissory note) to fund a check.

    The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to first transfer the actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount of the alleged loan?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Does the bank pay IRS tax on the actual cash value transferred from the alleged borrower to the bank?”

    The banker answered, “No, because the actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not taxable.”

    The attorney asked, “If a loan is forgiven, is it taxable?”

    The banker agreed by saying, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a loan from the bank to the alleged borrower?”

    “Yes”, the banker replied.

    The attorney said, “You never pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower and keep as the bank’s property?”

    “No. No tax is paid.”, said the crying banker.

    The attorney asked, “When the lender receives the actual cash value from the alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent of legal tender or other depositors’ money?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Are you telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors’ money or legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this right? I give you the equivalent of $50,000, you return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $50,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?”

    In a shaking voice the banker cried, saying, “All the banks are doing this. Congress allows this.”

    The attorney quickly responded, “Does Congress allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false and misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorization, and without the alleged borrower’s knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a loan?”

    The banker said, “But the borrower got a check and the house.”

    The attorney said, “Is it true that the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for free?”

    “It is true”, said the banker.

    The attorney asked, “Is it the bank’s policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank’s property, which they loan out as bank loans?”

    The banker, showing tears of regret that he had been caught, confessed, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Was it the bank’s intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan?”

    The banker said, “Yes.” He knew he had to say yes because of the bank policy.

    The attorney asked, “Do you believe that it was the borrower’s intent to fund his own bank loan check?”

    The banker answered, “I was not there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower’s mind.”

    The attorney asked, “If a lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the money, do you believe the lender is damaged?”

    The banker thought. If he said no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank of which the bank never repaid. The banker answered, “If a loan is not repaid, the lender is damaged.”

    The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the borrower?”

    The banker said, “The bank returns the funds.”

    The attorney asked, “Was the actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to the borrower?”

    The banker said, “As a loan.”

    The attorney asked, “How did the bank get the borrower’s money for free?”

    The banker said, “That is how it works.”

    #31906
    Avatar of sstanton
    sstanton
    Member

    Just curious, was this a real court hearing? If so, where, I would like to see if the transcripts were made public. To me, this has more impact when you can put the court, date, judge, etc to it. But, that just how I see it.

    #31907
    Avatar of dgraber
    dgraber
    Member

    LFC e-mailed me that narrative this morning, but without attribution. Might have to ask them for the original source.

    #31908
    Avatar of sstanton
    sstanton
    Member

    Yeah, I got the same email. It is a good narration, but just would be better with the access to the actual transcripts for validation.

    #31909
    Avatar of dave salcido
    dave salcido
    Member

    The script is not from an actual transcript. It was presented anonymously as a means of explaining in simple terms what many people fail to understand. That is, loans were never created by banks. Banks never lose anything. And they know they are committing government endorsed fraud.

    #31910
    Avatar of shortsaleguy
    shortsaleguy
    Member

    @Dave Salcido wrote:

    The script is not from an actual transcript. It was presented anonymously as a means of explaining in simple terms what many people fail to understand. That is, loans were never created by banks. Banks never lose anything. And they know they are committing government endorsed fraud.

    Thanks for the clarification, Dave. Also this ALRM thing is very interesting. I like it. Dave your a creative guy for sure.

    #31911
    Avatar of dgraber
    dgraber
    Member

    Isn’t the LFC pseudo-transcript really an argument against the Federal Reserve system of loaning money into existence (and inflating the currency that way), instead of an argument against the banks who have zero choice about following orders from the Fed?

    Murray Rothbard’s 1994 book “The Case Against the Fed” is a pretty good resource to understand those arguments, but that fight is very much like opposing Caesar’s mammoth central banking system which supplies unlimited funding to the government. That’s a very tough political war to win. Historically, central banking systems are almost never overthrown, but eventually collapse of their own excesses, or their government’s overthrow.

    Instead, are we not better off to focus on catching lenders when they violate the RESPA, TILA, title transfer requirements, proof of note ownership, documentation standards, etc and making money from that? Rather than challenging “Rome’s money changers in the temple?” The historical success rate of such challenges is not very encouraging, even if one very successful world changing religion came of it.

    #31912
    Avatar of shortsaleguy
    shortsaleguy
    Member

    Don, I think that is what he (Dave) is doing. The written Law is supreme. Perception is relative. I have read all LFC documents and they try to make the lender accountable.
    However, I think in order for it all to work you will need some type of legal enforcement. I can send certified letters to you but if you are the lender or pretender lender then if they ignore them who will enforce the issue at Law? You will need an Attorney for that unless you think you can appear “in proprio persona”.

    So if they are breaking the Law let’s do our best to hold them to it.

    #31913
    Avatar of mtnwizard49
    mtnwizard49
    Member

    To me the LFC and other programs are just ways to make money for the gurus who sell this system. They charge you an arm and a leg for documents to be submitted in certain order that will “force” the Lenders to cancel your mortgage rather than go to court because they are scared to do that. THINK!

    If they are so scared to go to court, take them to court. You are doing the gurus a favor putting cash in their pockets and you are doing what the lenders want by not going to court. Eventually the gurus tell you that you will win but then you’ll need to hire an attorney to file a quiet title action.

    The fact is that virtually ALL notes are fraudulent and have been shredded. Go after the fact that no valid contract existed between the parties because the Lenders failed to disclose vital information in violation of Federal regulations, that the contracts are intentionally misleading, that there was never a meeting of the minds, etc. This is done the least expensive way through BK court.

    Just a thought.

    #31914
    Avatar of dave salcido
    dave salcido
    Member

    Many points well taken Wiz. You are well beyond a layman. You have the power to influence in court as a Pro Se. Unfortunately, most homeowners are not that sophisticated. Most in this battle will need to be better armed, better informed; educated by true educators, not by professional “gurus” with shiny teeth, Italian suits and no experience. Big difference in my estimation. Hopefully, in the near future, laws will change that will be more considerate of the uneducated homeowner that is abused by the unscrupulous. In the meantime, court action, in all probability will be a necessary step, which means that in any event, the homeowner will have to pay some kind of professional.

    I have few objections to your assessment. But without some formal or informal education, how is the homeowner going to proceed to prep a hired attorney that is to then effectively influence a BK judge or any other kind of judge for that matter? Is there a college course on how to stand up for your rights against pretender lenders? If so, who offers it? Yale? Harvard? Northern Arizona University Lumberjacks? Do we throw out the baby with the bath water with respect to legitimate mortgage fraud “educators for hire” along with those that charge for non effective curriculum? How do you envision the “unschooled” homeowner realistically (not hypothetically) overcoming such a visibly overwhelming obstacle; David the uneducated vs the shrewd, criminally minded Goliath with his highly paid, highly trained staff of legal eagles? What is your remedy?

    #31915
    Avatar of peter@amakya
    peter@amakya
    Member

    @mtnwizard49 wrote:

    Eventually the gurus tell you that you will win but then you’ll need to hire an attorney to file a quiet title action.

    Just a thought.

    Gary, this is exactly what happened to me and my client. I did not want to put it ‘out there’ but since you have, I’ll say this was my experiance.

    You now have a tesitmonial.

    It was four months and with much prodding on this very site, I eventually got an answer, which said more or less, “Sorry, the banks are not responding and as you now have the foreclosure letter, you should hire your own attorney and fight the case. Then let us know”

    What really got up my nose, was the callous disregard for the seller’s feelings and the seeming lack of any humanity for the people in the transaction in which I had become enmeshed.

    I think, now in retrospect, that if there had been a weekly or even a bi-week up-date form the hard working peeps at LFC there would not have been this total sense of betrayal, acutely felt by not only myself but more importantly, the seller.

    So thank you Gary

    #31916
    Avatar of sstanton
    sstanton
    Member

    I remember a conversation with TJ long before Dave was on board, before he has even release the product. My question was simple, “shouldn’t this be done attorneys, not Joe Homeowner?’ Now, that was nearly a year ago and I do not remember the answer, but he felt they would not be interested.

    I was talking to one of our members off board and made the comment that, “I think the banks are going to take this to court, simply because it will scare off Joe Homeowner.” It seems, from what I read here, that may coming true now.

    I would like to know how 3Arck does this with out going to court.

    I do know there is an attorney group in Florida that is taking the banks on and from what I could gather, winning cases.

    Interesting subject.

    #31917
    Avatar of kumar
    kumar
    Participant

    @sstanton wrote:

    I was talking to one of our members off board and made the comment that, “I think the banks are going to take this to court, simply because it will scare off Joe Homeowner.” It seems, from what I read here, that may coming true now.

    I would like to know how 3Arck does this with out going to court.

    I do know there is an attorney group in Florida that is taking the banks on and from what I could gather, winning cases.

    I agree about the court action Stu.
    Problem is, if the pretender lender is determined, homeowner’s legal fees could mount up. Going Pro Se against a determined foe would turn it into a full time job rebutting their lies and curve balls with no guarantee of success. So not advisable for 95% of homeowners.

    In the end, homeowner might win the fight but loose most or all their equity(in contingency fees) to the hired gun attorney, who had to get up to speed, or already knows the deal and charges accordingly.
    (Hence, I can see 3Arck, with their money-back guarantee, being competitive alternative , if homeowners can get enough proof to go that route).

    As they say, nobody really wins a lawsuit except the attorneys.
    So a less risky alternative to court action is building a strong case (getting a full forensic audit from a reputable firm that can double as an expert witness ) but then using it to negotiate and settle for a loan principal reduction to below today’s FMV

    Bankcruptcy is also an option though it has long term unpleasant side effects.
    “That’s all she wrote.”
    BK

    #31918
    Avatar of scott_l._moyes
    scott_l._moyes
    Participant

    Time for Handcuffs on Wall Street

    http://thesmartrei.ning.com/profiles/blogs/time-for-handcuffs-on-wall?xg_source=activity

    Spilled blood would bury mortgage fraudsters
    Commentary: The frustrations of a former U.S. Attorney

    http://thesmartrei.ning.com/profiles/blogs/spilled-blood-would-bury

    #31919
    Avatar of dgraber
    dgraber
    Member

    re: bkumahor’s remark above:
    “…So a less risky alternative to court action is building a strong case (getting a full forensic audit from a reputable firm that can double as an expert witness ) but then using it to negotiate and settle for a loan principal reduction to below today’s FMV…”

    I have a very extensive (over 30 pages worth) transcript of an interview with a very thorough and practicing forensic auditor who explains that a competent forensic audit (not the cheapy $150-$300 online garbage that simply runs the same TILA compliance software the lenders have) will turn up the evidence (if it exists) for not only loan mod issues, but the grounds for full-blown recission (complete cancellation), again–if it exists. He charges about $1,000 (in some cases up to $1,500). The trick is then knowing how to use those audit results.

    He explains that there are a lot more available cases to take than there are competent contingent fee attorneys around to take them. So what do those attorneys do? They shop for the most profitable and winnable cases, and a strong set of findings from that forensic audit can be the best bait to snag that competent attorney.

    So using a high quality forensic audit only to beg for a loan modification would seem to leave a lot of chips on the table.

    So if I were going to set up a 3ARCK-style business, I’d make sure that the cost of a high quality forensic audit was covered, plus my markup. Then I’d make sure I had a bank of contingent fee attorneys ready to go, to 1) screen those audit results to find the strongly winnable cases, and 2) file the winnable cases ASAP. For the doubtful or marginal cases, I’d provide a refund of some sort to the “sorry, but no cigar” case people. But based on the costs that a typical forensic auditor charges, would keeping $2,500 be “reasonable” in this market? A Thousand goes to the auditor, regardless. A $1,500 markup to be kept, even if the case is not taken? I’d be hard pressed to argue in favor of those ethics.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Posted in
Contact Form
Your Fullname:


Email Address:


Phone:


Best Time to Call:


Subject:


Your Message:


Security Code:

 

Can't read the above security code? Refresh