Scumbag Wells-Fargo bank stealing homes

[Muldur]

Support urgently needed for this petition to stop Wells-Fargo from stealing the home of a critically ill person that the bank does not even own.

http://www.change.org/petitions/well...ts-alone#share

This is in direct violation of a Federal Court Order.

[The_Animus]

I don't know about you but my skeptic alarm is ringing like crazy.

If she has a Federal Court Order wouldn't she just show it to the officer?

How do you live somewhere for 20 years, not have a mortgage and suddenly have the bank claim your house as theirs?

Why is she using a change.org petition instead of going to the local media? I can't imagine they would turn down a story this juicy.

Even if all this is true she should be able to easily prove it all in court, likely receive compensation for what they did, and be set for life.

[Muldur]

It HAS made the local media. The bank and the sherrif WERE notified, and broke down the door and drug the woman out anyways.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazin...rden_grove.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richar...b_2024096.html

from the latter source:

Quote:

on the morning of October 10, Orange County deputies broke down Niko Black's door despite a court order taped to it forbidding them to do so, put a gun in her face and crumpled up the court order. They then carried her out of the home in her wheel chair and left her on the sidewalk while they locked up her home. The deputies locked her medication and medical equipment in the house as well, denying her access to it.

Quote:

Because I have a very aggressive form of cancer, every appointment, every day is crucial," she says. "I'm a person with a lower immune system. That's why all my nursing care, my physical therapy, my medical equipment, everything is set up for home care. This violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The eviction according to the OC Weekly and the law offices of Stephen R. Golden and Associates, was in violation of a court order.

"Wells Fargo filed a motion about an inch thick all the reasons why they should be allowed to evict me," Black told the OC Weekly. "The federal judge denied them and stated very clearly they are not to. The bank illegally acquired an unlawful detainer, an eviction, without due process. They did it with fraudulent paperwork."

The Sheriff's spin department went into overdrive on Tuesday, taking to the airwaves on the same station (KTLK-AM 1150) that originally broke the story, saying that it's standard protocol to enter a home during an eviction with weapons drawn. They also claim that no guns were pointed. A claim that Black refutes:

Quote:

Sergeant Bob Sima puts a gun to my face, finger on the trigger, no safety and walks around me. There's no reason, except for to threaten my life, for an intimidation factor, to put a gun to my head.

The part about defying the court order seemed to have slipped their mind in the statement. Neither the Sheriff's department nor attorneys for Wells Fargo would return phone calls in regards to this post.

According to witnesses, Jason R. Burris, an attorney for Wells Fargo, with a full eleven months of experience, ordered deputies to ignore the federal order and forcibly remove Black from the home. They also broke windows and smashed a security camera placed over the front door.

This is part of an ongoing pattern of abuse of the foreclosure system to steal houses from at-risk people.

[BStrong]

If I'm reading this correctly, it appears that the woman in question has gone into or is in the process of going through bankruptcy, and Wells siezed the home - as an asset or not wasn't made clear -but this may not be a foreclosure.

Lot's of things to dislike about Wells, but there's not enough detailed information about this deal to make an informed judgement.

[Muldur]

BS!

She had a FEDERAL COURT ORDER staying the eviction and they KNEW that and chose to proceed anyways.

Read the article.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Support urgently needed for this petition to stop Wells-Fargo from stealing the home of a critically ill person that the bank does not even own.

http://www.change.org/petitions/well...ts-alone#share

This is in direct violation of a Federal Court Order.

Call the police.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Muldur

BS!

She had a FEDERAL COURT ORDER staying the eviction and they KNEW that and chose to proceed anyways.

Read the article.

The story states such, but since I (and you) haven't seen the order or have read the document, I'm a little skeptical - LEO's in general don't go out of their way to violate court orders, and every article you reference is damn thin on facts - is the house in foreclosure or is the house being siezed as an asset in a bankruptcy? has the woman in question put up her house as collateral with some institution other than Wells?

Too many questions, not enough answers,

[balrog666]

It's all BS - hoax, hoax, hoax.

[mutile]

Why do you need a petition to stop somebody breaking the law?

[timhau]

Originally Posted by mutile

Why do you need a petition to stop somebody breaking the law?

Huffing and puffing on the interweb is much more fun than calling the police, who might even want to demand evidence.

[Captain_Swoop]

According to the quote the Deputy 'put a gun to her face and crumpled up the order'

Just like the corrupt local 'Bad Cops' in the movies.

A Texas Ranger will come along and sort them out, or whatever they are called in Orange County, Dirty Harry or Quincy or something.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

A Texas Ranger will come along and sort them out, or whatever they are called in Orange County, Dirty Harry or Quincy or something.

I think the standard script has certain requirements: doesn't a dog have to be killed before justice storms in?

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

How do you live somewhere for 20 years, not have a mortgage and suddenly have the bank claim your house as theirs?

I can answer that one. Mortgage was package and sold and resold. Problem is, often the new bank did not properly write the paper work, and does not officially (and sometimes illegally claim to) own the mortgage.

now granted, she must have failed payment too, (or the monthly payment was reset too high , some people bought in variable rates) otherwise nobody could claim the house.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by timhau

Quote:

Why do you need a petition to stop somebody breaking the law?

Huffing and puffing on the interweb is much more fun than calling the police, who might even want to demand evidence.

Plus, if she gets enough supporters, she can "win" even if legally she was in the wrong (i.e. Wells-fargo had a valid claim, she was lying, etc.) Shame the bank with false claims and bad publicity so that they'll cave in.

As others have said, we don't know everything, and some skepticism is warranted.
- What was the nature of the claim to the house? (A mortgage that was bought by Wells-Fargo? Some other debt that the house was serving as collateral? And where there missed payments? How many?)
- On what reason was the court order preventing eviction granted? (One of the references mentioned that the bank failed to show up in court to challenge the court order. Was that the only reason it was granted?)
- Much of the information in the articles comes from claims made by the woman and her lawyer... how much supporting evidence is there?

At this point there are a lot of possibilities:
- Wells-Fargo and the police are truly evil entities (as the original post suggested). Possible, but not the only option
- It was an "honest mistake" by Wells-Fargo. (In that case yes they could be blamed, but given the fact that they probably deal with thousands of mortgages and evictions on a regular basis its possible that paperwork gets lost.)
- There could have been something improper about the court order itself (Maybe the judge didn't have legal authority, or the courts themselves didn't file their own paperwork correctly)
- The woman is lying (at least about some of the stuff)
- Maybe a combination of several of the above.

ETA:
One thing I forgot to mention.... In one of the references given earlier, it states that:
Sheriff's officials claim they originally arrived to Black's home on September 19 and that she served them legal documents at the time. County counsel allegedly instructed the deputies to carry out the eviction.
So, either the lawyers working for the country are actually incompetent (can't blame the cops or Wells-Fargo for that), or there was some problem with the court order (in which case the woman herself and/or the judge issuing the order were to blame.)

[Psi Baba]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

I can answer that one. Mortgage was package and sold and resold. Problem is, often the new bank did not properly write the paper work, and does not officially (and sometimes illegally claim to) own the mortgage.

now granted, she must have failed payment too, (or the monthly payment was reset too high , some people bought in variable rates) otherwise nobody could claim the house.

She owned the home. There was no mortgage to resell. This sounds like minority oppression to me.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

She owned the home. There was no mortgage to resell. This sounds like minority oppression to me.

If you are right, there is a line of attorneys who would love to take this case. Really, she will have to beat them off with a stick. The opportunity to represent an oppressed handicapped minority against one of the greediest banks with a well documented case of abuse would be worth it just for the TV time. Add in the % of damages and this is a plaintiffs lawyer's wet dream. But, and this is a big "but", only if you are right.

If it is a scam there will only be a few attorneys willing to help her . . .

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

She owned the home. There was no mortgage to resell. This sounds like minority oppression to me.

Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

[theprestige]

How does the reporter know what happened? Were they present at the time? Did the LEOs describe it to her? Did the little old lady describe it to her? Did someone else describe it to her second- or third-hand?

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

She owned the home. There was no mortgage to resell. This sounds like minority oppression to me.

As was pointed out above, this appears to be about a bankruptcy, so I suspect the house was put up as collateral (or some such). Not the WF are in the right, of course.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by balrog666

It's all BS - hoax, hoax, hoax.

No, it's not, and if you follow the ancilllary links you will find the source citations to local media that prove this is a legitimate situation.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

If you are right, there is a line of attorneys who would love to take this case. Really, she will have to beat them off with a stick. The opportunity to represent an oppressed handicapped minority against one of the greediest banks with a well documented case of abuse would be worth it just for the TV time. Add in the % of damages and this is a plaintiffs lawyer's wet dream. But, and this is a big "but", only if you are right.

If it is a scam there will only be a few attorneys willing to help her . . .

A local attorney has offered to help her pro bono

[The_Animus]

Keep us updated. I'm interested i'm finding out what the court decides

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Muldur

A local attorney has offered to help her pro bono

What if her pro bono doesn't need any help?

[AvalonXQ]

I don't see that anybody has actually cited the "federal court order," and I'm very skeptical that there is one.

If there is one, it's public record and should be easy enough to dig up.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I don't see that anybody has actually cited the "federal court order," and I'm very skeptical that there is one.

If there is one, it's public record and should be easy enough to dig up.

This source is a blog (so if you're skeptical its understandable) but here is a copy of the actual court order:
http://justiceleaguetaskforce.wordpr...nd-oc-sheriff/

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Muldur

No, it's not, and if you follow the ancilllary links you will find the source citations to local media that prove this is a legitimate situation.

Oh its a legitimate situation. We just don't know if its a legitimate case of abuse by a bank/police, a legitimate case of a woman using lies to get popular support behind her cause, or a legitimate honest mistake.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

This source is a blog (so if you're skeptical its understandable) but here is a copy of the actual court order:
http://justiceleaguetaskforce.wordpr...nd-oc-sheriff/

That's not an order staying or enjoining anything; it simply denies a Wells-Fargo motion.

If the denial of Wells-Fargo's motion left some other order (such as the referenced "Automatic Stay") in effect, then it's that other order that we need to see. This one doesn't stop anyone from doing anything, and if she waved that piece of paper around it doesn't surprise me that it was ignored.

[StankApe]

well judging by Muldur's assertion that ALL of science is involved in a conspiracy to repress the study of the paranormal, why don't I think it a stretch that he believes all of law enforcement, the judicial system and the banks are in cahoots to steal people's houses/

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Re: how Wells-fargo could have obtained the loan...

I can answer that one. Mortgage was package and sold and resold. Problem is, often the new bank did not properly write the paper work, and does not officially (and sometimes illegally claim to) own the mortgage.

Here's apparently what happened:
- The bank that she did have her mortgage with went bankrupt (New Century)
- The mortgage servicing division of the bank was transferred to Carrington Mortgage Services
- Wells-fargo is the trustee for Carrington mortgage services.
Thus, Wells-fargo would be the one responsible for evicting people for not making mortgage payments.

Source: http://justiceleaguetaskforce.wordpr...wells-fargo-2/
(Note: this is a blog so I don't blame anyone for being skeptical. Furthermore, there's a lot of legalese in it.)

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

She owned the home. There was no mortgage to resell.

Do you have proof if that?

I have never seen any statement that she owned the home "free and clear". (The woman did claim that Wells-Fargo had "fraudulent paperwork", but she never said "I have no mortgage".)

Not sure of where this woman lives, but where I'm from a 25 year amortization is common. She was only 37 years old. If she had a 'standard' mortgage and she had it paid off she would have bought the place when she was 12. So unless she had a lot of income and could afford a shorter amortization period, or she had a big inheritance, I'd guess that she still had a mortgage outstanding.

[AvalonXQ]

You can run searches on Orange County Records that show a variety of deeds, judgements, default notices, and liens dating back several years. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear I'm allowed to view the documents online. But it looks like there have been different mortgage companies dealing with her for many years.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Quote:

This source is a blog (so if you're skeptical its understandable) but here is a copy of the actual court order:

That's not an order staying or enjoining anything; it simply denies a Wells-Fargo motion.

If the denial of Wells-Fargo's motion left some other order (such as the referenced "Automatic Stay") in effect, then it's that other order that we need to see. This one doesn't stop anyone from doing anything, and if she waved that piece of paper around it doesn't surprise me that it was ignored.

I'm not a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV). I assumed that the woman declared bankruptcy (something that limits the ability to evict), Wells-Fargo started proceedings to have her removed from the house even with the bankruptcy in place, they never showed up in court to defend their case, and the judge squashed their request. Since the Wells-fargo request was squashed (as the link I posted shows), any attempt to evict her would be illegal because of the blanket rule preventing eviction during bankruptcy.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I'm not a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV). I assumed that the woman declared bankruptcy (something that limits the ability to evict), Wells-Fargo started proceedings to have her removed from the house even with the bankruptcy in place, they never showed up in court to defend their case, and the judge squashed their request. Since the Wells-fargo request was squashed (as the link I posted shows), any attempt to evict her would be illegal because of the blanket rule preventing eviction during bankruptcy.

That may very well be the case. Under this set of facts, there certainly is no federal court order preventing eviction, and eviction would not be "in direct violation of a Federal Court Order" as some people are claiming. Eviction would simply be against whatever laws prevent eviction (in this case, likely the automatic stay from filing bankruptcy). So again, the piece of paper doesn't have any particular meaning, and the discussion of "violation of a Federal Court order" is a red herring.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

the discussion of "violation of a Federal Court order" is a red herring.

It sounds good, though.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Muldur

No, it's not, and if you follow the ancilllary links you will find the source citations to local media that prove this is a legitimate situation.

Clearly you've never read a "local media" story on a topic you know first-hand. If you had, you'd know how laughable your proof of credibility is.

[Checkmite]

A creditor cannot seize a house pursuant to a bankruptcy filing. If it's her only house it's even exempt from being included in any court-administered accounting and liquidation of assets.

[StankApe]

This smells funny..... not that it isn't possible it went down as reported, it seems unlikely though. It's made to seem like one day Wells-Fargo woke up and said" I know, let's go steal this unassuming woman's home for no reason"

when in reality, she probably hasn't paid them in 3 years or something.

[psionl0]

People who are up to date with their bills don't normally lose houses.

Even if your mortgage was repackaged and sold, it is difficult to see a clerical error costing you your home. Your mortgage repayment history is memorialized by the bank itself and, in most cases, is available on line for you to peruse.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Clearly you've never read a "local media" story on a topic you know first-hand. If you had, you'd know how laughable your proof of credibility is.

That is 100% true.

The late, great columnist Herb Caen had a line:

"Sources, check 'em and lose 'em."

The sad fact is that more than one journalist has bought a complete line of ******** without checking facts, and has paid for their gullibility. I believe that both Danny Casolaro and Gary Webb realized too late that they had been sold a bill of goods and ended their lives when the truth hit them.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

A creditor cannot seize a house pursuant to a bankruptcy filing. If it's her only house it's even exempt from being included in any court-administered accounting and liquidation of assets.

What about prior to a banckruptcy ruling?

I'm not sure about asset protection prior to an accepted filing.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If she's really dying of cancer, it's not like she'll need the house much longer anyhow.