Direct Link to Latest News


I Fought Foreclosure and Won!

December 30, 2014


When the Bank of America foreclosed on Denny,
he demanded the bank prove it didn't just create the
mortgage money out of thin air. They couldn't and eventually
agreed to take a loss. Here he describes his scorched earth
campaign against the Bank of America.


The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate. - Dr. Wayne Dyer

 by Denny

"Stop renting....BUY a house!" That's what everyone says. So we did. In 2007 I bought a $115,000 house and we thought life was good. Three years after buying the house, I suffered some financial setbacks and could no longer afford the payments.

 I tried selling it but no one was interested. Then came the threatening letters from Bank of America. I, like most people in this situation simply freaked out, ignored the problem thinking sooner or later it will just go away.

But, it doesn't go away. And deep down, I knew it wouldn't. So I started contacting lawyers and getting bankruptcy consultations over the phone. If the bank was going to take my house and come after me for the deficiency, they weren't going to get one penny! I was now starting my slippery slide into the pit.

The Sheriff showed up one day with a thick packet of papers for foreclosure notice! Nothing rattles you more than a Sheriff's deputy standing at your front door. That is when the real intimidation from the bank starts.

Which brings up another interesting question: In the case of serving foreclosure notices', who is the Sheriff actually working for?  That's right...The BANK! That's when you realize how insidious the banks really are and that you are looking into the eyes of an actual monster and they control the system from the top down.

And that's when the seriousness of my situation came to rest on my chest like a large boulder. My girlfriend and I had moved out of the house shortly after and for around six months, nothing happened. We had moved into an apartment and basically ignored the problem at hand. I did however pay a lawyer $150.00 to file a "Delay of Sale" for me, thinking this would give me six more months from this point in time.

In the very back of my thick packet of foreclosure papers was a flyer to get help if you found yourself in this situation. But, you had to live in the house to get their assistance. I called the 800 number and they sent me a packet of papers to fill out. They were a financial counseling company and basically I filled out a stack income to debt forms, sent them back and waited. In the meantime, to qualify for the loan assistance we moved back into the house. After a few tweaks of the documents they had a complete file on me and they forwarded it on to Iowa Mediation Services.

 I was assigned a wonderful mediator. They negotiated with Bank of America on my behalf to try to get me a loan modification. Except for supplying some documentation (that the bank has no business having) they would do all of the work. In the meantime, my research into the banking fraud escalated and continued down the rabbit hole!

About three weeks, my mediator called me and said the bank wants two months bank statements, the last two years tax returns and your last two months pay stubs. Ok I said and emailed him the documents. (Stupid me......NO ONE has any business seeing these documents...think about it....really?)

However, supplying them the documents in question was part of their game. And if I wanted a loan modification, I had to play along. Meanwhile, Bank of America's first Law Firm filed a motion for summary judgment against me. I ignored them. After about eight months of these repeated documentation requests from the bank, being assigned numerous customer service reps (CSR's) and the frustration my mediator was having getting anywhere with these parasites, I was quickly learning just how their game was played, and how to play back.

After about 20 months of this delaying tactic, they finally offered me a $130.00 a month less house payment. (Loan modification) Really? For my financial situation, it would have to have been around $300.00 a month less or more to make any difference and keep me in my house.

Were they on drugs???? I called them up the next day and said I DO NOT ACCEPT your loan modification offer. She became bewildered. I think she stopped breathing, "What do you mean Mr. L? After all of this work??" I told her the modification was so small as to be irrelevant. She stated (LIED) that because my loan was a Freddy Mac loan and they were the investor, that they had very strict rules on loan mods and that Bank of America's hands were tied. (Another lie.) And shortly after that I got a new CSR.!


It was now time for me to start making demands of Bank of America. So, using "legalese" the only language corporations understand I drafted up a letter to Bank of America sent three times 72 hours apart. that stated the following:

"Demand for Documentation"

Dear Bank of America,

Bank of America cannot show they suffered a loss because they can't provide evidence they put up any consideration. HERE IS WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO PRODUCE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT A LOAN WAS MADE AND THAT I MAY HAVE A DEBT:

1. Produce documentation of prior title, ownership and rights to the money you purportedly loaned me.

2. Produce documentation of the history and origin of funds that you purportedly had prior title, ownership and rights to that you purportedly loaned me (banking requires 3 generations at least if not all the way back to issuance/creation of the alleged funds...this is why banks issue a letter of origin/history of funds)

3. Produce documentation of the actual transaction and transfer of said funds (prior title, ownership, and rights) from loaner to borrower (invoicing/receipts) there is a difference between a "loan" and "debt," conceptually, legally and factually.

Look up the definitions of loan and debt, difference between statement and invoice...only an invoice has to be paid...however you would first have to show that you made me a loan...if no loan, each invoice is fraud - mail fraud to be precise.
Sincerely, D

They ignored my three demands of documentation, and responded that I seemed to be questioning the validity of the "note." Well Duh? That is EXACTLY what I was doing. So what did they do? They sent their second Law Firm after me. After what I call a soft opening, their lawyers sent me a statement of account (with their fees included) and stated I had thirty days to rebut their presumptions. And I did! I sent them the same letter I sent.

 Bank of America and the Law Firm wrote back stating that I seemed to be questioning the validity of the note. Duh again! I sent the same letter (above) a second time and they sent me a copy of my Promissory Note. Funny thing was, I already had one. They had NO intention of honoring my requests for documentation because they couldn't. They didn't have what I was asking for because it DOESN'T exist! There is NO loan!


After continually winning the battles but seeming to lose the fight I received a card in the mail from "A.H.S." It stated:


I almost threw it out but for some reason stuck it in a drawer and forgot about it for a few days. Let's talk about a short sale. The bank sells your house for less then it's allegedly worth and according to documents I received from Bank of America, "In SOME cases, does not come after you for the difference."

Some cases? So that would imply that in MOST cases, they DO come after you for the difference, it's called a deficiency! I already knew about this option along with a "Deed In Lieu" in which you (according to the bank) shake hands with them, and simply sign the house (that they have NO rights to) back over to them. Supposedly a simple agreement.

Lesson one: Don't EVER believe ANYTHING a bank tells you and lesson two: Don't EVER shake hands with a bankster!!!! A.H.S. worked with Bank of America for almost a year to buy the house in a "Short Sale." The more the bank delayed, the longer I lived there for free. Finally, after 12 months of the bank delaying and playing games, they accepted the short sale offer.

They claim that they took a loss of $50,000.00 in the form of missed mortgage payments and another alleged loss of $35,000.00 in the sale of the house. Not too bad for my first fight with the BIG BANK! In reality, they lost nothing, and received three years of house payments plus interest on a loan they never made. That, folks is the banking reality you and I live in. The central banks own everything from your property, your children (via their birth certificate) and our corporate government. And until the day you all wake up, and demand to take your country back from the central bankers, that's the way it will be.
According to the Fed's own laws,

Banks are not permitted to loan you THEIR money, THEIR depositor's money or THEIR credit by law!

See "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" (GAAP)
And they are not allowed to loan you their credit:

A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation . . . Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Taylor - Mayer, J., Supreme Court, Suffolk County / 9/07

"A bank may not lend its credit to another even though such a transaction turns out to have been of benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases might be cited, which-would look like a catalog of ships." [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank, 144 SE 505. 151 Va 195.
So what did the bank loan you for your house? Nothing plus interest! Time to wake up!
My entire book (free) can be read here

First Comment by John K

The foreclosure piece was nice, but learn how to access your Federal Reserve account and pay bills with it.

If I follow, a mortgage lender tricks you into tapping YOUR bankrupt-US collateral collection account, FOR THEM, when YOU get a "loan" supposedly FROM THEM.

The system operates under bankruptcy rules, not monetary theory or Constitutional law. There is no money, just collections. The paper dollar is a NOTE, yet also the world reserve "currency" by gunboat diplomacy.

And of course, it gets worse. As Roger Sayles and others ( say, the master deception is that Americans must belong to the system at all. There's a difference between "citizen" and "national." The Civil War did not free the black man, but enslaved the white. VOLUNTARY servitude is Constitutional! Only antebellum, INVOLUNTARY servitude was banned. VOLUNTARY servitude means, in a word, feudalism - aka "progress."

Rod Class filed legal papers on such matters which high insiders told him brought flames of terror to their house of straw. They're keen to shut him down.

Think of a street con artist taking you for a ride. Then amp it up: that's your bank. Amp it up again: that's your government. Amp it up again: that's your ruling cabal.

Mike P

A biblical comment on today's post:
Psa 37:21  The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth.
Isn't that pretty much what this guy did?  He borrowed money and freely promised to pay it back. Now he's looking for some back way to get out of doing what he promised. The banks may create money out of thin air, but does that excuse this guy from participating in the system, borrowing the money, getting a real house for it, and then refusing to keep his promise to repay? As I see it, he is just as guilty as the banks.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "I Fought Foreclosure and Won!"

JM said (January 1, 2015):

Mike P., I believe your understanding is fundamentally one incomplete.

If I might be of some little help?

"Fraud is fraud ab initio." Maxim of Law (Entire original in Latin.)

In all cases where it - fraud - is to be found, whether accomplished sooner-or-later within statutory limitations, ALL that follows such an initial mal-performance is AS IF it had never occurred.

This understanding is key and fundmental.

Bank attorneys are only too aware of this reality. (In order to be good little assistants to Satan in the Deceptive Law Realm, such must know nearly every thing pertinent as-relating, and this they surely do. Their hands are "unclean" as they come to us, and are nearly-so uniformly, I suspect.)

The remedy sought to the original deception of the bank's was in-order, and was to-the-book-done, and not a thing compounding-of any wrong at all, as you allege might have been the actual case subsequently.

This vile filth - as nearly all banking habituation has now become - must be put to rest finally, and without mercy. (Note "nearly all"!)

(Yes, they now run rat-scared and rightly-so, for when The Hammer of The Just is finally swung, a rule of Merciless Process shall be applied uniformly. The reason for their freight is one quiet rational. The pliers of banking are ones great, fancy, and full of smarmy, mal-used power, stuff born of rawest vile hubris, but such is not to remain the case forever, and they know it, and thus their frisson of great disquiet.)

Indeed, to the most worthy end of Justice finally attained Denny fired a good shot, one which found it's sure-mark but, THE BEAST itself lives-still, and becomes evermore dangerous, because so evilly mad.

"A single victory does not make for a war-won."

RE said (December 31, 2014):

Comment's by Gordon W and RM (below) are right on the "money". I am glad people are waking up
to the banker's scheme.

SS said (December 31, 2014):

I appreciate Denny taking the time to demonstrate what some people could do to lessen their exposure and liability when dealing with a foreclosure situation.

Denny chose to do the right thing and see it through, fighting fire with fire. Banks like any responsible party should engage in practices that are mutually beneficial to them and their customers. This has not been the trend in recent decades. What's the point of adjusting a loan that simply won't work for the situation a customer finds themselves in? As he stated, money is created from thin air on their part.

Why would they engage in predatory practices if not to satisfy the Satanic desire to perpetuate misery. It is certainly not a Godly and merciful strategy they typically engage in. I'm glad he gave them a taste of their own medicine. Most simply roll with the punches thinking they have no choice.

Although we should not be participating in usury, it is so much a part of the American paradigm that most have simply acquiesced to the idea we will be saddled with debt till we die. This is not true, but it is the Matrix and the perceived reality of modern finance that many accept.

I opt'd out over a decade ago and saved for what I now own. My home, my land, my farm, my animals, my vehicles, my possession have no debt attached. Consequently, life is far easier now than it has ever been, at least financially. In that process, I ruined my credit, but since I don't have to borrow money, it's entirely inconsequential. I'm actually happy I can't get a loan. The irony. Sometimes, it best to let things go, learn to live within our means and trust God to make things right.

RM said (December 31, 2014):

Gordon's comments (below) are absolutely correct. Everything else is only a cartoon version of reality. There is NO MONEY there is only credit in the form of different currency. As a matter of fact people do not even realize that your labour is considered 'Property'. There was an absolute exchange of value for value when Denny was able to 'pay' his mortgage as his labour backed the currency/credit.

As the world went from Silver to worthless metal in their coinage, they also became completely enslaved. Law also rides on top of the money system. Change the 'money' system and your automatically change the Law. All currencies are owned by the IMF, their values are regulated and floated daily. There is no longer anything that grounds their value to earth (that is why their value floats). We also do not have a 'justice system', we have a legal system where it serves to protect the rich against the poor. Also things that are actually unlawful can now be called legal under this 'legal system', making it 'o.k.'.

Doug P said (December 31, 2014):

If everyone did what Denny did, the world would be a much better place.

I did what Denny did, I put over eleven thousand dollars of debt free currency back into the economy by cancelling a credit card debt.

I did it because I knew I didn't owe the bank anything, because my personal life and money was falling apart, and because I became very educated on the subject and recognized it as the right think to do - ie should become universal law.

Only God knows someones motives, Denny did what everyone should be doing. It does take courage and that's why most people don't do it. There are far too many good, honest, hardworking people that have been seeing their lives fall apart in this rotten economic system. As the capstone, the banksters will have to turn us against each other because if they do not they will lose.

Doesn't the Bible say to be careful who you judge, lest you be judged ? No one has a claim against Denny so he didn't do anything wrong.

Bill S said (December 31, 2014):

I agree with Mike P. Denny's attitude was "hey, I can't pay! so just leave me alone, you evil bank." That's not the way it works. The bank was kind enough to loan him money to pay for the house on the condition that he make monthly payments until the loan was paid off. Obviously the bank charges interest on the loan. That is their profit.

Now that we know how fractional reserve banking really works, it clouds the issue. Banks are legal counterfeiters, licensed to create money out of nothing. Interest is not usury. Excessive interest is usury. So that issue is a red herring in this context. The system we currently have forces banks to make loans to high risk renters like Denny. To me, that is just as bad as banks creating money out of nothing.

So guys like Denny - instead of conceding that he can no longer afford to live in the bank's house and finding a place to rent - look for justification to steal the house from the bank. And he found one! Two wrongs do not make a right. He has no more right to that house for free than the bank has. Mike P. nailed it.

The only thing that amazed me about this story is the result. Since the bank legally owns the house, per the Promissory Note, how was Denny able to prevail in a court of law? Oh that's right - it was a short sale - and the bank decided to waive the deficiency. In other words, he got lucky.

Normally, this does not happen. You can send your demand letters to the bank, but they are under no legal obligation to reply. However, when they send theirs, you ARE obligated. The government holds all the power - you hold none. I learned that lesson in the Navy. If they wanted to play hardball, the sheriff would have evicted Denny and his wife - and he would still have the balance to pay off unless it was legally discharged in bankruptcy.

Gordon W said (December 30, 2014):

With reference to the comment about the item atop your website today ... Mike P has missed the main point : there never was any transfer of real money, in the mortgage in question : no valuable consideration put forth by the mortgagor, ie Bank. The mortgagee educated himself so as to be able to see through the hoax then exposed it for what it was. Thus, the party which got 'something for nothing', was the Bank.

If Mike P wants to get all sanctimonious on us & cite the Bible for authority - he'd do better to look up the old English word "usury" then find out what the God of Israel has to say about it. The author of the article did participate in the usury racket, in ignorance. After having figured out how that criminal enterprise works, he won't be engaging in it again. Like Jesus said to the woman taken in adultery "Go and sin no more"

The Law which God gave to Moses pronounces the death penalty for those who participate in the Usury racket. But the sheep sitting in the pews of state-licenced Baal-barns run by the Juda-izers, won't hear that from the false teachers / race traitors who infest the pulpits of the land.


Mike P replies

I noticed the comment by Gordon. I think he may be seeing only half of the picture. The way I see it, if Denny's plan succeeds, he gets a house for nothing. If not, the bank does. What I see is two crooks fighting over who gets to steal a house. I see no virtue to either side.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at