Bank of America and Brian Moynihan - Bank of America Home Loans Breaches Trust of Customer

Posted on Saturday, September 11th, 2010 at 10:13am CDT by 5bae7b4f

Product: Home Loan

Company: Bank of America and Brian Moynihan

Location: 100 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC, 28255-001, US


Category: Other

This is a letter that I wrote to Brian Moynihan, President of Bank of America:

I know that Bank of America has been swamped with loan modifications due to the housing mess. I was given a 5/1 Interest Only Loan in 2005, and made a $70, 000 down payment on the property. Like everyone else, I was intending to refinance, but did not know about the credit default swaps and deregulation of the banks that would cause the crash in real estate. I had no idea that I was given an improper loan. I have owned property all my life and always trusted the decisions by the banks and mortgage companies to treat me fairly.

I started trying to get help in August of 2008, when my small RI business lost revenue after the Oct. 2008 crash. After this, I must have sent in my tax returns and financial documents at least about 5 times. I always faxed the documents to a different person and phone number, and was never given any confirmation that the info was received. This was concerning, as I faxed my personal information and data, and I would like to know that the information is secure, and not have my tax returns show up in all your different offices with my TAX ID's and other sensitive information.

I have an extensive paper trail of correspondence with BOA that I wrote through your website. During that time, I asked for the name of the person who was answering my emails, but I was never given a name or a phone number. I pleaded just to have ONE worker assigned to my loan workout, but it never did happen, and I am continually switched from department to department in different states. I have the same stories you have heard about all the different agents that I have spoken to during the course of this struggle to get some customer service. I have my checking and savings with Bank of America, and went to my local branch, but no one could help me with my mortgage. I do have an advocate that has been able to help with the credit reporting.

I finally was contacted in Jan. 2010 and was given a special forbearance for 3 months, then placed in a trial modification in May 2010. I was told that this would not affect my credit. I was to make my 3 trial payments and then get the permanent papers. During this time, I also received "Notice to Accelerate, " and was told by a worker to "throw it in the wastebasket." I still have no decision on my modification, and in fact, BOA did report me to the credit bureaus as 120 days late, even though I have never missed a payment. When I look at my account online, it shows that I have a past due balance of more than $7, 000. How can that be past due if your bank agreed to the trial payments, which I have made faithfully.

They are clearly breaching my trust with their negligence and lack of fair dealing with customers. This is on their website Code of Ethics:

Doing the Right Thing

We have the responsibility to do the right thing for our customers, shareholders, communities and one another.

Trusting and Teamwork

We succeed together, taking collective responsibility for our customers satisfaction. This is a quote from Mr. Moyihan:

"Trust is at the heart of what we do. Our customers and clients want to know they are doing business with a financial services company that they can trust; that all our associates will treat them fairly, communicate forthrightly, and make clear, honest and ethical decisions. Trust is crucial to the value we provide our customers, and its fully expressed through the combination of our Core Values and our Code of Ethics."

I am looking for an attorney to file a lawsuit against Bank of America. Please contact me.


528bb822, 2010-09-14, 06:58PM CDT

Through The Mod Loan Glass With Dewy, Cheatem & Howe's Jason Curry, Bank of America, Steve Curry, and Impac Mortgage, Impac Lending Services. Todays corporate executives lack of ethics make John D. Rockefeller look like an amateur. I'm glad that complaints. com is providing this service. Exposes happen for a reason. Reasons like bad customer service or injustice. As the realization sinks in that in internet is a real time conduit of ones reputations, customer service will only be forced to get better.

The public not only has the right to know what sort of person they are; it is the duty of the public to know. Just tell it to The Man like it is. My hats off to you watchdog's who dare speak the truth and spit in the eye of those who think they are in charge. It's the people who are in charge. Here is effective and thoughtful work examining this most critical issue.

(Watchdog: Gadfly: a person who arouses lazy citizens from apathy and ignorance with never-ending and ubiquitous watchdogging. Watchdog: a successful gadfly.)

Indirectly, this circumventuous flapdoodle is right on the mark, as in-the-know citizens well understand.

The issue is that house prices have dropped. Why? Because of the mortgage fraud that manipulated them up in the mortgage fraud run-up of late 2003, all of 2004 going into spring of 2005. The mortgage fraud is a significant number of all the home loans. The problem is not just the sub-prime home loans. The problem is that people owe more than the home is worth. The symptoms of the drop in housing prices is foreclosures. The result is a fundamental problem to not only the occupants of a home but also the American economy and global economy as well. There is just way too much housing inventory out there for home prices to have hit bottom. Home prices will go down further as foreclosures continue to further flood the market. Borrowers that owe more than the value of their homes just walk away.

At one time good American townspeople correctly and effectively tarred, feathered and ran out of town on a rail these scoundrels. Be American, dont get mad, expose these shysters, blog them, then tar, feather and run them out of town on a rail. Starting with Bank of Americas Brian Moyihan, James Emerick, Loraine Raymer, Sonja Wright, Linda Jordan, Thomas Ryan, Charles Holliday, Jr, Walter Massey, Temena McGee, Michelle Langley, Ashley Stix, and Brandon Coltin.

Asking if your lender a patriot or a terrorist is a valid question. Now a patriot is one who loves, supports, and defends one's country. A patriot loves his or her country and supports their country's authority and interests. A terrorist on the other hand, is one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. Terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Terror is a state of intense fear, one or something that inspires fear, a frightening aspect terrors of invasion, a cause of anxiety, worry, an appalling person or thing. That's all very clear and straight forward to me. That's all exactly how my family and feel from these home lenders.


Q: What kind of person steals soap?

A: A dirty crook

d016f473, 2010-09-17, 11:54AM CDT

Online exposes happen for a reason. When they're, or you're, in the spotlight they're, or you're, subject to the brightest lights. You may not like my exposes, which is your right. You may think it's NOT your or anyone else??s business, which is your right. If I find that it is MY business, I can read about it and write about it. That's my right and my freedom.

Everyday consumers of goods and services now have the Internet to describe their experiences with businesses and those businesses?? employees. Government executives, administrators and all government employees, businesses, both non-profit and profit, legal and not legal, and every single one of their owners and employees, and all religious participants are ever increasingly more vulnerable to exposure, and accountability. Consumers have become bolder that their payment means total accountability for what consumers paid for. Consumers are less likely to keep to their place, do as they??re told and keep their opinions to themselves. Today??s governments, businesses or religions that dismiss or ignore consumers do so at their own risk. The Internet is free at public libraries, free at many businesses and free to anyone that wants to crawl on to it from a nearby wireless connection. Consumers of these goods and services more often than not relate bad experiences over good experiences. Exercising their freedom of speech rights where legal and illegal in other countries, they not only spell out and link the offending business?? name and location, but also the offending employees and/or owner??s names and locations. They spell out in great detail, and link with supporting documentation, their complaints. I am glad to see ??Gone are the days where settings from Auschwitz to Abu Ghraib contaminated in isolation both superiors and subordinates.?? I am glad ??the Internet is real-time exposure forcing attention, and repercussions.?? I am glad ??The result has been an increase in holding others accountable, just saying no and exposes.?? Governments, schools, teachers, businesses, attorneys, judges, Realtors, home loan lenders, doctors, mechanics, hospitals, religions, etc. should be ??relentlessly interviewed, closely monitored, increasingly resisted, and constantly scrutinized.?? ??Online exposes and nastiness?? happen for a reason. Reasons like bad customer service or injustice. ??As the realization sinks in that the Internet is also a real time conduit of ones?? reputation,?? customer service will be deliberately forced to get only better. I have come to the recent conclusion that the Internet has made the Better Business Bureau a dinosaur. The BBB does not publish what the complaint is, and without that, the complaint is useless. Complaints made to the BBB about businesses not providing goods and services as advertised or legally required, bar associations about lawyers lying and taking client??s money but not doing what they were paid to do, Realtor associations about Realtors clearly violating written ethics rules, ethics committees, commissions, etc. should not be private. Instead, all should be public. That??s another reason why there is an increase on the Internet of complaints and exposes. Too often, ranks have closed in around an offending member and protected them rather than hold them accountable. Or worse, the accused makes threats against the complaintant and witnesses, or bribes are offered by the accused and accepted by the investigator(s), prosecutors and/or judges, and editors. The Internet is the medium to not only expose the offending member, but also these cover ups by those paid to investigate, judge and punish offenders. Public records are public to protect the public. That??s why our publicly elected officials voting records are public. That??s why publicly elected officials can only have public meetings ??putting their opinions and conclusions easily available to everyone.?? That??s why all complaints, investigations and outcomes should be public. As MadMax wrote, ??Remember, we have a legal system, not a justice system.?? HOWEVER, "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." John Adams, (2nd President of the United States of America), 1776 (Thoughts on Government) FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ANONYMOUS FREE SPEECH The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads: Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment. The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door. These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." On December 21, 2007, Superior Court Judge Terence Flynn granted EFF's motion to quash the Township's September 26th subpoena seeking the identity of the truthsquad and denied a motion by the township to authorize future subpoenas, finding that the subpoena amounted to "an unjust infringement on the blogger's First Amendment rights" and that the blogger "has a right not to be drawn into the litigation." Judge Flynn denied the motion for a protective order, finding that it was unnecessary at this time. More from Judge Flynn's ruling from the bench: "And I [...] recognize that there are First Amendment issues with regard to disputes with the past administration. And that anyone [...] has a right to make their feelings clear. And they have a right not to be intimidated by the issuance of discovery requests in order to shut them down. For that reason, in many ways, the authority cited by the intervenor is correct and accurate. And first of all the [...] blogger, if in fact it??s an individual person, and I??m assuming absent any evidence that it is another individual person, has a right not to be drawn into the litigation and forced to reveal identity or to impede on his or her First Amendment rights simply on a suspicion, however founded or unfounded, and I don??t believe that this suspicion is sufficiently founded at this point to determine that it is Mr. Moskovitz. That person should not be drawn into the litigation and forced to abide by the rules with regard to exchange of information that the parties have, as opposed to a third party. So the Court is satisfied that there is no authority under law for this particular subpoena to obtain this private information. To allow the subpoena would be undue and unjust infringement on the blogger??s First Amendment rights. There??s no factual basis at this point, other than a mere suspicion for the justification. And ultimately that even if the information were obtained, it would be so remote to the actual elements of this litigation that it would not be admissible under any circumstances." ? First Cash v. John Doe ? Manalapan v. Moskovitz New Jersey Township tries to unmask anonymous online critic.

Post a Comment