Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: How many in your face Occupiers does it take to sign an online petition?

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 21, 2012, 4:41 p.m. EST by OccupyNews (1220)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

How many "in your face" Occupiers does it take to sign an online petition?


1 percent.

Here is Rachel Kendal's story...

"Rachel Kendall asked Wells Fargo to modify her mortgage to a lower rate. Wells Fargo granted Rachel a 6 month forbearance plan but when Rachel went to their branch to make her payment Wells refused to accept her payment and told her to make it over the phone but that didn't work either - they would not accept it! They told Rachel to wire the payment which she did but it was never credited to her account. Two weeks later Rachel found a notice of sale on her door. One month later she lost her home to auction. Please tell Wells Fargo to rescind Rachel Kendall's foreclosure auction!"

If you have signed the petition to tell the head of Wells Fargo to FUCK OFF for stealing a home when the family was complying with GOVERNMENT MANDATED rules and guidelines for getting a government sponsored reduced home mortgage, you are part of the 1%!

The other 99% of the occupiers are the narcissistic scumbags who have to be seen protesting on the streets so they can feel important, and possibly score, or score some weed, or break a window, but don't have the time to take TWO MINUTES to sign a petition that might make a difference.

Sign the fucking petition, you Kramer, you.


I'm not crazy about all the info they ask for before one can sign the petition to save this families home from parallel foreclosure.

I recommend using your real name and email address (I think the email address is kept private), then write a fake address and zip code if you like. Coin flip on the state you list.


If you don't believe that parallel foreclosure exists, that's like saying that nobody was imprisoned in world war II and then killed.

google parallel foreclosure and learn for yourself.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

You have a valid point here. These online petitions have so far been more successful than I would have thought. There have been some notable successes with this tactic, and I think we should do WHATEVER WORKS!

Some have said that this is just mamby pamby revolution. That is, I think, completely wrong headed. If there is ANY WAY to affect positive change, with the least possible pain and suffering, we should do it. That seems to be common sense. What is there to lose in signing our names to a petition? Don't worry about the government finding out who you are, they already know.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

In the past I've protested, most of the times alone. I protested the causes the Occupy Movement is protesting now, before it was cool to do so.

Balance your portfolio protest, that's all I can say.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Good points Gypsy King. Once marchers leave a scene, it's as if they were never there. These petitions can actually have as much impact.

The irony is, meeting people and then aligning with them online is a much more potent plan than just aligning with people in public and then not paying it forward online.


[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

True; and inevitably in the dead of winter public protests are going to ebb, so it is very good that this is an election year - when candidates can more easily be swayed, and therefore these petitions can have clout. Also, we can hold them accountable in the voting booth!

By the way, I think we must vote for Obama. That is just my opinion, but a Republican sweep, because we are disillusioned with Obama, would be a disasterous repeat of the Nixon win. Because Democrats were disgusted with Johnson, Nixon was elected, and that was where this country really went fundamentally wrong, We've paid the price for it ever since! What we must do is both make the Democrats the winning party and force them to the left. The two party system, as it is (yetch!) leaves us no effective alternative.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Each party has a split within it. In the democratic party, it is the progressives, and in the republican party it is the neo cons.

In 2008, the most popular democratic candidate was actually Hillary Clinton. However, Pelosi, Reid, and George Soros, and Move on dot org, a Soros backed group, went for Obama because Hillary Clinton is a moderate liberal, whereas Obama is a progressive liberal.

This change on the left then causes a shift on the right to more ultra values, which in turns spreads fear among democrats about the republicans.

I think moderate liberalism (aka Hillary Clinton) is the ideal point for governing the best, however the more success that moderates have on either the left or right have, the angrier they make the neo-cons and progressives.


[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

That is an interesting take on a very complex situation, and unfortunately I just don't have time right now to respond in the depth that such a penetrating opinion requires. I will get back to this comment as soon as I can find the time for a worthy response.


[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Looking forward to it. Bill Clinton was hated by both the progressive and the neo cons for taking credit for ideas that spread across both parties, infurating the progressives with programs like workfare, and the neo cons for taking credit for workfare, which was republican platform idea.

[-] 2 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 12 years ago

How many of the 99% does it take to petition the government for a redress of grievances as per the 1st amendment? Tens of Millions.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

yes, but to fight back against parallel foreclosure, probably 10,000 would do it, 20,000 to 50,000 for sure.


[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 12 years ago

If OWS stays focussed on the meta, problems like parallel foreclosures will become extinct. I know you don't want to hear this but it's like charities, do we constantly give to charities or do we eliminate the need for charities once and for all?


[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

OWS can and should be focussed on the meta. But that should not prevent anyone in OWS from taking literally a few seconds to sign a petition. It is not an either/or proposition: that's a false choice.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

thank you epa1nter, you said it fantastically well, it's not either or, at least one, or both, especially if the meta aspect only takes a minute or two.

On Wall Street they call that it diversifying, instead of only holding only one stock, hold several, that way no one stock can destroy your wealth overnight. Many may hate wall street, but diversification makes sense when it comes to how one protests.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

And now Wells Fargo is rolling out a new homeowner program to help people buy homes in both Los Angeles and Atlanta.


[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

The petition is up to 419 signatures. Apparently if you get a home mortgage with less than 20% down you have to have PMI (Private mortgage insurance).

As soon as that homeowner falls behind on their payments, it triggers parallel foreclosure action even as the homeowner attempts to negotiate for a lower interest rate with the bank.

Banks can collect on the PMI, banks get to keep the homeowners down payment, get to resell the home, get to go after the foreclosure family for the difference between what the home sells for versus what the first family agreed to pay for the home. the banks get to charge all kinds of ancillary billing having anything to do with the reselling of the home, including listing fees, realtor fees, home ads, making the home ads...

And, when the home is resole, the banks get ANOTHER down payment.

Yes, there is a HUGE FINANCIAL INCENTIVE to foreclose on the first homeowner and resell the home.


[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

And if you don't care about stopping parallel foreclosure, than you are an asshole, pure and simple, and I'll tell you to your face, you asshole.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

I don't see how homeowners are 'forced' to fall 2-4 months on payments to apply for HAMP.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Actually, homeowners are forced to fall behind. There is a reason. The government is afraid to help people who don't need help, so they created a dividing line, if the homeowner is still making payments on time, they don't need help. If they fall behind, they need help.

However, there are millions of homeowners who can forecast that six months from now they will be too far behind, whereas with a home loan mod, they could actually turn the corner and begin to pay down their debts.

What are they supposed to do? They default so they can be part of the program, and the banks turn around and parallel foreclose on them.

I believe only making the mortgage program available after a homeowner has defaulted is a federal hobbs act violation, extortion under the color of right.

Just recently there are supposed to be better programs that don't require defaulting, but it's now 3 years into Obama's term. What took so long?

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

Actually, it is bank greed, not government fear. Rather than ease interest rates or even temporarily waive interest so that a homeowner has a chance of staying current, the banks deny loan modification until you are delinquent. Then they renegotiate for a lower payment / longer term with the focus on profit, not aid.

If the property is underwater, they are less inclined to act, but if there is significant equity - and in many cases any equity at all - in the property, they are chomping at the bit to foreclose and cash it out.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Excellent point, nucleus. Ironically, what is holding back real change is that banks say they have to treat everybody the same, and this gives them the excuse they need to basically do nothing.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

and, some of the new programs PENALIZE anyone who defaulted in the past year or two. So there are people being double penalized, first by a program that required a default before being eligible, now there is a program that penalizes those who have defaulted.

And then lets not forget those who never even got a chance for the newer program because the government and banks first lured the struggling homeowner with HAMP, then parallel foreclosed. (see example of parallel foreclosure by checking out the link at the top of the page.)

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Below are the eligibility requirements for HAMP. I don't see anything about homeowners having to be behind on payments before they can apply.

The program abides by the following eligibility and verification criteria: Loans originated on or before January 1, 2009:

First-lien loans on owner-occupied properties with unpaid principal balance up to $729,750

Higher limits allowed for owner-occupied properties with 2-4 units

The current principal, interest, property taxes and homeowner's insurance payments are costing the borrower(s) over 31% of their gross monthly household income.

All borrowers must fully document income, including signed IRS 4506-T, proof of income (i.e. paystubs or tax returns), and must sign an affidavit of financial hardship

Property owner occupancy status will be verified through borrower credit report and other documentation; no investor-owned, vacant, or condemned properties

Incentives to lenders and servicers to modify at-risk borrowers who have not yet missed payments when the servicer determines that the borrower is at imminent risk of default

Modifications can start from now until December 31, 2012; loans can be modified only once under the program[11]

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Excellent points nucleus.

The portion of what Mooks found that states..."and must sign an affidavit of financial hardship", for some reason, instead of that, banks want to see that the homeowner has no savings and has fallen behind.

It might be the backlog that this program has that has caused people to jump to the front of the line by falling behind on their payments.

In other words. those who have defaulted get priority over those who have not defaulted. By the time the non-defaulters get to apply and be accepted for the program, they will probably be in default anyways.

I've read way too many accounts on the internet from homeowners who could only apply for the program if they were in default.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

It just does not make sense. Why would a bank want to foreclose on a house? Foreclosed houses usually sell for a fraction of what the original mortgage was written for.

Either way, it is a stretch to claim, as you do above, that defaults are an eligibility requirement for HAMP.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Mooks, I appreciate your healthy skepticism, however I think I explained how it happens. So many homeowners wanted to take part in getting a home loan modification that a dividing line was placed between those still making their payments on time, and those who were not.

Those who were not making their payments on time were given PRIORITY apply for HAMP, Yes, it was a parallel foreclosure trap. I've asked HSI trust to respond to your comment. It might take a day or two since this is the weekend.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

I understand what you are saying about banks being overwhelmed by HAMP apps that they needed to come up with a selection criteria.

I just don't see how it benefits the bank to foreclose on a home and then sell it at auction for what will likely be a fraction of the amount the original mortgage was written for.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

A lot of the banks don't actually own the mortgage. They made their money via selling securitized mortgages to investors. They make no more by collecting mortgage payments, since they don't own the paper: the profit goes to the original investors. So foreclosing on a property with the ability to sell it, even for a fraction of the true value, is just icing on the profit cake.

HAMP turns out to be a disaster. Banks are routinely, repeatedly, purposely losing the paperwork. By the time the homeowner finds out, the banks have gone to a judge to issue an order of foreclosure and eviction on the basis of the homeowner not having supplied documents prior to deadlines (which they did). It is one of the many scandals associated with this crisis. And it is nearly impossible to prosecute as fraud.

Public television did an investigative report on these practices over a year ago, exposing the massive scale of the fraud. Wells Fargo and Bank of America, two of the worst offenders, have subsequently been fined hundreds of millions of dollars for it, but the practices continue, since the fines represented a fraction of the profits.

There is even a person somewhere here on these fora who posted this about his own foreclosure a couple of weeks ago, asking for advice about what to do.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

In this instance, what appears to have accelerated the foreclosure was the family had less than a 20% down payment and were therefore required to pay for PMI (private mortgage insurance).

If the family falls behind on the mortgage, it actually becomes much more profitable for the banks to foreclose than assist the family with a lower interest rate, even if the lower interest rate would mean the family would be able to catch up on their mortgage.

It's kind of scary how many ways the banks benefit on a PMI default.

  1. Banks get paid from the PMI anywhere from 20% to ???? the value of the mortgage.

  2. Banks get to keep the homeownwers down payment

  3. Banks get to resell the home and capture ANOTHER down payment.

  4. Banks get to still collect on the original homeowner that now is out on the street for the difference between the price the home sold now versus what that foreclosed homeowner agreed to pay.

  5. Banks may get a write off

  6. Banks can also charge for any and all expenses related to reselling the home such as home sale ads, making the home sale ads, the realtor's fee for finding a new buyer, any cost associated with getting the home ready for a new homeowner.

  7. Banks get a new homeowner paying a monthly mortgage, and if the new homeowner fails to meet the mortgage, the banks get to go through all the points mentioned above, while once again keeping the down payment and putting a new foreclosed homeowner on the hook.

As for HAMP, I have read far too many times on the internet of people being told they could not apply for HAMP unless they were in default on their mortgage.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 12 years ago

I praise God for my foreclosed home, noone cared that I hadn't bought my first home when I was 46 years old! Now, Im happy to be living in it for less than I was paying for rent!

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

I don't understand your statement.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 12 years ago

i bought a foreclosed home finally am a home owner now.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

It's possible that the homeowner who was foreclosed upon may file suit and challenge the foreclosure. Just sayin. Did you pay for any kind of deed or title insurance?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 years ago

I would suggest that if you are going to participate on a petition. That you be truthful.

To lie only invalidates your voice. Worse it could lead to fraud charges.

If you are going on the record make it count for something. If you are partaking to discredit beware that you don't bite yourself in the ass.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

As long as the name and email address is accurate, and perhaps the state one lives in, the rest should be no one's business, it's too intrusive.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 years ago

Lobby the government. Your voice is a vote. Petitioning is lobbying. The Peoples Lobby. Take part, take action.

Forward environmental change. Your participation can make a difference.


191,807 signatures so far for Bernie Sanders petition as of 3:50pm central time 01/20/2012


The petition to save abandoned houses has 16 signatures as of 01/20/2012. Were just rolling right along.


Here is a place where you can directly address change. Take part, it does not hurt and may very well heal/help. Forward the cause of reform and rebirth.


Sierra Club has some good things to take part in as well. Set-up and ready for you to take part in. http://sierraclub.org/