Complaint Review: Ocwen FSB

I have contacted them and they keep asking me "What would you like us to do?" I asked them " What can you do?" They were very evasive. They have been no help at all. While they have never been rude or ill tempered with me, they sure are ambiguous as to how they can or will assist you. It appears that they take OCWENS word for everything and leave you with an empty feeling... Just another example of a Federal Government branch that does not do anything to help anyone. I wonder how much money those people make?

D,

Please, accept my apologies. I did not express myself properly and therefore, I confused you, and chances are I confused other people, too.

OTS, according to my experience with it, will not change the nature of your complaint PER SE. It will do it by ignoring it.

A little example: You send them a letter to complaint because Ocwen does not pay your Insurance and/or taxes from your Escrow account. OTS will answer stating that the present balance of your mortage balance is OK, and will seriously let you know that it has "instructed Ocwen" to send you a letter addressing that. OTS, in avery mad tone, will ask you to send them some proof on the contrary, if you have it. NO MENTION OF THE REAL PROBLEM AT ALL! That's why I say that OTS has "reading and comprehension" problems...I guess you can tell my sarcasm.

In other words, OTS dissipates your real and true based complaint by not aknowledging it. You can think of any problem, small or big, they will handle it in exactly the same way, or it will tell you that Ocwen has the right "to charge those fees" or the right to act in the way it does, without a logical explanation to you. It will always do this in a very upset and "offended" tone.

The benefit of sending certified copies of your OTS letter to FBI and FTC, and others, comes in 2 ways:

1) When you first send copies of your letter to other institutions, OTS will be aware of that fact and may be "nicer" with you. This might work for your benefit.

2) When OTS send you their answer, if this answer is not addressing the real problem (most common), you can send copies of their crazy answer to these other institutions with copies, again, of your original complaint to OTS. In this way, OTS will be expose, not you!

You send evidence of your real problem and (unfortunately), send also evidence of OTS's negligence and complicity(?).

You are to keep copies of everything in different places for your future defense, if needed. It's a good idea to make copies of the envelopes, too. You know those unsigned letters from Ocwen....They can't escape their envelopes properly marked by Postal Office. We are all to be thankful to our American Mail system because it is legally minded and Ocwen is not able to buy it as Ocwen buys other institutions. In other words, Ocwen have to send their illegal things within "legal envelopes". We are to make copies of those envelopes!

OTS, on the other hand, will date and sign their "clueless" letters. No need to make copies of OTS envelopes. What a good girl you are, OTS, you know how to date and sign your notes! ..Ha, HA,...

If you act in this manner, D, no institution will say that you are an irresponsible, bad borrower, since they (and you) will have proof on the contrary.

Don't forget, Ocwen victims, that OTS is there to guard Ocwen's welfare. They will not say it, publicly.

OTS, if you think I am wrong, I welcome you to show me how wrong I am. I'll be more than happy if you do that! I promise to tell everybody how wrong I have been all the time about you.

Ocwen and OTS: Your relationship is louder than your words! Stop daydreaming your "secret fantasy" because there is no fantasy, not anymore, and there is no secret, not anymore.

Get out your tinfoil to make a hat. First, Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which covers negotiable instruments, is inapplicable to promissory notes because the Code defines a negotiable instrument as one which is payable on demand. Promissory notes give the holder a right to a stream of future payments, so they are not negotiable instruments by definition or covered by the Code. Second, even if the UCC applied to promissory notes, its provisions vary by state and it is not "uniform" in this sense. Is this person telling us they have mastered the ins and outs of each jurisdiction that has adopted the UCC? What about those states which have not adopted it?

This site also mentions, or at least implies, among other things, that the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional creation of Congress and our currency is no longer on the gold and silver standards, thus that is also unconstitutional. These are all ideas shared by the survivalist, or so-called "patriot" movement. Terry Nichols, one of the Oklahoma City bombers, also believes in these things, as well. Here's the deal: the Constitution allows Congress to define and regulate money and currency any way it wants to. If Congress says we will have a currency valued by fiat, then we will have a currency valued by fiat. Article I says nothing about currency having to be backed up by gold or silver. Further, the Commerce Clause of Article I gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, which certainly includes the flow of money in this country. Thus, nothing in Article I would make the Fed an unlawful institution.

The site also states that banks create loans out of "nothing." I beg to differ with this. While it is true that the U.S. Government's deficits are not actually backed by assets -- they're covered by debt instruments owned by investors with the understanding that the U.S. is good for the debt -- banks cannot loan out money they don't have. Just imagine what would happen if they did; we all would have been penniless long time ago. Bank loans are made using depositor's money and in fact, that's how they make their profits; by the difference between the interest rate it chargers borrowers and what it pays out to depositors. With current deposit rates around 1-2% and rates to the most creditworthy of borrowers around 5.5%, you can see banks are profiting handsomely right now.

I suspect that the website may be referring to the system in which companies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae buy mortgages from banks and in turn repackage those mortgages into bonds, CMOs, etc., which are then sold to investors. However, even these instruments are backed up with assets because an investor must have actual cash, or its equivalent, to buy them. Thus, the banks that sell their mortgages do receive cash in return and that's how they can keep making a seemingly substantial number of mortgage loans.

In any event, I'm not telling anyone what to do, but I wouldn't do anything this website suggests. Besides, if was this easy, why isn't everyone doing it and why is the site's owner the only one who knows how to?

Get out your tinfoil to make a hat. First, Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which covers negotiable instruments, is inapplicable to promissory notes because the Code defines a negotiable instrument as one which is payable on demand. Promissory notes give the holder a right to a stream of future payments, so they are not negotiable instruments by definition or covered by the Code. Second, even if the UCC applied to promissory notes, its provisions vary by state and it is not "uniform" in this sense. Is this person telling us they have mastered the ins and outs of each jurisdiction that has adopted the UCC? What about those states which have not adopted it?

This site also mentions, or at least implies, among other things, that the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional creation of Congress and our currency is no longer on the gold and silver standards, thus that is also unconstitutional. These are all ideas shared by the survivalist, or so-called "patriot" movement. Terry Nichols, one of the Oklahoma City bombers, also believes in these things, as well. Here's the deal: the Constitution allows Congress to define and regulate money and currency any way it wants to. If Congress says we will have a currency valued by fiat, then we will have a currency valued by fiat. Article I says nothing about currency having to be backed up by gold or silver. Further, the Commerce Clause of Article I gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, which certainly includes the flow of money in this country. Thus, nothing in Article I would make the Fed an unlawful institution.

The site also states that banks create loans out of "nothing." I beg to differ with this. While it is true that the U.S. Government's deficits are not actually backed by assets -- they're covered by debt instruments owned by investors with the understanding that the U.S. is good for the debt -- banks cannot loan out money they don't have. Just imagine what would happen if they did; we all would have been penniless long time ago. Bank loans are made using depositor's money and in fact, that's how they make their profits; by the difference between the interest rate it chargers borrowers and what it pays out to depositors. With current deposit rates around 1-2% and rates to the most creditworthy of borrowers around 5.5%, you can see banks are profiting handsomely right now.

I suspect that the website may be referring to the system in which companies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae buy mortgages from banks and in turn repackage those mortgages into bonds, CMOs, etc., which are then sold to investors. However, even these instruments are backed up with assets because an investor must have actual cash, or its equivalent, to buy them. Thus, the banks that sell their mortgages do receive cash in return and that's how they can keep making a seemingly substantial number of mortgage loans.

In any event, I'm not telling anyone what to do, but I wouldn't do anything this website suggests. Besides, if was this easy, why isn't everyone doing it and why is the site's owner the only one who knows how to?

Get out your tinfoil to make a hat. First, Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which covers negotiable instruments, is inapplicable to promissory notes because the Code defines a negotiable instrument as one which is payable on demand. Promissory notes give the holder a right to a stream of future payments, so they are not negotiable instruments by definition or covered by the Code. Second, even if the UCC applied to promissory notes, its provisions vary by state and it is not "uniform" in this sense. Is this person telling us they have mastered the ins and outs of each jurisdiction that has adopted the UCC? What about those states which have not adopted it?

This site also mentions, or at least implies, among other things, that the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional creation of Congress and our currency is no longer on the gold and silver standards, thus that is also unconstitutional. These are all ideas shared by the survivalist, or so-called "patriot" movement. Terry Nichols, one of the Oklahoma City bombers, also believes in these things, as well. Here's the deal: the Constitution allows Congress to define and regulate money and currency any way it wants to. If Congress says we will have a currency valued by fiat, then we will have a currency valued by fiat. Article I says nothing about currency having to be backed up by gold or silver. Further, the Commerce Clause of Article I gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, which certainly includes the flow of money in this country. Thus, nothing in Article I would make the Fed an unlawful institution.

The site also states that banks create loans out of "nothing." I beg to differ with this. While it is true that the U.S. Government's deficits are not actually backed by assets -- they're covered by debt instruments owned by investors with the understanding that the U.S. is good for the debt -- banks cannot loan out money they don't have. Just imagine what would happen if they did; we all would have been penniless long time ago. Bank loans are made using depositor's money and in fact, that's how they make their profits; by the difference between the interest rate it chargers borrowers and what it pays out to depositors. With current deposit rates around 1-2% and rates to the most creditworthy of borrowers around 5.5%, you can see banks are profiting handsomely right now.

I suspect that the website may be referring to the system in which companies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae buy mortgages from banks and in turn repackage those mortgages into bonds, CMOs, etc., which are then sold to investors. However, even these instruments are backed up with assets because an investor must have actual cash, or its equivalent, to buy them. Thus, the banks that sell their mortgages do receive cash in return and that's how they can keep making a seemingly substantial number of mortgage loans.

In any event, I'm not telling anyone what to do, but I wouldn't do anything this website suggests. Besides, if was this easy, why isn't everyone doing it and why is the site's owner the only one who knows how to?

Marlene,

Why would we victims want to send a letter to these organizations if they are going to change the nature of our complaint?

I personally won't sign anything that has been altered and I believe based on your post, that OTS will change our/my complaint, so for me personally, I don't think I want to do this.

Marlene,

Why would we victims want to send a letter to these organizations if they are going to change the nature of our complaint?

I personally won't sign anything that has been altered and I believe based on your post, that OTS will change our/my complaint, so for me personally, I don't think I want to do this.

Marlene,

Why would we victims want to send a letter to these organizations if they are going to change the nature of our complaint?

I personally won't sign anything that has been altered and I believe based on your post, that OTS will change our/my complaint, so for me personally, I don't think I want to do this.

Marlene,

Why would we victims want to send a letter to these organizations if they are going to change the nature of our complaint?

I personally won't sign anything that has been altered and I believe based on your post, that OTS will change our/my complaint, so for me personally, I don't think I want to do this.

Having been a victim of a lending institution and loosing our home in '96, I can definintely relate to the outrage this is causing. We too initiated a Federal lawsuit against the lender but what we didn't know was how low they were willing to go.

They proceeded to get the lowest of the low-A slime eviction attorney that filed an 'unlawful detainer' action but never served us thereby enabling them to get a default judgment.

To make a long story short we had to be forced out (proned out at gun point on our entry hall floor by the sheriffs and marshals)as they weren't going to listen to the fact that the house was in litigation in Federal court. All they knew was they had to get possession.

AS painful as this was I can now thank them for the experience. I began a quest for knowledge. I became aware of certain groups and individuals that are exposing the bank/mortgage fraud for what it really is--Just that--Fraud. Rather than go into this on this forum I can only recommend doing the reseach as there was NO LOAN on all your mortgages. It was an 'Exchange'. You funded your own alleged loan when you signed the 'promissory note'.

Banks are committing fraud as they are failing to disclose the details of the transaction such as--They do not loan any of the Banks money or money of their depositors in making the mortgage or alleged loan--They don't tell you that their bookkeeping entries reveal that they still owe you the funds for the loan. And there is more for later.

Friends of mine have had nothing short of miracles happen by having their mortgages eliminated and canceled (paid off in full by one of these groups).

They are calling it " Mortgage Elimination". Their web site is www.eliminatemortgages.com/access or you can call a 24hr recording at (212) 990-6756 then call (800) 707-5003 ext 5757 to get your questions answered. Get the last laugh and get your mortgage paid off and eliminated.

I hear that they are using the UCC and a non-judical process that puts the banks in a corner and literally uses the process to possibly foreclose on the bank.

Hope this is helpful. I know one thing --you can't choose to do that which you don't know. It's about time we can turn the tables. Wouldn't it be great to have mothers home with their kids again if mortgages get paid off.

Regards,

You perfectly describe what they call RICO. You know, all those moneys they pay "under the table" to buy institutions, insurance agents, people at courts, and everybody else!

RICO is Ocwen's stronger skill! Your realization of that is perfect.

For this reason, the Hanson v. Ocwen Federal Bank class action in Hartford, CT, is based on RICO crimes. Ocwen's RICO is so obvious! This crime is terrible because involves a lot of complicity among institutions and explains how come Ocwen is able to commit their crimes so freely, and for so long.

I salute your intuition.

Because all of this, if you decide to write a letter of complaint to the OTS (a very Ocwen oriented organism), do so and send copies of your letter to the Florida Attorney (by the way, FL attorney believes OTS is consumer oriented, or "pretends it believes it"). So, send copies of your letter to the FTC (Washington), to the FBI (local, state and Washington levels), and to any other institution you can think of (just to add to the list of recipients, your "witnesses").

OTS has "reading and comprehension" difficulties, and might sent you a letter telling you that according to your own complaint (they migh change the nature of your complaint) Ocwen has the right to act in the ways it does. I am talking from experience. I am absolutely convinced of OTS Ocwen's orientation. And I would be very happy if they approach me for questioning about this.

I am so right! You are so right! We are all so right about Ocwen's RICO guilt!