May 11, 2007

It's all coming out now. Read this mortgage broker's declaration on the fraud, corruption, evil and boiler room tactics going on at Ameriquest

The out of control mortgage broker industry IS F*CKING SCREAMING FOR REGULATION. There were boiler rooms full of unethical conmen all over the United States these past few years, right under the noses of our bought-and-paid-for Congress and bankers who would buy up any loan on sight so they could sell it on to China, mutual funds and hedge funds.

And now we'll pay the price. This will end so ugly as it unravels, you'll tell stories to your children's children one day and they'll be amazed.

Here's the deposition from a reformed conman, in a desperate homedebtor suit vs. Ameriquest, in its complete and raw format. I've bolded the really sick stuff.

behalf of themselves and all others similarly
Delaware corporation, and DOE
Court File No. 05-1214 JRT/FLN
1. My name is Mark Bomchill. I am over eighteen years of age and of sound
mind. I was employed by Ameriquest Mortgage Company at the Plymouth, Minnesota branch of
Ameriquest, from September 2002 through September 2003. My job title at Ameriquest was
Account Executive. There were approximately 20 Account Executives in the Plymouth branch
office. During my tenure at Ameriquest, I closed approximately 90-100 mortgage loans.
2. As an Account Executive my duties included but were not limited to,
soliciting potential customers to refinance mortgage loans, processing and closing said loans.
3. When I started my employment with Ameriquest, I received training
demonstrating and encouraging high pressure sales tactics. Such training included watching a
series of videos relating to mortgage sales tactics featuring Dale Vermillion. Account Executives
were also shown scenes from "Boiler Room," a movie about unethical and illegal high pressure
sales practices by a securities brokerage firm.
Account Executives were also provided with
scripts, including those integrated within Ameriquest's computer systems such as the SNAP
system. The scripts were on such issues as encouraging consolidation of debt, and for
responding to objections by potential borrowers. I believe that all of the Account Executives in
Minnesota (and nationwide) received this same training and the same scripts.
4. During my tenure as an Account Executive, I also participated in
approximately 3-4 Ameriquest telemarketing training sessions for Account Executives that
involved phone call role playing, in which the person playing the borrower would make
objections to the loan, and I would need to respond. The role-playing would be followed by
critiques of my performance in dealing with the potential borrower and responding to objections.
I believe that all of the Account Executives in Minnesota (and nationwide) received this same
5. The branch manager and area manager constantly pushed Account
Executives to make as many phone calls as possible to solicit loan sales. Every day, there were
numerous "Power Hours" during which the Account Executives were required to only make
phone calls. The area manager was responsible for at least several branch offices within
6. Account Executives were required to make at least 100 sales calls per day
if we had a significant number of applications in process. Otherwise, we were required to make
150-200 sales phone calls per day. I recall on at least one occasion, that the regional manager (to
whom the area managers reported) came to the Plymouth branch and told the Account
Executives that we needed to be closing at least 8-10 loans per month in order to get any
7. Additionally, in the context of describing performance expectations, I
recall on at least one occasion that an area manager made light of, and even bragged about, the
high turnover rate among Account Executives when they failed to close the requis ite number of
loans per month. The area manager was responsible for at least several branch offices within
8. Ameriquest's compensation plan was structured so that Account
Executives would not make any significant amount of money until we reached a certain sales
For example, there was one bonus for the number of closed loans. Originally, Account
Executives would receive this bonus for closing 5 loans in a month. During my tenure at
Ameriquest, the quota for this bonus was increased to 8 loans a month and then to 10 loans a
month. Additionally, commissions were based upon revenue generated through closed loans.
Account Executives had to generate substantial revenue before they could earn any significant
commission. The sales goals and quotas at Ameriquest were aggressive, and far exceeded the
typical sales volumes at Household Finance, where I worked as an account executive prior to my
employment with Ameriquest.
9. Ameriquest's corporate office in Orange, California, sent all Ameriquest
Account Executives daily telemarketing leads through Ameriquest's computer system. I believe
Ameriquest started using the SNAP system at some time after I began working with Ameriquest
in September 2002. When the SNAP system was used, the leads were loaded into the SNAP
system. Prior to that, telemarketing leads were available through the computer system that
Ameriquest used at the time.
10. Ameriquest also provided Account Executives such as myself with scripts
to use in convincing customers to go through with a loan transaction. When the SNAP system
was in use, Ameriquest's scripts were included within the SNAP system. Prior to that, scripts
were available through the computer system that Ameriquest used at the time.
11. During my tenure at Ameriquest, the vast majority of the mortgage loans I
completed were "2/28s"
– an adjustable rate mortgage loan that is fixed for 2 years and then
adjusts upwards based upon the LIBOR (the London Inter-Bank Offer Rate, i.e., the interest rate
that banks charge each other for loans, and which is officially fixed once a day by a small group
of large London banks). These loans also had a 3-year prepayment penalty provision that would
subject borrowers to a penalty payment if they attempted to refinance out of their loan before
three years had expired.
12. Ameriquest taught and encouraged Account Executives through scripts
and otherwise to promote mortgage loans as a means of consolidating existing unsecured debt
(including even such debt as automobile loans) with Ameriquest, and to mislead customers into
believing that such loans would save them money when they would not.
13. Ameriquest trained and encouraged Account Executives through scripts
and otherwise to encourage borrowers to take cash out from their mortgage loans for things such
as home repairs or vacations, in order to increase the total loan amount.
14. Ameriquest taught and encouraged me and other Account Executives to
inflate the stated value of the customer's property for the purpose of qualifying them for a
refinance loan. I recall an Ameriquest area manager indicating that appraisal values should
regularly be pushed by at least 10-15%.
This area manager oversaw at least several Ameriquest
branches in Minnesota. Ameriquest taught and encouraged me to use its relationships with
certain appraisal companies to request specific (generally inflated) appraisal figures
, and the
appraisal reports I received usually reflected such figures. Ameriquest made it clear that they
would not continue to give business to appraisers who did not come in with the "right" appraisal
15. It was a common and open practice at Ameriquest for Account Executives
to forge or alter borrower information or loan documents. For example, I saw Account
Executives openly engage in conduct such as altering borrowers' W-2 Forms or pay stubs,
photocopying borrower signatures and copying them onto other, unsigned documents, and
similar conduct.
16. The culture at Ameriquest encouraged Account Executives to engage in
any conduct necessary to close the loan, to close the loan as quickly as possible, and to maximize
the total loan amount.

17. I was taught and encouraged to close loans without regard to the
customers' financial ability to make payments on the loan.
18. Ameriquest taught and encouraged Account Executives to close loans
under any circumstances
. In fact, Account Executives were commonly told to "say anything" or
"do anything" they needed in order to close loans.
It was common practice and part of the
culture at Ameriquest to mislead borrowers in at least the following ways:
a. Account Executives regularly lied to and misled borrowers about
their credit scores
. Account Executives were encouraged to tell customers that their credit score
was so low that they could not get a better loan anywhere else, and to imply that Ameriquest
was doing them a favor
by giving them a loan or that the loan was a stretch;
b. Account Executives regularly concealed or obfuscated the
existence of the prepayment penalty in Ameriquest loans ;
c. Account Executives regularly concealed or obfuscated that a loan
was an adjustable rate mortgage
, rather than a fixed. In fact, it was common practice for
Account Executives to refer to adjustable rate loans as "fixed adjustable" loans ;
d. Account Executives regularly concealed from borrowers that the
payoff for the borrower's existing loan included a prepayment penalty
, and often this meant that
the borrower would receive less cash out of the refinance than promised;
e. I was taught and encouraged to conceal or obfuscate specific loan
terms and specific figures
, including the amount of fees, the interest rate, and the monthly
payment amount;
f. I was taught and encouraged not to disclose the fact that a
customer's loan did not include monthly escrow payments for property taxes and insurance
, and
to let customers believe that the monthly payment amount included such payments;
g. If potential borrowers discovered the existence of the prepayment
penalties or had other objections, I was taught and encouraged to mislead them by telling them
that Ameriquest would waive the prepayment penalty if they refinanced within the next 6
h. I was taught and encouraged to tell customers that they could
qualify to refinance at a better rate in the near future if they increased their credit score, when in
fact they could not
(and the refinance would be subject to a prepayment penalty within the first
three years); and
i. When borrowers sought to exercise the right to cancel within the
one-week period Ameriquest represented that it offered to its borrowers, Account Executives
regularly told the borrower that the time to cancel had passed, and that he or she no longer had
the right to cancel.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Minnesota, that
the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this __ day of January, 2007, at _______________,
Mark Bomchill


turdly said...

All I've got to say is...SO!

McDonalds trains it's people that way. Is asking 'would you like fries with that' predation on the hungry? Will those hungry become fat, and have to be treated differently?
McDonalds must offer every item on it's menu to every customer or the are discrimination. They can't ascertain in advance if the hungry guy can afford it or not, they just ring it up.
Brokers just ring it up. They have to offer every loan type to every borrower. The broker cannot legally determine if the buyer qualifies for the loan, the loan prgram does.
Do some brokers cheat by fabricating information, sure. Do some employees at McDonalds cheat, sure they do or the machines wouldn't weigh out your soda for you and they wouldn't have to use a time clock to punch out. Everyone preys on anyone that is prey. Sorry you got your house involved, sorry you should of put 20% down, sorry your fico was so low you couldn't rent so you thought you'd just buy a place, Sorry you thought an ARM was what connected your nose picker to your shoulder, sorry your job at the pet store won't keep up with your McMansion, sorry you got fat on chicken tenders, sorry your kid is stupid because you use the tv as a babysitter. NEXT!!!

serindippity said...

They should never be allowed to be called "mortgage brokers".

A broker is somebody who is your AGENT, a fiduciary looking out (supposedly) for your interests in selecting and obtaining investments and capital market products.

You know, like regulated securities BROKERS, who---prior to that "evil government regulation" of 1933 acted just like these sleazebags. Now, they just barely exaggerate a little, and they get reprimanded---as they should.

These mortgage """brokers""" are nothing of the sort. They are used-money salesmen.

Even a used car broker is somebody who negotiates for YOU---not the stealership!

This is where a class-action lawsuit is so very much deserved.

I want personal civil and criminal liability against the bosses. No hiding behind a corporate veil when there's fraud and crime.

RICO suits?

Q: How is this different from a mob scheme?

A: It isn't.

Anonymous said...

arrests have to be around the corner

turdly said...

A car dealership is a good analogy. I'm glad someone brought that up. What are you, stupid? A car salesman works on a commission the more he sells you the more he gets paid. He works on bonuses just like mentioned in the article. He gets trained exactly like in the article. He works for himself first, the dealer second, the finance department third, and you last. Otherwise he would just say 'hey, I sold this truck last month for $13,000, but I only made $50 on the deal, let's offer that.'.

Serrendipity is obvioulsy the same person that didn't read the contract and hasn't a clue. Dig out the last contract you received while buying a car and take a look at it. If it was at a new car dealership I'l guarantee there's $1200 worth of stuff in there you can't explain.
We all wonder who signs up for these miserable mortgages, and we're all seeing that they certainly all aren't subprime. Read serredipity's comment, and know the fool.
Sorry so harsh, but also sorry you're so lame.

Frank said...

Ok, so I agree that these mortgage peddlers are scumbags, but so are a lot of other salesmen in a lot of industries.

Regulation is not the answer. Regulation simply means that people will have even less personal responsibility for their actions. If they make dumb mistakes, they can look to the government to punish the other side, instead of taking responsibility for their own stupid ego-driven actions.

It's a shame that these corrupt dirtbags sold millions of loans, but come on, in the end it's the buyer who is responsible for his own actions. It's the buyer who is responsible for doing his due diligence and making sure he's not being taken, or for paying an attorney or some other fiduciary to review the deal.

Are the mortgage peddlers scum? YES. Is regulation the answer? NO. The answer is that people nowadays need to get a brain and know what they're getting themselves into, and to begin taking responsibility for their own actions.

Who is John Galt?

Eman said...

@9:51PM (???)-

Curiously enough, McDonalds "coincidentally" changed many on their high pressure sales tactics just after the movie Super Size Me was released.

Anonymous said...

When I was in the lending business you could be fired for misleading a borrower,so something really changed this last lending cycle .It would of been unheard of for management to encourage fraud with the loan packages to their employees .

I think some posters are under estimating just how criminal the system got in loan offices and this is not standard business practice . Altering W2's ,zero-copying borrowers signatures on loan applications is serious fraud and a very serious crime .A loan company being in conspiracy with appraisers to inflate appraisals is a very serious crime also . This is not the same as trying to push a hamburger like another poster suggests.That poster also said .

..."Everyone preys on anyone that is prey ."

You are one sick puppy dude and I suggest you seek couseling soon before you commit a criminal act you get thrown in jail for .

Anonymous said...

I got a kick out of all these people having the term "executives" in their job title

also this quote:
"adjustable rate mortgage loan that is fixed for 2 years and then
adjusts upwards based upon the LIBOR (the London Inter-Bank Offer Rate, i.e., the interest rate
that banks charge each other for loans, and which is officially fixed once a day by a small group
of large London banks)."

seems to confirm that the rates aren't directly set by the FED.

bickerer said...

I was wondering the same thing.
Who IS John Galt?

shtove said...

That guy is going to get cross-examined to death.

To spew like that he must have thought he was in deep trouble. He probably wept tears putting the affidavit together.

But the big boys are in even deeper trouble, and they'll send out the throat-slitters to discredit this kind of testimony.

They're all scum. But nobody really works for justice, so the usual compromise will apply. Affidavit-man will just curl into a helpless ball and end up a victim.

Anonymous said...

now you say that people were lied to and didn't have a chance to not get into this situation. First you said it was because of black people to dumb to know how to read the paper work and they got themselves into this mess because if they had any brains they would not have signed without reading the fine print and then you said it was mexicans they caused this mess because they were buying 700,000 dollar homes with 11 dollar an hour jobs and they didn't have any comprehension of the english language and were being duped by their own people. and now, finally, you are admitting that it was as I said before greedy white people. HA HA HA you folks are always looking for someone else to blame for your fuc up's this time you have no one to blame but yourselves. the indians had it right: white man speak with fork tongue.

Don said...

I know for a fact most of what that guy is saying is bullhshit. I wonder what he's being paid to testify?

Anonymous said...

How can you stop this scum without regulations. Also your assuming that the in place regulations were not already violated by this scum . It's called fraud in lending .

All companies push for sales but if you cross the line and mandate fraud as a way to get more sales you are criminal . If you harass a employee unless they commit fraud that's some sort of crime . If you bribe a appraiser that's fraud and conspiracy and maybe blackmail .If you give fraud training to your employees ,what do you think that should be as a crime ?

What about the loan office that had salespeople going around bashing bats if a loan was turned down ? If you think this is normal stuff your crazy .

This is not the way loan offices operated like in prior lending cycles .The problem is that laws that are already in place got violated .

FlyingMonkeyWarrior said...

corrupt mortgage brokers

Ya think!!!???

Anonymous said...

Is regulation the answer? Regulations says e.g. that lawyers cannot do what they want with thier clients and that physicians cannot harm to get higher prices. It should be clearly stated that a broker has a fiduciary duty towards his client. But even without fiduciary duty, if only half of the testimony is true, jail time for fraud is in order. Falsifying signatures, lying about deadlines not having been kept etc. are Fraud.

Natural Eyebrows said...

Keith, it's a declaration, not a deposition. Read this:

Then read this:

You're quite right on the main point. This industry needs regulation, despite what your anti-reg fanatical posters say here. Comparing the scripted selling of french fries at McD's to what these guys were doing is ridiculous.

Licensing a profession or trade filters out convicted felons and people who have been kicked out of other professions for unethical conduct. How many loan officers are ex-real estate agents who lost their real estate license? Or their securities license? Or their law license? It would be interesting to find out.

The fifty-state pathwork of regulation is a relic from the time when real estate lending was local. That time is gone.

J at IHB and HFF said...

Hello. This is a good post with good comments. The borrower makes the ultimate decision. I posted a borrowing checklist that would block these lending tricks.

TM said...

"Serrendipity is obvioulsy the same person that didn't read the contract and hasn't a clue. Dig out the last contract you received while buying a car and take a look at it. If it was at a new car dealership I'l guarantee there's $1200 worth of stuff in there you can't explain."

You think a sales contract with $1200 in unexplainable charges is normal. Well, maybe it is normal... for you. And you say that it's Serendipity who doesn't have clue; how interesting.

serindippity said...

Obviously, I know that mortgage brokers are sleazy sales droids.

The point is that most people are fooled by the name, and their usual experience with financial institutions.

They assume that because regulated banks and securities brokers are at least reasonably honest, so are the mortgage "brokers".

Average people know that car salesmen are in an adversarial relationship trying to make money off of the buyers.

They do NOT think the same is true with mortgage brokers---the M.B.'s have all sorts of ways to convince them that it is "us fighting against the big mean bank".

That's what's baloney. I was complaining about the name. "used money salesmen" is accurate.

And yes, the Securities Act of 1933 was a good idea.

TM said...

"Regulation simply means that people will have even less personal responsibility for their actions."


"It's a shame that these corrupt dirtbags sold millions of loans, but come on, in the end it's the buyer who is responsible for his own actions."

So, are you implying that a mortgage broker bears no accountability? Your idea of personal responsibility seems pretty one-sided, then.

TM said...

"They can't ascertain in advance if the hungry guy can afford it or not, they just ring it up."

when was the last time you you got your food at McDonald's without providing some sort of payment?

"The broker cannot legally determine if the buyer qualifies for the loan, the loan prgram does."

He most certainly can; that is his job.

"sorry your kid is stupid because you use the tv as a babysitter. NEXT!!!"

Non-sequiters for the big win!

Anonymous said...

Ameriquest was not a mortgage broker, and the scuzzy people and sleazy tactics employed there are a blight on th eentire mortgage industry. Many of the worst abuses of customers were by the sales forces of large direct lenders, in some cases federally regulated banks.

An ethical mortgage broker acting on behalf of the borrower is one of the best defenses against these abuses. Make no mistake, consumers were abused, and there's a big price to pay now.

Anonymous said...

If it wasn't loan management commiting fraud than it was the loan agents pulling it on loan management/underwriters and they just rubber-stamped the front line agents fraudulent deals .I bet alot of borrowers were in on it but maybe some borrowers got their applications and w2's changed without them knowing .

I don't think this person is lying on this declaration because they are admitting that they engaged in fraud at the urging of management .
Heck , I don't know for sure who is lying

I know usually the loan agent that deals with the borrowers and the realtors and is in charge of getting the information for the loan application is usually the one committing the fraud ,(they are usually the ones paid the big commissions for a loan ).But, if it's a requirement of the job to commit fraud than that is real unusual . it just seems kind of funny that management didn't bust all this fraud shit so it makes me believe that they were encouraging it .Maybe management got a bonus for loan volume in their office and that was behind everything .

Anonymous said...

Oh how funny that not only are these tales coming out of Ameriquest but New Century has similar tales . Could it be true that it was a rare Mortgage Company or lender that wasn't committing fraud ?

You see as far as I'm concerned this stuff had to be going on with a high % of lenders because the evidence is the kind of loans that were made . Cash-back fraud hit such high numbers in 2006 it's scary .

To many borrowers are saying they thought they got a fixed ,or they didn't know about a pre-pay, or they saw a application later that they never filled out or signed .To many borrowers are saying that the loan ended up being totally different than what they thought they were quoted .

Sure I think borrowers were in a frenzy to buy real estate or get cash equity from refinances ,and many were willing to lie on loans,but something is really wrong here .

Anonymous said...

The lenders can't give a bunch of fraudulent loan packages to MBS bagholders and get away with that .

keith said...

Too bad nobody in our media ever thought of doing an undercover investigation of any of these companies when this was going on

Heck, they could still send some 22 year old kid into IndyMac or First Fed and you know it's not over yet there

Where was 20/20? Where were the local "eyewitness investigative teams" etc? Man, especially in Orange County, the epicenter of this stuff

turdly said...

A mortgage broker cannot throw someone out of their office if they qualify for ANY program. If a $11 per hour person comes in to a brokers office and qualifies for a stated income loan program, tells the broker he makes $85 per hour, then the broker has to write that down. If the broker says ''no, I think you're committing fraud, Serrendipity will go tho the nearsest lawyer and say 'the broker discriminated against me because I'm a Smurf' [or Cenobite, or whatever will make a jury cry]. When the phony appraisal comes in the broker can't say 'I think this is wrong' because he isn't a licensed appraiser and is making a determinate opinion that requires licensure by a governmental agency, so Serrendipity can sue him for discrimination.

Again, the analogy was that McDonalds must offer everything on their menu to everyone or it's discrimination. A broker must offer every program writen by UNLICENSED FEDERALLY CHARTERED BANKS to every borrower or it's discrimination.
You tell me where you draw the line. I guess it's above McDonalds somewhere because of the feedback. Is it below car salesman? Is it below the bank clerk tht tells you the best rate she can give you on a cd is 5% when you know for sure she has a .44% override? Is it the hotel clerk that tells you they don't have discounted rooms when you know they do? Is it almost every contractor in the world that lowballs you, even by a couple of dollars. Everyone preys on those that are prey. Is it the person who finds $100 bill skipping down the road in the wind and doesn't go to the police with it? I just gotta know. Is is the salesclerk at Nordstroms that lies and tells you how good you look in that puke green shirt. Regulation can be the answer, but it's not the brokers that need more regualtion. It's the people that make the programs and decided that no income loans and 103% loans were a good idea, THOSE ARE UNLICENSED FEDERALLY CHARTERED BANKS. When I say unlicensed, I mean that they are unlicensed and unregulated in individual states. They are the ones that perputrated the fraudulent means.

Anonymous said...

In response to turdly .

I think your way off base in what you think the rules for lenders are . A lender has full authority to turn down a loan that they think if fraudulent or require more proof that it isn't . A lender has full authority to demand additional proof of income if the application does not make sense .The agents from these boiler rooms were not offering these people all the loans they could qualify for and they were just cramming borrowers into loans that made them the biggest commissions .

You are confusing red-lining laws with discrimination laws .Red-lining is when a lender refuses to lend in a area just because it has a certain ethic group in it ,even if they qualify . A lender has a right to weight risk and credit of a borrowers and has to right to ask for a review appraisal if the appraiser looks off-base .

McDonalds can not determine if a person will get fat by buying a hamburger but a lender can determine if a borrowers is high risk and does not conform to the loans guidlines and does not have the ability to paythe loan back . Lenders have a right to weight risk and decline a loan based on risk of foreclosure . Otherwise borrowers would never have to fill out a application to qualify for a loan or have a appraisal on a property .The property has to qualify and the borrowers has to qualify . You don't have to qualify to buy a hamburger .Will you stop with this hamburger shit .

turdly said...

They do fill out an application and they do get an appraisal. If you qualify for a no document loan, and I throw you out because i do not believe you, or I make you jump through the hoop of having to give documentation, I have discriminated. I am not confused by the redlining laws. I helped write them.

we're not all disgruntled renters here. Some of us are consumate professionals that have been in the business long enough to actually have participated in the writing of some laws and statutes.

If I say no, and another broker says yes, you can sue me for, get this, REDLINING! I said no because I thought you were a fraud, I did not give you a loan I had available, because I thought you were a fraud, I questioned the appraisal because I thought it was a fraud, and your blue ass will take me to court because I don't like Smurfs. Don't doubt it, think about it. And if you don't get the McDonalds riff, then get back on the bus and bury your head.

Here's the punchline; if I say no, but I had a program that would fit you, then I FRAUDED you by saying no. If you wanted the 2,000,000 home and I say, 'ya know, you look like you can't afford it. I'm basing this on gut feeling and the way you're dressed', you wouldn't have a cow, you'd have cattle.

Real world ideas from the likes of OJ, sueing because he got booted from a restaurant. Not real world ideas from you, who doesn't understand the litigeous society we have. Hell, most of the people here are advocating either suing ANYONE or putting ANYONE in jail. Both require litigation. Do you think Mrs Smurf is too stupid to utilize the system.

Take it from someone who's been sued by a Tongan. I didn't even know what a Tongan was, but I tossed his ass out because he was being coached by a third party, and I knew it was a straw purchase. The suit didn't stick, I wiped him all over the place, but if I hadn't been correct, the jury [we actually went to trial] would of truly believed that I had a vendetta against Tongans.

I have since changed my position within the industry. I can tell you that the moment no income doc loans hit the market, I simply quit writing loans. That's one of the reasons it's hard to find anyone writing loans that is over 50 in age. It disgusts us what the Unlicensed federal banks are doing.

turdly said...

Sorry for shouting i looked away while typing and hit the damn caplock....

WiseRenter said...

keith said...
"Too bad nobody in our media ever thought of doing an undercover investigation of any of these companies when this was going on

Heck, they could still send some 22 year old kid into IndyMac or First Fed and you know it's not over yet there

Where was 20/20? Where were the local "eyewitness investigative teams" etc? Man, especially in Orange County, the epicenter of this stuff"


You might notice that local "problem solvers/eyewitness investigative teams" never go after the stations advertisers.

Anonymous said...

Turdly ...

In response to your last post .

A fraudulent loan package violates the perjury or fraud laws so it is not discrimination to turn down a liar loan or ask for more proof on a package that doesn't add up .
Enough with this hamburger stuff .

Anonymous said...


I'm actually sorry that you got harassed by some jerk that claimed discrimination .I use to have to document the paperwork so I could cover my ass in case a borrower tried to pull that on me .

The point is that maost these fraudulent borrowers could not qualify for any loan offered and they were wasting everyones time trying to get something they didn't deserve .It might be unfair or discrimination to slam someone into a loan that pays a higher commission when they could qualify for a better loan . That sort of loan agents would try to slam anyone into a bad loan ,so its not discrimination in this case its just bad faith business practice and maybe fraud.