Above is a photo of the new trailer-home that Vic Presco wedged in his backyard, and defied the owner and Repo Men to come and get it. He had built a new edition to his home for his Mexican wife and her eight children, and probably bought the trailer just incase he could not get her into the U.S. so Victim could be a ligitimate member of someone’s family.

I just talked to Vicki Presco on the phone, and she told me Vic would exclaim at least once a week; “My mother didn’t know the difference between a turd or a baby.” This highly suggests he was illegitimate, and knew it. Vic was partially raised by his Stuttmeister great aunts, and Melba’s parents. He claimed he was abused. I am sure he felt unwanted and unloved. He took it out on my brother and I who were Disinherited by Melba. However, Vic formed a partnership with his two daughters with monies he alone inherited from Melba who is seen with Shannon and Christine in Vic’s office located in his Lafayette home.

Vicki told me Vic made loans at 18% percent interest, and most of the people who made a deal with Vic (The Devil)
Lost there homes.

I suggested to Vicki that she and reform the Family Partnership- ROSAMOND PUBLICATIONS- and go forward with any project we deem creative in order to carry on the Rosamond Family Legacy, including a series I am going to try and sell to HBO, so that all surviving members of our family may enjoy Real Profits, and not these evil games dealt in utter darkness, by a man who was so bitter about his abandonment as a child, that he deliberately brought ruin to his children who owed him a LIFE til the day he died. He owed us – NOTHING! This is USURY and SLAVERY. He had it all planned, to honor Mexican children over his own children – out of spite! Wolf Larsen’s GHOST ship crashes on the rocks near a small fishing village in Mexico where he is resuced by a widow of ten children. He must make ammends, die – loved!

Jon Presco

Copyright 2011

“ And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

This is what Cuomo said at the time:
CUOMO: To take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes. To give families mortgages that they would not have given otherwise, yes.
Q: [unintellible] … that they would not have given the loans at all?
CUOMO: They would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes.
Q: Are minorities represented in that low and moderate income group?
CUOMO: It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes.
CUOMO: With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages — which will be a higher risk, and I’m sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio …
You heard and read that right. Andrew Cuomo said the banks would be giving people loans they would not have otherwise been qualified for. He said those people would default on those loans. He and the rest of them knew what would happen and they went ahead and did it anyway. Be sure to read Morrissey’s commentary explaining how the CRA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo and Congress brought about the mess we’re in today with the housing market.
If you ask me, their actions were criminal. Now Andrew Cuomo wants to be the next governor of New York, and our side has Carl Paladino who can’t get out of his own way. What a mess.

http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/10/video-evidence-andrew-cuomo-at-the-heart-of-the-mortgage-melt-down/

As Secretary of HUD, Andrew Cuomo reversed the policy of selling defaulted mortgages so that families could keep their homes. Instead, he chose to foreclose on mortgages, which meant that families lost their homes and insiders cleaned up on fire-sale priced properties. The US Treasury also lost billions.

1960s heyday-present
Over time, mob loan sharks moved away from such labor intensive rackets. By the 1960s, the preferred clientele was small and medium sized businesses. Business customers had the advantage of possessing assets that could be seized in case of default, or used to engage in fraud or to launder money. Gamblers were another lucrative market, as were other criminals who needed financing for their operations. By the 1970s, mob salary lending operations seemed to have withered away in the United States.[10]
At its height in the 1960s, underworld loansharking was estimated to be the second most lucrative franchise of organized crime in the United States after illegal gambling. Newspapers in the 1960s were filled with sensational stories of debtors beaten, harassed, and sometimes murdered by mob loan sharks. Yet careful studies of the business have raised doubts about the frequency with which violence was employed in practice. Relations between creditor and debtor could be amicable, even when the “vig” or “juice” was exorbitant, because each needed the other. FBI agents in one city interviewed one hundred fifteen customers of a mob loan business but turned up only one debtor who had been threatened. None had been beaten.[11]
[edit] Non-mafia sharks
Organized crime has never had a monopoly on black market lending. Plenty of vest-pocket lenders operated outside the jurisdiction of organized crime, charging usurious rates of interest for cash advances. These informal networks of credit rarely came to the attention of the authorities but flourished in populations not served by licensed lenders. Even today, after the rise of corporate payday lending in the United States, unlicensed loan sharks continue to operate in immigrant enclaves and low-income neighborhoods. They lend money to people who work in the informal sector or who are deemed to be too risky even by the check-cashing creditors. Some beat delinquents while others seize assets instead. Their rates run from 10%-20% a week, just like the mob loan sharks of days gone by.[12]

A loan shark is a person or body that offers unsecured loans at illegally high interest rates to individuals, often enforcing repayment by blackmail or threats of violence.
Throughout history, usury laws made loan sharks commonplace.[clarification needed] Many moneylenders skirted between legal and extra-legal activity. In the recent western world, loan sharks have been a feature of the criminal underworld, but are less common in law-abiding life.

19th century salary lenders
In late 19th century America, legal interest rates made small loans unprofitable, and small-time lending was frowned upon by society, as a borrower of small loans was seen as an irresponsible person who could not manage a budget. Banks and other major financial institutions thus stayed away from small-time lending. There were, however, plenty of small lenders offering loans at profitable but illegally high interest rates. They presented themselves as legitimate and operated openly out of offices. They only sought customers whom they felt were good risks: a steady and respectable job (a regular income and a reputation to protect), married (unlikely to flee town), and legitimate motives for borrowing. Gamblers, criminals and other disreputable, unreliable types were avoided. They made the borrower fill out and sign seemingly legitimate contracts. Though these contracts were not legally enforceable, they at least were proof of the loan, which the lender could use to blackmail a defaulter.
To coax a defaulter into paying up, the lender might threaten legal action. This was a bluff, since the loan was illegal; the lender preyed on the borrower’s ignorance of the law. Alternatively, the lender resorted to public shaming, such as complaining to the borrower’s employer, who disdained indebted employees and often fired them, or shouting demands outside the borrower’s home. Whether out of gullibility or a desire to protect his reputation, the borrower usually succumbed and paid up.
Many customers were employees of large firms, such as railways or public works. Larger organizations were more likely to fire employees for being in debt as their rules were more impersonal, which gave the loan shark a powerful form of blackmail. It was easy for lenders to learn which large organizations did this rather than collecting information on the multitude of smaller firms. Larger firms had more job security and the greater possibility of promotion, so employees sacrificed more to ensure they were not fired. The loan shark could also bribe a large firm’s paymaster to provide information on its many employees. Regular salaries and paydays made negotiating repayment plans simpler.[1]

They say money talks and it sure does when it comes to big business getting its way.  It has been the law in Florida for years that if you borrowed money from a loan shark and paid higher than 18 percent interest, the loan shark would forfeit interest.  Under the criminal usury statute, Fla. Stat. § 687.071, charging an interest rate in excess of 25 percent or 45 percent constitutes a second degree misdemeanor or third degree felony, respectively.   A long line of Florida court cases starting in 1936 and continuing until recent years dismissed efforts by creative cons to avoid the usury statute in Florida by charging a “commission” or bonus on top of healthy rate of interest.  Of course, the usury statute was designed to protect you, the consuming public.  I can hear you asking “Then how do the credit card companies get away with charging you 29% interest?” 

Predatory lending

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Predatory lending describes unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices of some lenders during the loan origination process. While there are no legal definitions in the United States for predatory lending, an audit report on predatory lending from the office of inspector general of the FDIC broadly defines predatory lending as “imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.”[1] Though there are laws against many of the specific practices commonly identified as predatory, various federal agencies use the term as a catch-all term for many specific illegal activities in the loan industry. Predatory lending should not to be confused with predatory mortgage servicing which is used to describe the unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices of lenders and servicing agents during the loan or mortgage servicing process, post loan origination.
One less contentious definition of the term is “the practice of a lender deceptively convincing borrowers to agree to unfair and abusive loan terms, or systematically violating those terms in ways that make it difficult for the borrower to defend against.”[2] Other types of lending sometimes also referred to as predatory include payday loans, credit cards or other forms of consumer debt, and overdraft loans, when the interest rates are considered unreasonably high.[3] Although predatory lenders are most likely to target the less educated, lowest incomes, racial minorities, the elderly, victims of predatory lending are represented across all demographics.[4][5]
Predatory lending typically occurs on loans backed by some kind of collateral, such as a car or house, so that if the borrower defaults on the loan, the lender can repossess or foreclose and profit by selling the repossessed or foreclosed property. Lenders may be accused of tricking a borrower into believing that an interest rate is lower than it actually is, or that the borrower’s ability to pay is greater than it actually is. The lender, or others as agents of the lender, may well profit from repossession or foreclosure upon the collateral.

Contents
[hide]
1 Abusive or unfair lending practices
2 Disputes over predatory lending
3 Underlying issues
4 Predatory borrowing
5 United States legislation combating predatory lending
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
[edit] Abusive or unfair lending practices
There are many lending practices which have been called abusive and labeled with the term “predatory lending.” There is a great deal of dispute between lenders and consumer groups as to what exactly constitutes “unfair” or “predatory” practices, but the following are sometimes cited.
Unjustified risk-based pricing. This is the practice of charging more (in the form of higher interest rates and fees) for extending credit to borrowers identified by the lender as posing a greater credit risk. The lending industry argues that risk-based pricing is a legitimate practice; since a greater percentage of loans made to less creditworthy borrowers can be expected to go into default, higher prices are necessary to obtain the same yield on the portfolio as a whole. Some consumer groups argue that higher prices paid by more vulnerable consumers cannot always be justified by increased credit risk.[6]
Single-premium credit insurance. This is the purchase of insurance which will pay off the loan in case the homebuyer dies. It is more expensive than other forms of insurance because it does not involve any medical checkups, but customers almost always are not shown their choices, because usually the lender is not licensed to sell other forms of insurance. In addition, this insurance is usually financed into the loan which causes the loan to be more expensive, but at the same time encourages people to buy the insurance because they do not have to pay up front.
Failure to present the loan price as negotiable.[6] Many lenders will negotiate the price structure of the loan with borrowers. In some situations, borrowers can even negotiate an outright reduction in the interest rate or other charges on the loan. Consumer advocates argue that borrowers, especially unsophisticated borrowers, are not aware of their ability to negotiate and might even be under the mistaken impression that the lender is placing the borrower’s interests above its own. Thus, many borrowers do not take advantage of their ability to negotiate.[6]
Failure to clearly and accurately disclose terms and conditions, particularly in cases where an unsophisticated borrower is involved. Mortgage loans are complex transactions involving multiple parties and dozens of pages of legal documents. In the most egregious of predatory cases, lenders or brokers have been not only misled borrowers but also actually altered documents after they have been signed.
Short-term loans with disproportionally high fees, such as payday loans, credit card late fees, checking account overdraft fees, and Tax Refund Anticipation Loans, where the fee paid for advancing the money for a short period of time works out to an annual interest rate significantly in excess of the market rate for high-risk loans. The originators of such loans dispute that the fees are interest.
Servicing agent and securitization abuses. The mortgage servicing agent is the entity that receives the mortgage payment, maintains the payment records, provides borrowers with account statements, imposes late charges when the payment is late, and pursues delinquent borrowers. A securitization is a financial transaction in which assets, especially debt instruments, are pooled and securities representing interests in the pool are issued. Most loans are subject to being bundled and sold, and the rights to act as servicing agent sold, without the consent of the borrower. A federal statute requires notice to the borrower of a change in servicing agent, but does not protect the borrower from being held delinquent on the note for payments made to the servicing agent who fails to forward the payments to the owner of the note, especially if that servicing agent goes bankrupt, and borrowers who have made all payments on time can find themselves being foreclosed on and becoming unsecured creditors of the servicing agent.[7] Foreclosures can sometimes be conducted without proper notice to the borrower. In some states (see Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 746), there is no defense against eviction, forcing the borrower to move and incur the expense of hiring a lawyer and finding another place to live while litigating the claim of the “new owner” to own the house, especially after it is resold one or more times. When the debtor demands, under the best evidence rule, that the current claimed note owner produce the original note with the debtor’s signature on it, the note owner typically is unable or unwilling to do so, and tries to establish his claim with an affidavit that it is the owner, without proving it is the “holder in due course”, the traditional standard for a debt claim, and the courts often allow them to do that. In the meantime, the note continues to be traded, its physical whereabouts difficult to discover.[8]
[edit] Disputes over predatory lending
The organization ACORN claimed that predatory loans are usually made in poor and minority neighborhoods where better loans are not readily available.[9] Organizations such as AARP, Inner City Press, and ACORN have worked to stop what they describe as predatory lending. ACORN has targeted specific companies such as HSBC Finance and H&R Block, successfully forcing them to change their practices.[10]
On the other side of the issue are various subprime lending advocates, such as the National Home Equity Mortgage Association (NHEMA), which say many practices commonly called “predatory,” particularly the practice of risk-based pricing, are not actually predatory, and that many laws aimed at reducing “predatory lending” significantly restrict the availability of mortgage finance to lower-income borrowers.[11] Such parties consider predatory lending a pejorative term.[who?]
Some subprime lending practices have raised concerns about mortgage discrimination on the basis of race.[12] African Americans and other minorities are being disproportionately led to sub-prime mortgages with higher interest rates than their white counterparts.[13] Even when median income levels were comparable, home buyers in minority neighborhoods were more likely to get a loan from a subprime lender, though not necessarily a sub-prime loan.[12]
In addition, studies by leading consumer groups have concluded that women have become a key component to the subprime mortgage crunch. Professor Anita F. Hill wrote that a large percentage of first-time home buyers were women, and that loan officers took advantage of the lack of financial knowledge of many female loan applicants.[14] [15] Consumers believe that they are protected by consumer protection laws, when their lender is really operating wholly outside the laws. Refer to 16 U.S.C. 1601 and 12 C.F.R. 226.
Media investigations have disclosed that mortgage lenders used bait-and-switch salesmanship and fraud to take advantage of borrowers during the home-loan boom. In February 2005, for example, reporters Michael Hudson (reporter) and Scott Reckard broke a story in the Los Angeles Times about “boiler room” sales tactics at Ameriquest Mortgage, the nation’s largest subprime lender. Hudson and Reckard cited interviews and court statements by 32 former Ameriquest employees who said the company had abused its customers and broken the law, “deceiving borrowers about the terms of their loans, forging documents, falsifying appraisals and fabricating borrowers’ income to qualify them for loans they couldn’t afford.”[16] Ameriquest later agreed to pay a $325 million predatory lending settlement with state authorities across the nation

In this episode, Jesus is stated to have visited the Temple in Jerusalem, Herod’s Temple, at which the courtyard is described as being filled with livestock and the tables of the money changers, who changed the standard Greek and Roman money for Jewish and Tyrian money[1] Jerusalem was packed with Jews who had come for Passover, perhaps comprising 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims.[5][6]

Creating a whip from some cords, “he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. But he said to those who sold doves, ‘Get these out of here! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!’[Jn 2:13-16]”

“ And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
”
— Matthew 21:12-13

In John, this is the first of the three times that Jesus goes to Jerusalem for the Passover, and John says that during the Passover Feast there were (unspecified) miraculous signs performed by Jesus, which caused people to believe in his name, but that he would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men.[4][7]

In Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 Jesus again accuses the Temple authorities of thieving and this time names poor widows as their victims going on to provide evidence of this in Mark 12:42 and Luke 21:2. Dove sellers were selling doves that were sacrificed by the poor who could not afford grander sacrifices and specifically by women