Safe Mode: On
Foreclosure “Victims” Deserve No Sympathy

It shouldn’t be long before ACORN recruits “Octomom” Nadya Suleman to serve as the radical, left-wing group’s new foreclosure poster child. The jobless, unmarried mother of 14 faces eviction from her family home in two weeks. Suleman’s mother, who owns the residence, hasn’t sent mortgage checks in 10 months and owes $23,000 in back payments. Nonetheless, the plastic surgery-enhanced, welfare-dependent Octomom was photographed this week at a video store splurging on games for her brood.

With her warped financial priorities, Suleman fits right in with the militant moochers at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. As I reported last week, ACORN launched a lawless “civil disobedience” campaign across the country to demand their housing entitlement rights. With this well-oiled propaganda campaign buoying his efforts, President Obama used his State of the Union address last night to advance his push for a massive government home foreclosure plan that will help “responsible homeowners avoid foreclosure.”

But a closer look at ACORN’s sob stories shows that the prototypical foreclosure “victims” by the Left don’t deserve an ounce of sympathy – or a cent of our money.
Earlier this week, ACORN activists broke into a foreclosed home in Baltimore. With a mob cheering and camera crew taping, ACORN leader Louis Beverly busted a padlock and jimmied the door open at 315 South Ellwood Ave. The home once belonged to restaurant worker Donna Hanks, who assailed her evil bank for raising her mortgage by $300 and leaving her on the street. “This is our house now,” Beverly declared with Hanks by his side at the break-in.

What ACORN didn’t tell you: Hanks’ house was sold in June 2008 for $192,000. She bought the two-story home in the summer of 2001 for $87,000. At some point during the next five years, she re-financed the original home loan for $270,000. Where did all that money go? (Hint: Think house-sized ATM.)

The property initially went into foreclosure proceedings in the spring of 2006. Hanks soon filed for bankruptcy and agreed to a Chapter 13 plan to pay back her bank and other creditors. In September 2006, the bankruptcy court ordered Hanks’ employer to deduct $340/month from her salary to pay down the debt. Hanks did not comply with the legally binding plan. In December 2007, the loan servicer issued a notice of default on nearly $7,000 past due.

While she was reneging on her mortgage IOUS, she somehow managed to collect rent on her basement (for which she was taken to court) and rack up a criminal record on charges of theft and second-degree assault. The house was sold seven months ago after two years of court-negotiated attempts to allow Hanks to dig herself out of her debt hole.

Baltimore ACORN leader Louis Beverly, who also claims to be a foreclosure victim himself, was charged with burglary for the break-in and released. He is literally a housing thug – having been charged with separate second-degree assault and property destruction charges earlier this year and battery, assault, handgun possession and possession of a deadly weapon with intent to injure in 1992; and slapped with a peace order issued against him in 2006.

The Washington Post spotlighted Beverly and Hanks’ activism without ever following up on their criminal records and financial negligence. The paper also shilled for ubiquitous ACORN foreclosure “victim” Veronica Peterson of Columbia, Md., recycling uncritically her accusation that she had been tricked into buying a $545,000 home by a broker who inflated her income and misrepresented her assets. “These loans were weapons of mass destruction,” the single mom of three and home daycare provider who couldn’t keep up with her mortgage bills told the Post reporter. “They destroyed our credit, our lives, and they blew up in our face.’”

But a look at court and real estate records exposed the truth. Edward Ericcson, Jr., a reporter for the independent Baltimore City Paper discovered that the “victim” — who took out a full mortgage with no down payment on a house she couldn’t afford — looks more like a predatory borrower. And amazingly, Peterson lived in the home more than year without paying rent or mortgage.

“The online court and land records show that Peterson closed on the house on Nov. 3, 2006, with two loans from Washington Mutual. The main mortgage, for $436,000, had a starting interest rate of 8.5 percent, adjusting in December…The second loan, often called a “piggyback,” totaled $109,000 with an interest rate of 11.25 percent…Those two payments together would have totaled $3,386.17 per month.

That’s before property taxes, upkeep, utilities, etc. Peterson would have to earn at least $50,000 per year just to make her house payments.”

The foreclosure was filed in July 2007. “The balance on the main note then was $435,735.86,” Ericcson reporters, plus unpaid interest and late fees – suggesting she made at most one payment on the house. “Had she made all of her payments, Peterson would have spent about $64,335 so far. Had she rented a similar place, she would have been charged around $2,500 per month–a total of $47,500 — since January 2007. Instead, she apparently paid nothing.”

Who are the real suckers? Who are the true victims? If only the reporters swallowing their stories were half as diligent about background checks of ACORN racketeers as they were with Joe the Plumber.

- Michelle Malkin


Click to view image: 'ef753c74966c-1aaaaus1.jpg'

Click to view image: 'b131bd72bdf2-donnahanks.jpg'

Added: Feb-25-2009 
By: MarkusMarone
In:
News
Tags: ACORN, Welfare Losers, Obama-Lovers, Failures at Life
Views: 9122 | Comments: 17 | Votes: 1 | Favorites: 1 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
'
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Their should be no bailout on forclosures, all party's involved need to learn to be responcible for their actions

    Posted Feb-25-2009 By 

    (7) | Report

    • Agreed, but libtards don't see it like that. OSPENDA says he knows better then all of us out here what WE NEED. He is a waste and the 54% that voted for this moron have dug a grave for us all. You morons.

      Posted Feb-25-2009 By 

      (2) | Report

    • He knows we need to pay for others to ensure his agenda comes to pass.

      Posted Feb-25-2009 By 

      (4) | Report

    • I agree, but why do the banks get a bailout? Will the banks learn to be responsible for their actions? They'll just take your money and become more powerful (cos there's less of them) and then the cycle starts again, only this time more globally. It's a shame that people side with the banks, even if this woman was stupid and greedy.

      Posted Feb-25-2009 By 

      (-1) | Report

  • Proves my hypothesis that Liberalism is a disease that rots the brain and prevents is use.

    Posted Feb-25-2009 By 

    (2) | Report

  • 14 kids?!?!? WTF

    Posted Feb-25-2009 By 

    (1) | Report

  • They aren't going to let her take the kids home if..well, she doesn't have room for them.

    I'm sure some sucker will pony up cash for her...there are freaks all around.

    Maybe Brangelina will adopt three or four!

    Posted Feb-25-2009 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Octo-mom is busy....she got a porn offer....

    Posted Feb-25-2009 By 

    (1) | Report

  • if she would have aborted those kids, then they would have had her as the poster child...

    Posted Feb-25-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • I agree with the points on those specific individuals. But, I don't agree that everyone in that situation is just irresponsible in the same manner.

    Some people legitimately lost their jobs due to other factors including corporately mismanaged plans and money. Not everyone is in this situation because they bought a house or refinanced a house for a rate they couldn't afford.

    It's funny how people freak about government controlling any corporate entity, but are perfectly okay with the same com More..

    Posted Feb-25-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • LMAO @ the morons calling this a "Liberal" move when McCain would have not done it much different.

    As much as idiots who fell prey to the lenders should learn their lesson. The US is not a country that lets its people live on the streets regardless of who they are, simple as that.

    Posted Feb-25-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • conservatism and republicanism are dead brands. they run the country into the ground every time they get in power. the best we can hope for out of all this pain is some lasting memories of exactly who caused it and who is fighting against Obama while he tries to fix it.

    Posted Feb-25-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • welfare hampster!
    just kill it!

    Posted May-8-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Cases like this have never been within any proposals to rescue troubled mortgages. There will have to be a plan to rescue troubled mortgages not because people should be protected from market forces but because foreclosures are a constant erosion of any recovery forces. Government is in the business of economic recovery right now and not into making sure everyone is punished. Everyone is affected by foreclosures

    Posted Feb-25-2009 By 

    (-1) | Report