Bank Of America Holds Patent On ‘Changing Your Emotions’ During Customer Service Call

Systems For Inducing Change In A Human Physiological Characteristic

YES! You read that right… The banks are not only making you crazy…. they are messing with your head!

Patent Abstract

Systems and methods for inducing a change in a human physiological characteristic. The physiological characteristic may correspond to an emotional state of a dialogue participant. The dialogue participant may be an individual participating in a conversation. The outcome of the conversation may be related to a business objective, such as providing high quality call center services. A sensor may monitor the physiologic characteristic. A processor may relate the physiologic characteristic to an emotional state. The processor may provide feedback to the individual based on the emotional state. The feedback may be formulated to change the individual’s emotional state.

• Read the Patent Application HERE

We wonder, do they also have patents on the following:

• Ken Lewis’ genius decision to buy Countrywide and assume billions in liability.
• Having the worst customer service of any U.S. bank.
• Overpaying for Merrill Lynch.
• Robbing shareholders.
• Using Repo 105s to hide true balance sheet exposures.
• Foreclosing on homeowners in violation of 400-year-old contract law.
• Destroying lives.
• Losing the mortgage note.

We’re certain there are more, but we’ll leave it to readers to complete the rest of the BofA patent portfolio in comments.

Original blog posting at: http://dailybail.com/home/wtf-no-seriously-wtf-bank-of-america-holds-patent-on-changin.htm

Unveiling Bank of America’s Startling Patent and How FRAUD STOPPERS’ Legal Education Course Can Empower Customers

In a shocking revelation, it has come to light that Bank of America holds a patent titled “Systems for Inducing Change in a Human Physiological Characteristic,” which involves manipulating customers’ emotions during customer service calls. This news has raised concerns about the ethical boundaries financial institutions may be crossing in their pursuit of profit. However, amidst this disconcerting revelation, FRAUD STOPPERS offers a glimmer of hope for Bank of America customers with its legal education course on how to effectively navigate the court system and seek justice.

The Startling Patent:

The patent held by Bank of America focuses on inducing a change in a person’s emotional state during a conversation, particularly during customer service calls. The bank’s objective is to provide high-quality call center services by monitoring customers’ physiological characteristics and using this information to influence their emotional state. The patent describes the use of sensors to monitor the physiological responses of customers and a processor to provide feedback aimed at altering their emotional state.

Implications for Customers:

This revelation has left customers understandably concerned about the extent to which their emotions may have been manipulated during interactions with Bank of America’s customer service representatives. It raises questions about the fairness and transparency of these interactions, as well as the potential impact on customers’ decision-making processes.

The Role of FRAUD STOPPERS:

Amidst this alarming news, FRAUD STOPPERS provides an invaluable resource for Bank of America customers who may be seeking justice or resolution. FRAUD STOPPERS offers a comprehensive legal education course called “How to Win in Court,” which equips individuals with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate the legal system effectively.

Empowering Bank of America Customers:

FRAUD STOPPERS’ legal education course is designed to empower individuals by providing them with a deep understanding of their legal rights and the procedures involved in seeking justice. The course covers various topics, including legal strategies, court procedures, evidence gathering, and effective communication. With this knowledge, Bank of America customers can make informed decisions and take appropriate legal action if they believe they have been wronged or subjected to manipulative practices.

By enrolling in the “How to Win in Court” course, Bank of America customers can gain the necessary skills to challenge any potential unfair practices, breaches of contract, or other legal issues they may encounter. The course is tailored to educate individuals on navigating the court system effectively, ensuring they have the best possible chance of success in their legal endeavors.

The revelation that Bank of America holds a patent on manipulating customers’ emotions during customer service calls is deeply concerning. However, amidst this disconcerting news, FRAUD STOPPERS’ legal education course, “How to Win in Court,” offers a beacon of hope for Bank of America customers seeking justice. By equipping themselves with the knowledge and strategies provided by FRAUD STOPPERS, customers can navigate the legal system with confidence, ensuring that their rights are protected and that any potential wrongdoing is brought to light. In a time where trust in financial institutions is crucial, empowering individuals with legal education is a vital step towards ensuring fairness and accountability in the banking industry.

Your Mortgage Documents Might be Fake!

Ya think, maybe?

MERS alleges to have registered 71 million mortgages. There were likely another 15-20 million “non-MERS” mortgages…

Prepare to be outraged. Newly obtained filings from this Florida woman’s lawsuit uncover horrifying scheme (Update)

If you know about foreclosure fraud, the mass fabrication of mortgage documents in state courts by banks attempting to foreclose on homeowners, you may have one nagging question: Why did banks have to resort to this illegal scheme? Was it just cheaper to mockup the documents than to provide the real ones? Did banks figure they simply had enough power over regulators, politicians and the courts to get away with it? (They were probably right about that one.)

Thom Hartmann talks with Lynn Szymoniak, Attorney / President and Founder- The Housing Justice Foundation. Website: http://thjf.org/, about her efforts to help those who are getting screwed by the big banks.

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends… and hit that “like” button!

A newly unsealed lawsuit, which banks settled in 2012 for $95 million, actually offers a different reason, providing a key answer to one of the persistent riddles of the financial crisis and its aftermath. The lawsuit states that banks resorted to fake documents because they could not legally establish true ownership of the loans when trying to foreclose.

This reality, which banks did not contest but instead settled out of court, means that tens of millions of mortgages in America still lack a legitimate chain of ownership, with implications far into the future. And if Congress, supported by the Obama administration, goes back to the same housing finance system, with the same corrupt private entities who broke the nation’s private property system back in business packaging mortgages, then shame on all of us.

The 2011 lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in both North and South Carolina, by a white­collar fraud specialist named Lynn Szymoniak, on behalf of the federal government, 17 states and three cities. Twenty-eight banks, mortgage servicers and document processing companies are named in the lawsuit, including mega-banks like JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi and Bank of America.

Szymoniak, who fell into foreclosure herself in 2009, researched her own mortgage documents and found massive fraud (for example, one document claimed that Deutsche Bank, listed as the owner of her mortgage, acquired ownership in October 2008, four months after they first filed for foreclosure). She eventually examined tens of thousands of documents, enough to piece together the entire scheme.

A mortgage has two parts: the promissory note (the IOU from the borrower to the lender) and the mortgage, which creates the lien on the home in case of default. During the housing bubble, banks bought loans from originators, and then (in a process known as securitization) enacted a series of transactions that would eventually pool thousands of mortgages into bonds, sold all over the world to public pension funds, state and municipal governments and other investors. A trustee would pool the loans and sell the securities to investors, and the investors would get an annual percentage yield on their money.

In order for the securitization to work, banks purchasing the mortgages had to physically convey the promissory note and the mortgage into the trust. The note had to be endorsed (the way an individual would endorse a check), and handed over to a document custodian for the trust, with a “mortgage assignment” confirming the transfer of ownership. And this had to be done before a 90-day cutoff date, with no grace period beyond that.

Georgetown Law professor Adam Levitin spelled this out in testimony before Congress in 2010: “If mortgages were not properly transferred in the securitization process, then mortgage-backed securities would in fact not be backed by any mortgages whatsoever.”

The lawsuit alleges that these notes, as well as the mortgage assignments, were “never delivered to the mortgage-backed securities trusts,” and that the trustees lied to the SEC and investors about this. As a result, the trusts could not establish ownership of the loan when they went to foreclose, forcing the production of a stream of false documents, signed by “robo-signers,” employees using a bevy of corporate titles for companies that never employed them, to sign documents about which they had little or no knowledge.

Many documents were forged (the suit provides evidence of the signature of one robo-signer, Linda Green, written eight different ways), some were signed by “officers” of companies that went bankrupt years earlier, and dozens of assignments listed as the owner of the loan “Bogus Assignee for Intervening Assignments,” clearly a template that was never changed. One defendant in the case, Lender Processing Services, created masses of false documents on behalf of the banks, often using fake corporate officer titles and forged signatures. This was all done to establish standing to foreclose in courts, which the banks otherwise could not.

Szymoniak stated in her lawsuit that, “Defendants used fraudulent mortgage assignments to conceal that over 1400 MBS trusts, each with mortgages valued at over $1 billion, are missing critical documents,” meaning that at least $1.4 trillion in mortgage-backed securities are, in fact, non-mortgage-backed securities. Because of the strict laws governing of these kinds of securitizations, there’s no way to make the assignments after the fact. Activists have a name for this: “securitization FAIL.”

One smoking gun piece of evidence in the lawsuit concerns a mortgage assignment dated Feb. 9, 2009, after the foreclosure of the mortgage in question was completed. According to the suit, “A typewritten note on the right hand side of the document states: ‘This Assignment of Mortgage was inadvertently not recorded prior to the Final Judgment of Foreclosure… but is now being recorded to clear title.’”

This admission confirms that the mortgage assignment was not made before the closing date of the trust, invalidating ownership. The suit further argued that “the act of fabricating the assignments is evidence that the MBS Trust did not own the notes and/or the mortgage liens for some assets claimed to be in the pool.”

The federal government, states and cities joined the lawsuit under 25 counts of the federal False Claims Act and state-based versions of the law. All of them bought mortgage-backed securities from banks that never conveyed the mortgages or notes to the trusts. The plaintiffs argued that, considering that trustees and servicers had to spend lots of money forging and fabricating documents to establish ownership, they were materially harmed by the subsequent impaired value of the securities. Also, these investors (which include the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve) paid for the transfer of mortgages to the trusts, yet they were never actually transferred.

Finally, the lawsuit argues that the federal government was harmed by “payments made on mortgage guarantees to Defendants lacking valid notes and assignments of mortgages who were not entitled to demand or receive said payments.”

Despite Szymoniak seeking a trial by jury, the government intervened in the case, and settled part of it at the beginning of 2012, extracting $95 million from the five biggest banks in the suit (Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citi and GMAC/Ally Bank). Szymoniak herself was awarded $18 million. But the underlying evidence was never revealed until the case was unsealed last Thursday.

Now that it’s unsealed, Szymoniak, as the named plaintiff, can go forward and prove the case. Along with her legal team (which includes the law firm of Grant & Eisenhoffer, which has recovered more money under the False Claims Act than any firm in the country), Szymoniak can pursue discovery and go to trial against the rest of the named defendants, including HSBC, the Bank of New York Mellon, Deutsche Bank and US Bank.

The expenses of the case, previously borne by the government, now are borne by Szymoniak and her team, but the percentages of recovery funds are also higher. “I’m really glad I was part of collecting this money for the government, and I’m looking forward to going through discovery and collecting the rest of it,” Szymoniak told Salon.