Tag Archives: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Coming Soon to the Clouded Titles Website …


In keeping with the tradition of educational information, the Clouded Titles website will soon feature a monthly newsletter called, “THE RICH REPORT”, a monthly in-depth analysis designed and delivered by retired attorney Richard L. DiMaggio, J.D., who will cover pertinent, on-going cases involving FDCPA, debt collection issues, FCRA, credit report issues, TILA, RESPA, identity theft, mortgage fraud and other important financial news affecting homeowners, borrowers and debtors alike.

The monthly service will be subscription-based and will bring you the hottest news, information and legal analysis of consumer-oriented issues by one of the top FDCPA attorneys in the country.  Richard L. DiMaggio, J.D. wrote the book, “Collection Agency Harassment: What the Debt Collector Doesn’t Want You to Know”.  THE RICH REPORT will be delivered right to your email inbox every month in pdf format for easy reading.  THE RICH REPORT is a great supplement for anyone reading FORECLOSURE, DEBT COLLECTION AND FORECLOSURES, by Dave Krieger, available on the Clouded Titles Website NOW (and also through The Power Mall on The Power Hour!)

Mr. DiMaggio will be joining me on The Power Hour, with Joyce Riley, at 9:00 a.m. Central Standard Time on Monday, February 27, 2017 to discuss FDCPA and debt collection issues.  Needless to say, this will be a powerful broadcast!  Put it on your calendar and plan on tuning in live.  Joyce Riley will also be taking telephone calls related to the subject matter, so if you’ve got anything to add, please feel free to chime in.  She’ll give the number out on the show!




Filed under Breaking News, Debt Collection and Foreclosures, FCRA Education, FDCPA, FDCPA Education, Financial Education



The author of this post has just gotten word that his new book, FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures has just come off the presses and is ready for shipment!


If you’ve been waiting to see whether I was seriously going to release this book before ordering a copy, you can still get yours now and it will be shipped to you, USPS Priority Mail in a bubble envelope within 24 hours of your order on the Clouded Titles website (we use encrypted secure servers and we do not store credit card information).


1 Comment

Filed under Breaking News, Debt Collection and Foreclosures, FDCPA Education



The U.S. Supreme Court appears to have granted a Writ of Certiorari to petitioner Ricky Henson, et al in his case versus Santander Consumer USA, Inc. coming out of the nation’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  There have been numerous disagreements among the circuits as to what constitutes a “creditor” by definition versus what constitutes a “debt collector” by definition, within the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692a et seq).   More about these definitions are specifically noted through the new book FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures (by the author of this post), anticipated to be released in its first 256-page first edition, sometime around the end of this month (January, 2017).

There is evidence of deeply-entrenched conflict among the circuits, which involves the definition of a “creditor”, which is succinctly defined within the FDCPA as: (a.) any person who offers or extends credit (thereby creating a debt to the borrower); and (b.) any person to whom a debt is owed … and that of a “debt collector”, also succinctly defined as: (a.) any person whose principal purpose is to collect debts; (b.) any person who regularly collects debts owed to another; and (c.) any person who collects its own debts, using a name other than its own.  You can see where these so-called variance opinions have formed as cases involving FDCPA complaints have worked their way through each of the federal circuits.

The hinge pin here however, is that the FDCPA also states that a person is NOT a “creditor” if that person “receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collect of such debt for another.”  That, by definition, would make most mortgage servicers “debt collectors”, which consumers, as mortgagors, now find useful to wage war in federal court by using FDCPA actions!   This is one of the reasons this author did the research of over 400 FDCPA actions, some successful and others not successful, for the purposes of illustrating not only the circuit split in definitions, but also because the only way circuit splits can be resolved in finality is by a Supreme Court decision on the valid merits of the case.


The key word here is “default”.  The Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau both concur that the default status of a debt at the time it was acquired determines the status as to whether the entity is a “creditor” or “debt collector”.  The CFPB used this model in an action against a large bank, finding the bank violated the FDCPA by failing to send validation notices on student loan accounts there were in default at the time they were acquired from another bank.  This puts student loan borrowers in a very interesting litigation posture when debts get “assigned” to entities like Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., Van Ru Credit Corporation, The CBE Group and Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. (to name a few) to collect, which comprise the larger number of entities assigned to collect student loan debt on behalf of the U. S. Department of Education, which is the alleged “guarantor” (which cannot be sued, so don’t even try it).  Every case the the author has reviewed involving a state-based corporation designed to monitor the accounts of student loan borrowers and the Department of Education, wherein the Plaintiff borrower sued them for alleged FDCPA violations, got tossed out.  The smarter consumers appear to be going after the actual debt collection agencies that have been assigned to collect the debt.

When a debt is in default and has been assigned or transferred to another entity who then attempts to collect the debt, here’s where the splits stack up:

The 4th, 9th and 11th Circuits have held that a person is not a “debt collector” unless its principal purpose is to collect a debt, regularly in the business of collecting debts owed to another, or collecting a debt using a name other than its own.  The 11th Circuit has come out with some very pro-consumer decisions (like Reese v. Ellis) that have helped homeowners fighting foreclosures in going after the law firms trying to collect a debt (NOT enforcing a security instrument … there is a difference) using a different name than the one it operates under as a creditor.  These three “tests” must be met, in addition to the court’s determination that the debt was indeed in default at the time it was acquired by the person claiming the right to collect it.  These three Circuits also rejected the argument that any person taking assignment of defaulted debts is regularly collecting debts owed to another because the debts were owed to a different creditor at the time of default.  You can plainly see where the banks and their servicers (as creditors and quasi-debt collectors) want to confuse the issue, which, it appears they have done, over time.  Now the Supreme Court gets to interpret what the FDCPA means and what it doesn’t mean when it comes to these definitions.

The 3rd, 6th and 7th Circuit decisions in conflict with the foregoing Circuits have focused predominantly on the exclusions from the definitions of “creditor” and “debt collector”, declaring that any person who takes an assignment of a debt in default is a debt collector, while a person who takes assignment of a debt that is NOT in default is a “creditor”, because they actually BOUGHT the debt.  The 7th Circuit went further in explaining that any person acquiring a debt stands in the shoes of that creditor and acts similarly, as opposed to simply acquiring the debt for collection, wherein it acts more like a debt collector, by the strictest defined sense of the FDCPA.

Additionally, Also, both the CFPB and the FTC have adopted the view that the default status of the debt at the time of acquisition determines whether the entity is a “creditor” or a “debt collector.” The CFPB took this approach in a recent consent order with a large bank, finding that the bank violated the FDCPA by failing to send validation notices on student loan accounts that were in default at the time they were acquired from another bank.


The CFPB just recently reported that a larger number of student loan debts have afflicted those aged 62 and older to the tune of $66.7-billion!  That’s pretty scary, considering many of these debtors are co-signers for their children’s (and grandchildren’s) education.

It is seriously implied here that in addition to mortgage loans, student loans (car loans and credit cards), have also be securitized on Wall Street into “common law trusts”.  Mortgage loans get securitized into REMICs (which stands for Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits), while other securitized trusts are listed as to their designed use.

To make things a little more “interesting” … here is one sample debt validation response sent to a debt collector, who sent an “initial communication” to a student loan borrower in an attempt to collect a debt (the names of the borrower and debt collector have been purposefully changed to protect their identities):

Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Number:


Date of Debt Validation Correspondence
Name and address of Debt Collector


Re: Your Unsigned Debt Collection Letter, dated ______, 2017.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am in receipt of a PAST DUE NOTICE, dated “______, 2017” and am responding accordingly. I choose to respond point for point to what I allege is in fact, an initial communication letter from your debt collection agency.

This is to inform you that I am a “consumer” as defined under 15 U.S.C. 1692a(3).  Further, I deem you as a debt collector, subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which I have a copy of, under 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5).

First, you have provided me with no written proof of any of the claims you have made in this letter.  You have listed debt collection account reference numbers that I am not personally knowledgeable of.

There is no proof provided in the initial communication I received as to who purchased any alleged student loans under any guarantee agreement bearing my name and personal identifying information.  You also failed to provide me with a copy of the guarantee agreement or any of the loan paperwork that you allege or claim I owe you that is in default.   Therefore, I am disputing the entire balance of what you claim I owe you and further require that you provide me with following:

(a.) Proof of all indebtedness, including copies of any alleged loan paperwork you have in your possession, on which you base your alleged claim of default;

(b.) Proof of the entire chain of custody of each promissory note you claim that the entity you are collecting for was “required to purchase”, including but not limited to, copies of the “guarantee agreement” for each of the alleged loans contained within your initial communication to me;

(c.) Please send me a full accounting of ALL sums due that have been applied to this alleged loan balance, including alleged default insurance payments, credit default swap payments and any other insurance that was purchased to cover the entirety of the loan should an alleged default occur, including correspondence showing the payout dates of these alleged policies;

(d.) If this loan was securitized, along with other student loans, please provide me with the name of the trust and location of its trustee, including the its full contact information and telephone number;

(e.) Since you have threatened me with the garnishment of my wages, and based on the United States Code section shown below, I demand to be provided an opportunity to view all my purported loan documents and a hearing at a location close to my home;

31 U.S.C. § 3720D: US Code – Section 3720D: Garnishment

(3) The individual shall be provided an opportunity to inspect and copy records relating to the debt.

(5) The individual shall be provided an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with subsection (c) on the determination of the head of the executive, judicial, or legislative agency concerning –

(A) the existence or the amount of the debt, and

(B) in the case of an individual whose repayment schedule is established other than by a written agreement pursuant to paragraph (4), the terms of the repayment schedule.

Please be advised that I am responding with the above verbiage as you have indicated in your letter that you may utilize additional collection efforts, including an administrative wage garnishment, tax offset or assigning these alleged loans to the U. S. Department of Education, who, unless you can provide me with proof to the contrary, guaranteed these alleged loans in the first place;

(f.) Please provide me with the Name and Address of the Original Lender / Creditor and all correspondence you have in your possession related to these alleged loans.

(g.) Please provide me with the exact location of my purported loan documents, signed by me, including a direct phone number; and

(h.) Please provide me with copies of all correspondence between your agency and the U. S. Department of Education, including all loan documents, and any documents you have in your possession, bearing my legitimate signature, that prove you have the right to collect this alleged debt, including any agreements signed between you and the alleged creditor you claim to be representing in your initial communication to me.

Please be advised that, in providing the above response, John Q. Consumer is not limiting or waiving any rights or remedies he may now or hereafter have, whether arising under your purported loan documents at law or in equity, all of which rights and remedies are expressly reserved.

Further, since I cannot take your telephone calls into court, this is a demand upon you that you are restricted from contacting me at my home, on my cellular phone or at my workplace regarding the collection of any of the foregoing, until you can fully satisfy the demands set forth in this letter.

Failure to completely respond will also result in an FDCPA action being filed against your company in the appropriate forum.

All further correspondence (including your answer and supporting documentation) may be sent to the address shown below.  I expect to hear from you in short order, as this letter is intended to give you notice that I am disputing the entirety of this debt in full.

John Q. Consumer (address)

Enclosure: Copy of Debt Collection Letter

Again, I managed to acquire this from a “consumer”, who sent a variation of this letter, regarding a student loan debt.  This letter is a SAMPLE and does NOT constitute the rendering of legal advice for your particular situation and may not draw any conclusions of law or guarantee any legal outcome.  If you intend on using any form of this for your own personal use, you should be aware that you do so at your own risk.  After reading this letter, I was tempted to contact “John Q. Consumer” to see if the debt collector ever responded.  It would seem to appear that when the issue of securitization is brought up, this may create a real dilemma, because the student loan itself may have already been paid in full upon the default of the borrower!  Entire of tranches of student loans may have been paid off over time!

I just thought I’d let you, the blog subscriber, know that student loan borrowers are also using similar tactics, more of which are in the new book on the FDCPA, coming out shortly, which you can pre-order on the Clouded Titles website. The book also goes into detail about how debtors have used FDCPA actions to repeatedly sue debt collectors in order to make a part-time income!  It is fascinating to see what the mind can achieve and the human condition to accomplish!  I’ve actually included an “exploded” view of an FDCPA lawsuit, both applied individually and as a class action, so you can compare notes!  I think you’ll find the 256 pages worthy of your time and consideration.

Just because SCOTUS is deciding this narrow issue does not mean that FDCPA actions will be put “on hold” either.  The definitions of the FDCPA do merit clarification by the nation’s highest court, so the lower circuits will (once and for all) STOP QUIBBLING over what the terms really mean.  This is why it pays to know the FDCPA and get an education in debt collection before getting yourself into debt!


Filed under Breaking News, FDCPA Education, Op-Ed Piece


Consumers generally ignore a lot of debt collection activity because it invades and disrupts their comfort zones.  Since the new FDCPA book is coming out shortly, I’d thought I’d share several of the most commonly-ignored FDCPA and TCPA violations that would give rise to litigation (a smattering of what’s in the new book).

Problems with initial communication … 

You receive an initial communication (letter in the mail) from a debt collector.  There is specific language in the debt collection letter that says: (a.) that the communication is from a debt collector; (b.) you have 30 days to dispute the validity or any portion thereof; and (c.) if you dispute the letter, within a certain timeframe, the debt collector must provide you with proof (judgment or other paperwork) identifying the validity of a debt (or the portion you are disputing).  Before the 30 days are up, your phone starts ringing and the debt collectors begin hounding you for payment.

Problems with threats of litigation … 

You have an overdue bill of $74.00.  A debt collection agency sends you a letter stating that if you don’t pay it, they’ll take you to court.  Debt collectors can’t threaten to take legal action that they don’t intend on taking in the first place.  The bill is too small to waste time paying attorney’s fees and costs of suit (which would exceed the amount of the bill itself).

Problems with misrepresentation of the character and status of a debt …

The most commonly complained about violations occur when a debt collector informs you that: (a.) it is not a debt collector, when in fact, it is; (b.) it is attempting to collect a legally unenforceable debt without disclosing that the statute of limitations has expired on the collection of it;  (c.) you receive various letters from the same debt collection outfit indicating amounts that are grossly exaggerated in each letter; or (d.) there is an indication that attorney’s fees have been added to the debt when in fact, no attorney was retained to collect the debt.

Problems with follow-up communication … 

You get repeated phone calls or texts, many times a day, from the same debt collector about the same debt, hounding you for payment.

The debt collector leaves a blatant debt collection message on your answering machine, which unauthorized third parties can hear if they happen to be around when you play your messages back.

The texts the debt collector leaves on your phone incur a fee every time they text you.

The debt collector manages to reach you and calls you names or uses other defamatory language.

The debt collector calls you at work, talks to one of your co-workers and tells them you’re a deadbeat, asking if they can relay a message to have you call the debt collector back.

Third-party junk debt buyers are more likely to commit these infractions than most debt collectors; however, ALL debt collectors have one thing in common: Their activities are all covered under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act!  Many homeowners are even using these laws to stop foreclosures!  Find out how they’re doing it in this book! 

There are many more of these types of violations specifically listed in the new book by Dave Krieger entitled,  FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures … which is at the press and will be released before the end of January!   Order your 256-page copy now!   This new book contains:

  • The latest version of the FDCPA!
  • The latest version of the TCPA!
  • Detailed explanations of how to spot debt collection violations!
  • A compendium of federal district, appellate and Supreme Court case citations, FDCPA-related references and research tools for case development!
  • PLUS … detailed FDCPA-related pleadings used by attorneys in both individual and class action lawsuits to formulate federal complaints!

… all in large, 14-point print for easy reading!

Visit the Clouded Titles website and order your copy today before the first run is all gone!  It will be shipped to you (USPS Priority Mail) as soon as it comes off the press!



Filed under FDCPA Education


Op-Ed (… meaning the opinions expressed herein are that of the poster and should not constitute the rendering of legal advice!)

One of the key opportunities that homeowners in Florida should be aware of is the chance to observe “how the other side thinks”, especially in the most recent Florida Supreme Court decision in Bartram.  See the opinion here if your mind needs refreshing: bartram-v-us-bank-na-et-al-fl-sup-ct-no-sc-14-1265-nov-3-2016  If not, keep reading, because there’s the “other side of the coin” that isn’t being discussed.

For the purposes of this discussion, I included two recent posts, probably designed by law firms representing the banks, to gloat over the recent decision and surmise what was and wasn’t answered in the Supreme Court’s ruling.  You can read those posts here and surmise what the bank’s attorneys are now thinking:



If anything was meant to get you “off track” on rightful thinking, it would be this case!  Why?

It doesn’t matter whether Florida even has a statute of limitations available, because only those who can actually prove they own the loan have the right to enforce the terms of the mortgage!  Why this case had to even develop into what it was is beyond comprehension.  Even the attorney litigating this case told me that the Nash decision would be reversed, because, that’s just the way the courts are around here.

So the real issue rises to the level of scrutiny … standing.   Rightful thinking should be based on any Florida homeowner’s understanding of jurisdiction.  A court cannot rule on a case when an alleged party to the case (the complaining bank, servicer, etc.) cannot prove that it has a right to even file the complaint in the first place!

When the alleged aggrieved party cannot prove it has possession of the note … 

Nine times out of ten, Florida Circuit Judges don’t give a shit … they give your house to the bank because you owe someone and why would this bank file a foreclosure complaint if they didn’t own it?

Because it’s easy to steal someone’s property in Florida!  … and that’s no joke, folks!  

Here’s how they do it:

  1. Servicers analyze properties that have been sitting idle in the securitization pools without payments being applied (no matter whose fault it is).  They don’t care whether or not other sources of income (like credit default swaps, default insurance … PMI, LPMI, etc … shared loss agreements with the FDIC) are applied to the bottom line or not; so the loan number is flagged and further scrutinized.
  2. Servicers’ IT departments then dig up as much information as they can to see who and when the last time the property was attacked via a foreclosure complaint. The Bartram decision now gives lenders and their servicers the right to as many “bites at the apple” as they want.  They will flag and further scrutinize loans where cases have been dismissed (it doesn’t matter whether the homeowner won or not, voluntary, involuntary or through summary judgment) and place them in a “pending litigation” file.
  3. The servicers then enlist the help of the major title companies and foreclosure mill law firms to review and analyze what was wrong with the cases that were dismissed. They will check into the status of the note, who might possibly own it, whether the note was lost (or shredded), what assignments have been filed in the real property records where the property they want to steal is located and what actions might be needed to correct the issues to make it easier to convince a judge to allow them to steal the property. After all, why would a judge who is drawing a pension steeped in RMBS-type securities even think about siding with the homeowner, especially in Florida?
  4. The servicers then employ the major title companies and foreclosure mill law firms to “take corrective measures” to move the foreclosure cases forward (vis a vis David J. Stern “procedures”), like: (a.) manufacturing fraudulently-misrepresentative assignments of mortgage that assign the mortgage and note (often using MERS, whether MERS is involved or not) to the “servicer” or new “lender” whose intention is to come in and foreclose on the property; or in the alternative, (b.) to direct the manufacture of said document(s) by the servicers own teams of “robosigners” and “robonotaries”, like those situated in Palm Beach County, Florida.
  5. The servicers then cause the phony documents to be filed in the real property records where the property is situated and then direct the foreclosure mill law firm to start sending notices (following the notices being sent by the servicers to the borrowers).  It doesn’t matter what the alleged “default date” is … because they keep changing it … and thanks to Bartram, nothing else matters.
  6. The foreclosure mills then look at the promissory notes to make sure there is at least an “indorsement-in-blank”, so they can claim that entitles them to foreclose on the property. This, despite the fact the “indorsements” are undated, which prove no effective date of transfer. It doesn’t matter, because whatever the argument that might come from the homeowner or their attorney, the bank’s attorney can simply say, “They just want a free house, your Honor!”, just to piss off the judge!

The homeowner, who by this time has done some Internet research, has deemed himself “entitled” to a free house because a “fraud” was committed against him.  However, the fighting homeowner is living in the house (still) and the judge knows this, which makes the crime against the homeowner even worse in the judge’s mind.  Whether or not the claims made by the lender are factually based, all they have to do is show up with manufactured documents, claim some REMIC trust owns the property, and they rely on the judges to do their bidding.  After all, the judge doesn’t want the banks to “bankroll” his opponent in the next election, so, “what’s fair is fair”:

  1. The homeowner borrowed the money.  It doesn’t matter where the money came from (e.g., out of thin air-created-credit, interim funding lender, REMIC investors, etc.), the homeowner’s loan was funded.
  2. The homeowner got something of value.  Namely, the home they’re living in.
  3. The homeowner hasn’t made his payments.  Regardless of the fact that the burden of proof is on the lender to prove the homeowner is in default, the judge starts asking the questions of the homeowner/borrower to help the bank’s attorney prove their case.  The ill-informed homeowner and/or their attorney doesn’t know HOW to answer the judge’s questions, mostly out of fear.
  4. The lender is getting screwed and is therefore entitled to the house.  It doesn’t matter whether the note is credible or not.  The fact it is attached means something to the judge.  95% of the time, the judge is not going to ask any questions because the Florida Supreme Court has directed him to “get the case off his docket”! and
  5. No matter how many times an attempted foreclosure has taken place … and no matter how many times that case may have been dismissed (for whatever reason) … the lender(s) get multiple bites at the apple.  Some party is eventually going to end up with the property, while draining the homeowner of available funding so at some point, the homeowner can’t fight back. The servicers know that it’s a “numbers game”.  95% of homeowners in Florida “run away” when served with a foreclosure complaint.  The other 5%? A percentage of them will spend thousands of dollars (after reading stuff on the Internet) hiring a lawyer that is ill-prepared to defend the foreclosure and believes the same thing as the bank is alleging (“you owe somebody”) and (“no free house”).  A small fraction of that 5% are prepared financially to appeal the case, which could result in a reversal of their foreclosure.

But no matter … with Bertram, banks get more and more bites at the apple … with more phony documents and fabricated arguments relying on those phony documents.  No one will prosecute those phony documents to stop this nonsense from happening over and over again, so the judge’s dockets keep getting jammed up with foreclosure complaints … a scenario created by the Florida Supreme Court itself, who then issues mandates to clear the dockets.  This creates new bad case law upon new bad case law, to where “standing” is the only viable counterattack available to homeowners.

As nice as the Sunshine State is to live in, why would anyone want to buy a house here, knowing that:

  1. The legal odds are that the chain of title is all F**KED UP on 90% of the properties!
  2. Because it’s the Sunshine State, there’s a desire for more investors to buy these properties; thus, burying the frauds committed by the banks and their servicers deep within the F**KED UP chains of title.
  3. Prosecutors (who like being in power) don’t want to prosecute document manufacturing frauds because “that would be bad for business” because we need more banks operating out there to take advantage of homeowners, giving them loans they’re not entitled to, just because they can.
  4. Homeowners don’t understand that when you borrow money from a bank, security instruments guarantee that “someone” can steal the house down the road, whether you’ve made your payments or not.  There are cases in Florida where banks have attempted foreclosure on homes where the homeowners borrowed nothing … they paid cash for the house!
  5. Living in Florida may be really nice, except when you have a bank riding your ass all the time! Still thinking about moving here just because medical marijuana has been legalized?  Think about where you’re going to live, because only a certain percentage of Florida homeowners will be able to leave an estate to their children, largely due to the fact that foreclosure mill law firms need something to do to stay in business, whether they’re entitled to a “free house” or not!  Most people move to Florida because of estate planning advantages, except when there’s a “subject to” riding on a mortgage loan or a reverse mortgage.  This is the financial raping of America folks!

If the government can’t (or won’t) deal with the foregoing issues, in any state for that matter, what makes you think your life is “secure”.  Security is only perception that your living conditions are unchecked by some bank, because when banks don’t know who owns what, your living conditions could be disrupted.  So, even if you paid cash for the house, decisions like Bartram are irrelevant and take a back seat to standing issues.   You should simply come to the understanding that banks can do whatever they want in Florida, including fund judge’s retirement pensions with accounts laced with residential mortgage-backed securities!  What a conflict of interest, eh?

99% of the time, whether you have the funds to fight the banks and their servicers in court, YOU are probably NOT the party who’s going to end up with the “free house”. Until judges put the screws to these banks in court, or the law firms and the servicers that manufacture the phony documents get sent to prison, it’s going to be “status quo” in Florida … and elsewhere across this damaged America.

I don’t care who you voted for.  When are you going to wake up and realize that BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE (in Congress) are responsible for the mess you’re in?  It doesn’t really matter WHO the Chief Executive is, does it?  The power elite in DC have this country right where they want it, because now everyone’s arguing over who should be in the White House … again, distracted from the real truths!

Pretty soon, you’ll be so distracted you won’t be able to see the real enemy coming.

If you want change, stop borrowing money from banks!  Let’s see how long you can survive without altering your lifestyle.





Filed under Financial Education, Op-Ed Piece