In the past, this blog has discussed the fact that, despite record stock prices and low official inflation, many homeowners are experiencing their own economic recession. The collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market, decreasing housing values, nonexistent savings by consumers, and record foreclosure rates are just some of the conditions the average homeowner has to navigate through. Combined with the collapse of the dollar in international markets, the fact that oil prices are seeing record highs as oil-producing countries unpeg from the dollar, and rapid inflation as central banks pump billions of dollars into the markets while decreasing interest rates, many homeowners should be worried about their financial stability.

The markets have been bailed out repeatedly with freshly inflated, newly printed money, which artificially raises stock prices, as the worthless subprime mortgage bonds have been bought by central banks. However, the bank can only create this new money by stealing purchasing power from the homeowners and consumers who are having trouble paying their bills to begin with. Wall Street is doing pretty well and claiming no inflation, while the average person is seeing prices increase for transportation, food, and energy, due to their lost purchasing power as the value of their money decreases. The "benevolent hand" of central bank regulation takes away the freedom of markets and manually steals money from consumers to hand over to banks and investors.

There have been a number of bank runs and bank failures in the previous few months, as well, in America and other countries. Thus, panic is still a big factor in influencing the markets, and it is important not to generate any large amount of personal panic in the American consumer. To maintain a perpetual war segment of the economy, however, everyone needs to be on alert of terrorists and a nuclear armed Iran, but they can not be afraid of losing their life savings when their bank fails due to poor lending policies. If this were to happen, consumers might stop spending money and actually begin saving, which is the worst possible scenario for investors and banks relying on the interest generated by debt financing. Not that many consumers can afford to save money anyway.

The Old Media is certainly not going to report the weaknesses of the market, though, as they are financed by the same big banks that need positive press to keep up their destructive policies. Some large media outlets are even owned by companies that benefit from government largesse in the military-industrial sector, giving them a vested interest in maintaining war for the sake of profit. That is why bad things happen to markets in other countries, while good things happen in the economy here, while we are always under the threat of more attacks at home and abroad by shadowy terrorist organizations. Consumers will not hear any different on the Old Media sources.

Also, a good percentage of the population is now taking some sort of anti-depressant or other prescription medication. People who can no longer feel any emotion do not get that worked up over anything. They are simply trying to control their high anxiety by taking pills to suppress normal human feelings that would help them get through tough times and begin thinking about real solutions. But unnecessarily drugged parents and children can not critically think their way through the misrepresentations of their trusted news sources, let alone think critically to saving their homes from foreclosure, or establishing a plan for their future economic stability.

The only real silver lining is that, even with the collapse of the dollar, there is nothing real for it to collapse in relation to. All other currencies are backed by the same thing as the dollar: nothing at all. So we are all just playing with Monopoly money, essentially. The rest of the world has an incentive to keep taking our dollars to make sure their markets and currencies do not also collapse.

It is no secret that many homeowners in foreclosure seem to wait until the last minute before taking action to save their homes. Why they do this, though, can be dependent on many factors, not the least of which is simple ignorance of what happens during the foreclosure process and what may be done to stop it. When attempting to help homeowners stop foreclosure, the more time available in which to work out a solution, the better the chances of the method ending in success. This is one tragic reason why waiting until the last minute to begin working on a plan will often not result in foreclosure victims being able to keep their homes.

Most homeowners facing the loss of their homes just do not know the basics of the foreclosure process: what to do and when, how foreclosure works, or what options they have to resolve the situation. It is not really so much that these families are waiting until the final seconds before losing their homes to start any kind of plan; in fact, many of them will try one hair-brained scheme after another to save their homes. Unfortunately, all of these plots inevitably fail and leave the homeowners more and more desperate, as they keep wasting time and money that they do not have.

One reason homeowners rely on unrealistic methods of saving a home is that a lot of them believe that refinancing is their only way out of foreclosure, so they apply with broker after broker who promises to help them. Not surprisingly, few of them ever get a new loan, as foreclosure bailout loans are very difficult to qualify for when the loan applicants have no equity and have missed numerous payments. Brokers will attempt to work on these loans, though, on the off-chance that the homeowners' properties are worth far more than expected, turning a bad loan into a good loan and guaranteeing the mortgage broker's commission. While homeowners are encouraged to apply for a foreclosure loan, it is simply a mistake to rely on this as the only plan, as the chances for success are very low.

Other homeowners will apply for some sort of workout solution with their mortgage company, another method of ending foreclosure that is encouraged but should not be the only solution relied upon. The homeowners that work with their bank to put together a forbearance agreement are often told that a decision will be made on whether their file is accepted in 1-2 months. Obviously, it is amazing banks wait this long to approve or reject a repayment plan, but when they reject the homeowners that are unqualified, this has just wasted over a month of the homeowners' available time to save their homes. In fact, many lenders will not inform their clients of their rejection until a few days before the county sheriff sale of the property, almost guaranteeing their inability to keep the home. This is not a situation any family will want to find itself in.

Also, such last-ditch efforts as selling the house and filing bankruptcy to stop foreclosure are pretty low on the average homeowner's list of preferred options to avoid losing their homes. Most of them are looking for the magical solution that will allow them to keep their homes, avoid bankruptcy, and get a lower payment; and as long as scam artists keep promising these programs that seem to guarantee such outlandish outcomes, the foreclosure victims will not consider the fact that they have to make some hard decisions about their home. If someone will show them a fantasy scenario where everything is all better, they will not be forced to make financial sacrifices, like selling a car or selling their home. Unfortunately, when these delusions do not work out, homeowners often come crashing back down to reality, finding out that they have very little time to put together a realistic solution.

Unfortunately, though, most homeowners just do not know what options they have at all, and they are not going to take advice from someone who knocks on their door, sends them a postcard, or cold calls them out of the blue, no matter how professional the person may be. These homeowners have already had the bank drive past their home checking to see if they have abandoned the property, foreclosure notices posted on their house, and have had the foreclosure listed in the newspaper for all of their neighbors to read about. By that point, they are terrified of even more attention being drawn to the fact that they are in foreclosure, so it is easier to hide inside the home and turn off the phone and refuse to open the mail, rather than confront the problem and seek a solution to the foreclosure.

People have a lot of motivations for doing nothing, especially when they are facing as stressful a situation as foreclosure. It is really no surprise that homeowners will refuse any help until the last minute, at which point any help given will have minimal chances of success. Who knows why some people wait so long and see their homes sold at sheriff sale, while others take charge and end up saving their homes? Unfortunately, it is the homeowners who much ask the tough questions of themselves and then work out reasonable solutions to stop foreclosure. While they are waiting for a magic plan that saves their homes, the world and the foreclosure process keep moving on. Hopefully, fewer foreclosure victims will find that they have been left behind with no one to help them.

I know that a title such as the one above is patently self-evident and possibly redundant, but has Metallica recently made a subtle statement on their libertarian views of the current state of the world? It seems they have done just that in their choice of songs to include in their set lists at the recent Bridge School Benefit in late October, an event at which Metallica played two consecutive nights. In a surprising move, they opened each night by playing four cover songs which they had never before performed. The choices of songs that they felt important enough to play, though, gives an indication of what they may be thinking of the war, the state, and life in general in these United States of America at the present time.

Metallica have been writing songs with anti-war messages for over two decades now. An obvious example, which they played at the Bridge School Benefit, is "Disposable Heroes," from their Master of Puppets album released in 1986. With lyrics such as "Bodies fill the fields I see, hungry heroes end / No one to play soldier now, no one to pretend," and "Bred to kill, not to care / Do just as we say / Finished here, greeting death / He's yours to take away," the emphasis is clearly on the disconnect that soldiers have in killing people they do not know for reasons given to them from people who care more about winning than any moral or personal considerations. Similar thoughts are echoed in songs such as "One" about the plight of a soldier who has been left with no limbs to move, or senses to use, or way to communicate with the world, and therefore no real reason to survive, but who also lacks the ability to end his life.

A distrust of being controlled and manipulated has also been a stable message of Metallica dating back at least to the Ride the Lightning album and the song "Escape." The song that was played at the Bridge School Benefit, though, is a clearer example. "The Unforgiven" is the story of an Everyman who, from soon after the time he is born, is controlled throughout his life. Although he vows "That never from this day / His will they'll take away," his only reaction to a life of being controlled is to label his controllers dub them unforgiven. HIs battle, though he fights it throughout his life, results in his complete lack of care and a regret-filled death. Those controlling the man are never named, but certain characteristics point to a "Brave New World" style State conditioning the individuality out of the man: "The young boy learns their rules," "This whipping boy done wrong," They dedicate their lives / To running all of his," and other lyrics, while not eliminating the possibility of other influences besides the State, seems to point to a system that aims to train and control people against their will to eradicate their own tendencies to better serve the state: "He tries to please them all."

So, Metallica has demonstrated an attitude, through songs spanning both the Old and New eras of the band, of being consistently anti-war and anti-state. Their image, of course, took a big hit on the anti-state position with their battle against file-sharing software such as Napster, when they relied on institutions of the state to defend their claim to intellectual property rights. Having examined Metallica's position on this in great detail, but not having explored the other side of the argument much, I will not try to defend either side in this essay. But moving on from this divisive event in the band's history, we can now explore the statements the band may have been making in their choice of cover songs to play at the 2007 Bridge School Benefit.

The first song played on both nights was Rare Earth's "I Just Want to Celebrate." This song contains a number of pro-liberty statements, such as "I put my faith in the people / But the people let me down / So I turned the other way / And I carry on, anyhow." Of course, this may be a defense of the charge against the band every time an album comes out that they had sold out, but it still illustrates Metallica's emphasis on individual freedom and not caring what the mob thinks. But furthermore, is the line "Had my hand on the dollar bill / And the dollar bill blew away" another in a string of celebrities decrying the falling value of the American dollar? Obviously this is a more subtle message than models wanting to be paid in other currencies, and rap stars flashing Euros in music videos, but it is a message nonetheless, especially as Metallica has deep roots in Europe, with drummer Lars Ulrich being originally from Denmark.

Nazareth's "Don't Judas Me" is a clearer example of being pro-liberty, and may even contain some accurate assessments of the media and its affects on the American population. "Treat me as you like to be treated" is a seemingly straight-forward statement that has been analyzed in its various forms for centuries. The choice of this song, in the midst of media propaganda about the threat of Iran and a police state out of control with daily taserings and intrusive searches at airports, is especially interesting. "Please don't headshrink me / Don't disguise your innuendos / Make no lies to me," and "Please don't number me / Don't betray my trusted promise / Please don't anger me / I find it hard to bear no fairness / Don't frustrate me, manipulate me," could be Metallica's subtle warning to fans to do some research on their own and not trust anyone using a position of power as a bully pulpit. This would fit well with Metallica's own statements that they feel it inappropriate to use their fame to espouse overtly political views, and may indicate a distrust of a government that used their recordings as tool to torture enemy detainees in Iraq, who were unused to heavy metal music.

This focus on a media out of control and glorifying in negative messages is carried through to the next song on the first night, Garbage's "I'm Only Happy When it Rains." Lyrics such as "You know I love it when the news is bad / And why it feels so good to feel so sad" indicates a view that revels in bad news and a misery loves company attitude. Is this choice of song Metallica's statement that only being fed news through the state-influenced media will make listeners willingly complicit in the negative messages? Without a direct statement from the band, of course, the conclusion is left to speculation, but the overall tone of these first three songs seems to show a focus on individuality and a distrust of labeling and easy answers given by a centrally-controlled source, such as the Old Media or the State. Of course, singer and guitarist James Hetfield was himself briefly a subject of the negative news machine, when he was stopped at an airport and reported to be a potentially suspected terrorist, due to his beard. If someone who sells 100 million records worldwide can be considered a terrorist and detained at the airport, who is immune? Of course, the message is that no one is not a suspect.

The last two songs are more overtly anti-war than the others previously described. The first is "Veteran of the Psychic Wars," by Blue Oyster Cult. this one may also be a dual statement on the media manipulations and war itself. Obviously, psychic wars going on here at home are just as important as the real war in attempting to convince the people that war is useful and going well. Weariness of a war going on far too long, along with an assault on personal liberty and privacy, is the message of lines such as "But the war's still going on dear / And there's no end that I know / And I can't say if we're ever... / I can't say if we're ever gonna to be free," and "It's time we had a break from it / It's time we had some leave." Metallica has covered BOC before on 1998's album "Garage, Inc.," but did not use such an anti-war song. Again, the band's own personal involvement in the war, through the use of their songs as an "enhanced interrogation" technique, and the reports of Hetfield being stopped at an airport, may indicate their awareness of a need to make as much of a statement as possible opposing big war and big government. As the song finally asks, "Did I hear you say that this is victory?"

The final cover song that Metallica chose to play at the Bridge School Benefit is Dire Straits' "Brothers in Arms." Although the song, throughout most of it, seems to glorify in the commeraderie of being soldiers for a common cause, the emphasis on this concept of "brothers in arms" is turned on its head in the final lines. The song emphasizes the strength of bonds that are formed "Through these fields of destruction," "As the battles raged higher," and "In the fear and alarm," which may indicate that strength is found in becoming closer to those allies with whom one fights a battle. But, the final lines of the song are "We're fools to make war / On our brothers in arms," using the same "brothers in arms" line to show that all humans have common bonds, no matter that "There's so many different worlds / So many different suns." When individuals go to war for a state, they are making war on their own brothers. Individuals, says the song, have more in common amongst themselves than they will ever have with an abstract state. This message is emphasized in the concert itself as James Hetfield repeats the final lines ("We're fools to make war / On our brothers in arms") numerous times until the end of the song.

So, have Metallica's experiences since the war against terror began affected their views on war, liberty, or the state? It certainly seems as if they have, based on their choice of songs to cover for the Bridge School Benefit concerts. Although these ideas have been expressed in various Metallica songs throughout their history, never before have they played a set with such consistent messages. In fact, that is the aspect of the shows that struck me immediately, having read much on the history of Metallica and their personal views on issues affecting the world. It is mainly through an artist's work that they communicate to us and we can communicate with them, and each concert a band plays is an expression of their own communications with their work and the work of others. In their choice of cover songs, Metallica seems to have laid out a subtle message about their current views of the world and an anti-war, anti-state stance that has only been reinforced over the past years with public events, such as the torture issue and the airport, and their own personal reflections.

When facing foreclosure, many homeowners move out of their homes before they are required to do so. In some cases, foreclosure victims begin looking for a new rental as soon as they begin missing mortgage payments, or soon after they have received a summons from the court system. Instead of filing an answer and confronting the foreclosure head-on, they ignore the court proceedings and simply move on with their lives, hoping the foreclosure situation will resolve itself. This is rarely the case, however, and moving out of the foreclosed house can take away an important opportunity for homeowners to begin recovering financially even while looking for a solution to stop foreclosure.

In terms of filing an answer to a court summons, every homeowner should answer, even if it is just to request more time to sell the property. The court can grant homeowners the time necessary to sell their house, even if it is only an extra month or two that the foreclosure victims will not have the foreclosure showing up on their credit report. Obviously, their credit will look bad anyway with all of the late mortgage payments, but the longer they can avoid having a full foreclosure on their credit history, the easier it will be to recover after the foreclosure has been resolved. Not filing an answer to the foreclosure summons means that the court will rule in favor of the lender and no extra time will be given to the homeowners, especially if they neither file an answer nor appear in court.

But homeowners, whether they can reasonably save the home or not, should not move out of the house until they legally have to find another place to live or face eviction. As long as they are not making the payments, there is no reason to take on another monthly payment by moving out of the property they own and renting a new house or apartment that they have no ownership interest in. The foreclosure laws give homeowners legal rights to keep living in the house until ownership is transferred, usually through the mechanism of the county sheriff sale. The time given under the law is very important time that could be used to save up to get current on the house payment, or just put away in a savings account for an emergency fund.

Just because homeowners miss a payment does not mean the bank can now kick them out at any random time. There is a whole foreclosure process that must be followed before the bank can ask the court for possession of the house. As long as the foreclosure victims still own their home, they can not be forcefully evicted by the county sheriff. Moving out too quickly just handicaps the homeowners further and may allow the bank to take over the care of the property, if they know that it has been abandoned. They will not own the house, but they are able to protect it from vandalism or looting by having the locks changed if no one is currently living there. This is another reason homeowners should stay put in the property until they know the home has been lost or they have worked out a solution to the foreclosure.

Furthermore, one way that the foreclosure victims could have stayed out of foreclosure for longer was by having a stable emergency fund to begin with. Now that they are no longer making the mortgage payments, they have a chance to establish that short-term savings plan for their family, and it is a mistake to waste that opportunity by moving out before they have to. The bank is not wasting their opportunity to damage the homeowners' credit by reporting late payments, so there is no reason for the homeowners themselves to give up the small silver lining in this situation and commit to renting a new property. The money being applied toward rent could be used for any number of other, more useful, purposes, such as paying off other debts or saving to reinstate the mortgage.

The best thing homeowners can do when they are entering foreclosure is answer the summons from the county, appear in court when they have to and request more time, research various methods used to stop foreclosure, stay put in the house until they know what can be done to save it, and not miss the chance to save extra money for their family or improve their financial situation in other ways possible. Although playing by the rules of foreclosure may cause some extra stress, the possibility of temporarily eliminating a monthly mortgage or rent payment altogether can help homeowners save up to get the mortgage back on track, get out of debt, or establish a savings plan that will give them the funds they need to weather any short term financial hardship and prevent from going into foreclosure ever again.

For all intents and purposes, the economy is now in recession. Although this may not be reported in the news media, homeowners in increasing numbers are experiencing the very real situations of losing their homes due to the bursting of the housing bubble, outsourced jobs, and general weakness in the market, combined with all of the unforeseeable events of life, such as medical problems and divorce. With the slowdown in the housing market and home mortgage lending industry, numerous lenders have gone out of business or significant shut down lending operations, destroying more jobs and removing options for homeowners attempting to refinance. Thus, it is the responsibility of every foreclosure victim to seriously consider what options may be available to stop foreclosure before it results in the loss of their home.

In most foreclosure situations, the bank does not want to become the owner of the property, because lenders are not in the business of managing houses. It is usually more profitable for the bank and the homeowners to reach some agreement where the house is saved and payments are made on time every month. Homeowners, when they first become aware of a financial hardship, though, can do much to offset any ill effects, such as saving money on other bills, reducing expenses, or cutting unnecessary costs. Especially with the winter months quickly approaching, homeowners will face increasingly high energy bills to heat their homes, and gas prices for transportation have also been rising. Turning down the heat, layering clothes, and avoiding unnecessary trips or car pooling can have significant positive affects on a family's monthly expense budget. Likewise, cutting back on luxury items, like cable TV or extra cell phones, may improve the financial situation in the short term.

Seeking out an additional source of income is another way to avoid going into foreclosure, and getting a second job may be worth considering. Even a few hundred extra dollars every month can mean the difference between having to choose between "heat or eat," and being able to put that money towards savings or getting out of debt. A second job does not have to last forever, but can instead provide a bridge for families from a financial hardship to a more secure position. Even selling items on eBay or through a garage sale can generate extra income for homeowners to make an extra mortgage payment. This may only be a one-shot deal, of course, and once the items are gone, they can not be sold again, but every moment counts in foreclosure situations, and most of us already have too much "stuff" that is really not needed, or even wanted anymore.

Lenders foreclosing on a home would generally prefer that homeowners find some way to stop foreclosure before the situation gets out of hand. They know that, the more payments that are missed, the more expensive it will be for all parties involved to take care of the problem. Foreclosure is expensive for banks to pursue through the court system, and homeowners know that the amount necessary to get back on track will increase every day, as late charges and interest accrue on the balance. This is one reason lenders are willing to put together a repayment plan with homeowners, or consider lowering the interest rate or putting the missed payments on the back of the loan through a mortgage modification. Extending the term of the loan or giving the foreclosure victims more time to pay back the arrears can often stop the foreclosure process entirely and prevent it from ever happening again.

There are also numerous other options that homeowners have, beyond the solutions offered by their lender. Although it is usually better to work with the current mortgage company first, homeowners need to consider all options to save their homes and have backup plans in case their preferred options fall through at the last minute. Selling the home at a short sale can be one option, as can be applying for a loan to stop foreclosure from a different lender. Some homeowners may wish to consider bankruptcy to save their homes, while others may have enough equity to sell outright right away. All of these solutions, if used in the correct manner in the right situation, can provide homeowners with better options than simply watching from the sidelines as they are foreclosed on, with devastating consequences to their credit. But looking for as many options to stop foreclosure as possible is the first and best way that homeowner can rest assured that they have done everything humanly possible to keep their homes.

One of the first methods that homeowners typically pursue to avoid losing their homes to foreclosure is a new refinance. Unfortunately, many banks no longer provide loans to homeowners with very little equity, low income, and bad credit. Some, though, will not provide a loan no matter what, as long as the home is in foreclosure. For homeowners who do own a significant amount of the home and have paid down their original mortgage, hard money lenders may be able to provide a source of funding to help them save their homes. There are various hard money loan programs offered by numerous lenders and investment groups, and, although there are additional qualifications and costs that must be met, this type of loan can be closed in a very short amount of time and can be used when homeowners are running short on time.

The most usual provider of hard money loans is an institutional lender or group of private investors who have come together and created a company that pools money and invests in real estate by providing mortgages. The value of the real estate and the interest charged on the loans make up the largest portion of the profits these companies make. They are mainly used by borrowers who do not have a lot of time to close on the mortgage, when the borrower does not wish to keep the property for longer than a few months, if the borrower can not give out their credit history or other financial information, or for larger loan amounts that traditional lenders would not be able to provide funds for. These loans can be used for creative financing purposes, as well as giving foreclosure victims one more solution to save a home.

There are two main considerations in qualifying for a loan through a hard money lender: equity and loan amount, and income. Many of these lenders will not loan more than 65-70% of a home's value, and foreclosure loans may have even stricter lending guidelines, depending on the company. Unless homeowners can work out a short payoff to refinance, this will disqualify the vast majority of foreclosed homes from getting a loan. The related requirement of the loan amount means that homeowners must borrow a certain amount of money to get the loan in the first place. Most hard money lenders have requirements of $75,000-$100,000 as a minimum, due to the nonexistent profits of managing properties with lower values.

Thus, homeowners must meet two related qualifications of having a property that with a high enough value, and having significant equity in that property. It can often be difficult to calculate if lower-valued homes will even qualify for these kinds of loans. For example, if the necessary requirements are 65% LTV and a $100,000 minimum loan, the homeowners will need a property worth at least $154,0000. If the requirements are 70% and $75,000, the house will need to be valued at $108,000. Hard money lenders' qualifications can vary dramatically from one company to the next, so foreclosure victims can shop around for the best deals, especially if they are turned down the first time.

The second major requirement to meet for this type of loan is that the homeowners must have enough income to make the mortgage payment. A credit check is usually necessary for the lender to take a look at the foreclosure victims' other monthly obligations to determine how much of their incomes will need to be paid on the mortgage. If the homeowners do not have enough income to pay the mortgage, all their other debts, and keep the lights on and provide for their families, the hard money lender can not make the loan and expect it to be paid on time. This is why most of these lenders will require a credit check: not to determine the homeowners' score, which is typically low or else they would qualify for a traditional loan to stop foreclosure, but to help determine if they can afford the payment at all.

But, for the lucky few homeowners who are able to qualify for a foreclosure bailout from a hard money lender, the fun does not end. The loans typically have higher costs because of their unique nature and specialized uses. It is not uncommon for homeowners to be charged 4-5 points on the loan, which is simply the lender's up front fee for making the loan at all. Interest rates can also be sky high, in the range of 12% to over 20%. This often results in a higher mortgage payment for the homeowners than they originally had, making is absolutely essential for them to have recovered financially from their hardship and have established some sort of emergency fund to protect against future drops in income.

Despite the strict requirements of this type of foreclosure loan, homeowners who meet the qualifications often find they are able to stop foreclosure very quickly and get a new loan, making this a viable solution. Although they are more expensive than traditional mortgages, they are designed to offer homeowners a short-term solution to foreclosure and allow them the chance to save their homes and begin to establish an on time mortgage payment history. The hard money lender, in turn, makes a high rate of interest on a reasonably safe investment, and provides foreclosure victims with an additional option to avoid losing their homes, making a significant positive contribution to local communities and individual families.

For homeowners who wish to save their homes from foreclosure, filing bankruptcy to save a home from foreclosure is one of the least-understood methods to prevent foreclosure. It can, though, be used as one last option to end the process, instead of losing the home. While there are negative effects to filing bankruptcy which need to be considered, the potential uses of this solution to foreclosure can far outweigh the financial and credit consequences, especially if the homeowners are running short on time.

The main reason that homeowners file bankruptcy to stop foreclosure is so that they can get their payments back on track through a repayment plan. This court-ordered plan can be quite expensive for foreclosure victims, though, unless they have recovered to a financially stable situation and are able to pay more than their usual mortgage payment. On completion of the repayment plan, the homeowners will see their payment go back down to normal, and the foreclosure will have ended with the loan now current.

When there is not much time to put together a solution that will stop the foreclosure process, filing bankruptcy is often used just to put everything on hold and prevent any further foreclosure proceedings. Especially if the family is down to the last minute, and the foreclosure auction is days away and the bank will not postpone it, filing a Chapter 13 can stop the sale immediately and put the entire foreclosure process on hold. In the most desperate cases, this may be the only method available to gain the extra time necessary for the homeowners to put together a more adequate solution to save their homes.

As with all options to avoid foreclosure, bankruptcy should be considered in context. This means that other options may be more appropriate, but bankruptcy also should not be ruled out. There are numerous ways to save a home, all of which should be examined before homeowners make a decision of whether to hire an attorney and file bankruptcy or not. The reasons leading homeowners into foreclosure are often unique, and the methods used to end the process need to be carefully considered before being applied to a situation.

Moreover, homeowners often find out very quickly that filing bankruptcy is more difficult than they originally thought, and may not help them stop foreclosure for long. If they have not recovered from the hardship that caused them to miss mortgage payments, they will not be able to afford the repayment plan, and will find themselves facing foreclosure again. An unrealistic bankruptcy plan that can not be paid for longer than a few months will not result in the homeowners keeping their homes for the long term, as the bank will try to have the bankruptcy dismissed.

One of the more dangerous aspects of bankruptcy is if the homeowners find out that their trust has been misplaced in the attorney they hire. Stories of foreclosure victims being taken advantage of are plentiful, with attorneys taking filing fees but never filing the necessary paperwork or recommending the homeowners switch from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 and back again numerous times. This will result in the homeowners being unable to file the bankruptcy in time to save the home, or having an attorney who charges numerous filing fees that are not in the interest of the foreclosure victims. Although most attorneys stay away from illegal activities such as these, homeowners need to be on the lookout for any chance that their bankruptcy lawyer is not acting in their best interests.

Filing bankruptcy to stop foreclosure is one of the most important decisions homeowners will make when dealing with the potential loss of their homes. However, this option can provide the last chance to many foreclosure victims to stop the process and have additional time to work out a long-term solution. Regardless of the potential scams, financial and credit ramifications, and legal complexity of filing bankruptcy, homeowners should learn as much as they can about this technique, in case they need to rely on it at the last minute. While it may not be a final solution to foreclosure, it can provide the bridge needed to help homeowners work out a better option to keep their homes and avoid foreclosure.

Filing bankruptcy to stop a foreclosure is a little-understood method for homeowners who wish to save their homes. However, it can be used as one of the last options before losing the home to foreclosure. Most homeowners are aware of the negative aspects of filing bankruptcy and these need to be considered, especially if the foreclosure victims wish to continue using credit and keep a high score. The uses of filing bankruptcy in a foreclosure situation, though, can outweigh the negative aspects in certain cases.

Bankruptcy's main benefit is the ability to set up a workout program that allows the homeowners to get their various payments back on track. Although the plan is typically quite expensive, homeowners in a stable financial situation may have the ability to pay extra every month to get the mortgage current again. Once the bankruptcy payment plan is completed, the foreclosure victims can begin making regular payments again, without the threat of the bank taking away their home and suing them for foreclosure again. The homeowners will be completely caught up and their payment will return to the regular amount due every month. The bankruptcy will also be dismissed at this point.

When homeowners are in the middle of a foreclosure, filing bankruptcy will immediately put the entire process on hold, which is vital when there is little time and the situation is getting beyond what the homeowners can handle any longer. If a sheriff sale is soon approaching, and they are unable to postpone the auction, filing a Chapter 13 will stop the sale quickly, and put any other court procedures on hold. For many foreclosure victims, this may be the only reason to consider filing bankruptcy, but it will allow them the extra time that they need to put together a longer-term solution to the foreclosure.

Also, bankruptcy should be considered a last line of defense for homeowners in foreclosure, and not as their main option to avoid foreclosure. Homeowners often have many solutions available to help them save their homes, and hiring an attorney to pursue a bankruptcy filing is certainly not the best solution in every foreclosure case. The very nature of foreclosure ensures that each situation is unique, and homeowners need to consider very carefully which options may help them save their homes.

Furthermore, homeowners often discover that bankruptcy is more complex and expensive than anticipated, and may not result in them being able to save their homes. If the financial outlook has not significantly improved and the homeowners can not afford the plan, then the bankruptcy will only be a short-term solution, at best, and may lead them right back to foreclosure. A repayment plan that is unmanageable for more than a few months will not help foreclosure victims in the longer term because the bankruptcy will be dismissed and they will be put back into foreclosure if they miss a payment. Once a payment is missed, the bank will ask that the bankruptcy be dismissed, and the foreclosure process will begin from where it left off when the homeowners originally filed the bankruptcy.

Another drawback of considering bankruptcy can be if the homeowners end up working with an unscrupulous attorney who takes advantage of them. There are numerous stories and experiences of foreclosure victims paying to hire a lawyer who simply disappears with the money that was supposed to be used to file bankruptcy, or attorneys who continually recommend debtors switch between a Chapter 7 and a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. These actions can result in the homeowners losing the home, despite their best efforts to save it, or having to pay numerous filing fees every time the filing is switched. Although there are many more law-abiding attorneys than bad ones, homeowners need to be aware of the chances of being taken advantage of, and that doing research on their own will help protect them.

Working with a well-respected attorney, homeowners can put together one more option in their plan to avoid foreclosure and save their homes, even if it is just a last chance effort. Once homeowners understand the credit ramifications of filing bankruptcy, and know to be aware of potential scams, they should consider this as one solution, if not the best solution. Despite its drawbacks, potential pitfalls, and legal complexity, filing bankruptcy to avoid foreclosure may give foreclosure victims the one last option necessary to put the foreclosure on hold and work out a long-term solution to keep their homes.

One of the last options that homeowners may consider to avoid foreclosure is simply giving their property back to the mortgage company. This is called giving the bank a deed in lieu of foreclosure, and is usually used when the foreclosure victims have been unable to find any alternate solution to save the home or sell it. Especially if the bank does not offer a realistic repayment plan, or the homeowners are unable to refinance out of foreclosure, and do not want to consider bankruptcy to stop foreclosure, a deed in lieu can help them get out from under the house and start moving on with their lives. Although this method of preventing foreclosure will have negative credit consequences, it also provides opportunities that the homeowners would not have, if they simply let the house go into foreclosure.

There is no doubt that the deed in lieu of foreclosure will be a negative mark on the homeowners' credit histories. In fact, it is just slightly better than having a full foreclosure show on their report, preventing them from obtaining a new home loan for some years, and drastically reducing their overall credit scores. However, the reason to go with a deed in lieu of foreclosure over a full foreclosure is that their credit may look much better, relatively speaking.

By accepting a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the bank agrees to take the property back instead of pursuing the foreclosure lawsuit and attempting to sell it at a county foreclosure auction. Once the bank accepts the deed, the foreclosure process is immediately ended, the foreclosure victims are no longer the owner of the house, and they can not be sued for a house they no longer own or have a mortgage on. There is also no way that the bank can go after any of their other assets, or try to sue for a deficiency judgment -- the deed is accepted as payment in full of the loan, and there is no loss on the property, so the lender can not sue for the difference of what it received and what it was owed. The deed counts as payment in full. (Of course, this is also one reason banks do not always accept the deed in lieu.)

Therefore, the deed in lieu can be used to stop foreclosure a lot quicker than casually waiting for the entire foreclosure process to wind its way through the county court system. This termination of the process can help the homeowners' credit quite a bit, depending on the circumstances. Especially because they can avoid some of the additional late mortgage payments that would have come if they had let the property go all the way through foreclosure, this can ultimately keep some negative information off of the credit report. In most foreclosure cases, the lender reports all of their payments late until the sheriff sale and then the foreclosure status is the final negative mark against their credit. But by giving the bank a deed in lieu, the foreclosure victims can stop this process months earlier and avoid a number of late payments.

Obviously, the deed in lieu will be reflected on their credit instead of the foreclosure, but the important thing is that they will show fewer late mortgage payments. The fewer payments missed before a solution was worked out, the more reliable and conscientious the homeowners will seem to other future creditors. Also, the quicker they can end the foreclosure process, the quicker they can begin recovering financially and credit-wise. If they can get a few months ahead of when the foreclosure would normally have ended by giving the deed in lieu, they will be that much better off, despite the fact of having the negative credit information.

Thus, the deed in lieu is not that much better than a foreclosure in absolute terms, but it can help homeowners by avoiding the maximum number of late mortgage payments and by giving them a chance to start the recovery process after foreclosure quite a bit sooner. Unless they have some other solution they are working on, if they have decided there is no way or reason to keep the home, a deed in lieu can be the most efficient way to stop foreclosure. If this is the best option, homeowners should try doing it as soon as possible to get the bank to accept right away, and have the foreclosure over with as soon as possible. While a deed in lieu is not the best solution in all cases, and will not result in homeowners saving their homes, and puts a negative mark on their credit report, it can be used by foreclosure victims to avoid the worst of the foreclosure, unload the house in a mutually-agreed way with the lender, and allow the homeowners to begin recovering financially sooner rather than later.

Most homeowners facing the loss of their homes seek out any option possible to avoid foreclosure and start recovering financially. While many are able to save their homes, there are also a large number that, for whatever reason, decide that moving out and moving on is the best solution. The more distressing the foreclosure situation is and the more desperate the homeowners were to save their homes, the greater the danger of the house being damaged and stripped for every single useful item and appliance. However, many foreclosure victims would like to take certain appliances without damaging the property, and are unsure what, if anything, they can take, and what the ramifications are if they do take more appliances and items than allowed by law.

First of all, in any foreclosure situation, homeowners should work on various options for stretching out the foreclosure process for as long as possible. It might take some money and work on their part to do this, but they can get the bank to stop the sheriff sale numerous times while the foreclosure victims are working on a solution that will stop the foreclosure entirely. Even if they know they have no intention to keep the house, there is no prohibition against trying options that will likely fail, on the off chance that they will be successful, as long as working on these solutions persuades the bank to give them more time. This might involve stopping the sheriff sale, or just getting more time to move out, but homeowners should use every tactic they can to gain more time to put their own lives in order and even begin a savings plan or work on getting out of debt.

In regards to the appliances and what foreclosure victims can take from the house when they move out and what must be left, it depends on what appliances are being discussed. The general rule is that homeowners can take any personal belongings, but must leave all fixtures related to the property. Determining what a fixture is can be one of the difficult questions about moving, whether it is a foreclosure situation or not. Especially because many items in a house hold sentimental value, as well as functional value, homeowners need to carefully evaluate what might be considered personal property and what needs to stay with the house as real property.

There are a few questions homeowners should ask themselves to figure out which appliances are fixtures and which are not. First, will removing it cause damage to the property or make it unlivable ? Thus, unplugging the dryer and washing machine and moving them will probably not cause any damage. Taking out the furnace and outside air conditioner, on the other hand, may cause damage, not to mention this will make the house difficult to live in without any source of heat. The same goes for ceiling fans and light fixtures. Homeowners can also not take the antique front door or any doorknobs, as these count as fixtures. But big items like the refrigerator can be unplugged and easily moved out. The keys to the house also count as fixtures, because they are integrally related to the property, and not having keys to doors will make the house difficult to enter, and make the doorknob fixtures useless, necessitating expenditures by the new owners to change all of the locks.

Foreclosure victims also need to ask the question of what was the original intent of the item: as a permanent item or something to be moved easily? Permanent items like the furnace and sink faucets and copper pipes should stay. So should the glass in the cabinet doors. However, if the homeowners moved into the property and the previous owners left a desk in the basement or a microwave they did not take with them, the homeowners have every right to take those items, since they were probably meant to be personal property. Just the fact of being left in a property after a transfer of ownership does not automatically make the items fixtures.

The last question homeowners need to consider when moving out of a house after foreclosure is if the item is attached to the property in some way. They are free to remove bookshelves that they built on their own after purchasing kits from Wal-Mart. However, the built-in library should probably stay, as it is attached to the property and removing it would case damage and a loss of value. The grill with propane tank can be moved and is not attached, but the huge propane tank attached to the outside of the house to provide heat in winter and the hot water heater are attached firmly to the piping and integral to the functioning of the property. Thus, they must stay, along with the items that make them work, such as pipes, gauges, and other minor items used with the larger fixture.

Foreclosure victims moving on with their lives should evaluate any items they have a question about. Again, any personal property can be taken, and the new owners, the bank, and the county have no legal right to seize these. Fixtures can only be taken, but only if they are replaced with substitute items. If the homeowners would like to take the doorknobs they installed, then they can take them but should replace the knobs with cheaper versions. Another example would be to replace the new stove they just bought with an older model that they pick up for free on Craigslist. If they are buying items to use in a new house or apartment, they can purchase lower-end models now and use those to replace fixtures in the foreclosed house, while taking the higher-end models they now use and can not take from the property because removing a fixture and not replacing it is not allowed.

Leaving a house after foreclosure is often the most difficult part of the entire process. Homeowners are often disappointed that they will not be able to keep their home, and some attempt to take revenge on the bank by stripping the property of everything useful. This is not a positive action, though, and serves no lasting purpose other than lashing out at a bank that foreclosed on one's property. But foreclosure victims do still have rights to their own property located in the house, and can take anything that is personal. Fixtures that are attached to the property and considered real property are the most likely targets of being removed from the house and causing damage. While homeowners do not have a right to remove fixtures and leave nothing in their places, they can provide substitute fixtures while taking the items that hold sentimental or financial value to them.

Possibly the most recommended way to avoid a foreclosure is for the homeowners to work out an arrangement with their lender to get their payments back on track. Almost every news story, article, and foreclosure blog tell foreclosure victims to call their bank as soon as they miss a payment and try to put together a forbearance agreement, loan modification, or other repayment plan. But homeowners who rely on only this option to save their homes must often wait weeks or months for the bank to review their application, finding out at the last minute that they have been turned down and are now facing the sale of their homes at the foreclosure auction. While attempting a workout program should be the first step for homeowners trying to stop foreclosure, not having a more comprehensive plan will ensure that more foreclosure victims lose their homes than is necessary.

Plenty of homeowners have gone through the lengthy situation of locating, assembling, and submitting all of their personal financial data and having the bank take 1-3 months to "consider" a workout program. In the meantime, the foreclosure victims continue missing mortgage payments, the lender continues accelerating interest, late fees, and court costs, and the foreclosure process continues, as well. This obviously makes for a stressful time, as homeowners are left with seemingly little to do other than wait for the lender's approval or rejection. Lenders, on the other hand, quite often turn down the homeowners at the last minute, just days or weeks before the scheduled sheriff sale. Because the homeowners may be so far behind, or have not completely recovered from their financial hardship, the lender's repayment plan may be too expensive and they do not trust that the foreclosure victims will be able to complete the plan and get their mortgage back on track.

This is not to say that this happens in every situation and homeowners are always left hanging at the end of the foreclosure process, but they should also be looking for alternative plans in case they are not accepted for a workout arrangement. There are a number of questions every family should ask itself when facing foreclosure and looking for solutions. What will you do if they turn you down for the repayment program at the last minute? What will you do if the workout plan is so expensive that you know you will only be able to make one or two payments on it before missing another payment and possibly facing foreclosure again ? What will you do if there is another financial setback during the time of the repayment plan and you have not established a savings plan?

These are not pleasant questions, of course, but homeowners simply have to plan for these situations, especially the possibility of the bank turning them down at the last minute and what their plans will be to have the sheriff sale stopped. Foreclosure victims, in all circumstances, need to put together some backup plans to stop foreclosure, like refinancing, private lenders, hard money loans, bankruptcy to stop foreclosure, and selling the home. Even hiring a third party loss mitigation company may be beneficial at this point, so a neutral company can negotiate with the lender for a more fair workout agreement. If homeowners just rely on one option to save their homes, though, there is a good chance they will end up very disappointed in the end, or searching frantically for some way to postpone the sheriff sale at the last minute.

In the end, homeowners should follow the simply rule of not trusting their lenders. In fact, they should not trust anyone but themselves to solve the problem of foreclosure. But they should not put blind faith in a lender to work out a repayment plan for them without knowing what the qualification criteria will be, and having a firm date for when the application should be approved or not. Far too often, foreclosure victims are not sure if their files are sitting on a low-level employee's desk right now with a big REJECTED stamp on it, and they may not hear about this decision for weeks or months. This is why homeowners need to make plans for what they will do even if the bank says no to a workout agreement. Having numerous backup plans to avoid foreclosure will give every family a much better chance of keeping their homes.

As homeowners quickly learn when they begin missing mortgage payments, there is always a large amount of extra costs associated with going into foreclosure. Due to clauses in the original mortgage documents, the lender will be able to start accelerating interest, charging late fees, and adding their courts costs and legal fees to the homeowners' total payoff. This ensures that it will become more expensive by the day to stop the foreclosure process once it is started, as the amount needed to pay off the loan or reinstate the mortgage will steadily increase. The longer the foreclosure victims wait, the fewer options they will have to save their homes, as their equity will be eaten up and the cost of initiating a workout program will quickly outpace their ability to save money.

However, it is not mandatory that the homeowners will actually have to pay any of these costs out of their pocket. In fact, they will probably not, especially if they have no other choice than to stop paying the mortgage and allow the house to be lost to foreclosure. All of the costs associated with the foreclosure will be added to the total payoff, and any proceeds from the sale of the property at the sheriff sale will go to the lender to pay down the final defaulted loan amount. The homeowners will not be directly responsible for them if they are unable to find a solution that will allow them to save their homes, but these costs are often the very reason that homeowners are unable to stop foreclosure. The lender takes every opportunity to claim as many of the proceeds from the sale as they can, or to take as much of a tax break as possible on the loan that is not paid off in full and must be partially written off.

The lender, of course, could sue the homeowners after the foreclosure, depending on state laws, if the property does not sell for an amount to pay off the entire loan amount. This is called a deficiency judgment, and is not allowed in all states under all circumstances, and homeowners need to check their foreclosure laws to find out if there is any danger of being sued again after the sheriff sale. Lenders rarely do this in any case, though, as they know that foreclosure victims do not have the extra money to pay their mortgages, let alone another judgment. It will cost the bank more time and money than they will ever collect, so most just move on and try to sell the house on the open market. They would rather lose money on a debt and lawsuit only once, instead of pursuing another lawsuit and turning that into a judgment and continuing the collections process.

The most likely large expenses for homeowners will be to to pay for a new apartment and moving costs, and those can be expensive. Not as expensive as reinstating the mortgage, of course, but moving out of a property before the eviction is not easy, especially if the homeowners wait until the last minute, or are unable to find suitable living arrangements. Also, landlords may not rent to homeowners after foreclosure without an extra security deposit or more months paid in advance. They will not like renting to someone who has proven their inability to keep up their end of a contractual obligation, but paying extra will give the homeowners a better chance of being able to rent wherever they want.

More than likely, if the homeowners are having financial difficulties that make paying the regular monthly payment too expensive, they may consider bankruptcy to stop foreclosure. However, bankruptcy should not be used unless the foreclosure victims have recovered from the hardship that caused them to fall behind, and they have established a savings plan. For most homeowners, this will not be the case, and there will be no reason to have to declare bankruptcy during the foreclosure process. Bankruptcy allows foreclosure victims to stop the entire foreclosure immediately and begin a repayment plan to get back on top of the monthly payments. But this also means they will have to pay the bankruptcy amount and the normal monthly payment until the arrears are paid back, so this can be quite expensive.

Some homeowners believe that they can file bankruptcy to save their homes even after the sheriff sale. Unfortunately, this is not the case and bankruptcy after foreclosure will not help them save the home. It can, however, help get them out from under other creditors, but a bankruptcy filed after they are no longer the owner of the property can not affect a property they no longer own. If the point of taking on the extra costs of bankruptcy is to save the home from foreclosure, then this must be done before the transfer of ownership after the auction. Otherwise, bankruptcy can be used to take all of the bad credit ramifications at once, with it quickly following a foreclosure, and giving the foreclosure victims a completely fresh start.

It seems ironic that, when homeowners face a financial hardship that causes a lack of money for a short period, this is exactly the opportunity that banks take to increase the cost of the mortgage dramatically. Foreclosure victims may spend precious time and resources looking for solutions that will prevent foreclosure, but each option to save the home that does not work out only serves to decrease the amount of money homeowners have available while increasing the costs to save the home. And the longer homeowners wait to begin pursuing options, the less likely it is that they will be able to find a long-term solution, and will have to agree to any plan that saves the home, even if they know they can not afford it for longer than a few months and may face the danger of losing their homes again very shortly. As soon as a financial crisis hits, homeowners should start saving as much money as they can and finding other options to make the crisis as short and easily-recoverable as possible, in order to avoid all of the potential costs of facing foreclosure.

When homeowners are in danger of losing their homes and have not done the necessary amount of research into how foreclosure works and how to combat it, they are quite prone to falling for sales gimmicks and fancy although spurious, titles. A number of foreclosure help companies, in an effort to help their employees appear more knowledgeable than they really are, have begun to rely on simplistic training courses and unconvincing titles like "Certified Foreclosure Specialist," "Certified Loss Mitigation Specialist," or others. While there is no doubt that there is such as thing as a "Certified Foreclosure Specialist," it is more a matter of who certifies them and what they have do to earn that certification, and if these training courses give the employees more knowledge than the average foreclosure victim could gather on his or her own.

The few companies that are now offering this kind of course usually fall into one of two categories. The first is a foreclosure help company that gives new recruits a "training course" designed to teach them about how foreclosure works and how that company's products can help homeowners solve the present crisis. Once the new recruits have been trained, they are given a meaningless certificate proclaiming them to be Certified Foreclosure Specialists, or some similar title. In some cases, the new recruits will have to pay for the training, while it will be given to them for free with other companies. The training, though, is more of a "product certification" course, where the recruits learn how that company's services work, rather than all of the various methods homeowners can use to stop foreclosure, and when each of them is appropriate or not.

While these courses may provide significant knowledge that the new specialist can call upon when speaking with foreclosure victims, there is a conflict of interest when a company certifies its own employees as specialists because they have completed a course that the company has itself designed. If a new employee working for McDonald's were to be given a piece of paper calling him a Certified McBurger Culinary Specialist, it would have the same amount of credibility; that is, none whatsoever.

However, after receiving the certification, the new recruit is able to start selling the company's foreclosure help products. This usually means recommending homeowners for loss mitigation and repayment plans in order to get their mortgage back on track. Whether this works in every single situation or not is usually not considered; just recommend everyone, find out who has the money to pay, and see what sticks. Of course, this is not to say that every loss mitigation company is bad, either, as there are many ethical ones that we have worked with and have recommended our clients speak to. But relying on a spurious, conflict-laden title to build false credibility with a homeowner in danger of losing a home is certainly not a good sign.

The second type of company offering this type of foreclosure training specializes just in training people to be independent foreclosure experts. The company sells a book, software, or online training course, and the newly certified idiot is sent out on his own to attempt helping people in foreclosure to save their homes. No supervision necessary, no legal review of current foreclosure laws provided: just complete a 2-week training course, pass a final exam, and start charging homeowners whatever they can afford. The problems with this are numerous, from the perspective of the homeowners, who may be working with a self-proclaimed expert who is brand new in the foreclosure industry. From the perspective of those hawking their course, though, this is a winning situation: they provide the training and certification for a fee, while avoiding any legal liability for what their students do with the training afterwards.

For homeowners in foreclosure confused about such issues as who to trust in foreclosure, and whether "experts" with fancy titles are more or less trustworthy than others lacking such titles, it is important to be aware that there are such things as "Certified Foreclosure Specialists," "Certified Loss Mitigators," and various others. But it is even more important for foreclosure victims to ask who certified them, and if it was the company they now work for, to be suspicious. Also, ask them also what makes them a specialist, and if they say because they passed the certification course, be even more suspicious. Again, it bears repeating that, every person in the foreclosure industry will be more or less knowledgeable, and homeowners should do their own research on foreclosure before trusting anyone to provide them with foreclosure advice or assistance. Just finding someone trustworthy (certified or not) who knows about foreclosure and how to help homeowners is a better alternative than relying on a title or fancy certificate that has little backing to it.

For a family that has never experienced it before, foreclosure can be a bewildering and confusing experience, not to mention the massive amounts of stress it can generate in people who are in danger of losing their homes. Unfortunately, homeowners in desperate situations often turn to various sources of advice that may provide somewhat varying qualities of information. While much conventional wisdom regarding foreclosure is just plain wrong, some foreclosure scam artists will actively give out misinformation in an attempt to trap homeowners or increase their fear. With such a large amount of information on how to stop foreclosure available to homeowners, it is important that they do the very best job they can at gaining relevant resources and foreclosure advice.

The first thing that homeowners need to be aware of is the basics of how foreclosure works, what the process will look like, what defenses and how much time they have under state foreclosure law, and what they can do to save their homes. Having a good understanding of various terms and definitions is one place to start, as many foreclosure specialists use these terms under the assumption that homeowners know what they are talking about, which is rarely the case. But knowing this basic foreclosure information will allow foreclosure victims to learn how the foreclosure process works and if there are any circumstances that will allow them more time or additional options due to state law. However, homeowners need to go beyond just gathering loads of data and lists of options to prevent foreclosure, and put this information into the context of a plan that fits their current situation.

Homeowners who are serious about saving their homes need to seek out as much relevant foreclosure advice as is reasonable. While they do not have to examine every known case of foreclosure and how it can be stopped, it is important to learn how various methods to stop foreclosure work in real life -- not just on paper. Foreclosure specialists, third party companies, loss mitigators, and real estate professionals are all possible sources of information, and can provide helpful case studies and success stories so that homeowners can work on creative ideas. It is one thing to know of an option to save a home, such as loan modifications or short sales, and it is entirely different for foreclosure victims to determine if that option will work in their specific situation. This distinction is necessary for every solution that is examined; knowing that giving a deed in lieu of foreclosure is one possibility does not mean that the homeowners' particular lender will even accept one.

The point of putting foreclosure advice into perspective is one of the most important lessons homeowners can learn. Taking advice blindly is just as good as not taking any advice at all and just trusting in a potential foreclosure scam. In fact, foreclosure victims should consider any option to stop foreclosure as suspect until they have independently verified its accuracy and relevance to their specific situation and goals. While one foreclosure expert will inform the homeowners that that company's plan is the best way to avoid foreclosure, another expert will discount that option while recommending his own company's plan. Homeowners will rightly feel lost while seeking assistance, but researching each way to save their home will ensure they feel much more confident and can cut through the sales pitch to determine which solutions will help them and which will not.

Few homeowners and even fewer foreclosure specialists every truly understand everything there is to know about the process. However, learning how to save one's home is much easier than studying to become a doctor, oil field engineer, or astronaut, and homeowners can gain the relevant foreclosure information that they need to determine which solutions will be most relevant to their situation. Gaining foreclosure advice from specialists in the industry, banks, and fellow foreclosure victims will also help homeowners defend against being taken advantage of. There are endless sources of foreclosure help companies, websites, articles, and reference materials that homeowners can consult to put together a comprehensive plan to prevent the worst of foreclosure. In addition, there are just as many resources that homeowners can use to repair their personal financial situation and improve their credit after the foreclosure is over, regardless of the results of the process and their success in saving the home.

Being able to find a solution to foreclosure on one's own is not as easy as trusting blindly in a foreclosure help company, but homeowners who take the time to do research will often find that they have worked out an effective, long-term solution to foreclosure, rather than a band-aid solution or being taken advantage of by a foreclosure scam. Learning about foreclosure is the method that homeowners can follow to have as many options to save their homes as possible, while avoiding trusting in only one option that may fall through at the last minute.

This is both a review of the book How to be Invisible by author J.J. Luna, as well as a brief discussion of some of the issues the book raises. The concept here will be to review the book briefly before responding to some of the general criticisms of the work that I have come across while reading reviews of the work. I find many of these criticisms are unwarranted and indicative of a wanting attitude in regards to implementing many of the recommendations of the book.

In essence, Luna describes numerous ways of protecting or increasing one's privacy. Issues discussed include using passports instead of other forms of ID, computer privacy, accepting mail at home, titling vehicles, and other matters. All of the suggestions and theories in the book are designed to help a person become more invisible, get out of thousands of corporate and public databases, and make it difficult, if not impossible, for stalkers to find a victim who has decided not to be found. Refreshingly, the book does not in any way recommend any illegal or unethical reasons for increasing one's privacy, such as avoiding taxes or child support obligations. Luna makes a point to focus on integrity and obeying the law. A few examples of some of the specific tactics are examined here.

For example, the book recommends not to carry a drivers license around and not show it to anyone who is not a police office or titling your vehicle. The reason for this is that drivers licenses often show the carrier's home address and, often, social security number. Anyone who views the drivers license has access to the private information, and can write down, memorize, or photograph the information at will. For this reason, a passport is recommended, as it does not give any address at all.

The entertainment factor of pulling a passport out is almost as beneficial as the privacy factor. Bank employees, concert security, bouncers, and other identity-checkers usually look quite strangely at the passport, since most of them are used to reading everyone's drivers license all day. The cost of this small protection is minimal, and the person using the passport will never have to give anyone their home address unless they deserve it, or want to give it away.

The book contains many other examples of protecting privacy, such as setting up ghost addresses, titling vehicles in LLCs, and not relying on borrowing money to live, finance a home, or pay bills.

The small information on using credit is potentially the most important part of the book and extremely relevant to the rest of this blog and website that discusses the uses of borrowing money and why bad credit can be better than good credit in certain situations. There are daily horror stories of people in debt or who have relied on credit to get them through life. When they come upon a hardship, they lean even heavier on credit to get through the hardship, while waiting for the future to get better. Unfortunately, hardships last longer than a few days or weeks, usually, and continuous leaning on credit will eventually cause the crutch to break. This can cause bankruptcy, collections, or even foreclosure, all of which causes the person's name to end up on even more records, public databases, and in the hands of collection companies.

The ideas that are presented in the book are all a cause of conversation and reflection upon the current state of privacy in America. However, for some readers, they will merely read the ideas and develop a thought pattern of saying "I can't do that, it's a lot of work." They will then deem the book impractical, outdated, or useless. In fact, many of the steps needed to protect privacy do involve just as much work as saving a home from foreclosure, but the added layers of protection may be well worth the effort. Obviously, the extra privacy will not be worth the effort of someone who puts no effort into protecting himself, while a serious advocate of personal privacy will find that the added peace of mind is worth the work involved.

And while many people have reviewed this book online or otherwise, most of these reviewers are misguided when reading the book. In fact, their arguments sound like they read the concepts of the work and assumed the practice would be too difficult, or they read the practical suggestions and did not have the creativity to use the examples as a starting point, not an ending point.

Apparently, one of the most visual and easily remembered examples in the book is Luna's suggestion of renting an empty broom closet in an office building for a ghost mail address. The argument that using an unoccupied broom closet as a mailbox is outdated or impractical is absurd. It is inconceivable that one could not be tracked down and rented, and the fact that several readers of the book have found suitable ghost addresses proves that this argument against renting a small room or closet is lacking in substance. Furthermore, renting a closet as a mailbox is an example of creativity in protecting one's privacy, not a direct order from the author. Step One is not "Rent a broom closet and receive mail there," it is "Stop receiving mail at home." The end is more important than the means. The broom closet and other examples are suggestions to motivate readers to begin thinking of uncommon ideas to protect their privacy.

In fact, that is precisely the point most low-rating reviewers seem to miss: the examples are examples of creativity in making a difficult activity (protecting one's privacy) slightly easier. Of course it would be easier just to rent a box from a local UPS Store, but then the renter has to show ID, give the company an actual home address, and their names go into the company database, to be sold or rented to anyone.

It would be even easier to continue using an actual home address to receive mail. But again, the book was not written to tell people how to do what they are already doing. It was written to provide ideas and suggestions on how important protecting privacy is, and how a little work can significantly increase one's protection from identity theft or worse.

And the argument that someone can not see any other option besides giving out their Social Security number, birth date, and other extremely personal information to employers or for a background check for a job is just as misguided. One may as well argue that they are no better than a cow being herded for slaughter, to be cut up, creatively packaged, and sold off piece by piece. Actually, it might be preferable than to working some jobs, which many people only take because they feel they do not have any other option than finding a "good company" to work for.

More than just becoming invisible, the major theme of the book is creativity, and the book is targeted to creative people who are willing to work to change their lives and protect their privacy. For the uncreative, who are stuck with no other options than working for an employer and lacking the skills and motivation to protect their own identity, maybe the government will pass a law allowing people to become "invisible" by filing a simple form at the post office. Just give them your SS#, home address, phone number, and two pieces of picture ID every few months, and they will put you in a database to keep you invisible. That'll be easy enough for everyone to do, right?

In conclusion, this is a great book for anyone who wants to protect his privacy. But it is important that readers know to use the work as a starting point and as a reference for future ideas. But the book itself will not provide protection; and this is a dangerous assumption to make. Only the reader can protect himself or herself by actively implementing the ideas and pursuing a program of incrementally increasing privacy and disconnecting from the thousands of consumer databases, corporate lists, mailing lists, advertising campaigns, and public records databases, which are becoming more and more searchable online by the day.

As one final note, many of the author's recommendations are meant to be put into effect one step at a time, from small steps like using a different form of identification and renting a more secure mailbox, all the way to advanced techniques such as renting and owning a home anonymously and using mail drops in other countries. But for a current foreclosure victim, a moment of personal financial crisis can be used to start implementing a comprehensive plan all at once. Especially because foreclosure may necessitate renting an apartment after foreclosure and not being able to open a new bank account, many of the author's ideas can be used to great effect by foreclosure victims in order to protect their finances in the future and keep away from the lure of debt. The book is highly recommended to every person facing the loss of a home, regardless of their ability to end the foreclosure process with their home intact or not.

There are many issues and possibilities that homeowners need to be aware of when they fall behind on their mortgage. Foreclosure laws, general timelines, how and when the sheriff sale will be conducted, and what options are available to help them are just a few of these important issues. With so many local real estate markets declining in value, though, numerous manipulated or downright fraudulent practices are being discovered on a daily basis. No issue has been more contentious than that of overvalued properties that were highly leveraged by banks who knew the homeowners would not be able to pay for them for the long term. One of the most important items homeowners should have when attempting to avoid losing their homes to foreclosure is an accurate valuation, so they are aware of any sudden decrease in the value of their homes.

There are numerous reasons to receive an accurate value, both in terms of finding out how to fight foreclosure legally and through more common methods. An overvalued appraisal that was done by a lender during a refinance may indicate fraudulent inducement of debt, which means the bank gave the homeowners a loan that the bank knew would never be able to be paid back. There are numerous examples in the news and online of homeowners who cashed out equity in order to do repairs or continue their consumption lifestyle, and they found out their properties had gone way up in value, according to the bank's appraiser.

However, now that they are facing foreclosure, these same homeowners have found out that those appraisals were only done in order to give them as much money as they qualified for, based on very loose lending guidelines. With the tighter lending policies now being practiced by banks, coupled with numerous other foreclosures across the country, these artificially inflated values have dropped drastically in some areas, sometimes by 40% or more. This makes it almost impossible for homeowners to find some solution that will stop foreclosure, because, even considering a down payment of 20%, they will owe more than the home is worth. The bank will have to accept less than what they are owed if the foreclosure victims attempt a loan to stop foreclosure or selling the house.

Having an unbiased, accurate value of their property will also allow homeowners to determine what options they are qualified for, and how much the bank stands to lose on the mortgage if it goes all the way through foreclosure and is sold at sheriff sale. Properties typically sell for far under the market value at the foreclosure auction, and banks that have made loans far higher than the market value can lose more than half of the original loan amount. Homeowners attempting to work out payment arrangements with the bank will have a stronger negotiating position if they know that the bank has so much at stake.

Of course, knowing the true current value of their homes will also give homeowners a better idea of whether or not the property is worth saving at all. If they purchased the home to live in and keep, then it may be worth trying to work out a loan modification or apply for a foreclosure loan from a different mortgage company. However, if the house was purchased primarily as an investment that has lost a significant portion of its value in a few short years, with no short-term recovery in sight, the foreclosure victims can examine the possibility of giving up the house and dealing with the financial consequences later. Especially if the bank is not willing to work with them, it may be better to move on, rather than trying to stop foreclosure despite an uncooperative bank.

Overvalued appraisals were, unfortunately, quite a common occurrence in the pre-bust real estate market. With investors caring about the quality of the loans they purchase, and lenders attempting to give mortgages that will not quickly default, accurate appraisals are now being sought. These are exposing many of the worst practices of the boom, as home buyers, real estate agents, mortgage brokers, lenders, and appraisers colluded to give homeowners the most money they could qualify for, whether or not the home was actually worth that much. Small starter homes quickly rose in value, and everyone became an investor, looking for the lowest monthly payment right now, rather than taking a more stable, although higher, payment. Having an accurate estimate of the value of their properties can give these homeowners the tool they need to begin finding out the truth of what kind of loan they were given, how they played into the hands of these commission- and profit-seeking companies, and the fact that they are left with the mess and the danger of losing their homes. But an accurate valuation will also help foreclosure victims start making realistic plans about what they can do to save their homes, or whether they are even worth saving at all.

Homeowners who have examined numerous options to save their homes and have not found success should begin to consider selling outright. Sometimes the best solution is to give up the house and begin planning for the future of their families, especially if it will be prohibitively expensive to find some way to avoid the foreclosure. Losing the home is clearly a stressful experience, but using a short term "band aid" and holding onto a home that will only be kept out of foreclosure for a few more months before being lost is a much worse solution. But even selling the home outright may not be enough, if the mortgage on the property is now more than the value of the house. In this case, a short sale may be appropriate.

However, foreclosure victims who wish to save their homes should take every step necessary to prevent the foreclosure. If they are intent on keeping the house, then there are numerous options to stop foreclosure that may be considered. Unloading the property, though, is a much better alternative to being forcefully removed by the sheriff during the eviction process. But once homeowners have attempted every solution that they are qualified for (and even some they are not), it may be time to move on and consider selling the house through a short sale.

The best way to sell a house is generally through a local Realtor with low fees who understands the situation or for the homeowners to list on their own. That way, commissions can be kept as low as possible, allowing for a more attractive selling price and for the homeowners to keep as much of the proceeds as they can. Selling the house and ending up with even a small amount of equity is always a better result than listing the house for too high of a price, not being able to sell at all, and having the bank take the property to a sheriff sale. When this happens, the homeowners typically end up with nothing, as the house will not sell for an amount necessary to pay off the defaulted amount.

If the homeowners do decide to attempt selling the house, the mortgage company may give them extra time to find a buyer. It is important to contact the lender once all other options have been exhausted, so that they can postpone a sheriff sale or hold off on any other foreclosure proceedings.Mortgage companies are more interested in getting their loan paid off, and it is in their interest to allow for extra time to list a house on the open market. If the house was taken to sheriff sale and the bank was the high bidder, they would end up listing the house anyway, after the eviction process had been completed. The homeowners listing the house while they are still the owners may cut down the time that the bank has to deal with the property, as well as ensure their loan is paid in full or for an acceptable amount.

Often, though, properties in foreclosure do not have enough time to sit on the market for months with an asking price equal to the value of the home. This is one reason that banks will consider short sales in many instances. A short sale is an arrangement whereby the mortgage company accepts less than the total owed on the loan, and is usually approved if the value of the property has decreased, and there is no way the sellers would be able to get a buyer to pay more than the market value. Even in cases where the loan is not higher than the value, banks may accept a short sale, because there is a high possibility of them losing even more money if the house has to be sold at sheriff sale and then sits on the market for months.

Homeowners who attempt a short sale and find a buyer need to be aware that they will most likely end up with nothing for the sale. Other than the foreclosure process being stopped and being able to make a clean break with the property, there is no benefit to a short sale. The lender will certainly not want to see the homeowners getting some sort of financial benefit beyond a few hundred or a thousand dollars for moving expenses. Furthermore, any debt that the bank forgives (the difference between what the homeowners owe and what the bank actually accepts as a payoff) is counted as income to the foreclosure victims. This means that they may have an extra tax liability at the end of the year because of the short sale.

Thus, a short sale can be a remarkable solution for homeowners who have tried various options to stop foreclosure and have been unsuccessful. It provides a solution even when selling the property for exactly what is owed is not possible -- the bank can actually accept less than what is owed and help the homeowners to unload the house and avoid a full foreclosure. But the drawbacks of the short sale process should also be considered; namely, that the homeowners will not be able to benefit financially from the sale, and they may even have a tax liability for the short sale. However, when all else has failed and the lender is willing to work with the foreclosure victims, a short sale is a much better solution than a sheriff sale and eviction.

When homes go into foreclosure, the owners are often far more worried about the mortgage payment than anything else. There are numerous costs involved with owning a house, though, and all of these need to be paid before and during the foreclosure. If they are not paid, and the homeowners are able to stop foreclosure before losing the home, they can quickly find themselves back in the same situation, in danger of being sued again for delinquent property taxes, homeowners association fees, or find themselves owning an uninsured home. Even worse, the lender may impose an escrow account or forced insurance on the property. Thus, it is important for foreclosure victims to keep on top of as many of the payments relating to the house as they can.

The county and city property taxes work slightly differently from the other charges mentioned above, due to their higher priority in the foreclosure proceedings, but they, along with any other liens on the property, will be wiped off after the sheriff sale of the house. When the sheriff sale is conducted, the house will be sold for whatever the highest bid amount is. These proceeds will be used to pay off everything that is affecting the house. First to be paid is any delinquent or currently due property taxes. The county gets paid first if the homeowners do not postpone the sheriff sale or work out a solution to prevent foreclosure.

If the foreclosure victims can not save their house, there may be a possibility of delinquent taxes being added as a lien on the property before the foreclosure. The lender will try to prevent this, as they will want as much of their money as possible without a tax lien, which will include the costs for obtaining the lien, as well as the taxes themselves. However, this possibility depends on how the property tax is being paid, whether through escrow with the mortgage company, or if the homeowners are paying it on their own.

If property taxes are paid through the escrow account, then the lender will pay the property taxes as they come due. Of course, the amounts paid for taxes will be added to the total payoff needed to sell the house or refinance to stop foreclosure, but the taxes will be paid to the county on time. The bank will not let the house go into a property tax foreclosure while they are pursuing their own foreclosure, and this gives them the opportunity to add more interest and charges to the total payoff, as they can stack up more junk fees on a negative escrow balance.

If the homeowners are paying the taxes on their own, though, and they get behind, then the proceeds from the sheriff sale will be used to pay off the property taxes. When the sheriff sale is conducted, the sale price will be used to pay the taxes first, then the mortgage, then any second mortgage and other liens. But the property taxes will be paid, in order to prevent the county from taking possession of the house. The possibility of the county obtaining a lien on the house may be small, but it is usually enough for the bank to impose an escrow account on the homeowners. They simply pay the delinquent taxes and add that amount to the total payoff, along with related charges and interest, which drives up the amount needed to reinstate the loan or avoid foreclosure completely. The homeowners may not even know they are now paying extra every month to keep up a new escrow balance, until they have saved the home and are now making regular payments again -- it is just that the payments may be much higher than they originally were due to the imposed escrow payment.

After the property taxes are paid off through the sheriff sale, the first mortgage will be paid off with as much of the proceeds as are left. If there is not enough to pay the first mortgage completely, then the Homeowners Association (HOA) and other lienholders will simply get nothing.

Now, the HOA could try to sue the homeowners after the foreclosure for the amount of fees that were owed up to the date that they were no longer the owner of the house. It may not be worth the time or effort for them to try to sue and obtain a judgment, though, especially as it is commonly known that most foreclosure victims do not have the extra resources to pay a deficiency judgment and little motivation to work out a payment plan or other arrangements. It is more likely the HOA will simply give up on collecting the fees, as they will not be able to cover the costs of the lawsuit.

Hazard insurance, the last of the costs most commonly associated with the mortgage payment, is usually paid with the mortgage in the escrow or monthly payment. If that is not being paid, or the owners are responsible for paying the insurance on their own, there will be no lien placed on the property for it; the house simply does not have hazard insurance. If anything happens to the house while the insurance is not paid, the insurance will not cover it, obviously. This is another charge that the bank can impose on the property, if they know that the foreclosure victims are not taking care of it. Mortgage companies certainly do not want to loan money on a house that, if it is destroyed, will be a complete loss to them; insurance is most often mandatory for obtaining a loan in the first place.

The longer the foreclosure goes on, the higher costs will climb and the more difficult it will be for homeowners to solve the crisis and prevent foreclosure. Various expenses will still have to be kept on time, including the property taxes, homeowners association fees, and hazard insurance, or else the danger of future foreclosures will be present, or the lender may impose a forced, expensive escrow account to make sure they are paid. Extra liens may be placed on the title, and the homeowners may be sued after foreclosure or find that their insurance has lapsed and will not cover any damages that occur to the property. Thus, homeowners may find that they are fighting foreclosure on numerous fronts at once, but they need to be aware of all of the possibilities of letting their housing payments go into default. Foreclosure is obviously the most pressing concern, but it may be all the little charges that cause them to lose their homes, unless they gain enough foreclosure information to understand the entire process and what is truly at stake.

Homeowners facing the loss of their homes due to a financial hardship often rely primarily on getting a new line of credit to stop foreclosure. In effect, they are trying to solve a debt problem by taking on more debt, refinancing their mortgage or taking out a personal loan or car title loan to get the funds to pay back the arrears. There are a number of loan products that they may even be able to qualify for, if the foreclosure process has not gone too far, but homeowners should carefully examine their options for foreclosure loans, to make sure they are getting into an affordable payment and not simply postponing the inevitable.

The first obstacle that homeowners facing a financial crisis will have to overcome is a low credit score. Although their credit may be reasonably healthy in the beginning of the hardship, once they begin missing mortgage payments, their credit score will drop dramatically and it will be very difficult to obtain any kind of loan, mortgage or otherwise. This will force them to rely on alternate sources of funding, such as private real estate investors, subprime lenders, or hard money lenders, that may not offer terms in favor of the homeowners. The qualification guidelines will be drastically more difficult to meet, and costs for these types of mortgages may seem very expensive.

The most difficult qualification to meet for any loan to stop foreclosure will be the equity requirement. With banks that specialize in these kinds of loans, the house will usually have to have 70% loan to value as a minimum. Some start even lower, at 60-65%; this makes a vast number of foreclosure victims immediately unqualified to obtain financing. The bank, because they are aware of a great danger of having to foreclose on the house again, wants to know that they will have their loan paid back through the proceeds of the sheriff sale, and such low loan to value properties have a better chance of meeting this aim. There is also a better chance they will be able to sell the property on the open market for very little but still make a profit, if they have to foreclose on the loan and end up owning the house after foreclosure.

Furthermore, interest rates from foreclosure bailout lenders or hard money lenders can be relatively high. Depending on which lenders are chosen and what their individual guidelines are, payments can be in the range of 11-15% on the low end, and up to 18-20% at the highest point. These loans are designed for homeowners who experienced a temporary financial setback but are now able to afford a higher mortgage payment in exchange for the chance to establish an on-time payment history again and save their home. If the homeowners have not repaired their financial situation and established good spending habits, these qualifications will ensure they can not find a solution to foreclosure by going this route, and other options to stop foreclosure will have to be considered.

Private investor options are often the most flexible in terms of payments and equity considerations. The homeowners will not have to give up their ownership rights to the home in all circumstances, if they use a land contract option, or they may have the right to purchase back their property after a certain period of time under a leaseback agreement. Also, investors are often more willing to work directly with the foreclosure victims, because they are more concerned with the equity in the house and its potential future profit and monthly cash flow, and they can negotiate with the foreclosing bank for a short sale to generate even more equity. But these considerations also work in the homeowners' interests, because more equity in the property will require a smaller mortgage, which will be accompanied by lower payments. This can give the foreclosure victims a little bit of extra cash every month that they can use to save for a rainy day or pay off other debts.

Other loan programs, such as payday loans or car title loans, are often the most predatory of all plans a homeowner can take to stop foreclosure. In nearly all cases, relying on such loans during a financial hardship is almost a guarantee for future financial problems, and will result in the foreclosure victims becoming even further behind on monthly expenses. Although there is a place and time that these loans can help homeowners, they should be avoided when there is a serious financial hardship that does not have an end in sight. And they should be considered as a last resort to make a payment, rather than a short term solution to keep a property out of foreclosure.

Homeowners have numerous options when looking at loans to save a home from foreclosure, but the qualifications for many of these loans will be difficult (if not impossible) to meet. Due to the drawbacks and difficulties with these loans, using debt to solve a debt problem should be one part of the plan to stop foreclosure, but it should not be the only part. Other options need to be considered in addition to credit, especially working with the lender, selling the home, and filing bankruptcy to avoid foreclosure. The problem of losing a home can be solved in various ways, but every situation requires a unique perspective and several backups in order to be successful.

The book that will be reviewed here is Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, by Jeremy Scahill. The book was published just a few months ago in 2007, and is Scahill's in-depth examination of the private military contractor firm Blackwater USA, based in North Carolina. While other private corporations have numerous contracts with the federal government in places and times of war (for example, Halliburton), the more worrying aspect of Blackwater's role in war is its military mission. Blackwater USA provides, essentially, armies for hire.

However, the book Blackwater also spends just as much time explaining the circumstances and political environment that allowed Blackwater USA to come into existence and increase its participation with the federal government exponentially. Scahill sees the rise of outsourcing government responsibilities in conflicts beginning in earnest with the first Bush presidency with Dick Cheney as Defense Secretary, increasing during the years Clinton was in the White House and Cheney spent his time with Halliburton, and then growing exponentially during the current Bush administration with a Cheney vice-presidency.

Obviously, the main link in this equation is Dick Cheney's interest in outsourcing more and more of government services, including the government's sole right to the use of force. This is the factor that disturbs Scahill the most, along with the sheer unaccountability of Blackwater USA.

Through some legal maneuvering, Blackwater and its mercenaries, though most of the company's existence, has been exempt from the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the court-martial system. This system theoretically imposes codes of conduct and accountability on soldiers who participate in combat and is the foundation of American military law.

Scahill quotes Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich to underline his point about the murkiness of the legal environment in which Blackwater USA's contractors operate: the contractors "do not appear to be subject to any laws at all and so therefore they have more of a license to be able to take the law into their own hands." Thus, mercenaries may be able to kill, imprison, torture, or otherwise act outside of the boundaries of the law that govern the actions of official American soldiers.

Blackwater also, according to Scahill, has another problem of accountability. Namely, the author provides some examples of the company not providing necessary security or resources to their contracted mercenaries, which resulted in unnecessary deaths of these contractors. The most visible was the ambush of four Blackwater USA contractors in Fallujah, Iraq, in late March 2004.

Images of the aftermath of this ambush were played on news stations worldwide, as images were shown of Iraqis burning the contractors' vehicles and even burning the contractors' bodies themselves before hanging them from the infrastructure of a nearby bridge. Most news agencies failed to mention that these "private military contractors" were essentially hired soldiers who were providing security for another government contractor, but were understaffed and underarmed, with no clear idea of what they were getting into.

The families of these Blackwater USA contractors see the company as responsible for the death's of their loved ones, but Blackwater has been fighting their lawsuits by claiming the mercenaries knew they were going to be serving in war and had signed waivers acknowledging the possibility of being maimed or killed. However, the families believe that the contractors would be alive if they had had the proper number of men and resources with them on the mission in Fallujah, and that Blackwater knew the dangers and failed to provide the necessary protection the men would have needed to defend or fight off any potential ambush or attack from Iraqis.

The book also raises many other important issues in the story of Blackwater USA, including its relationship to the Christian Right, its hiring of mercenaries from other countries that did not support the war in Iraq (focusing mainly on Chile), the vast differences between the pay of a regular soldier and a mercenary, and its ties to the Central Intelligence Agency through Blackwater's vice chairman Coffer Black.

Scahill also provides much more detail on the families of the Fallujah contractors and their relationship with the company, and general information on the role of mercenary armies in other countries and throughout history. The book cites numerous sources in each of its nineteen chapters and focuses on using mainstream news media sources, Congressional hearings, and the author's own direct interviews with families of the contractors killed in Iraq.

The main points of the book seem to highlight another instance of governmental outsourcing of services to companies that have strong connections to the current administration, an issue raised by countless other books, magazines, articles, and websites. With the privatizing of actual combat and the use of force, however, a new chapter in private contracting has begun.

Outsourcing any government service raises the issue of private companies taking advantage of government largesse, but a private company given the responsibility of performing actions formerly reserved only to soldiers who are governed by a strict code of justice gives rise to the possibility of private armies, wielding more power than the government, paying its own contractors more than the government pays its own armies, and being accountable to no laws other than the laws of a capitalist system that encourages profit over the safety of its own employees and the satisfaction of its target market.

A corporatocracy in itself is a frightening scenario, without the possibility of a private corporate army able to impose its will without the accountability of military law or governmental oversight.

The author has also given numerous interviews about the implications of his book and one of the main questions to be raised, interestingly enough, has been to the effect of "Couldn't we have expected this? The administration has outsourced nearly everything else; what's the big deal this time?" This is, of course, a disturbing question, having taken for granted that a system of corruption and awarding of ever larger government contracts to private companies.

The fact that private armies being deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina has become commonplace and just a matter of course makes this book even more important and timely.

Private investors can assist homeowners in foreclosure in many unique ways that banks simply can not help with. While many are simply looking for great deals on distressed or foreclosed property, attempting to quickly buy low and sell high, others are willing to allow the previous foreclosure victims to live in the house after the foreclosure. This ensures that the homeowners stop foreclosure but also have a second chance to regain their homes, while they avoid the expenses of moving and can concentrate on repairing their credit and becoming financially stable. The investor makes money on the foreclosure property while the homeowners are paying monthly installments, and will collect a lump sum payment when the house is sold back to the homeowners.

While investors can use various financial instruments and documents to put together the agreement between them and the homeowners, the two most commonly used are the land contract and a leaseback or rent to own agreement. Although the terms may be used interchangeably, in some instances, there are more differences between them than similarities. Each provides the homeowners and the investor with a different level of protection and interest in the property, as well as unique advantages and shortcomings. But by understanding the basics of how each works, both parties to the transaction will be able to protect their own interests, while also entering into a mutually beneficial arrangement to avoid the foreclosure.

In essences, a rent to own agreement, also known as a leaseback, is simply a lease agreement, where the homeowners would be renting the property and a portion of the payment each month might count towards a down payment later on (although this is not always the case). The agreement would also give the renters the right to purchase the property at a later date upon completion of the contract, so the investor, the current owner of the property, could not sell it to someone else and leave the former foreclosure victims with no place to live. Even if the private investor did sell to someone else, that new owner would have to honor the tenants' rent to own agreement and sell to them at the appointed time. Rent to own agreements are not generally recorded with the county because it is just a type of standard rent agreement. Leases are not recorded with the county, in nearly all cases. The renters under a leaseback arrangement do not have any ownership interest in the while just renting.

If the tenants default on their payments under a rent to own agreement, the private investor will be able to evict them. There will be no lengthy foreclosure process, and the landlord would simply have to prove they gave the tenants notice to vacate in the correct manner and that the payments were not made. Because there is little protection for the renters under this type of agreement, it is important that the payment terms be affordable, and the former foreclosure victims be given the financial leeway to begin a savings plan. If the lease agreement is prohibitively expensive, this type of arrangement between the foreclosure victims and the private investor can quickly end up in another situation where the tenants are losing their home.

A land contract, though, is essentially where the current owner sells the property to the former foreclosure victims and transfers the ownership rights and responsibilities under a written agreement. The tenants in this case probably would still not be on the deed until the contract was completed, but in the meantime, they would be responsible for maintaining the property, paying the taxes, and have all of the other obligations of owning a home. However, they would also enjoy the benefits of home ownership, which includes deducting county property taxes from their income.

Land contracts are usually recorded with the county to show the ownership interest in the property, and are generally more protective of the rights of the former foreclosure victims. If the situation arises where the family is unable to pay the agreements, the investor would have to proceed with a foreclosure on the house; he could not simply evict the tenants. This gives the homeowner more protections under the law, as the foreclosure process can take much longer than an eviction process involving a rental agreement. The investor will have to sue for a judgment, sell the house at a sheriff sale, and honor any redemption period or other aspects of the foreclosure laws that come into play. Thus, the tenants' interests are protected much better under a land contract than a rent to own agreement.

In either case, the homeowners need to do as much research as they can and make especially certain to read any documents they will be asked to sign. Working with a private investor to stop foreclosure can be one of the most effective ways to save a home, offering numerous creative solutions. However, this is always the possibility of being taken advantage of or finding oneself in a situation where circumstances have gotten way out of hand, with little or no protection under the law. With foreclosure scams lurking around every corner, it is important for homeowners to take in as much foreclosure advice as possible, while evaluating their options and choosing to work with an investor who will protect their interests as well as his own.

Can fascism really happen in America? Even worse, has the country already begun a shift towards fascism, not unlike Nazi Germany or Chile under Augusto Pinochet ? If so, how can we know that these dangers have arrived, and what can we do to combat hem? These are the questions that Naomi Wolf proposes to answer in her new book, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. This short book presents a more disturbing look at recent events in America's history and predictions for a possible future in which the democracy of America is slowly eroded away and replaced with a rising totalitarianism.

Wolf explains that her motivation for writing this letter was the fact that she could no longer ignore the anti-democratic trends occurring in numerous segments of a formerly free America. Noticing these trends caused her to research the methods that dictators have used in the past to close down a society, and search for similarities between various regimes. As she states in the introduction, "I had to reread the stories of the making and the unmaking of freedom. The more I read these histories, the more disturbed I became." The product of her research is presented a set of ten steps that all dictators take when attempting to shut an open society, and the bulk of the book is spent discussing these steps and how they have been taken in the past and how they are being taken now in America.

A short look through the sources that Wolf uses throughout the book indicates the depth of research conducted. Much of the history of America is told through the ideals of the Founding Fathers and their battle for a free and open society, and the checks and balances they included in the Constitution to make a fascist shift in America as difficult as possible. The main sources used to analyze past dictators include studies of Germany under the Nazis and Pinoche's Chile in the 1970's, although other sources are frequently cited, as well. And one only has to look around at books and newspaper articles being published in America on a weekly basis for examples of the profound fear that this country has moved decisively in a direction that has as its conclusion a society completely closed down to the ideas of democracy.

The one most glaring difference between past dictatorial regimes and America is the fact that, according to Wolf, we will not experience a dramatic event to herald the closing of democracy. "There will not be a coup in America like Mussolini's March on Rome or a dramatic massacre like Hitler's Night of the Long Knives," that will shock the society into submission and declare martial law. This means that the shift to fascism would necessarily take much longer, as it is enacted out in a series of progressive steps and, presumably, could be slowed, stopped, or reversed. But, Wolf points out the ten steps that all dictators take when imposing their control over a democratic society, and she sees each step being taken now in America. The steps are the following, taken directly from the book:

Invoke an External and Internal Threat
Establish Secret Prisons
Develop a Paramilitary Force
Surveil Ordinary Citizens
Infiltrate Citizens' Groups
Arbitrarily Detain and Release Citizens
Target Key Individuals
Restrict the Press
Cast Criticism as "Espionage" and Dissent as "Treason"
Subvert the Rule of Law

As noted above, the vast majority of the book deals with the similarities between the current state of America in relation to these steps and various dictatorial regimes in the past. Many of the comparisons Wolf draws are timely and disturbing, especially as some of the very same tactics used by dictators in the past were described with the very same terms as are now being used ("war footing," the use of embedded journalists in the Iraq War). Also disturbing is the brazen way that the current Bush administration is taking these steps in the open. Although the government has been involved in surveilling citizens (wiretapping during Watergate ), infiltrating citizen's groups (the FBI's COINTELPRO ), and developing a paramilitary force outside the control of Congress (the CIA), these were often secretive acts that were not meant to have light shed on them and were claimed to be stopped after being discovered.

Now, however, the government has either admitted openly to these acts, or simply lied about them in the face of evidence to the contrary; no efforts are made to discover the truth or protect citizens' rights. In fact, more of then ten steps are taken in response to the uncovering of other steps being taken, including suing and imprisoning journalists, labeling dissent as anti-American, and invoking the threat of terrorist strikes against the nation. This is the difference that Wolf is concerned with in regards to the open shift in America towards the complete subversion of the rule of law. Formerly secret activities that citizens would have voiced strident objections to are now committed in the open, with no regard to public opinion.

Another disturbing similarity Wolf point to is the progressive desensitization that occurs when a shift to fascism happens over time, instead of through sudden violence. The secret prisons and use of torture may originally be used only on suspected terrorists or "enemy combatants," who are plotting attacks against the nation. However, as the public gets over its aversion to torture, the definition of who is an "enemy combatant" or similarly hurting the nation becomes broader. In short order, those who expose government lies and corruption in the press are decided to be undermining the government and need to be imprisoned and tortured. Then, ordinary citizens who speak out against government policies may become subject to arbitrary detention or prolonged imprisonment.

This step can be seen even recently being acted out in the case of Andrew Meyer, a University of Florida student who was tasered at a forum featuring Senator John Kerry. After a period of shock at the police use of force, and numerous other taser incidents being reported, the public, through media analysis which portrays cops as well within their rights to use such force against citizens displaying no overt danger, has been fed a message which it will recall the next time such brutality is used by government against the people.

It is in the last chapter, "The Patriot's Task," that Wolf provides some final messages of hope that the country's moves towards the closing down of democracy can be reversed. Solutions are also presented, including the need to "hold house parties, set up town halls, convene our neighbors, pass out users' guides to the Constitution, overwhelm our representatives and the Presidential candidates with demands for them to restore the rule of law," as well as "stand up directly to confront those who have committed crimes against the Constitution -- and hold them accountable." As the crimes against the Constitution have been numerous, and accountability has been lacking, it is uncertain how practical these suggestions may be, but neighbors and communities can come together over their disillusionment with the current state of American politics.

In this way, community solutions can be established, including ways to take power back from the government, such as establishing local currencies, making investments in local businesses instead of large corporations that receive huge government contracts and tax breaks, and sustainable methods of keeping small localities open and democratic. Even as citizens work towards reopening the government (a goal whose achievement is doubtful), they can disengage from these same establishments until they are reopened or recreated, and engage in the more productive work of creating sustainable solutions.

With so many foreclosures going on all over the United States, some very important questions are being raised. Who are these people? What did they do to get in such a desperate situation? Is foreclosure due to their own incompetence and lack of financial education, or is there more at work here? Why do a few of them find some way to stop foreclosure, while many others are losing their homes and renting an apartment after foreclosure ?

There are no simple answers to these questions, of course, but the trend is to label foreclosure victims as either the innocent victims of banks, mortgage brokers, and real estate agents, or as consumers too greedy and lazy to read the mortgage paperwork that set out all of the traps in front of them that they are now walking straight into. In fact, though, both of these perceptions are wrong, and homeowners in foreclosure face financial hardships for numerous reasons. But let's meet some of these people and see if their hardships can teach us anything about the current state of homeowners and consumers in general in America.

They are the people who lied on their mortgage applications in order to afford those $300K and million-dollar homes, when their real incomes would only qualify them for houses one quarter of the size they ended up purchasing.

They are the people who bought a new SUV last year to replace a smaller SUV that was only three years old, in order to keep up with their neighbors next door and across the street who had one year old SUVs.

They are the people who continue to finance their own hardships, by borrowing money on credit cards until no one will give them any more money, effectively tightening the noose around their own necks the longer they rely on debt. They know they are tightening their own noose, but they feel they have no other option at this point.

They are the people who have not taken care of themselves first, and are now facing huge medical bills that cause them to fall behind everywhere else, and they are now realizing their work health insurance, once a selling point of taking the job, has enough technicalities to prevent them from ever receiving real support from the program.

They are the people who bought these huge homes and did not realize simply how much it would cost to keep them warm in winter, and now they are faced with the choice of heat, eat, or pay the mortgage.

They are the people whose jobs were sent to India and China.

They are the people who borrow their conspicuous wealth from the same banks that finance the companies that outsource their jobs, but are not aware this is what their bank is doing to them, with their assistance.

They are the people who were given fraudulent appraisals that increased the values of their homes far beyond what was reasonable, just to increase commissions payouts for real estate agents and mortgage brokers, and create more paper wealth that banks could sell to hedge funds.

They are the people who did not realize that having children is very expensive.

They are the people who tried opening their own business and, for one reason or another, just could not keep up and had to confine themselves to the prison of wage slavery and give up their dreams of owning their own business and controlling their own lives.

They are the people whose parents needed extra care and had no one to take care of them after the government handouts ceased and health insurance would not cover their illness or disability.

They are the people whose children needed extra care and found that they could no longer sacrifice their family for work and their income decreased because of their commitment to their own families and children.

They are the people who are now hoping against hope that the government will swoop down and come to their aid, not realizing that it was ineffective government policies, poor economic oversight, and a revolving door between big banks and big government that created the conditions under which so many foreclosures could take place at once.

They are the people who get up every day, just like you and I, and succeed some days, fail others, and make their own decisions in life and learn from the consequences of those decisions, or are doomed to repeat the same mistakes endlessly.

They are the people who, hopefully, once they face foreclosure, realize that family and community are more important than owning the biggest house or competing with coworkers for the most debt or the least-efficient SUV.

Homeowners face foreclosure for any number of reasons, all the way from unbridled greed to outdo their neighbors, to a sudden financial catastrophe that demands their urgent attention and too large an amount of money, regardless of how much they have saved and how prudent their spending habits have been. In finding solutions that will help these people stop foreclosure from taking away their homes, condemning them will offer no benefits, short-term or long-term.

Although criticizing foreclosure victims may be fun and easy for some, while providing a scapegoat for declining home values nationwide, this does not provide effective solutions or a way out of the current foreclosure crisis. It is only with community support and involvement, with neighbors and families helping each other, that foreclosure can be confronted and homes saved. Foreclosure victims are just like all the rest of us, who can learn from our mistakes, financial and otherwise; they are not an aberration or abomination to be shamed, ignored, or made to feel guilty for hardships out of their control. Fixing the foreclosure problem is more important now than pointing the finger of blame, and will lead to more sustainable results in the future.

When foreclosure strikes, homeowners often seek out the most reliable foreclosure advice that is available to them. While a great number will end up on the internet, searching for terms they are aware of, or looking up state foreclosure law information, others will request help from a local real estate agent, sometimes the very one who sold them their house to begin with. As surprising as it sounds, though, real estate agents do not generally know the answers to questions relating to the foreclosure process, so it is not surprising that they could not give the homeowners any useful information.

As licensed real estate agents, we are aware of the fact that the issue of foreclosures are not covered in depth in real estate licensing classes. After obtaining the license by passing the state test, there is little reason for real estate agents to become knowledgeable about how foreclosure works, and unless they study independently, they may remain ignorant even as they have homeowners ask them for advice. Learning about foreclosure is a process that begins with general information, such as knowing various terms and definitions and looking up state law, but which can not be fully understood without learning from homeowners what they go through and what they attempt to save their homes.

Real estate licensing courses are also extremely vague on what options homeowners have to avoid foreclosure, focusing instead on a brief discussion of the legal mechanisms at work. There are no discussions of the difficulties in qualifying for a foreclosure loan, how to write a convincing hardship letter, or even how to postpone the sheriff sale to gain extra time to save a house. Obviously, not all of these ideas can be discussed in a general licensing class, but the mere existence of such options are not raised, leaving real estate agents woefully unprepared to provide assistance to clients at the most stressful time in their lives.

Foreclosure is determined by state law, so any homeowner facing the loss of their home should look up their foreclosure laws. That will give them a much more comprehensive outline of the actual foreclosure process than any real estate agent can provide There will most likely be various ways that the lender and court system may proceed, including public reporting requirements, and any potential redemption period guaranteed to the homeowner. It is important for foreclosure victims to look up the state law first, so they have an idea of what to expect, how much time they have, and what options may be feasible to stop foreclosure as quickly and cheaply as possible.

In some states, the homeowners can be sued after foreclosure if the house sells at sheriff sale for an amount that does not pay back the loan in full. This is called a deficiency judgment, and is not allowed in all states under all circumstances; again, it is important to research the foreclosure laws relating to this issue. The lender may be able to sue the foreclosure victims for the difference and obtain a deficiency judgment. In theory, this allows them to continue the collection efforts even after the foreclosure is over, and they may be able to place a lien on other property owned by the foreclosure victims, garnish wages, or sell the loan to a collection agency. However, as we have discussed elsewhere, banks rarely pursue this, as they know homeowners in foreclosure do not have a lot of extra money to pay back tens of thousands of dollars in judgments, and it costs the bank more money to initiate another lawsuit, anyway.

The conventional wisdom parroted by "informed" citizens as well as real estate professionals, though, is quite different from the reality of foreclosure. This can only be due to widespread ignorance of how the process actually works in reality and the various resources homeowners have at their disposal to save their homes. While many will threaten the foreclosure victims with being evicted right away, having no hope of being able to stop the sheriff sale, and being sued even after the foreclosure auction, many of these possibilities rarely translate into reality. However, the fear of being randomly kicked out and sued for tens of thousands of dollars can cause unnecessary anxiety and may persuade homeowners to leave the house before they have to, in a mythical race against the clock to avoid eviction.

The worst that usually happens in a foreclosure is the homeowners' credit drops significantly, making sure they can not get another loan or credit card, and some landlords will not rent an apartment to them because of their inability to pay back the mortgage. But these are all pretty minor consequences, compared to being left out in the street with no warning, and having their income garnished for years to come.

As one final uncleared misconception, homeowners may just want to rely on giving the property back to the bank, if there is no other way to prevent foreclosure. They will have to ask the bank about giving a deed in lieu of foreclosure, which allows them to sign title of the property back without going through the foreclosure process. When this happens, the bank can not sue for a deficiency judgment or otherwise continue pursuing the former homeowners. Because this option does not prevent the loss of the home in the end it does help the credit situation much, but it is slightly better than a full foreclosure. Another argument for giving a deed in lieu is that homeowners may be able to avoid some of the late payments that lead up to the foreclosure, if they can just give it back in a shorter time period. When they ask the bank about this option, the lender can inform them if they even accept it, and what the process would be.

Receiving accurate and relevant foreclosure advice is often one of the most difficult tasks for homeowners in a financial hardship. And because they are trained to rely on the information provided by perceived "experts," foreclosure victims may receive inaccurate or false information regarding the real dangers they face, while having the most unlikely possibilities amplified and distorted. It is no wonder that homeowners are often fearful and anxious enough to take the advice of someone who knows as little about foreclosure as they do, and move out of the house in an attempt to avoid being randomly thrown out. But, while foreclosure gives banks a legal method to take back a property, state laws also provide homeowners with legal protections and options that can help them save their homes and avoid a violent, unannounced eviction. It is up to homeowners, though, to check and recheck foreclosure information they are given, and trust their own abilities and knowledge to save the house.

No matter what kind of mortgage company you have, whether it be a small local bank or a huge multinational corporation, chances are that they will want to avoid foreclosing on your house as much you want to save it. The most important thing in any foreclosure situation is keeping in contact with the lender and informing them of what is being done to stop foreclosure. That way, the bank will be more open to putting the foreclosure process on hold, postponing the sheriff sale, or qualifying you for a forbearance agreement or mortgage modification in a timely fashion. Most mortgage companies will provide you with extra time to find a solution to foreclosure, but you have to give them a compelling reason to do so.

It can not be unclear to a mortgage company what you you are working on to cure the default, whether you are applying for a new foreclosure loan, selling the house, or just saving up over time to pay back the amount that is due. But no matter what is the case, it is vital to contact the mortgage company and ask them to hold off on the sale of your property or give you more time before the court date, and tell them how you are working on fixing the problem. You may want to put the plan to save your home in writing and send it to them, as well, along with supporting documents, like a bank statement showing how much money you have or a preapproval letter from a mortgage company. This will help convince them that you are working on something substantive that has a realistic chance of success.

Without putting your plan in writing, though, all the the mortgage company has to rely on is your word, and that may not be good enough now that you are facing foreclosure. Especially after missing a number of mortgage payments, it is not in their interests just to trust you, and it will cost them more money and time to stop the sheriff sale or start the foreclosure process all over again. But with something in writing, they can at least determine how realistic your solution will be. This is also another reason to include supporting documents, such as proof of a steady income, a recently-done appraisal or title search.

It is also important to contact the bank as well as and their attorneys handling the foreclosure. Many mortgage companies are large banks with many employees, so there is a good chance your written request for a postponement will get lost or end up on the wrong desk. With local banks, this may not be as much of an issue, but it is still a good idea to inform the lawyers office of what you are trying to work out with the lender. The attorneys can forward your request to their contact at the mortgage company, which may be different from your contact there. The attorneys can not postpone the trustee sale on their own, but they can forward the information to the correct person at the bank. Although this will not prevent the request from getting lost or being ignored, it will give you a paper trail you can refer back to later, if the bank claims you did not try working out a solution with them.

Both the bank and the attorneys have an interest in giving you more time before the foreclosure or postponing the foreclosure auction, as they will end up with more money if you can cure the foreclosure. They will lose money if the house is sold at sheriff sale, so if you have a good solution, then they will be willing to give you extra time. Just make a good case, put the request in writing with documentation of what is going on, and make sure it gets to the right people. Finally, do not wait even one extra minute before contacting the bank to work with them, as the more time you give them to make a decision about how to proceed with the foreclosure, the more time they will give you to work through your plan to stop foreclosure.

Although many properties that are currently in foreclosure have little equity or are actually upside-down (the homeowners owe more on the loan than the home is worth), a significant number of homeowners have a large equity position in their houses. But when the bank forecloses and attempts to bring the property to a sheriff sale, foreclosure victims often find out two of the most troubling truths about the foreclosure process. Banks are allowed to eat up the equity in the property throughout the process, and properties often sell at the trustee sale for far less than the homeowners expect.

In general, when a homeowner has a large amount of equity in the property, they have more options to stop foreclosure than if they did not have the equity. Qualifying for a foreclosure loan is often much easier if the property has more than 25-30% equity. Although these loans can be quite expensive, they allow for a short-term solution whereby the homeowners will pay off the previous mortgage, start paying a new loan on-time and save their home. Another option that is enhanced with a large equity position is selling the property outright. In this case, the foreclosure victims can lower the price of their home down to the minimum, enticing buyers who are looking for a deal. Although the sellers may walk away with little or no proceeds from the sale, they will have paid the loan in full and avoided any tax consequences from a short sale.

When the property has significant equity and the homeowners are unable to work out a solution to avoid foreclosure, though, there are three considerations that must be taken into account. First, as soon as the loan goes into foreclosure, the mortgage company will begin accelerating late fees, interest, court costs, and attorney costs, as well as any other miscellaneous charges. This quickly begins to eat away at any equity the homeowners may have had, and the longer the house is in foreclosure, the higher these fees can go. Homeowners who are unable to put together a plan to stop foreclosure quickly may find that they are locked into the home, because they owe so much that there are no options left.

The second consideration relates to the property being sold before sheriff sale. Once the house is sold, any proceeds of the sale over and above that necessary to pay off the mortgage and associated closing costs will go to the sellers. In this case, the equity that they have left is paid to them through the sale. Combined with the lender's acceleration of the loan, though, it is important that homeowners list the property for sale immediately and attempt to find a buyer as quickly as possible. Starting with a low price is sometimes better than starting high, as the acceleration of fees will eventually make it necessary for the homeowners to raise the price, just to be able to pay off the loan and walk away with nothing.

Finally, if the homeowners are unable to use their equity to qualify for a loan to stop foreclosure or sell the house, there is little chance they will get any proceeds from the sheriff sale. By this point, the mortgage company will have added in as many fees and costs as they legally can, so it is unlikely the property will be auctioned for an amount that will pay off the loan in full. In addition, the lender itself is usually the only bidder at the sale, and their maximum bid is often less than what is owed, or exactly what is owed, which leaves the homeowners with nothing. Even worse, if the house sells for less than what is owed, there is the possibility of being sued after the foreclosure for a deficiency judgment (although this rarely happens in reality).

In the rare instance when a bidder does offer more than what is owed on the loan, though, then the homeowners will receive the proceeds from the sale. If there is any money left after property taxes are paid, the first mortgage is paid in full, and any other liens (second mortgages, civil judgments, etc.) are cleared off, the former foreclosure victims can claim their proceeds. Very often, the county courthouse will not inform the homeowners that they are due any money, so it is up to the foreclosure victims themselves to keep track of the outcome of the sheriff sale. Even a few thousand dollars can help after foreclosure, either in terms of finding a new place to rent or beginning an emergency fund and savings plan.

In the end, the bank does not directly have any rights to the equity in a property that is being foreclosed. However, they will do as much as legally possible in order to eat away at the equity, in order that they will be able to claim the proceeds from the sheriff sale. If homeowners want the equity in the house to remain theirs, they need to come up with a solution to the foreclosure as quickly as possible, and utilize the resources available to them while they still have time. Once the sheriff sale comes closer and the payoff creeps higher and higher, foreclosure victims will often run out of options to stop foreclosure at exactly the time they run out of time to save their homes.

In the recent real estate boom of the last few years, many homeowners applied for and received second mortgages. These may have been in the form of Home Equity Lines of Credit (HELOCs) or as a 20% down payment loan for an 80/20 mortgage. When the house begins to go into foreclosure as the homeowners default on the first mortgage, though, there are different courses of action that the mortgage company can take, and foreclosure victims will have a number of options to solve the problem. But homeowners will need accurate foreclosure advice when they are facing the possibility of both mortgages going into foreclosure. This may seem like one of the few times when bankruptcy to stop foreclosure is a good idea to save the home and preserve some of the homeowners' credit, if they can avoid two separate foreclosures.

In most cases, the second mortgage will either file foreclosure, or they will desperately try to work with the homeowners to stop foreclosure altogether. When the mortgage company files foreclosure, it is to protect their interest in the property and start accelerating their own fees and interest, so that they can grab a piece of the proceeds from the sheriff sale. However, they will do this only if they are expecting the property to sell for enough to pay off the first mortgage and second mortgage. In a foreclosure auction, the proceeds are used to pay off any property taxes first, then the first mortgage, and then any other liens (second mortgages, judgment liens, etc.) in the order in which they were filed with the county. Thus, if there are no expected proceeds to pay off the second mortgage, there is little reason for the lender to attempt to foreclosure on the house.

Thus, this rarely happens, since the proceeds from sheriff sales typically do not pay off the first mortgage in full, let alone any of the second. In this case, the second mortgage company will work with the foreclosure victims and may be willing to accept less as a payoff in order to help them sell the property at a short sale (for less than the total amount owed). The lender knows they will most likely get nothing from the foreclosure auction, so it is worthwhile for them to accept anything for the loan, instead of lose everything. Second mortgage companies have been known to take as little as 10% of the total owed, because this is 10% more than they would receive at the foreclosure auction.

Even though there may be little danger in facing two foreclosures at once, homeowners are often advised to file bankruptcy to prevent this possibility. They would be able to establish a repayment plan that includes both loans and be given protection under the law in order to pay back the arrears. However, as noted above, the second mortgage may be much more willing to work with the homeowners to come to a solution that allows them to keep the home, even if the lender has to accept less as a total payoff, or give the foreclosure victims more time to get back on track with the monthly payments. Filing bankruptcy will not allow the homeowners to work directly with the mortgage companies, and may eliminate some of their options to negotiate with the second mortgage holder.

In terms of what bankruptcy can actually be used for, it can be a good option to stop the foreclosure process if the homeowners are out of time before the sheriff sale. Filing bankruptcy immediately puts the foreclosure process on hold, stopping the auction in its tracks. The repayment plan is usually quite expensive, though, and the homeowners will not have any extra income with which to save an emergency fund, or pay for any other financial setbacks that come along. All discretionary income must be applied to the debts that are included in the bankruptcy. For these reasons, foreclosure victims are typically better off looking at other options to stop foreclosure, before considering bankruptcy. A short sale or forbearance agreement with the first mortgage may get them back on track without the negative credit affects of having a bankruptcy and a foreclosure.

It is important for homeowners to do some research on what options they have available, besides bankruptcy, and try working with both lenders for a solution. Mortgage companies would like to avoid both bankruptcy and foreclosure, if there is a solution that will allow for that outcome. They may even be willing to postpone the sheriff sale or accept a short sale, rather than go through a lengthy legal process in the courts. Both of them are more interested in getting their money, not on foreclosing on the house, taking a loss on the mortgage, and having to sell a property in a depressed real estate market. It is in all of the mortgage companies' interests to find a solution to foreclosure.

Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus of English at the University of California, Berkeley, has written numerous books over the years examining what he terms the "deep state" of American politics. His newest book, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, looks at the current crisis in America manifested through the current War on Terror, but with a thorough discussion of the roots of Islamic fundamentalism, the role of the deep state in supporting the growth of extremism, and how these relationships have served to "blow back" at the United States. Even this, though, contributes to furthering the plans of the deep state, though, always at the expense of the public state.

The book provides an overview of how elements hidden in the American government, throughout the past thirty years at least, have continually supported short term oil or security interests at the expense of the public's (and their own) long term interests. Scott's 423-page book is nearly half-filled with endnotes, which gives the reader many further avenues of study, because the book itself is densely packed with information. An important aspect of the book is that, like other studies he has done, Scott does not name specific parties as guilty of one crime or another, accuse the U.S. government of facilitating the attacks of 9/11, or rely on untested and untestable hypotheses to come to his conclusions. As the book states, "this book makes a more general argument that the bureaucratic paranoia inside the American deep state, undisciplined by the available wisdom of the public state, helped years ago to create al Qaeda and then to create the circumstances in which, almost inevitable, elements in al Qaeda would turn against the United States." Throughout the work, he meticulously connects the dots between the same players, institutions, and concepts that have so influenced American foreign and domestic policy.

First, though, any reader of this book should quickly come to understand Scott's distinction between the public state of politics, and the deep state. The book examines "the top 1 percent's direct or indirect control of certain specific domains of government, beginning in the 1940's with the creation of the CIA... Those parts of the government responding to their influence I call the "deep state (if covert) or "security state" (if military)." Once the reader understands the fundamental difference between the public and deep state, superficial distinctions (such as Republican or Democrat) disappear, as the hidden elite work together behind the scenes for their shared interests more often than they work against each other for the good of the public.

The erasure of these superficialities is apparent when Scott examines the three presidencies of Ford, Carter, and Reagan. Gerald Ford's short period in Oval Office is seen as the pivotal administration in recent American history, as it brought to the forefront of American politics the team of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in the White House and George H.W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence. But even further, Scott sees this presidency as the defining moment in the battle in the deep state between the old conservatives (influenced by the Rockefellers and the Council on Foreign Relations ) and the neoconservatives (influenced by the American Enterprise Institute ).

Although Ford was replaced by Jimmy Carter, the foreign policy ideas of the previous administration were continued by the new National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. It was under Carter that aid to the Islamic militants in Afghanistan was first provided, even before the Soviet Union invaded the country in 1979. It was Brzezinski's goal to drag the Russians into their own Vietnam War, turning public opinion against the USSR, bankrupting the nation, and destabilizing the Soviet Union in general. This policy of supporting the Afghan mujahideen continued under Reagan's administration, mainly under the guidance of CIA Director William Casey.

Scott also examines numerous other connections and undercurrents to the Afghan War. The often-overlooked role of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International is examined, as is the increasing flow of heroin from Afghanistan to the United States during this period (and afterwards). One of the more enlightening parts of the book is a chapter called "The Al-Kifah Center, Al Qaeda, and the U.S. Government, 1988-1998," which examines various relations between the government, the support of institutions heavily influenced by Islamic extremism in America, and the growth of al Qaeda throughout the world. Scott also examines the role of FBI and CIA informant Ali Mohamed, "a close ally of Osama bin Laden," and connections between the Saudi establishment, US establishment, and al Qaeda.

However, some of the most revelatory information in the book concerns plans for the Continuity of Government (COG), that had been worked on by Cheney and Rumsfeld and originally disclosed during the Iran-Contra affair. According to Scott, the COG plan "called for 'suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the government over to FEMA, emergency appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law during a national crisis.' The plan also gave the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which had been involved in drafting it, sweeping new powers, including internment." Disturbingly, the same team that worked on COG plans was put back together in May 2001 by President George W. Bush to constitute a task force on terrorism. Furthermore, the attacks of September 11, 2001, resulted in the first implementation of the COG plans.

Another connection that the book points to is that the same team, headed by Cheney and Rumsfeld, had been part of the Project for a New American Century, which argued for greater military involvement in the Middle East. In effect, the events of 9/11 allowed this team to implement the two plans they had been working on since the 1980's: wars in two Middle Easter countries and various parts of the COG planning, including warrantless detentions and warrantless eavesdropping. As Scott asks, "Were these practices decided on after 9/11, as the Bush administration maintains? Or were they already being prepared for as part of the COG planning revived by Cheney and FEMA in May 2001?"

In the final chapters, Scott examines how COG was implemented on 9/11 by Cheney, and the failures of the 9/11 Commission to look at this issue in any detail, covering up Cheney's actions on that day. The omissions of the 9/11 Commission Report point to what really may have happened on that day, and the chapter is quite revealing. It is also an in-depth discussion that needs to be read in its entirety for Scott's arguments to be followed completely.

In the end, though, The Road to 9/11 points out how influences in the deep state on American politics have served various interests of the establishment and elite of the country, while putting the public in greater danger of the attacks the government is supposed to protect against. Even further, the catastrophic attacks of 9/11 have led to the implementation of two relevant plans that higher-ups in the administration currently in power had been working on for years, in some cases decades. Whether these plans were in the public's interest or not after such an event, the fundamental problem for Scott lies in the fact that this deep state has taken such widespread control of the government, reducing the public state to little influence. Scott sums up his book by stating "over the past half century, the open politics and representative institutions of the American res publica (the public state) have been progressively subordinated to a res privata (a restrictively controlled locus of top-down decision making in the deep state)."

The final pages of the book discuss various ways that the public can begin to take back their power, and provide the entire work with hope in the public state in the face of urgency to combat the influences of the deep state. It will be an understanding of people by people that bridges the gap between the civilizations of America and the Islamic world, not continuing military involvements, and it is only through the free exchange of information and ideas, through the internet and other non-state or corporate controlled media that this exchange can take place, and the true role of the public in restricting the private state and creating a multinational civil society can be restored.