Valuable info
If your mom dies with a 2.6% mortgage, her bank can tell you to refinance at 7.1% or lose the house
My friend heard that 3 weeks after the funeral. Loan officer said "sorry for her loss" and asked for 2 years of W-2s
She'd spent those 2 years out of work taking care of her sick mom
Her credit score had dropped to 590 by then. 2 other banks denied her, and she got 60 days
So she called me, because I'm known for buying inherited houses.
The house was worth $330,000, with $265,000 left on the loan. I offered $285,000. She'd have walked away with about $20,000 and no house, and I'd have made about $40,000
Then I asked her to read me what the bank said, and I took my offer back
Her mom's payment was $1,201. The new one would've been $1,781. That's $174,000 more over the next 25 years, for the same house
Since 1982, federal law has protected transfers of homes to relatives after the owner's death. The bank can't call the mortgage due just because the house was inherited
And since 2018, federal rules have required mortgage servicers to treat confirmed successors in interest like borrowers for servicing purposes
She didn't need to qualify for a new mortgage just to keep paying the existing one. No new loan, no new interest rate, no 2 years of W-2s
Same rate. Same payment.
We asked for the successor in interest department, not the refinance desk, and sent this certified mail with the death certificate and the deed:
"My mother, [name], died on [date]. I inherited her house at [address] and I live there. I am a successor in interest under 12 CFR 1024.31. Please tell me in writing what else you need to confirm me. I am not applying for a new loan"
5 weeks later her name was on the account at 2.6%
You have to prove you're a qualifying successor, and you have to keep making the mortgage payments while they process it. The bank can ask for proof of inheritance. It can't automatically force you to refinance just because your mom died
Send this to your siblings before one of you has to make that phone call
That loan officer is telling somebody else's kid the same thing today
Of course this is why the only “solution” is to strip the government’s power back down to bare essentials.
Attention-seeking, clout-chasing clowns would still be drawn to politics, but the power-hungry ones less so.
Btw this is also the only way to “get money out of politics”. Money chases returns, plain and simple.
(and no, I don’t see a viable peaceful path to accomplish this… maybe a series of @COSProject over many years)
.@RepThomasMassie said something recently that probably represents how many Americans feel about the upcoming election and any other election:
The people you vote for are all clowns.
Sure, voters might want better people, or better leaders, or just something BETTER than the way things are.
But Massie believes that wish might be hoping for too much, considering the kind of people who typically run for office.
His advice: Just accept that they’re all clowns. classythomasmassie.substack.…
Democrats (all politicians, really) need to ask themselves, “Is this a hill I’m willing to die on?”
Because freedom to compute — protected under the 1st & 2nd amendments — is absolutely an issue I’m willing to defend to my death. I’m also willing to destroy all opposition, despite the professional or personal costs.
No doubt I’m not alone in this, and though I’d still feel this way even if I was.
Here's how this will work if the Democrats retake the house:
There will be a big push for AI regulations that lock out open-weight and open-source AI models.
The lie that will be told is that they're legislating for "safety". The reality will be massive amounts of money flowing from the cloud AI providers and AI-doomer nonprofits in a move actually designed to put a regulatory moat around the cloud providers' business models.
They want to put off the day when they're obsolescent as long as possible. Even if it means forfeiting the lead in the AI race to the Communist Chinese.
Last week, we hosted Accessibility Day with members of the disabled community – their feedback goes directly into all Robotaxi products, including Cybercab and future products!
Robotaxi = freedom of low cost, on-demand, safe transportation for the masses
Our purpose-built autonomous vehicles are desiged for everyone from day 1
Repeal the Bank Secrecy Act
Sell your car for cash and deposit it, and your bank reports you to the federal government. Move $5,000 in a way a teller doesn’t like, and the bank can file a suspicious activity report on you. If anyone at the bank tells you it happened, they’ve committed a federal crime. You find out when your account gets closed, if you ever find out at all.
Banks spend $59 billion complying with the Bank Secrecy Act. They filed 28.7 million reports on Americans. Those reports tipped off 275 investigations.
It started in 1968, when a Texas congressman named Wright Patman held a hearing about secret Swiss bank accounts. Patman claimed Americans were using them for tax evasion, stolen Treasury bills, corporate kickbacks and securities fraud. His star witness, U.S. attorney Robert Morgenthau, told Congress that the millions of Americans vacationing in Europe were finding foreign banks ready to help them commit crimes.
Members of Congress warned that the bill would gut the privacy of bank customers, choke honest commerce and hand the Treasury Secretary far too much power. They were right. It passed anyway. Richard Nixon signed the Bank Secrecy Act in October 1970, twenty months before his own men were caught breaking into the Watergate.
Treasury set the reporting line at $10,000 in 1972 and has never moved it. That is about $80,000 in today’s money after inflation, so the net drops lower every year Congress does nothing. In 1986 Congress made it a crime to keep your deposits under the line on purpose, which means the line catches you whether you cross it or not. By 1996 banks were filing suspicious activity reports on their own customers for anything over $5,000 that looked off to them. After September 11 the Patriot Act bolted eleven more sections onto the law, and last year the GENIUS Act extended the same surveillance to stablecoins.
In 2012 banks filed 1,720 suspicious activity reports for every IRS investigation that came out of them. Over the next decade the reports nearly doubled and the investigations fell by half.
Last year FinCEN ordered businesses in thirty zip codes along the southern border to report cash transactions as small as $200. One small business estimated it would go from filing nine reports a week to 50,000. A federal court in Texas found the order likely violated the Fourth Amendment and said it was like using a blunderbuss to target a fly. FinCEN answered by raising the line to $1,000 and stretching it over 126 zip codes and 3.2 million people.
In 1974 Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in dissent that forcing a bank to photocopy your checks gives the government as much of a hand in the seizure as if it had sent someone to break into your home and copy them there. Even the justices who upheld the law warned that your financial records reveal your activities, your associations and your beliefs. Two years later, in United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not protect your bank records at all.
Repeal the Bank Secrecy Act.
Shaun retweeted
There are plenty of reasons to oppose the NDAA, and this is one of the most important. We should not be integrating the U. S. military and the military of any other country. Remove Section 1217 (formerly Section 219).
"Section 219 creates a multi-generational technological relationship with one partner that would be very difficult to rollback once incorporated into U.S. development and acquisition systems. It is a pure political maneuver with great risk to the U.S.; it is not necessary and is, in fact, dangerous."
"At this point, to protect sensitive U.S. technological development and to ensure congressional oversight is not further abdicated, the House should make clear it won’t vote for an NDAA that comes out of conference if it includes this provision, and the Senate should remove or amend its corresponding Section 1217 from the FY27 NDAA."
- via Responsible Statecraft
Shaun retweeted
I do not like you, Sam-I-am.
You will not have my fucking RAM.
The opinions of aspiring civilizational micromanagers are irrelevant and, should they attempt to implement these opinions as policy, said micromanagers will see their positions on earth revoked with extreme prejudice.
Shaun retweeted
You may have heard about Brazil, Flavio Bolsonaro, and Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who ordered his passport seized minutes after he lost the runoff. On Wednesday, Flavio landed in Miami.
What you probably don't know is that this story didn't start this week. Not even this year. We spoke at length with Brazilians to reconstruct what happened to their country.
What we found: a tax audit that reached two justices' homes. An inquiry the Court opened to police its own critics. A banned social network. A banker whose parties, investigators say, flew in women from Europe for politicians, and who texted Alexandre de Moraes on the day of his arrest. 🧵
Shaun retweeted
You can cancel an election and ban the winner from running (Romania), you can ban your opponents from ever running again (Hungary), you can threaten to ban the main opposition party and subject it to relentless investigations by the secret police (Germany), you can threaten a ban on the leading presidential candidate and make them wear an ankle monitor (France), every member of your circle can be investigated for corruption (Spain), you can try and cancel local elections because you will lose them (Britain), and you can storm the constitutional court with riot police because you want to control it (Poland).
You can just do all these things. The secret is you just have to be on the right side of the European Commission.
Shaun retweeted
Never forget: They’re not building a surveillance state because WE are the criminals.
They’re building it because THEY are the criminals.
And they'll weaponize it against ANYONE who dare challenge their power, privilege, and impunity.
Our second product is called Blindsight and it will, as the name suggests, enable even those who are completely blind or have never seen to see.
It is ready from an engineering standpoint. Just waiting on regulatory approval.
Shaun retweeted
we will defend big balls from kara swisher's hateful, geriatric claws until our dying breath
I love this from the alleged “Independent” who, in 2016, despite claims of being anti-establishment, got his balls clipped by Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Every day since, Bernie obediently goes to his dish and feeds on whatever the party will give him.
Like a bitch.
Baseball is magic.
This young man may see several more Brewers championships in his youth, or he may never see one again in his entire life.
Baseball fandom is just an absolute f***-ton of crushing defeat plus a sprinkling of pure elation.
If you’re incapable of planning and executing a measured rollout of innovative tech, you probably shouldn’t be in a leadership position
































