Six arrested protesting bank foreclosures during Occupy SF

Protesters occupy Chase Bank at Second and Market streets in downtown S.F.
Photo by Steven T. Jones

Six activists protesting bank foreclosures were arrested after occupying Chase bank on Market Street in downtown San Francisco this afternoon (Thurs/29) as part of a broader action organized to mirror the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City.

Brenda Reed, Tanya Dennis, William Chorneau, Manny S. Tucker, Gabriel Haaland, and Claire Haas were all arrested inside Chase on Market and Second streets while hundreds rallied outside, according to Guardian City Editor Steven T. Jones, who is there at the scene. The occupation was staged following a march that originated at San Francisco's Goldman Sachs offices at 555 California Street and then progressed to the offices of CitiBank, Charles Schwab, and Chase.

The arrests prompted protesters to chant, "Let those people go! Arrest the CEO!" They also chanted, "Go, Brenda, go!" and "Shame on Chase!"

When they first entered the downtown San Francisco bank, Reed, who has battled a Chase foreclosure for two years, demanded to speak to the CEO. "You have put me through hell, and devastated my health," she told the bank manager.

"Just to let you know, we are compassionate to your cause," the manager responded, but was greeted by shouts of "No, you're not!" from the crowd.

When Reed and her small group of supporters were asked to leave, they refused. As of 5:20 p.m., there was still a crowd of hundreds protesting out front.

UPDATE: They've been released, and Reed made the following statement to the crowd: "Chase Bank is trying to steal my home of 38 years."

She said, "It's government-sanctioned, nationalized fraud," and added, "there are thousands and thousands and thousands of people like me, all over California."

Video by Steven T. Jones




The revolution is nigh, evidently.

If Brenda Reed wants to know who "devastated her health" maybe she should examine the gleeful greed with which she took on a mortgage that any reasonable person would have recognized was beyond her economic power.

If she's been in her home for 38 years, then her mortgage should have been paid off long before the sub-prrime crisis. Unless, of course, she took out a whole succession of HELOC's to sustain a standard of living beyond her earnings power.

You can't blame Chase Bank for peoples' greed and stupidity.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 5:03 pm

Good Job Paul T. Score one for blame the victim! Hey Paul you act as if this lady took out that mortgage in a vacuum. She was swindled. For you to say otherwise means you are completely ignorant of the facts or are a paid troll. Either way you are still wrong.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 5:17 pm

She tapped all the equity in her home to sustain her lifestyle instead of doing the prudent thing and paying off the original loan. She wanted the American dream but on somebody else's dime.

She was only swindled if Chase misrepresented the terms of the loan. And I see zero evidence of that. Far more likely, she just didn't care about the future repayments and naively believed that house prices would go up forever, enabled her to live beyond her means.

The sad part is that far more decent and prudent people have to pay the cost of her negligience and greed.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 5:29 pm

Paul, you know nothing about this woman's story and you act as if the predatory loan practices that crashed the economy weren't real. Have a narrowly conservative point of view, fine, but you just sound dumb when you make claims that you have no possible way of supporting. Plus, your habit of consistently blaming the powerless and always making excuses for the powerful shows you to be a callous, hateful human being. Have you no shame?

Posted by steven on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 5:49 pm

If "always making excuses for the powerful" also means "deep throating authority in the desperate hope that someday they might accept me", yeah, Steven, you might be on to something.

Posted by guest on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 6:14 pm

So she could not possible still have an existing loan unless she had repeatedly remortgaged and taken cash out each time. Unwise.

This was routine while home prices were going up. But it was inevitable that it would turn out badly if ever home prices reversed.

Seems to me you haven't thought through exactly how Brenda got herself into this mess, and are not allowing for the fact that it was at least partly her own greed that led to her issues.

It's possible that the banks are also at fault for enabling such greed. But without consumer demand for such loans, the bank could not and would would not have ever made such mortgages.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 11:54 pm

you all keep using the word Greed ,. first of all there is nothing greedy about investing in real estate which is essentialy what one does when the make a home purchase it is no differnt than putting your money into any other form of investment. you build up that equity and it is your money to take out and use if you so chose. it can be used for many reasons, just as any savings account can. unexpected medical, college fund, home improvements to keep up its value etc, and the list goes on. there are many reasons a responsible person could still have there loan for many years beyond the standard your speaking of. It does not always mean Greed, and is every homeowner /investors right to use the money they built up in their investment . It is their money.. and yes in many many cases Chase and other banks have set up and misrepresented /lied to the customer about what they were doing. A customer could call 3 times in one day and get told something different each time regarding their account.
They have conveniently lost paperwork that was time sensitive and sold off accounts in back door deals to avoid paying taxes, and left the customers often not even knowing who was carrying their loan, as the bank claimed to only be the servicer and therefore not the one to call the shots on it. These are just some small examples of real life horror stories going on over and over with thousands of home loan customers with chase as well as other banks. if you havnt lived it you wont know and shouldnt judge and assume. For every greedy person living above their means is hundreds of hardworking responsible people doing what they thought was right and getting screwed and cheated by chase and other banksters.

Posted by LORI on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 8:34 am

And in fact I encourage anyone with the means to invest in RE now that prices are attractive.

And while I also agree with you that someone like Brenda, sitting on a huge price appreciation, is entitled to the rewards of that success and wealth, it's important to consider how to do that.

If she had sold her home and bought something smaller, she might have been able to pay all-cash, had no mortgage and could have enjoyed the cash thereby acquired.

But instead (it seems) she kept on borrowing against that appreciation. Then by spending rather than investing that cash-out, her costs when up and up (presumably) to the point that she could not afford the payments.

So yes, she is entiled to her profits. And after the Bank forecloses and her loan is repaid, she will still get the residual equity. But it would have been far better to actually realize her gains rather than speculate with them.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 8:48 am

@ steven

well said against paul hit it right.. in this time of economic uncertainty... people instead of symphathetic to others cause, they create more turbulence and hardship to others.

Posted by Guest jericho on Oct. 01, 2011 @ 3:45 am

Steven, last Wednesday during the tired labor/leftie foreclose on Wall Street actions, two observations really stood out:

1. A Central American immigrant complained that he lost his house because he bought at the top of the market and that nobody should ever have sold that house for $300K.

2. A Chinese Communist who said "It took millions in China for the masses to rise up and get rid of the 1%." At that, everyone around me looked at each other in horror and I said "And how did THAT work out for them?"

The labor/nonprofit/foreclose was an anomaly of the Occupy movement in that its narcissistic, identity politics, activist-centered victim approach runs at odds with the tone of empowered average folks rising up on their own to unite to challenge corporate power.

Not much of a fan of Joan Walsh, but she contributed two gems about Occupy:

1. We are about to see what happens when a movement without leaders meets leaders without a movement.


2. The Democrats and labor need to approach Occupy with humility, not trying to punk the energy that others have successfully raised that the Democrats, labor and progressive activists could not for the past 40 years.

Back the fuck off and behold popular self-empowerment!

Posted by marcos on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 7:46 am

You're mentally ill Paul, seek help.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 6:04 am

Do you know her personally?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 6:25 am

argument is a red herring.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 8:00 am
Posted by Michael W. on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 5:41 pm

And in fact subsequently Steven has admitted Brenda has loaded up with extra debt rather than pay down the original balance of the mortgage.

Posted by PaulT on Oct. 01, 2011 @ 7:37 am

A libel is among other things an ad-hominem statement such as the one you've made by calling someone a "bum". You can say that someone has acted in a low manner, but you cannot publicly term a private citizen a "bum" without escaping the consequences of libel law. That's the fact, and no opinion can change it.

Posted by DavidL on Oct. 01, 2011 @ 3:56 pm

Actually David prosecuting libel requires malicious intent on the part of the libeler. Now if you can prove that PaulT really is getting paid by someone on behalf of Chase et al, to attack her and denigrate her and falsely label her as a criminal in order to prevail in her case and/or prevail in a public relations war, then you might have a case.

Good hunting to whoever does the digging.

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 01, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

Yeah most mortgages are 40 years... I feel for the person in general, but c'mon you have a home that is nearly free and clear... unless you made some bonehead decisions along the way. Again, support the little guy, but not when they say things that pretty much negate the point they are trying to make...

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 5:36 am

At the height of the RE boom there were some 40-year offerings, but not many.

Steve would have done better to find someone who bought five years aho, rather than someone who has seen their home value increase tenfold and is paying property taxes predicated on a 1979 valuation.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 8:13 am

Yeah most mortgages are 40 years... I feel for the person in general, but c'mon you have a home that is nearly free and clear... unless you made some bonehead decisions along the way. Again, support the little guy, but not when they say things that pretty much negate the point they are trying to make...

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 5:43 am

You who blames the home owner for this mess have not done your research. She's been paying her mortgage 38 years and it's still not paid off and yet you still blame her? That's really sad how you blame homeowners. You must know the banks got a $28 trillion dollar bail out using tax payer funds and yet you still defend banks as if they're angels and home owners are predatory?

The other issue is you have no care in the world for those who the banks steal property from without having any proof of a deed.

Property ownership is going to hell in this country and you're siding with the banks. You're not going to have many friends after this is all over if you continue to be an enemy of common man. You should do your homework and read what our forefathers like Thomas Jefferson wrote about bankers.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 6:03 am

hasn't paid it off after 38, clearly she has been borrowing further against her equity instead of prudently following the original loan schedule.

Nobody forced her to do that.

Posted by PaulT on Oct. 01, 2011 @ 7:36 am

Forgive the candor Paul - you must be renting-----in 2004 - through 2008,
scalawags were begging people to refinance at better interest rates and telling us that our house would only go up in price and we could put our children through college, help our sick parents, children, and grandchildren, single moms to support children, etc.. They were vultures because they knew these loans would fail or they would not have bought derivatives for the loans and the then sold to pension funds hoping they would fail. The banks were unregulated and could do anything they wanted - between 2004 and 2008 - Mortgagers, Banks,etc. were making hand over fist, etc.etc..

You need to read Bill Moyers, Griftopia, Matt Taibbi, and realize that the old days of 30 year mortgages became over in the 2000. We were all seduced.......we live in California not Kentucky.

Her health has been devasted for fear of her safety, children, home, anxiety, bulliness on vultures parts. She did nothing wrong....the bankers robbed her so that she would lose her house after x number of years like 70% of the rest of the United States.

She just has the courage to stand up to Goldman Sachs and to the predators - thank god for her stamina and character. This is about our children and grandchildren and for you to to defame her or any other person in this situation is ignorant and stupid. Your understanding, compassion, and knowledge are way off.

She was not greedy and she lived within her means - little did she know that the banks were banking on all of us to fail.......Bernie Madoff in a shoddy suit!

Posted by Janeen on Oct. 01, 2011 @ 2:04 pm

although I did refi to get a lower rate, I did not and would not take cash out. I always thought that was dumb.

I agree that there were some people who tried to foist imprudent loans on borrowers. Just like there are those who try and sell penny stocks or timeshares in Nigeria or gold mines in Peru. There will always be a subset of people who will fall for swindlers.

It's not true that 70% of borrowers are affected. It's nowhere close to that. That is perhaps of little import to those who are affected, but let's keep this in proportion - the vast majority of homeowners are unaffected. In fact, did you know that a full one third of homes in the US have no mortgage at all? That's the true path to prosperity - paying off your mortgage not taking out successive cash-out refi's and HELOC's.

Sounds like you know this lady and, if so, perhaps you can explain exactly how she got herself in this mess. After 38 years, and having paid presumably relatively little for her property, she should not be in this mess now. Everyone here is guessing about her - let's have the facts before we go blaming.

Posted by PaulT on Oct. 01, 2011 @ 2:18 pm

Steven and Paul... Chill... Paul... there are probably lots of people like that which you describe, but to assume she is one of them is immature and malicious. Steven... The money that was loan out was not real, but that doesn't change the fact that many people were greedy and borrowing beyond their ability to repay.

The whole situations is screwed. And we're being pitted against each other when we should focus our energy on actually changing the way corporations are allowed to manipulate our government.

Let's not be distracted by emotion. Our goal is clear: Remove corporate influence over government and abolish corporate-personhood.

Posted by @VAporOner on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 6:59 pm

You must know these guys work for Chase as trolls. It's really obvious.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 6:12 am

It's worse than that. Can't you all see that these clowns are just jerking you around for fun?

They simply say the most outrageous thing they can think of on a subject, to trigger you all into enough righteous indignation that you post back, afterwhich they will simply further amplify the outrageousness of their stance just to get you even more worked up, so you'll reply again.

You are being played.

Unless these losers are saying something that makes enough sense that the people reading these blogs might be fooled by it, don't respond at all, and that stops the thread in its tracks.

The long thread that you all just participated in has only succeeded in hopelessly plastering this web site with a bunch of useless garbage, meaning that if anyone post a comment that was actually meaningful on another topic, it likely got completely missed.

Now that PaulT and meatlivid have become so outrageous that they are essentially mo longer anything more than nutball cartoon versions of themselves. There is really no point in responding to them directly. If you do, they will -never- stop replying. They are addicts. Trolling is a real addiction. People get treated for it.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 8:21 am

"trolling" or "paid interference" or signs of "addiction".

But the simple fact is that you can't refute a single point made, and all you and your pet monkey have is insults and personal attacks.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 8:37 am

and unsupported claims by the use of facts. However, it appears that facts are stupid things to you. But to go back to a previous reply you made to me: you wrote that you were merely stating opinions on this site, so to now say no one has refuted your points is rather intellectually dishonest as you previously said you were only stating an opinion.

As with what Eric wrote, I believe you are just hear to act in bad faith, and that you really have no desire to engage in any real debate. Time to put you on ignore. You can claim a victory by me no longer wishing to engage with you, but it would be a rather hollow and self-serving one as your intent here is nothing but disingenuous.

Posted by Michael W. on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 6:20 pm

Well put @VAporOner, but dig deeper into the nature of the sub-prime home loans. The people who were selling them to low income folks were extremely well trained and clever in how they tricked people into getting trapped in those loans.

Truly, nearly all were unwitting victims...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 7:16 pm
Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 8:25 pm

in the above post?
or another?

Posted by Sopa on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 8:46 pm

"At what point, in Eric's world..."

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 11:21 pm

Anyone buying a home in 1975, as Brenda did, bought it at probably one tenth of current values. If you managed the payments in the early years and resisted the temptation to use your home as an ATM, then the loan would have been paid off long ago.

Even now, the equity in this property should enable her to see, pay off her debts, and move somewhere more appropriate to her financial situation.

But of course all Eric the Red sees in his simplistic world is that Banks are evil. He sees what he wants to see. Most reasonable people would feel some compassion for both parties here. But not of course if you're really just using this as an opportunity to score cheap political points

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 11:58 pm

Eric should explain at what point, exactly, one's actions become one's own responsibility.

I am sympathetic to the argument that there has been fraud in home loan applications - of that there is no doubt. But there have also been cases of borrowers asking for, and being granted, WAY too much than they could bear.

PaulT - there ARE two sides to this issue - neither the banks nor the borrowers have been on the up-'n-up. But the total institutional power of the banks overwhelms that of the borrowers, yet in this case you clearly lay out the issues of why the borrower is MORE responsible than her lender.

I own a house in SF. I bought it in 2004 with more than 20% down and completely ignored all of the "re-fi" and "home equity" offers between now and then. I don't know why anyone else should be sheltered from the consequences of their decisions when I made the right ones during that time - despite being tempted time and time again.

Neither have answered adequately at this point.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 12:22 am

...why she refinanced or what she spent the money on. Lots of middle class folks used home equity loans to buy groceries, health care, college tuition, child care, and tide them over during periods of joblessness. Some used them for home improvements, assured of a rising market by the false confidence of loan sharks. Some used the money for frills, sure, but you cannot ignore the squeezing of the middle class during the last decades. Women entering the work force kept the middle class afloat for a while, then that wasn't enough...

The "personal responsibility" argument only goes so far, and it is often extremely cynical. I have relatives who are forced to take out loans against retirement accounts because one parent has spinal tumors and lost a job. They've already borrowed against all of their home equity just trying to pay the bills, like heating oil.

Wages are abysmal unless you are a CEO. Health insurance premiums are so high, costs of everything are unbearable...

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 3:52 am

Part of the huge sub-prime mortgage scam spectrum was, in fact, the banks aggressively manipulating homeowners into refinancing existing mortgages.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 7:58 am

But the Banks are suffering too. So many people are defaulting that they are making losses, and Citi and Bof A had to be bailed out.

I do think, however, that steven could have found a more sympathetic poster child than someone who should have had their mortgage paid off years ago, and chose instead to endlessly refi to take out cash.

If there was criminal fraud, then restitution should be sought in the courts - we have existing laws for that. But all the evidence is that the crimes committed were by a relatively small number of people. It seems unfair to blame entire banks and all their employees for that.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 8:11 am

So the bank is responsible for paying for her groceries, health care, college tuition, and to tide her over during periods of joblessness? And to say otherwise is "cynical"?

That's laughable - doesn't matter what she borrowed the money for, she took money from someone else on the condition that they get the house if she doesn't pay it back. Now she's not paying it back, and they're getting back a house which will only cover a fraction of the money that she spent and is not paying them.

We don't all make what we want to make, but the fact is these people borrowed against their homes and then didn't pay it back. To suggest that the bank should be forced to cover these people's expenditures (but not those, for example, of a renter who couldn't have sold the house and used the proceeds to cover those expenses and buy a smaller place...) is so absurd I don't know how to respond to you people. Boy, if posters here represent the average SF resident, it's no wonder you have a reputation as left wing nut jobs everywhere else...

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2011 @ 12:40 am

PaulT inspired me to join the others on the streets today! Keep it up Paul!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 9:39 pm

I guess I don't understand how this woman was somehow tricked into signing her refi. She didn't understand the loan agreement and signed it? Anyone explain?

I, like PaulTea (stolen), am skeptical but would want to know more.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 11:09 pm

mortgage, and now wants to blame someone else for her failure to perform basic due diligence.

And moreover, as noted, she first took out a mortgage 38 years ago. The longest standard mortgage available is 30 years, so she should have paid off her loan at least 8 years ago.

So clearly she constantly refinanced the loan, and must have taken out various cash-out HELOC's to support a lifestyle above her station.

Even worse, since Chase have been trying to foreclose on her for two years, she has not made any payments on her loan in 2 years. IOW, she's a bum with an over-developed sense of entitlement.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 11:50 pm

Paul, do you work for Chase Bank? You certainly have a lot of time on your hands and apparent knowledge of the details. What dries you so to defend these banks against common man. You are a traitor to this nation and your little sock puppets supporting you are all too obvious what you're all about.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 6:10 am

Ed Lee, PG&E, a Central Subway contractor and now Chase. I'm obviously far more busy than I thought.

I don't work for any of them.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 8:01 am

missed out on the latest telling truth to power power protest when only three people turned out to stick it to BART a Monday or so ago.

Now he has moved on to another cause of the fortnight.

Be ware dumb bug eating peasants .

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 12:20 am

I bet her, like most other people trusted her banker to give her adequate advice as to what she could afford in the long term, and her banker grossly overstated what she could afford as was the practice for the time.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 5:54 am

No more excuses for people that STOLE money to have his and hers SUV's trips to Disney and Boxtox and a Boob job.

Brenda has to admit she was a spendthrift...just like an alcoholic has to admit he has no power over alcohol...

Brenda has to publicy admit where the money she blew went to...before i would ever consider helping her.

Now if she Heloced $100K because her hubby needed a heart transplant....well Brenda we as a nation should allow for borrowed on good faith and then the market collasped.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 6:17 am

Mrs. Reed never owned an SUV, never had Botox, never took trips to Disney, never had a Boob job. She was and is not a spendthrift. Her husband didn't need a heart transplant because he was killed in action in a war that most of your cared nothing about. Give it a rest!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

Take notice of the following from Black's Law Dictionary

"Libel. A method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, or signs. In its most general sense, any publication that is injurious to the reputation of another. A false and unprivileged publication in writing of defamatory material. A maliciously written or printed publication which tends to blacken a person's reputation or to expose him/her to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him/her in his business or profession. Accusation in writing or printing against the character of a person which affects his/her reputation, in that it tends to hold him/her up to ridicule, contempt, shame, disgrace, or obloquy, to degrade him/her in the estimation of the community, to induce an evil opinion of him/her in the minds of right-thinking persons, to make him/her an object of reproach, to diminish his/her respectability or for the worse, to dishonor or discredit him/her in the estimation of the public, or his friends and acquaintances, or to deprive him/her of friendly intercourse in society, or cause him/her to be shunned or avoided, or where it is charged that one has violated his public duty as a public officer. Almost any language which upon its face has a natural tendency to injure a woman's/man's reputation, either generally or with respect to her/his occupation. . . . "

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2011 @ 5:47 pm

Whether it's Ed Lee, George Bush, Arthur Evans or a "troll".

So, what are you going to do about it?

Posted by PaulT on Oct. 01, 2011 @ 6:35 pm