Notwithstanding your assertions to the contrary, the letter is very specific to the subject mortgage transaction. You are quite right however, that we are questioning virtually every aspect of the transaction because there appears to be questionable behavior on the part of multiple parties in connection with every phase of the loan transaction and subsequent sale to investors of some pool of assets into which you placed our client’s name, identity, and reference to a private transaction between the original “lender” (who did not fund the table-funded loan) and our client who unknowingly executed documents that appear to be part of a scheme to issue unregulated securities under false pretenses.
Simply stated, our client has a right to know the identity and contact information of the real lender or holder in due course, if there is one. Our client has every right to know what happened to these documents and what additional promises or conditions were placed upon the expected stream of revenue or payoff of the loan balance. In order to make an informed decision as to whether your company or any other company has the right to collect, enforce or otherwise administrate or communicate with anyone regarding the subject loan transaction.
On that account we herewith demand that you provide us with written instruments documenting your authority to perform any act in connection with the subject loan. An authorization from our client is enclosed (again) showing that we are authorized to converse with you or anyone else regarding the audit, the QWR and the questions raised in this and other correspondence.
If additional obligors or conditions were added to the transaction after or contemporaneous with the loan transaction neither the parties nor the fees were disclosed to our client. In addition, if such was the case, then the unconditional promise to pay contained in the note was modified by subsequent events raising the very “questions” you seek to avoid — specifically whether the instruments that were “negotiated” were negotiable and whether you have knowledge of whether the “actual lender” or holder in due course was paid in whole or in part.
However dismissive you wish to appear of our claims, the SEC filings of the parties involved in this transaction are readily available online. We are not guessing at the facts. We are questioning your role in this scheme.
We again demand your cooperation. Failure to do so will result in litigation. If you do not wish to be a named defendant in said litigation, then you will need to show us that you had nothing to do with the origination of the loan and that you had nothing to do with the handling of the documents from the loan transaction, the pooling and services agreement, the assignment and assumption agreement, or any purchase of insurance products during the securitization process.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, currency, Investor, politics | Tagged: foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense |
This is a collateral rule from from the fed reserve
offcourse i am not for central banking – woodrow’s mistake
so you can see why the banks think they can get away
with these but a loan is a loan not a future comodity to be striped thats what t bonds are for –our birth certs as security
in other words full faith and credit of the american people
7) Loan participations must be clearly structured as purchase-sale transactions and must not contain any assignability restrictions. Participations in loans to the pledging institution’s affiliates
are not acceptable.
The attorneys aren’t helping because most were also the investors and because the banks hold and control all the funds.
The banksters are leading the investors into believe that if they watch and allow everyone to be kicked out of their homes, that they will get some of their funds back, but the banksters gangster are really just laughing all the way to the offshore banks!!!
Nice references, Mario.
The Ithaca Hour from Ithaca, New York has been around for a long time. Ask residents of that community what they think about competing currency and I’m sure most will have only positive things to say.
There was another popular “alternate” currency called the Liberty Dollar, which was actually backed by gold and silver. The LD founders consist of a who’s-who of advocates of monetary policy reform in this country.
However, the government has stepped in to try and close them down, just like E-Gold and others.
Milwaukee neighborhoods could print own money
2 neighborhoods consider printing own currency for exclusive use in local stores
By Erika Slife | Tribune reporter
December 3, 2008
They may be talking funny money, but it’s not funny business.
Residents from the Milwaukee neighborhoods of Riverwest and East Side are scheduled to meet Wednesday to discuss printing their own money. The idea is that the local cash could be used at neighborhood stores and businesses, thus encouraging local spending. The result, supporters hope, would be a bustling local economy, even as the rest of the nation deals with a recession.
“You have all these people who have local currency, and they’re going to spend it at local stores,” said Sura Faraj, a community organizer who is helping spearhead the plan. “They can’t spend it at the Wal-Mart or the Home Depot, but they can spend it at their local hardware store or their local grocery store.”
Incentives could be used to entice consumers into using the new money. For example, perhaps they could trade $100 U.S. for $110 local, essentially netting them a 10 percent discount at participating stores.
Related links
• Plainfield woman flies U.S. flag upside down to send distress call to leaders
• Employers ax 533,000 jobs in Nov., most in 34 years; unemployment rate rises to 6.7 percent
It’s not a new concept—experts estimate there are at least 2,000 local currencies all over the world—but it is a practice that tends to burgeon during economic downturns. During the Great Depression, scores of communities relied on their own currencies.
And it’s completely legal.
As long as communities don’t create coins, or print bills that resemble federal dollars, organizations are free to produce their own greenbacks—and they’d don’t even have to be green.
In Wisconsin, could that mean dough that looks like cheese?
eslife@tribune.com
that’s Barney Frank
finally. We need to put “the pig” behind bars.
O.J. is in jail now.
How come no one is in jail?
Interesting videos:
Securities consultant says Merrill Lynch knew or should have known the securities they brought to market where overrated (From her website: “She wrote the first letter the SEC posted in February 2007 in response to its proposed rules for the credit rating agencies; she made the case that the NRSRO designation for the rating agencies should be revoked for structured financial products.”):
http://money.cnn.com/video/#/video/news/2008/07/31/news.073108.tavoli.cnnmoney
Securities consultant talks about one of the biggest ponzi schemes in history:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3134273n
Quote from her website:
“I misspoke earlier in the interview. I meant to say recent mortgage lending is the largest Ponzi scheme (not “one of the largest”) in the history of the financial markets. The mortgage lending business model is not viable (see also the simplified illustration on the home page of this site). Money from new investors partially funds the obligations to old investors. High dividends suggested a very healthy business model, but the mortgage loans were unsound creating an unsound business model.
[Obviously, the majority of the mortgage market employed viable business models based on sound mortgage loans and sound cash management, but I am not referring to those].”
Her website: http://www.tavakolistructuredfinance.com
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com
Jose,
I would like to speak to you can you contact me please.
786 274 0527
malibubooks@gmail.com
sweeeet
amazing. can we insert this text into the brains of all the lawyers that have said no to all thw victims of the biggest scam ever