I have frequently commented that one of the first things I learned on Wall Street was the maxim that the more complicated the “product” the more the buyer is forced to rely on the seller for information. Michael Lewis, in his new book, focuses on high frequency trading — a term that is not understood by most people, even if they work on Wall Street. The way it works is that the computers are able to sort out buy or sell orders, aggregate them and very accurately predict an uptick or down-tick in a stock or bond.
Then the same investment bank that is taking your order to buy or sell submits its own order ahead of yours. They are virtually guaranteed a profit, at your expense, although the impact on individual investors is small. Aggregating those profits amounts to a private tax on large and small investors amounting to billions of dollars, according to Lewis and I agree.
As Lewis points out, the trader knows nothing about what happens after they place an order. And it is the complexity of technology and practices that makes Wall Street behavior so opaque — clouded in a veil of secrecy that is virtually impenetrable to even the regulators. That opacity first showed up decades ago as Wall Street started promoting increasing complex investments. Eventually they evolved to collateralized debt obligations (CDO’s) and those evolved into what became known as the mortgage crisis.
in the case of mortgage CDO’s, once again the investors knew nothing about what happened after they placed their order and paid for it. Once again, the Wall Street firms were one step ahead of them, claiming ownership of (1) the money that investors paid, (2) the mortgage bonds the investors thought they were buying and (3) the loans the investors thought were being financed through REMIC trusts that issued the mortgage bonds.
Like high frequency trading, the investor receives a report that is devoid of any of the details of what the investment bank actually did with their money, when they bought or originated a mortgage, through what entity, for how much and what terms. The blending of millions of mortgages enabled the investment banks to create reports that looked good but completely hid the vulnerability of the investors, who were continuing to buy mortgage bonds based upon those reports.
The truth is that in most cases the investment banks took the investors money and didn’t follow any of the rules set forth in the CDO documents — but used those documents when it suited them to make even more money, creating the illusion that loans had been securitized when in fact the securitization vehicle (REMIC Trust) had been completely ignored.
There were several scenarios under which property and homeowners were made vulnerable to foreclosure even if they had no mortgage on their property. A recent story about an elderly couple coming “home” to find their door padlocked, possessions removed and then the devastating news that their home had been sold at foreclosure auction is an example of the extreme risk of this system to ALL homeowners, whether they have or had a mortgage or not. This particular couple had paid off their mortgage 15 years ago. The bank who foreclosed on the nonexistent mortgage and the recovery company that invaded their home said it was a mistake. Their will be a confidential settlement where once again the veil of secrecy will be raised.
That type of “mistake” was a once in a million possibility before Wall Street directly entered the mortgage loan business. So why have we read so many stories about foreclosures where there was no mortgage, or was no default, or where the mortgage loan was with someone other than the party who foreclosed?
The answer lies in how these properties enter the system. When a bank sells its portfolio of loans into the system of aggregation of loans, they might accidentally or intentionally include loans for which they had already received full payment. Maybe they issued a satisfaction maybe they didn’t. It might also include loans where life insurance or PMI paid off the loan.
Or, as is frequently the case, the “loan” was sold after the homeowner was merely investigating the possibility of a mortgage or reverse mortgage. As soon as they made application, since approval was certain, the “originator” entered the data into a platform maintained by the aggregator, like Countrywide, where it was included in some “securitization package.
If the loan closed then it was frequently sold again with the new dates and data, so it would like like a different loan. Then the investment banks, posing as the lenders, obtained insurance, TARP, guarantee proceeds and other payments from “co-obligors” on each version of the loan that was sold, thus essentially creating the equivalent of new sales on loans that were guaranteed to be foreclosed either because there was no mortgage or because the terms were impossible for the borrower to satisfy.
The LPS roulette wheel in Jacksonville is the hub where it is decided WHO will be the foreclosing party and for HOW MUCH they will claim is owed, without any allowance for the multiple sales, proceeds of insurance, FDIC loss sharing, actual ownership of the loans or anything else. Despite numerous studies by those in charge of property records and academic studies, the beat goes on, foreclosing by entities who are “strangers to the transaction” (San Francisco study), on documents that were intentionally destroyed (Catherine Ann Porter study at University of Iowa), against homeowners who had no idea what was going on, using the money of investors who had no idea what was going on, and all based upon a triple tiered documentary system where the contractual meeting of the minds could never occur.
The first tier was the Prospectus and Pooling and Servicing Agreement that was used to obtain money from investors under false pretenses.
The second tier consisted of a whole subset of agreements, contracts, insurance, guarantees all payable to the investment banks instead of the investors.
And the third tier was the “closing documents” in which the borrower, contrary to Federal (TILA), state and common law was as clueless as the investors as to what was really happening, the compensation to intermediaries and the claims of ownership that would later be revealed despite the borrower’s receipt of “disclosure” of the identity of his lender and the terms of compensation by all people associated with the origination of the loan.
The beauty of this plan for Wall Street is that nobody from any of the tiers could make direct claims to the benefits of any of the contracts. It has also enabled then to foreclose more than once on the same home in the name of different creditors, making double claims for guarantee from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FDIC loss sharing, insurance and credit default swaps.
The ugly side of the plan is still veiled, for the most part in secrecy. even when the homeowner gets close in court, there is a confidential settlement, sometimes for millions of dollars to keep the lawyer and the homeowner from disclosing the terms or the reasons why millions of dollars was paid to a homeowner to keep his mouth shut on a loan that was only $200,000 at origination.
This is exactly why I tell people that most of the time their case will be settled either in discovery where a Judge agrees you are entitled to peak behind the curtain, or at trial where it becomes apparent that the witness who is “familiar” with the corporate records really knows nothing and ahs nothing about the the real history of the loan transaction.
Filed under: AMGAR, CDO, CORRUPTION, discovery, escrow agent, evidence, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, originator, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: appraisal fraud, bailout, countrywide, disclosure, Fannie, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, fraud, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit |
I just found out I am going to be a grandmother so I have a greater purpose in life now and I will not give up until these JUDGES are jailed for allowing the corrupt bankers to steal our homes. In our case a paid off home.
Fraudster U.S. lenders dumped the majority of non-existent mortgages onto foreigners in the form of junk bonds. It Now looks like we are close to seeing the same foreigners dumping back those phony bonds onto the U.S. & foreclosing on the country and the $$$ itself:
Russia and China Threaten to Destroy the Almighty Dollar
———–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoKsQJBM3Do
Hey MS. Good to see you back. Was worried something may have happened. Keep in touch.
Wash Sales
A wash sale occurs when you sell or otherwise dispose of stock or securities (including a contract or option to acquire or sell stock or securities) at a loss and, within 30 days before or after the sale or disposition, you:
1.Buy substantially identical stock or securities,
2.Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade,
3.Enter into a contract or option to acquire substantially identical stock or securities, or
4.Acquire substantially identical stock or securities for your individual retirement arrangement (IRA) or Roth IRA.
You cannot deduct losses from wash sales unless the loss was incurred in the ordinary course of your business as a dealer in stock or securities. The basis of the substantially identical property (or contract or option to acquire such property) is its cost increased by the disallowed loss (except in the case of (4) above).
If you received a Form 1099-B (or substitute statement), box 5 of that form will show any nondeductible wash sale loss if:
•The stock or securities sold were covered securities (defined in the instructions for Form 8949, column (e)), and
•The substantially identical stock or securities you bought had the same CUSIP number as the stock or securities you sold and were bought in the same account as the stock or securities you sold.
However, you cannot deduct a loss from a wash sale even if it is not reported on Form 1099-B (or substitute statement). For more details on wash sales, see Pub. 550.
Items for Special Treatment
•Transactions by a securities dealer. See section 475 and Rev. Rul. 97-39, which begins on page 4 of Internal Revenue Bulletin 1997-39 at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb97-39.pdf.
• Bonds and other debt instruments. See Pub. 550.
•Certain real estate subdivided for sale that may be considered a capital asset. See section 1237.
•Gain on the sale of depreciable property to a more than 50%-owned entity or to a trust of which you are a beneficiary. See Pub. 544.
•Gain on the disposition of stock in an interest charge domestic international sales corporation. See section 995(c).
•Gain on the sale or exchange of stock in certain foreign corporations. See section 1248.
•Transfer of property to a partnership that would be treated as an investment company if it were incorporated. See Pub. 541.
•Sales of stock received under a qualified public utility dividend reinvestment plan. See Pub. 550.
•Transfer of appreciated property to a political organization. See section 84.
•Transfer of property by a U.S. person to a foreign estate or trust. See section 684.
•If you give up your U.S. citizenship, you may be treated as having sold all your property for its fair market value on the day before you gave up your citizenship. This also applies to long-term U.S. residents who cease to be lawful permanent residents. For details, exceptions, and rules for reporting these deemed sales, see Pub. 519 and Form 8854.
•In general, no gain or loss is recognized on the transfer of property from an individual to a spouse or a former spouse if the transfer is incident to a divorce. See Pub. 504.
•Amounts received on the retirement of a debt instrument generally are treated as received in exchange for the debt instrument. See Pub. 550.
•Any loss on the disposition of converted wetland or highly erodible cropland that is first used for farming after March 1, 1986, is reported as a long-term capital loss on Form 8949, but any gain is reported as ordinary income on Form 4797.
•If qualified dividends that you reported on Form 1040, line 9b, or Form 1040NR, line 10b, include extraordinary dividends, any loss on the sale or exchange of the stock is a long-term capital loss to the extent of the extraordinary dividends. An extraordinary dividend is a dividend that equals or exceeds 10% (5% in the case of preferred stock) of your basis in the stock.
•Amounts received by shareholders in corporate liquidations. See Pub. 550.
•Cash received in lieu of fractional shares of stock as a result of a stock split or stock dividend. See Pub. 550.
•Load charges to acquire stock in a regulated investment company (including a mutual fund), which may not be taken into account in determining gain or loss on certain dispositions of the stock if reinvestment rights were exercised. See Pub. 550.
•The sale or exchange of S corporation stock or an interest in a partnership or trust held for more than 1 year, which may result in collectibles gain (28% rate gain). See the instructions for line 18.
•Gain or loss on the disposition of securities futures contracts. See Pub. 550.
•Gain on the constructive sale of certain appreciated financial positions. See Pub. 550.
•Certain constructive ownership transactions. Gain in excess of the gain you would have recognized if you had held a financial asset directly during the term of a derivative contract must be treated as ordinary income. See section 1260. If any portion of the constructive ownership transaction was open in any prior year, you may have to pay interest. See section 1260(b) for details, including how to figure the interest. Include the interest as an additional tax on Form 1040, line 60. Check box c and in the space next to that box, enter “Section 1260(b) interest” and the amount of the interest. If you are filing Form 1040NR, include the interest as an additional tax on line 59. Check box b and, in the space next to that box, enter “Section 1260(b) interest” and the amount of the interest. This interest is not deductible.
•Gain or loss from the disposition of stock or other securities in an investment club. See Pub. 550.
Ok.. this is not my field, that’s why I hired an expert.
But I still want the knowledge for myself …
Nondeductible Losses
Do not deduct a loss from a sale or exchange between certain related parties. This includes a direct or indirect sale or exchange of property between any of the following.
•Members of a family.
•A corporation and an individual owning more than 50% of the corporation’s stock (unless the loss is from a distribution in complete liquidation of a corporation).
•A grantor and a fiduciary of a trust.
•A fiduciary and a beneficiary of the same trust.
•A fiduciary and a fiduciary or beneficiary of another trust created by the same grantor.
•An executor of an estate and a beneficiary of that estate, unless the sale or exchange was to satisfy a pecuniary bequest (that is, a bequest of a sum of money).
•An individual and a tax-exempt organization controlled by the individual or the individual’s family
http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040sd/ch01.html#d0e254
This has something to do with the Trustee Deed being dated Nov 12th, and the closing taking place Nov23rd and the sale of the note on Dec 12th.
There is a piece to this puzzle missing …..
They buy it for one price and sell it for a loss, but cant claim the loss because of the acquisition and/or merger. Right?
If not .. don’t bite my head off… Explain it to me in Simple Terms.
Please and Thank You!
Dag gone it MS.. I did! And I see It!
Just as I see what our attorney saw on the back of the 09 statements.
I’m learning … nobody tells me anything, they just bail my butt out.
I have to do my own homework ….
You read it , then publish it and for Gods sake …MISS THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT
Look at your 2008 Year end statement- Enough said
Your all one million miles away from the answer ….I mean “Millenniums”
get it [M2000]
registerclaims@live.com
According to the scales …. a household with a combined income of $113,000 annually with a debt owing of an undisclosed amount” (was 149,000 to start) with no other debt …… and hold assets in excess of ….Never Mind.
I was going to say, not BK material, but Never Mind ….
because after 4 yrs of …. hoarding, …. Never Mind.
And if anyone thinks I’m going to turn over another dag gone dime without the Title, after my Good Faith Gesture in 2010 …….
They better get their sh’t together … because if I don’t get title … they owe me a hellofa lot of money!!
Christine, I don’t know what in tarnations you are talking about…
There was no default, except the one they created on paper.
There was no loan modification.
MERS had the investor listed 1st as CW, then BAC, then Private..
LONG BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED FROM MERS….
Its in Title Section for a Reason!
From the date I requested a full payoff of the mortgage and a release of the lien to transfer title.
I DONT BLUFF!
KC,
All that is irrelevant in the face of a four-year long unpaid BofA mortgage recorded on MERS as inactive, although with letters back and forth to find out what the payout is supposed to be, and the hanky-panky with the trust in order to save one house at the expense of a defaulted/lost previous one.
Get your thoughts and your facts in order. Otherwise, you’ll end up like most people here.
Ut Oh …
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title26-vol11/pdf/CFR-2011-title26-vol11-sec1-1091-1.pdf
NG, you said:
“The beauty of this plan for Wall Street is that nobody from any of the tiers could make direct claims to the benefits of any of the contracts.”
Why not? I take it, then, when you say ‘direct’, you mean it literally.
But, why would there be no path from the investors to fnma’s guarantee? That guarantee was made TO the cert investors (not anyone else) in the fnma prospectus (despite that it’s paid to the trust).
Example 1.
A, whose taxable year is the calendar year, on December 1, 1954, purchased 100 shares of common stock in the M Company for $10,000 and on December 15, 1954, purchased 100 additional shares for $9,000. On January 3, 1955, he sold the 100 shares purchased on December 1, 1954, for $9,000. Because of the provisions of section 1091, no loss from the sale is allowable as a deduction.
Example 2.
A, whose taxable year is the calendar year, on September 21, 1954, purchased 100 shares of the common stock of the M Company for $5,000. On December 21, 1954, he purchased 50 shares of substantially identical stock for $2,750, and on December 27, 1954, he purchased 25 additional shares of such stock for $1,125. On January 3, 1955, he sold for $4,000 the 100 shares purchased on September 21, 1954. There is an indicated loss of $1,000 on the sale of the 100 shares. Since, within the 61-day period, A purchased 75 shares of substantially identical stock, the loss on the sale of 75 of the shares ($3,750−$3,000, or $750) is not allowable as a deduction because of the provisions of section 1091. The loss on the sale of the remaining 25 shares ($1,250−$1,000, or $250) is deductible subject to the limitations provided in sections 267 and 1211. The basis of the 50 shares purchased December 21, 1954, the acquisition of which resulted in the nondeductibility of the loss ($500) sustained on 50 of the 100 shares sold on January 3, 1955, is $2,500 (the cost of 50 of the shares sold on January 3, 1955) $750 (the difference between the purchase price ($2,750) of the 50 shares acquired on December 21, 1954, and the selling price ($2,000) of 50 of the shares sold on January 3, 1955), or $3,250. Similarly, the basis of the 25 shares purchased on December 27, 1954, the acquisition of which resulted in the nondeductibility of the loss ($250) sustained on 25 of the shares sold on January 3, 1955, is $1,250 $125, or $1,375. See § 1.1091-2.
Example 3.
A, whose taxable year is the calendar year, on September 15, 1954, purchased 100 shares of the stock of the M Company for $5,000. He sold these shares on February 1, 1956, for $4,000. On each of the four days from February 15, 1956, to February 18, 1956, inclusive, he purchased 50 shares of substantially identical stock for $2,000. There is an indicated loss of $1,000 from the sale of the 100 shares on February 1, 1956, but, since within the 61-day period A purchased not less than 100 shares of substantially identical stock, the loss is not deductible. The particular shares of stock the purchase of which resulted in the nondeductibility of the loss are the first 100 shares purchased within such period, that is, the 50 shares purchased on February 15, 1956, and the 50 shares purchased on February 16, 1956. In determining the period for which the 50 shares purchased on February 15, 1956, and the 50 shares purchased on February 16, 1956, were held, there is to be included the period for which the 100 shares purchased on September 15, 1954, and sold on February 1, 1956, were held.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11910, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 6926, 32 FR 11468, Aug. 9, 1967]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.1091-1
§ 1.1091-1 Losses from wash sales of stock or securities.
(a) A taxpayer cannot deduct any loss claimed to have been sustained from the sale or other disposition of stock or securities if, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date (referred to in this section as the 61-day period), he has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange upon which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities. However, this prohibition does not apply (1) in the case of a taxpayer, not a corporation, if the sale or other disposition of stock or securities is made in connection with the taxpayer’s trade or business, or (2) in the case of a corporation, a dealer in stock or securities, if the sale or other disposition of stock or securities is made in the ordinary course of its business as such dealer.
(b) Where more than one loss is claimed to have been sustained within the taxable year from the sale or other disposition of stock or securities, the provisions of this section shall be applied to the losses in the order in which the stock or securities the disposition of which resulted in the respective losses were disposed of (beginning with the earliest disposition). If the order of disposition of stock or securities disposed of at a loss on the same day cannot be determined, the stock or securities will be considered to have been disposed of in the order in which they were originally acquired (beginning with the earliest acquisition).
(c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of.
(d) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is not less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the acquisition of which resulted in the nondeductibility of the loss shall be those with which the stock or securities disposed of are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of will be matched with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities acquired in accordance with the order of acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) of the stock or securities acquired.
(e) The acquisition of any share of stock or any security which results in the nondeductibility of a loss under the provisions of this section shall be disregarded in determining the deductibility of any other loss.
(f) The word acquired as used in this section means acquired by purchase or by an exchange upon which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law, and comprehends cases where the taxpayer has entered into a contract or option within the 61-day period to acquire by purchase or by such an exchange.
(g) For purposes of determining under this section the 61-day period applicable to a short sale of stock or securities, the principles of paragraph (a) of § 1.1233-1 for determining the consummation of a short sale shall generally apply except that the date of entering into the short sale shall be deemed to be the date of sale if, on the date of entering into the short sale, the taxpayer owns (or on or before such date has entered into a contract or option to acquire) stock or securities identical to those sold short and subsequently delivers such stock or securities to close the short
KC,
It’s not what attorneys file that counts. It’s what comes out of it. The wins. And you know it.
Or is it the income from the ISC?
Dang…. how many ways can we be taxed?
I’m involved in a case where Mers executed the assignment on 07/20/2011 for a loan made by Countrywide for loan serviced by Bank of America. By Bank of Americas own admission, BofA is the servicer for the lender. The loan is foreclosed on by the Grantee who Paid to trustee $309,000.00 The grantee is by the foreclosing agents own admission the trustee for the beneficiary. The Trustee is Wells Fargo Bank as Trustee for the beneficiary for trust funds assets Wells Fargo Bank Officers and Directors.
The amount held in controversy is the amount paid for by borrower on 06/28/2005 that was sold to trustee on 11/01/2006.
The amount paid fro by Grantee at sale is for $309,000.00 on 11/01/2006 for amount paid in settlement by the borrower on the 06/28/2005 HUD 1 settlement statement that was a note carried back for $309,000 by World Savings Bank .
Therefor the Mers Corp assignment is for the amount Countrywide failed to payoff as settled owed to World Savings Bank who was acquired by Wells Fargo Bank in 2009.
Mers in this case is the missing assignment from the Merger and Acquisition by Wells Fargo Bank as part of a leverage buyout and value set forth ads a credit bid . . .. owed by Bank of America….for balance carried and washed through an IRC Wash Sale Reg 1.1091
registerclaims@live.com
Or is it the income from the sale/exchange of the title into trust?
Master Servicer, what I think you are saying is that after Aunt Tilly made a donation/gift to the Estates Trust …. The Trust owes taxes on the income?
Or are you saying the Trust earned income we were unaware of and taxes are owed on those funds? But if that is the case … the income taxes wouldn’t come due until the Estate is closed out … Right?
Don’t give up Hope on my yet …
It’s losing, not loosing. Just one o.
KC….why oh why? Renting space in one’s head should be far more expensive…your dealing with the subsidized rent district here.
You have to be a great player to be on a winning team…talking the talk is not enough!
Don’t go there girl …..
Legal Team preparing to take care of two birds with one stone.
I like happy endings. Stories of countries doing something to fix their problems in the near-death petrodollar world of secrecy, conspiracy and sell-out government sanctioned by sell-out Supreme Court opinions.
The world is Oh so moving on…!
MERS? 7 billion people don’t give a hoot! The house, the house! Nope, not even close. Monsanto loosing ground… now, that’s a story! China tripling its renewable energy. Great story too!
American hegemony going, going, gone? Given how it got it in the first place, it’s the best story of all. “Ill-gotten gains never prosper.”
http://www.icij.org/blog/2014/04/happy-birthday-offshore-leaks-what-weve-learned-and-what-future-holds
HAPPY BIRTHDAY OFFSHORE LEAKS – WHAT WE’VE LEARNED, AND WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS
By Gerard Ryle April 4, 2014, 4:45 pm
Proof lacking. Credibility: nil.
I’ll give you blowing smoke .. right in the ole’ smoocher.
Let me state this in a way even you can understand ….
The deceased sellers trust and estate was closed in 2010.
Our pretender lender released its claim to title in 2012.
Confirmed as of yesterday .. Yep, still hold title free and clear of liens.
That’s shooting our Facts …
Not Shooting from the Hip!
You would have thought they would have filed an L.P.? Right?
“The Title was Cleared in 2010.” Not quite. Not without a fully successful QT legal action. Something to do with… MERS.
Blowing smoke of volcanic proportion.
“Just sayin ….”
That really confers an aura of credibility, expertise and respectability to anything preceding such a profound closing statement.
But MS the deceased trust remained open until 2010 with the property still held in trust up until that point. I know this for a fact. The Title was Cleared in 2010.
If you suggesting that we failed to claim the deed, your wrong … I went after it while the Sellers Trust was still open and continue to do so in court.
They didn’t respond to the lawsuit, so we are moving for MSJ.
How they responded was with a fc on an abandoned property and they are seeking to prevent me from redeeming.
Trust deed was cancelled as of the date of the transfer to the trust fund . See IRC requirements under 1.1091 wash sale rule / GAAP FAS 140 Codified SFAS 140-3 . These accounting for book entry rules are mandated of the seller and conveyancing parties and cause a lawful exchange – not transfer but exchange
Your claims or Voodoo or made as your still clueless on the accounting side and where these foreclosing agents are using Mers to reconstitute value ….Claims your alleged to have abandoned
The Trustee/Beneficiary for the Deceased Estate maintains the Law Firm representing her parents Estate ( *not the Trustee/Beneficiarys attorney*) was sent a Trustee Deed to sign as she lives out of state and under the impression the Deed was being granted to hubby and KC. But the Trustee Deed was blank (no grantees), after inquiring was assured our names would be incerted just prior to closing.
But at NO time did she intend to transfer by way of that Trustee Deed to the Law Firm that represented her parents,… nor did she give him permission to sign as POA for her as Trustee for her parents estate.
Trust Agreement? Please!!
It took me awhile to figure out why the lender changed .. but we weren’t advised of that until closing.
I still maintain … The Trustee Deed is a Fraud!
I still maintain… We CAN NOT grant a lien, assign or convey anything we haven’t been conveyed legally.
Just sayin ….
1. Claims brought for restitution, recovery of consideration from losses causal to damages for Tort violations include claims for losses of livelihood, fee simple , right to occupancy and undue pain and suffering, challenge defendants standing to bring a lawful foreclosure under “Applicable Law” meaning all controlling applicable federal, state and local statutes, regulations, ordinances and administrative rules and orders (that have the effect of law)
2.Defendants, by their act and conduct, over the term from 11/01/2006 “cancellation” through 09/06/2013 “ejectment” FAIL in bringing a lawful foreclosure under the state civil code that bans and prohibits foreclosure for assets deemed a obligations NOT other than in Trust Claims by the foreclosing party are deemed taxpayer willful evasion , “watering” and reconstitution of “trust fund” asset value charged and written off under TARP in 2008
3. Defendants operate in recovery for charged obligations owed that are in each case credited back under an LBO for the merger and acquisitions scheme amongst Wells Fargo Bank for World Savings balance due, for CWHL Inc obligations merged into BofA and for Washington Mutual obligations credited back to JPMorgan Chase Bank.
4. Claims brought in discovery to date asserts each of these alleged credits taken by foreclosing parties and interested parties to the 10/30/2012 sale and 11/06/2013 ejectment of occupants, were at one point in time obligations of the Plaintiff and satisfied on 06/28/2005, 08/28/2006 and 11/01/2006 HUD 1 settlement statements
[continued at registerclaims@live.com)
Great stuff, Trespass! This especially caught my eye:
“The people are the true creditors. No money comes into circulation but with the signature of the living male or female. God created male and female the true creditors on earth. Lord God created the man on the land when he created Adam from the ground and woman from man’s rib.”
Indeed, that’s what the Bank of England recently backhandedly admitted–that banks don’t lend deposits or pre-existing money. Indeed, BoE says *in no uncertain terms* that if you think banks lend deposits (as most people do), you are wrong:
http://libertyroadmedia.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/bank-says-if-you-believe-banks-lend-deposits-you-are-wrong/
Lots of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Google it, and you will see. FDCPA has been around a long time with massive case law to back it up.
Another one found religion. Isn’t that amazing? It only took him until he could safely retire (on your dime) from his cushy job he held for 25+ years… on your dime!
Moral courage… what a priceless thing of the past! Durden has the same reaction I have. Too bad so few people ask the right questions.
How do you like them dimes?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-08/retiring-sec-lawyer-crucifies-his-employer-its-cancer-collecting-pennies-bankster-tu
Retiring SEC Lawyer Crucifies His Employer: “It’s A Cancer” Collecting Pennies On The “Bankster Turnpike”
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/08/2014 – 10:42
We wonder: why does the truth about the broken system, as witnessed and experienced by individual employees, always wait until said employee is about to depart their employer or just after? Obviously that is rhetorical. However, it is worth mentioning, because in the latest such revelation, a retiring SEC trail attorney veteran, James Kidney, who had been with the agency since 1986 and retired this month, just crucified his now former employer for doing precisely all those thing that outside critics – notably Zero Hedge – have accused the most coopted, clueless, corrupt and criminal regulators of doing. Only he said it in a way that not even we could have phrased. The SEC has become “an agency that polices the broken windows on the street level and rarely goes to the penthouse floors,” Kidney said, according to a copy of his remarks obtained by Bloomberg News. “On the rare occasions when enforcement does go to the penthouse, good manners are paramount. Tough enforcement, risky enforcement, is subject to extensive negotiation and weakening.”
I know .. Right Neil.
That’s why they f’around with the taxes and ins.
When that fails … Abandonment.
HELLnO!
HERE I AM! CAN YOU SEE ME NOW!
I REDEEMED!
Hit the soap Jack!
And don’t come back!!
The way I see this: my paperwork has multiple people claiming ownership….where the note “may” have been sold numerous times, but it was defaulted by them, not me, no payments were ever made. So, the only thing they can do is try to collect payments. Here’s the kick; no deductions for the payments I made for 3 years have been applied. They are asking for the full-original loan amount, plus $84,000 with NO itemization of what these costs are.
I have New Century as the owner in 2012, still in bankruptcy-Ocwen not as the servicer, but debt collector and Ocwen says they acquired the rights through Weichart Financial services in 2007…hence Weichart is not registered in North Carolina, using Ocwen to to make the F/C happen. Then we have Credit Suisse who, per court transcripts seized this note and was a lender (line of credit) of money to New Century, but not for my note, while they used the money for corporate purposes (stole it)…misused it and now I am being dragged through courts by numerous players, for the same debt. Anyone see anything wrong here? How many copies of the note were “sold” to agencies to collect on a dead debt? The judges get all of this…make no mistake. Not one of these “criminals” I mentioned has a right, legally to do anything, nada!
Footnote: MERS, US Bank, Fidelity trust, Select Portfolio Services, Carrington, New Century, DB Trust, RBC, Wells Fargo, Trustee Services of Carolina-Brock & Scott, Hunoval Law Firm, Hutchens, Sentor & Britton, Ocwen, and more ALL claiming a piece of the action and I cannot find a legitimate loan…based on testimony…a sale maybe, but for pennies on the dollar as small as $.10 per dollar…I found a document saying a law firm (Hunoval-Poores Substitute trustee services) bought something for $27,400…going back to 2011 on the ledger, now that has changed and it is back to all the original numbers from the original amount of the “supposed” note?
Anyone want to post what these settlements are ? So they’re confidential .. SO WHAT.. I want to hear about them..
Thanks
Why doesn’t a corporation surrender its state ‘citizenship’ when it seeks privilege in the courts under a federal charter?
But housing is always such a good purchase.. (please read link)
http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2014/4/7/hot-air-hisses-out-of-housing-bubble-20-even-two-middle-clas.html
Hot Air Hisses Out Of Housing Bubble 2.0: Even Two Middle-Class Incomes Aren’t Enough Anymore To Buy A Median Home
The question then becomes: are they all going to make their mea culpa because they found religion suddenly or… is getting caught the real trigger for that sudden burst of sorrow?
Is the pope still catholic? What a joke!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-07/father-high-speed-trading-speaks-market-we-created-casino-complete-mess-rigged-game
The Father Of High Speed Trading Speaks: “The Market We Created Is A Casino; A Complete Mess; A Rigged Game”
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/07/2014 – 18:42
“I must confess to you that I was an ardent proponent of bringing technology to trading and brokerage. Unfortunately, I only saw the good sides. I saw how electronic trading and record-keeping could be used to force people to be more honest, to make the process more efficient, to lower transaction costs and to bring liquidity to the markets. I did not see the forces of fragmentation and the opportunity for people to use technology to keep to the letter but avoid the spirit of the rules — creating the current crisis…. Technology, market structure, and new products have evolved more quickly than our capacity to understand or control them. … To the public the financial markets may increasingly seem like a casino, except that the casino is more transparent and simpler to understand…. The result has been a series of crises over the past few years that have caused many investors to lose confidence or to think that the whole system is a rigged game.”
House cleaning proceeding according to some plans. Wonder whose…
This one didn’t even have a chance to shoot himself in the back of the head with a nail gun. Do you think something’s up?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-07/ceo-liechtenstein-bank-frick-murdered
CEO Of Liechtenstein Bank Frick Murdered In Broad Daylight
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/07/2014 10:05 -0400
Over the weekend the world was gripped by the drama surrounding the mysterious murder-homicide of the former CEO of Dutch bank ABN Amro and members of his family, and whether there is more foul play than meets the eye. However, that is nothing compared to what just happened in the tiny, and all too quiet Principality of Lichtenstein, where moments ago the CEO of local financial institution Bank Frick & Co. AG, Juergen Frick, was shot dead in the underground garage of the bank located in the city of Balzers.
It is so unbelievable that you can have proof that you were never in default on an INVALID MORTGAGE and pay thousands of dollars and end up in the same position because our attorneys & Judges are so corrupt? WAKE UP STATE OFFICIALS!
Here’s Will Rogers on attorneys – http://www.willrogerstoday.com/will_rogers_quotes/quotes.cfm?qID=9
Will Rogers wrote “make crime pay … become a lawyer”
Upon further thought, it was the robot and Will Robbins, IIRC.
DANGER! Warning, Will Rogers, WARNING! Fed preemption of states’ consumer protection laws attack!
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/03/27/12-55278.pdf
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 1348, a national bank is a citizen of both the state in which its principal place of business is located and the state where its main office is located as designated in the bank’s ROUSE V. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE 5 articles of association.1 We review de novo this issue of
statutory construction. See United States v. Havelock, 664 F.3d 1284, 1289 (9th Cir. 2012).
We conclude that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1348, a national bank is a citizen only of the state in which its main office is located. Hence, the district court had diversity jurisdiction because there was complete diversity between the Rouses, citizens of California, and Wells Fargo, a citizen of South Dakota.
CITIZENS UNITE against Citizens United!!
And Johngault will make it happen, as sure as the sun sets!!!
He’s only been saying it for what… 4, 5 years?
Not Hilmon, Horace. Hilmon was the one where MERS swore Article III was not applicable to promissory notes.
Presuming some credibility for the claims made in this post, it wouldn’t be possible if not for MERS.
MERS HAS TO GO.
FNMA closing is a signal the banksters / WS won. FNMA has no business in securitization imo, has no business guaranteeing bonds, even if the borrower pays for that guarantee in the g fee because time has shown that where bs is available to be carried out, it will be. If fnma doesn’t securitize the loans it buys from lenders, it likely won’t be able to offer competitive pricing for those loans and the lenders will go elsewhere; this imo is predictable and has been predicted. F & F and an RFC (jumbo, alt A), say, were adequate secondary sources of funding, essentially, because lenders could get their moolah back by sales to them, make some money, and then make more loans. Lenders had warehouse lines which provided the temp funds for closing. It was a system which wasn’t broken. The banksters broke it. Whether or not MERS’ existance were meant to enable the bad acts or was a bi-product, they wouldn’t have happened without it. F & F don’t need to go (although they sure as hell need to have some folks at the helm with some i n t e g r i t y); MERS and securitization do. And while the
people we pay are at it, if any state’s law doesn’t mandate recordation of assignments in interests in real property, they sure as sam-shooting should. Following Hilmon and Glaski, the next battle is the allegedly
executed but unrecorded assigments.
MERS HAS TO GO AND TAKE SECURITIZATION WTH IT.
Refuse to sign a “MERS” dot or mortgage.
Although the jury found US BANK liable for ‘actual’ fraud 2 months ago, I was not able to expose the deeper level of why there were 4 loan numbers with my info- and Neil explains it well. Apparently they ‘closed’ on a residential loan with my info ten days before they closed on the commercial loan they actually gave me. So aside from defrauding me, they defrauded other banks, investors and the government too. The FBI, however, isn’t interested.. unless of course 60 minutes catches on.
Losingmyhome…,
Reverse mortgages are an atrocity people should learn to stay away from.
Following is the list of reasons why. And it doesn’t come from illiterate Joe Schmo fringe blogger.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2012/12/11/5-reasons-to-avoid-a-reverse-mortgage
At this juncture, whether his house is owned by WF, the pope or his own dog doesn’t make much difference for your father in law: he kept all the liabilities attached to the house and got rid of all the equity. I’ve been speaking against reverse mortgages since the first day I studied what really was taking place. Bad deal.
Print the article and give it to him but ask yourself first: if he were to learn the truth, would it help him or would it hurt him? What would he be able to do about it?
my father n law got a reverse mortgage with wells fargo and it is not recorded. but when you speak to my father n law he “thinks” wells fargo owns his house. any suggestions on how to break it to the family that wells fargo is liar corporation?
Thanks elexquisitor. Watching it now.
Unfortunately, our country is up for the highest bidder. The giant Ponzi scheme still goes on. As for the people who say that there is no scheme because of the number of people who would have to be involved, well, they all made money at each stage. They also committed crimes, so why would they reveal they had committed a crime in order to make money? At least 6 to 10 people/entities on each loan origination–they all made money on the deal. Most of them did not see the entire trail of infamy, but they were a part of it. If any one of them knew their participation was a crime, they are not going to open their mouths to anyone about it.
@TU – as for regulators, this video just about ‘splains it all – http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=thgMVYl8EbM&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXvi7RNr8s4A%26feature%3Dshare
Confidential settlers.
The savior of One.
The remedy is outside the courts.
The plan was put in place a long time ago.
You can’t claim a loss until someone steals your property.
Then when you use the system to get it back, you find the system is corrupt and nested with appeals to further seal the theft as final and make it more legitimate.
The best remedy for me was to be robbed against my free will, make it known in a court of law I was robbed and let them prove there is no justice and leave that system alone. For me, the remedy was NOT to appeal the decision. I was not supposed to be pulled into their space anyway. I had peaceful enjoyment and possession of property and someone had a piece of paper claiming to be owed and at best a modified accounting printut showing I paid them since February of that year when from SEC filings they stepped into ownership of the business in November of that year.
I gave info of the onion and its layers to the AG and it was used to help uncover more fraud in the 49 state settlement (I think California refused to sign, and Texas was signed by an attorney not elected by the people, not the AG, but some guy in El Paso. The rest of the states their AG sold them out.
So people spend some money to save their home from being stolen and walk away with millions of dollars in hush money and then come online and talk ‘she-ite’ to the rest of us for not having it like they have it; or knowing it like they know it.
Then some of us know how to go outside the circle; and think outside of the box, and try another way to pull back the curtain. Pulling back the curtain with AG only resulted in more hush money and a settlement….people are still being robbed, so hows that working out for us?
But get to the right agency that can’t be bought out, and apparently a legal agency likes money, then you can really get some results.
Seeing Neil’s statement of multiple foreclosures on the same mortgage, I think of that infamous 1099A sent to the IRS from two supposed creditors. I had talked to the IRS once and they knew my home was ‘supposedly foreclosed’ and I said I was robbed.
It would be nice if an agency like that pulled back those curtains and traced the money. Easy to trace unless someone really knows how to stop the money trail.
I don’t know what’s opening the curtain and lifting the veil but I like it.
The people are the true creditors. No money comes into circulation but with the signature of the living male or female. God created male and female the true creditors on earth. Lord God created the man on the land when he created Adam from the ground and woman from man’s rib.
I know, and most people don’t know a true day is the evening and the morning.
But again, we see what is shown to us or we do our own searching and don’t step into the holes they created for us.
Now the bankruptcy stuff is final, and the appeal stuff is final, but the first court who helped them steal our homes against our free will, well the funding for that theft is traceable, and some attorney is going to have to explain how he stepped into a fiduciary position without notifying the trustee of the estate of what he was doing and how he intercepted funds that belonged to an estate.
Yeah, you’ll pay millions when it’s a subset of what you received and the homeowner will take the pittance of a settlement and think they got away good. Live large for a few years and be pilfered later through some other fraud.
I’ve read enough stories of millions received from bankers only for them to use the other agencies at their beck and call to take it all back.
Worst case, some bogus legal claim from a legal agency and spending all that money back into the system trying to fight off a bogus claim.
Only opinions, and these words don’t matter unless and until they are deemed true.
For those that don’t think anything is happening or nothing is changing. The world sees what we don’t, and they no longer want to purchase our bond(age) from mortgages where the homeowner is going to be robbed of their property with the help of the courts, and they no longer want to purchase our ( bond(age)s from municipalities that are imprisoning people because their dog got out, or they don’t have a seat belt on, or walked across the street and was accused of jaywalking even if no traffic was affected or no one got injured. They don’t want the bond(age)s from the cases filed in court to steal people’s children under false complaints that aren’t verified and aren’t real.
They don’t want our currency because it is used to rob peole of their possession, whether they purchase a bond that has no asset behind it, or a bond that has enslaved another to labor for years in preparation to be robbed using the legal system and ‘pay for what you need’ paperwork.
In protecting their pensions, judges and lawyers have ensured the demise of their retirements and if it can be found they operated illegally in their states against the People, or did unlawful things without the authority to do so, well it’s jail time for them as the Pope Francis’s Motu Proprio removed their immunity. The Vatican city state, a private jurisdiction within itself, is also doing it’s own reform with the Vatican bank.
There’s not much you can hide from the Creator, all men are endowed with. We may be asleep at times, but no one knows what alarm awakes us to all that was hidden and lifts the veil.
Vatican bank granted reprieve by Pope Francis after series of scandals
..”thousands of accounts have been vetted – and several hundred closed – in a bid to comply with international standards…”
The last debt owed is to mankind, (A phrase I heard on a video on youtube and it rang true for me)
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, People, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
This 2-hr movie explains “why”. Skip to about 40 min to get to the part about the pecking order of wealth – http://www.thrivemovement.com
Cause the government allows it! We the people are absolutely nothing but a revenue stream…we “must” work, that’s the point of credit, home ownership and stuff.
We are starting to resemble the old USSR…limited in our ability to buy, sell, work, communicate, be self-sufficient, own anything and be free of tyrant public servants…and anything government owned, operated, right down to small townships is corrupt and spending your money on everything but you and your community, no matter what you race, color or affiliation.
Simple: as evidenced by the recent ruling from the Supreme Court, government is officially up for grabs by the biggest bidder. Regulatory agencies are part of government.
The dog doesn’t bite the hand that feeds him. Can’t compete with the corporations. Banks are corporations. There won’t be any end in sight until people unite and take action.
The thing I do not understand. Is how is this shit
still going on !!