Click in tonite— tune in at The Neil Garfield Show
Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Thursdays
Guest Host Tonight is Jim Macklin, Managing Director, Secure Document Research located in Nevada. He has been a guest on the show before. A dynamic speaker and presenter, he has assisted me in presenting seminars for CLE credit for lawyers. His guest is Dan Edstrom, senior forensic analyst for the Livinglies Team.
His Topic today will be how tax law determines ownership interests in REMIC assets. For you newcomers, REMIC means Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit — it is the trust (usually under New York Law) that supposedly was funded by investors through the broker-dealer that sold the alleged mortgage bonds to pension funds and other stable managed funds.
For those of you who have pondered how a stable managed fund got involved despite restrictions as to what risks are acceptable in investment strategies the answer is simple — they had a guarantee from the servicer and/or the trust and/or the trustee that they would receive the money each month including principal, interest, taxes and insurance REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE BORROWER PAID. Dan Edstrom and Jim Macklin were the first ones to bring this to my attention. It affects the alleged existence of a default when the creditor is getting paid, the terms of the alleged loan contract, and the alleged balance claimed as owed under the mortgage loan.
Filed under: CORRUPTION, 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, Neil Garfield Show, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee |
All, I need some assistance and advice. We received a Notice of Foreclosure a few months back. I have still been corresponding with Wells Fargo telling them they have no standing. After several QWR’s and letters to OCC and CFPB, WF responded with more documents than they did in the past. This time they included 2 Allonge Notes which I had never seen before. Keep in mind that they did not respond with the documents even to OCC and CFPB. Then it clicked I went on to the Baltimore More Public Records and there it is a Deed of Trust had been posted there on the 11th of this month. I have not been able to view it yet, but I can imagine what it is. I need some help on which way I should go with this. I need to know what I need to do in order to prove that the documents are Fraudulent. I am sure they are. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. James 443-677-2799, Thanks
“….they had a guarantee from the servicer and/or the trust and/or the trustee that they would receive the money each month including principal, interest, taxes and insurance REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE BORROWER PAID. Dan Edstrom and Jim Macklin were the first ones to bring this to my attention. It affects the alleged existence of a default when the creditor is getting paid, the terms of the alleged loan contract, and the alleged balance claimed as owed under the mortgage loan.”
1) it affects first and foremost imo whether or not any sale qualifies
as a true sale (no assumption of risk).
What does it mean if it’s not a true sale? No remic status?
IF, as so and so here opines, the guaranteed advances are merely
loans to the trust pursuant to the PSA (on non-gse loans), what does that mean and why bother, except to artificially, and imo wrongfully, affect the market value of the certs? Exactly whom is apprised when
servicers are making these alleged advances / loans to the trust?
I say:
A remic trust may not enter into a loan agreement. It may not create a liability of this order.
I own Nike stock (not really). Nike got someone to guarantee payments on a loan it got. The payments, if any, made by the someone aren’t due for a year after the completion of the contract. The third ends up having in fact to make payments. But, to the public, Nike appears to be making good on its contractual payments and its stock holds steady. A year after the contract completion, Nike has to repay the substantial loan. Its stocks takes a hit. I don’t know a lot about stocks, but that strikes me as a manipulation of the value of Nike stock. (Not foreclosing on properties (allegedly) in default imo is likely tied to not recognizing the devaluation of the collateral on someone’s books, or like that.) Why guarantee payment if it’s a loan? All is does imo is what I said: artificially impact the value of the certificates.
(Psst…good customer. You might wanna get out of that deal because the trust actually owes a million or so in advance loans and the lender of those funds is going to take its out of the property sale proceeds and your certs aren’t worth what they appear to be today).
REMIC my butt.The IRS has not and will not prosecute because they wanted the banks to rip us off.The US Treasury,FED RES, and IRS are owned and operated by the Zionist JEWS, and the TALMUD says to rob the Gentiles of all their wealth.
Ewwwh! Ewwwwh! I know who does the write-ups in Lexis. It’s offshored to India! That way there’s no recourse, and Lexis can support a shoddy product with increased profits by using foreign labor.
Saaaayyy … isn’t that the problem behind all these foreclosures anyway? Lack of jobs for Americans?
James is a great speaker! I’ve heard him at one of Neil’s courses.
Get this—–Chase, per their PSAs actually gets to take monies paid by homeowner in the ‘collection’ account and then Chase gets to invest it short term after it moves the money from the collection account to an intermediate account. Chase gets to keep all the money made as profit from the short term investment(s). Next Chase moves the monies left for the investors from the intermediate account to the ‘distribution’ account.
It’s too bad the homeowners cannot get their share of the profits made by Chase from that intermediate account.
ATTORNEY WHO GOT THE GOOD RULING FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE GALOPE MATTER DEMANDS RETRACTION FROM LEXIS NEXIS!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217537345/ATTORNEY-ALBERT-DEMANDS-RETRACTION-FROM-LEXIS-NEXIS-ABOUT-THE-HELEN-GALOPE-DEICISON-WHICH-WAS-FAVORABLE-FOR-THE-HOMEOWNER