Re-REMIC: Adding Insult to Injury

For more information, please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This article should not be used as a substitute for advice from a licensed professional.


see RE-REMICS Deloitte’s Speaking of Securitization_The Re-Remic Phenomenon

Apparently back in June, 2009 Deloitte published an article for general use about the process of “Re-REMIC.” The article corroborates what I have been saying since 2007. First, the original trusts mostly don’t exist anymore. Second the purported (i.e., nonexistent) assets of the trusts are scattered to the winds and the investors have received bonds from a new special purpose vehicle. Third, the investment banks are avoiding disclosure requirements on something that would ordinarily be insisted upon by investors and regulators alike. Fourth, the article introduces the term “static pool information” which corroborates the fact that all other information is fluid — i.e., they are changing the Mortgage Loan Schedule at will. Fifth, all of that means that the investment banks are covering up the fact that the REMIC Trust had no business or assets by using the Re-REMIC process as a further layer to penetrate, much like organized crime does with shell corporations with zero balance accounts used as conduits.

Because of securities law concerns and SEC registration fees, the vast majority of RE-REMICs are done as 144A private placements. The public deals would most likely be deals from dealer inventory with the underlying REMIC bonds coming from prior deals of that same dealer. If a sponsor were to do a RE-REMIC as a public offering, the offering and the applicable disclosures would be subject to the rules applicable to public offerings generally (including those pertaining to liability) for all of the disclosures required in the prospectus by Regulation AB concerning the underlying REMIC securities, including static pool information.

Note that while this is put out by Deloitte, the use of private placements eliminates the need for a SEC level audit — which would have revealed the absence of any transactions conducted by the REMIC Trust.

When the underlying bonds are from deals that were brought to market by unaffiliated issuers, the sponsor of the RE-REMIC would likely not want to be subject to the additional rules and regulations applicable to public offerings covering data for which they have no control over its preparation and for which, as a practical matter, they may be unable to obtain.

For those with the knowledge and stomach to read it, you will see in the article the way that “value” is a process of smoke and mirrors — far away from the assessment of value that the same banks would allow if they were taking any risk instead of acting as an intermediary for multiple entities in parallel transactions.

Yes it’s complicated and convoluted. But that was always the point. The idea is to get people like you to feel that you are in over your heads and jump to the safer conclusion that they must have known what they were doing and it must be as they say. Yes they knew exactly what they were doing which is why they should be prosecuted. No, it isn’t OK. Just look a the results — the banks are bigger and reporting more profits than ever while the rest of the economy is still limping. Why? Because the banks are holding the juice (Trillions of dollars) that was in the economy until they sucked it all out.

Judges seem to think they don’t need to know any of this, that they can keep it simple and come to the right conclusion supportable by the facts. But they don’t have the facts. They have representations of the facts by attorneys, “business records”, and robo-witnesses. The answer is if you want the truth, then you need to drill down much deeper than what the banks are presenting in court.

The interesting question that will haunt auditors is when the truth comes out about the empty trusts that were retired long before a foreclosure was brought in the name of the Trust. The question will be how did the bank auditors not know?

43 Responses

  1. September 16, 2009
    Recent Government Guidance on REMICs and Loan Modifications

    The US Treasury and Internal Revenue Service released two pieces of guidance yesterday, a Revenue Procedure effective as of January 1, 2008, and Regulations effective on or after September 16, 2009, that expand a real estate mortgage investment conduit’s (REMIC) ability to modify a mortgage loan without triggering certain negative tax consequences to the REMIC. In theory, this guidance provides borrowers with greater flexibility than they currently have to negotiate a loan modification when a REMIC holds the loan.

    In Revenue Procedure 2009-45, the IRS provides a safe harbor allowing REMICs to modify certain mortgage loans without concern that the IRS will challenge its tax status as a REMIC or assert that the modification was a prohibited transaction under the REMIC rules. Generally, a “significant” loan modification can cause a termination of a REMIC’s favorable tax status or give rise to a prohibited transaction tax. The regulations currently mitigate the potential harshness of the rule with respect to troubled loans, however, by providing that loan modifications are not “significant” under the REMIC rules if the modifications are “occasioned by default or a reasonably foreseeable default.”

    Under the current climate, the Treasury and IRS believe that REMICs should be able to work with borrowers in danger of default prior to the time that a default occurs or the loan is non-performing. Therefore, if all of the following conditions are met, the IRS will not assert that a REMIC’s modification of a mortgage loan calls into question the REMIC’s tax status and the IRS will not contend that the modifications are prohibited transactions under the REMIC rules. The conditions are as follows:

    The existing mortgage is not secured by a residence that contains fewer than five dwelling units and that is the principal residence of the issuer of the loan.

    As of three (3) months after the REMIC’s startup day, no more than 10 percent of the stated principal of all the REMIC’s assets consisted of mortgage loans in which the payments were then overdue by 30 days or more or for which default was reasonably foreseeable.

    Based on all the facts and circumstances, the mortgage holder or servicer reasonably believes that there is a significant risk of default of the loan upon maturity of the loan or at an earlier date.

    Based on all the facts and circumstances, the mortgage holder or servicer reasonably believes that the modified loan presents a substantially reduced risk of default, as compared with the pre-modification loan.

    It appears that the Revenue Procedure is intended to deal with some of the issues regarding the “stickiness” of loans in a REMIC because it is generally the case that REMICs will often not begin even to entertain consideration of modification of a loan until it has been in default for several months. The Revenue Procedure clearly indicates that it is not necessary to wait until there is a default before the loan can be modified. However, while the Revenue Procedure allows a REMIC greater flexibility in negotiating a loan modification with a borrower, it remains to be seen whether the REMIC would be willing to exercise that flexibility due to the “facts and circumstances” test required to fall under the Revenue Procedure’s safe harbor.

    In TD 9463, the Treasury and IRS finalized regulations that expand the list of permitted loan modifications that do not trigger the “significant modification” rules discussed above. Thus, while these regulations provide a different set of rules than the Revenue Procedure, both increase a REMIC’s ability to modify loans without affecting its tax status or triggering a prohibited transaction tax. These regulations provide that the following modifications do not result in a significant modification under the REMIC rules:

    a release of a lien on real property that does not result in a significant modification under Treasury Regulation Section 1.1001-3; and,

    changing a loan from recourse to nonrecourse and vice versa.

    Additionally, the Regulations provide a REMIC with more flexibility in retesting the value of real estate securing a modified loan, including the ability to retest without a formal appraisal.”


    sort of explains lack of modifications (x what about hamp etc funds?)

  3. Forms 1099­A, B, C, INT, LTC, MISC, OID, R, S, and SA.

    Use these information returns to report acquisitions
    or abandonments of secured property; proceeds from broker and barter exchange transactions; cancellation of debt; interest income; ……”

  4. Guaranteed Single-Family REMIC Pass-Through Certificates

    The Certificates

    We, the Federal National Mortgage Association or Fannie Mae, will issue the guaranteed single-family REMIC pass-through certificates. Each series of certificates will have its own identification
    number and will represent beneficial ownership interests in the assets of a trust. The assets of each series trust will include one or more of the following:

    • underlying securities issued by Fannie Mae that represent the direct or indirect ownership of residential mortgage loans secured by single-family (one- to four-unit) properties; or

    • underlying securities issued by entities not affiliated with Fannie Mae that represent the direct or indirect ownership of residential mortgage loans secured by single-family properties; or

    • residential mortgage loans secured by single-family properties.
    Each series of certificates will consist of two or more classes having various characteristics.

    Fannie Mae Guaranty

    We guarantee to each series trust that we will supplement amounts received by the series trust as required to permit payment of interest and principal on the certificates to the extent described in
    the related prospectus supplement. We alone are responsible for making payments under our guaranty.

    The certificates and payments of principal and interest on the certificates are not guaranteed by the United States, and do not constitute a debt or obligation of the United States or any of its agencies or instrumentalities other than Fannie Mae.

    REMIC Status

    For federal income tax purposes, we will elect to treat all or a portion of each series trust as at least one “real estate mortgage investment conduit,” commonly referred to as a REMIC. At least one class of certificates in each series will be the “residual interest” in a REMIC. Except as otherwise specified in the related prospectus supplement, each class that is not a “residual interest” will be a “regular interest” in a REMIC…………..”

    Taken from one example re: FNMA’s guarantee:

    Imo, a loan (allegedly) in a trust comprised of FNMA loans can never be in default and can never appropriately be the foreclosing entity. Further, FNMA not only makes money (or could) on these deals,-diff between their own strike price and amt of certs sold succinctly- but it also, because of its guarantee, essentially borrows the money of the investors when they buy certs its guaranteed. I say borrowed because the investor’ funds have to be repaid at / with the stated interest.
    FNMA generally has to make 4 payments in order to end its guarantee
    (the trust is never not paid and thus has no claim to f/c rights). FNMA would, ‘as long as’ it makes those 4 payments and repurchases and as long as the trust hasn’t been terminated.
    lay opinions


    more info re: termination of remic status (if remic status ever attained in the first place)

  6. “If an entity electing to be treated as a REMIC fails to comply with one or more of the ongoing requirements of the Internal Revenue Code for that status during any taxable year,

    the Internal Revenue Code provides that the entity will NOT be treated as a REMIC FOR THAT YEAR AND THEREAFTER.

    In that event, the entity may be taxable as a separate corporation under Treasury regulations, and the related REMIC certificates may not be accorded the status or given the tax treatment described in the form of base prospectus included in the Registration Statement under “Material Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

    Although the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the Treasury Department to issue regulations providing relief in the event of an inadvertent termination of REMIC status, no regulations have been issued. Any relief, moreover, may be accompanied by
    sanctions, including the imposition of a corporate tax on all or a portion of the trust’s income for the period in which the requirements for that status are not satisfied. The pooling and servicing agreement or trust agreement with respect to each REMIC will include provisions designed to maintain the trust’s status as a REMIC
    under the REMIC Provisions…..”

  7. a gentle reminder that there is a follow up call to Neil tonite…

    Garfield’s Goose & Friends with your host, greg

    (every Thursday night starting 15 minutes right after Neil’s show)

    Call in at (724) 444-7444 (then use Call ID: 139335) then “0” for guest
    and/or use your computer to blog/type at
    6:45 PM Eastern Thursdays (for 60 min)

    please use the phone line to speak and ask questions
    computer access will only allow you to hear and type into the blog…

  8. oh.. while you are at it – Google “Friendly Creditor”


    i think what is going on is that internal to the banks, they all agree to accept unsecured debt notes from each other and negotiate them as cash, and have a “gentleman’s agreement” to never come back to collect on them, rather, to keep re-using them through derivatives and amplify their concocted money – which of course because they are banks, can write checks against these bogus book entry accounts without getting caught…

  9. our government administrators are crack (Cash) addicts and we supply the crack! time to stop supporting their addiction….

  10. WHAT IS A 3031 EXCHANGE?

    Under Section 1031 of the United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 1031), the exchange of certain types of property may defer the recognition of capital gains or losses due upon sale, and hence defer any capital gains taxes otherwise due.

    shadow – this still does not explain how a newly formed trust with empty tanks (no RES) can purchase an asset with nothing more than a debt note…

    UNLESS OF COURSE we have been right all along and OUR notes are ALSO money and created the source funding for all transactions in the US including our home purchase…

    AND if that is true, WE ARE EACH THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR who extended funds into the system to buy our homes and they were paid in full at the closing table or consummation…

    That in fact WE LOANED THE BANK THE MONEY and they tricked us into thinking that they loaned us the money – all they did was facilitate the negotiation of our note – and then made a huge profit on it and conned us into heaping even more debt notes (Federal Reserve Notes) onto the pile…


    That is the prerogative of the King/Queen… just like how the Queen of England can withdraw her faith in Parliament and force a new election without anyone else’s consent…

    Here in the Republic of North America (USA) – WE are each the vessel of sovereignty, we ARE the government, individually and collectively, and we should each be free to support or not a body of administrators which has gone against our will and does cause us harm…

    Read the Declaration of Independence and just insert ANY GOVERNMENT instead of OLD KING GEORGE’S Government

  11. 1031 Exchange


  13. again… How can you pay for something with the thing you are buying?

  14. CAPS were NOT intended as a YELL…
    sorry if interpreted that way

  15. The “invisotrusts” are an integral part of the scam. Fannie and Freddie are in on it, too, because they were supposed to be wound down but that never happened. The banks are rigging up a new bubble, because they have not been broken up and put out of business. Fannie and Freddie should be wound down, too. If you want to buy a house, buy it outright.

  16. Remain calm. All is good. Let’s find a thesis that can be used as an exhibit.


    greg, on November 3, 2015 at 4:16 pm said:


    How can the newly formed trust (container) issue “notes” of its own in payment for the bonds (RES) being transferred into it when it is an empty vessel UNTIL the bonds are transferred into it?

    How can you pay for something with the thing you are buying?

  18. louise, on November 3, 2015 at 4:17 pm said:

    Unfortunately, this link does not go to an actual thesis just possible thesis’ about foreclosure.


  19. Unfortunately, this link does not go to an actual thesis just possible thesis’ about foreclosure.

  20. question:

    How can the newly formed trust (container) issue “notes” of its own in payment for the bonds (RES) being transferred into it when it is an empty vessel UNTIL the bonds are transferred into it?

    How can you pay for something with the thing you are buying?

    excerpt from referenced article:
    “During 2008, the bank formed a wholly-owned subsidiary, [ABC Bank] Resecuritization Trust 2008-1 (the “Trust”), for the purpose of resecuritizing its portfolio of corporate sponsored CMOs. The bank transferred all of its right, title, and other ownership interests in the CMOs to the Trust in exchange for notes issued by the Trust (the “Notes”). These resecuritized bonds were rated by independent rating agencies giving consideration to the purchase discounts and credit enhancements associated with each specific bond. The Notes were then rated. As of March 31, 2009, 25.1% of the Notes were rated below investment grade by the investment rating agencies. These Note ratings were risk weighted in accordance with the bank’s reading of applicable regulatory capital guidance. This guidance, however, does not contemplate the specific type of resecuritization transaction undertaken by the bank. After discussions with the FDIC, the bank was told to file its December 31, 2008 call report based on the bank’s understanding of the risk-based capital treatment of the resecuritized portfolio of CMOs. In April 2009, the FDIC informed the bank that because it had not sold any of the Notes, it could not rely on its
    interpretation of the applicable regulatory guidance.”

  21. a google search of doctoral candidates’ thesis within the past year on the topic of foreclosure…

  22. google “p938” and “20xx” (the year of your alleged REMIC trust)

    you will get a hit on the PDF report with contact info for your so-called trust, including CUSIP#, etc.

    save it to your PC

    you may need to lookup and save the following year’s report if it was executed late in the year…

    just search the document for your specific trust (e.g. 2004-he8)

    now you know who to contact for information on proof that your mortgage is really in there and when it allegedly was placed there

    read the instructions for requesting info on pages 1-2

    example ––2004.pdf

  23. bucketing (redirected from Bucketeering)
    The practice in which a brokerage that agrees to buy or sell securities on behalf of clients at a given price instead buys at a lower price or sells at a higher price in order to keep the difference as profit. Bucketing is illegal in the United States because it is a violation of the brokerage’s fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the client (in this case, to find the best available price). Brokerages that routinely engage in bucketing are known as bucket shops. The practice is occasionally called bucketeering. See also: Profiteering, Bucketeer.
    Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved
    M, also, I see that we must go through the mortgage document line by line, because it is loaded with “deals” where the borrower signed against his own best interest because there was no full disclosure at the time of the closing and no time to read the terrible documents.

  24. iv) such assignment is at the request of the borrower under the related
    Mortgage Loan.

    so were did we say this is ok, and were did we sign the request , for changing our mortgage s, and notes. by .25% ?? that is allot of money difference in
    interest charges on 300,000 dollar mortgage. at lets say 6.75 that would mean about 400,485.94 now lets take 6.50 and that would be about,380,000.

    that’s a big difference. more than 35.00 dollars, tila/respa

    now lets take it further , shell we, 35000 x 10 loan 350,000 x100 loans, 3.5 million, 1000 loans 35 million . right off the top. now x that by millions of trust. that’s trillions .

  25. Insofar as “DERIVATIVE, SHORT-SALE BETS” placed against any given “borrowers” ability to pay their mortgage…

    Those “bets” are now a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    The banks took advantage of borrower naivety in telling those borrowers to skip 3 months payments in order to be accepted for a modification.

    The banks also played any number of criminal frauds against borrowers to obtain default judgements: fraud, forgery, false witness (robo-signing) etc…

    The STOOGES on the bench believe they are protecting their gambling addiction in the “Stock Market” and thereby procuring safe harbor for their pensions…

    Their pensions are worthless… Just ask any banker…

    But he won’t tell you.

    The end game is to undermine the American Dollar.

    Wake Up!

  26. Insofar as: private “Trusts”-

    Google: “Bucketeering”.

    The “Trusts” filled with phony “loans” are operating out of a bucket owned and operated solely, by the criminals that are gaming the system.

  27. such assignment is at the request of the borrower under the related
    Mortgage Loan. show me were I requested that change in my mortgage contract.

  28. this would say that they changed the mortgages by .25 percent in interest rates, without our permission or knowledge,
    this would also make a difference in the calculation for disclosures that needed to be given to homeowners, tila/respa.
    they made changes to our mortgages and notes,

    I would say they would be void, the borrower never sign the new mortgage and note stating the .25 % change in interest being charged.
    no meeting of minds.

    _____, 20__
    Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc.
    8400 Normandale Lake Boulevard
    Suite 250
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437

    Wells Fargo Center
    Sixth and Marquette Avenue
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55479-0113

    Attention: Corporate Trust Services–GMACM 2006-J1
    Re: GMACM Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
    2006-J1 Assignment of Mortgage Loan

    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    This letter is delivered to you in connection with the assignment
    by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the “Trustee”) to (the “Lender”) of
    (the “Mortgage Loan”) pursuant to Section 3.13(d) of the Pooling and Servicing
    Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), dated as of February 27, 2006
    among Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., as seller (the “Company”), GMAC
    Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer, and the Trustee. All terms used herein and
    not otherwise defined shall have the meanings set forth in the Pooling and
    Servicing Agreement. The Lender hereby certifies, represents and warrants to,
    and covenants with, the Servicer and the Trustee that:

    (i) the Mortgage Loan is secured by Mortgaged Property located in a jurisdiction
    in which an assignment in lieu of satisfaction is required to preserve lien
    priority, minimize or avoid mortgage recording taxes or otherwise comply with,
    or facilitate a refinancing under, the laws of such jurisdiction;

    (ii) the substance of the assignment is, and is intended to be, a refinancing of
    such Mortgage Loan and the form of the transaction is solely to comply with, or
    facilitate the transaction under, such local laws;

    (iii) the Mortgage Loan following the proposed assignment will be modified to
    have a rate of interest at least 0.25 percent below or above the rate of
    interest on such Mortgage Loan prior to such proposed assignment; and

    (iv) such assignment is at the request of the borrower under the related
    Mortgage Loan.

    Very truly yours,

  29. Because the “loans” are “operating” through the servicers, the revenue streams never become suspect.

    After all, everyone in the whole dog-and-pony show is getting what they were promised as a percentage of their interest in the “loans” they were told the banks gave at 5%.

    Of course, the banks have beaten the tax man, beaten the ratings agencies, beaten the LIBOR, beaten the investors…


    And destroyed the Rule Of Law…


    What’s left…?

    Oh yeah… the borrowers.

    The bankers have concealed any number of criminal behaviors thus far and not gotten caught…


    The bankers decide to place bets against the very “loans” they know don’t exist in the first place…


    These short sale bets are now estimated as owing 1200 Trillion to the international central banking cartel…

    If now is not the time to utterly destroy these stinking filth, I don’t know when that time will ever come.

  30. On the banker’s books:

    It is about assets and liabilities- one offsets the other.

    The banker’s books must come into the light of day.

    Presently, the banks control the regulators so nobody gets to have a gander at their glaring insolvency.

    Boobs will say: “The banks aren’t insolvent, they own gazillions”.

    That is precisely the point…

    They own gazillions of dollars in liability, while their “assets” are worthless.

    The “Trusts” don’t own the loans the bankers claim as “assets”.

    The Remics never came into possession of legitimacy because the bankers gamed the system in order to beat the taxman.

    They gamed the LIBOR to their advantage, also as an example.

    So… here’s your loan… let’s say 100k.

    The bank tells you that you will pay the 100k back with a monthly rate and interest attached.

    The bank tells you: “The interest is 5%”.

    The bank then fraudulently manipulates that 5% interest by telling their underwriters: “I promised a loan at 5%, but, let’s not tell the borrower, and you, the underwriter adjust the interest to 3% that way the bank can pocket 2%”.

    The underwriters did that in every country on the planet with loans of every type and description.

    The banks then took a look at the fact no one caught them…


    They went to investors and said: “we want you to buy revenue streams on groups of loans we bundled together and now we call them REMIC “TRUSTS”.

    The investors gave the money.

    The banks fraudulently manipulated the interest rates on the loans by gaming the LIBOR to their advantage. Then they paid those loans in full using investor money.

    Then the banks created “Private Trusts” and put the groups of loans in those “Private Trusts”…


    Now, instead of collecting 2% on a loan they told the borrower was 5%, the banks collect the whole 5% FOR THE DURATION OF THE LOAN…



  31. The review, however, is a sign that the widespread bank misdeeds in home foreclosure cases are spilling over to threaten the interests of investors in mortgage-backed securities. The banks originated the mortgages and packaged them into securities.

    These banks’ transgressions, confirmed in court decisions and through recent action by federal bank regulators, include the failure to formally transfer ownership of mortgages to the trusts that invested in them and the subsequent creation of fraudulent mortgage assignments and other false documents.

    These investment trusts already have suffered big drops in income because of vast numbers of mortgage defaults after the housing boom collapse. They have been hurt too because in an increasing number of instances they have been blocked by courts from foreclosing on defaulted mortgages. The courts ruled that because the trusts never received the required documents establishing that they owned the mortgages, they have no standing to foreclose

  32. I would not be holding paper certificates…
    I prefer hands on silver rounds and bars, real hard, hands on assets.

  33. iwantmynpv,

    I follow Ellen Brown.

    The Germans masquerading as English are the central bankers. I know. I get it.

    Anyway, the competition to their phony currency is the “Greenback”… and it still exists as a viable alternative.

    Some people believe JFK was fixin to bring it back.

    I have loads of silver certificates.

  34. @ michael keane – Do you have any silver certificates – it took the Fed about 50 years but they have drained the system of the only competing currency to the debt they issue.

    Kennedy proved one thing – a great idea and a convertible can change the world.

    As a quick note, and since after 7 years we are making our way to an important topic…

    Guess who the largest purchaser is for the offerings done through private placement. If any of you can guess it, you will finally see how money works and realize it is just a big cycle with different entities picking off small percentages of the rotating principal, mostly through fees and non accountable expense.

    Michael, since you are pretty smart, take a look at the creation of SS, what occurred immediately before its creation, and why Sen. McFadden was shot at, poisoned and knifed.

  35. I have seen somewhere on the Net that the “administration” is looking at REMICS and that should be very interesting.

  36. Mr Garfield has written:

    “Because the banks are holding the juice (Trillions of dollars) that was in the economy until they sucked it all out.”.

    I don’t agree.

    The Trillions they are “holding” as “Notional Derivatives” will, ultimately “suck the life out of them”.

    In fact, the banks are presently insolvent.

    As a result, the banks have created a hyper-inflated balloon that is composed of a thin veneer of banker arrogance, while filled with TRILLIONS in American Dollars.

    The Trillions belong to We The People.

    The Constitution and the Rule Of LAW are the refuge of We The People.

    The end game will require a currency change if the Constitution and Rule of Law are suborned by a thin veneer of banker arrogance.

    Abraham already saw this coming: hence, the “Greenback”.

    It is up to We The People to gather the thin veneer of arrogance and fashion from it a suitable choker with which to rob the bankers of their air and thus deflate their attack on the Sovereignty of We The People.

  37. PPM agreements have two trusts.
    Or should have…..

  38. Private Placement Mortgages (PPM) are not registered with the SEC. .
    To avoid regulations and oversight.

    You want the PPM agreements.

  39. Organized criminal banking has opted to cheat the taxman.

    Those with a gambling addiction – Wall Street Investments – feel they are safe- what a JOKE!

    1913- create the fraud that is the central bank
    1913- create the fraud that is the IRS
    1913- both parties play off one another and thereby rig the game for their superiors- foreign banking interests.

    The IRS has a rare shot at LEGITIMACY in this argument.

    Certainly, in this day and age, taxes are necessary…

    So… a CORPORATOCRACY has opted to skirt the taxman… and TRILLIONS ARE OWED TO THE PUBLIC COFFERS!

    HMMM… lemme think… As a taxman should I choose to ignore the LAW and thereby lose any reason why I am here in the first place…



Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: