By the Lending Lies Team
http://www.zillow.com/research/foreclosures-and-wealth-inequality-12523/
Losing your home by foreclosure to a bank that used fabricated documents to foreclose is a tragedy that has tainted the American dream for millions of Americans. The process is unjust, unlawful and dehumanizing. But even years after the former homeowner has moved forward with their lives they sustain another injury they are probably not even aware of- and that is the loss of rebound gains in the market.
Oddly, homes that are foreclosed on tend to gain value back at a higher rate than properties that have not been previously foreclosed according to real estate website Zillow who conducted research on the matter. Former owners missed out on potential profits generated by the “recovery” and therefore sustained even more financial harm. Instead, the profits went to governmental agencies, GSEs (Fannie/Freddie), hedge funds, investors and flippers who bought these properties for pennies on the dollar.
In the Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach, homes that were foreclosed had a 79 percent increase in price from the market’s lowest point. The research also shows that the homes that were foreclosed upon were the homes of lower-income people and young families.
These families who were illegally foreclosed upon were thrust into an inflated renters market where they likely secured accommodations that were inferior to the living conditions of the home they lost and even less affordable. The prior owner lost their down payment, any equity and any appreciation in home value. Many of these families may never recover from the financial slaughter they suffered.
“You had a ton of appreciation for these foreclosed homes, but the [prior] homeowners weren’t getting the benefits,” said Svenja Gudell, Zillow’s chief economist. “Lower-end and foreclosed homes were bought up by investors who would transform those homes into rental properties. … Had they held onto their home in many markets, homeowners would’ve made back their original investment plus much more.” The foreclosure crisis has contributed to the massive wealth gap that has evolved since the 2008 market crash.
Even more concerning are the actions of the Veteran’s Association that guarantees the loans of United States service members who obtain VA-guaranteed mortgages. The VA is not assisting veterans who served their country to retain their homes when default threatens. In fact, the VA is known to foreclose on the homes of veterans for pennies on the dollar, evict the veteran, hold the property and then sell the property at a large profit.
Recently the Lending Lies team learned of a veteran with health issues caused by Agent Orange exposure. The VA foreclosed on his home that had a remaining balance of 7k. The VA held the property for a year and then sold the home for over 100k. The displaced veteran who had paid on his home for decades did not share in the profits the VA made from the sale of his home.
Homeowners have the potential to be damaged at three different junctions during their loan: at closing, during default, and post-default. The homeowner is damaged at closing when they receive a table funded loan, there is no disclosure regarding WHO the true creditor is, and they are not told that they are signing a Note that is actually a security and not a mortgage. The homeowner does not receive disclosure that investors will make millions of dollars from the homeowner’s signature and is not told that he/she will carry all of the risk when the game of securitization is put into play.
A homeowner may be damaged during the term of their loan by the loan servicer who is looking for an opportunity to create a default so they can foreclose on the home. The homeowner may be given erroneous information by the servicer or may not receive service to resolve an issue that may occur during the life of the loan. The servicer may create a default by misapplying payments, inflating the balance by applying illegal fees, and other tactics to engineer a default. When a homeowner facing default contacts their loan servicer looking for assistance, the homeowner is not engaging with a servicer who is looking to find a solution. Instead, the homeowner is dealing with an agent who is trained to find the homeowner’s Achilles heel in which to exploit and create a default.
At this point the homeowner in default will experience the Foreclosure Machine where documents disappear into ether or magically transform, bank presidents have G.E.D’s, and due process means you had your three minutes in front of a judge. The majority of homeowners caught up in this stage of foreclosure will gladly do anything to end their misery. Despite their knowledge that the servicer foreclosing has no standing- the wounded homeowner may prefer to chew off their own arm to escape the clutches of attorneys, motions, and bank intimidation. This is the stage where the homeowner should refuse to back down and dig in their heels, but the majority flee.
After the homeowner has lost their home to an entity who had no standing to foreclose, the homeowner will suffer further economic decimation. The vultures who made millions off of the economic destruction of the American middle and lower-middle class will become their landlord. While the tenant works to make his monthly rental payment and is not building any equity, the landlord will sit back and collect the passive income while the foreclosed property appreciates at 18% plus a year.
Can there be any doubt that taking out a home mortgage from a mega-bank is not a method of middle-class mass destruction? Caveat Emptor.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: foreclosure fraud, lendinglies, Livinglies, mega banks foreclose, middle class mass destruction, mortgage fraud |
Lawyers unless unemployed do not understand what hand we were dealt. My husband worked in manufacturing If all the manufacturing jobs were sent over seas and there is 100 people applying to every job? What do you do at 52? So he went to school. No job placement assistance for the A/C business. As long as long the school got their money. Each company wants you to have 5 years experience. How? So here we are in foreclosure all coerced by the bank after asking for a hamp mod. Because jobs were difficult to find. But judges /lawyers think everyone of us is a deadbeat. When the opposite is true. We are the hard working Americans. The problem in foreclosure court it is us against them. Judges always choose them. Ignore the fact they don’t own their own money and they cannot lend their credit. So to a judge they fail to want to reveal they know the banks create money on demand with our signature. Of course we were never taught the real truth about our fake monetary system in government schools. We had to find out about it when trying to apply for a modification but the bank wanted foreclosure (by losing all documents). It’s truly a fight out here and it is going to come down to the judges decision in county and appeals. This is very sad 😢. What can we all do to stop this steamroller. how do we get the real truth out to the sleeping people about the true money system? everyone is just going about their daily lives asleep. happy monday
AND AS I SAID, WITH NO CONSUMMATION AT CLOSING, MR MARSHALL NEVER, BELANGER NEVER CONSUMMATED ANY MORTGAGE CONTRACT/ NOTE.
BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY PARTY TO THE FAKE CONTRACT THAT FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THERE CONCIDERATION, WITH SIGNING THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE,
AS REQUIRED, TO PERFORM. BUT GMAC MORTGAGE CORP. DID NOT PERFORM , I.E. LEND ANY MONEY AT CLOSING, AS WE HAVE THE WIRE TRANFER SHOWING THEY DID NOT FUND THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE AT CLOSING. CANT HAVE A LEGAL CONTRACT IF ONLY ONE OF THE PARTY’S. PERFORMS HIS OBLIGATIONS.
THIS MAKE , AS I SAID. RECISSION IS VALID. AND THEY HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THRU, THERE PART.
AND IT DOES GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO
RESCIND THE CONTRACT BASED ON ALL NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, THAT THE PARTY TO THE MORTGAGE /NOTE CONTRACT, DID NOT
FULFILL THERE DUTY AND DID NOT PREFORM IN ANY WAY AS REQUIRED TO HAVE A VALID BINDING CONTRACT.
Tonight we have a rebroadcast of a segment from Episode 15 with a guest who is a recent ex-patriot from 17 years in the mortgage banking industry… Scot started out as a escrow agent doing closings, then advanced to mortgage loan officer, processor, underwriter, branch manager, mortgage broker and loss mitigator for the banks. Interestingly, he says,
“Looking back on my career I don’t believe any mortgage closing that I was involved in was ever consummated.”
Tonight Scot will be covering areas relating to:
1 lack of disclosure and consideration
2 substitution of true mortgage contracting partner
3 unfunded loan agreements
4 non-existent trusts
5 securitization of your note and bifurcation of the security interest and
6 how to identify and prove the non-existence of the so-called trust named in an assignment which may be coming after you to foreclose
: http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-139335/TS-1093904.mp3
so lets look at what happen a the closing of the mortgage CONTRACT SHELL WE.
1/ MORTGAGE AND NOTES, SAYS A ( SPECIFIC LENDER) GAVE YOU MONEY, ( AS WE KNOW THAT DIDNT HAPPEN. )
2/ HOME OWNER WAS TOLD AT CLOSING AND BEFORE CLOSING THAT THE NAMED LENDER WOULD SUPPLY THE FUNDS AT CLOSING, AND WAS ALSO TOLD BY THE CLOSING AGENT , THE SAME LIE.
3/ THERE ARE 2 PARTYS TO A CLOSING OF A MORTGAGE AND NOTE, 1/ HOMEOWNER, 2/ LENDER.
3/ Offer and acceptance , Consideration,= SO HOMEOWNERS SIGN A MORTGAGE AND NOTE, IN CONSIDERATION of the said lender’s promises to pay the homeowner for said signing of the mortgage and note.
4/ but the lender does not, follow thru with his CONSIDERATION. I.E TO FUND THE CONTRACT. AND THE LENDER NAMED ON THE CONTRACT, KNEW ALL ALONG THAT HE WOULD NOT BE THE FUNDING SOURCE. FRAUD AT CONCEPTION. KNOWINGLY OUT RIGHT FRAUD ON THE HOMEOWNERS.
5/ THERE ARE NO STATUES OF LIMITATIONS ON FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, OR ANY OTHER FRAUD.
6/ SO AS NEIL AND AND LENDING TEAM, AND OTHERS HAVE POINTED OUT, SO SO MANY TIMES HERE AND OTHER PLACES,
THERE COULD NOT BE ANY CONSUMMATION OF THE CONTRACT AT CLOSING,BY THE TWO PARTY’S TO THE CONTRACT, IF ONLY ONE PERSON TO THE CONTRACT ACTED IN GOOD FAITH,
AND THE OTHER PARTY DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH OR EVEN SUPPLIED ANY ( CONSIDERATION WHAT SO EVER AT CLOSING OF THE CONTRACT.) A MORTGAGE AND NOTE IS A CONTRACT PEOPLE.
7/ SO THIS WOULD GIVE RISE TO THE LAW OF ( RESCISSION).
. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.
AND THE BANKS CAN SCREAM ALL THEY WANT, IF THE PRETENDER LENDER THAT IS ON YOUR MORTGAGE AND NOTE, DID NOT SUPPLY THE FUNDS AT CLOSING, AS WE ALL KNOW DID HAPPEN, THEN THE MORTGAGE CONTRACT IS VOID. AND THERE WAS NO CONSUMMATION AT THE CLOSING TABLE, BY THE PARTY THAT SAID IT WAS FUNDING THE CONTRACT.
CANT GET MORE SIMPLE THAT THAT. and this supports all of the above. that the fake lender did not PERFORM AT CLOSING, DID NOT FUND ANY MONEY OR LOAN ANY MONEY AT CLOSING WITH ANY BORROWER, SO ONLY ONE ( THE BORROWER ) DID PERFORM AT CLOSING. BOTH PARTY’S MUST PERFORM TO HAVE A LEGAL BINDING CONTRACT.
EXHIBIT___
ENTER FOR EVIDENCE
RODGERS V U.S.BANK HOME MORTGAGE ET, AL
THE WAREHOUSE LENDER NATIONAL CITY BANK OF KENTUCKY
HELD THE NOTE THEN DELIVERED TO THIRD PARTY INVESTORS UNKNOWN
SECURITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION
5300 South 360 West, Suite 250
Salt Lake City, Utah 84123
Telephone (801) 264-1060
February 20, 2009
VIA EDGAR
U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Division of Corporation Finance
100 F Street, N. E., Mail Stop 4561
Washington, D. C. 20549
Attn: Sharon M. Blume
Assistant Chief Accountant
Re: Security National Financial Corporation
Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2007
Form 10-Q for Fiscal Quarter Ended June 30, 2008
File No. 0-9341
Dear Ms. Blume:
Security National Financial Corporation (the “Company”) hereby supplements its responses to its previous response letters dated January 15, 2009, November 6, 2008 and October 9, 2008. These supplemental responses are provided as additional information concerning the Company’s mortgage loan operations and the appropriate accounting that the Company follows in connection with such operations.
The Company operates its mortgage loan operations through its wholly owned subsidiary, Security National Mortgage Company (“SNMC”). SNMC currently has 29 branch offices across
the continental United States and Hawaii. Each office has personnel who are qualified to solicit and underwrite loans that are submitted to SNMC by a network of mortgage brokers. Loan files submitted to SNMC are underwritten pursuant to third-party investor guidelines and are approved to fund after all documentation and other investor-established requirements are determined to meet the criteria for a saleable loans. Loan documents are prepared in the name of SNMC and then sent to the title company handling the loan transactions for signatures from the borrowers. Upon signing the documents, requests are then sent to the warehouse bank involved in the transaction to submit funds to the title company to pay for the settlement. All loans funded by warehouse banks are committed to be purchased (settled) by third-party investors under pre-established loan purchase commitments. The initial recordings of the deeds of trust (the mortgages) are made in the name of SNMC.
Soon after the loan funding, the deeds of trust are assigned, using the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”), which is the standard in the industry for recording subsequent transfers in title, and the promissory notes are endorsed in blank to the warehouse bank that funded the loan. The promissory notes and the deeds of trust are then forwarded to the warehouse bank. The warehouse bank funds approximately 96% of the mortgage loans to the title company and the remainder (known in the industry as the “haircut”) is funded by the Company. The Company records a receivable from the third-party investor for the portion of the mortgage loans the Company has funded and for mortgage fee income earned by SNMC. The receivable from the third-party investor is unsecured inasmuch as neither the Company nor its subsidiaries retain any interest in the mortgage loans.
Conditions for Revenue Recognition
Pursuant to paragraph 9 of SFAS 140, a transfer of financial assets (or a portion of a financial asset) in which the transferor surrenders control over those financial assets shall be accounted as a sale to the extent that consideration other than beneficial interests in the transferred assets is received in exchange. The transferor has surrendered control over transferred assets if and only if all of the following conditions are met:
1
(a) The transferred assets have been isolated from the transferor―placed presumptively beyond the reach of the transferor and its creditors, even in bankruptcy or other receivership.
SNMC endorses the promissory notes in blank, assigns the deeds of trust through MERS and forwards these documents to the warehouse bank that funded the loan. Therefore, the transferred mortgage loans are isolated from the Company. The Company’s management is confident that the transferred mortgage loans are beyond the reach of the Company and its creditors.
(b) Each transferee (or, if the transferee is a qualified SPE, each holder of its beneficial interests) has the right to pledge or exchange the assets (or beneficial interests) it received, and no
condition restricts the transferee (or holder) from taking advantage of its right to pledge or exchange and provides more than a trivial benefit to the transferor.
The Company does not have any interest in the promissory notes or the underlying deeds of trust because of the steps taken in item (a) above. The Master Purchase and Repurchase Agreements (the “Purchase Agreements”) with the warehouse banks allow them to pledge the promissory notes as collateral for borrowings by them and their entities. Under the Purchase Agreements, the warehouse banks have agreed to sell the loans to the third-party investors; however, the warehouse banks hold title to the mortgage notes and can sell, exchange or pledge the mortgage loans as they choose. The Purchase Agreements clearly indicate that the purchaser, the warehouse bank, and seller confirm that the transactions contemplated herein are intended to be sales of the mortgage loans by seller to purchaser rather than borrowings secured by the mortgage loans. In the event that the third-party investors do not purchase or settle the loans from the warehouse banks, the warehouse banks have the right to sell or exchange the mortgage loans to the Company or to any other entity. Accordingly, the Company believes this requirement is met.
(c) The transferor does not maintain effective control over the transferred asset through either an agreement that entitles both entities and obligates the transferor to repurchase or redeem them before their maturity or the ability to unilaterally cause the holder to return the specific assets, other than through a cleanup call.
The Company maintains no control over the mortgage loans sold to the warehouse banks, and, as stated in the Purchase Agreements, the Company is not entitled to repurchase the mortgage loans. In addition, the Company cannot unilaterally cause a warehouse bank to return a specific loan. The warehouse bank can require the Company to repurchase mortgage loans not settled by the third-party investors, but this conditional obligation does not provide effective control over the mortgage loans sold. Should the Company want a warehouse bank to sell a mortgage loan to a different third-party investor, the warehouse bank would impose its own conditions prior to agreeing to the change, including, for instance, that the original intended third-party investor return the promissory note to the warehouse bank. Accordingly, the Company believes that it does not maintain effective control over the transferred mortgage loans and that it meets this transfer of control criteria.
The warehouse bank and not the Company transfers the loan to the third-party investor at the date it is settled. The Company does not have an unconditional obligation to repurchase the loan from the warehouse bank nor does the Company have any rights to purchase the loan. Only in the situation where the third-party investor does not settle and purchase the loan from the warehouse bank does the Company have a conditional obligation to repurchase the loan. Accordingly, the Company believes that it meets the criteria for recognition of mortgage fee income under SFAS 140 when the loan is funded by the warehouse bank and, at that date, the Company records an unsecured receivable from the investor for the portion of the loan funded by the Company, which is typically 4% of the face amount of the loan, together with the broker and origination fee income.
2
Loans Repurchased from Warehouse Banks
Historically, 99% of all mortgage loans are settled with investors. In the process of settling a loan, the Company may take up to six months to pursue remediation of an unsettled loan. There are situations when the Company determines that it is unable to enforce the settlement of a loan by the third-party investor and that it is in the Company’s best interest to repurchase the loan from the warehouse bank. Any previously recorded mortgage fee income is reversed in the period the loan was repurchased.
When the Company repurchases a loan, it is recorded at the lower of cost or market. Cost is equal to the amount paid to the warehouse bank and the amount originally funded by the Company. Market value is often difficult to determine for this type of loan and is estimated by the Company. The Company never estimates market value to exceed the unpaid principal balance on the loan. The market value is also supported by the initial loan underwriting documentation and collateral. The Company does not hold the loan as available for sale but as held to maturity and carries the loan at amortized cost. Any loan that subsequently becomes delinquent is evaluated by the Company at that time and any allowances for impairment are adjusted accordingly.
This will supplement our earlier responses to clarify that the Company repurchased the $36,291,000 of loans during 2007 and 2008 from the warehouse banks and not from third-party investors. The amounts paid to the warehouse banks and the amounts originally funded by the Company, exclusive of the mortgage fee income that was reversed, were classified as the cost of the investment in the mortgage loans held for investment.
The Company uses two allowance accounts to offset the reversal of mortgage fee income and for the impairment of loans. The allowance for reversal of mortgage fee income is carried on the balance sheet as a liability and the allowance for impairment of loans is carried as a contra account net of our investment in mortgage loans. Management believes the allowance for reversal of mortgage fee income is sufficient to absorb any losses of income from loans that are not settled by third-party investors. The Company is currently accruing 17.5 basis points of the principal amount of mortgage loans sold, which increased by 5.0 basis points during the latter part of 2007 and remained at that level during 2008.
The Company reviewed its estimates of collectability of receivables from broker and origination fee income during the fourth quarter of 2007, in view of the market turmoil discussed in the following paragraph and the fact that several third-party investors were attempting to back out of their commitments to buy (settle) loans, and the Company determined that it could still reasonably estimate the collectability of the mortgage fee income. However, the Company determined that it needed to increase its allowance for reversal of mortgage fee income as stated in the preceding paragraph.
Effect of Market Turmoil on Sales and Settlement of Mortgage Loans
As explained in previous response letters, the Company and the warehouse banks typically settle mortgage loans with third-party investors within 16 days of the closing and funding of the loans. However, beginning in the first quarter of 2007, there was a lot of market turmoil for mortgage backed securities. Initially, the market turmoil was primarily isolated to sub-prime mortgage loan originations. The Company originated less than 0.5% of its mortgage loans using this product during 2006 and the associated market turmoil did not have a material effect on the Company.
As 2007 progressed, however, the market turmoil began to expand into mortgage loans that were classified by the industry as Alt A and Expanded Criteria. The Company’s third-party investors, including Lehman Brothers (Aurora Loan Services) and Bear Stearns (EMC Mortgage Corp.), began to have difficulty marketing Alt A and Expanded Criteria loans to the secondary markets. Without notice, these investors changed their criteria for loan products and refused to settle loans underwritten by the Company that met these investor’s previous specifications. As stipulated in the agreements with the warehouse banks, the Company was conditionally required to repurchase loans from the warehouse banks that were not settled by the third-party investors.
3
Beginning in early 2007, without prior notice, these investors discontinued purchasing Alt A and Expanded Criteria loans. Over the period from April 2007 through May 2008, the warehouse banks had purchased approximately $36.2 million of loans that had met the investor’s previous criteria but were rejected by the investor in complete disregard of their contractual commitments. Although the Company pursued its rights under the investor contracts, the Company was unsuccessful due to the investors’ financial problems and could not enforce the loan purchase contracts. As a result of its conditional repurchase obligation, the Company repurchased these loans from the warehouse banks and reversed the mortgage fee income associated with the loans on the date of repurchase from the warehouse banks. The loans were classified to the long-term mortgage loan portfolio beginning in the second quarter of 2008.
Relationship with Warehouse Banks
As previously stated, the Company is not unconditionally obligated to repurchase mortgage loans from the warehouse banks. The warehouse banks purchase the loans with the commitment from the third-party investors to settle the loans from the warehouse banks. Accordingly, the Company does not make an entry to reflect the amount paid by the warehouse bank when the mortgage loans are funded. Upon sale of the loans to the warehouse bank, the Company only records the receivables for the brokerage and origination fees and the amount the Company paid at the time of funding.
Interest in Repurchased Loans
Once a mortgage loan is repurchased, it is immediately transferred to mortgage loans held for investment (or should have been) as the Company makes no attempts to sell these loans
to other investors at this time. Any efforts to find a replacement investor are made prior to repurchasing the loan from the warehouse bank. The Company makes no effort to remarket the loan after it is repurchased.
Acknowledgements
In connection with the Company’s responses to the comments, the Company hereby acknowledges as follows:
· The Company is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the filing;
· The staff comments or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments do not foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the filing; and
· The Company may not assert staff comments as defense in any proceeding initiated by the Commission or any person under the Federal Securities Laws of the United States.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (801) 264-1060 or (801) 287-8171.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Stephen M. Sill
Stephen M. Sill, CPA
Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer
Contract law
Part of the common law series
Contract formation
Offer and acceptance Posting rule Mirror image rule Invitation to treat Firm offer Consideration Implication-in-fact
Defenses against formation
Lack of capacity Duress Undue influence Illusory promise Statute of frauds Non est factum
Contract interpretation
Parol evidence rule Contract of adhesion Integration clause Contra proferentem
Excuses for non-performance
Mistake Misrepresentation Frustration of purpose Impossibility Impracticability Illegality Unclean hands Unconscionability Accord and satisfaction
Rights of third parties
Privity of contract Assignment Delegation Novation Third-party beneficiary
Breach of contract
Anticipatory repudiation Cover Exclusion clause Efficient breach Deviation Fundamental breach
Remedies
Specific performance Liquidated damages Penal damages Rescission
Quasi-contractual obligations
Promissory estoppel Quantum meruit
Related areas of law
Conflict of laws Commercial law
Other common law areas
Tort law Property law Wills, trusts, and estates Criminal law Evidence
Such defenses operate to determine whether a purported contract is either (1) void or (2) voidable. Void contracts cannot be ratified by either party. Voidable contracts can be ratified.
Misrepresentation[edit]
Main article: Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party and has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.
There are two types of misrepresentation: fraud in the factum and fraud in inducement. Fraud in the factum focuses on whether the party alleging misrepresentation knew they were creating a contract. If the party did not know that they were entering into a contract, there is no meeting of the minds, and the contract is void. Fraud in inducement focuses on misrepresentation attempting to get the party to enter into the contract. Misrepresentation of a material fact (if the party knew the truth, that party would not have entered into the contract) makes a contract voidable.
According to Gordon v Selico [1986] it is possible to misrepresent either by words or conduct. Generally, statements of opinion or intention are not statements of fact in the context of misrepresentation.[68] If one party claims specialist knowledge on the topic discussed, then it is more likely for the courts to hold a statement of opinion by that party as a statement of fact.[69]
Such defenses operate to determine whether a purported contract is either (1) void or (2) voidable. Void contracts cannot be ratified by either party. Voidable contracts can be ratified.
Misrepresentation[edit]
Main article: Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party and has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.
There are two types of misrepresentation: fraud in the factum and fraud in inducement. Fraud in the factum focuses on whether the party alleging misrepresentation knew they were creating a contract. If the party did not know that they were entering into a contract, there is no meeting of the minds, and the contract is void. Fraud in inducement focuses on misrepresentation attempting to get the party to enter into the contract. Misrepresentation of a material fact (if the party knew the truth, that party would not have entered into the contract) makes a contract voidable.
According to Gordon v Selico [1986] it is possible to misrepresent either by words or conduct. Generally, statements of opinion or intention are not statements of fact in the context of misrepresentation.[68] If one party claims specialist knowledge on the topic discussed, then it is more likely for the courts to hold a statement of opinion by that party as a statement of fact.[69]
AND AS I SAID, WITH NO CONSUMMATION AT CLOSING, MR MARSHALL NEVER, BELANGER NEVER CONSUMMATED ANY MORTGAGE CONTRACT/ NOTE.
BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY PARTY TO THE FAKE CONTRACT THAT FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THERE CONCIDERATION, WITH SIGNING THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE,
AS REQUIRED, TO PERFORM. BUT GMAC MORTGAGE CORP. DID NOT PERFORM , I.E. LEND ANY MONEY AT CLOSING, AS WE HAVE THE WIRE TRANFER SHOWING THEY DID NOT FUND THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE AT CLOSING. CANT HAVE A LEGAL CONTRACT IF ONLY ONE OF THE PARTY’S. PERFORMS HIS OBLIGATIONS.
THIS MAKE , AS I SAID. RECISSION IS VALID. AND THEY HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THRU, THERE PART.
AND IT DOES GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO
RESCIND THE CONTRACT BASED ON ALL NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, THAT THE PARTY TO THE MORTGAGE /NOTE CONTRACT, DID NOT
FULFILL THERE DUTY AND DID NOT PREFORM IN ANY WAY AS REQUIRED TO HAVE A VALID BINDING CONTRACT.
Tonight we have a rebroadcast of a segment from Episode 15 with a guest who is a recent ex-patriot from 17 years in the mortgage banking industry… Scot started out as a escrow agent doing closings, then advanced to mortgage loan officer, processor, underwriter, branch manager, mortgage broker and loss mitigator for the banks. Interestingly, he says,
“Looking back on my career I don’t believe any mortgage closing that I was involved in was ever consummated.”
Tonight Scot will be covering areas relating to:
1 lack of disclosure and consideration
2 substitution of true mortgage contracting partner
3 unfunded loan agreements
4 non-existent trusts
5 securitization of your note and bifurcation of the security interest and
6 how to identify and prove the non-existence of the so-called trust named in an assignment which may be coming after you to foreclose
: http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-139335/TS-1093904.mp3
so lets look at what happen a the closing of the mortgage CONTRACT SHELL WE.
1/ MORTGAGE AND NOTES, SAYS A ( SPECIFIC LENDER) GAVE YOU MONEY, ( AS WE KNOW THAT DIDNT HAPPEN. )
2/ HOME OWNER WAS TOLD AT CLOSING AND BEFORE CLOSING THAT THE NAMED LENDER WOULD SUPPLY THE FUNDS AT CLOSING, AND WAS ALSO TOLD BY THE CLOSING AGENT , THE SAME LIE.
3/ THERE ARE 2 PARTYS TO A CLOSING OF A MORTGAGE AND NOTE, 1/ HOMEOWNER, 2/ LENDER.
3/ Offer and acceptance , Consideration,= SO HOMEOWNERS SIGN A MORTGAGE AND NOTE, IN CONSIDERATION of the said lender’s promises to pay the homeowner for said signing of the mortgage and note.
4/ but the lender does not, follow thru with his CONSIDERATION. I.E TO FUND THE CONTRACT. AND THE LENDER NAMED ON THE CONTRACT, KNEW ALL ALONG THAT HE WOULD NOT BE THE FUNDING SOURCE. FRAUD AT CONCEPTION. KNOWINGLY OUT RIGHT FRAUD ON THE HOMEOWNERS.
5/ THERE ARE NO STATUES OF LIMITATIONS ON FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, OR ANY OTHER FRAUD.
6/ SO AS NEIL AND AND LENDING TEAM, AND OTHERS HAVE POINTED OUT, SO SO MANY TIMES HERE AND OTHER PLACES,
THERE COULD NOT BE ANY CONSUMMATION OF THE CONTRACT AT CLOSING,BY THE TWO PARTY’S TO THE CONTRACT, IF ONLY ONE PERSON TO THE CONTRACT ACTED IN GOOD FAITH,
AND THE OTHER PARTY DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH OR EVEN SUPPLIED ANY ( CONSIDERATION WHAT SO EVER AT CLOSING OF THE CONTRACT.) A MORTGAGE AND NOTE IS A CONTRACT PEOPLE.
7/ SO THIS WOULD GIVE RISE TO THE LAW OF ( RESCISSION).
. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.
AND THE BANKS CAN SCREAM ALL THEY WANT, IF THE PRETENDER LENDER THAT IS ON YOUR MORTGAGE AND NOTE, DID NOT SUPPLY THE FUNDS AT CLOSING, AS WE ALL KNOW DID HAPPEN, THEN THE MORTGAGE CONTRACT IS VOID. AND THERE WAS NO CONSUMMATION AT THE CLOSING TABLE, BY THE PARTY THAT SAID IT WAS FUNDING THE CONTRACT.
CANT GET MORE SIMPLE THAT THAT. and this supports all of the above. that the fake lender did not PERFORM AT CLOSING, DID NOT FUND ANY MONEY OR LOAN ANY MONEY AT CLOSING WITH ANY BORROWER, SO ONLY ONE ( THE BORROWER ) DID PERFORM AT CLOSING. BOTH PARTY’S MUST PERFORM TO HAVE A LEGAL BINDING CONTRACT.
EXHIBIT___
ENTER FOR EVIDENCE
RODGERS V U.S.BANK HOME MORTGAGE ET, AL
THE WAREHOUSE LENDER NATIONAL CITY BANK OF KENTUCKY
HELD THE NOTE THEN DELIVERED TO THIRD PARTY INVESTORS UNKNOWN
SECURITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION
5300 South 360 West, Suite 250
Salt Lake City, Utah 84123
Telephone (801) 264-1060
February 20, 2009
VIA EDGAR
U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Division of Corporation Finance
100 F Street, N. E., Mail Stop 4561
Washington, D. C. 20549
Attn: Sharon M. Blume
Assistant Chief Accountant
Re: Security National Financial Corporation
Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2007
Form 10-Q for Fiscal Quarter Ended June 30, 2008
File No. 0-9341
Dear Ms. Blume:
Security National Financial Corporation (the “Company”) hereby supplements its responses to its previous response letters dated January 15, 2009, November 6, 2008 and October 9, 2008. These supplemental responses are provided as additional information concerning the Company’s mortgage loan operations and the appropriate accounting that the Company follows in connection with such operations.
The Company operates its mortgage loan operations through its wholly owned subsidiary, Security National Mortgage Company (“SNMC”). SNMC currently has 29 branch offices across
the continental United States and Hawaii. Each office has personnel who are qualified to solicit and underwrite loans that are submitted to SNMC by a network of mortgage brokers. Loan files submitted to SNMC are underwritten pursuant to third-party investor guidelines and are approved to fund after all documentation and other investor-established requirements are determined to meet the criteria for a saleable loans. Loan documents are prepared in the name of SNMC and then sent to the title company handling the loan transactions for signatures from the borrowers. Upon signing the documents, requests are then sent to the warehouse bank involved in the transaction to submit funds to the title company to pay for the settlement. All loans funded by warehouse banks are committed to be purchased (settled) by third-party investors under pre-established loan purchase commitments. The initial recordings of the deeds of trust (the mortgages) are made in the name of SNMC.
Soon after the loan funding, the deeds of trust are assigned, using the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”), which is the standard in the industry for recording subsequent transfers in title, and the promissory notes are endorsed in blank to the warehouse bank that funded the loan. The promissory notes and the deeds of trust are then forwarded to the warehouse bank. The warehouse bank funds approximately 96% of the mortgage loans to the title company and the remainder (known in the industry as the “haircut”) is funded by the Company. The Company records a receivable from the third-party investor for the portion of the mortgage loans the Company has funded and for mortgage fee income earned by SNMC. The receivable from the third-party investor is unsecured inasmuch as neither the Company nor its subsidiaries retain any interest in the mortgage loans.
Conditions for Revenue Recognition
Pursuant to paragraph 9 of SFAS 140, a transfer of financial assets (or a portion of a financial asset) in which the transferor surrenders control over those financial assets shall be accounted as a sale to the extent that consideration other than beneficial interests in the transferred assets is received in exchange. The transferor has surrendered control over transferred assets if and only if all of the following conditions are met:
1
(a) The transferred assets have been isolated from the transferor―placed presumptively beyond the reach of the transferor and its creditors, even in bankruptcy or other receivership.
SNMC endorses the promissory notes in blank, assigns the deeds of trust through MERS and forwards these documents to the warehouse bank that funded the loan. Therefore, the transferred mortgage loans are isolated from the Company. The Company’s management is confident that the transferred mortgage loans are beyond the reach of the Company and its creditors.
(b) Each transferee (or, if the transferee is a qualified SPE, each holder of its beneficial interests) has the right to pledge or exchange the assets (or beneficial interests) it received, and no
condition restricts the transferee (or holder) from taking advantage of its right to pledge or exchange and provides more than a trivial benefit to the transferor.
The Company does not have any interest in the promissory notes or the underlying deeds of trust because of the steps taken in item (a) above. The Master Purchase and Repurchase Agreements (the “Purchase Agreements”) with the warehouse banks allow them to pledge the promissory notes as collateral for borrowings by them and their entities. Under the Purchase Agreements, the warehouse banks have agreed to sell the loans to the third-party investors; however, the warehouse banks hold title to the mortgage notes and can sell, exchange or pledge the mortgage loans as they choose. The Purchase Agreements clearly indicate that the purchaser, the warehouse bank, and seller confirm that the transactions contemplated herein are intended to be sales of the mortgage loans by seller to purchaser rather than borrowings secured by the mortgage loans. In the event that the third-party investors do not purchase or settle the loans from the warehouse banks, the warehouse banks have the right to sell or exchange the mortgage loans to the Company or to any other entity. Accordingly, the Company believes this requirement is met.
(c) The transferor does not maintain effective control over the transferred asset through either an agreement that entitles both entities and obligates the transferor to repurchase or redeem them before their maturity or the ability to unilaterally cause the holder to return the specific assets, other than through a cleanup call.
The Company maintains no control over the mortgage loans sold to the warehouse banks, and, as stated in the Purchase Agreements, the Company is not entitled to repurchase the mortgage loans. In addition, the Company cannot unilaterally cause a warehouse bank to return a specific loan. The warehouse bank can require the Company to repurchase mortgage loans not settled by the third-party investors, but this conditional obligation does not provide effective control over the mortgage loans sold. Should the Company want a warehouse bank to sell a mortgage loan to a different third-party investor, the warehouse bank would impose its own conditions prior to agreeing to the change, including, for instance, that the original intended third-party investor return the promissory note to the warehouse bank. Accordingly, the Company believes that it does not maintain effective control over the transferred mortgage loans and that it meets this transfer of control criteria.
The warehouse bank and not the Company transfers the loan to the third-party investor at the date it is settled. The Company does not have an unconditional obligation to repurchase the loan from the warehouse bank nor does the Company have any rights to purchase the loan. Only in the situation where the third-party investor does not settle and purchase the loan from the warehouse bank does the Company have a conditional obligation to repurchase the loan. Accordingly, the Company believes that it meets the criteria for recognition of mortgage fee income under SFAS 140 when the loan is funded by the warehouse bank and, at that date, the Company records an unsecured receivable from the investor for the portion of the loan funded by the Company, which is typically 4% of the face amount of the loan, together with the broker and origination fee income.
2
Loans Repurchased from Warehouse Banks
Historically, 99% of all mortgage loans are settled with investors. In the process of settling a loan, the Company may take up to six months to pursue remediation of an unsettled loan. There are situations when the Company determines that it is unable to enforce the settlement of a loan by the third-party investor and that it is in the Company’s best interest to repurchase the loan from the warehouse bank. Any previously recorded mortgage fee income is reversed in the period the loan was repurchased.
When the Company repurchases a loan, it is recorded at the lower of cost or market. Cost is equal to the amount paid to the warehouse bank and the amount originally funded by the Company. Market value is often difficult to determine for this type of loan and is estimated by the Company. The Company never estimates market value to exceed the unpaid principal balance on the loan. The market value is also supported by the initial loan underwriting documentation and collateral. The Company does not hold the loan as available for sale but as held to maturity and carries the loan at amortized cost. Any loan that subsequently becomes delinquent is evaluated by the Company at that time and any allowances for impairment are adjusted accordingly.
This will supplement our earlier responses to clarify that the Company repurchased the $36,291,000 of loans during 2007 and 2008 from the warehouse banks and not from third-party investors. The amounts paid to the warehouse banks and the amounts originally funded by the Company, exclusive of the mortgage fee income that was reversed, were classified as the cost of the investment in the mortgage loans held for investment.
The Company uses two allowance accounts to offset the reversal of mortgage fee income and for the impairment of loans. The allowance for reversal of mortgage fee income is carried on the balance sheet as a liability and the allowance for impairment of loans is carried as a contra account net of our investment in mortgage loans. Management believes the allowance for reversal of mortgage fee income is sufficient to absorb any losses of income from loans that are not settled by third-party investors. The Company is currently accruing 17.5 basis points of the principal amount of mortgage loans sold, which increased by 5.0 basis points during the latter part of 2007 and remained at that level during 2008.
The Company reviewed its estimates of collectability of receivables from broker and origination fee income during the fourth quarter of 2007, in view of the market turmoil discussed in the following paragraph and the fact that several third-party investors were attempting to back out of their commitments to buy (settle) loans, and the Company determined that it could still reasonably estimate the collectability of the mortgage fee income. However, the Company determined that it needed to increase its allowance for reversal of mortgage fee income as stated in the preceding paragraph.
Effect of Market Turmoil on Sales and Settlement of Mortgage Loans
As explained in previous response letters, the Company and the warehouse banks typically settle mortgage loans with third-party investors within 16 days of the closing and funding of the loans. However, beginning in the first quarter of 2007, there was a lot of market turmoil for mortgage backed securities. Initially, the market turmoil was primarily isolated to sub-prime mortgage loan originations. The Company originated less than 0.5% of its mortgage loans using this product during 2006 and the associated market turmoil did not have a material effect on the Company.
As 2007 progressed, however, the market turmoil began to expand into mortgage loans that were classified by the industry as Alt A and Expanded Criteria. The Company’s third-party investors, including Lehman Brothers (Aurora Loan Services) and Bear Stearns (EMC Mortgage Corp.), began to have difficulty marketing Alt A and Expanded Criteria loans to the secondary markets. Without notice, these investors changed their criteria for loan products and refused to settle loans underwritten by the Company that met these investor’s previous specifications. As stipulated in the agreements with the warehouse banks, the Company was conditionally required to repurchase loans from the warehouse banks that were not settled by the third-party investors.
3
Beginning in early 2007, without prior notice, these investors discontinued purchasing Alt A and Expanded Criteria loans. Over the period from April 2007 through May 2008, the warehouse banks had purchased approximately $36.2 million of loans that had met the investor’s previous criteria but were rejected by the investor in complete disregard of their contractual commitments. Although the Company pursued its rights under the investor contracts, the Company was unsuccessful due to the investors’ financial problems and could not enforce the loan purchase contracts. As a result of its conditional repurchase obligation, the Company repurchased these loans from the warehouse banks and reversed the mortgage fee income associated with the loans on the date of repurchase from the warehouse banks. The loans were classified to the long-term mortgage loan portfolio beginning in the second quarter of 2008.
Relationship with Warehouse Banks
As previously stated, the Company is not unconditionally obligated to repurchase mortgage loans from the warehouse banks. The warehouse banks purchase the loans with the commitment from the third-party investors to settle the loans from the warehouse banks. Accordingly, the Company does not make an entry to reflect the amount paid by the warehouse bank when the mortgage loans are funded. Upon sale of the loans to the warehouse bank, the Company only records the receivables for the brokerage and origination fees and the amount the Company paid at the time of funding.
Interest in Repurchased Loans
Once a mortgage loan is repurchased, it is immediately transferred to mortgage loans held for investment (or should have been) as the Company makes no attempts to sell these loans
to other investors at this time. Any efforts to find a replacement investor are made prior to repurchasing the loan from the warehouse bank. The Company makes no effort to remarket the loan after it is repurchased.
Acknowledgements
In connection with the Company’s responses to the comments, the Company hereby acknowledges as follows:
· The Company is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the filing;
· The staff comments or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments do not foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the filing; and
· The Company may not assert staff comments as defense in any proceeding initiated by the Commission or any person under the Federal Securities Laws of the United States.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (801) 264-1060 or (801) 287-8171.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Stephen M. Sill
Stephen M. Sill, CPA
Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
Contract law
Part of the common law series
Contract formation
Offer and acceptance Posting rule Mirror image rule Invitation to treat Firm offer Consideration Implication-in-fact
Defenses against formation
Lack of capacity Duress Undue influence Illusory promise Statute of frauds Non est factum
Contract interpretation
Parol evidence rule Contract of adhesion Integration clause Contra proferentem
Excuses for non-performance
Mistake Misrepresentation Frustration of purpose Impossibility Impracticability Illegality Unclean hands Unconscionability Accord and satisfaction
Rights of third parties
Privity of contract Assignment Delegation Novation Third-party beneficiary
Breach of contract
Anticipatory repudiation Cover Exclusion clause Efficient breach Deviation Fundamental breach
Remedies
Specific performance Liquidated damages Penal damages Rescission
Quasi-contractual obligations
Promissory estoppel Quantum meruit
Related areas of law
Conflict of laws Commercial law
Other common law areas
Tort law Property law Wills, trusts, and estates Criminal law Evidence
Such defenses operate to determine whether a purported contract is either (1) void or (2) voidable. Void contracts cannot be ratified by either party. Voidable contracts can be ratified.
Misrepresentation[edit]
Main article: Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party and has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.
There are two types of misrepresentation: fraud in the factum and fraud in inducement. Fraud in the factum focuses on whether the party alleging misrepresentation knew they were creating a contract. If the party did not know that they were entering into a contract, there is no meeting of the minds, and the contract is void. Fraud in inducement focuses on misrepresentation attempting to get the party to enter into the contract. Misrepresentation of a material fact (if the party knew the truth, that party would not have entered into the contract) makes a contract voidable.
According to Gordon v Selico [1986] it is possible to misrepresent either by words or conduct. Generally, statements of opinion or intention are not statements of fact in the context of misrepresentation.[68] If one party claims specialist knowledge on the topic discussed, then it is more likely for the courts to hold a statement of opinion by that party as a statement of fact.[69]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
Such defenses operate to determine whether a purported contract is either (1) void or (2) voidable. Void contracts cannot be ratified by either party. Voidable contracts can be ratified.
Misrepresentation[edit]
Main article: Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party and has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.
There are two types of misrepresentation: fraud in the factum and fraud in inducement. Fraud in the factum focuses on whether the party alleging misrepresentation knew they were creating a contract. If the party did not know that they were entering into a contract, there is no meeting of the minds, and the contract is void. Fraud in inducement focuses on misrepresentation attempting to get the party to enter into the contract. Misrepresentation of a material fact (if the party knew the truth, that party would not have entered into the contract) makes a contract voidable.
According to Gordon v Selico [1986] it is possible to misrepresent either by words or conduct. Generally, statements of opinion or intention are not statements of fact in the context of misrepresentation.[68] If one party claims specialist knowledge on the topic discussed, then it is more likely for the courts to hold a statement of opinion by that party as a statement of fact.[69]
We need to have state offices in each states for Homeowner Lives Matter. We also need a organization called Homeless Lives Matter. The later must have more momentum and power as homelessness could be life or death situation.
Why can’t judges show sympathy and kindness to homeowners who could be homeless by foreclosures and that too victimized by acts with no proper documents to really support? Any major natural disaster or war could make anyone homeless. We need to learn to live comfortably and let others live comfortably as long as they cause no harm. Any wise man would know, there is not a thing called one man show on earth. If contrary were true, one needs to be a farmer, engineer, mason, carpenter, miner, mechanic, doctor, tailor and the list goes on showing escalation of impracticality.
So let us show compassion and love to one another.
Caveat Emptor.
Folks: When you/we/I sign the contract at closing THEY, the bankers, lawyers, title company reps, real estate agent ((knowing or unknowing)) created this so-called Caveat Emptor contract, Buyer Beware. mentioned at the end of Neil Garfield’s recent post, Mortgages are WMD.
So can we go from Buyer Beware to Lender Beware?
Can we use this same philosophy in our NEW contracts (suing) THEM, the pretend lender, the no securities trusts, the fraudulent administrators of the trusts, the document falsifying lawyers, the incompetent bankers, the signers and submitters of false documents, the pension worried judges and corrupted clerks for allowing the submission of these false documents to bring back an honest monetary system?
Make the trust of honesty we had in them at closing into a financial trust for all the foreclosed upon victims of this GRAND SCAM.
david snieckus
It’s been my experience that outside of this limited universe of LL/fraudclosure type sites, no one is aware of the criminality and fraud. The government, in lockstep with the banks and the media, has managed to keep a lid on the mass displacement of millions of people. Their totally worthless mortgage relief programs have high-sounding names and easily fool the illiterate masses. Pokemon Go is more easily grasped.
Who cares about people who bought more house than they could afford and used their home equity like piggy banks? Those are the non-partisan talking points. From potus (non-capped as a sign of disrespect) down through your locally elected rep, all have abandoned their constituents to line up quietly at the money trough. It pays really, really well.
We’re going to have to take it to the streets sooner than later. The sooner everyone gets on board with that fact, the better off we’ll all be. It’s way past time for Mortgage Spring.
Have you see the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts?
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts
To play around in
In their sties with all their backing
They don’t care what goes on around
In their eyes there’s something lacking
What they need’s a damn good whacking
It is a world wide known fact that many foreclosures in this country are nothing but fraudulent. Does this mean that people around the globe know the insecurity of the mortgage backed securities (MBS). The SEC needs to clean up the mess by going after banks holding fraudulent securities with void assignments and no promissory notes. Otherwise, we may be looking at another stock market collapse again. If that happens, it would be an economic depression and possibly devaluation of USA dollar which is not desirably wanted by merchants in some foreign nations even at this point in time. Let’s give them confidence by cleaning up the mess by giving Quite Title to deserved home owners. This would be much better than loosing value on our own currency in the world.
PS: Need an option to edit/delete in this blog by the author to correct error.
It is a world wide known fact that many foreclosures in this country are nothing fraudulent. Does this mean that people around the globe know the insecurity of the mortgage backed securities (MBS). The SEC needs to clean up the mess by going after banks holding securities with void assignments and no promissory notes. Otherwise, we may be looking at another stock market collapse. If that happens it would be economic depression and possibly devaluation of USA dollar which is not desirably wanted by merchants in some foreign nations even at this point in time. Let’s give them confidence by cleaning up the mess by giving Quite Title to deserved home owners. This would be much better than loosing value on our own currency in the world.
most people do not understand this. and the judges? senior judges in florida? older lawyers that become judges?? they do not know anything about this and there fore we lose our due proccess in florida. it happens in one court after the other. weeding out the people that cant afford trials and appeals. that is sad. this is a crime upon humanity. when will it all end? please help we need solutions. perhaps neil garfield you do an interview with gretchen morgenstern at the NY times. tell her about these derivatives. let her expose this. get the judges to see this crime for what it is. maybe they will stop stealing our homes away form . florida is devistated enough. so now a new bubble is brewing
American indifference to the parasitic, criminal fraud, currently athwart the financial system of the United States, is a luxury, We The People can no longer afford.
Moreover, the English-based, central banking Cartel, is presently: “Insolvent”.
The amount of money they owe, to the system they hijacked, has rendered them, now and forever, beyond salvage (Google 1200 Trillion Dollars and derivatives).
1200 Trillion is 20 X the combined GDP of every country on the planet: an impossible sum.
A “derivative” is a type of “short sale bet”; a bet something will fail.
It is a “bet” that attempts to trade the “liability (the loss)” on any given deal.
A “short sale bet” is when you borrow money to buy a thing low to sell it high, later.
A “Naked, short sale bet” is when you borrow to buy low…
and sell high, later…
On something you never owned in the first place…
BORROWED MONEY… TO BET … ON SOMETHING YOU DON’T OWN…
And couldn’t possibly own, because it belongs to someone else.
In a word: “Counterfeiting”.
The US is currently engaged in a “War on Terror” and a “War on Drugs”.
Bank of America, Wells Fargo and HSBC (an English-Chinese hybrid- “Hong Kong, Shanghai Banking Corporation”) have already admitted to laundering “Terror and Drug Cartel money”.
In a word: Treason.
American GIs have suffered and died in “The War on Terror” and “The War on Drugs”.
The criminals within the intentionally mislabeled, “Federal Reserve (neither “federal”, nor possessing ANY “reserves”) and the politicians that are concealing they are imposters, in the first place, have ruined themselves…
THEY HAVE RUINED THEMSELVES
NOT US.
These criminal “bets” belong to them, not the American People!
There is no mechanism, whatsoever, within Article 1, Section 8, that describes a foreign, criminal, privately-owned and operated parasite is allowed to manipulate “the Good Faith and Credit” of We The People.
The funny money they have designed, as a deliberate attack on American Sovereignty (through hyper-inflationary, “Federal Reserve Notes” and the “Treasury bonds” that act as “security” for those “Federal Reserve Notes”), is a Fraud that belongs in their name, not ours!
1200 Trillion Dollars!!!!
The deliberate attack on American Sovereignty, through forgery and fraud, is designed to capitalize on 1200 Trillion Dollars worth, of “Naked Short Sale Bets” that are aimed directly at American Home Ownership.
Instead of borrowing money to “bet” on a horse they don’t own…
The criminal, English-based, central bankers borrowed money to “bet”…
On houses they don’t own.
They are betting they can seize houses they never owned through forgery on the title to those homes and fraud as it pertains to counterfeiting.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, COLLECTIVELY – ALL THE BANKS – ARE BETTING THEY CAN COLLECT 1200 Trillion Dollars, THROUGH COUNTERFEIT CLAIMS OF OWNERSHIP, ON “NAKED SHORT SALE BETS”!
They are betting they can counterfeit ownership long enough to profit from foreclosures they created, in the first place.
The banker’s criminal behaviors are legion: phony modifications, dual-tracking, robo-signing (forgery), pension theft, LIBOR, laundering drug and terror cartel money!
The 1200 Trillion they owe to these behaviors are not some delusion of “Keynesian”, “deficits don’t matter”, or equally preposterous, “unfunded LIABILITIES”.
Instead, these are very real dollars owed to very real, inter-bank, criminal behaviors.
THE ANSWER: CONFISCATE BANK ASSETS; NATIONALIZE THE BANKS.
THE ANSWER: RELEASE A NEW ISSUE OF ABE LINCOLN’S GREENBACKS, AS PRO-RATED UPON A SEIZURE OF OUTSTANDING, HYPER-INFLATIONARY, CRIMINAL, “FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES” AND THE TREASURY BONDS THAT SECURE THOSE DEBTS.
Investigate and jail the bankers.
Investigate and jail the media as a full-blown foreign propaganda.
Investigate any jail politician that will not admit the “Federal Reserve” is an imposter.
Senator Sanders is the only political candidate that has expressed his intention to disrupt and investigate the banks.
Senator Sanders, We The People and Abe Lincoln’s Greenback dollar 2016.
https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/07/12/deutsch-bank-on-verge-of-collapse/