Consider More Foreclosure Arguments

  1. In MBS securities offering the objective is to capitalize on the value of the bond held to maturity.  A mortgage with a face value of $1,000 per loan amount that is amortized over 30 years is valued at zero. If you shortened the amortization over 10 years and were to reverse the order of principal pay down, from zero to $1,000, you would have formed a 10 year bond. This effort mirrors the interst accrual held in the promissory note that matches or joins the two instruments over an average 10 year mark.  What transpires subsequent to settlement is the creation of two notes of which one is held to borrower servicing rights and the other is held to the reverse order of the notes amortization.
  2. This new age form of securitization electronically tenders the deed and causes the lender to become the grantee for purposes of bond and becoming the obligor. Changing the instrument that was recorded in county records to digital form while changing the substance of the document , does IN FACT change the legal interpretation of the electronic record The states have developed their own interpretations of deeds, and it is presumed that those interpretations carry over to electronic instruments in the next cycle of conveyance.  How woefully incorrect is this assessment.
  3. It would be foolish to throw out the years of interpretation of deeds simply because the document has been changed from paper to a digital electronic form, which is denominated an electronic record. The member bank and no bank affiliates have no less done something foolish that links each party in compliance to a criminal inquiry whereby they have avoided the US Congress and Senate It would be foolish to throw out the years of interpretation of deeds simply because the document has been changed from paper to a digital electronic form, which is denominated an electronicrecord 13
  4. The obligor is then held to the warehouse line which is converted to a bond. Therefore the obligor, lender is indebted to a second obligor who is the FDIC member bank who is obligated by pledge to the bond holder who is a foreign national bank. Hence the law is longstanding where the mortgagor has conveyed the title to another, and this in turn to a second party, each party in turn assuming the subject matter debt. The supreme court of Illinois [1]said that each subsequent purchaser became an original promisor for the payment of the mortgage debt and the original mortgagor became a surety for its payment to the creditor who here is the bond holder.
  5. The purpose of MersCorp is therefore to conceal the Butler transactions in its entirety in order to restore a conventional mortgage understanding for the court at time of foreclosure. This in the very least destroys the non judicial framework, under a false and implied seizure of title under the uniform commercial instrument that robs the state of its sovereignty over a power of sale.    After such transfers have taken place the mortgagee in some states is bound to recognize the relations of the principal and surety, and if he extends time of payment to the principal here the transferee, the mortgagor is thereby released from his liability.
Write us at
ID_Accountant @yahoo.com


[1] The supreme court of Illinois Flagg v. Geltmacher , 98 Ill 293

More Testimony

  1. Thousands of trusts based on a variety of different assets were created to sell bonds to investors, and some of these trusts carried private mortgage insurance. Most of the trusts used to fuel the subprime debt debacle and commercial cross collateralized mortgages into pools that were filled with residential mortgage loans as well as other types of loans and commercial paper also were used as collateral.
  2. Roughly a third of the US financial markets were financed by the non-bank sector, which has largely disappeared. Violations of securities law weigh heavily upon the regulatory requirements for investor protections while consumer settlement and practices compliance fails as do the adherence to a variety of technical securities registration rules and laws.
  3. The conclusions are presented in testimony with every effort necessary to simplify the complexities for understanding culpability and interst in assets of the parties while maintaining an honest an honest assessment of all facts.  In this controversy it is especially relevant to point out the putative terms causal to support for relevant claims versus obvious “garden variety “ causes that normally fall under RESPA and TILA Federal disclosures.
  4. I contend that my long term involvement in the securitization process, from 1994 through to 2001 is essential for sharing the proper understanding of  the claims brought in this matter. I have special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education personally known to me with familiarity for claims based on jurisdiction over this matter.
  5. In 1925, Louis Brandeis, the progressive Justice of the Supreme Court, set the high road for the law concerning the assignment of all collateral, from commercial receivables to mortgage notes. The critical commentary by the justice is held in the decisionin Benedict v. Ratner as follows:
    1. I.              But it is [268 U.S. 353, 363] not true that the rule stated above and invoked by the receiver is either based upon or delimited by the doctrine of ostensible ownership. It rests not upon seeming ownership because of possession retained, but upon a lack of ownership because of dominion reserved. It does not raise a presumption of fraud. It imputes fraud conclusively because of the reservation of dominion inconsistent with the effective disposition of title and creation of a lien.

 

  1. When one reads the Brandeis decision it is apparent how the justices take on the current problems facing the foreclosing parties today where the decision attack the practice of making a simple, common law pledge of receivables. Claims held by the creditor of a defunct company over which Benedict was the receiver, were rejected by Brandeis. The 1927 decision rocked the landscape of American finance. This is alleged to have began a seven-decade long debate over the proper construction of secured financial transactions.
  2.  The decision was responsible for the adoption of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs the methods used to create most commercial security interests in collateral.
  3. In my earnest opinion, this case bears many of the familiar requisites for an aged old dilemma that is the assignment of collateral is deficient without “the effective disposition of title and creation of a lien.”
  4. The subject claims are for a financial transaction involving a security that lacks the features that transfer the legal interst in title. If not, this “imputes” a lender can blow hot and cold at the whim and bring to either the New York or local court, its claims hoping to receive a common law sympathetic decision.

For free copy write us

ID_Accountant@yahoo.com

Foreclosure Testimony and Facts

Thousands of trusts based on a similar mortgage assets were created to sell bonds to investors, and some trusts carried private mortgage insurance. Most of the trusts used to fuel the subprime debt debacle and commercial cross collateralized mortgages into pools were filled with residential mortgage loans as well as other types of loans and commercial paper used as collateral.

Roughly a third of the US financial markets were financed by the non-bank sector, which has largely disappeared. Violations of securities law weigh heavily upon the regulatory requirements for investor protections while consumer settlement and practices compliance fails as do the adherence to a variety of technical securities registration rules and laws.

The conclusions are presented in testimony with every effort necessary to simplify the complexities for understanding culpability and interst in assets of the parties while maintaining an honest an honest assessment of all facts.  In this controversy it is especially relevant to point out the putative terms causal to support for relevant claims versus obvious “garden variety “ causes that normally fall under RESPA and TILA Federal disclosures.

I contend that long term involvement in the securitization process, from 1994 through to 2001 is essential for sharing the proper understanding of  the claims brought in this matter.  Testimony should be specific offering special knowledge, where skill, experience, training, and education personally known to me provide ample familiarity for claims based on arguments brught by counsel.

In a Reuters 2011 article is discussed the 1925 pre-depression financial isues that mirror our poblems today. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, the progressive Justice of the Supreme Court, set the high road for the law concerning the assignment of all collateral, from commercial receivables to mortgage notes. The critical commentary by the justice is held in the decisionin Benedict v. Ratner as follows:  But it is [268 U.S. 353, 363] not true that the rule stated above and invoked by the receiver is either based upon or delimited by the doctrine of ostensible ownership. It rests not upon seeming ownership because of possession retained, but upon a lack of ownership because of dominion reserved. It does not raise a presumption of fraud. It imputes fraud conclusively because of the reservation of dominion inconsistent with the effective disposition of title and creation of a lien.

 When one reads the Brandeis decision it is apparent how the justices take on the current problems facing the foreclosing parties today where the decision attack the practice of making a simple, common law pledge of receivables. Claims held by the creditor of a defunct company over which Benedict was the receiver, were rejected by Brandeis. The 1927 decision rocked the landscape of American finance. This is alleged to have began a seven-decade long debate over the proper construction of secured financial transactions. The decision was responsible for the adoption of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs the methods used to create most commercial security interests in collateral.

In my earnest opinion, this case bears many of the familiar requisites for an aged old dilemma that is the assignment of collateral is deficient without “the effective disposition of title and creation of a lien.”

The subject claims in a foreclosure defense are for mortgages used in financial transactions involving a security that lacks the features that transfer the legal interst in title. If not, this “imputes a lender can blow hot and cold at moments notice and bring to any jurisdicition its claims while hoping to receive a common law sympathetic decision to a forelosure defense .

For a free copy of testimony write to:

ID_Accounting@yahoo.com

Forfeited Title, Alleged Seized At Loan Closings

Note where the substitution of trustee in Washington gives clues as it describes how it is the successor beneficiary. Herein, One West Bank claims itself as the successor by assignment to IndyMac Bank assets.
One West discloses that it warrants and represents, as of the date the assignment was executed and acknowledged,  whereby it is the party named by the Obligee “FDIC” for debt secured originally by the subject deed of trust.  

The disclosure is logical as a participant in or under the Loss Risk Share Program offered to One West Bank by the Government in 2008.

One West adds in disclaimer that is not holding the same security for the bond (i.e. DB obligation outstanding) presumed from IMB FSB prior issuance and pledged deposits used to create 40 year “term” bonds.

The bond was used for structuring assets backed securities from a warehouse line.
The bond converted from the original obligation of Indy Mac Bank owed to the Federal Reserve.

In its disclosure, One West alert’s the parties of interest that the original deed of trust was derecognized and is lost to charges and write downs by the Fed.  These charges under the TARP provisions, bought back to at time of sale under the Debt Collections Practices Act, under short title sale and material misrepresentations made by the foreclosing parties

In this argument is the need to decipher the right of foreclosing parties absent a deed of trust, having forfeited title, alleged unlawfully seized at settlement?

 The title to the property was derecognized under accounting rules [See GAAP FAS 140-3] causing the property to be unencumbered for the purpose of underwriting the bonds.

Now, foreclosing parties have proposed by short title devises the demand for recognition purposes while it avoids the controversy of dual consideration, bifurcation, having negotiated to roll bond investors into a new five bond presumed guaranteed by the government …

All for the same deed of trust.

 

For free analysis contact the editor

ID_Accounting@yahoo.com

There were two loan closings when you closed – WRONG!

There were two loan closings when you closed — one which you knew about where a “Naked nominee “with no money, no authority and nothing to do with the transaction Rented their name to Wall Street to play the part of the lender and named on a note as the Lender and named on the mortgage as the lender protected by the collateral of the house.
Not true according to M Soliman an expert witness who is under constant attack by lenders Constituents and bank anti-foreclosure defense critics.

There was only one loan the household executed at closings — one which you knew about is correct. In referring to the second land this guy is talking about de-recognition and the construction of A negative pledge or zero coupon bonds.
Guessing is causing American homeowners to lose time and time again and something must be done to take convoluted accounting rules and put them into the hands of those who need them attorneys and their clients in a foreclosure defense.
See your mortgage instrument under sec 9 – Any amounts disbursed by Lender under this Section 9 shall become additional debt of . . .Borrower secured by this Security Instrument. These amounts shall bear interest at the Note rate from the date of disbursement and shall be payable, with such interest upon notice from Lender to Borrower requesting payment.

Editor

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

What does the timing of the mortgage lending and ABS market collapse have to do with the US government unveiling a package of new programs to boost liquidity and calm the markets? And why was this done just less than 30 days prior to releasing the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
Friday, September 19, 2008
According to the then Federal Reserve Secretary Hank Paulson
“Wherever the government came in – – as with the guarantee program – – we risked causing massive distortions in the market.”
“The risk of a misstep was greater the faster we had to move. . . .The treasury was operating on the fly….!”
“At 8:30 am the Federal Reserve unveiled it asset Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Fund Liquidity Facility better known as AMLF. Under this program, the fed would extend no recourse loans to US depository institutions and bank holding companies to fiancé their purchase of high quality asset backed commercial paper from money market funds.”
“In a separate move to bolster liquidity, the Fed said it would but short term paper (debt) from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
The ABET has and continues to ask – “What does the timing of the mortgage lending and ABS market collapse have to do with the US government unveiling a package of new programs to boost liquidity and calm the markets?

Aside from the jurisdiction of the non judicial foreclosure (there are ways to include these concepts in a power of sale counter complaint) it should be noted that a lenders failure to state a claim is prevalent for reasons the note was destroyed. This is common place in a lenders response to a foreclosure counter-claim. It is held as a affirmative-defense.By this it is meant the Defendant has every right to argue his case in a civil suit.

In most jurisdictions, it is not necessary to allege failure to state a claim as an affirmative defense. Some courts say it is a unwaivable” defense, others say it may be raised for the first time on appeal. Most lawyers include it anyway because they want to be accused of having waived something that is unwaivable.

There are a variety of things to remember in a motion that cites failure to state a claim . Herein the general rule in sufficiency for arguments and filing a competent complaint is the failure to state a claim. It is held with merit the cause for the complaint not sustaining movants motion .

What is appropriate to subject matter cannot be dismissed where  it appears meritable or not beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove it set of facts in support of his claim. hence he otherwise would be granted as entitled relief”. The failure to state a clam can arise with a failure to state a specific law or civil procedure. The pleading may also fall victim to the failure for satisfying the courts interpretation for sufficiency meaning the evidence to prove the case.

In these mortgage controversy are the following factors:

Some jurisdiction hold there must be evidence of an outstanding debt. Upon demonstrating no demand as alleged in the complaint, the prayer will fail for lack of support to adequately state a claim for which relief may be provided.

In so much as  relief cannot legally be afforded under the circumstances, the complaint fails in stating its claim. Herein is where a plaintiff sued a creditors under the filing that fails to properly state a claim as the FDCPA does not apply to original creditors, only collection agencies

Where plaintiff claims stated the defendant entered into a contract with them and therefore constitutes a breach , the suit is attacked citing where the defendant broke that contract.  In so much as the lost note is a statutory requirement for instance of fraud held under dual consideration , no copy of the contract can be provided, least to say enforceable upon a lost note affidavit.

Furthermore, no  was proof included will demonstrate a defendant entered into this contract. The arguments satisfy the counter claims for “failure to state a claim” criteria

It’s advisable your answer include the complaint fails to allege the terms of any contract as no contract is attached. Therefore , it does not properly allege that you assented to its terms.

Not attorneys and provided as informational and for research purposes only. ** NOT BINDING OR HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTENT MATTER ** Do not rely on information concerning property rights before you consult an attorney. Call your local Bar for attorneys in your area.

The ABET