Wells Fargo Pleading Added

Wachovia is Now Wells Fargo
Founded in Winston-Salem, N.C. as Wachovia National Bank on June 16, 1879, Wachovia grew to be one of the largest diversified financial services companies in the United States. It traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol WB.

Wachovia provided a broad range of retail banking and brokerage, asset and wealth management, and corporate and investment banking products and services to customers through 3,300 retail financial centers in 21 states, along with nationwide retail brokerage, mortgage lending, and auto finance businesses. Globally, Wachovia served clients in corporate and institutional sectors and through more than 40 international offices.

Wachovia is acquired
In 2008, Wells Fargo & Company acquired Wachovia Corporation to create North America’s most extensive distribution system for financial services, Wells Fargo provides banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, and consumer and commercial finance through more than 9,000 stores, 12,000 ATMs, the Internet (wellsfargo.com), and other distribution channels across North America and internationally. The integration of Wachovia and Wells Fargo is complete, and all Wachovia accounts have been moved to Wells Fargo.

SEC Registration

For any new offering of securities, a corporation must file a registration statement with the SEC that contains the following information: A description of the corporation.  This includes a concise biography of the officers and directors of the corporation.

It involves the financial stakes of all insiders, the directors and officers (control persons) in the corporation, and a list of anyone holding more than 10% of the corporation’s securities. Complete financial statements.

It shall address the securities are being offered for sale, and how will the money be used. Any legal proceedings that may have a material impact on the company.

An SPE is a de novo entity set up by the tax payer corporation under a LLC subsidiary. In this effort to recapitalize stock, for which the loan is lost to a divestiture of assets, critical information is purposely withheld. A closer inspection into the officers and directors of the corporation would show the reality of a Bank f NY repurchase.

The Financial stakes of all insiders, (control persons) in the corporation, are government related and marks the move for commingling private and public sector housing into government-owned housing. The share holders are investors from domestic capital companies made to wait out the term limits set to recapitalize the housing market. Where the government owns holdings of more than 10% of the corporation’s securities, the securities are used to conduct foreclosure by washing assets .

The government has barred release of the complete financial statement holding the borrowers loan. Securities are now offered for sale demand the sponsors account for how will the money be used. This is argued subject to TARP and short t title.

Enclosed is an analysis of how the Bank of New York, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are offering modifications while the title to the fee simple estate and home requires a hedge or bet the borrower will not keep their home.


not an attorney and not intended as legal advice

What is Going On here Counsel ?


Foreclosures have taken to an uncharacteristic methodology and unorthodox style whereupon the devisees and instrumentalities used by Federal Agents are seen are forcing the majority of this case to evolve into judicial setting. Then there is the FDCPA used by foreclosure attorneys who are alleged secured creditors ?

Consider MersCorp rights to transfer assets without recording assignments – Cannot do in a private placement. But really, No per diem interest in calculating a payoff figure surety claims. And what about the promissory notes that are endorsed in blank Bailment claims

Servicing breach under ABS 1122 AB for material violations see attestation reports and New York Fed pursuing claims as the beneficiary- ABA wire

Debt collectors engaged under Federal color of badge and authority abusive practices and the ongoing controversy amongst domestic FASB and overseas IASB accounting rules capitation.

Foreclosure claims brought for a title holders interest versus actual ownership cannot F/C on interests and claims in US Bankruptcy Courts that no foreclosure exists – installment sales contract

Aggressive pursuit to grant modifications that seldom succeed – laches and the Passage of TARP legislation allowing GSE to short title short selling options

Foreclosures are required to include hedging strategies see above and the Trustee sales that credit bid in excess of the property value

Beneficiaries must enter a credit bid versus setting opening bid. Now consider the executed bank endorsements and assignments familiar to bailment law.

There is the matter of the GSE ‘s  FNMA and FHLMC purchasing assets subsequent to direct endorsements. And the Time delays and postponement of Sheriff and trustee sales dates. There is the revolving bank lines of credit that accumulate over time versus revolve

Lawyers for the household plaintiffs dropping cases at trial and the The 1996 changes marking the commencement of alternative lending that should mention cautious literature by ABA warning of the advent of civil forfeiture and the timing of the Introduction of Mers Corp for Bailment uses

Title companies offered  government indemnities against surety claims /Introduction of a uniform instrument held for national use

Entry into commercial paper markets by banks /Reverse predatory lending pricing devisee that are submerged

At sale the grantee is the foreclosing beneficiary/Combo loans to 100% where the sponsors cannot exceed 80 %LTV /Consumption of early payments stream  with nothing left for overcollateralization / Corridor financing used in securities deals to avoid GAAP / Reverse REPO’s used as ingress versus egress /Negative pledge for bonds are executory /Good will at 10:1 ratio is a restraint on alienation MersCorp avoids

Tax payer funds used to capitalize private placements and each de-novo /Bank financing that clearly violates FIERRA and Sarbox legislation /Cancellation of third party debt “bonds” passed thru to the household /Economic corollaries that  cause the states civil code enforcement to fail  /Demands for controlling recognition to establish values versus appraisals /New administration revokes the Constitution, brings F/C through a national collections effort and warns of the reprisals against for bank and lender who controlled or inflated values. ….

while president Obama suggests doing away with appraisals.

Problems Brewing

The government contracting process is notoriously transparent, and although Treasury appears to have performed well on a comparative basis, significant transparency concerns remain. For example, contractors and agents are immune to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Contractors may hire subcontractors, and those subcontracts are not disclosed to the public. Important aspects of a contractor‟s work may be buried in work orders that are never published in any form. Further, The Treasury publishes no information on the performance of contractors during the life of the contract. In short, as work moves farther and farther from Treasury‟s direct control, it becomes less and less transparent and thus impedes accountability.

The contracting process has also created confusion about the role of small businesses in administering the TARP. In one case , Treasury awarded a contract to a “small disadvantaged business,” which in turn delegated roughly 80 percent of the contract to a “large business.” Thus, although on the surface it appears that the contract is being performed by a small business,in actuality a large business is essentially responsible for performance. Additionally, the Panel is concerned by the lack of outreach by Treasury to find qualified minority-owned businesses to participate in the TARP. The largest TARP financial agency agreements were those with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide administration and compliance services for Treasury‟s foreclosure mitigation programs.

As described in detail in the case study accompanying this report, these agreements raise significant concerns. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a history of profound corporate mismanagement, and both companies would have collapsed in 2008 were it not for government intervention. Further, both companies have fallen short in aspects of their performance, as Fannie Mae recently made a significant data error in reporting on mortgageredefaults and Freddie Mac has had difficulty meeting its assigned deadlines.

What happens in your Foreclosure


 The district court is the proper venue Pursuant to the United States governments invoking 18 U.S.C. § 983(a), administrative civil forfeiture


A Federal Question arises out of the defendants enforcing a Security Instrument alleged to combine uniform covenants for national use subject to limited variations by jurisdiction to constitute a uniform security instrument covering real property, done under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), including those concerning competition and conflict of interest.

Plaintiff alleges a misconceived federal policy brought by passage of certain enactment under TARP that systematically incorporates an oppressive means and intolerant method for enforcement alleged against public policy.  In the passage of the “Act” passed in 2008, the call, by its own admission, is to the devices and instrumentality granted to the secretary of the United States department of treasury held under sec. 108. This is the controversy and raises arguments against the Conflicts of interest. And subsection (a) standards required.


Plaintiff argues the foreclosure proceedings to date, fails whereby the secretary has issued stern regulations or prohibitive guidelines that otherwise lack sufficiency for debt collectors who are officers of the court to impose martial law and or pursue government claims deemed to promote, and not prohibit conflicts of interest that have arisen in connection with the improper administration and materially misstated execution of the authorities provided under this Act. 

Defendants are alleged FEDERALLY APPOINTED FINANCIAL AGENTS led by THE APPOINTED TRUSTEE solely INCIDENTAL TO TRUST and therein made by appointment QUALIFIED TO EXECUTE THE REPOSSESSION OF BAILMENT COLLATERAL. By operations of law the passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), which created TARP, the Treasury has thrown to private entities, including investment management firms, LAW FIRMS, accounting firms, and consulting firms, to assist with implementation of the $700 billion bank bailout. As of the end of August, Treasury had entered into 108 transactions to procure nearly $450 million worth of services.

Defendants under TARP provides the Treasury to have entered into two forms of substantive agreements, ONE WITH CONTRACTORS AND ONE WITH FINANCIAL AGENTS. The argument is Treasury utilizes contractors for basic services like document management, legal support, and information technology, WHILE FINANCIAL AGENTS ACT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT and may hold and manage money. While financial agents have a fiduciary obligation to the government, [1]they “do not take an oath of office … stand for election … nor are they subject to civil service rules.” Rather, “Their goal is to turn a profit – not to advance the public good.”

Defedants are shown from discovery to date to pursue draconian collections practices steeped in material misstatements and falsified publishing of instruments so to bring claims against a mortgage viewed by operations of law as an INSTALLMENT CONTRACT. Under the deceptive uses of the installment contract are the rights of parties thought on  one hand-held to a CONVENTIONAL MORTGAGE yet promulgate foreclosure under a deceptive “REVERSE PURCHASE AND SALE”  method or by the defendants own admission a “REPO” SALE solely to wash back the value of derivatives and converted equitable interests into securities.

Plaintiff asserts a “REPO” SALE used solely to wash back the value of derivatives and converted equitable interests into securities allows the agents to adjudicate the matter held under state foreclosure laws clearly held as not one in the same with the states jurisdiction over a power of sale.

expert testimony /  registerclaims@live.com

Not an attorney and not intended as legaladvice – call your state bar for more information about retaining an attorney


 In some cases, the innocence of the owner may not be a defense, although Constitution limitations, such as the Eighth Amendment‘s Excessive Fines Clause, may apply. The owner is effectively put in the position of being a third party claimant. Civil liberties group has filed suit challenging the legality and constitutionality of the New York City program. Citing some of the same constitutional concerns, the House passed a Bill that would drastically curtail the federal operation of the law.

Unless provided in statute (as in 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(2)), Criminal forfeiture only severs the defendant’s interest, so the property rights of third parties (co-owners, banks, and the like) are theoretically unaffected.

However, third parties may be unaware of the forfeiture and the property’s subsequent disposal. To protect third party interests, the government must provide notice and a hearing to all interested parties. At the hearing, the party must assert and prove their interest by preponderance of the evidence. The same statutes apply–18 U.S.C. § 981 (parallels 18 U.S.C. § 982) and 21 U.S.C. § 881. To complicate matters, these statutes incorporate by reference Customs procedures from 19 U.S.C. § 1602 involving administrative procedure, holding, and disposal.

Due to its civil nature, the roles of the parties change. Instead of prosecutor versus defendant, the hearing concerns a plaintiff, the United States in the case of Federal forfeitures, and a defendant, the property in question. Furthermore, civil hearings involve a more lenient burden of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove by “preponderance of the evidence” that it is not.

innocence of the owner is typically not a defense. Furthermore, courts interpret the statutory defenses stringently. For instance, courts may apply an objective standard to determine if the owner should have had knowledge of the property’s illegal use, rather require proof of actual knowledge. The owner may argue that no crime ever occurred, that the government lacked probable cause, or that the property is not closely enough connected to the crime to be considered an instrumentality or proceeds.

Should any of these defenses succeed, the government need simply return the property to the owner. It is not liable to the owner damages caused by the property’s detention, including damages resulting during the original seizure or a failure to look after the property while in government custody.

What would happen if H.R. 1658 were passed?

The whole character of civil forfeiture under Federal law would be fundamentally altered. Most importantly, the federal government would have to show by a “clear and convincing evidence” standard that the property in question was eligible for forfeiture.

A property owner would be given 30 days to challenge the forfeiture, not 10 days as currently allowed, and would not be required to put up a 10% bond as precondition to the challenge. Judges would have the authority to appoint counsel for indigent plaintiffs, and could release the property to the owner if the owner could show that the loss would be a substantial hardship for him or her. Furthermore, the government would be liable if they negligently lost or damaged the property, and some owners of seized cash could also receive interest if they recover the money.

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

The loss of property or a privilege due to breaking a law.

Who is the lender

Banks are tax payer corporations having structured their platforms to revolve around mortgages for one specific purpose – capital requirements. The structure involves a holding company and timeline to complete a series of steps.

In doing this the corporation Bank becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of a newly formed tax payer holding company. The holding company structure will provide the Bank with additional flexibility for taking advantage of opportunities under the continually evolving laws governing financial institutions.

The holding company formation did not change equity or voting interest in their operations relative to other stockholders. In each of these post 1998 reorganizations, stockholders of the Bank received one share of common stock of the new holding company, ABC Holdings, Inc., for each share of common stock of the Bank they own.

The Bank’s common stock is traded publically under the trading symbol “ABC.” The scheme structured there organization to be tax free to stockholders.

The reorganization was adopted and invoked by stockholders for Indy Mac; F.S.B. IMB FSB is a federally chartered savings bank operating under the Regulations of the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Indy Mac F.S.B. offers Bank’s deposits that are insured up to the applicable limits by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.Debtor contends that the filing for a conventional foreclosure is clearly moot under allegations of civil administrative forfeiture in bifurcation of claims.

The opposition and creditor pursue order for entry of for judgment obtained in Rem proceeding, to arrest title to the estate and in companion filings for FDCPA collection procedures from 30 day publication and entry for summary judgment.

Creditor claims are for equitable interests held in certain Special Purpose Entities used previously to house the entire estates equitable and legal title.

Discovery will demonstrate the orderly manner in which Rem proceeding are enabling the lawful arrest of title to the estate from the dominion if a statutory trustee.

The orderly manners in which Rem proceeding enable a lawful arrest of title to the estate from the statutory trustee beg the question of how did the equitable interest transfer. What emerges as highly oppressive claims brought against the households is viewed, subject to discovery, as an improper use of one title for the benefit and gain for another for a bargain made in mutual trust and good faith.

Household debtor is portrayed as a conventional foreclosure but is in fact a vendee in a purchase and sale scheme for which title taken by the trustee in advance of a default.

Household debtor contends the foreclosing parties represent the botched or failed scheme that reversed the procedures characteristics of long term single family housing over 30 years.


Not for rerproduction and not intended as legal advice – call the sate bar for more information .


The subject claims are solely limited to the execution of a guarantors breach under an installment contract. The opposition pursues foreclosure as an unsecured creditor for “Third Party Obligations. Claims for default are subject to guarantor’s right off salvage. The FDCPA operates to allow creditors to obtain a summary judgment upon 30 days notice. The creditor is by its own admission is NOT alleging to bring a foreclosure.


  • FFFC Foreclosing Trustee v. Henderson $500,000 principal reduction – 2008
  • Aurora Foreclosing Trustee v. Corbett Dec. for Occupants w/ prejudice – 2009
  • Select Portfolio V. Graupner; CA Court of Appeals Dec Remand back to trial court -2010
  • Cash Settlement –Lopez v ASC $50,000

The state Bar may, or has continued to issue memorandums for avoiding these foreclosure defenses for implications are concerning interference with congressional act and Government efforts under administrative civil forfeiture proceeding.

Claims no less merit due process if properly plead. Understand that the lenders claims are brought by a substituted creditor under a collections effort for charged or written off assets.

The tax payer corporation who formed a REIT at the commencement is either defunct or released of all entitlements subject to a best efforts interest in claim. The claims are by a judgment entered by collections attorneys in place of the creditor. They are not ENFORCABLE AGINST THE RECORED INTEREST in the deed of trust but seeking to restore claims for DEFAULTED BOND FINANCING. These foreclosure proceeding require filing for judgment and order for entry that is critical for reestablishing the basis or value for cancelled contracts, the mortgage.

Know the facts and obtain the evidentiary required to avoid mal practice and other claims against Attorneys E&O policies

Expert Witness Testimony


When LivingLies wont let you Post –

By ID_accounting@yahoo.com   LL Commentary – This is a HUGE victory!! Well, the foreclosure mill titans of Washington State (Routh Crabtree & Olsen) are going to have to take on day jobs… Thank GOD Bain ruling

It appears the Bain court , like the MA land court decison , is fizzling out to be of no particular value. Moot decision, by WA Appellate justices.

There is a crime alleged here (or poetry in comotion) and that is your first problem to understand. Second your argument raised here are no sufficent for what your seeking – and what are you seeking. Yo need to focus on what is the focus of the breach and current prodiction line recivery. This is no doubt one reason why my testimony is held as highly controversial and subject to intense scrutiny by the courts. (See testimony before US bankruptcy court Chase v Christianson 2012) , the honorable Judge Albert. Central District Court  

It’s based on the standard that defines forfeiture and in theory amounts to a disseisin or actual passing of an estate. The act upon which the grantor has no right to pass, to the prejudice of him in remainder; Property used in the commission of a crime, including “vehicles” and real estate. By being associated with the crime, the property is “guilty” of the offense, and subject to “seizure”. In some cases, the innocence of the owner may not be a defense,

To date I have received three calls from US Trustees who hired attorneys to combat my arguments under a statue of fraud provision. Why did the trustee not call?

My last call into the kind and generous FDIC (really great people there) regarding the prohibition on servicing rights was a one hour litany of “no Comment”. My counsel was present on the line.  My testimony in deposition before the CA Court of appeals in the Graupner v Select Portfolio Services case remains NOT FOR PUBLISHING. After two days of deposition I was pressed to concede the securitization was a fraud —by the opposition? Why? 

The matter was remanded back to the lower trial court.

Al I can say for the price is what you’re looking at is not a mortgage and think of the scheme as MTV money for nothing and your Bond for free. So listen up mischief makers and frustrated experts under cover of one or another. Read the following closely.

Lemonade is sold from a pitcher. The pitchers EACH holds 10 glasses. The vendor pours’ the entire contents of both pitchers. AT DAYS END, HOW MANY GLASSES OF LEMONDAE ARE BOOKED AS SOLD?

a, 20 glasses b. Depends on glass size c. 30 glasses d. Lemonade sucks

The answer is c. 30 gasses –

Get this and your 90 percent on your way. The problem is the last 10 percent will take another 25 years to learn