Beware of this hidden clause

The clause is actually a miscellaneous provision found in most mortgages.

If any of the loan documents are …destroyed and note holder delivers to me an indemnification in my favor signed by note holder….

This supports the argument the borrower is the suerty for collateralizing the issuers registration.  I just found it auditing a copy of the makers note.

Track the Flow of Money ….Look what we found!

Foreclose for a mortage held just over four years for outstanding balance prepaid out 30.56 years.

Now someone on-line for a popular foreclosure web site “Guru” revealed you should track the money in a foreclosure case. When we tried to publish just what the Witch-doctors ordered . . .

THEY REFUSED TO PUBLISH THE WORK THEY WERE ASKING FOR ?

Hmm! So we will do the Livinglies for you ! Here it is and we hope you can follow along:

ASSUMPTIONS:

  • Alleged Loan Amount $546,250
  • Appraised Value- Sale $598,952
  • 1099 A Issued Box 1.  $598,952
  • Date of Foreclose: 10/28/2012  Wells Fargo  for Bank of America
  • Date of Eviction:  9/01/2013  Local County Sheriffs

We audited this Southern California file back in 2013 and indeed showed the results to the foreclosure victims CPA and tax preparer.

Our basis for audit  assumed we integrate the alleged Loan Amount $546,250 and amount shown as the appraised value at sale $598,952. This was shown in 1099 A issued Box 1.  $598,952.

We included the Date of Foreclose as of 10/28/2012 for alleged sale by Wells Fargo for Bank of America. And then determined offsets using the  IRC Title 26  “Codes” and were able to factor out the remaining days to the date of eviction:  9/01/2013 by local County Sheriffs

Documented

What resulted was what you see above – Capitalized value of nearly three times the loans value or $1.4 million on only 11 months in arrears for mortgage prepaid out 30.56 years .

If we can assist you with an audit or your attorney with evidentury in these foreclosure endeavors and stating a claim for compensation you are due – contacts us at registerclaims@live.com.

Peace

 

Cracking the MERS BAR Codes

Codes are used in times of war and perhaps for productive things like more efficiency created in Bar codes . Troy, Ohio celebrates an historic occasion annually that puts it on the world map of the grocery trade. National Cash Register, which provided the checkout equipment, was based in Ohio and Troy was also the headquarters of the Hobart Corporation, which developed the weighing and pricing machines for loose items such as meat. It was here, at just after 8 a.m. on June 26, 1974, that the first item marked with the Universal Product Code (UPC) BAR CODE was scanned at the checkout of Troy’s Marsh Supermarket.

Its needless to say that when a nominee named MERS and Bar codes came together nothing good could come out of  it. Lets take a look at the alleged codes used to  sync MERS with  timing and pricing in the scheduling defaults and for timing fictitious foreclosures.

ALLEGED “BAR CODED” TIMING PLATFORM

  • Starting backwards (REPO) with 5/11/2018 Dodd Frank Sunset
  • 1031 Days : 1031 Tax deferred “like kind exchanges” for title transferred at time of loan closing
  • 7  Days : adjusted at the end of a 1031 exchange for settlement  and  recording
  • 1038  : Total days starting on 7/8/2015 the day the NYSE closed.
  • 3663 = 10 Year bond expiration
  • 2005 = Conversion of the Legacy Platform  (2005-2008.5 & 2008.5 – 2012)
  • Commencing  12/31/99 from the scheduled 5/11/2018 Dodd Frank Sunset.

From these coded dates we subtract and convert dates into days months and years ending with the subject files life of loan”Scheduled default at 9.11 years .  Come on 9.11 years as in 911 ?

The series of dates and calculations are using Microsoft MersBarCodesExcel that are believed to be in fact “Bugged” while it remains the number one platform for secondary and  capital markets traders.  According to M Soliman “It is the Y2-K Bug that purportedly survives unbeknownst to the United States government.”

But what is most disparaging to member banks reputations and more humiliating to the attorneys involved in the subject matter case is the  9.11 years triggered in this case analysis using a default judgement date of  6/2/2017.  June 2nd, 2017 is the date of the scheduled hearing in district court for a case brought by Bank of NY and J P Morgan Chase for judicial foreclosure.

Explain that one to the court …or should the court explain it to the litigants…LOL !

Who really knows at this stage.  Now for the non believers akin to our firmly cracking the MERS Bar codes … SUGGESTION:  Try Livinglies for some more ROBO arguments and track the back of the notary jack  (Please) .

LOL . . .Peace !

For the substance missing in your case have your lawyers contact us or contact us yourself  for audits that guarantee to crack your MERS BAR Code.

Registerclaims@live.com

  • Guarantee is for audits where we cannot confirm the timing of the default and foreclosure that otherwise were in fact due to insider knowledge and MERS Bar Codes

HAS ANYONE GOT A FREE HOME FROM LIVINGLIES ?

IT’S CALLED CLOSED END CONSUMER LEASES REPLACING MORTGAGES. And livinglies is still talking about what?  Trusts!

Only a fool or desperate household would still listen to that nonsense. Read Sales vs. Redemption’s of Partnership Interests Follow the yellow brick road?

Often, when a partner of a partnership is going to depart, there may be a choice as to whether the remaining partners will purchase the departing partner’s interest on a pro rata basis or whether the partnership will redeem the interest. Under either approach, the departing partner ultimately will wind up with the same amount of proceeds and the remaining partners will wind up with the same percentage ownership interest in the partnership after the departure.

However, depending on which road the parties take, the ultimate tax results can differ based on various detours along the way, and there can be visits with monkeys, poppies and even the wizard himself. On November 26, 2004, Treasury finally issued proposed regulations addressing disguised sales of partnership interests (the “Proposed Regulations”). Despite Congressional warning, the Proposed Regulations create a framework that may call into question vanilla property contribution/distribution transactions. The starting point in the analysis is Prop. Reg. §1.707-7(a)(1), which provides: Except as otherwise provided in this section, if a transfer of money, property or other consideration (including the assumption of a liability) (consideration) by a partner (purchasing partner) to a partnership and a transfer of consideration by the partnership to 4 another partner (selling partner) are described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the transfers are treated as a sale, in whole or in part, of the selling partner’s interest in the partnership to the purchasing partner.

However, the critical provision is Prop. Reg. §1.707-7(b)(1), which provides: A transfer of consideration by a purchasing partner to a partnership and a transfer of consideration by the partnership to a selling partner constitute a sale, in whole or in part, of the selling partner’s interest in the partnership to the purchasing partner only if, based on all the facts and circumstances—(i) The transfer of consideration by the partnership to the selling partner would not have been made but for the transfer of consideration to the partnership by the purchasing partner; and (ii) in cases in which the transfers are not made simultaneously, the subsequent transfer is not dependent on the entrepreneurial risks of partnership operations. (Emphasis added.) Note that the Proposed Regulations did not adopt the “double but for” test that would find a disguised sale of a partnership interest only where both the transfer to and the transfer by the partnership would not have been made but for the other transfer. Just as in the Disguised Property Regulations, the Proposed Regulations contain a twoyear presumption. That is, Prop. Reg. §1.707-7(c) provides that “if within a two-year period a purchasing partner transfers consideration to a partnership and the partnership transfers consideration to a selling partner (without regard to the order of the transfers), the transfers are presumed to be a sale, in whole or in part, of the selling partner’s interest in the partnership to the purchasing partner unless the facts and circumstances clearly establish that the transfers do not constitute a sale.” On the other hand, Prop. Reg. §1.707-7(d) provides that “if a transfer of consideration by a purchasing partner to a partnership and the transfer of consideration by the partnership to a selling partner (without regard to the order of the transfers) occur more than two years apart, the transfers are presumed not to be a sale, in whole or in part, of the selling partner’s interest in the partnership to the purchasing partner unless the facts and circumstances clearly establish that the transfers constitute a sale.” (See Prop. Reg. §1.707-7(b)(2) which sets forth ten relevant facts and circumstances that Treasury regards as tending to prove the existence of a sale.) A transfer is considered to take place on the date of the actual transfer or, if earlier, on the date that the transferor agrees in writing to make the transfer. The sale of the selling partner’s partnership interest is considered to take place on the date of the first to occur of the selling partner’s receipt of consideration from the partnership or the transfer of consideration to the partnership by the purchasing partner. Prop. Reg. §1.707-7(a)(2)(ii)(A). This rule is not too difficult to apply when there is a simultaneous transfer of consideration by the purchasing and selling partners to and from the partnership. However, the deemed sale rules become far more difficult in application in the case of non-simultaneous transfers or when the property distributed to the selling partner is different than that contributed by the purchasing partner. The Proposed Regulations contain a whole litany of rules addressing these situations.

F:\DOCS\CL\15001\05\2008 Columns-Articles\May-June 08\3Levun-Cohen.doc

Your loan suffers from alleged false accounting and market manipulation.

 

Member Banks are  allegedly using dozens of accounts at several brokerage firms in bouts of manipulative trading activity

Traders are allegedly manipulating prices of 100’s of private label exchanges restricted shares representing mortgages that have a direct impact on the banks New York Stock Exchange- and Nasdaq-listed shares resulting in millions in illegal profits since 2013.

Regulators, law enforcement, and the exchanges have access to technology to see, and track, manipulative trading that, in this case happens day in and out .

A 10 year installment contract is not a 30 year mortgage and this is where the problem arises .  Households lose their home arguing something that has nothing to do with the divestiture of the mortgage and home into a ten year contract and certificate of deposit.

Institutional lies – all lies !

registerclaims@live.com