NO MORTGAGE . . .COMPLEX TAX MATTER PARTNERSHIPS, CONVERSION OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES IN A PASSIVE INVESTMENT

When songwriter Lou Reed wrote of taking a walk on the wild side he was perhaps eluding to the need perhaps to take a little risk in ones life.  To take the kind of risk many attorneys are exposed to is by comparison insane.

What is known by very very few is that the mortage crisis that continues to linger is indeed not what it appears or reads on the surface. Ask an alleged expert such as Neil Garfield from Livinglies “whats wrong with the way foreclosures are brought?” Perhaps he will like most others present you with a cache of wrongful foreclosure arguments. Neither he nor Forbes or the Wall Street Journal have picked up on the fact [1] the mortgage was cancelled and [2] this caused condemnation or the involuntary taking of title by [3] a government actor as collections for [4]  the obligation of a thrid party  as in member bank .

That obligation is for the amount or value of the home used to pay 33 percent withholding taxes on the income the foreclosure victim allegedly received to date of sale.

Take a loan for 586300 and divide it by 10 years and that is the value of 20 semi annual payments PURPORTEDLY PAID TO YOU THE HOUSEHOLD . Dont believe me? Well wait till the IRS comes a calling ! Your being taxed on the cancellation of debt generally described as “attribution” under section 61 (a) (1) of I.R.C. title 26 and section 108 (i) for accelerated recovery.

And what little that is revealed herein is a magnitude of complex and sophisticated amended tax laws and rules dating back to 1930.

Did I say 1930 ?  That I would book mark for later under most important.  And did you know that a loan secured by mortgages (plural) differs from a loan (singular) secured by Real Property which is called a mortage.  Keep in mind however a loan secured by just “Property”  can be limited to a closed mortgage held for sale  A.k.a closed “whole loan transaction.”  So is this an IRS defined Foreclosure for loans secured only by “property ” or is this a Repossession of the “property” securing the loan?

Again consider where the property securing the loans are not homes but “whole-loan “assets that were in fact cancelled for their accelerated conversion value. Your debt was cancelled  as it was attributed to income booked as expense to consumers. The income attribution is thereafter credited back to the fiduciary holding dominion over all assets granted into trust by Grantor for  wealth accumulation by Trustee custodians like Bank of New York Mellon.

Confused yet? The instrument securing the obligation  is either a mortage or deed of trust depending on the state the property is domiciled.  Not true unless you leave out Georgia.  The state of GA has over the last 140 years used a security deed for transferring title in advance of a default  and foreclosure. Thats not completely correct as that GA title is held in strictest confidence and more than just good faith by under constructive trust as called fro in operative law. A security deed is unique as it  defined the security in the opening preamble under Property Definition- TRANSFER RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY.

SO IS THIS TO SAY ALL MORTGAGES AND DEEDS ARE NOW UNIFORM AS IN STATE OF GEORGIA ?

My layperson opinion is no!  Uniform as in the UCC I filed on the lender balance sheet who is the party named the note-holder  in your case . Each state holds the same warranties and covenants starting with irrevocably grants and conveys title into Trust  to trustee or the estate…free of all liens and encumbrances …..subject to ! Subject t the existing lines of record – hey come on !

What is going on here ? More latter on the subject of law and doctrine of confusion but where their is certain rhyme and reason for all of this .

 Trust Me  (Did I say Trust ?)

What is important here is that which is materiel that is being missed. I refer to it as material violations of the US tax Payer Bill of rights , exparte rules and most reversed  constitutional rights. Under Daubert and rules 702 I cite the fifth and fourteenth amendments that provides the taking clause by adequate and sufficient notice to right of hearing for due compensation and the tax payer right to know what it is your being taxed on when issued a 1099 A versus a Lenders issued 1099 C.

We will be back in a moment !

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s