FORECLOSURES CODES AND SCHEDULING DEFAULT

registerclaims@live.com

In this segment of the experts views I cite issues FNMA / FHLMC Form 3009: District of Columbia Deed of Trust.

The premise is as follows:

Are the GSE Uniform Instruments numbered sequentially by code for purposes other than those intended by its authors.  And was this in order to avoid the Dodd Frank May 11 2018 deadline for disclosing the individuals and entities  having claims to beneficial interests on deposit as interest bearing accounts . It is substantive and of  greater importance to ensure codes used to track and zero out balance by backdating are not the intended for uniform instruments or used to gain advantage over the consumer household.

FHLMC CODES

The above is an abbreviated  list of the current security intrument codes found on the GSE Web site and are by admission authored by one in the same . Further concerns are where the uniformity was intended to preserve the integrity and protect home ownership in the United States. One can reckon it would be a windfall of unparalleled  precedent if the wish and desires of some aspect of government could rid themselves of the GSE for a number of key economic considerations such as stabilizing the US Balance sheet. For the purpose of this analysis however  we want to point out a few instances and elements of discovery that when bought together offer an intriguing look into controlling devises and other instrumentality  causing the housing markets collapse.

If not by chance nor coincidence that the controversy arise in the District of Columbia for file the auditor reviewed and will testify for before the DC courts in September.  Now what arises in discovery are the alleged systematic tracking of the borrower and file from date of the “default” event through Dodd Frank  cutoff date and then backdating to the date of the NYSE  closure .

The borrower was Instructed to halt payments by Servicing agents for J P Morgan Chase Bank a/k/a/Chase in early 2010. The servicing agents rejected the payment made owed for month of  January  and due February 1st 2010. March and April were the same  in that the alleged servicing agent  reject further payments causal to leading her into default. What is unique here over the similar claims made by defaulted households is concern over the scheduling of a default for purposes other than mortage loan servicing .

Belief for claims cite where a coded system was used in conjunction with the uniform instrument for tracking and managing a predetermined volume of  default and foreclosures.    Borrower performance meaning loan servicing  was moot as the mortage cancelled the note  from the HUD I  Settlement start date. In my opinion, it appears by reason other than coincidence that the Uniform Instruments are state coded under Form FHLMC 3009 for tracking property  transferred and conveyed in advance of  foreclosure or by repossession.

Form 3009 for District of Columbia Deed of Trust represents 3009 days that when added to 9 days paid interest  shown on the HUD I settlement  statement backdates from 5/11/2018 to date the servicing agents refused payment on  2/1/2010. Or in reverse add 3009 to 9 from 2/1/2010 and it equals the Dodd Frank Sunset on 5/11/2018

CHRONOLOGICAL DATED TRACKING FROM FORM 3009

DC CODED

The date of 5/11/2018 is the nationally known Dodd Frank deadline or final rule extending customer due diligence (CDD) requirements under Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) rules to the natural persons behind a legal entity, such as many types of corporations. This means that for BSA purposes, financial institutions must identify and verify the identity of beneficial owners of a legal entity at the time the legal entity opens a new account, as well as develop risk profiles and conduct ongoing monitoring of customers. The rule also adds a fifth pillar to the traditional “four pillars” of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program by requiring covered financial institutions to establish risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing CDD.

Although the final rule will technically become effective July 11, 2016, compliance will not be mandatory until May 11, 2018.

From May 11, 2018 I then reverse the process back 1038 days to the date the New York Stock Exchange closed on July 8th , 2015.   According to published reports in the New York Times Jul 8, 2015 “…an unexpected computer malfunction crippled the New York Stock Exchange, causing it to shut down for about four hours.”

Now aside from the NYSE Closure tracking  1038 days  from the Dodd Frank  sunset is alleged insider code under 26 US Code Section 1038 of the Internal Revenue Code.  IRC Section 1038 is instrumental establishing  rules  when partnerships are  repossessing investment real estate triggering a taxable gain if the buyer pays … cash. This includes where or when the price at which real property is sold is the gross sales price reduced by the selling commissions, legal fees, and other expenses incident to the sale of such property which are properly taken into account in determining gain or loss on such sale.

 

rev dc coded a

Next the auditor affirmed back-dating believed required for maturing a 10-year bond assuming the 30 year instrument exchanged for bond [See Obama Amended Section 108 (i) Accelerated Recovery . In this effort we back dated 3663 days from July 8th 2015 to June 27th 2005 .  Then take the number of days for the  date June 27 2005 and backdate again 2005.627 days to close out recapture as of Y2 K or December 31, 1999.

FROM DATE OF DEFAULT BACK  FORWARD AND BACK TO Y2 K

Its widely speculated that the  banks acting as creditors for lenders as  Fed Savings Banks used the cancellation of debt  for involuntary conversion of consumer property title into shares transferred into  Constructive Trust.  “A constructive trust is an involuntary equitable trust created as a remedy to compel the transfer of property from the person wrongfully holding it to the rightful owner.” In re Real Estate Associates Ltd.
Partnership Litig., 223 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1139 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

“The imposition of a constructive trust requires the right of the complaining party to that res or interest held ; and (3) some wrongful acquisition or detention of the res by another party who is not entitled to it.” See Burlesci v. Petersen, 68 Cal. App. 4th 1062, 1069 (1998).
The remedy of a constructive trust should only arise where the commission of tort is alleged or where the involuntary trustee is in possession of property a one Rosenberg and Associates  are allegedly owned by the claimant.

According to the article by Gibson Dunn entitled Beware The Constructive Trust Claim
Law360, New York (October 13, 2010) — Faced with the prospect of little recovery at some distant point in the future, larger unsecured creditors are using the remedy of a constructive trust to target specific property to obtain a full recovery superior to all other claimants, including senior secured creditors. However, it is commonplace for claimants to use facts which give rise to a contract claim to also allege tort liability — such as the allegation that an unpaid loan was procured through the misrepresentations of the borrower which in this case fails in its entirety .

The claimant in this case clearly  appears to benefit from these timing devises under the calendaring of events and Treasury Regs for  recovery of  divested property or a specific “res.”  as a property exchange or linked transaction . Counter claims should benefit  from discovery proving  the requirement to reaffirm or reconstitute a specific “res”, and where the counter claimant is able to trace the alleged wrongfully obtained proceeds to specific property such as the Interest Bearing Account .

In any event the facts is the claims to interest in property are the household as reversion rights or first right to repurchase. Perhaps the February 1, 2010 inducement to cease making payments is the time at which the lender had reason to believe the property is transferred into trust had been abandoned;i.e. for cause having to  cease receiving payments  . IN this case it is equally clear  where a distinct advantage arises in court from Trustees having benefited from a District of Columbia insiders  concealed tracking method under Uniform Instrument form 3009 and HUD I  dated December 19, 2005  .

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