6/2/2017 Hearing and 10/19/87 Black Monday

THE STOCK MARKET crashed in a unprecedented event in 1987 . In finance, Black Monday refers to Monday, October 19, 1987, when stock markets around the world crashed, shedding a huge value in a very short time. The crash began in Hong Kong and spread west to Europe, hitting the United States after other markets had collapsed.

Now take a look at a case we are testifying in for the defendants against the foreclosure brought by SPS and Rosenberg and Associates.

  • Annum 360.6  days
  • Years 30.00 term 
  • 30 Yrs: 10,819.00 days

I took 360.6 days a year bond holder per annum multiplied by 30 years equal to 10,819 totals days.

Multiply the 30 years by $57.12 per day equal to $ 618,005.81 the amount shown by SPS on their statements.

Now I take the hearing date 6/2/2017 and backdate 10,819 days and that takes me to 10/19/1987. . . Black Monday

  • Court Hearing 06/02/17
  • No. of days (10,819.00)
  • Equals back to : 10/19/87

Again take (57.12) x 10819 equals $618,005.81

Conclusion  – Its called hiding the cash by back dating  30 years to a relevant date in history  … another timing devise. The SPS statement shows $618005.81 as interest bearing account and “other balance outstanding”shown is $618,005.81.  Matching balances contra accounts and mortgages – Makes one think!

If you are in foreclosure – ask your self . . .what am I doing ! One popular web site by Living-the-lie is talking about forgery and another about the weather in France – WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE ?

At this pace you do not have a chance …not a chance !

registerclaims@live.com (The smart mans defenses…)

To Buy or to be stuck in a Lease

The court is asked to hear arguments denying Plaintiffs claims to a lawful foreclosure on ground the liquidation of the estates value over 10 years requires the court to decide a punitive tax upon reconstituting the lost or abandonment asset.

The fact is most commercial leases are written against  chattel that converts at installation into  real property  or machinery that at the and of a 10 years term is fully amortized down to zero.  The vendor sells the  asset to the creditor who is return his investment as 20 semi annual installments.

Furniture fixture and other equipment that is attached to real property become real property . So how can these high ticket items sell on a lease versus  a mortage . After all dont you turn a car in at the end of five years ?

In these instances a capital lease agreement or commercial lease covers the cost basis in the asset sold or in this case leased. At the end of ten years the lessor will seek to have the lessee exercise his right of reversion for a nominal value such as $100. In a recent bankruptcy Ch 7 case in White Plains New York I was allowed to appear as the filers accountant. The court explained to me that my analysis failed as just what I am describing here – a lease and not a mortgage.

My response was asked then why did the home sell for $100. Homes do not sell for $100 and this is called the right of repurchase value at a nominal value.

If the Creditor desires to take back the asset after the end of the term he does what is known as a repossession.  Typically  the lessee will claim the lessors abandonment for walking away and seek permission to recover possession.   If the lessors  or creditor here is looking to recover his asset  leased by vendor and assigned back  he may seek a court ordered entry for judgement to establish the value  of the article to be repossessed.

If I were a banker or any one of the interested parties I would thank my bad karma that the majority or Americans cannot calculate a mortage  to the date prior to the term for the life loan. Better yet few  rarely know how to calculate a commercial lease.

Beware of terms used like repossession installments and abandonment – lease terms .








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 . . .


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


  • 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


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.



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.


  • 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.


  • 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


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