NOW SHOW ME THE MONEY-Inverted Mortgages

Its a great system we spent 5 years developing that among other things can evidence the taxable income and amount of withholding owed the state.

Question: Sounds too easy ..great pay the state tax and federal taxes and then foreclose ?

NOT TRUE MY LEVEL HEADED PROFFER OF LOGIC.

IF FEDERAL AND STATE TAXES ARE OWED FOR FIVE TIMES THE MORTGAGE AND SHOWN POST FORECLOSURE ON A TAX FORM 1099 A –NOW SHOW ME THE MONEY .

If nothing funded and home is to be sold free and clear under section I.R.C. Sec 1.751 constructive liquidation. . . now show us the earnings paid and withholding …it was not abandoned ![see section 61 (a) (1) and 108 (i) accelerated recovery .

registerclaims@live.com

images (1)

Social Media, Foreclosures & Court Docket

 

Its unprecedented in the history of Banking that  people can now rely on social media to publish their mortgage statements and generate opinion.  Below is a summary analysis posted by a Facebook borrower in a case pending the court decision.

From a Facebook posting the auditors saw the limited detail for the loan and of course the court docket number.

As an auditor I am not an advocate and in fact go where ever the assignment takes us – to either side of the desk .  Auditing and banking are inseparable  under federal securities laws that require publicly held companies that file reports with the SEC to submit financial statements that are accurate, truthful, and complete and prepared according to a set of accounting standards called “Generally Accepted Accounting Principles” (or “GAAP”). Many of these financial statements – must be examined and reported on by an independent auditor.

Its the facts we  rely on and supply the CPA and Tax attorneys that speak for themselves and then its up to the court system to decide a matter of wrongful foreclosure.

Below is an interesting case  that appears to run the norm as of late . No file no statements other than on on screen  computer page from the lender provided the borrower in default . But herein it is the courts docket number that yielded us the  entire summary analysis you see below .

Court docket

It needless to say the question of ethics arise here for state claims or other  government actor . Nor is it unlawful if the state is involved in  a recovery for an agency such as the IRS .  But it does help to be informed.

SO “LOL” as they in social media . . . you be the judge !

registerclaims@live.com

 

SPS Claims to Consideration “Inverted Mortgages”

logo-cert-cfeSPS STATEMENT: Showing the tie out to pleaded arguments in a Judicial Foreclosure 

 

In the analysis below the court can see the numbers used in SPS Statements do in fact tie out to the numbers shown in pleaded arguments filed by lawyers as substituted Trustees.  From the analysts view and as to what the auditor will cite in testimony – The value of the property purchased in 2005 is equal to the amount to  be paid off in foreclosure equal to the (1) Land recording  and (2) Condominium parcel recording and cumulative amount alleged owed to J P Morgan Chase subsequent to Chase having sold the loan.

Therefore is the foreclosure reconstituting at closing as second round or paying off every the original investors for the amount carried back?

SPS STATEMENT

FORECLOSURE OR DISPOSITION … Careful !

When you see the foreclosing agent identifying Mortgage Trust Certificate Holders for ABC Mortgage Pass Through Trust Series “00” … Attorneys are liquidating  “CORPUS” or Trust stock under CFR 751 for constructive liquidation .

All property sold for ZERO under § 1.751-1 and this is an important devise used for booking a foreclosure as a disposition for all unrealized receivables and inventory items all under the (a) Sale or exchange of interest in a partnership –

(1)Character of amount realized.

Was money or property received by a partner in exchange for all or part of his partnership interest Yes / No

Is the value attributable to your share of the value of partnership unrealized receivables or substantially appreciated inventory items. Yes / No

Is the money or fair market value of the property received Considered as an amount realized from the sale or exchange of property other than a capital asset. Yes / No

If all above are yes then the remainder of the total amount realized on the sale or exchange of the partnership interest is realized from the sale or exchange of a capital asset under section 741.

For definition of “unrealized receivables” and “inventory items which have appreciated substantially in value”, see section 751 (c) and (d). Unrealized receivables and substantially appreciated inventory items are hereafter in this section referred to as “section 751 property”. See paragraph (e) of this section.

Our service is to audit the subject case 1) HUD I statement and tie it out to 2) a judicial foreclosure pleading and 3) servicing statements.

Our objective is simple and we now where to look to find it . We are auditing in search of the “Unrealized receivables and substantially appreciated inventory items” hereafter in this section referred to as “section 751 property”. See paragraph (e) of this section.

registerclaims@live.com

FRAUD VERSUS NOTICE . . . CAREFUL

If the fraud is by a government actor and you were noticed then you lose in a right to condemnation hearing.  Know the difference between fraud and having knowledge of things being pasted and  stitched  to clear the way for the state to take the property.

20:3-17. Possession of property and declaration of taking [New Jersey]

At any time contemporaneous with or after the institution of an action and service of process, the condemnor may file in the action, when empowered to do so by law, and if so filed, shall also file in the recording office, a declaration of taking, duly executed by an executive official of the condemnor, in form and content specified by the rules, including the following:

(a) a statement that possession of all or some part of the property being condemned is thereby being taken by the condemnor;

(b) a specific reference to the statute, article and section thereof, under which the action and declaration of taking is authorized;

(c) a description and plot plan of the property being condemned, and, if not the entire property, the portion thereof of which possession is being taken, sufficient for identification thereof, specifying the municipality or municipalities in which the same is located; the street number of the property, if any; the lot and block number of the property as designated upon the current assessment map, if any. In case of a partial taking, the information above specified shall include the entire property of the condemnee, and the portion thereof being taken;

(d) the names and addresses of all condemnees known to the condemnor after reasonable investigation, and the nature of their interests in the property;

(e) a statement of the estate or interest therein being condemned;

(f) a statement of the sum of money estimated by the condemnor to be just compensation for the taking, which sum shall be not less than the amount of the offer, in writing, provided for in section 6 hereof.

(g) Any other matter required by the rules. L.1971, c. 361, s. 17.

So how does one get comfortable about switching gears from a foreclosure defense to a request for hearing ? 1099 A  will be coming soon !

 

registerclaims@live.com

 

HERE IS THE QWR PROBLEM

Recent Amendments to RESPA’s QWR Provisions

Section 1463 of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), which took effect in January 2014, contains several important modifications to the QWR provisions of RESPA. First, a servicer must now acknowledge receipt of a QWR within 5 business days (previously 20 days) and must provide a substantive response to the borrower within business 30 days (previously 60 days), with a possible 15-day extension if the servicer sends the borrower notice of the extension and its reason for the delay in responding. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(A); 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2); 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(4).

Second, the Dodd-Frank Act added Section (k)(1) to RESPA, which provides in part that a servicer shall not “fail to respond within 10 business days to a request from a borrower to provide the identity, address, and other relevant contact information about the owner or assignee of the loan.” 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(1). While this section contains similar requirements to Section 1641(f)(2) of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), Section 1641(f)(2) does not contain a specific deadline. See 12 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(2). Although such inquiries are not technically QWRs, borrowers submitting QWRs frequently include requests for the identity of the owner or assignee of their loans, which are often styled as requests under TILA 1641(f)(2). As such, loan servicers need to be aware of the short 10 business day deadline to respond to such inquiries.

Finally, the Dodd-Frank Act increased the statutory damages available to a borrower for a violation of the RESPA QWR provisions. For individual borrowers, available statutory damages increased from $1,000 to $2,000, while in the case of a class action lawsuit, the maximum allowable amount of statutory damages doubled from $500,000 to $1 million. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f). In addition to statutory damages, borrowers may also seek to recover actual damages they allegedly have suffered as a result of a servicer’s failure to provide an adequate and timely response to a QWR. However, servicers potentially can mitigate liability pursuant to RESPA’s safe harbor provision, which provides that a “transferor or transferee servicer shall not be liable” for any violation of RESPA’s QWR provisions if, within 60 days of discovering an error and before the commencement of a QWR-based action and receipt of notice of error from the borrower, the servicer notifies the borrower of the error and makes appropriate adjustments. See 12 USC 2605(f)(4).

 

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  .

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 .

registerclaims@live.com