No “True Sale” exists , council is bringing forth a SPV under Mortgage loan trust on behalf
of certificate holders through HSBC- the swap out provider (NOT the
master servicer of the trust Wells Fargo) of a 2008 terminated Swapped out
SPV, that monies is gone.
The certificate Holders of the terminated
classification REMIC, HSBC is trustee on behalf of, hold what is called a
legacy asset or Junk asset. It is nothing more than a Toxic non-performing
bank collateral- based upon certificates issued to them upon an un-back
security instrument called to the table by Fanmae vs Deutchbank for failure
to meet securitization requirements under 17 CFR 339.11 as required by the
SEC to be a legitimate security instrument. See FHFA /FNMAE vs Deutsch
bank page 4 where they were specifically named.
“True sales” provide the Special Purpose Vehicle (“SPV”) with Holder in Due Course
(“HIDC”) status and protection, but in order to claim HIDC status you Cant’ come forth to
the a federal bankruptcy court under the presumption of article 9 I hold a defective note
therefore it is mine to enforce, the SPV must satisfy the requirements of UCC section 3-302
which defines a Holder in Due Course and once verified as HDIC (the SPV) must take the
instrument free from NOTICE that another party has a defense of claim in recoupment.
You cant do that with a non-corporate deed transfer prepared by a servicer on behalf of a
exposed known MERS robo signer the same year MERS/MERSCORP was under a
government cease and desist, which shows a transfer of 100% MERS beneficiary interest to
BofA “the Servicer” NOT the “lender” for no valuable consideration, then fabricate an
obvious altered corporation document “for value consideration” to Trustee/ aka swap out
provider HSBC on behalf of the certificate “holders” that clearly show NO transfer of
either the note or the deed into the frikken instrument.
In the manner these pass through classification REMIC’s were incepted, I am the ONLY
one who holds superior title to this property, as these industry idiots hold nothing more
than a freehold interest upon an zero’ed out title value they actually were stupid enough to
present to these courts, that was used as a base asset for collateralization purposes where I
actually hold reversionary rights to claim my property back for the adjusted title value of
the asset, which they are showing you, by their own stupidity, is zero or “for no value”
thank you BofA MERS BAN - which would further be evidenced by the MERS MIN# on
page one of the Deed of Trust had they not deliberately blacked it out.
Debtors/my claims actually deals directly with 26 U.S. Code § 168 - Accelerated cost
recovery system under (4) where the Salvage value treated as zero –
Claimants have already failed to reconstitute value by submitted a order of entry upon 30
days defective notice of default, which MERS rescinded in 2014 on behalf of out of
business Countrywide. and now they are looking to reconstitute value by laying false
claims upon Debtors property by bringing forth this salvage claim under this bad faith
motion. This motion has nothing to do with a release of stay your honor, it just the only
way they can bring forth an abandonment claim back to their client so that debtor can be
assessed a punitive damage in the amount of 2.3M. So had these courts actually held
authority to award the relieve here today they would have been participating in the
inadvertent issuance of a 1099 –A abandonment claim with would cause unnecessary
harm to debtor upon a void dismissible debt.
According to the Tax payer reporting rules in 26 U.S. Code Section 168 "...any salvage
value shall be treated as zero. What that means your honor, is that " THERE IS
NOTHING for them TO FORECLOSE UPON " yet claimants are insistent on enacting
another illegal foreclose upon yet another one of my properties. It is not my fault that in
the manner in which these instruments were created they made it a Legal impossibility to
actually foreclose.
A pass through REMIC is as its name would imply it is a real estate mortgage inv
estment pass through conduit where MERS – The Mortgage Electronic Registration
system, acts as a temporary nominee beneficiary (in a 1031 like exchange capacity for its
MERSCORP members) MERS actually documents the net advance that satisfies the
lender terms of the contract through its passthough tandum funding and sets the basis of
the property of the taxpayer to ZERO. This foreclosure abuse should have never gotten
this far, and now Claimants have forced me into a position where I cannot take that level
of a financial hit. They hold a defective freehold interest in a zero out asset.
A freehold estate is conveyed to a person by fulfillment, with livery of seisin, or by any
of those conveyances which derive their effect from the statute of uses, he acquires a
seisin in deed or in fact, and a freehold in deed: but where the freehold comes to a person
by act of law, as by descent or in this case under the bonding of the asset for
collatorilization purposes, he only acquires a seisin in law, that is, a right of possession,
or in this case, a right to use the estate for a specific purpose, is called a freehold In law.
and a freehold interest in the bonding instrument is not a fee simple conveyance – its
segregation of land, thus the no mention of mortgage on the contract etc etc,,, This is
what falls smak into your Due Process clause under the constitution, articles 5 and 14.
Therefore what we are discussing here in actuality is a freehold in law, which in turn
means they have to adhere to the law under which they they created the freehold in the
first place, in the case through the use of a classification REMIC under a mortgage loan
trust, which falls under under IRS Code §860D as a special purpose vehicle ,once
declared as such (as declared so in their P&S) retains that status perminantly. under that
same code if the tax exempt status ever comes into question it must be treated under these
operations of law in accordance to IRC codes, which means the operational US 26 codes
in which I have brought forth in my complaint.
This council, at this moment in time, holds no legitimate rights to actually speak here
today, until it can cough this up your honor. The only options available to these courts
today are to dismiss ( preferably with prejudice) for lack of standing in its frivolity, or to
actually extend a stay through my continence request, as it seems necessary to get to the
heart of this matter and to find out if there is an fiduciary obligations by these courts to
report these action to the IRS, so that perhaps we might actually take a step forward for
them to pay back the CAL PERS they have stolen from us, and frankly I am tired of
fighting off the foreclosures in the background.
Therefore Debtor moves to dismiss this bad faith motion for relief of stay vexed with
prejudice and sanctions to be credited towards debtors attorney fees, and moves
these courts to continue an automatic stay on Debtors property until it can be
determined the amount if any, is owed and to whom. Which is why I have retained a
certified CPA CFO expert in the secondary Market securities to assist in sorting
through this mess and have prepared a proposal order for these courts here today to
better deal with this nonsense.
Had council not blacked out the MERS Member Identification number, or MIN # , upon
the bearer instrument presented to these courts (which is in fact a defective voided
unenforceable instrument that evidences collateralization NOT securitization,) these
courts would see the actual function of MERS as a like for like pass through “witness”
for these transfers, and would understand just how much more problematic this situation
is actually becoming because the awareness level of the general public is now starting to
rise. Thus the advocates meeting with the AG assistant on the 20th.
Ok. Let me try to convey this in different way…
ME the household GRANTED AND CONVEYED THE TITLE FREE OF LIENS AND
ALL ENCUMBRANCES.
Title was reconstituted back to zero to bond a freehold interest in the estate for
collateralization purposes. Fee Simple was never transferred and Debtor still holds
superior title to her land. This entire process was enabled the repeal glass steigal by grim
leach baily.
Color Title was lost at origination (kemp vs countrywide depositions the note never left
the file, and the additional severing of color on title presented as exhibits to the courts
only further supports their sorry attempt to recoup a defective instrument. Your honor, I
am literally the only one left standing who holds remotely possible recoupment claims,
because according their own system, I am actually HOLD THE REVERSION RIGHT to
the asset.
Reversion is equity, not debt, and the title holder, me the debtor) is the SELLER.
The Lender (originator of the classification REMIC) is the Borrower who defaulted, and
the Creditor is the capitalized word under the contract “ BORROWER” outlined in the
defective instrument.
It is not my fault that these dingbats on Wall Street NEVER UNDERSTOOD THE
COMPLEXITY OF HOME OWNERSHIP AND CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE A
TICKER FROM A HOME.
But yet they took a freehold title and CANCELLED THE LENDER/BORROWER
obligation under MERS making MERS a MOOT point as to whether they are a legal
entity in whatever state they are in because MERS is an nominee entity that actually sets
the title value back to zero within their own MERSCORP trademark system.
Commercial Banks amortized the commercial lines of credit into 10 equal installments or
in Laymans terms, they paid down the basis in asset 10 percent a year according to
banking regulatory requirements. So what they effectively did was they left a adhesion
contract leaving the home’s title in such a disarray under the presumption they held it,
and actually left ME holding the purchaser right for the value of the property in which
was paid down to which is 0.00 as evidenced on the blocked out portion of the defective
instrument presented under Article 9 presumptions, when we are really in article 3
territory regardless of the new prevision they stuck into article 9.
So here is the problem, If the court actually enforced these REPO's per the operation of
law, they would be granting title to the household in EVERY CASE. And for what
consideration ? It’s not zero, 0.00 unless they pulled a refinance. No, the value would be
from the HUD I used to “debt service” the process.
The Claimants who are attempting to enact an wrongful foreclosure, that I have been
continually fending off in the background without a stay, is because the abandoned liens
of records that these “holders” were left hanging with because the proceeds from my
settlement went to someone else and now because the banking industry engaged in such
egregious frauds, they cannot even hold hold a defense or claim in recoupment” pursuant
to UCC§3-305(a)(3)..
The demand issuer holding these Fannie Mae and Freddie mac certificates aka HSBC,
would need to seek their losses from FNMAE not me. The demand issuer was paid off
under the contract upon its inception without any monies actually lent to debtor, and it’s
not my fault they are holding worthless certificates and waited till the transaction on
exchanges abroad became fully amortized. But yet they want’s my home even though
the conditions of the contract were satisfied, just because someone else took the money.
How exactly is that my fault? I had no idea of this nonsense at the time I was dupped
into this hype, and it has taken me years to fully understand its essential terms. UCC § 3305(b)(1)(ii)(iii). Illegality based in fraud that induced the obligor to sign the
instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its
character or its essential terms.
And you know what, Your honor, I am not here to argue their ultra vires
stupidity...patents and FDCPA and MERS and ROBO signors, or even this ridiculous title
fraud being presented to these courts. As far as I am concerned these attorneys can go
spin their wheels all day long with their legal theories, I don’t have time for their games.
At the end of the day, It all boils down to operation of law under 26 U.S. Code.
An opposing claim is brought in every case under a 12 (b) (6) motion and 30 days notice
for order of entry for a judicial liens is used to reconstitute the 0.00 value back to the
original notes basis.
Where the indebtedness discharged is qualified for indebtedness (IRC § 108(a)(1)(C)),
where the indebtedness discharged is qualified real property business indebtedness (IRC
§ 108(a)(1)(D)), or where the indebtedness discharged is qualified principal residence
indebtedness which is discharged before January 1, 2013 (IRC § 108(a)(1)(E), the “2007
Mortgage Relief Act”).
There is no free lunch when it comes to exclusion of the COD. The“price” for exclusion
occurs under IRC § 108(b) which requires that the taxpayer’s tax attributes be reduced by
the amount of the income excluded. In many cases, IRC § 108 only defers payment of the
tax on the COD income. The method by which the tax attributes are reduced differs under
each subsection of IRC §108(a)(1). Only the exclusion of COD income resulting from a
bankruptcy discharge will be discussed. In determining the amount of COD income, IRC
§ 108(e)(2) provides that “[n]o income shall be realized from the discharge of
indebtedness to the extent that payment of the liability would have given rise to a
deduction.”
For example where there is a foreclosure the amount of debt forgiveness does not include
accrued but unpaid interest since the taxpayer could have deducted the interest if paid.
Likewise where a landlord forgives unpaid rent owed by a business debtor, this discharge
would not be COD income since the taxpayercould have deducted the rent as a business
expense if paid.
Once the amount of COD income is determined, IRC § 108(b)(2) requires the taxpayer to
reduce tax attributes in the following order: (A) Net operating losses; (B) General
business tax credits (at 33 1/3% of the income excluded); (C) Minimum tax credits (at 33
1/3% of the income excluded); (D) Capital losses; (E) Property basis; (F) Passive activity
loss and credits (at 33 1/3% of the income excluded for the credits); and (G) Foreign tax
credits (at 33 1/3% of the income excluded) .
The reduction in basis under IRC § 108(b)(2)(E) in a Title 11 case is governed under the
provisions of IRC §1017(b)(2) which limits the reduction to the excess of the “(A)
aggregate of the bases of the property held by the taxpayer immediately after the
discharge, over (B) the aggregate of the liabilities of the taxpayer immediately after the
discharge.”
Treasury Regulation 1.10171(b)(3) provides that aggregate liabilities must be reduced by
the amount of any cash on hand. Treasury regulation 1.10171(a) prescribes the order in
which the bases in the taxpayer’s property is reduced. Property where the tax attributes
are reduced in the above order, is not limited to depreciable property but consists of all
the property of the taxpayer.
The Note was satisfied as COD Income under Sec 61 (a) (1) and sec 121 for like kind
exchanges under Sec 1.1031 and wash sale provisions under Sections 1.1091. Every
1099-A I have seen is for an amount due the home owner, that they homeowner failed to
state in their claims. I have already lost two home to government declared illegal
foreclosures, I have already been issued one 1099-A for alleged failure to state my claims
and demand to buy my properties back at the zero’d out title value, and I am awaiting
another 1099-A to hit my desk any day. For alleged failure under Rule 12(b)(6) FRCP at
the court levels.
I am here today your honor, to state before a federal court, my claims in all my property
where I was never given the ability, instead every time I raised “the code”,
unconscionable events start to take place that further extended my resources to the point
where I was almost willing to give up. Ie being audited two states away, being held at
gunpoint by misuse of sherrifs force etc. Now thanks to these continued abuses, I was
forced to file this upon public record where I have been trying to seal this complaint by
separating into what is known and what is not common knowledge. I separated from
my family your honor, because I am afraid of what they will do to me next. I worked for
these industry idiots, it does not give them the right to abuse me out of retaliation because
I volunteered as a federal witness against their ultra vires mortgage crimes.
The 1099-A is a judgement line that attaches with nothing but an assigner of the
interested parties losses which is a loss by election, I am simply coming forward with a
viable claim to repurchase my home for what it was paid down to, per the contract and
for these courts to dismiss the rest of this nonsense an avoidable loan has repeatedly been
satisfied, paid, rescinded, sanctioned for payment and federally prosecuted for its
inceptions and participation in these ultra vires bad faith acts, an example of which is
currently being witnessed here today. And if I have to do so by reducing this to the
ridiculous for procedure protocols for my own safety and my families, I will.
I have actually taken the time to simplify the complexities of this situation for the courts in
such a manner under current common knowledge’s so that this retaliation can end one and
for all, they really do not want the general public to know about this and I cannot say that I
really blame them due to the implications it holds, since they are forcing my hand, I have
no choice but to come forth in this manner. This procedural approach should suffice until
we can figure out how to effectively ebb the rising awareness of the general public towards
a more positive outcome. Until we actually start working together on this, this situation
will get way out of hand way fast especially when the UCL foreclosure act finalizes. The
time for playing games is over council.
By the request for Production of the FORM 8594 allegedly filed with the IRS under 26
U.S. Code § 860G - 3 (A) (ii) would be necessary to determine when the Mortgage Loan
Trust actually allegedly purchased the asset, this along with the true sales would need to be
brought forth to properly document a claim before these courts. Further a notice to vacate
the rescission for my 2009 TILA 1635 recinded letter properly voiding this ultra vires
alleged loan would be needed for claimants to hold any viable claim any remnants of
securitization existed - the 2015 Jesenoski vs CW ruling where it was unanimously
decided.
1. Regulation Z made it clear that, Debor as Pro Se, had the extended right
and choose to exercise it, upon the discovery in 2009, that the Finance
Charges upon a phantom funded tandum net advanced, refinanced
phantuom funded tandum net advanced loan were fraudulently understated
by $662,502.47 in fees and over 1% in rate.
2. Under the rights of recession the tolerance for a recession upon a
presumed refinanced loan in a foreclosure action is allowable when an
interest charge is undisclosed 12 C.F.R. § 226.23 (h) (2)(i) is understated
by no more than $35; under Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1635 et
seq., and Federal Reserve Board Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.23.
3. TILA rescission does not only cancel a security interest in the
property but it also cancels any liability, making this an unsecured
loan ab initio. Non-compliance is a violation of the act which gives rise
to a claim for actual and statutory damages under 15 USC 1640.
Further, since Council seems to be using a protocol that Debtor recognizes by her fraud
research and familiarity with the Wells Fargo attorney foreclosure manual (Master
Servicer to the Classification REMIC being presented her, with SLS is declaring they
service HSBC the swap out provider not the actual loan servicer under the Mortgage loan
trusts) council’s authority would need to be examined as to whom they actually are
representing here and who exactly is the “beneficiary” driving the foreclosure and what
exactly is the 1099-A being issued for. Council wont answer this, The Mortgage Law
Firm refuses to answer this. So who is it, Is it HSBC, SLS, WELLS FARGO, DEUTCHE
BANK, Is the the Mortgage Loan Trust, THE HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES ISSUED
BY THE 2008 TEMINATATE Swapped out CLASSIFICATION REMIC that does not
hold either the Note or the Deed OR is it Fannie Mae who has already received a
settlement from the REMIC in their lawsuit with Deutschbank that specifically named the
REMIC for securities fraud?
Debtor needs to know exactly who here is violating the automatic stay provisions of this
Federally Discharged unsecure debt in Chapter 7, Case number 6:08-bk-25762-PC upon a
note that can no longer be brought forward to novate as HSBC kick her out of the last
possible 4 year conversion period open to them through a chapter 13 in 2012 to legally be
able to collect a federally discharged void ab initio unsecured ab initio debt. AND
Debtor would need to know exactly who is attempting to issue a 1099-A by filing this
bad faith subrogation claim.
I came to these courts, not to ask for legal help, but to actually gain the help of these
courts correct these records by the perfection of a complaint who’s issues have been
eluding attorneys since the onsite of the mortgage crisis.
Debtor had to notate the property as secured until she corrected it either by re-opening
her Chapter 7 case, or by having it dismissed in her 13 by asserting her rightful claims to
repurchase the zero’d out asset as an avoidable debt that was never securitized. Debtor
and Debtors council needs court direction as to how to properly perfect the complexities
of this complaint or these courts need to assign a neutral party to assist in this –
preferably an attorney no longer working in CA, who is removed from the banking
industries external influences who can act as a Joan of Arc in the legal areana.
The ONLY party left holding the title in the form of certificates on my property can
ONLY be ME otherwise they would not be alleging on a 1099-A form - that I purchased
these worthless scripts. I certainly hold NO intention of purchasing a worthless script in
the amount of 2.3M so that I can be imposed a tax penalty for abandoning the asset to
someone who holds no constitutional standing to assert that special purpose vehicle is a
negotiable instrument on behalf of their clients HSBC the Swap out provider or SLS who
has no idea who they are actually servicing. None of these industry idiots actually hold
the deed, the note, or a security instrument.
Even Presuming CW never abandoned the Deed (as no corporate deed transfer exists into
the actual Mortgage Trust) to remotely attempt to establish color you would at least one
of the following exhibit of title recordings would be needed to be declared valid over the
other by these court and even then color is still severed.
Either its the Bank of America Deed of Trust (not corporate deed) assignment prepared
by BofA the servicer signed by a known MERS robosigner transferring 100% beneficiary
interests from MERS to BofA the servicer NOT the lender, while MERS MERCORP
and all their Certifying officers were under a Government cease and desist in 2011 the
same year as this document was prepared and executed.
Or it’s the 2014 the MERS prepared document - MERS the nominee beneficiary on
behalf of CW rescission of HSBC’s NOD and NTS telling them to back off as they made
it clear to the banks to stop foreclosing in their name.
IF BofA is valid, they abandoned their 100%beneficiary interests when the transferred
the servicing of the loan to SLS while under the 2014 Ginnie Mae Ban of Bank of
America to NOT transfer these specific CW loans because they did not have the proper
servings documents. – severing color the moment The Mortgage law firm was duly
appointed without assignment as trustee (as this was without a lender or a beneficiary).
IF it its 2014 MERS recission of NOD and NTS then it means no beneficiary interest
was actually transferred to BofA in 2011 and the BofA assignment is nothing more than a
wild deed transfer (not corporate deed transfer which is actually needed for a true sale)
meaning no corporate deed was actually transferred to HSBC the “holders”. Severing
color. Both document the defective instrument.
These arguments are moot really as both recordings prove neither are the beneficiary
here, as a legitimate beneficiary would have transferred the deed directly into the
mortgage trust, providing the mortgage trust itself was legitimate. These are just train
wrecks on title.
The Deutsche Mortgage Loan Trusts pooling and servicing agreements state specifically
that Mortgage Loan Trusts REMIC’s are treated as a REMIC under Code §860D as a
special purpose vehicle. Questions concerning this status would need to be addressed as
well under these IRC codes because of tax benefits accrued by legitimate securitization,
the Internal Revenue Code §860D(b)(1) states that once an entity elects to be treated as a
REMIC it retains that status permanently.
Since no Holder in due exists under UCC section 3-302, the question before the courts
becomes if a classification REMIC that never received the note, that was terminated on
the SEC in 2008 named specifically for failure to securitize the trust, actually purchased
the asset prior to the Classification REMIC termination , because in order to satisfy its
HIDC status it would have had to recall the deed in 2008 prior to the swap out into
another investment vehicle, which since council has submitted a questionable deed
transfer to the HSBC the Holders of a terminated REMIC, it would not appear that an
actual transfer into the Mortgage Loan Trust actually took place. Debtor would need to
actually verify what the heck happened here and who exactly monies are owed to and for
What UNDER THE IRS CODE.
I am not sure council fully understands that in order for a pass through REMIC to be
brought forth in such a manner it would need to be asserted as an actual active negotiable
instrument to hold legal standing of the , (I hold it therefore it is mine to enforce attitude)
which would mean the entire REMIC would need to pay taxes upon the total value of the
REMIC itself for violating its IRC status, not only for failure to qualify the instrument
which is a 100% penalty to the entire REMIC currently in a US vs Deutch securities for
tax evasion law suit, but for attempting to collect upon an unsecurized loan upon a
REMIC presumed to have been swapped out in 2008 for all the years it claimed it was
terminated on the SEC in its termination filing, the REMIC itself would actually owe the
IRS of back taxes owed for the years 2008-2016 based upon councils assersion. This
would also mean that a 100% tax is Due to the IRS under 26 U.S. Code § 4975 for failure
to qualify or securitize the assets into the REMICs in turn meaning that 100% tax is due
to the IRS upon the entire value of the REMIC when a reversionary interest comes forth
to assert their claim in the repurchasing of the granted freehold estate which as you can
see by their own submission under the BofA transfer, the value was set to zero or
(transferred for no value consideration by the “servicer” acting as the “servicer” and not
the “lender”) which is consistent with the witness MERS MIN# (they carefully crossed
out) of the net advance that sets the title value back to zero for the collateralization
process.
Either way, this is 1099-A issuance is an issue of tax evasion, because you cannot
transfer a collatorolized asset from one SPV under a Mortgage loan trust to the other after
the fact. ie Asset REMIC II to Classification REMIC, without violating the provisions of
an IRS special purpose vehicle to try to securitized an unsecured asset.
HSBC,SLS, the Holders, Wells Fargo the master servicer of REMIC III, or the
classification REMIC can NOT come forth with recoupment claims as they are arms
length to the transaction. They could only attempt to salvage the legacy asset back into
the classification REMIC as an abandoned REO under the Trusts pooling and servicing
agreementto maintain that status. At this point and the only way they could do so is to
enact a wrongful foreclosure. Which is problematic for these courts because if they
actual issue an award in the release of stay that is NOT in existence at this moment in
time, they are in actuality imposing a 2.3 M punitive unnecessary tax damage to Debtor
so they can lay false claims of abandonment.