SEC Seeks Public Comment on Asset-Backed Issuers and Mortgage-Related Pools Under Investment Company Act

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

SEC Seeks Public Comment on Asset-Backed Issuers and Mortgage-Related Pools Under Investment Company Act
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2011-176

Video: Open Meeting

Chairman Schapiro discusses asset-backed issuers and mortgage-related pools:
Windows Media Player
——————————————————————————–
Text of
Chairman’s statement Washington, D.C., Aug. 31, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted unanimously to request public comment on the treatment of asset-backed issuers as well as real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other mortgage-related pools under the Investment Company Act.

Through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the SEC is seeking public input on possible amendments the agency might consider proposing to Rule 3a-7, which excludes certain issuers of asset-backed securities from having to comply with the requirements of the Investment Company Act. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking provides the public the opportunity to weigh in even before the SEC develops a formal rule proposal.

Through a separate concept release, the SEC is seeking public interpretations of a provision in the Act – Section 3(c)(5)(C) – that may be used by some companies engaged in the business of acquiring mortgages and mortgage-related instruments such as some REITs. A concept release is a Commission-approved document that poses an idea or ideas to the public to get their views.

“We are inviting public comment in light of the significant developments in the asset-backed and mortgage markets. We want to assure that our regulatory approach is updated to reflect the current market environment while still meeting our investor protection goals,” said SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro.

Public comments should be received within 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

# # #

FACT SHEET
Asset-Backed Issuers and Mortgage-Related Pools Under the Investment Company Act
Background
Asset-backed securities are created by buying and bundling loans or interests in loans – such as residential mortgage loans, commercial loans, or student loans – and creating securities backed by those assets that are then sold to investors.

Under the Investment Company Act, entities that issue asset-backed securities typically meet the definition of “investment company,” thereby requiring them to comply with the provisions of the Act. In 1992, however, the Commission adopted Rule 3a-7 under the Investment Company Act, which specifically excludes some asset-backed issuers from the definition of “investment company” provided they meet certain specified conditions.

One of the conditions is that the asset-backed securities generally be rated by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization (NRSRO) – but the condition was not primarily intended as a measure of credit-worthiness of the issuer. Instead, the Commission included the credit rating condition because it believed that as part of the ratings process, the rating agencies assessed the issuer’s investor protection measures.

In the aftermath of the recent financial crisis, the Commission has engaged in various regulatory initiatives to address concerns raised by credit rating procedures and methodologies.

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would solicit public comment on possible amendments to Rule 3a-7 including the role, if any, that credit ratings should continue to play in the rule.

The Advance Notice asks about:

Revising the Conditions in the Rule: To be able to use Rule 3a-7, an issuer must meet the rule’s conditions including the existing rating condition. The Advance Notice seeks public input about possibly removing the rating condition and replacing it with new conditions. Rather than rely on rating agencies to assess the issuer’s structure and operations, such new conditions could address the structure and operations of asset-backed issuers. Possible new conditions also could require the issuer to undergo an independent review to protect investors in the asset-backed securities from self-dealing and overreaching by insiders. Additional possible conditions could help ensure that the issuer preserves and safeguards its assets and cash flow.

How the Rule is Used: Rule 3a-7 excludes from the definition of “investment company” any asset-backed issuer that holds specified assets and meets the rule’s conditions, so that the issuer does not have to comply with the requirements of the Investment Company Act. The Advance Notice asks whether Rule 3a-7 issuers should still be considered “investment companies” for the limited purpose of determining whether an entity investing in Rule 3a-7 issuers is itself an “investment company” that should comply with the requirements of the Investment Company Act.

Availability of Section 3(c)(5) to Asset-Backed Issuers: The Investment Company Act contains a provision – Section 3(c)(5) – that may be used instead of Rule 3a-7 by some asset-backed issuers, including certain issuers of mortgage-backed securities. This provision was not specifically intended to be used by asset-backed issuers. The Advance Notice asks whether Section 3(c)(5) should be amended to limit the ability of asset-backed issuers to rely on that section, or whether the Commission should use its rulemaking authority to define the relevant terms in that provision so as to limit its availability to those companies that are intended to be encompassed by that section.

Mortgage-Related Pools
Background
Companies that are engaged in the business of acquiring mortgages and mortgage-related instruments have been relying on a provision, Section 3(c)(5)(C) to be excluded from the definition of “investment company” and consequently from the requirements of the Investment Company Act.

Section 3(c)(5)(C) was enacted to exclude from the definition of “investment company” companies that were engaged in the mortgage banking business and were not considered to be in the investment company business. Since Section 3(c)(5)(C) was enacted in 1940, the mortgage markets have evolved and expanded, and the provision has been used by a wide variety of types of pooled vehicles and other companies unforeseen at the time of enactment. These issuers include certain mortgage-backed securities issuers and certain REITs.

The SEC is concerned that mortgage-related pools potentially are making judgments about their status under the Investment Company Act without sufficient SEC guidance on the interpretive issues that arise under that provision. The SEC also is concerned that certain mortgage-related pools today appear to resemble investment companies such as closed-end funds and may not be the kinds of companies that were intended to be excluded under this section.

Concept Release
The companion Concept Release solicits comment on the interpretive issues relating to some REITs and other mortgage-related pools that rely on the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion.

The Concept Release provides an overview of mortgage-related pools and requests data and comment on their management styles, corporate governance, and similarities to traditional investment companies. It also discusses the legislative, administrative and interpretive background of Section 3(c)(5)(C).

The Concept Release asks, for example, whether a test could be devised to differentiate companies that are primarily engaged in the real estate and mortgage banking business from those companies that look like traditional investment companies, and what factors should the Commission consider in such a test.

What’s Next?
Both releases will be published in the Federal Register and commenters will have 60 days from the date of publication to submit their comments.

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-176.htm

About these ads

35 Responses

  1. Is it a question of experiencing your mortality, procrastination, or lack related resources?

  2. I like the valuable information you provide in your articles.

    I’ll bookmark your blog and check again here regularly. I’m quite sure I will learn plenty of new stuff
    right here! Good luck for the next!

  3. Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the images on this blog loading?
    I’m trying to determine if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog.

    Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

  4. If investments can be packaged and sold is irrelevant at this point. Tracking and proper documentation of notes and mortgages has not even been addressed after 4 years of trama. We need a horse and then a cart. The government has not even stoped the bleeding by shutting down MERS, an unauthorized side system set up by the banks. LPS still lists “document production” on their web site. And where are the laws that require servicers to operate at arms length with attorneys, force placed insurance, property inspection companies as they are in bed with everybody.

    Banks have proven they can’t be trusted with original notes and mortgages so why are they not being taken away at the closing table? The closing agent needs to forward all original notes and mortgages at the closing to a government storage facility where the public can view them on line by punching in the original bank code and original loan number where property address and home owners name can only be viewed on the government side. A mandatory closing agent should be required for any note and mortgage movement. The agent is responsible for forwarding an Allonge to government storage to be attached to the original note and mortgage that have the details of the transaction. The note and mortgage need to be filed under the 3 letter bank code-followed by the original loan # that never changes-followed by the origination date. This will stop the bleeding so we can figure out how to get well. My fake assignment of mortgage not only didn’t list the correct owner but the assignment was for something that was given sometime in the past. What was it? The banks are still changing the loan numbers so the loans can’t be traced and allow for multiple payoffs. How simple is this one to fix. You can’t change the three letter code for the bank in front of the original loan number EVER! How simple was that to fix! We don’t even have a computer system set up to know how many times the same loan was paid off by insurance etc…

    Just like birth certificates need protecting so do documents that can collapse an entire economy. Until this is done nothing else matters.

    My suggestion is start with a flow chart and plug in all the problems and possible solutions at each point. I don’t understand why all the problems above have not already been addressed with my sloutions as they are simple and would work.

    Why is it easier to trace a .50 cent item sold on Ebay after the sell than it is to trace a million dollar note? I know, aniquated banking computer technology.

    Why is it easier to trace a relative arriving at Ellis Island 100 years ago than it is to trace a current million dollar note? I know aniquated banking computer technology.

    Why are the banks being asked to self investigate and tell the government what they are doing wrong so they can be punished, you know the honour system with banksters? I know, lack of national standard banking computer technology and codes like US customs.

    The closing agent should be policing the real estate transaction and up loading the important documents to the government like a national standard HUD1 and the national standard bank payoff form for government investigations. The closing agent should payout all funds directly at closing. Part of my closing money went missing before it made it to my account after the closing as the servicers attorney kept it and money was still being paid out of my closing money at the bank 6 months after the closing and the payoff was grossly over stated. What have we accomplished? Nothing!

  5. If you endorse any portion of my UNPUBLISHED comment below on SEC’S new proposed S7-35-11, please send the PDF to them as an attachment with your supporting comments:
    - 9-5-11 S.E.C.’s New Joke: Regulate COUNTERFEITING by S7-35-11
    http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/10-23-11-modified-sec-salessi-comments-1.pdf

  6. Dear Neil, or Anyone who may know,
    I purchased Neil’s Garfield’s Combo Securitization, Title Searches with Commentary. My first mortgage is a no cash out refinance, established with Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, a California Corporation, that paid off Bank of America, the previous servicer, on June 1, 2004. HLMC, registered with MERS,INC. on May 14, 2004 as the investor and servicer. Since then they are out of business due to fraud. July 1, 2004, New Century Mortgage Corporation became the second servicer, and went bankrupt due to fraud in 2007.

    Although, October 20, 2010, a robo-signer, named Rita Garcia, Assistant Vice President of New Century Mortgage Corporation, ( A corporation out of business in 2007) signed a “securitization assignment”, under penalty of perjury, with an active Ventura County California Mobile notary, in Simi Valley at a secret forgery factory for Countrywide/Bank of America. Then they sent it to Texas, to Orion Financial Services, another forgery mill. Orion sent it to LA County Recorder, to be recorded against my title on December 2, 2010.

    Countrywide became the third servicer December 1, 2004, and the investor changed to Morgan Stanley. Bank of America bought Countrywide. Countrywide sold my identity, then Bank of America, Countrywide division became the fourth servicer. As of June 9, 2004, Bank of America, changed the servicing to the Bank of America, N.A. component of their empire, becoming the fifth servicer.

    Looking at the Title Commentary I see, the references to the “clouded title”, ‘broken chain of title” and ‘notary violations”. I am not sure what to do with that information. Can anyone tell me?

    On the Securitization Commentary, which included the “PSA”. No where could I find any reference to Bank of America, their was reference to Countrywide, which is apparently one of many investors in the “securitization”.

    I have read elsewhere one key to fight the fraudulent “securitization” is to find your PSA. Now that I have the PSA, I am not sure what part of it is supposed to be useful. I have a long list of other forms of fraud, committed by Bank of America, but I am curious about what part of the P.S.A. is useful, in fighting Bank of America if it comes to that.
    Does anyone know and will you give me some guidance on this subject? Below is the reference to the “securitization”.

    “Exhibit K Form of Contents for Each Mortgage File

    Responsible Party,
    ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS, INC,
    Responsible Party,
    NC CAPITAL CORPORATION,
    Responsible Party,
    and
    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
    Trustee
    ———————
    POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT
    Dated as of June 1, 2004

    MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC. TRUST 2004-HE4
    MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
    SERIES 2004-HE4″

    Thanks,
    Gary

  7. Who will bear the blame for money laundering never mind the ponzi scheme. The money laundering harmed the economy and was orchestrated by foreign organizations of which 65% controlled by Federal Reserve. Hmmm.

    Was only March 2003, MERS COMMERCIAL ‘Version 1.0′
    National Registry released. Read for yourself.
    MERS MEMBERS (all affiliates of Mortgage Servicers (national banks, federal savings banks, federal associations c/o Chase Manhattan Corp 1998-5/1999 as a data processing servicer undre parent as reported over Federal Reserve System…) made all MERS MEMBERS affiliates of national banks who 2002 forward per OCC ‘exempted’ from recording all cash transactions attached to mortgage servicers who are affiliates of national bank.

    May 2003 Wells Fargo from under grip of State of California Department of Corporations wins to move Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. out of California and under ‘Wells Fargo Bank NA’ as approved by OCC May 2003. Executed May 2004.

    Coincidently, now that Wells Fargo out from under the piercing investigative eyes of State Attorney General, c/o OCC visitorial powers, Wells Fargo Bank NA on July 28, 2003 “MERS Liberates Commercial Marketplace From Assignments” in which we read that “MERS announces the release of its latest
    product, MERS® Commercial, designed to eliminate the repurchase risk and costs associated with preparing, recording and tracking assignments for the commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) marketplace.”

    Since that time, CMBS issues propagating and 2004 – 2008 flooding the market with hundreds of billions of commercial real estate securitizations.

    Begs the question: if residential mortgage foreclosures are being halted and if the very fabric of the MBS securitization architecture is put into question, when will someone ask whether MERS® Commercial c/o Freddie Mac partner with Chase, and Wells Fargo, and GMAC, are soley responsible for allowing such pervasive title frauds (allowing third parties to take possession of property through deceptive acts is larceny) nevermind moving cash attached to ‘mortgage’s to launder deposits without having to record registration under FinCEN to protect enconmy from money laundering is HUGE.

    MERS Commercial, instructs members in National Registry manual to destroy original note an eNote acceptable no matter how many rubber stamped eNotes also known as eallonges allowed Wells Fargo & MERS to open up tthe market to placing residential loans inside of CMBS space by storm, How many billions in dollars will Banc of America Securities, Bear Stearns (d/b/a JP Morgan), GE Capital Real Estate, GMAC Commercial, John Hancock and Wells Fargo be forced to buy back loans that were fraudulently certified?

    And what’s the OCC got to do with it? Everything. Whats SEC got to do with it everything. Can the Comptrollers of OCC and SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro , Chairmain Bernanke of Federal Reserve, attest they did not make billions personally during 2004-2008 and were totally completely so focused on personal gains they were totally unaware that money was being laundered out of US harming economy, thrid element of our national security. Where is Homeland Secuirty? Where is our Commander-in-Chief?

    Companies like John Hancock bought out to make way for Finance Universe. Merger 9/26/2003… stock merger In the proposed merger, John Hancock will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manulife
    David F. D’Alessandro

    Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
    John Hancock Financial Services, Inc.

    8/30/2010:A. Name of issuer or person filing (“Filer”): MANULIFE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    Name of Registrant: Manulife Financial Corporation
    Form type: F-10
    File Number (if known): 333-169111
    Filed by: Manulife Financial Corporation
    Date Filed (if filed concurrently, so indicate): August 30, 2010 (filed concurrently)

    D. Filer is incorporated or organized under the laws of Canada and has its principal place of business at 200 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 1E5.
    E. Filer designates and appoints John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.), 601 Congress Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210 Attention: Emanuel Alves, (617) 663-3000 as the agent of the Filer upon whom may be served any process, pleadings,

    2/13/2009 A. Name of issuer or person filing (“Filer”): CIBC MELLON TRUST COMPANY
    Name of Registrant: Manulife Financial Corporation
    Form type: F-9
    File Number (if known): 333-157309
    Filed by: Manulife Financial Corporation
    Date Filed (if filed concurrently, so indicate): February 13, 2009 (filed concurrently)

    D. Filer is incorporated or organized under the laws of Canada, and has its principal place of business at 320 Bay Street , P.O. Box 1, Toronto, Ontario M5H 4A6 telephone (416) 643-5000.
    E. Filer designates and appoints Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, 101 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10178 telephone (212) 808-7800, Attention: Merrill B. Stone as the agent of the Filer upon whom may be served any process, pleadings, subpoenas, or other papers in:
    (a) any investigation or administrative proceeding conducted by the Commission; and

    2/13/2009 A. Name of issuer or person filing (“Filer”): MANULIFE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    Same File Number information as above.

  8. Carie – Can you explauin.

    The Originator, Seller of Loan’s, as Depositor of REMIC ‘Loan Trust’ does not own trust. S-3 and S-3/A defines role of ‘depositor.
    Or do you mean a real ‘TRUST’ which REMIC’s are not.

    Depositor ‘Registrant’ for REMIC Seller of loans ‘depositor’
    Cash moved from Purchaser to Seller c/o Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp. This Registrant is pass thru, for all ‘Issuing Entities’ which are fictitious names.

  9. “Fannie and Freddie—-GSEs—-could not just sell the Note- on performing loans—- this would be securities fraud to the GSE security investors. The Note (and it’s receivable stream) had to be falsely placed in default and charged-off in order to sell the “Note”—- but, when this happens the Note no longer exists—thus, all that is sold is collection rights to a once existing note.

    Security investors fund the BANK—not the borrowers—there is no direct relationship between security investors and borrowers. If banks are able to sell their income stream, that is an accounting transaction—it is not a “loan” to borrowers. This is why security investors are NEVER the creditor.

    Collection rights transfers are not funded by borrower transactions (ie fabricated refinance). Collection rights are transferred by assignment—not NOTES (which is why NOTES are fake). When some people here talk about Non-Deposit “trust” non-members—they are referring to derivative transactions—that “SWAP” out collection rights—although the credit enhancers pay cash for collection rights—they use insurance for the purchase of the rights. This is why the subprime was so profitable—the bank debt buyers put up no cash for transaction—but, were then able to profit by the “sale” of the receivable pass-throughs to security investors.. This is also why MBIA (insurance co.) legal action against BOA and others is hugely important.”

  10. HERE IS THE TRUTH—AGAIN::

    “…The Depositor owns the Trust — and while the Trust was performing – the Depositor, on behalf of the Trust would be the party to bring the action. However, these Trusts have now been brought back on parent corp. (to Depositor) balance sheets because the Trusts as “off-balan­ce sheet” SPVs — have been effectivel­y dissolved. The only tranche holders to remnants of the Trusts is the US Government or the Depositor (parent) itself. You should be preparing to demonstrat­e that the loan was not validly conveyed to any Trust (which they were not). Do this by requesting the Mortgage Schedule which should accompany the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (MLPA) — and the MLPA cannot be an “intent” to sell — it must be validly executed and notarized (we know about those notaries). And, importantl­y, if MLPA and Mortgage Schedule can be proven, servicer must prove that all default payments have been paid to the trust on borrower’s behalf. If not, loan has been removed from the Trust with collection rights sold/swapp­ed to a Third Party. This is how you may win — they can not prove anything.”

  11. This is an uphill battle for sure. I think we are all very frustrated with the lack of homeowner assistance. We have very little representation at a time when we need it most. We should be directing this disappointment at our representatives and not at Neil Garfield, Anonymous, or any one here. They are not responsible for resolving this mortgage crisis. We need to pressure our representatives and those agencies that should be protecting us consumers. They are the ones that have let us down.

    Believe me, I do share your frustrations. I have already lost my home. Our family had to be divided among relatives until we recover. We refused to accept the relocation assistance that was offered for fear it would bite us in the arse later on, so we are broke.

    On a good note, they have not broken our spirits. My family is fine, thank God. I have learned so much from this experience. I see the world through a different set of eyes. I have put things in perspective and have come out much stronger.

    AND, I am not done fighting. I am trying to figure out how to proceed next.

    Be courageous and strong.

  12. [...] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, [...]

  13. How about a 10 million family march or rally?
    How about mass hunger strikes?

    Food or no food for thought?

    NEVER AGAIN

  14. The only way out of this is peaceful demonstrations. Just like in Israel.

    The People demand Social and Economic Justice.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/04/israel-protest-israelis-t_n_948198.html

    NEVER AGAIN

  15. I’m going to chime in here and say the judges are catching on. People are catching on, too. Discovery is not simple because the individual state statutes are all different you guys. It’s not “one size fits all”. Efficiency is the order of the day, that Indian discovery offered up is onerous. No way that’s getting answered.

    Keep it on point as to standing, late assignments, unauthenticated documents, robo-hobos, and default charges that pushed you into arrears. Nick Wootens’ New York Trust Law should be included in any argument asserting lack of standing.
    The loans must fail to fulfill the prophecy and profit (and fill the pipeline with more debt from modified mortgages and resales of stolen properties). The theories espoused here years ago are indeed playing out on the pages of the newspapers here and abroad.

    Talking points are now:

    1) they (borrowers) can’t afford the houses ANYWAY (subprime OR prime, they don’t care)
    2) there is no BOTTOM in the market without PROCESSING THESE FORECLOSURES (throw everybody out and then the government- union employees can buy all the houses
    3) don’t penalize the banks for the loans they were forced to make (it’s all Lyndon Johnson’s fault)

    what a bunch of crap. Start your own TV station. NBS (NoBullShit)

  16. here we go. more rules to be determined on top of the already endless rules.

    If you are a consumer, stay away from the banks and credit. Just use cash. You don’t need to use credit, just keep credit as a second cushion. Do not use credit, use cash.

    It’s funny cuz if you don’t use credit, then you have no credit score, no credit score then no can get a rent a car, or use a cable TV service – they all say on approved credit, what other items you wish to buy or use says on approved credit? Why is this?

    But yet your credit score is based on use using credit or going in debt paying a interest charge or surcharge, a fee for using credit. So if you pay cash for everything and don’t use credit, why your credit score sucks. But yet here you are a person who pays as he goes, morally correct.

    Why is this? That if you pay as you go, and don’t use credit, why you have no credit? One would think hey I earn money and I pay. I pay for what I use, hard cash. Why can’t I have credit? A good score on the ole FICO system.

    Where does money come from? How does one get money? How do banks or others lend money? What is money? What is credit? Do a internet search and find the answers. Type in the questions I pose.

  17. Everyone
    I am beginning to agree with the A Man. I am waisting alot of time here reading articles here that are great as Rome burns. What is the solution? Why are the Government Agencies like the SEC and others are asking us , the slaves, what we think about trusts etc.? It appears that the 5 largest Banks have stolen homes from people thru forgery and other illegal means. To raise the money for loans Lehman Bros , Goldman Sachs
    created trusts that solicited money from everyone to buy shares of these trusts that have no value, insured the trusts against loss thru AIG, AMBAC. Bernie Madoff started this chain letter action and was getting alot of attention so they had to silence him. the series American Greed on TV tells stories of con men that create a Corporation that is phoney and they get thrown the crook in jail.
    We need everyone that has a foreclosure pending to file the basic papers to sign and turn in to the Court to challenge EVERYTHING. Papers where they fill in their names and file it with the court. We need to sit in Court as friends of the court and produce paperwork that shows what a sham every foreclosure case is till they throw us all in jail.
    Then we need to abolish the form of Government we have now and start a New one that will abide by the Constitution. So A Man how do we start?
    Stann Mann

  18. Anonymous I appreciate your help, and thank you for the answer. How do we get the Judges to grant discovery? The public officials know what is going on? They watch 60 Minutes and get 100′s if not thousands of letters and emails. Nothing is being done.

    Oh well we just need to be “Strong and Courageous” and persistent.

    NEVER AGAIN.

    The Laws of Nature will always win.

  19. The A Man

    I am not in the business, I am not an attorney. I have given known information that many here — have chosen to ignore.

    But, nevertheless — I work endlessly – day in and day out — to expose the fraud.

    A discovery plan?? First, you need courts to grant discovery — and, even if you get discovery — what is returned to you is very little and fabricated.

    Many here — for the most part- HAVE a business. And, best interest is not always the same as the homeowners.

    What we need is a complete government investigation. And, if you are not working with government to give them what they need — then not doing your part.

    kenneth S. taylor — very interesting. FBI — yes — and hope they finally do their job.

  20. CALL THE FBI NOW! DO IT NOW , REPORT THESE CRIMES!September 2, 2011

    Kenneth S. Taylor
    8610 Hadden Road
    Twinsburg Ohio 44087
    1-330-425-1542

    Federal Bureau of Investigation
    121 S Main St, Akron Ohio 44308 -1415
    330-535-6156

    Dear Honorable F.B.I. Agents, Intake Officers and Staff,

    I implore you open and investigate the following criminal acts and other matters stated below supported by proof and evidence enclosed:
    The criminal acts are so malicious and deplorable that the damage done to victims the homeowners can never be repaired we ask for nothing less than criminal prosecutions this agency must check the licensing boards of all notaries that appear in any and all documents for all the fraudulent attestation to all these phony fake documents.

    Judge Tom Parker is so corrupt he has defied the Ninth District Court of Appeals Order in which they agreed Judge lied about hearing Defendants counterclaimed they reverse and remanded case back to trial court and has thus far Tom Parker refused to follow mandate and wont set a trial date, he issued a summary judgment without a single witness , and without a signed affidavit with no affiants name on it that has to be a criminal act as he never look at the final decree order ,it against the law to sign without knowing the information your signing the affidavit had no name on it.
    Judge Tom Parker , Attorney Kevin L. Williams and Robin Wilson have given false and material declarations to the trial court violating federal laws under 18 U.S.C.1623 which is a both a criminal and civil act of conspiracy and a crime which carries fines of 100 thousand dollars and or 5 years in prison , they have lied to courts and use the same lies against defendants( Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia A. Taylor Driggins) in an attempt to take their real property ,without perfecting a lien, selling and transferring, assigning property of Option One the original lenders years later after they were out of business and company was defunct, and did use identity theft, and stole homeowners identity as parties are guilty of transferring homeowners private information by United States Postal service , U.S. Mail via Electronic Mail creating False data and accounting, and payment receipts by use of computer via internet and are guilty of Mail and Wire fraud by forwarding private information to other parties without their permission such as their social security numbers names addresses, work history, credit reports, bank statements ect. but not limited to such, trying to evict them unlawfully from a home which they have owned and resided for 23 years by using forgery of Kevin L. Williams name and signature on order of sale as someone tried to force sheriffs sale by signing order with initial only ( K W) using pretender lenders, robo signers, strawman , foreclosure mills , defunct trust, and trustees, fraudulent appraisal , and 14 forgeries of attorney Kevin L. Williams name, fabrication, of surrogate signings , misreprentation, fake and counterfeit Allonge Notes and negotiable instrumentalities. [Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (18USC 471)] and fake notaries, fake affidavits, fake title insurance written by Manley Deas Kochaski LLC on national known Chicago Title Papers without their knowledge , using their in house title company Allondian Title located in the same office in Columbus Ohio, 18 U.S.C. § 514 : US Code – Section 514: Fictitious obligations, this has to be one of the worst cases of fraud before the FBI in its long distinguished history.

    Currently there is a fraudulent lawsuit and judgment against them, (Kenneth S. Taylor Alycia A. Taylor), filed by Plaintiffs attorney (Kevin L. Williams of Manley Deas Kochalski LLC. Located in Columbus Ohio, P. O. Box 165028, 43216-5028 for DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT2 ASSETS-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006- OPT2 , who have never proved they had standing to file the lawsuit and has told courts the note is lost missing or stolen and assignment was submitted to court after lawsuit was filed , and produced after allege transfer of property , a fake assignment fraudulent sham , defective, false , and misleading , document which was deemed as such by the United States District Court Judge Sara Lioi on November 8, 2007 See Exhibit ( D) enclosed , that assignment was robo signed and fake and forgery provided to courts used as evidence in courts by and though Kevin L. Williams and Manley Deas Kochalski LLC. As is every document before the court in this case. The fake, forgery, robo, signed , documents have been used to commit civil and criminal conspiracy , mail fraud, forgery, identity thief, nothing is original or authentic its all falsely made by crime lab LPS. And was not produced until the courts needed it to foreclose, the attorney just orders any documents the court needed from the crime lab LPS, Docx, this is a nationally well known fact , the attorney’s just order fake documents from this crime lab and did not get the phony documents and affidavits unless the court required them and the documents don’t reflect the actual transactions that occurred the attorney Kevin L. Williams willingly and knowingly produced and provided Ohio courts both Federal and state with fraudulent documents , which are more fully describe in documents enclosed in this package. Moreover Kevin L. Williams and his law firm has conspired and filed 14 variations of his signatures on sworn legal important documents with state and federal courts in a elaborate scheme to unlawfully take the Taylor’s real property, the signatures contain no power of attorney , the law firm is a national known Foreclosure Mill, That uses robo signatures from foreclosure Counsel of Manley Deas Kochalski and Kevin L. Williams , Thompson Hine and Robin Wilson who violated the following rules regulations statues, an treaties of OHIO and U.S.FEDERAL LAW TITLE 18, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 CHAPTER 6 WIRE FRAUD, MAIL FRAUD; Regulation Z Sec. 226.1 Authority, purpose, coverage, organization, enforcement and liability. Complaints to Akron Bar Associations, Cleveland Bar Associations , Columbus ,Bar Association , and The Supreme Court of Ohio Disciplinary Counsel all yielded the same results an occasional admittance of unlawfully practice, but the Bar Associations all stated it was a widely accepted practice for attorney’s to forge, use forge signatures , allow others in office to forge their names, allow some unknown people in there office to sign someone else name to a legal court document especially given the fact this attorney has never made a single appearance to court in 4 years, and has not been able to be reached by phone in 4 years the Akron Bar Association attorneys says Kevin L. Williams does not have to answer my phone call, and can allow other to try to mimic his signatures as long as he has given them permission to do so , this is violation of federal laws that govern forgery , for some one to forge attorney Kevin L. Williams signature on documents to sale the Taylors home in a sheriffs sale is illegal, corruption, criminal conspiracy, and the Bar Associations said this was legal and found no wrongdoing , See Exhibit (H) correspondence from various Bar Associations in Akron, Cleveland, and Columbus who and said attorney’s can break the law and forge each other signatures. For the sake of convenience, Essential saying Kevin L. Williams is above the law. We believe these are jail able offenses crimes of forgery and violates the law and treaties of the United States and carry prison sentences the absolute proof is included the records and complete letters are available in Bar Association files the foreclosure Counsel of Manley Deas Kochalski and Kevin L. Williams , Thompson Hine and Robin Wilson violated the following rules regulations statues, an treaties of OHIO and U.S.FEDERAL LAW TITLE 18, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 CHAPTER 6 WIRE FRAUD, MAIL FRAUD; Regulation Z Sec. 226.1 Authority, purpose, coverage, organization, enforcement and liability.

    The judge Tom Parker while case was in state court conspired with the plaintiff’s attorney Robin Wilson of Thompson Hine LLP in a joint effort to destroy defendants counterclaim. The judge directed her to draft a false and misleading statement in a previous Final decree of foreclosure. Robin Wilson did so knowingly and willingly by inserting false claims of judge that he had considered defendants counterclaim is his motion granting plaintiff summary judgment which is void because of fraud of the courts and judge a lying officer of the court… Robin Wilson drafted and sent a letter dated September 28,2009 to Judge confirming the act of conspiracy and her participation as such. The letter states per verbatim “Enclosed, in response to your telephone request, is a revised Judgment Entry and Decree in Foreclosure so as to include Defendants’ Counterclaim and Plaintiffs’ Reply to Counterclaim”. Signed by Robin Wilson. See Exhibit (A). These representations were false and defendants knew the falsity of these statements at the time they were made. The judge never once mentioned defendants counterclaim, prior to this directive, nor is there any evidence the judge has reviewed the counterclaim. This was a wicked scheme perpetrated against defendants specifically, strategically and systematically, the judge lied in effort to deprive defendants of their rights to homeownership. Judge and Robin Wilson have given false and material declarations to the trial court violating federal laws under 18 U.S.C.1623 which is a both a criminal and civil act of conspiracy against defendants. Moreover COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT C. A. NO. 25281 agreed with the plaintiffs that judge erred essentially confirmed he lied and reversed and remanded case back to trial court. Judge Tom Parker is an Officer of the court THIS VOIDS STATE COURT FINDING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ITS NULL AND VOID FOREVER.
    Earlier this month, Justice cited findings from HUD investigations in a lawsuit it filed against Deutsche Bank AG, one of the world’s 10 biggest banks by assets, for at least $1 billion for defrauding taxpayers by “repeatedly” lying to FHA in securing taxpayer-backed insurance for thousands of shoddy mortgages, this is the same Bank pretending to own our mortgage , note , and title, though a fraudulent defunct, expire trust and trustees. The original lenders Option One is also name in this lawsuit also for fraudulent appriasial , the same claim the homeowner makes ,here is a excerpt for that lawsuit; Option One, which originated the loans for two Securitizations, has also been
    identified through multiple reports and investigations for its faulty underwriting. On June 3,
    2008, for instance, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed an action
    against Option One (the “Option One Complaint”), and its past and present parent companies, for
    50
    their unfair and deceptive origination and servicing of mortgage loans. See Complaint,
    Commonwealth v. H&R Block, Inc., CV NO. 08-2474-BLS (Mass. Super. Ct. June. 3, 2008).
    According to the Massachusetts Attorney General, since 2004, Option One had “increasingly
    disregarded underwriting standards … and originated thousands of loans that [Option One] knew
    or should have known the borrowers would be unable to pay, all in an effort to increase loan
    origination volume so as to profit from the practice of packaging and selling the vast majority of
    [Option One’s] residential subprime loans to the secondary market.” See Option One Complaint.
    The Massachusetts Attorney General alleged that Option One’s agents and brokers “frequently
    overstated an applicant’s income and/or ability to pay, and inflated the appraised value of the
    applicant’s home,” and that Option One “avoided implementing reasonable measures that would
    have prevented or limited these fraudulent practices.” Option One’s “origination policies …
    employed from 2004 through 2007 have resulted in an explosion of foreclosures.” Id. at 1.
    117. On November 24, 2008, the Superior Court of Massachusetts granted a
    preliminary injunction that prevented Option One from foreclosing on thousands of its loans
    issued to Massachusetts residents. Commonwealth v. H&R Block, Inc., No. 08-2474-BLS1, 2008
    WL 5970550 (Mass. Super. Ct. Nov. 24, 2008). On October 29, 2009, the Appeals Court of
    Massachusetts affirmed the preliminary injunction. See Commonwealth v. Option One Mortgage
    Co., No. 09-P-134, 2009 WL 3460373 (Mass. App. Ct. Oct. 29, 2009).
    118. On August 9, 2011, the Massachusetts Attorney General announced that H&R
    Block, Inc., Option One’s parent company, had agreed to settle the suit for approximately $125
    million. See Massachusetts Attorney General Press Release, “H&R Block Mortgage Company
    Will Provide $125 Million in Loan Modifications and Restitutions,” Aug. 9, 2011. Media
    reports noted that the suit was being settled amidst ongoing discussions among multiple states’
    51
    attorneys general, federal authorities, and five major mortgage servicers, aimed at resolving
    investigations of the lenders’ foreclosure and mortgage-servicing practices. The Massachusetts

    Deutsche Bank Knew That The Representations Were False Through
    Its Affiliation with MortgageIT
    147. As part of its strategy to gain control of the securitization process, and to ensure a
    steady supply of mortgage loans to securitize, Deutsche Bank acquired a number of loan
    originators, including MortgageIT, Inc. (“Mortgage IT”). Announcing the MortgageIT
    acquisition in a July 12, 2006 press release, Deutsche Bank boasted that “the vertical integration
    of a leading mortgage originator like MortgageIT will provide significant competitive
    advantages, such as access to a steady source of product for distribution into the mortgage capital
    markets.”
    148. Indeed, controlling a subprime lender allowed an investment bank like Deutsche
    Bank to dictate underwriting standards at the origination level and guarantee a constant stream of
    loans to securitize and sell to investors like the GSEs. Because Deutsche Bank needed high
    volumes of loans to securitize—and because it passed off the default risk to investors—Deutsche
    Bank had every incentive to, and in fact did, lower the underwriting standards at its affiliated
    lenders.
    149. MortgageIT originated 22.69 percent of the loans in the ACE 2007-HE5
    Securitization and 100 percent of the loans in the MHL 2007-1 Securitization, and was thus
    directly responsible for whether the underlying mortgage loans for those Securitizations
    conformed to the representations made in their prospective Registration Statements. As set forth
    in Tables 6 and 7, above, moreover, the Registration Statements for these Securitizations vastly
    misrepresented key data, including LTV ratios and owner occupancy percentages. It is not
    66
    possible that MortgageIT—which, by this time, was an arm of Deutsche Bank—could examine
    the income, liabilities, credit history, employment history, credit reports, personal information,
    and property appraisals for each loan in these Securitizations, all of which it purportedly did as a
    part of its underwriting, and still misstate the quality of the mortgage loans to the extent that it
    did.
    C. Multiple Investigations Confirm that Deutsche Bank Knew that the Mortgage
    Loans Did Not Conform to the Stated Underwriting Guidelines
    150. An investigation by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”)
    confirms that several Securitizations contain material misrepresentations. Indeed, FINRA found
    that with respect to sixteen securitizations, including nine of the Securitizations in this action,15
    Deutsche Bank “continued to refer customers in its prospectus materials to the erroneous
    [delinquency] data” even after it “became aware that the static pool information underreported
    historical delinquency rates.” FINRA Letter at 2. Thus, the FINRA investigation confirms not
    only that Deutsche Bank knew that the representations in its Registration Statements were false,
    but that Deutsche Bank failed to correct the misrepresentations and actively directed investors to
    rely on those misrepresentations.
    151. The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has reached similar
    conclusions. On August 22, 2011, the DOJ filed a complaint against Deutsche Bank and
    MortgageIT, accusing the two companies of “knowingly, wantonly, and recklessly” permitting
    violations of underwriting guidelines. See Am. Compl. United States v. Deutsche Bank AG, et
    al., No. 11 Civ. 2976 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (the “DOJ Complaint”). The DOJ alleged that Deutsche
    Bank and MortgageIT falsely represented that mortgages included in certain Deutsche Bank and
    15 ACE 2007-ASL1, ACE 2007-SL1, ACE 2007-HE1, ACE 2007-HE2, ACE 2007-
    HE3, ACE 2007-HE4, ACE 2007-HE5, ACE 2007-ASAP1 and ACE 2007-ASAP2.
    67
    MortgageIT RMBS — including the ACE 2006-ASAP1 and ACE 2006-ASAP2 Securitizations

    We now and at last pray by the grace and mercy of almighty God, and ask that this High Federal Bureau of Investigations intervene and look into these matters asap.

    Respectfully, Submitted By,
    Kenneth S. Taylor

    Kst.

    Ps. Exhibit (H) is page (2) two of a two page letter by Heather M. Zirke the Assistance Counsel of Akron Bar Association who says forgery of another signature 14 times is legal and accepted practice in law. Page one is missing just ask her to send you copy of the original letter in which she defended and justified these forgeries of Kevin L. Williams signature.

    Also a letter from Cleveland Bar Association that says other lawyer’s in his office may forge legal documents by signing Kevin L. Williams name as though they are him to unlawful order of sale.

    All other documents are self explanatory , and are excerpts from trial documents from United States Sixth Circuit Appeals Court and the original Complaint filed against these parties in federal District Court the evidence is overwhelming and compelling in which judges had a sworn duty to report under 18USC (4) and have themselves committed Felonies for not reporting to F.B. I.

  21. Thank You David W. I couldnt have said it better.

    This blog has become a soap opera.

    We need to keep it simple. We need to get the message out so that the simple person could understand.

    The reason most people are not doing anything is because the DONT UNDERSTAND.

    WE NEED A SIMPLE DISCOVERY AND NEIL GARFIELD ANONYMOUS ETC… HAVE NT GIVEN IT TO US (I think, if I am wrong then I am confused)

    It is easy to blame Judges Politicians Lawyers etc…… It is easy to say the somebody or the system is corrupt. Maybe the Judge does not understand and no sane person is gonna stick out his/her head for some complicated story.

    NEVER AGAIN

  22. REPOSTING…because I can and I care:

    “There are millions of mortgage loans in valid traditional mortgage-backed securities trusts.. Valid securitizations included mortgage loans securitized into Freddie/Fannie sponsored trusts. These loans were compliant as to loan limits, debt to income, risk, etc (although by repurchases now know many F/F loans not valid). The security investors in F/F securitizations are NEVER considered the creditor to borrower. The security investors just receive pass-through of cash flows while the home owners are paying.. The mortgagee to borrower is the originator that sold the loans to Freddie/Fannie. However, there is question that F/F should be the mortgagee because loans were sold then sold to them. Whether or not F/F is mortgagee/creditor — or the originator — the security investors are NOT mortgagee/creditor — and, not either is the trust or trustee — or servicer. Security investors do not sign satisfaction/discharge of mortgage when F/F loans are paid in full.

    When loans in F/F REMIC trusts (also used to be called PCs) —default for 3 months — the collection rights to the loan are “swapped” out (sold) to the servicer. Most of the servicers had agreements with F/F to purchase default loans — this was called “credit enhancement” — a form of insurance that passed any losses on defaulted loans from F/F back to the servicer. Sometimes, F/F would sell these defaults to servicer on an individual basis — and sometimes F/F would wait and “pool” the defaults to sell as a portfolio to either servicer or other “credit enhancer” to their trusts. But, this would NOT affect security investors — as the original trust — with thousands of other performing loans would stay intact. Once the servicer purchased the collection rights — they would sell collection rights at a discount to debt buyer “investors.”

    This is where big problems started – with subprime securitization– 100% of which were refinances. This means at some point, these “refinances” were a prior F/F loan that had been charged-off and removed from F/F trusts. And, when the charge-off and removal occurred — only collection rights survive. Thus, the subprime refinances were simply modifications of collection rights – certainly, they were not a new mortgage — as the subprime refinance originator falsely portrayed to homeowners — because the borrower still owed on the F/F default loan — even though the servicer purchased the default loan from F/F – the borrower still owes — but not a mortgage — only on collection rights. The borrower cannot get a new mortgage — all they were getting was a modification of collection rights to a default loan. Most often, homeowners were not even told they were in default on F/F loan — credit reports would not reveal. And, as the demand for subprime “refinances” increased — servicers started manufacturing defaults to meet the demand.

    The “investors” in these subprime “refinances” — were debt buyers of the collection rights from F/F. And, if there was a subsequent refinance — of collection rights the “investor” may or may not change. There is no dual funding — just because some cash was provided to the borrowers by the “investor” debt buyer — in “cash-out” — does not mean that the securization of collection rights “refinances” — was split. The subprime securization was funded by the debt buyers “purchase” of collection rights — thus, the debt buyers “investments” (hence the word investor) was the money they put up to purchase the collection rights from the servicer — who purchased from F/F — and any additional cash paid out to borrower —— the whole “collection right” bogus loan is securitizaed with subsequent derivative Security Investors receiving pass-through of cash flows. But, the security investors to these (bogus) trusts are NOT the creditor/mortgagee — just as security investors to F/F were never the creditor/mortgagee. And, just as with F/F — once these subprime “refinances” became delinquent — the servicer would advance payments to trustee for security investor pass-through for a certain amount of time — until the servicer deems the loan not collectible — at which point the servicer ceases making advance payments and the collection rights to that loan are also swapped out of the bogus subprime trust. Note — there is no change of security hands with a “swap out” — swaps are contracts –not securities. Securities can only be on current cash flows. Once the current cash flows cease — there is no more security — that is when contract swap comes in.

    Also, note that the credit enhancement mezzanine tranches were funded first — these subordinate tranches represent the right to “collect” on collection rights — and the only funding was the purchase of collection rights. Banks were/are the debt buyers — until they dispose of collection rights to a another party. The upper tranches (falsely rated as AAA to A1 etc.) — thus, the cash pass-through tranches — were owned and kept by the security underwriter subsidiary to the bank. Then, the both the mezzanine and A tranches were repackaged into CDOs — to be sold as pass-through to derivative security investors.

    As to AIG — and any other “security investors” — these security investors — who are different from the debt-buying “investors” — are suing on the marketing of fraud in the securities themselves — that is — that the securities were derived from bogus “loans” — which they certainly were. But, these security investor lawsuits can never directly sue against the borrower — because security investors are NEVER the creditor. These security investors sue on the investment income lost because of fraud — and they sue the bank perpetrators.

    Remember, if security investors are naming themselves as the creditor in foreclosures (which would be false — but assume for a moment that it is valid) — then they are collecting damages by the foreclosure itself. The security investors cannot then go and sue the security underwriter for MORE damages. This would be collecting damages — twice — dual damages.. And, would be fraud upon the courts.”

  23. Notice no one is saying “mortgage-backed” any more…just “mortgage-linked” and “mortgage related”…

    some info:

    “…Approach by tearing apart the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and Prospectus to the Trust. Everything MUST to the “tee” according to the PSA and Prospectus. Thus, complete chain of title by assignments and endorsements, — and Mortgage Schedule must be accompanied by a Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (MLPA). The MLPA cannot be an “intent” to sell — it must be validly executed. The trusts were REMICs — meaning all loans must be conveyed within 90 days —with a 2 year window under certain circumstances. And, any assignments/documents that are not done by the proper party according to the PSA — must be accompanied by valid Power of Attorney — executed by the right party — to the right party. Further, should demand that servicer and trustee produce ledgers that show that servicer advanced all delinquent payments to the trustee on behalf of the borrower.

    …These trusts have been torn apart and dissolved, but the remnants of many are artificially held by the US Government in “Legacy” program. Security investors are NOT creditor — they are only recipients of cash flow –pass-through. The Federal Reserve has confirmed this in it’s Opinion to the May 2009 TILA Amendment (now law!).”

  24. Simon,

    Excellent question.

    It will take decades for SEC to gain international trust again — by securitization.

    SEC let ANYTHING be securitized — And, what is securitization??? Simply a removal of RECEIVABLES from the balance sheet. Question is — WHO OWNED THE RECEIVABLES???

    Kids on the street — selling lemonade — could have securitized their receivables – according to SEC rules. .

  25. I have to agree with The A Man. I’m litigating with a bank trying to close the circle on the bastards and I see nothing beneficial about communications with the SEC in our fight to to defeat the banker thieves.

    I have no problem understanding legal briefs, but I have a hard time comprehending Nancy Drew’s posts. The best lawyers keep telling me to keep it simple. Focus on the originator not having chips in the game, separation of note and DOT with MERS, empty shell trusts, holes in chain of title, robo signers filling in such gaping holes.

  26. Hey guys interesting news in New England:

    How to Disqualify a Judge: Use facts, KingCast video, flyers and YouTube:

    SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2011

    KingCast wins a major battle as Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty quietly recuses herself in KingCast v. Ayotte, NH GOP and Nashua PD free press lawsuit, 2010-CV-501.
    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/09/kingcast-wins-major-battle-as.html

    And

    THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2011

    Nationstar Mortgage Attorneys avoid a KingCast/Mortgage Movies Courthouse Canon shot; they have defied a Court Order to produce original docs yet still foreclosed on Marie Miller.

    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/09/kingcast-to-shoot-nationstar-mortgage.html

  27. Neil
    So what is your suggestion to clean it up?
    Stan
    Racine WI

  28. Where is the discovery questions we need to ask?

    Neil whats with all the bobe-mayse (tall story, fairy tale) stop hakn a tshaynik (Talking nonnesense).

    what’s all this bullshit. Who cares if the Banksters are laundering money?

    Where is a sample discovery?

    Where is a plan of action.

    I got the Luminaq and it has been sitting in my drawer doing nothing.

    Be Strong And Courageous.

    Yesterday in Tel Aviv Israel 500,000 people peacefully demonstrated for social justice (pretty much against the Oligarchs and IMF). The press in the United States did not cover it all.
    500k is approximately 10% of the total population.

    Wake up America.

    NEVER AGAIN.

  29. What does this have to do with helping the homeowner?
    We need to focus with how to help the homeowner.

    keep it simple stupid

  30. RE: EVIDENCE CASH LAUNDERED BETWEEN SELLER OF LOAN AND SERVICER C/O PURCHASER OF MORTGAGE BACKED NOTE

    CASHIER’S CHECK ATTACHED TO STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

    Wake Up!
    Who has seen discovery?
    BATES documents through Discovery and the LPS, LSI, Non-Conforming, DOCS, TSSF, eLynx, MERS, Fidelity …., FIS, …. markings …. emails from Wells FArgo Bank NA divisions Office of the President; etc.

    Real copies of ‘Origination documents’ emails between Tempoary Lender and Title Agency employess ordering Lender’s Policies to be purchased, commitments for the real Lenders Policy to be issued by OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY for example, you won’t have copy of related insurance policies issued to subrogate the credit risk issued to ‘REMIC’ Underwriters policies issued by Old Republic Title International.
    Cashier’s Check issued to individual bank closing agent in state property located.
    Email to Bank Closing Agent and Title AGent in State property located ordered name of Tempoary Lender and $xxx to be placed on ‘Lenders’ Policy Commitment for which consumer pays personal cash and cash listed on mini-ledger of disbursements was also listed on HUD and monies withheld from Cashier’s Check are minus ‘HUD’ hmmmm. Did consumer pay double? Nevermind. Stay on Point.
    Closing Instructions sent by Commercial Bank to its ‘client’ its affiliate of a national bank.
    Closing Disbursement Instructions sent to Bank Closing AGent c/o Correspeondent Lenders who are affiliates of national bank Mortgage Servicers
    Faxes sent to homeowners insurance agent adding any new lien holder to get copy of annual certificate of insurance c/o Tempaory Lender’s Mortgage Servicer or Lender,
    Personal notes in Origination File of individual bank closng agent related to ‘deals’ at RETAIL which the bank closing agent engages other Investors to acquire funding needed to close deals approved by underwriters and other hard money lenders reselling laons at Retail…..

    Consumers if you don’t know that is not the folder of copies of your closing it is all the documents not included that are part of the closing.
    Did you know that the documents reveal CONFORMING or NON-CONFORMING? Who told you that your loan was a non-conforming loan? Who was required to tell you that your loan is a non-conforming loan and when are they required to tell you? What’s Truth in Lending got to do with it? Real Estate Settlement Procedures? Home Owners Protection Act, Federal Debt Collections Act Protection Agency ha! Fooled you thought you were protected.

    With zero knowledge prior to 2009 regarding real estate, insurance, banking, US Constitution, SEC, UCC, Commerce.
    I was a a good consumer one who trusted that if I purchased a sump pump or mortgage I was safe from defects. If the products defective and the defect part of the manufacturing process there are laws and agencies in place to protect us.
    That is the public education system’s teachings ingrained we are safe at school and at home c/o federal government. Hello!
    I’ve learned 2009 forward, as a consumer who purchased a home 22 years ago commercial banks were not the lender with whom I did business nor would I be informed if I was not approved for a conventional loan if I feel victime to Alt-A Loan Storefronts like WFHM.

    The non-conforming loan was approved in secret between other undisclosed parties c/o bank closing agents and c/o title agency c/o lenders underwriters who under Sales and servicing Agreement issue cash for a transaction ‘deposit’ in which on commercial paper the intent to acquire rights as a third party and take possesion of a mortgage backed note, c/o affiliate of a national or federal bank’s Mortgage Servicer’s Tempoary Lender who already assigned as Nominee assigns and or successors has rights to assign debt to other Nominees.
    Citizens, Residents as consumers you’ve been harmed by the federal regulatory agencies c/o US Constitution powers vested to Congress.

    Substantive harm from omissions of material facts c/o original loan application non-disclosures authorized by the federal regulators c/o OCC c/o FEDERAL RESERVE which Congress vested extraordinary powers.
    Where does that leave the US TREASURY transactions totally unfamiliar have not researched.
    Non-disclosure of whether loan is ‘Conforming’ or Non-Conforming Alt-A loans intended for Alternative Investments c/o national banks c/o OCC c/o Federal Reserve private banks c/o foreign entities who are the benefactors safe from taking of cash taken through deceptive acts in crimes of commerce.

    Federal regulatory agencies who monitor national banks, federal savings banks, federal state banks, etc. c/o FEDERAL RESERVE duped you and me. If you are a commercial client of a national bank, if you are an affiliate of the commercial clients you are safe from prosecution of alleged unlawful business acts.

    Pipeline of cash allocated for Alt-A Loans, Lenders policies issued c/o private nework fo title processing plants and private network of bank closing agents nationwide insured through subrogations Title Agencies, TItle Companies, Insurance Corporations credit risks related to ‘deposits’ and ‘depositors’ cash.

    The integrated network of sub-prime Lenders c/o national bank’s Mortgage Servicer’s affiliates “did and do launder cash” also known as ‘money laundering’ all transactions of ‘cash’ attached to purchase of Assignment of Mortgage-backed notes, cash targetted for Depositor affiliate of a national bank, its commercial clients and benefactors of Alternative Investments c/o Alt-A Loans PONZI SCHEME HUGE.

    Disbursement of cash c/o ‘Depositor’ a national bank affilaite c/o Mortgage Servicers’ SEC Registrant REMIC ‘depositor’ HUGE c/o REMIC’s ‘Alt-A Loan’s’ commercial paper purchased by federal regualtory agencies HUGE. No recourse HUGE.
    All national bank affiliates documents rubber stamped all transactions proprietary. All national banks, federal savings, banks, state federal banks, you know the new OCC under the FEDERAL RESEERVE eliminated OTS’ etc.
    All national bank’s mortgage servicers affiliates exempt from enforcement of law- hello – wake up! Anyone listening? Don’t send waste your postage sending letters to your authority (House of Representative and 2 Senators) for Petesakes, they approved this mess and gave extraordinary powers to FEDERAL RESERVE.

    20ll Federal Reserve the most powerful private reguator of the nation all of its national bank affiliates exempt all benefactors worldwide from prosectuion.

    Will False Claims Act, a Civil Ware – eara laww created as a weapon against firms that swindle the government be effective? HUD the ‘internal watch dog’ under FHMA under Federal Reserve c/o DOJ, DOJ has to decide if they have evidence to file charges and guess what! all information proprietary visitorial powers of OCC will prevent the five largest mortgage companies of defrauding taxpayes in handling of foreclosures on homes purchased with government-backed loans: BOA, JPM Chase, Wells Fargo Citigroup and GMAC Financial LLC …

    Each year this mess giving more power to FEDERAL RESERVE protecting non-residents private wealth managers.
    Time consumers learn what they did, don’t do, and will do tomorrow –nothing!
    As a resident your entitlement to be safe in life and property violated, but consumers not considered a class so we can’t enforce rights violated.

    All matters related to private banks the benefactors of the private FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS, cash deposits moved out of US in the light of day through disguise of mortgage loans, these private banks of non-residents and residents alike equally represented by Congress whose interests in cash attached to Alt-A Loans and Alternative Investments which harmed economy ………. concaved to TARP gun held to head of who? Who was behind closed doors that Labor Day Weekend discussing the TARP payout, bailout, when will we learn the non-fiction about that and the most recent TARP Bailout $1.2 Trillion. Who is holding the gun to whose head?

    Consumer’s are stupid to continue to purchase financial products and financial services without disclosure.
    Consumer’s ‘credit’ is literally a cash transaction – in which somebody benefits for ‘cash’ put up consumer has ‘temporary access during ‘closings’ the cash moves from institutional investors bank c/o Account Holder – Non-Depository Trust Company non-Member – is that where the ‘Depositor’ creats the ‘account’ for the ‘Trust Fund’ the cash is deposited into?
    Registrant Statement recorded on SEC real, S-3 and S-3/A agreements and amendments of ‘SEC Registration Statements’ in which former, existing and future registrants will deposit cash into ‘Trust Fund’ in Institutional Owners Name c/o national banks mortgage servicer’s affiliates.

    All debt c/o third parties assigned places all residents in danger.
    Residents in every state and territory of the nation remain unsafe in life and property are subjects of unlawful seizuires of real property.and personal property c/o affiliates of national banks

    Consumers you don’t get accurate business statements from banks for the past 20 years for your personal check accounts, your were duped about ‘overdraft’ credit lines, you were duped like dopes and Sutpid People Sign Stupid Contracts everyday.
    The great whie hope is whitewash of white collar crimes of commerce.

    Crimes of Commerce are ‘sanctioned’ under disguise of federal regulators filing fees sanctions through adjudication enforcement of federal regulators c/o House of Representatives and Senate.
    ‘White Collar Crimes’ not a buzz word rather fact, Congress controls all transactions related to commerce under disguise of welfare of the nation. Now they have made a growing population in ‘need’ of welfare.

    Congress c/o powers vested to federal regulatory agencies which are private and/or public and/or combination of both, vested powers, extraordinary powers, to Microsoft, Freddie Mac, Chase, GMAC, Norwest Corp, Wells Fargo, Credit Suisse, US Bank NA,authorized integrated networks over CLOUD c/o Microsoft and IBM programmers to perform Quantum data processing adding in 1998 ‘Pending’ if Lender A says ‘no’ give to Lender B, and took away our choice to not allow third party to take possession of property, allowed defective financial products to be sold in the public domain, etc.
    White Collar Crimes exempt from Consumer Protection Laws c/o federal regulators whether private or public c/o OCC national bank affilaites.

    US Constitution Article I Congress vested all powers over commerce related to welfare of nation stop. What if Congress acted with negligence and harmed economy? RECOURSE yes we have RECOURSE. Impeach each party out! In other words fire them, write in your own consumer who is with knowledge of US Constitution, is a consumer advocate and will take control and unvest powers to OCC! Dethrone Federal Reserve, change color or currency to ‘Yellow’ reflecting a bright future for US TREASURY the CENTRAL BANK. Export the Federal Reserve get it outta here today and get rid of every Congress representative who has sat on their butts for the past decade vesting powers to federal regulatory agency in best interests of FEDERAL REERVE.
    And do not place the OCC near the central bank the OCC has got to go.

    And all congress members fired for cause will not receive pensions! Hello anybody listening?

    Congress created laws under US Code and moved OCC under private Federal Reserve, in order to prevent enforcement of laws or did they go oppsiee Labor Day Weekend 2008? behind closed doors approving TARP?

    No matter what transaction before a Court including the Supreme Court, all injunctions for evidence will be rubber stamped ‘proprietary information’ and all data redacted under protective orders. I’m learning as a consumer. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know legal things even if I think I do, but I understand relationships and work flow and transactions and how data is moved over CLOUD through portals.

    Consumers in harms way, each family suffers all subject to ‘unlawful seizure of real property’, all unsafe in life and property, whether current of loans anyone attached to a national bank as an affiliate cannot be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law one last misapplied payment of a 30 year mortgage is all it takes – you burned the robo-signed rubber stamped eNote;
    will you wait untill you find out the truth when its too late?

    My research selfish as a Patriot I want to know who harmed natiion and how (loopholes). I’ve found many loopholes and Congress blesses sanctioning all national bank affiliate transactions c/o Commerce’ c/o Welfare of Nation, alleging all information proprietary, hiding alleged unlawful business acts which may not be prosecuted by State Attorney Generals with Jurisdiction but for lack of evidence and but for the visitorial powers of OCC attached to national banks affilaites c/o FEDERAL RESERVE.

    I have evidence. I have the ‘Cashier’s Check’ evidence of ‘cash’ given to ‘Bank’s Closing Agent’ c/o Tempoary Lender affiliate of national bank’s affiliates Wells Fargo Bank NA Originator as Seller of the Loan c/o depositor Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp, the Purchaser, DBT Co LTD, the Account Holder of the Cashier’s Check

    Only people not involved in the 21st Centruy PONZI SCHEME which harmed the economy not an affiliate of a national bank will be prosecured if the evidence not stored inside an affilaite of a national bank.

    Commerce all transactions goverend by Federal Reserve c/o OCC national bank affilaites not subject to enforcement of law whether MERS did business nationwide and was registered in all 50 states who cares they are an affilaite of a national bank Chase per ffiec . gov and all related transactions attached to UNITED STATES via UCC, acts of Commerce alleged to be unlawful business acts c/o CONGRESS Sanctions nicknamed ‘White Collar Crimes’ = Congress control of Commerce c/o US Constitution Article I- Legislative Branch Creates Laws and vests limited powers to regulatory agencies and constant tentions with Executive Branch for Congress oversteps limited powers preventing enforcement of laws daily; Article II-Executive Branch enforcement of laws starting with Commander-In-Chief, through US Attorney General Federal and State Attorney Generals c/o Governors of each state may enforce laws in accordance with State Constitutions and US Constitutions if Congress did not give OCC visitorial powers and attach to national banks’ affiliates under Supremacy Clause a blanket-purchase order to get out of jail free, and Article III-Judiciary Branch our Soverign nations’ Independent Expert Body of Law in place to hear all complaints independently following strict process of civil procedures and criminal procedures, and rule and provide remedy in accordance with laws. Only touched on Artice IV Entitlements of lawful residents who are to be safe in life and property and not subject to unlawful seizure.
    Fact Congress vests powers to private agencies c/o federal government regulators who do prevent enforcement of laws for the good cause of Commerce which CONGRESS is suppose to retain control of all matters related to welfare of nation. So why are we continuing to elect ‘people’ who are harming us?
    Congress (3 members abused powers a long time ago and during a recess approved dual banking system) since Federal Reserve powers grown and harm welfare of nation.
    US TREASURY Central Bank of the People versus Federal Reserve will be a great movie one day non-fiction of how 200 year old country residents were too stupid to do anything about the takings..

    Federal Regulators vested powers whether public or private, able to trump enforcement of all law c/o private wealth of third party bank that is not the US TREASURY and harms the economy a major issue consumers without understanding.
    Federal Reserve is a private bank, a global bank of private wealth. Why did Congress vest extraordinary powers to OCC and FEDERAL RESERVE and marry them under US Code 2006 so they are so powerful to force TARP upon Congress? and henceforth with power to destory OTS (check) now have full control & possess EXTRAordinary powers preventing enforcement of laws of alleged unlawful business acts committed by private wealth owners c/o FEDERAL RESERVE.

    Under the greatest period of regulation to protect economy the greatest period of money laundering. Conundrum.
    I do have keen tunnel vision of facts which reveal how ‘cash’ was launded between Purchaser of Loan to Seller of Loan c/o ‘Depositor’ who is also a Registrant on SEC depositor of REMIC’s, responsible for the ‘Trust Fund’ deposits of cash.
    Workflow = Agent’s (Agency)Authority to pass cash in a business entity name to another business entity name governed by Sale & Servicing Agrement unrelated to PSA and related to S-3 and S-3/A of Registration Statement and definition of ‘Depositor’. There will be a real business entity ‘somewhere’ who is also a Registrant over SEC as a filing agent, and/or Issuer and/or
    An employee of a storefront who sells Alt-A Loanos and secures commercial clients for Alternative Investements sits on Main Street USA.

    Consumers harmed during purchase of ‘mortgage’ debt where intent of employee was to take property into pipeline of Alt-A Loan Sub-Priime Lenders of a ‘Mortgage Servicer’ whose affiliate (anybody of a national bank) may take possession c/o third party of mortgage backed note and resell servicing of debt to any third party. Each subsequent Nominee assigns and/or successors accepts the loan purchase to collect cash and only complain when they get stuck paying the loans otherwise they all were fat happy cats.

    Consumers who owe a debt have no harm to claim unless they can’t sell property due ot defect in title and/or are in default owing a Servicer’ Nominee’s assignee and/or successors money’.
    Consumers statutorily have a DEED OF TRUST the Assignment lawfully recorded with Mortgage Servicers affiliate c/o national or federal bank, consuemr paid the fee for the statutory charges called transfer taxes paid to the state during origination of each ‘mortgage’ which can be a credit line extension right away an Alt-A loan by default credit lines extensions …. significant anyway.
    Consumers have harm when facing unknown ‘debt collector’ may contest allegations seeking ‘evidence’ that the new Assigned Nominee and its assignee and/or successors are the actual owner of the mortgage backed note.

    The harm to consumers is real, and the taking possession of property c/o third party via purchase of a mortgage-backed note cash transaction is real, whether for 1 day up to 90 days.
    The taking possession of real property and peronsal property through deceptive acts criminal. Filing falsified documents with public offices during foreclosure where consumer has opportunity to reveal deceptive acts of origination. Do not discount the cash to the depositor was real. The depositor accepts prefunding – cash into checking account of a ‘Trust Fund’ is real. What happened after is unrelated to consumer and belongs to investor.
    Regarding foreclosure is my perspective what is yours investor?
    Foreclosure = Assignment from Origination reassigned c/o robo-firm’s subservicer of national bank’s affiliate. in which ‘reassignment’ of real debt to subservicers mortgage services affilaites c/o REO Lender as new Tempoary Lender c/o realestate groups will take REO properties back c/o filing falsified documents Court of Equity first-stop of taking possession of property in larcenous manner
    Restatements ‘very important’ and powerful. Keep restating. We all need to restate so we can hear and digest using apples and apples.
    Sharing key Registrant as Depositor c/o Wells Fargo Bank NA.
    One DEPOSITOR dba DLJ Mortgage Capital handles the ‘trust fund’ cash deposits.
    S-3 governs ‘depositor’ – S-3/A the next document, 8K’s of REMIC’s typically reveal the ‘S-3′ governing the ‘cash’ deposits will lead to the ‘Registrant’ like DLJ Capital Mortgage.
    At bottom of S-3, S-3/A – you’ll find the ‘Exhibit Index’ Very Important. S-3 period in which ‘cash’ taken by depositor…
    Somebody redacted 3/17/98 – 8K (5,7) 3/2/98 EX 1.1. so I can’t read related information.
    3/17/98 ‘8-K’{5, 7} 3/2/98 2 / 3 ‘EX-1.1’ … 26
    7/24/97 ‘S-3’ – 2 / 5 ‘EX-1.1’ … 26
    5 Other Events
    7 Financial Statements and Exhibits
    This filing was Deleted by the SEC.

    EXHIBIT INDEX
    Page Number
    ———–
    1.1 — Form of Underwriting Agreement.
    4.1 — Form of Pooling and Servicing Agreement.
    5.1 — Opinion of Sidley & Austin with respect
    to legality.
    8.1 — Opinion of Sidley & Austin with respect
    to certain tax matters.
    23.1 — Consent of Sidley & Austin (included as
    part of Exhibit 5.1 and Exhibit 8.1).
    24.1 — Power of Attorney (included in signature pages
    to this Registration Statement).
    So on ‘Google’ I search ’1998 8K DLJ Mortgage Capital’ hoping I can view ‘cached’ version.

    My interest in DLJ Mortgage Capital c/o PO Box 85017, San Diego CA links to Wells Fargo Bank NA ‘Assignments’ all the way back to 1995 when transactions recorded over CLOUD on SEC Portal. My default Assignment by Wells Fargo Bank NA c/o US Bank NA (SASCO 2006-WF3), robo-firm in New Jersey Attorney-in-Fact, signature, of a Richard Haber who is an attorney and who was managing supervisor of Zucker Goldberg Ackerman LLC during ‘pre-foreclosure period’ in which I did as told to get a loan modification/forebearance agreement and investigation under RESPA into origination frauds. The Assignment, as filed, of the default, relates back to GMAC Mortgage Corp and DLJ Mortgage Capital c/o Wells Fargo Bank NA, who are in ‘agreements’ as ‘depositor’ of REMICS, and interesting America Loss Mitigation Consortium details from 2007 of one lawsuit below, and in Agreement with depositor NASCOR c/o Norwest Asset Securities Corp Mortgage Servicer affilaites ‘subservicers’ GMAC Mortgage Corp PO Box 85071, San Diego CA.
    Credit Suisse sues subprime lenders 3/30/2007 by Saskia Scholtes & Ben White New York
    DLJ Mortgage Capital Inc. a Private Company, a unit of Credit Suisse, suing (3 Mortgage Companies 3/20/2007 claiming Lenders ….US subprime mortgage lenders puring themselves of bad housing loans (3/30/2007) already ‘limiting damage from subprime collapse’ (ResMae Mortgage Corp, Ownit Mortgage, New Century ‘unable to issue new loans.’ DLJ Mortgage Capital seeking to force ‘Sunsent Direct Lending, Infinity Home Mortgages to ‘buy back mortgage loans which defaulted immediately upon DLJ after DLJ bought the loans.’ DJL Mortgage Capital lawsuit against Infinity claims it bought four mortgatge loans, totalling $838K, made to individual borrower for (3) properties on same street in Irvington NJ. DJL Mortgage Capital bought loans from Infinity between March and April 2006, claims individual failed to make payments on 3 of mortgages in May 2006.
    DLJ Mortgage Capital citing contractual agreements that require loan repurchases after such ‘early payment defaults’, DLJ seeking $24M of buy backs from Sunset, and $3M from Infinity. Separately DLJ sutin gNetBank for $4M of payments relating to loans that its subsidiaries were servicing for DLJ.
    Netbank and Infinity dispute allegations claiming negligence on DLJ’s part for problems with loans.
    Sunset CEO Bob Howard said he would dispute DLJ’s claims. CEO Bob Howard says there is not a sould dealing in mortgage sales c/o Wal Street who hasn’t run into ‘early payment default problems.’. Sunsent no longer making new loans. Employees given ‘LEAVE’ until end of March. Reopen firm under new name in April.
    ‘Sub-prime mortgage market’ threatens one of Wall Street’s most profitable businesses — ‘packaing’ such mortgages’ into ‘bonds’ and selling them to investors. Banks earned nearly $2.6B in fees for underweriting mortgage-backed securities las tyear, Thomson Financial says.

    REGISTRATION STATEMENTS ‘INSTRUMENTAL’ IN ALL ‘REMIC’ TRANSACTIONS REVEAL ‘GOVERNING AGREEMENTS EXIST’ FOR EXAMPLE. GONNA PLAY AND TAKE CASH AND LAUNDER CURRENCY YOU GOT TO REGISTER OVER SEC TO MOVE ‘CASH’ OUTSIDE OF USA ATTACHED TO ‘MORTGAGE SERVICERS’ AFFILIATE – DEPOSITOR, SO ‘CASH’ TRANSACTIONS DON’T HAVE TO BE REGISTERED WITH FINCEN ‘MONEY LAUNDERING’ EXCEPTION C/O OCC UNDER FEDERAL RESERVE PER US CODE SINCE 2006, C/O OCC 2002 VISITORIAL POWERS – SUPRAMACY CLAUSE ‘ALL CASH TRANSACTIONS ATTACHED TO NATIONAL BANKS’ MORTGAGE SERVICERS AFFILIATES ‘EXEMPT’ FROM FINCEN REGULATIONS UNDER PATRIOT ACT.
    HOW IMPORTANT WAS IT TO PROTECT ECONOMY? NOT! WHEN FEDERAL RESERVE ALLOWED C/O OCC TO ‘EXEMPT’ DISCLOSURE OF ALL CASH MOVED C/O DEPOSITORS. WHY IS THIS NOT FRONT PAGE NEWS?
    DLJ Commercial Mortgage Corp · S-3 · On 7/24/97
    S-3 Registration Statement

    Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette. Salomon Brothers Mortgage Securities

    FORM S-3
    REGISTRATION STATEMENT
    UNDER
    THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
    DLJ COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE CORP. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
    Delaware (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
    13-3956945 (I.R.S. employer identification number)
    DLJ COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE CORP
    277 Park Avenue
    New York, New York 10172
    (212) 892-3000
    Rgistrant’s principle executive office
    c/o
    Corporation Trust Company
    Corporate Trust Center
    1209 Orange Street
    Wilmington, Delaware 19801
    REMIC ‘TEMPLATE’
    Depositor………………………..
    DLJ Commercial Mortgage Corp., a Delaware corporation. See “TheDepositor” in the Prospectus.

    Under Legal Counsel of:
    William J. Cullen, Esq.
    Sidley & Austin
    875 Third Avenue
    New York, New York 10022
    (212) 906-2258
    If any of the securities being registered on this form are to be offered on
    a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of
    1933, other than securities offered only in connection with dividend or interest
    plans, please check the following box. [x]
    The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such date or
    dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the Registrant shall
    file a further amendment which specifically states that this Registration
    Statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of
    the Securities Act of 1933 or until the Registration Statement shall become
    effective on such date as the Commission, acting pursuant to said Section 8(a),
    may determine.
    SUBJECT TO COMPLETION, DATED JULY 24, 1997.
    Information contained herein is subject to completion or amendment. A
    registration statement relating to these securities has been filed with the
    Securities and Exchange Commission. These securities may not be sold nor may
    offers to buy be accepted prior to the time the registration statement becomes
    effective. This prospectus supplement and the prospectus to which it relates
    shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy nor
    shall there be any sale of these securities in any State in which such offer,
    solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification
    under the securities laws of any such State.
    The Offered Certificates will be purchased from the Depositor by (the “Underwriter”) and will be offered by the Underwriter from
    time to time in negotiated transactions or otherwise at varying prices to be
    determined at the time of sale. Proceeds to the Depositor from the sale of the
    Offered Certificates, before deducting expenses payable by the Depositor
    estimated to be …
    The Certificates will represent undivided interests in a trust fund (the
    “Trust Fund”) to be established by DLJ Commercial Mortgage Corp. (the
    “Depositor”), pursuant to a Pooling and Servicing Agreement to be dated as of …
    The Trust Fund will consist primarily of a segregated pool (the “Mortgage Pool”)
    CERTIFICATES DO NOT REPRESENT OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEPOSITOR
    CERTIFICATES ‘OFFERED’ ISSUED BY DEPOSITOR C/O PROSPECTUS
    DEPOSITOR: DLJ COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE CORP, A DELAWARE CORPORATION.
    The Offered Certificates will be purchased from the Depositor by (the “Underwriter”)
    ‘Trust Fund’ to be established by Depositor ‘DLJ Commercial Mortgage Corp’
    ON ‘OR PRIOR’ TO CLOSING DATE, DEPOSITOR (WILL ACQUIRE) MORTGAGE LOANS FROM MORTGAGE LOAN SELLER
    MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AGREEMENT ‘BETWEEN’ DEPOSITOR & A MORTGAGE LOAN SELLER
    SELLER ‘MAKES’ CERTAIN REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES TO ‘DEPOSITOR’
    DEPOSITOR ASSIG ITS RIGHTS UNDER ‘MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AGREEMENT’
    DEPOSITOR MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES
    DEPOSITOR DOES NOT INSURE OR GUARANTEE MORTGAGE LOANS
    DEPOSITOR WILL ACQUIRE MORTGAGE LOANS FROM MORTGAGE LOAN SELLER PURSUANT TO MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AGREEMENT.
    MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ‘DEPOSITOR’ AND ‘MORTGAGE LOAN SELLER’ ASSIGN ITS INTEREST IN MORTGAGE LOANS ‘WIHTOUT RECOURSE’ TO ‘TRUSTEE’ C/O CERTIFICATES HOLDERS.
    DEPOSITOR, CHECKING ACCOUNT, C/O FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, ‘TRUST FUND’ DEPOSITS received Depositor reports ’12 – month’ Net Operating Income’ revenue derived….
    DEPOSITOR MAKES NO ATTEMPT TO VERIFY ACCURACY
    DEPOSITOR MAKES NO REPRESENTATINO OR WARRANTY AS TO ACCURACY OR COMPLETNESS OF ‘MORTGAGE LOAN SELLER’ UNDERWRITING
    ASSIGNMENTS C/O DEPOSITOR TO TRUSTEE TO REPURCHASE AFFECTED MORTGAGE LOAN….
    DEPOSITOR MAY REMOVE ‘MORTGAGE LOAN FROM MORTGAGE POOL IF DEPOSITOR DEEMS SUCH REMOVEAL NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE OR IF IT IS PREPAID.
    DEPOSITOR ‘BELIEVES’ INFO SET FORTH HEREIN ‘REPRESENTATIVE’ BY THEIR /S/
    DEPOSITOR HAS NOT PROVIDED INFORMATION.
    DEPOSITOR TAKES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOREGOING INFORMATION PROVIDED TO SPECIAL SERVICER.
    PSA CUT OFF DATE, DEPOSITOR – CERTIFICATES REPRSENT ….
    DEPOSITOR MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO COLLECTABILITY OF ANY PREPAYMENT
    CERTAIN ‘REIMBURSEMENTS TO DEPOSIT, C/O TRUSTEE
    DEPOSITOR ‘PROVIDES APPROVAL’ TO ‘INVESTORS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES’, CONFIRMATION OF WHICH APPROVAL FURNISHED TO TRUSTEE, THEN ‘MAY OBTAIN CERTAIN MORTGAGE LOAN INFORMATION VIA ‘TRUSTEE’S RESTRICTED ELECTRONIC PORTAL…
    DEPOSITOR ‘RECOGNIZES’ THE ‘CERTIFICATE HOLDERS’ AS ONLY THOSE ‘REAL NAMES’ IN WHICH CERTIFICATES ARE REGISTERED ON BOOKS AND RECORDS OF CERTIFICATE REGISTER (UNDERWRITER C/O CEDE & CO NOMINEE DTC.

    SO THE ‘DEPOSITOR’ ACCOUNT HOLDER OF THE ‘TRUST FUND’S’ CHECKING ACCOUNT WILL RECEIVE DEPOSITS OF CASH, FROM ‘AFFILIATES’ AND ‘DEPOSITOR’ WILL ‘OWN CASH’ AS ACCOUNT HOLDER., AND FUNDS WITHDRAWN TRACKED AND WILL INCLUDE FUNDS PAYING INTEREST TO OWNERS, IF ANY CASH IS LEFT, THAT IS UNTIL THE CONSUMERS CASH FLOWING INTO ‘TRUST FUND’ NO LONGER FUNDS THE ‘PONZI SCHEME’
    THE ‘TEMPLATE’ DESCRIBES THE ‘THREE’ CLASSES OF ‘REMICS’
    As described herein, three separate “real estate mortgage investment
    conduit” (“REMIC”) elections will be made with respect to the Trust Fund for
    federal income tax purposes (the REMICs formed thereby being herein referred to
    as “REMIC I”, “REMIC II” and “REMIC III”, respectively). The REMIC Regular
    Certificates will constitute “regular interests” in REMIC III, and each Class of
    REMIC Residual Certificates will constitute the sole class of “residual
    interests” in the related REMIC.

  31. SEC Chairman and SEC OIG are real, but can’t get to ‘evidence’ that ‘cash’ laundered attached to ‘Cashier’s Check’ the cash taken out of a ‘TRUST’ custody for which Non-Deposit Trust Company-Non-Member pays ‘Depositor’ for Loan 0123456789 c/o Pre-funding (claimed to be for pre-funding purchase of real estate owned property), Mortgage Servicers Retail affiliates of national banks passing cash from consumers as deposits to ‘depositor’ and all that done prior to ‘Issuing Entity’ REMIC resigsterd, so how can the SEC HELP? They can’t get copy of ‘Cashier’s Check’ from bank closing agent who was used as a mule to launder the money. They can’t get copy of ‘Cashiers’ Check from ‘TRUST’ Custody, what pension fund or municipal funds cash deposits ‘proprietary’ attached to affiliates of national banks, They can’t get copies of evidence of the ‘depostior’ transactions which are properiteary c/o affiliates of national banks. The bank closing agent, title agent, title agency, Title Company who issued the Lenders Policy, the appraial , the REO Lender, the Temporary Lender, the seller of the Loan, the Purchaser of the Loan, the Sale and Servicing Agreement, the Purchase Loan Agremeent, etc. jmay not be disclosed and so what abolish bank securities new ABS and allow only ‘registered fiduciary’ accountable for all cash under FINCEN is the answer to stop money laundering of cash attached to ‘Mortgage Servicers’ RETAIL TRANSACTIONS of affiliates for which the OCC c/o Federal REserve protected and prevented discovery of all Consumer Complaitns of alleged unlawful business acts. So much that the entire State Attorney General’s office have NO EXPERIENCE looking at ‘evidence’ and did not know when handed the Cashiers’ Check its the smoking gun! Nor did the OIG-SEC who investigated the ‘complaint’ that money was laundered one mortgage at a time.

    You can Save America One Mortgage At A Time Revealing the truth! Get copies of the evidence for the Attorney General’s in the file of each bank closing agent transactions the cash deposits out of the attorney trust fund won’t tell the story. The ‘cash’ transactions copies of documents the place in their files list on one document the players related to the Temporay Lender c/o signing the loan for the borrowers and all the consumer was singing was a documents for a non-conforming loan in which the Tempoary Lender was insured for defaults and non-disclosure to consumer ….

  32. ‘cash’ laundered out of nation one mortgage at a time is real
    ‘cash’ taken from ‘trust’ custody – cash of CALPERS for example, handed to Originator of ‘loan’ 0123456789 ‘Depositor’ that cash ‘exempt’ from being reported under Patriot Act to protect economy from money laundering is henceforth 2002 forward the ‘single’ transactions of the two which collectively harmed the economy.

    SALE AND SERVICER Agreement (national bank affiliates)
    Registration Statement S/3 & S/3A ‘Depositor’
    Cashier’s Check
    Account Holder Non-Deposit Trust Company Non-Member
    DBT Co LTD
    Deutsche Bank Trust Company New Jersey LTD
    Federal Reserve System -Non- Deposit Trust Company Non-Member
    Commercial Checking Account with Deutsche Bank Trust Americas Co. in New JErsey.
    Cash came from ‘TRUST’ for which an affilaite of a national bank Mortgage Serivcer’ atttached ‘cash’ to Loan0123456789, Ordered by the Temporay Lender passed the cash to Originator, Seller’s Depositor. Depsoitor role defined in S3 and S-3/A ‘Loan Trust’ deposits cash for REMIC. All cash attached to Loan0123456789 gets deposited c/o Depositor c/o Lockbox and the Mortgage Servicers affilaites answer phones, control servicing at Retail from the day the consumer signs the documents is when the SERVICER Status was active. If all transactions are mechanized the cash given to individual bank closing agents deposited c/o NASCOR dba Wells FArgo Asset Securities Corp done the same when the ‘Originator’ Temporary Lender is an affilaite of the national bank. Menaing the affiliate is a commercial client, with a commercial credit line in which as Temporary Lender can make money in 3 different ways. Meanwhile the dirty deed done the cash laundered, the Tempoary Lender has had to co-sign the loan for the borrower in order fo rthe ‘cash’ to be disbursed as an approved ‘loan’ and purchase of a mortgage backed note ‘loan# 0123456789 right? All done prior to the RETAIL signing with Borrowers who as Consumers were lied to their proeprty taken possessino of by third parties in deceptive acts larcenous manner – but criminal prosectuion not possible with extraordinary powers of OCC – visitorial powers and adjudication of alleged unlawful business acts jurisdiction vested to State Attorney Generals who are prevented from enforcing law without evidence.

  33. “Rule 3a-7 excludes from the definition of “investment company” any asset-backed issuer that holds specified assets and meets the rule’s conditions, so that the issuer does not have to comply with the requirements of the Investment Company Act. ”

    Neil, doesn’t this rule squash your single transaction theory? Because if the trusts were never investment companies to begin with, then the transactions were never security transactions. Or, is it that the trusts may not have had to be registered as an investment company, but the transactions were still nevertheless security transactions?

  34. “Possible new conditions also could require the issuer to undergo an independent review to protect investors in the asset-backed securities from self-dealing and overreaching by insiders.”

    Self-dealing and overreaching by insiders? Nooo! Say it ain’t so!

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,121 other followers

%d bloggers like this: