Scam Alert !!!!! ***** !!!!!!! People Pretending to be IRS 415-251-3754

If you get a call from people pretending to be from the IRS and the number they are calling from is the one in the title to this blog, they are most likely not calling from this country much less the Internal Revenue Service. They are scamming people by scaring them into thinking that their tax returns for the last five years are being audited. After they think that you are sufficiently scared they offer you a way out by prepaying the estimated tax. If you have already paid these people, consider your money lost and the IRS is not going to give you one cent of credit. If you see that number on your caller ID, I suggest you block the call by calling customer service for your provider of phone service.  They are slick and they know how to use the technology. Don’t pick up — it only encourages them.

If you Google the number you will see the number of people who have been pestered by these scammers. One would think that the NSA would be able to trace down exactly where they are in the world and perhaps visit them with the drone.

I imagine that in the not too distant future they will change the numbers since people are communicating about it. So you get a call from an unknown number, even if it says “IRS” on the caller ID, don’t pick it up unless you have been expecting a call from the Internal Revenue Service.

20 Responses

  1. James Smith, no none of what the banks did makes sense. You have to realize the banks invented MERS to get around the county land recording records and to hide the true owners. Unfortunately the county recorders did not question what was going on until recently. It all has to do with greed. Millions of people who lost their homes never should have, the paperwork is all screwed up/made up and the people signing assignments had no idea what they there doing. You have to keep fighting, asking questions and question everything they give you. You have to do what you feel is right for your case even if others don’t agree with you.


  2. Thanks MKD, it just makes no sense to me.


  3. @James Smith. MERS has No employees. Belinski is not an employee of MERS. Belinski is an employee of Citi and may have gotten a piece of paper saying she can sign for MERS as VP or one of her supervisors told her she could sign for MERS. If she signed the DOT then she more than likely signed for Citi. If she signed an assignment transferring the DOT as VP of MERS, she still works for Citi but can sign as VP for MERS. Not sure if this answers your questions. Thank you for your service.


  4. Can I get a straight answer from someone on this issue. I filed a complaint with the OCC indicating to them the there is a Cease and Desist Order out there on the Banks to stop Robo Signing. The complaint was both on Wells Fargo and Citi. Citi has responded with a bunch of crap, but in essence this is what they said, “Our records indicate Geraldine A. Belinski is a certified appointed signor for Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.” Background: On my DOT Geraldine Belinski signed the document as the Vice President. My question to this is; Is she signing the document as Vice President of MERS or Citi Mortgage. I did some research on my own and tracked her down. The individual at Citi who answered the phone were she worked indicated that she was not a Vice President but a mere processor. So what I need to know before I draft a response and go over OCC’s head is Can they do that? If she signed the document as Vice President of MERS, can she be employed by Citi? And vice versa, if she signed the Document as Vice President of Citi, can she work for MERS, my thought is that it has to be one or the other and she cannot perform work for MERS as a Citi employee and cannot perform work for Citi as a MERS employee. Pleas keep it simple Im not as smart as some of you so you have to keep it simple. I just need to know before I draft my letters to respond. PS: I know some of you all think that I wont get anywhere, but If I can get this to the right people it could make a difference. I am an Army Officer and I never give up the fight.


  5. @johngault, in reply to your post on February 10, 2014 at 11:46 pm said:
    RE: Notes submitted are just copies of copies.
    You are right again – and I would like to add – I have noticed and saved different “versions” of my note that has been submitted to the courts. My note has a bar code and on some it has a marker mark scribbled on it and on others it has different markings on this bar code. Would be impossible to be the same one – so this to me is 2 different versions and some notes when submitted to the court do include the allonge page and some, including the last one I saw did not…don’t think they care about this much in GA…


  6. Mr. Smith, at the time the consent orders were entered into, which at least theoretically prohibitted banksters from continuing bad acts, the gov will say or essentially has said, “really? they’re continuing the bad acts?” NG imo should be all over the MERS consent order – what determinations led to it. I’ve put forth my two cents. Any long time reader knows I think the entire MERS et al m.o,. aka business plan, is an illegitimate piece of dog-doo if not RICO activity, whether the latter is by design or as a result. Planning to call thousands of non-employees of a corporation, MERS or MERSCorp, its officers for the purpose of effecting transfers of interests and rights in real property is a crock and nada but, as was allowing those alleged officers to foreclose in MERS’ name. You said, “It makes no sense to me that they would initiate a Cease and Desist Order and not take any action when the banks are still clearly doing this.” They changed their m.o. – foreclosures are no longer allowed in MERS’ name, which they will imo opine meets the letter of the Consent Order, and even if so, does not, so does not, meet the spirit of the consent order. Servicer’ employees and others just execute the assgts as alleged officers of MERS, instead of foreclose in MERS’ name. I doubt you’ll get any satisfaction out of the people you expect it from. Maybe, who knows, or maybe if enough people collectively raise hell or the best we can in that regard. From their membership agreement, it appears crystal clear to me that MERS never intended to do anything but hand off any of their duties to members (and later they allowed them to be done by non-members, or at least Hultman did) and to receive money in exchange for this totally, totally tweaked business plan. You might find the case, Robinson, that KC linked a few days ago beneficial, as well as reading the MERS Consent Order.
    lay opinions


  7. The allonge in my case showed up in the paperwork for a Relief of Stay in my BK. It, of course, was endorsed in blank and signed by a well known Wells robo-signer who supposedly had signing authority for the bank that was no longer in business. AND it was dated (I keep hearing allonges are not dated, but mine was) six months after I received the NOD. AND it was never attached to the note as there were not marks showing it ever was. There was more than enough room on the note for an endorsement. Wells was the servicer and Fannie Mae the investor, and MERS listed as beneficiary.


  8. btw, KC, I, and I’ll bet others here, truly appreciate it when you bring stuff to my / our attention, even from other blogs. I don’t have time to scour them all every day.


  9. re: the allonges in the case KC ref’d. Ever wonder why an endorsement must be on a note if there’s room? To stop criminals from 1) attaching a bs endorsement by allonge to a live note, 2) attaching a bs endorsement by allonge to a copy of a note (like say a copy of a copy (copy of note digitilized – scanned – because live note is likely toast for one reason or another) and 3) to stop criminals from using a copy of the back of a different note. The 3rd one is a real problem in my estimate. When we don’t get (see, forensically review) the live note, one has no way of knowing if the alleged endorsements are on one’s note or not. If I’m a crook at a copy machine, I’ll just copy the copy of your note and then copy the back of someone else’s note, staple it together, attach it to a complaint, and call it the front and back of yours. There is a principle / rule of law called “best evidence”. The best evidence of a note is a live note. If the live note, the best evidence, is not available, it falls on the claimant to give an explanation which passes muster. I’ll work on case law. Around here somewhere…..feel free to beat me to it (think it’s rule 1002 in fed juris) Some people think the best evid rule has lost its application. Well, even if so, and I disagree, anyway, it’s back in business since banksters have made it their business to fool courts and homeowners because their business model was “deficient” and of course, that’s being nice. A better word is, well, pick your own and you’ll be on target.

    And just a reminder, for what it might be worth. All servicers have a copy of the note in their servicing file. Somewhere there is imo judicially noticeable material about this or an industry employee or 10 who can so testify (may have to be qual’d as expert – don’t know, but hey, their grunts, er witnesses, aren’t) They don’t have the original or shouldn’t unless they are the custodian of record and can prove it, in which case the owner is not in possession. imo.
    Still, they will copy it and call it a certified copy of the original. It’s not. it’s a copy of a copy and shouldn’t actually have but one endorsement on it (from the orig lender, “A”, unless servicing were transferred after the note went from B to C etc. – A is the originator, in which case, the servicer may have a copy of the note with more than one endorsement on it). The orig servicer gets the servicing file shortly after loan closing, at which time only the orig’s, A’s, endorsement would be on it. I maintain that endorsements, because they’re critical, are part of “the terms of a writing”. – see b and c below.

    “Rule 1008 gives judges the power to determine whether evidence satisfies these rules and should be submitted to the jury, with the exception that evidence should always be submitted for jury review when an issue is raised whether: (a) the original ever existed, (b) the evidence offered is in fact the original, or (c) whether secondary evidence correctly reflects the contents of the original…..

    Many states model their evidence rules on the FRE and usually have corresponding versions. However, California has adopted the “secondary evidence rule” by statute, so that it is normally not necessary to introduce the original of a writing into evidence.”

    The info in quotations is from wikipedia. from jg: say what?! Okay, having recovered, then those in CA simply have to work harder and find reasons to overcome that statute, which I haven’t seen. But if i were in CA, I’d certainly look into it and not take it lying down. All the judicially noticeable consent orders and settlements (including the rampant robo-signing) IMO form the basis for protesting a copy of
    a colon. Any bankster remotely related to one of those deals doesn’t deserve any benefit of any doubt – from anyone, including and especially courts.

    lay opinions as always


  10. My friends, I desperately need your help. After reviewing my Assignment of Deed of Trust I noticed some things that were definitely wrong. The assignment is with Citi Mortgage. The first thing I notice is that it was dated July 26, 2013, which is really crazy because the transaction was conducted back in 2006. The second thing that jumped out at me was the Signature. It is signed by a Geraldine Ann Belinski and her title is Vice President, so I decided to track down this Vice President. I finally reached the office where she worked at Citi Mortgage and I asked to speak to Vice President Belinski. Low and behold the Gentleman that answered the phone stated that she was not the vice president but a mere processor. So armed with that information and some issues with my second mortgage with Wells Fargo, which is securitized I decided to file a complaint with the Office of Comptroller of Currency. My complaint was based on the fact that there is a Cease and Desist order against both banks to stop the robo signing. I have not yet received a response from Wells Fargo, but Citi responded by saying “Our records indicate Geraldine A. Belinski is a certified appointed signor for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.” What I need help with is, I need to know if she can in fact work for Citi and be a certified appointed signor for MER’s as they stated. Also is she signing the document as a Citi Vice President or MERS Vice President. I need to know because if this is in fact illegal Im going to keep pushing this up the Government Chain of Command until I get some answers. It makes no sense to me that they would initiate a Cease and Desist Order and not take any action when the banks are still clearly doing this. Thanks for your help in this matter James. 443-677-2799.


  11. Hi Neil,
    Nothing shocks me anymore! I guess I have become frozen and petrified from the 2007 Real Estate Bust. We were scammed in our own Country and now the foreigners want to get a piece of us. It just never ends. However, thanks for this valuable information, I will post it on my website


  12. @ ALL ,

    Obviously any call from an entity that should have your info and instead asks for it is more than suspect …

    The IRS will always contact you by mail , never by phone…


  13. Yes I got a call from Wells Fargo and I called they asked for my ss#. I just hung up….I don’t even have an account w wells so where these skammers picked up my number from I don’t know
    this is the info;
    Name came up as: wells fargo
    watch out but if anyone has an idea of how to scam them back…I am game


  14. Nice post KC…we have a EMC mortgage with Countrywide going back and it DOES have a backdated assignment. Yippee!


  15. So now we have scammers pretending to be the IRS, along the real IRS scamming us out of what’s left of our coins.

    What I’d give for a few drones.


  16. Better yet, tell them you are notifying the attorney general in your state, and the IRS.


  17. Also 3153707914. 2026308943

    Sent from my iPhone



  18. correction …appointment.

    You might as well scare the Shtt out of them and get a Good Laugh!


  19. You could just *Giggle* under your breath and invite them to set up and appoint to review your records with you, your accountant, or your attorney.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: