Foreclosure and Court Case Number

Foreclosure fraud and fight to save your home

Back Dating Analysis

   FILE: PHIL ACETO       

       F/C PARTIES BAC

	LINE ITEMS		DATES	DAYS	Trial Bal.	BUY	392,000.00
	Loans Settlement		7/26/2007			SEL	248,920.00
	Years 1		7/31/2007	5	5		326.67
	1031 Exchange		12/28/2007	150	155		9,800.00
	TARP Charges		2/1/2009	401	556		26,198.67
	Reconstitution		4/14/2011	802	1358		52,397.33
	GAAP Recognition		6/24/2013	802	2160		52,397.33
	Transfer & Sale		7/24/2013	30	2190		1,960.00
							143,080.00
	Years Bond Held		6.000%	$23,520.00	$          65.33	6.00	365
	Loan Origination		392,000.00
	Coupon		6%
	Per Annul		23,520.00
	Term in Years		6
	Day in A Year		365.00	250.00	Price / Shares
	Per Diem		65.33	1568.00	Shares
	Term in  Days		2,190.00	392000.00
	Dividends		$       15.00	23520.00
	TD Interest Accrued		91.25	143080.00
	Deutsche Bank		BUY	248920.00
	Deutsche Bank		SEL	392000.00
	BAC Discount			-143080.00
	DUE ON SALE			41479.00

ForeclosureChemistry : Q&A

ForeclosureChemistry : Q&A: June 2013 /  Q&A  How did I lose my home if it was not a real foreclosure? The title to your estate was lost to an order for entry. T...

Q&A

June 2013 /  Q&A 

How did I lose my home if it was not a real foreclosure?
The title to your estate was lost to an order for entry. The judgment in California will be followed by a Sheriffs writ for possession.  

When does the lender get a judgement?
The alleged order was entered on or about 4/25/2011 subsequent to the 30 day debt collections practice act “30 days letter”  

Can my Attorney take on an argument if he is not in full understanding of the calculations?  Yes . But do ask him or her yourself. If counsel does take my argument into pleading, discovery will prove how all terms and conditions for the debtor creditor relationship are held irrevocably into trust.

Financial Agency Agreement’s (FAA) entered into as of December 2009

This is not about U.S. marshals and conventional foreclosure mills – as it is the subject matter for controversy for claims brought by United States financial agents. I opine as an expert that the Financial Agency Agreement’s (FAA) were entered into as of December 22, 2009 (Effective Date), by and between the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and designated “Agents” LLC (Financial Agent). The purpose is to implement the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Act), the Treasury may designate Financial Institutions as financial agents of the United States to provide all such reasonable duties related to the Act as may be required.

I believe these financial agency agreements appear as asset management services for mortgages converted into bonds collateralized from equity securities, debt obligations, and warrants. 

United States financial agents working with the color of badge and authority under financial agency agreements for asset recovery management services and systems for (1) equity securities, (2) debt obligations, and (3) warrants. From a GAAP accounting perspective, the mortgage was materially altered into an alternate form of valuable consideration made marketable by rating agencies certification for purposes of a private placement registration.

Now, upon the securities having been charged off allowing bond holders preferences the US Treasury has authorized the appointed Financial Agents to pursue (Aka manage) these balance sheet write downs that are in part being restored as qualified assets, acquired under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Act), in accounts established by the Treasury (Account). These accounts are being maintained under a nominee MersCorp through the Treasury department as a Custodian.

The Financial Agent will act as an asset manager with respect to the Accounts pursuant to the offset mortgage “so called” linked accounts as established by the Treasury (Account). These accounts are being maintained under an alleged nominee MersCorp by the U.S. Treasury having determined that it is in the interests of the United States to designate financial agents to provide asset management services for this portfolio of securities and obligations.

All assets asserted in claims are managed by the Financial Agent for the Treasury are pursued free from any security interests, liens, or encumbrances exercised by any third party against such assets, and the Treasury will not grant a security interest, lien, or encumbrance on any such assets for the benefit of any third party unless it notifies the Financial Agent.

Pursuant to the Act, the Treasury established this home reclamation program under which the Treasury is seeking the return of charged off derivatives to receive back senior preferred shares, senior debt, and other equity securities and debt obligations, in addition to warrants for common stock or debt in lieu of warrants, from public and private Financial Institutions, that somehow stand in for mortgages. 

Write us at registerclaims@live.com

Defendants are therefore a commercial creditor holding securities

1. Plaintiffs claims cite the mortgage lender as the principal party "beneficiary" entitled to the mortgage receivable as a present value and future value consideration holding plaintiffs servicing rights. 
2. Defendants are a collaborate electing to liquidate it's asset "holdings" in favor of a private offering "registration" of common stock that early discovery demonstrates is concurrently placed into certain depositors paid in capital account. 
3. The controversy argues the subject mortgage given in good faith by plaintiff to defendants is used to construct the "creditors" pledge account . 
4. Defendants collaborate as a banking commercial creditor, subject of controversy for bond holder claims. Defendants are a banking commercial creditor,affirmed not to be one in the same with the beneficial interest in title held of record. The creditor interests is enforceable  by UCC filings provide by obligors for balance used to finance a securities offering. 
5. Defendants are therefore a commercial creditor holding securities financed by satisfaction of the mortgagors subject loan , the obligation outstanding due by the obligors for funds originally delivered at closing into settlement.     
6. Defendants are identified as a failed and liquidated mortgage platform for the FDIC member bank under the OTS  regulatory scheme. Allegations are the parties of interest fail in a conventional foreclosure relying on the  electronic reconciliation and recording of satisfaction found under it nominee Mers Corp 
7. Mers Corp records are prima fascia to arguments demonstrating satisfaction for all outstanding balances due under the plaintiffs promissory note and deed of trust "Aka" Mortgage. 
8. Defendants are a collaborate facing a historically unprecedented dilemma offering domestic and international problematic issues at law which prohibit 1) servicing rights, 2) satisfying a request for demand, 3) calculating per Diem interest and 4) initiating or conveying offers to modify debt that was satisfied 
9. Further, the civil code of procedures are clearly absent the non juridical allowances for power of sale whereby an alleged "deed for bond" cannot be restored barring a novation. Therefore an economic hurdle emerges by operation of law that demands any and all financial precedence for restoring liquidated values to coincide with a servicing agents claims calling to a conventional foreclosure under a bond issuer's default. 

For more information write us at 

registerclaims@live.com

This is not for legal advice or publication and does not satisfy any requirement for a valid legal opinion.