Daily Archives: January 22, 2018

Hawaii State Public Funds’ Shortfall Hits $25B

Posted on by
1

“Shortfall” –  a clever term for “we’ve lost your money”

According to the Hawaii Free Press quoting the Honolulu Star Advertiser: 

“The two public funds designed to meet the future pension and health care needs of government employees and retirees are a combined $25 billion in the hole with a growing shortfall….

The deficit in the ERS pension fund rose to $12.93 billion in the fiscal year ended June 30 from $12.44 billion in the previous fiscal year, according to one of the reports. The funded ratio — what is needed to meet future obligations — improved slightly to 54.9 percent from 54.7 percent a year earlier….

Similarly, the EUTF shortfall for all employers rose to $12.15 billion in fiscal 2017 from $11.78 billion in fiscal 2015, the last year it was reported. Its funded ratio improved to 12.8 percent from 6.7 percent because the cost of health care didn’t grow as fast as had been anticipated and because employers made more contributions to pay down the unfunded liability than required. The EUTF report has been coming out every two years but will be switching to an annual format… Continue reading →

Christiana Trust/Wilmington Savings Crash and Burn on Standing and More

Posted on by
Reply

“Times they are a changin’…”

This is paper laundering (same as money laundering) trying to confuse the true ownership identity, a faulty chain of title and failures to properly & physically transfer the paperwork – and in most cases, you will find Fannie or Freddie concealed in the background calling the shots as the ultimate investor.

Plaintiffs should have to sign an affidavit that this loan was a final SALE, not a pledge, nor participation in rehypothecation and that no underlying agreements have been executed in relation to this loan and other parties at any time. It should be a federal crime to conceal the true ownership of the debt or to participate in a paper laundering scheme devised to create fraud on the court.

Fannie and Freddie have allegedly sold loans in bulk to 3rd parties (likely to get the debt off their books and create an image of healthy corporations). Where are the assignments? And what are the underlying agreements? How much of the sale that the third party recovers do the GSEs collect? Is it a case of, “here’s the loan mortgage schedule – whatever you sell Fannie gets X%” and the 3rd party pays the legal fees rather than buy the loans outright for value?

Everything else they do is crooked – why would this be any different?

Unknown's avatarLivinglies's Weblog

Florida 4th DCA Opinion:

In this mortgage foreclosure case, the underlying mortgage was passed around like the flu, giving rise to a complexity of ownership that frustrated the appellee’s attempts to demonstrate standing at trial. To the answer brief, the appellee attached a chart of the ownership lineage of the mortgage and note, with different types of arrows pointing in all directions, a valiant effort which demonstrated that the transfer history here defies pictorial representation.

Let us help you prepare your narrative (blue print) for litigation: 202-838-6345
Get a consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY…

View original post 544 more words

Deutsch Bank National Trust Company Was Crushed in Texas in 2015. Why isn’t anyone listening?

Posted on by
1

Lying lawyers?! How unusual. Judges are beginning to tune-in, maybe they feel they can now. Maybe judges don’t think foreclosure blood money should be used to prop up Obamacare either, or that Fannie & Freddie should be held in unnecessary captivity any longer.

Unknown's avatarLivinglies's Weblog

When a judge looks carefully at the record, the bank loses. The use of Deutsch’s name in the style of the case still shows that Judges are considering the Plaintiff to be the named “Trustee” instead of the named (or named, which is frequently the case) Trust. In fact the Trustee has nothing to do with foreclosures. In this case the Judge wrote the following:

“Judgment (for the homeowner for declaratory relief) was based on findings and conclusions that Deutsche Bank had failed to prove chain of title back to the original lender, now defunct. The sole proof on which the bank relied — a purported assignment from “MERS as nominee for the lender, its successors and assigns” — was held void, because the assignor did not exist when the document was signed.

“Deutsche Bank’s first argument is based on a misrepresentation of the trial record. [i.e. the lawyers were…

View original post 893 more words