If you have received an invitation to this web address, you are a valued friend and appreciated for all you do for others.
Nothing ever really changes. Nope, nothing ever changes. Computers just escalated it.
See Stingy Jack
Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of administrative agencies
Jun 28, 2024: “Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a longer (33-page) concurring opinion in which he emphasized that “[t]oday, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretative rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding.” He sought to downplay the impact of Friday’s ruling, contending that “all today’s decision means is that, going forward, federal courts will do exactly as this Court has since 2016, exactly as it did before the mid-1980s, and exactly as it had done since the founding: resolve cases and controversies without any systemic bias in the government’s favor.””
This ruling ought to go hand in hand with Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., was enacted to provide that “administrative policies affecting individual rights and obligations be promulgated pursuant to certain stated procedures so as to avoid the inherently arbitrary nature of unpublished ad hoc determinations.” Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 232 (1974).
Long-standing law has shaped due process rights in both state and federal courts, wherein the Supreme Court explicitly declared the United States “equally with the States . . . are prohibited from depriving persons or corporations of property without due process of law.” Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700, 718–19 (1879).
Deadly Clear 
AROUND DEC 2011 YOU WROTE “The issue is actually fraud and forgery – appears to be in the neighborhood of RICO. We now are finding that the mortgage documents were being used for various purposes other than sitting in static trusts… And it appears that’s why the endorsements were not timely or properly handled.”
DESPERATELY NEED TO YOUR VAGUE REFERENCE TO “Used for various purposes other than . …” What other purpose? If the failure to timely assign to securitized trust was intentional – why?
“Understanding the premeditated intentions of these banks, how they pledge, collaterize, swap, sell, lease,and trade these loans that are SUPPOSED to have been in a static trust will open the eyes of lawmakers to the real moral hazard – the fraud upon the homeowners, the courts and the state.” See: https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/the-securitization-curtain-is-lifting-in-hawaii/
There are numerous patents that identify the use of even declined loans. See: http://www.google.com/patents/US7761356?dq=system+and+method+for+processing+loan+applications&ei=i_oHUs7XKKmMyQGEtoFw&cl=en
“Each of the denied loan applications is reviewed at the distribution entity, to determine whether each denied loan application is acceptable for syndication or securitization.”
It appears shadow banking used loans for multiple purposes in order to create cash flow for the investment banks. IMHO it does not appear that the lower level banks (like IndyMac, WaMU, etc.) were pledging the mortgage loans or using them as assets, however, it appears that the investment banks dictated to the lower tier banks not to record the documents in the state and county recordation offices until there was a default… The assets were unassigned, which might have flown if these were UCC Article 9 securities (and they probably are); however, it appears that even under Article 9 the endorsement would have had to have been specific. See UCC Article 8:501(d).
Even before we can get into the UCC issues – nowhere in most of the mortgage loan documents and/or notes is there an explicit agreement by the borrower to use electronic transfers of the documents. See UETA sec. 16. https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/mers-too-many-dead-ducks/ and
https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/securitization-is-not-a-traditional-mortgage-loan-operation/
Don’t know who you are – but thanks for everything you are doing and the prompt response. Trying to wrap my head around the scam – so many levels of it – every time I think I get it – a new door opens and I fall into the rabbit hole.
Fighting my own case in L.A. against DB – been at it for almost 2 years am I’m still on the learning curve.
I’m considering doing a civil RICO and appreciate the education.
P.S. My honey man born & raised Oahu howlie. 🙂
Felipa R. Richland Richland & Associates 499 North Canon Drive, 3rd Fl. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 (310) 887-7067 tel (877) 777-0208 fax feliparichland@sbcglobal.net
>________________________________ > From: Deadly Clear >To: feliparichland@sbcglobal.net >Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 6:30 PM >Subject: [New comment] By Invitation Only > > > > WordPress.com >Deadly Clear commented: “”Understanding the premeditated intentions of these banks, how they pledge, collaterize, swap, sell, lease,and trade these loans that are SUPPOSED to have been in a static trust will open the eyes of lawmakers to the real moral hazard – the fraud upon t” >
Good luck. Homeowners seem to get further as defendants, Lord only knows why… who was your original lender?
PHH Home Loans – same day assignment to MERS as nominee for IndyMac. P.S. I’m a lawyer – and I am on my 3rd lawyer. My current one knows all the securitization issues ( except I saw one one your blog that he didn’t raise – but it can be added – re purported default before transfer violates PSA ) so thanx for that too.
PS r u still in Hawaii – my H has relatives still there.
Sent from my iPhone