Derived from official documents (with additional Powers of Attorney to be provided), the following is a streamlined EXAMPLE for ease of understanding:
This is a simplified EXAMPLE for clarity purposes…
In the Powers Case, The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly known as The Bank of New York), succeeding JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, is evidenced in the BANK of NY's Power of Attorney POA (click here) and the BONYM POA (click here) . It's noteworthy that almost all POAs were executed after Countrywide was dissolved on July 1, 2008. Moreover, nearly each of the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) REMICs (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits) trusts had been operational for a year before being suspended or terminated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, subsequent to which they were transitioned into another conduit.
110- CW CWALT 2007 HY9 Dissolved 7:1:2008 - id
EXHIBIT- A- (click here)
The link to EXHIBIT A directly connects to the SEC filings, detailing the suspension or termination of the trusts alongside an explanation of the legal jurisdictions that industry professionals often overlook. By examining the SEC's reporting history, specifically the 10-K reports, it becomes evident that there was a mandate to file Form 15-D reports. In simpler terms, Form 15-D is the official notice of Termination of Registration under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as outlined in 17 CFR 240.12g-4(b), characterized by the application of double negatives in these reports. This represents a breach of IRS Sections 23301, 23301.5, and 23775 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, indicating that suspended or terminated REMICs were not legally authorized to operate within the states, much less initiate legal actions without informing the shareholders. This implies potential liability for the Board of Directors due to their involvement in authorizing Powers of Attorney to manage dissolved banks.
To challenge their legal standing in foreclosure proceedings, one could simply request a gold-stamped attestation of Form 15-D from the SEC via their website, SEC.GOV, demonstrating the entity's lack of jurisdiction. Yet, it's crucial to recognize that these issues often go unaddressed in lower courts, which are structured to exploit our birth NAMES—exposing a broader pattern of criminal activity and civil RICO schemes.
Even under circumstances where the opposing counsel successfully persuades the court that these investment vehicles remain viable despite diminishing investors, he must present a Majority Action Affidavit. This affidavit must account for at least 51% of all shareholders, each of whom would be subject to cross-examination. Specifically, in the case of a CWALT REMIC, should the opposing counsel manage to compile such a comprehensive list and validate it, he then faces the challenge of justifying the prospectus's definition of certificate holders' interest. This interest is characterized as 'compound interest', calculated based on the future value of mortgage payments rather than the property's actual value.
Should the opposing counsel, by any remarkable feat, overcome this hurdle, he must further elucidate why The Bank of New York Mellon (BNY MELLON) was ordered through judicial instruction to reconcile the certificate holders' interests under their settlement agreement. This requirement is detailed in the BNY MELLON Notice of Judicial Instructions
Moreover, if the courts proceed under the assumption of facts not directly proven, essentially accepting hearsay as evidence, they are overlooking a critical gap: no counsel can provide firsthand testimony regarding a depleted REMIC, as direct knowledge of such a scenario would be absent. An IRS audit would substantiate that the property in question was never actually purchased by the bank. Instead, what occurred was a series of transactions where the bank merely facilitated the transfer of funds from the certificate holders to the homeowners, in exchange for issuing certificates. A closer examination reveals that these transactions were intricately linked to the manipulated LIBOR index, a strategy designed to control investor payouts. This manipulation, coupled with induced market collapses, dramatically reduced the certificates' value to mere pennies on the dollar.
These Trusts, each housing multiple tax-exempt Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) under a Master Trust, operate within a meticulously organized framework. Specifically, the REMICs (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits) under these Powers of Attorney (POAs) are categorized within the Trusts as 'Classification REMIC I'. The loans pooled together within these REMICs are sorted into a tiered system, labeled as T1, T2, and T3, each corresponding to a specific class of certificate or component offerings. This tiered system is integral to three primary REMICs under a Grantor Pass-through Trust, all of which enjoy tax-exempt status as outlined in their pooling and servicing agreements.
REMIC II is tasked with housing the alleged assets from REMIC I, while REMIC III, deemed the 'Master' REMIC, holds the Regular Interests derived from REMIC II's assets. The financial flow begins with the consumer’s monthly payments to a sub-servicer, who then forwards these payments to the Master Servicer of REMIC III. This Master Servicer is responsible for distributing dividends and interest payments to the Certificate Holders of the Mortgage Loan Trust 'Classification REMIC I', acting on behalf of The Mortgage Loan Trust.
The origination of the pooled loans is predicated on their future value or an approximation of the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) Annual Percentage Rate (APR) value, making them subjects of divestment due to their tax-exempt status. This divestment process—translating loans into certificates in exchange for FIAT currency—effectively eliminates the collateral backing these loans, leaving behind a system of promises for future payment in a landscape where actual currency circulates only in theory
The structure of these REMICs (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits) under Powers of Attorney (POA) was ingeniously designed to enable the acquisition of "abandoned" properties without breaching their tax-exempt status. However, due to the ongoing state of emergency declared by the 1933 HJR (House Joint Resolution), the ownership of these properties technically remained with the Social Security Administration, with only the titular ownership—or NAMESAKE (representing individuals)—being exchanged. This practice, amounting to the misappropriation of government assets, constitutes a violation of the 80th Articles of War during a national state of emergency, akin to modern-day piracy.
Focusing on the CWALT flowsheet (click here) associated with the POWERS case, one can observe that Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) facilitate these transactions not as lenders but as sponsors for the Master Servicer. These SPEs represent the contractual basis for wholesale mortgage broker agreements. This arrangement suggests that if these transactions were to be recognized as securities, the involved wholesalers would be required to present their securities licenses. However, as these operations function under passthrough Grantor trusts—utilizing member banks to appropriate individual signatures without actual asset sales—the process bypasses traditional sale sequences from sponsor to depositor to trustee to trust. Instead, assets are directly collateralized, seasoned for a year, then transferred to another tax-exempt conduit before being terminated or suspended by the SEC.
This divestment process effectively annihilates the original collateral. The end result is a scenario devoid of tangible collateral, security instruments, or legitimate mortgages. Instead, the financial maneuvering allows for the passthrough of certificate holders' funds to finance the sales indirectly, rendering the HUD-1 settlement statements from escrow as de facto bills of sale to consumers' NAMESAKEs. This sleight of hand ensures the property remains perpetually under the domain of the Social Security Administration, as per 31 USC 5118 (HJR 192-10). Consequently, the existence of mortgages is fundamentally nullified—not due to the 1933 Bankruptcy Act's provisions but because the transactions rely on promissory notes rather than actual currency, falling under Article 3 jurisdiction.
The crux of the matter lies in establishing the legal standing of the REMIC in foreclosure proceedings. For a REMIC to demonstrate its standing, it must verify that it acquired the asset before its termination date. This verification process involves presenting evidence that IRS Form 8594, which documents asset acquisition, was correctly filed with the IRS. Additionally, the REMIC must show that it complied with treasury regulation 1.856-6, which is a prerequisite for initiating foreclosures.
Despite these requirements, to date, there has been no confirmation from the IRS that these critical prerequisites have been met, as outlined under Title 24 Part 27. This section mandates that a Delegation Order be issued for foreclosures, necessitating that any party seeking to foreclose also submits a statement in accordance with Treasury Regulation 1.856-6 et seq. Given that REMICs involve shareholder-held shares, any foreclosing entity is further obligated to produce a Majority Action Affidavit. This document must include contact information to facilitate the cross-examination of over 51% of the shareholders, verified through their signatures.
Moreover, given that these REMICs are tax-exempt Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), it's essential to recognize that the public has the right, under 26 U.S. Code § 856, to access copies of the REMICs' tax returns for inspection and review, along with a comprehensive list of the intellectual and Real Estate Owned (REO) properties they contain. Originally, REMICs were not structured to possess either the note or the deed. However, their current use as foreclosing entities, purporting to be holders in due course, raises significant questions about their tax-exempt status as outlined in IRS Code US 26 section §860D.
According to 26 U.S. Code § 4975, attorneys and other individuals facilitating these foreclosures are considered disqualified parties. These parties may have partaken in the embezzlement of estates through unlawful mortgage recaptures, which do not comply with the legal requirements for mortgage or property recapture (refer to IRC 26 US Code Sec 1250 and 1245 for recapture rules and disallowance). In simpler terms, under these regulations, these individuals could be held both privately and personally liable, subject to a 100% Penalty under IRS Code 224 for infringing on the tax-exempt status of the SPV. This penalty could be further compounded by an additional 15%, for which these individuals would be accountable to repay the IRS on behalf of the Social Security Administration. This is because any private individual who acts as a disqualified party in an "unqualified recapture" during an improperly executed foreclosure directly incurs responsibility for these penalties.
Additionally, this situation allows for more than just the identification of properties that have been foreclosed. It also enables the examination of "intellectual property master files." This examination can reveal the precise flow of the borrowed funds and detail the ways in which government-associated NAMESAKES have been utilized.