Documentation of Civil RICO at the State AND Federal Level can be found at www.wetheplaintiffs.com


A peaceful online protest was held in objection to documented Graft Bribes being filtered through the vested interest in Real Estate Companies designed to profit at the expense of the American People via orders from above to deny homeowners their properties and their rights to due process of law.
The constitution does not exist in the courts anymore and I have been told that unless an executive government branch officer is present then the judges (in conflict to their oaths) do not have to comply with the constitution in their courts while under Federal orders.

There comes a time where Jury Nullification must prevail - What this means is that the people need to fight for their rights to get to a jury trial which is not rigged. In a fair fight - these bank gagster's would have lost years ago. Instead they have been enabled by the federal government to use what ever means necessary - including murder. The petition to recall the dirty judge running his courts off federalized banking graft bribes has passed the necessary signature requirements to enforce. Problem being is the Registry of Voters is blocking the petition from moving forward. The local DA in this town has the county recorders office forward him complaints so that if a homeowner files an intent to preserve asserting ownership and not tenancy, he can arrest them for filing fraudulent documents in lue of the banks whom are using forgeries and wire frauds to record fabricated deeds upon these warranty deeds of conveyance which were never designed for securitization - only collatorlization against your signature are a pass through grantee vouching against a debt being borrower by the federalized banking industry. The tax avoidance is on my Facebook page but incase you missed it…

Why I am promoting A GRR ACT - Grantor Recovery and Restitution Act in lue of a UCL National Foreclosure Act.
Ask the IRS - What is a Section 351(a) Tax-Free Exchange? Because this is what is happening to you by the Federalized Banking industry, only worse.
So what I have been showing these courts are the actual codes, the government and these federalized banking industry idiots are letters of the laws that prove that billions of Americans across the nation suffered an economic loss in lue of a 1099-A benefit. WAKE UP PEOPLE this is why you had National mortgage settlements - so that government 911 subsidies could claim a write off against a forced abandonment of property so that they could swap out their anteceded debts through bad stocks forced upon you - what was done is called inverse condemnation and it is an act of treason against the people of these United States.

A typical Mortgage Pass through Loan Trust (over 500 created pretty much as rubber stamps) will break down the trust into separate SPV within the trust. These are referred to as REMIC’s or Real Estate Investment Conduits.

“Classification REMIC I” consists of the pooled loans

“Intellectual Property” REMIC II constitutes the alleged assets of REMIC I - This REMIC holds the address of property in a freehold status, for the use of the estate as the bonding mechanism for the securitization process as an Accretion Directed Class.

REMIC III constitutes Regular Interests of the assets of REMIC II and is considered the “Master” REMIC. Typically the “Beneficiary Interests” are broken down and classified under Accounting Standard Codes or ASC. Ie. Receivables (ASC 310) REMIC I, Investments (ASC 320) REMIC II and Other Assets and Deferred Costs(ASC 340) REMIC III.

MERS only holds legal title to the “interests” granted by Borrower which is an irrevocable grant and convey of the property into a mortgage pass through trust broken down by the use of the aforementioned ACS Codes. The result is a freehold interest for the use of the fee simple estate.

Government office of accounting under the IRS Codes.

11 U.S.Code Id § 522(f)(2) defines “security interest” as a “lien created by an agreement” Id. § 101(37). This definition is broader than that of the U.C.C. because it is not limited to realty. Compare it with U.C.C. §§9-102(1)a),-104 (j). “A security interest is not enforceable” unless the secured party possesses the collateral, or interests that are perfected by the security agreements, as opposed to possession, are subject to avoidance by the debtor. See Joseph C. Hutchenson, II, Lien Avoidance Under Section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy code: Is Retrospective Application Constitutional, 49 Fordham L. Rev. 615 (1981).

Under § 2-403. Power to Transfer; Good Faith Purchase of Goods; "Entrusting". MERS as an electronic nominee beneficiary did not have the power to electronically transfer because the transferor aka the “lender/originator” did not and was not acting in the capacity of a “transferor”. Ex I MERS Nominee Capacity allowed them to function in that of a 1031 like for like exchange. These contracts were nothing more than a divestiture of the collateral obtained in exchange for the consumers promise to pay an unsecured promissory note. Contact law is very specific. all caps designated an entity so when your see BORROWER COVENANTS that borrower is lawfully seised from the property and that the property is taken free and clear of encumbrances, it means that HUD one is a bill of sale, and the collateral obtained is based upon the future value of the bearer note created. AKA the GFE projection of all the payments over the life of the loan. These contracts bi-passed the secondary market and went into direct collatorilization. This is why DeutcheBank securities was sued for failure to securitize via traditional means by FNMAE whom latter settled for the 911 subsidy write off of their own anteceded debts because a tax benefit was bestowed upon homeowners for forgiveness against a debt never lent but was tandem advances as a carry back. In other words paid in full up front for a freehold use in a fee simple estate where they rigged the LIBOR index to control the payouts to the certificate investors - Page one of supplements to prospectus..

Because a consumer borrower irrevocably granting directly into to trust and exchange for a promissory note to possess the property this would also mean that if this the NOD is truthfully recorded under REG X and REG Z reflects the equivalent of a commercial reverse purchase and sale lease back lease back warranty deed of conveyance which far exceeds any UD jurisdictional limit and gives actual reversionary rights to the consumer whom is technically by letter of the law, the creditor of his own estate. AKA the disgruntled grantor. These are issues regarding the partnership trust which can only be heard under New York laws.

CCP 697.510. (a) A judgment lien on personal property described in Section 697.530 is created by filing a notice of judgment lien in the office of the Secretary of State pursuant to this article.

Where there is substantial evidence of fraud, forged promissory notes and deed of trusts, there cannot be a duly perfected title to bring a legal action under CCP §2924. Under these specific Mortgage Pass Through Contracts the MERS nominee transfer into Trust, does not qualify for lawful recapture under CCP §2924. 1. Civil Code 2924c does not provide a conclusive presumption of unassailable title. The Court in Melendrez v. D & I Investment, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App. 4th 1238 [26 Cal. Rptr.3d 413J specifically held ar Foot Note 26: The federalized banking system (MERS as nominee beneficiary) abandoned the property prior to these incidents codified under 26 U.S. Code § 108 - Income from discharge of indebtedness which is why they had to fabricate Deed of Trust in order to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure. TRUSTs do not qualify as mortgages under the first sentence of 2924…states it right there "Other than trust" Don't qualify as mortgages under this law.

That leaves us solely with Civil Code §2924(a)(6), that only the valid Trustee and the beneficial owner of the promissory note may initiate a foreclosure, which was not done in this case. Likewise in Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA" (May 17,2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 497 at pages 511-513 the Court held a borrower may not enjoin a foreclosure without asserting the specific facts that the beneficiary or beneficiaries agent lacked proper authority”. … Council cannot even enter these courts to argue without The Majority Action Affidavit mandated under 2941.9(d) as it pertains to trusts.


This is why CW held blank BofA CORP assignments in their files and never transferred the notes.Kemp vs CW deposition Demartini . (See attached BofA corp) Only a Corporation Deed transfer transfers title. The filing of a Deed of Trust after the fact, means no Deed of Trust existed ab initio.
The federalized banking system (MERS as nominee beneficiary) abandoned the property prior to these incidents codified under 26 U.S. Code § 108


These foreclosures are by the letter of the law – economic LOSS that did not qualify “Qualify” under traditional security requirements. Required under 17 CFR 339.1. All of which followed the same pattern under an elaborate Mortgage Pass Through Money Laundering and tax avoidance scheme to which I – as an original source can detail down to the embedded coding upon fabricated deeds of trusts across the nation and explain to you an actual legal way to resolve this issue without removing constitutional due process provisions nor active abuse to the people across this nation who have been made to suffer as a result, and still allow this ill-conceived system to operate – only more efficiently and with less blights.

These properties DID NOT and DO NOT qualify as lawful recapture of a mortgage (see IRC 26 US Code Sec 1250 and 1245 recapture rules and disallowance). These properties ALL followed the same patterns. Each and every pass through Pass-Through Certificate Series Real Estate Investment Trust (REMIC) held an originator to the REMIC who disclosed themselves as the lender/depositor.

Every REMIC was a tax exempt special purpose vehicle under Code US 26 section §860D. (meaning they were not designed to hold the note and the deed). The contracts used were re-purposed commercial purchase and sale lease back 12-month warranty deeds of conveyances holding irrevocable transfers into these trusts of a freehold use in a fee simple estate to which only intellectual property depreciation write offs could occur. The contract contained a “ENTITY BORROWER” (designated by all caps) who covenanted that the consumer borrower was lawfully siesed (alternate spelling indicating a freehold use in the fee simple estate) and that the estate was “taken” free and clear of encumbrances. Which is the function and verbiage of a reverse purchase and sale leaseback under contract law. The REMICs were seasoned for a year before being terminated on the Securities and Exchange commission and certificates were offered in exchange for the collateral these contracts obtained.


Each of which fabricated Deeds of Trust to attempt to adhere to the REMIC, it took me a while to figure out that the purpose of these fabricated deeds of trust were to reconstitute and already depreciated asset. The arguments of Duel Tracking under the Home Owner Bill of Rights opened me to search beyond – “if there is no mortgage upon these homes then what are you servicing?” This refers to the depreciation write-offs allotted to the federalized banking industry during those merger and acquisition years. Though I am not certain that the then -Kamila Harris AG even realized at that time, that no actual mortgages were created by these contracts either.

All of these IRS issues revolve around a bonus depreciation provision that President George W. Bush signed into law in 2002 allowed taxpayers to immediately deduct 30% of the cost of new assets acquired during the provision’s applicability; the remaining 70% would be deducted under otherwise applicable MACRS rules.

This of course immediately implemented after the 1999 deregulation which the Federalized Banking industry at large, were enabled by the repeal of specific portions of the Glass-Steagall Act by the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which allowed the bypassing of the secondary security market by using these synthesized warranty deeds of conveyance as un-backed bearer notes through privileged membership through a premeditated ill-conceived system.

Then came both the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, signed by President Bush, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed by President Obama, instituted a 50% bonus depreciation allowance. Later, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Compensation Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 further increased the allowance to 100% – such that the asset would be fully depreciated in the year of acquisition.
This meant that that the lending industry was allowed to buy worthless subprime loans and get a 100 percent tax credit by cancelling it, Day one under 26 US Code Section 61 (a) (1) Cancellation of debt and conversion to income paid on a tax payer form 1099. It is no secret that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke played an instrumental role in the creation of these “originator” REMIC pass through contracts. The contracts hold two very separate contractual provisions.

Each of these homes both state declared as wrongful have been proven to hold toxic tort violations of state federal and constitutional breaches ab initio and hold now uncovered documented timing devises and triggering mechanisms which were used to short the US Housing Bond Market by emulating consumer defaults. This is why entities such as Bank of America Wells Fargo JP Chase as “servicers” set up foreclosure mills (ie BofA subsidiary Recon Trust under Countrywide) and used their internal appraisers see “Kyle W. Lagow vs Countrywide et at”and See Exhibit S United States of America vs. Countrywide Violation of False Claims Act.

In the manner in which these REMIC were incepted, they immediately fell under 26 U.S. Code § 673 - Reversionary interests (a) General rule The grantor shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust in which he has a reversionary interest in either the corpus or the income therefrom, if, as of the inception of that portion of the trust, the value of such interest exceeds 5 percent of the value of such portion. This begs the questions of punitive tax damage that unveils the mortgages short falls and lack of standing by the 1099 issuer.

The Target Consumers who were victims for use in this tax avoidance scheme, owes/owed the withholding tax on the Certificate of Deposit Index (CODI) under IRC Reg 26 us code 61(a) (1), which under The Mortgage Loan Trusts wash out provisions under their own accounting “system” is ZERO. Problem being you cannot foreclose upon ZERO, nor should they be allowed to as to do so violates the CODE and calls into question why the federal government and the Banking industry at large are enabling this.

In fact Federalized Banking System who abandoned the property prior to these incidents codified under 26 U.S. Code § 108 - Income from discharge of indebtedness prior to her bankruptcy filing in 2008. A cancellation or extinguishment of an indebtedness that renders the debt unenforceable in a receivership, foreclosure, or similar proceeding in a Federal or State court, as described in 26 U.S. Code section 368(a)(3)(A)(ii)
A 1099-A is issued as attribution of income charged to the people is being done so as the household charged from a series of timed transfers and exchanges under section 1.1031 where the banks are swapping out their junk assets upon the people of this nation.

This is called contra accounting and it allows the money borrowed to be earned by lender in a reverse method of accounting used to offset the accrual . in re:.."....a disregarded entity or grantor trust shall not be considered to be the “taxpayer,” . . . but, rather, the owner of the disregarded entity is the taxpayer.”

These are all matters of law under 26 U.S. Code § 168 - Accelerated cost recovery system under (4) where the Salvage value treated as zero – (which are further evidenced by the secondary title recordation’s that follow those Fabricated Deeds of Trust holding very specific IRS codes for the allocations intended for the purpose of re-constituting the value of the property for use in additional write offs that were never earned, or warranted or even lent which means in these instances the consumer is suffering an economic loss as there was no actual “depositor” to create a substance for substance agreement. This under TILA breaches tolling because it’s based upon when actual consummation takes place. Under these contracts – it never does.
These historical events succeeded in turning any contractual duty owned utilized by this system, unenforceable, null and void under UCC § 3-305(b)(1)(ii)(iii). Illegality based in fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms.

If consumers across this nation became aware that there is no mortgage upon their properties, theory is, it could very well shut down the federalized banking industry as we know it, yet the information is circulating out there as if to test to see if the world is truly ignorance or simply does not care. (ie CA Law- pointing to the first sentence of 2924(a) Every transfer of an interest in property, other than in trust, made only as a security for the performance of another act, is to be deemed a mortgage. This means that Mortgage Loan Trusts do not qualify as mortgages the deed of trust is neither a (i) mortgage with power of sale nor (ii) security as cited in CC 2920-2953. – Every state holds similar laws)

These contracts were nothing more than a divestiture of the collateral obtained in exchange for certificates attached to the rigged LIBOR index in order to control the payouts to investors upon swapped out certifications under the rigged ISDAfix index which breached the value of the promissory note known as the US Dollar. Which I suspect is why approximately 2.8 billion extra $100 “notes” were printed in 2012. That would mean a rough economic adjustment of ¾ of a drop in value since the onset of the mortgage crisis. You cannot impose a tax from 2009-2010-2011 and have it be on equal terms as the value of an imposed tax based upon a different “dollar” value.

As to MERS the SYSTEM being a nominee lender… MERS status as a nominee trustee unequivocally was breached upon inception, in this instance elaborated herein, and in accordance with UCC § 2-510 (1) Where a tender or delivery of goods so fails to conform to the contract as to give a right of rejection the risk of their loss remains on the seller until cure or acceptance.

Consummation of a contract between disclosed true Lender and a consumer borrower never took place, so regardless of how many times Faith was lured into these empty areana’s to argue her innocence in such matters, it will never change the fact the no consummation exists to establish a substance for substance agreement under Contract law. Under TILA Section 131(f)(2) evidence of a securitized trust does not exists, wherefore under TILA1635 (f) (3) consummation never took place, wherefore TILA Recession CANNOT be TIME BARRED.

The foreclosing tax exempt REMIC - was terminated upon the SEC after a year then swapped out into another vehicle and the certificate holders cannot come forth to claim the property (further explained in their 8k report filed upon the SEC - holding a Kennedy Clause to prevent Certificate holders from doing this - also the 10k shows the double negative for the swap out that suggests they were required to file this report making this a recordation of a Termination of Registration under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, per 17 CFR 240.12g-4 (b)) and not a suspension. HSBC cannot act on behalf of a terminated REMIC.


Facts still remain that if there are no mortgage upon these contracts then you cannot legally initiate foreclosures by pretending there was. You can fabricate all the false documentation in the world – change the laws to amend state constitutions to allow servicers to foreclose at the push of a button drafted by literal rooms full of banking industry BAR attorneys in collaboration with the US Department of Treasury …

IT WILL NOT change the fact that the federalized banking industry are still foreclosing on ZERO. (Because they are depreciating REMIC II - see arguments for HBOR- Nor will it change the fact that the Government and the Federalized Banking industry are treating these depreciation write-offs as baseball cards to the expense of the people under this nation in turn violating Article III § 3 of the US Constitution by violating Article I, Section 10 of the United State Constitution. You know… that Unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else by actively advantage against that Constitutional tort my miscuing the IRC Tax laws would give the appearance of actively tampering with our beloved nation itself.

Under these “Power of Sale” the people of the United States of America have been unlawfully drawn into a contract under a securities contract and that is not what I was allegedly contracted for under of a group of grifter’s whom forced me to file a chapter 7 discharge case number 6:08-bk-25762-PC.
Violation of Discharge Injunction pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 524(a) and 105(a)

In 1997 I worked for Wells Fargo. I Beta Tested the DU (Direct Underwriting system) which was designed to target a specific class of People by use of these synthesized contracts.

In 2006 I brokered to a multitude of subprime lenders whom were originators for pass through REMIC trusts who disclosed to me through every wholesale mortgage agreement I was selling “mortgages”.

I was a direct employee to Countrywide (the originator of Plaintiffs terminated REMIC-1) during the merger to BAC Financing to Bank of America during the 2008-2010 Government allotted bonus depreciation allowance which allowed through such mergers to buy worthless sub-prime loans to get a 100 percent tax credit by cancelling it, Day one under 26 US Code Section 61 (a) (1) Cancellation of debt and conversion to income paid on a tax payer form 1099. Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(10) As Amended December 1, 2013 strike out indicates deletion.

This above history- these laws – and ALL of it. I lived breathed and experienced.
In 2009 – I was wrongfully foreclosed upon the property located at 13900 Hidden Heights Lane Bainbridge Island WA 98110.
In 2010 – without my knowledge a 1099-A was issued to me by Fannie Mae and SunTrust Mortgage – made a part of the SunTrust nation settlement act. REMIC pass through was positively identified – verified as terminated prior to the foreclosure.
In 2013 I was wrongfully foreclosed on the property located 12302 Sunrise Ln, Bainbridge Island WA 98110. REMIC pass through was positively identified – verified as terminated prior to the foreclosure with Bank of America involvement.
In 2016 I was wrongfully issued a 1099-A while still in possession of the property located at 1095 Lowry Ranch Road- Corona CA 92881.

The California property documents the underlying intents of these system which are mis-scuing the IRS IRC codes. This is why CW held blank BofA CORP assignments in their files and never transferred the notes.Kemp vs CW deposition Demartini . (See attached BofA corp) Only a Corporation Deed transfer transfers title. The filing of a Deed of Trust after the fact, means no Deed of Trust existed ab initio. Example attached.

Ie If you look at the secondary Doc ID# issued by Core logic, you will see a series of numbers 10316536826429752 this document prepared by Core Logic DocID# 1031 65368264 29752 to establish the existence of these embedded algorithms. What this is translating to is that this fabricated deed of trust is in actuality 1031 exchange of the promissory loan 65368264’s re-constituted contract under US code 26 752 Treatment of Certain Liabilities.

There is a 3 point numbering allowance in their algorithms flagging risk factors, these are not random which is why the number is listed as 29 and not 26. The More cryptic, CA0-ADT 14519915 Translates to CA California property 0 represents a Placer.

Point being, these numbers correlate with other documents directly to their bond market tracking system. These numbers do not hold coincidence; these numbers hold the Unofficial Code of the District of Columbia § 9–915. Credit of the District not
pledged.in

These codes can be found upon these Core Logic Fabricated Deeds across the nation - IRC reference– Promissory note reference connected to Property - IRC reference being moved through the use of the MERS system who’s address is listed as 3300 S.W. 34th Ave – suite 101 Ocala FL 34474 which is a suite located within the Internal Revenue Service building in Florida from which these IRC transfers are processed.

The Lenders address are reflected differently as well – ie the address to the US Department of Housing or to the Master Servicers of the REMICs as is such the case on my CA property. These are patterns to which judicial notice is absolute –there is no point in bothering to hide what is already in plain sight.

This evidences the MERS system as an IRC inventory complex data tracker by use of bar code scanning and embedded coding happening nationwide whom is acting as a 1031 exchange by actively fabricating a deed of trust which never existed upon these contracts in order to re constitute the value of the washed out property from zero – back to market in order to emulate a secondary loss which was never incurred – through which the federalized banking industry is using as a form of negotiations with the federal government agencies and with other MERSCORP members via the MERS system processing center located within an IRS building to enable a depreciation write off by transposing a fictitious debt in the absence of a true depository from the Entity BORROWER whom borrowed collateral in excess of what was irrevocably transferred into the REMIC trust in turn creating an imbalance of equities to the consumer – whom is taking the loss as if they themselves borrowed the collateral from Certificate holders – whom according to the stock 8k reports that are filed after the REMIC’s upon the Securities and Exchange Commission do not actually receive monies from forced abandonments as these tax exempt vehicles are protected internationally under a Kennedy Clause ONLY against actual ownership interests of “abandoned properties” –

Meaning neither they or the REMIC or the REMIC’s Trustee (Whom is the Entity BORRROWER) cannot conduct a foreclosure as a holder in due course because they never actually purchased the asset into the REMIC itself. Which is why they cannot provide the asset purchase FORM IRS 8594 because the REMICs are specifically designed (as outlined in their Pooling and Servicing and Supplementary prospectus) to hold only “abandoned” properties. So by utilizing these secondary fabricated write offs, they are in fact giving incentives to the Federal Government and other collaborative MERSCORP members (such as the non-bank servicer upon my CA property who proclaimed to these same agency they held no interest in the loan – yet assigned a concurrent duly appointed trustee to enact an aggressive foreclosure without due cause and is now proclaiming to be the original lender whom cannot be legally identified because a true lender/depositor never existed – only a undisclosed Entity BORROWER who borrowed collateral to tandem advance a purchase by actually turning the consumer borrower into the creditor of these pass through funds under the Cost of Deposit index’s created for trade) This is inverse condemnation via the contra accounting of ultra-virus activities enabled via third party graft incentives as a cost of doing business at the expense of the American People of this nation

Under Article 8 UCC the Federalized Banking System and the Federal Government completely abandoned and outright ignored the 8-105 notices of adverse claim that I have been shouting at the top of my lungs for years. I have been repeatedly asking for the acquisition statement filled out the asset certificate of Deposit with the IRS for whom their 1099 false claim or statement issuer was prior to foreclosures on both the Sunrise property (still being withheld from me) and the California property I still occupy.

This controversy is evident in these IRS audits that were conducted two states away, without the ability to defend or have representation which as you can see took an H&R Block representative weeks to track down as the information provided to me as notification for this audit failed to reflect a valid phone or fax number to respond, which every time I raise or attempt to address, I am deliberately led, ignored, or deemed unworthy or un-credible for citing the actual laws that pertain to these issues which are the SAME issues the American Bar Association and the US Department of Treasury are attempting to overwrite and implement new laws to removed Constitutional protected due process clauses across the nation by means of a positioned UCL Foreclosure Act. Literal rooms full of Banking Industry Attorneys and IRS Attorneys who still cannot figure out that you do not need to overwrite laws or breach the Constitution for the United States to fix this. There was a reason that Glass Steagall put safeguards to prevent the Banking Industry at large from underwriting their own securities and this is why…

I.R.C. 6662(a) ALSO includes section 7701(o)) (C) at least 60 percent of the amount of the total assets of which (at the close of the taxable year) consists of—(iii) certificates of deposit in, or obligations of, a corporation organized under a State law which specifically authorizes such corporation to insure the deposits or share accounts of member associations. To which Petitioner held upon all her properties undisclosed partnership interests with the Membership Enterprise MERS as nominee beneficiary to which 1099-A partnership interest have not been addressed and are in economic contrast to IRS 26 U.S. Code § 63 AND for the subrogation of an abandoned asset held under 2009 IRC 26 US Code 108 (i) that has cause a punitive tax assessed to Petitioner, who by the settlement agents HUD I statement and operative law is a Creditor in her own home she has been unlawfully seized from. SEE LIKE-KIND EXCHANGES IN PUBLICATION 544 and us code sec 61 (a) (1) 180 (I) AND FOR ADVANCE TAX PAYER FORM INFO ON 1099 A 1099 C.

These issues are matter of Equity and Equity is Civil, but by imposing a tax upon me and holding me in these courts by intimidation under an agent of National Security, this would imply intents to impose criminal penalties – then if this becomes a criminal matter it would have to be ruled under either the Common Law, or Maritime Law.

But there is no corpus delecti here that gives a court a jurisdiction over my person and property under the Common Law. Therefore, it would appear to me that a court would be moving under the Common Law to impose such a debt against my persons, if this is what I am to understand.
It seems to me from my limited exposures to the law, that there is a variety of judicial proceedings, not warranted by common law, which look to legislative authorization for their right to be. Authorization is usually given when ordinary means are deemed inadequate to subserve the ends of justice, and when there has been complaints on the part of the petitioner or the court with certain requisits. It seems to me that it is quite well settled that requisits must be observed, but what happens when proceedings are not in good faith?


Concerns were raised under these REMICs that If a debtor has incurred net operating losses (NOLs), there may be certain alternative minimum tax limitations as well as other restrictions on the use of NOLs that may otherwise prevent the full use of those losses to offset COD income. However, that issue is beyond the scope of this item. Under Sec. 61(a) (12), which codified the landmark case of Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931), gross income includes "income from discharge of indebtedness." This treatment is based on the rationale that since borrowing does not result in taxable income, the borrower realizes an economic benefit when the obligation is reduced or repayment is canceled. Indebtedness in this context is described in Sec. 108(d)(1) as "any indebtedness for which the taxpayer is liable, or subject to which the taxpayer holds property.”

COD income can result from a variety of transactions involving the relief of a debt repayment obligation, such as action taken by the creditor (e.g., a formal discharge or repurchase of the debt for less than its principal amount) or by operation of law (e.g., debt discharge in bankruptcy). Interest—as well as principal—may constitute forgiven debt includible in income (see, e.g., Brooks, T.C. Memo. 2012-25; and Black, T.C. Memo. 2014-27). Realization of COD income generally occurs when it is clear that debt is undisputed, uncollectible, and non-revivable (see, e.g., Zarin, 916 F.2d 110 (3d Cir. 1990)). In the absence of actual payment or repurchase of the debt, the timing for realizing COD income is harder to pinpoint. While the courts have taken a fact-specific approach, the timing of COD income is generally tied to an identifiable event making it clear that the debt will never be paid (see, e.g., Cozzi, 88 T.C. 435 (1987)).

There is also a rebuttable presumption that an identifiable event occurred in a calendar year if the creditor has received no payments at any time during a testing period (generally 36 months) ending at the close of the year (Regs. Sec. 1.6050P-1(b)(2)(iv); see, e.g., Kleber, T.C. Memo. 2011-233). However, proposed regulations have been issued that, when finalized, will eliminate this rule. "Toll Charge" for Excluded COD Income
Sec. 108 lists certain exceptions to the general rule of including COD income in the taxpayer's gross income under Sec. 61(a) (12). However, a toll charge must be paid for income exclusion, in the form of a corresponding reduction of certain favorable tax attributes, including NOLs and the adjusted tax basis of property, according to the complex attribute reduction rules in Secs. 108(b) and 1017.

Generally, tax attributes are reduced in the following order: NOLs, unused general business credits, minimum tax credits, net capital losses, basis, passive activity losses and credits, and foreign tax credits (Regs. Sec. 1.108-7(a)(1)). The taxpayer is allowed to take into account for the year of discharge the tax attributes that are carryovers to that year, before the attributes are reduced in the immediately succeeding year (Regs. Sec. 1.108-7(b)). A provision in Sec. 108(b)(5) allows a taxpayer to elect to first reduce the basis of its depreciable property as an alternative to the general ordering rule for attribute reduction. Where the excluded COD income exceeds the sum of the taxpayer's tax attributes, the excess is permanently excluded from the taxpayer's gross income.

Any taxpayer that excludes discharged debt from gross income must report the exclusion and related adjustments to tax attributes on Form 982, Reduction of Tax Attributes Due to Discharge of Indebtedness (and Section 1082 Basis Adjustment), to be filed with the income tax return for the tax year of the discharge.

COD Income in Consolidated Returns
For consolidated returns, each subsidiary you represent generally stands on its own in applying the COD rules discussed above. The amount of COD income excluded from gross income when the debtor is insolvent is determined based on the assets and liabilities of only the member that has COD income (Regs. Sec. 1.1502-28(a)(1)).

The regulations use a consolidated approach that reduces all tax attributes available to the debtor (Regs. Sec. 1.1502-28(a)(2)). Thus, the rules provide for a reduction of the consolidated NOLs as well as all other consolidated tax attributes (including those attributable to members other than the debtor-member). Items attributable to the debtor- member include the debtor-member's (1) consolidated attributes, (2) attributes that arose in separate return limitation years (SRLYs), and (3) basis of property.

Council have failed to address how each consolidated attribute for the debtor-member is determined under Regs. Sec. 1.1502-21(b)(2)(iv). If the excluded COD income exceeds the attributes of the debtor-member, the reduction of consolidated attributes of other members and attributes of members other than the debtor-member that arose (or are treated as arising) in a SRLY is required to the extent that the debtor-member is a member of the SRLY subgroup for the attribute. Instead – Council and these Courts threw petitioner under the bus by breaching client confidentiality – releasing personal medical information – and engaging in intimidation and extortion techniques.

Tax attributes subject to reduction include tax attributes of other members that arise in a SRLY and that are not subject to a SRLY limitation (Regs. Sec. 1.1502-28(a)(4)). Those include, for example, attributes from SRLYs that are not subject to the SRLY limitations as a result of the overlap rule of Regs. Sec. 1.1502-15(g) or Regs. Sec. 1.1502-21(g). Unlike consolidated attributes, the basis of assets held by members other than the debtor- member is not an attribute that is directly available to offset income of the debtor-member. THE BASIS OF ASSETS HELD BY MEMBERS other than the debtor-member may never give rise to an attribute that could be directly available to offset income of a member of the group for a consolidated return year. Therefore, a reduction of the basis of assets of members other than the debtor-member is allowed only in limited circumstances.

A look through rule applies if the attribute of the debtor-member to be reduced is the basis of stock of another member of the group (Regs. Sec. 1.1502-28(a)(3)). In these cases, corresponding adjustments must be made to the attributes of the lower-tier member. To make these adjustments, the lower-tier member is treated as a debtor-member that has COD income excluded from gross income in the amount of the stock basis reduction for purposes of the rules relating to the reduction of the attributes of a debtor-member. The consolidated attributes of the lower-tier member (determined by Regs. Sec. 1.1502-21(b)) and the lower- tier member's separate attributes (including attributes that arose in SRLYs and asset basis) are available for reduction.
While the above rules apply to outside creditor relationships, special rules apply to intercompany obligations. Regs. Sec. 1.1502-13(g)(4)(i)(C) provides that Sec. 108(a) does not apply to income from an intercompany obligation. Therefore, COD income of a member must be included in the gross income of the member realizing the income, with a corresponding bad debt expense deduction to the other member. While the income and bad debt expense offset each other at the federal consolidated return level, there could be taxable COD income for those stand-alone companies that do not file a combined or consolidated return and that do not have specific adjustments to eliminate the COD income at the state level.

This is a topic of debate currently being held between the American Bar Association and the Us Department of Treasury as it calls into question an economic imbalance of equities which result in the fabrication of false documents, in order t re-constitute the value of properties which have already been granted depreciation write offs by Congress, in that it can be transferred to consumers across this nation.
The Warranty deeds of Conveyance under which these contracts originated, did not qualify as “mortgages”. They have been positively identified as super-imposed commercial 12-month warranty deeds of conveyance in premeditation. This means I suffered an economic loss of my property value at its time of sale which is being obstructed from these audits– which can be adjusted to reflect Diminution of Loss under the 16th Amendment which also - provides a limited offset of allowable sanctions of up to $886,096.75 - In turn making any perceived fabricated sanction against me or my family a wash.

Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 these MERSCORP Member MERS system Crimes are in fact crimes against humanity. There is not one person here whom is not aware of the massive CIVIL ACTIONS for deprivations our Consitutional rights are at contriversy. 42 U.S. Code § 1983.

This is what I found in the laws that would allow the federal Government and the collaborative MERSCORP members to find their way to making this screwed up path straight – equitable and fair again without disrupting proper depreciation write offs, which should be used for the betterment of mankind without violating its Constitution and infringing upon those to which YOU ALL SERVE. So instead of engaging in legal banter at my expense in collaborative efforts financially bury me alive – elaborate upon these legal theories – several of which I have already proven and start to learn that no matter what you do – you cannot kill “good faith”… and you cannot modify a loan that was never lent so that you can illegally foreclose upon it to get your back door buddy depreciation swap. Sooner or later the people are going to wake up – then what?

In "Corn v Fort," the court ruled that individuals have a right to combine their activities as partnerships; and that this is a natural right, independent and antecedent of government.

There has been a near ¾ drop in the value of the dollar from the onset of the mortgage crash.

The ONLY remedy to cure our Nation is with VOLUNTARY Novation in support of our inalienable rights allegedly protected under the Constitution of the United States to which you have gathered the top minds of this nation to over-write.

However no one listens to me… no one believes me when I tell them these things because no one wants to act on behalf of the betterment of mankind - they only want to take and take and take- consume consume consume - plunder and steal what is not theirs to take. If ANYONE bothered to listen to me, or to even take the time to read what I write then they would understand what I am trying to bring to a nation full of deaf ears and self serving needs.

The ONLY way to cure our nation of these system blights is to offset these bad faiths by taking these dirty deeds and force the repayment of the CDO’s through the use of the very system that created this mess. And apparently I am the only living breathing soul who understands how this could come about.

A loss adjustment of the base utilized against the future derivative under ASC 310, ASC 320 and ASC 380 to reconvert the stocks back into the original “asset” to create a taxable deduction by the transfer of assets by a U.S. citizen to an offshore single-member Recovery Foundation. This does not have any adverse tax consequences otherwise associated with the transfer of assets to other offshore entities and can only be done under off shores under Parliament as outlined with the Kennedy Clause in these 8k filings therefore removal of such perpetuities while not optimal, are necessary as title clouds are in question.

These Accounting Standard Codes are from the Entity BORROWER perspective in mind. under ASC 470-60 from the “debtors” perspective by the re-assignment of Deficit debt through the U.S. Treasury Department for an immediate forgiveness write off against the blighted collateralized loan placed upon these nations properties is in fact possible.

The Component Certificates will still represent “real estate assets” under Section 856(c)(5)(B) “Interest ONLY” of the Code and qualifying assets under Section 7701(a)(19)(C) in the same proportion that the assets of the trust would be so treated, and income on the Component Certificates will need to be addressed as “interest on obligations secured by “mortgages" on real property or on interests in real property” under Section 856(c)(3)(B) (Definition of real estate investment trust) will need to be adjusted accordingly because none of these contracts created actual mortgages, nor were they securitized, only passed through “Depositors” whom pass-through investors interest in exchange for the collateral obtained off the Future APR value.

The irrevocable transfer was only for freehold use in order to force abandonments for false claims – but a voluntary novation that creates a new platform of performance by an amended irrevocable “joint” transfer into a foundation would allow for a negotiable depreciation under form 8283 – non-cash charitable contributions. The basis of the asset is at zero therefore the intellectual value of the property at the time of transfer – is still zero as far as the Federalized Banking system is concerned – however this form allows for the value of the Public Traded Securities – (or from the Entity BORROWERS perspective- the collateral obtained in exchange for those initial certificate offerings).

Section 7701(a)(19) Domestic building and loan association The term “domestic building and loan association” means a domestic building and loan association, a domestic savings and loan association, and a Federal savings and loan association—(A) which either (i) is an insured institution within the meaning of section 401(a) [1] (in other words - Qualified pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans.) of the now repealed National Housing Act (12 U.S.C., sec. 1724(a)), or (ii) is subject by law to supervision and examination by State or Federal authority having supervision over such associations; Where under Title 12 there are no actual Depositors - aka FINCIN registered lenders/depositors - associated with these REMICs. This could be utilized to redefine the “MERS system” as a witnessed depositor exchange of these publicly traded stocks.

To achieve maximum protection for the PEOPLE, appoint a manager or successor manager outside of the US. This can also be done internationally with staff representatives of each nation. No court in the United States has jurisdiction over the foreign manager without substantial connections to the jurisdiction so the most that could be done is “ if” someone obtains a credit order through the courts, they would only have the "right to claim" profits or liquidation distributions due from the foundation which could be counter sued. The operating agreement should require a unanimous vote to change the managing director by the people of that nation. 2- year max term holding the equivalent of massive tax deferred filibuster. This can allnbe done through the motions of a foreclosure of sorts – but only for the purpose of reconstituting the fair market value so that the states can assess proper property taxes against REAL values without being title obscured. Therefor each state will need to elaborate a provision under state laws to allow for trust recodifications. Monitored servicer button pushing for full review of its eligibility for recovery.

A Nevis Foundation is the only place I have found suited to this. It will not have any adverse tax consequences for the IRS nor the country of Nevis as long as no business is conducted in Nevis. A transfer of assets by a U.S. citizen to an offshore single-member Foundation does not have any adverse tax consequences otherwise associated with the transfer of assets to other offshore entities. A Nevis LLC can own assets in the United States, Nevis, or anywhere else in the world which also means the Nevis Foundation will have the tax consequences of the properties fair market values that come with it – which is where the conversion forgiveness under that Diminution of Loss under the 16th Amendment provides a limited offset of allowable sanctions under the economic loss of ¾ the value of the dollar since deflated. This in turn should place the homes back to their fair market value and can be accomplished through a National RECOVERY Act in lue of a National Foreclosure Act.

Means it is a LEGAL and viable way that Federal Government can utilize for their 911 subsidies write offs or whatever else they want, without issuing a false claim ( perhaps using 26 U.S. Code § 108 - Income from discharge of indebtedness applied in a forced restructure under Diminution of Loss principles Under 303 (b)(3)(B) relief can be ordered under this title with respect to all of the general partners in such partnership, by a general partner in such partnership, the trustee of such a general partner, or a holder of a claim against such partnership. – Forced restructure) as opposed to the banks forking over $45 mil at a pop still forth coming. See Sunquist v. BofA

As far as the states go – the voluntary Novation can be built upon a new model through a non-profit state by state, designed to repurpose the residual income generated by the Novation upon the foundation transferred properties. The can start by replenishing CALPERS.

Novation could be reverse engineered to the individual homeowners, using Hamp as a rough guideline for re-qualifications. Example: 500 Billion dollar’s worth of pooled loans novated to a start rate of 2% would generate a monthly 2.2 Billion dollars. The base asset restructure would be 125-Billion up front deficit adjustment in exchange for discounted treasury bonds against the original property collatolized, in turn for restructuring of the REMIC. A different way to look at a 3-month trial which could also resolve some international debt. Not to mention that these terminated REMIC swaps could easily be reversed engineered to pull into a forced BK restructure by the people whom in fact ARE the creditors. This would be a dollar for dollar penalty for breaching the spirit of the code, which under the 16th Amendment to the Constitution being ignored by the courts, the diminutization of loss principle could be implemented to reduce the deficit by close to 2/3. Again, this can ONLY be done by the TRUE creditors which in fact ARE the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. You remember them right? the people you defrauded?

If you MORONS would actually listen to the PEOPLE, the you would realize that this would free the states up to establish a recovery next-door program –ie officer next-door program expanded to include everyone who lost their homes for homes in need of renovation in troubled areas for those victims whom lost their homes because of this noise. Where troubled REO assets could also be placed into the foundation for the same depreciated write off purpose which in turn – help heal the nation AND bring closure to those whom were victimized.

After all The Dodd-Frank Act granted rulemaking authority under the TILA to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act included a number of amendments to the TILA, and in 2013, the CFPB issued rules to implement them. Looking at some of these leeway’s it actually gives the CFPB (including re-write these failed securities) the CFPB was created to do more than just toss consumer complaints into an expanded Data Base.

If such a LOWLY Layman can see such a path – Imagine what works could actually be accomplished by mankind. People are not stupid – if they apply themselves they can accomplish great things. So why – in all this time – did no one bother to ask them what THEY think. There are many people whom have FAITH out here in this nation to which you are actively trying to financially – well – for lack of a better observation enslave through further debt swaps and IRS liens against their birth bonds aka the disgruntled investors whom have no idea these land patents even exist.

Google 7/8/2105. These industry idiots used core embedded algorithms holding end dates upon the contracts they recorded upon title. And three guess where this can be tract to… I'll give you a hint - it has something to do with the word "white". You know that word in which you have turned into a thousand shades of gray though stupid watergates.

I DO NOT wish to be a martyr and I want myself, my family, my friends to be permanently left alone. I am tired of being run out of my homes, as this is not the first time I have been beaten to hell and back because of YOUR FEDERALIZED DIRTY DEEDS. When are you going to learn NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRY TO BEAT IT DOWN - YOU CANNOT BEAT FAITH. Faith is the ONLY thing that can transcend through every person, regardless of religion or lack there of. By putting Faith in the Devils hands most certainly damns you to hell my anti-friend. My NAME is a symbol of PEACE. You have made empty this name in your actions, and in that you have violated ALL PEOPLE OF FAITH's 1st Amendment rights. Means I can now legally bypass these courts to ENFORCE the ACTUAL laws. Why- because you broke these commandments to which I wrote to the Bishop during my
online Jericho March

I think that in what I am able to offer here – though I will be ignored until the riots break out when the federalized banking idiots try to force that National Foreclosure Act- you will find that it is not only legally plausible, it would generate MORE income and more write offs that you simple minded jack ass puppet masters can grasp and yes, what is on this page IS the short version.