So I’ve been trying to get housing to finally get off the streets because of once again losing my house through theft.
I’ve come to realize that it’s ANY housing for me that they object to. Unless it is owned by a man who is a cult member. Everywhere IA have rented from a man, the landlord was a creep. One lied about me and how I left the apartment I was in, so I could not get housing again in South Dakota. Another in Indiana was going through my panties drawer. I suspected something was going on, so I deliberately arranged things in a certain way so that I knew when it had been messed with. I always had a creepy feeling in my bathroom, like I was being watched. Knowing what I know now about the technology to see through walls, I can state my instincts were spot on.
As a side note, have you ever felt creeped out when walking outside — that you felt naked? I have felt this many times and believed the psychobabble that “you just feel exposed and vulnerable” — well, that may be, but even when I wasn’t feeling that way, suddenly I realized that it was because of their technology. Remember, they can use scanners like airports scanners, folks, and they are the religion of rape and murder. Making you feel naked and vulnerable is an old tactic. A Nazi tactic.
Okay, back to the housing situation. They have been fighting me hard on this. They know I won’t make it through another winter in my van. I’ve been having chest pains this last year and it was especially noticeable when I would get up from my quilts and get exposed to the cold before I could get my overcoat on.
So they can keep me from housing and when the elements get to me, they can just shrug their shoulders like they had nothing to do with it. That is why gangstalking is murder.
The are using disabled folks especially now because they don’t want me to get into housing designed for disabled and elderly.
It is so disheartening to watch all the disabled license plates of gangstalkers.
They have doubled up on the stalkers who pretend to be victims.
Just yesterday, a man passed me—ran past me—as I was on my way to go potty. He wanted to get in front of me and since they have the technology to read our minds, they knew where I was going and had him run in front of me so that he can claim that I am stalking him. He went into the building and went to the bathroom, while I went in a different door, and then he tried to start a conversation with me!
They will try to start conversations with a target in order to make a fake videotape later that you were doing something or saying something creepy to the person.
They have also put school buses around me. A hispanic woman driving a bus was suddenly parking near me where I slept at night — a parking area of a shopping center. She was making allegations to the shop owners that I frequented.
They have used heavy metal music BLARING as loud as the speakers would go, outside a bar near another place I frequently park at night. The excuse was that the patrons were having an outside drinking party. I remember when that was illegal because we used to be a state and a country that cared about children being exposed about that stuff. You would have never seen drunks out on city streets!
And there have been many stalkers nearly causing collisions because they were trying to hurry and get in front of me. One idiot drives a black SUV with heart decals on the upper left and right of the rear window, nearly pulled right in my path, trying to get in front of me, and then he sped six city blocks to once again get in front of me, coming in the opposite direction.
These people are insane. Don’t try to understand them. I tried to understand how people could be so evil and cruel, but I’ve stopped trying to figure out evil. They are just evil and insane.
Lastly, I’ve been thinking about being homeless and all the steps I took so that I would not end up in this position:
- I worked hard to get my Bachelor of Arts so that I could earn a decent income to take care of myself. They were promising $25,000 a year to start. Never happened. What did happen? NAFTA! POOF! Jobs were gone and the ones left went down in pay.
- I went back to school for a Paralegal Certificate. It was supposed to be “recession proof” and earnings would start at $35,000. Hah. Even though I and another classmate had Bachelors Degrees, neither one of us could get our foot the door for a job. High school graduates with blond hair and showing decolletage were getting jobs. Yep.
- I had $20,000 cash from my divorce settlement and called a bank about a loan for a 8-unit apartment building in a nearby town. They said that my good credit rating was with my husband and they would not count that for me as an individual. This is illegal folks. It plainly states that banks cannot refuse a loan based on your marital status.
- I tried to purchase a laundromat in a nearby college town . I figure it was a good investment because of college kids needing to do laundry. The owner was going to finance it, until he spoke with a secret society member in my hometown.
Additionally, my ex-husband was paying waaay lower for child support than he should have for three kids and the amount of his income. He was making $100k per year and only paying $20k for three children. I used the measly $70,000 I received in the settlement, to pay off my mortgage of $25,000 (forced to get his name off it), and then take care of my children’s needs.
So I tried and tried and tried to take care of my financial situation so that I could take care of myself and would not be in the situation I am. It’s easy to look at the homeless and find fault with their situation instead of looking behind their efforts to keep from being in the situation. I was hitting wall after wall after wall.
Everyone who lost their homes during the great steal of 2002-08 should automatically be given their homes back.
Please look up the blog with the Neil Garfield sworn affidavit of how the loans by Ameriquest and Argent Mortgage were illegal! Note how the same players in my refinance loan were Ameriquest, Argent, Litton Loan Servicing, and Deutche Bank. It was PLANNED. It was to destroy the backbone of the United States: the middle class. In my opinion, they are trying to destroy the rest with the “covid” shutdown of all the independent businesses across the United States. They want to finish us off so the evil ones can takeover.
An excerpt:
I have been asked to render opinions pertaining to the closing of a purported loan
transaction between Anthony Tarantola and an entity named in the closing papers as “Argent
Mortgage.” I have reviewed all appropriate documentation in connection with the purported loan
closing specifically, I have reviewed the contextual documentation which provided the
foundation by which the loan closing could occur, to wit: the securitization documents that were
executed prior to the offering or origination of the subject loan. In addition, I have reviewed the
actual closing documents in the subject loan and I have reviewed various web sites of the parties
that were named at the time of the closing, and the intermediaries in the securitization chain who
were conduits for the origination, underwriting and funding of the loan on behalf of investors
who purchased mortgage-backed securities.
Each of the documents, web sites, and other materials which are in my possession by
virtue of having done similar reviews and analysis on numerous other transactions, some of
which involve the same parties as in the instant litigation, are of the type that experts in my field
would customarily rely upon in forming opinions and inferences.
The method of analysis which I employed consisted of numerous steps which are
summarized as follows:
1. Review of the securitization documentation enabling the offer and sale of the loan
product to the debtor/borrower in the instant case.
EXHIBIT H
3
2. Review of the closing documentation between the borrower and the alleged
“lender.”
3. A comparison of the closing documentation with the borrower and the foundation
documents, in particular, the pooling and service agreement, assignments, assumptions,
underwriting standards, acceptance standards for receipt and acceptance of the borrower‟s
obligation into a pool of other loans, and the roles of the securitization participants.
4. Analysis of the chain of title on record in connection with the property described
in the closing documents of the borrower.
5. Analysis of the chain of negotiation of the obligation, note and mortgage (Deed of
Trust).
6. Opinion and conclusions relating to the ownership of the obligation, note and/or
mortgage. In rendering these opinions and conclusions, I assumed that the transaction consisted
of a loan that was funded for the benefit of the borrower thus creating an obligation. I further
assumed that the note and writer were evidence of said obligation. In addition, I assumed that
the Deed of Trust was incident to the executed note and did not constitute evidence of the
obligation nor did it replace or constitute the note.
7. Opinions and conclusions relating to the current status of the obligations of the
borrower.
8. Opinions and conclusions relating to the current status of the creditor, including
an identification of the creditor.
9. Opinions and conclusions regarding the status of the obligation as reflected by the
servicer‟s records.
10. Opinions and conclusions regarding the status of the obligation in accordance
with all receipts and disbursements by or on behalf of the creditor, its agents or affiliates,
including third-party mitigation payments received by or on behalf of the owner of the beneficial
or equitable interest in the obligation.
My opinions and conclusions are affected by the context of my general opinions and
conclusions regarding the securitization of residential home loans during the period 2002 through
2008. In my opinion, the real parties in interest in each and every such transaction, were the
borrower (debtor) and the creditor (investors who advanced the funds from which the loan was
funded).
The obligation that arose as a result of the funding of the loan and the acceptance of the
benefits of said funding, gave rise to an obligation between the borrower and the actual lender
(investor). In my opinion, the documentation utilized by the parties at many levels in the
securitization chain, do not reflect the intention of the real parties in interest, and therefore do not
constitute complete evidence of the obligation.
EXHIBIT H
4
In my opinion, the Deed of Trust utilizing a nominee or strawman as the beneficiary,
where said nominee was never involved in the funding of the transaction, or in many cases
specifically disclaimed on the face of the documentation, and elsewhere any interest or claim
regarding the obligation note or mortgage (Deed of Trust) is the equivalent of the failure to state
any beneficiary under the Deed of Trust or any mortgagee under mortgage deed. Lastly, my
opinion is that the party who can exercise the power of sale under non-judicial statutory
authority, is limited to a party who could plead and prove a case in foreclosure in a judicial
proceeding. My opinion is that said statement, is the only valid conclusion, inasmuch as any
other interpretation would open the door to moral hazard, allowing the taking of property without
due process.
TARANTOLA PARTIES
It is my observation that many different parties in the securitization chain have initiated
foreclosure expressing title or attempted to claim rights to enforce the DOT and Note. This
serves as the backdrop to the instant litigation. In thousands of cases, servicers, MERS, agents
with “power of attorney”, trustees of every ilk and level etc. have initiated such actions claiming
or representing that they stand in the shoes of the Lender without a shred of evidence to proffer
under the rules of evidence to support their claim.
Several such attempts, upon discovery have led to extremely heavy sanctions not
only against the party illicitly seeking foreclosure, but against the law firm that advocated
for such an unjust result.
Civil sanctions as high as $850,000 have been levied against lawyer and client.
Criminal investigations are underway in many states, class actions by investors,
class actions by borrowers and qui tam actions are all underway alleging tawdry schemes,
fraud and deception.
In some of those cases I have seen the evidence to support the allegations of
investors against these same parties and class actions by borrowers against these same
parties and in my opinion they have merit, while the defenses offered are, in my opinion
completely without merit.
I do not convey here, with certainty that the Movant is automatically subject to
sanctions or criminal penalties as a result of other cases; however, the backdrop of
hundreds of cases in which documents were fabricated and forged in the name of Deutsch
Bank in particular, leaves me extremely skeptical as to the efficacy of their claims.
I have reviewed multiple files in which securitization participants have all
claimed to be the holder, Lender, HDC or agent for an undisclosed creditor who nonetheless had
every right to take the property of a homeowner based upon a presumed but unproved debt owed
to another party.
The parties the subject transaction according to my review of the securitization
documentation dated May 1, 2004 (the cutoff date), the loan closing documents, and my
knowledge of the parties and standard practices of the financial services industry are as follows:
1. Unidentified Investors (“Lender” as a group) who purchased mortgage backed
securities. This purchase was the source of money advanced into an account from
which, among other things, the borrower‟s loan was funded. The Lender received
a bond with terms and conditions at substantial variance from the note signed by
EXHIBIT H
5
the borrower. It is therefore my opinion that the obligation owed to the Lender
was different in amount and rights to payments than the obligation signed by the
borrower as to amount and obligation to make payments. Both the bond and the
note anticipate insurance and other mitigating payments, hence the Lender
and borrower, although unknown to each other, were in agreement on one
point: that insurance, guarantee or other counterparty payments would be
credited to the Lender and a credit against the obligation owed by the
borrower. The Movant steadfastly refuses to answer questions about such
payments or even the identity of the Lender. These payments were never allocated
to the individual loans giving rise to the claim for third party payments, although
they were paid to the Lender or the Lender‟s agents. The money to purchase the
insurance, guarantee and counterparty contracts was paid by the intermediaries
from money due to the investor, the borrower or both. Since the condition
subsequent is expressly stated in the securitization documentation in compliance
with like provisions in the note signed by borrower I presume that the only reason
why the Movant would refuse to provide a proper accounting and the identity of
the Lender is that they either don‟t know, don‟t care or are hiding something. It is
my opinion that the answer can fairly be stated as all three. The intermediaries,
having sought and obtained false appraisals of the securities sold to investors,
false appraisals of the property used as collateral for the buyer, and falsely made
insurance claims on their own behalf, now seek to obtain an even greater benefit
using the argument, as I have heard it in hundreds of cases, that it is somehow
more equitable that they profit at the expense of the borrower and the investor.
a. In accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by the State
of Arizona, the Investors as a group are the creditor of the obligation from the
borrower.
i. The almost universal practice of the industry and certainly the
pattern of conduct of the parties named as underwriters and other
intermediaries in the Tarantola chain, is that the securities transaction
occurred prior to the offering or closing on the origination of the loan
to Tarantola through Argent Mortgage acting as a mortgage broker,
unregistered as such in the State of Arizona.
b. In this case there are two pools identified and named. This might be an
error of the underwriters or evidence that the loan was split into two pools or
that the loan was intended to be transferred into both pools. If the loan was
intended to be transferred into both pools, it is possible that the first one in
time may have priority.
c. For reasons explained below, it is my opinion that the status of the loan in
terms of securitization is most likely that it was never perfected into any pool.
My conclusion is that virtually all other parties in the securitized loan chain
are irrelevant other than the Lender as identified in this paragraph and, as
nominal parties, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC and/or Argent Securities,
nc. However, several of the parties named below received mitigation
payments to be applied to loans that included the Tarantola loan.
EXHIBIT H
6
d. The amount of money advanced by investors in relation to this loan I have
computed through mathematical calculation (see below) to be approximately
$747,000.
e. The amount of money shown on the closing documents to have been
funded on this loan was approximately $377,000, plus points etc.
f. The amount of money received through third party payments I have
computed through mathematical calculation to be a minimum of 5 times the
loan amount and a maximum of 30 times the loan amount. Thus the minimum
received from third parties for contractual loss mitigation broken down and
allocated to this loan was approximately $1,885,000. Adding the yield spread
premium gap ($747,000-$377,000=$370,000) the gross amount received by
intermediary agents of the investors totals approximately $2,255,000. These
third party payments are specifically provided in the securitization documents
(see appendix) but undisclosed to both the real parties in interest, to wit: the
borrower and the Lender. I therefore conclude that the loan is not and never
was in default.
2. Anthony Tarantola, borrower
3. Argent Securities Inc. as depositor
2. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, as seller and master servicer
3. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee for American Home Mortgage
Assets Trust 2007-1 mortgage back **** through certificates, Series 2007-1
4. Greenwich Capital Markets Inc.
5. Banc of America Securities LLC, underwriter
6. Goldman Sachs and Company, underwriter
7. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., underwriter
8. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith Incorporated, underwriter
9. NIMS, insurer; one or more insurance companies issuing a financial guaranty
insurance policy covering payments to be made under the securitization documents
10. Argent Mortgage Company LLC, wholesaler, “the mortgage loans will have been
originated by the sellers wholesale lending affiliates, Argent Mortgage Company LLC and
Olympus Mortgage Company” (prospectus)
11. Town and Country Credit Corp., retailer
12. Olympus Mortgage Company, wholesaler, “the mortgage loans will have been
originated by the sellers wholesale lending affiliates, Argent Mortgage Company LLC and
Olympus Mortgage Company” (prospectus)
13. Bedford Home Loans Inc., retailer Alt-A
14. Radian Guaranty a Pennsylvania Corporation, insurer, providing limited
protection in the event of mortgage loan default
15. Series 2004-W8 Trust, a putative trust referred to in the prospectus and pooling
and service agreement, “the depositor will establish a trust relating to the Series 2004-W8
certificates…” (Prospectus), indicating that a condition subsequent was required, to wit: the
formation of a trust under applicable state law, presumably the laws of the State of New York
16. John P. Grazer, CFO, signatory for Argent Securities Inc.
17. John P. Grazer, EVP, signatory for Ameriquest Mortgage Company
18. Ronaldo Reyes, assistant vice president, signatory for Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company
—-end of quote—-
Eagle 