Just sent this to my state legislators about the SEC….

Complaint to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Sent By: tbryant80@comcast.net On: May 05/26/11 12:48 PM
To: “Sen. Brown, Scott” ; “Sen. Kerry, John” ; Nicholas – State Rep. Baldyga

Dear MA Legislators,

I would like to make you privy to an exemption request I have made under Rule 29(c) of the Securities Exchange Act. I addressed the property authority, the SEC, and submitted numerous documents in this matter. I am appalled that the SEC does not want to honestly look at the Pooling and Servicing Agreements which constitute securities contracts. These agreements are written, with clauses to violate state law, void clauses in the original mortgage contracts, and to hide true ownership “to avoid liabilities and creditors of the sellers”. They even have MERS clauses in them.

What is sickening is, the SEC wants to consider these securities as valid, when if you wipe out the terms and conditions of the original mortgages, there is no more debt obligation to be held as the security. They just don’t get it, and frankly, I really don’t think they care. The US Government bought some of these toxic assets dollar-for-dollar to bail out Wall Street. Shouldn’t the government care if the securities are even any good?

The SEC turning their back to this issue is going to cost the taxpayers, of course, in the long run. When the government takes losses because they bought worthless securities, is the SEC then going to charge in? They already blew it on Bernie Madoff. That fraud would be pennies compared to the problems the government is facing. The courts around the country understand the fraud in securitization, and are siding with homeowners. Government inaction to hold Wall Street accountable for anything is increasing the ire of the country. The SEC needs to be properly addressed in this matter, and Attorney General Eric Holder needs to come out of hiding as well.

The SEC just announced a new Whistleblower Program. How can anyone have confidence in the program, when they want to stick their heads in the sand about information that is reported to them?

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
Tim Bryant
80 Bradford Drive
Feeding Hills, MA 01030-2728

This was my response to that….

Your complaint to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Sent By: tbryant80@comcast.net On: May 05/23/11 11:55 AM

Thank you for your response. I still take the stance that RMBS contracts are made in violation of Securities laws. The applicable law of mortgage contracts are the laws of the jurisdiction in which the property resides, not New York or wherever the RMBS is sold. This, to me, is a material misrepresentation to investors, and is creating major havoc to them. Also, in my case, the origination docs created to secure the loan were falsified to show that I 100% owned a property that does not, and has never, existed. These same docs were changed after the loan origination to show the actual status. This occurred because of the “no doc” loans that were allowed to happen. The banks and originators were allowed to put down whatever information they wanted to, and because no one ever saw the originals, nobody was the wiser. In my case, the attorney’s office sent the original docs, I would imagine, by accident. Not to continue my argument, but to just condense it, this loan was a packaged, premeditated fraud, that was to be sold in the securitization market. This was perpetuated by the numerous purchasers throughout the process, that violated the original terms and conditions of the mortgage documentation. None, have ever disclosed, as per the mortgage docs, that they were purchasers or holders of the debt obligation. This continues to this very day, even at the request of my attorney. This created an estoppel of the debt, which has not been paid since October 2010, because there is no entity claiming to owe any fiduciary responsibility to the account. Whatever money, if any, investors are receiving on my loan, is 100% being paid by Bank of America, who has never shown they ever owned any interest in the loan.

I have been trying to assist you in preventing investors from continuing to be defrauded. I will assume that you are looking into it, and I will cease and desist from providing you any additional materials to support my claim. Under 29(c), I was not seeking exemption from my mortgage obligation. I was seeking exemption from any entity claiming to hold a security interest on my loan under any RMBS, which I have not been made party to, in direct violation of the terms and conditions of the original contract. This contract’s applicable law is Massachusetts law, which requires public recording of changes in property records. This has not occurred because of MERS, and I believe, the specific language listed in the RMBS I believe my mortgage was pooled into.

I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. I hope and pray that the SEC takes this seriously. From the disgorgement penalties on behalf of the investors for fraud and misrepresentation in the sale of securities, levied against Countrywide executives, I know you do for the investors sake. Hopefully, the SEC will take a harder look at how the third-party beneficiaries, and holders of the collateral securing the debt, had frauds and misrepresentations perpetuated against them, concerning the securitizations of their loans. To aid you in this endeavor, if you had an “open period” for public discussion, we could show you the extent of the problems. These will ultimately effect the investors, when they are reviewed in court. We could be invaluable to the SEC in any future proposed rule-making efforts, to avoid the mistakes of the past. I, as well as many others, are not looking to seek relief from our debt obligations under our mortgage loans. We are looking to have the original contracts remain valid, and not subjugated to any pooling and servicing agreements which void the original debt obligations. More specifically, it is relief from any debt obligations under a residential mortgage-backed security which is in violation of the applicable laws of the original contracts. This creates title claims issues for not only us, but the investors. I believed that the SEC had authority under Section 29 to this issue. If I am mistaken, forgive me for my ignorance.

Once again, thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Tim A. Bryant
80 Bradford Drive
Feeding Hills, MA 01030

Your complaint to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Sent By: “Corpfin-ENFLiaison” On: May 05/23/11 9:50 AM

Dear Mr. Bryant:

I appreciate your taking the time to talk to me and provide me with information regarding your concerns about mortgages that are securitized through mortgage-backed securities. The US Securities and Exchange Commission is always interested in hearing from members of the public, and you may be assured that the matters you have raised are being given careful consideration in view of the Commission’s overall enforcement responsibilities under the US federal securities laws. It is, however, the Commission’s policy to conduct its inquiries on a confidential basis — so this may be the only response that you receive regarding the matter.

The Commission conducts its investigations on a confidential basis to preserve the integrity of its investigative process as well as to protect persons against whom unfounded charges may be made or against whom the Commission determines that enforcement action is not necessary or appropriate.

If you want to learn more about how the SEC handles inquiries and complaints, please visit the SEC Complaint Center at http://www.sec.gov.

I also note your email asking for exemption from Section 29 of the Exchange Act dated April 8, 2011 and subsequent emails regarding the same matter. Section 29 addresses the validity of contracts that are made in violation of the securities laws. As discussed in our phone conversation, a waiver of Section 29 would not result in the relief you are seeking—namely, an exemption for borrowers from any obligations under a mortgage loan. Under federal law, the SEC’s jurisdiction is limited to requiring full and fair disclosure of material information about transactions so that investors can make informed investment decisions.

We appreciate your interest in the work of the Commission. We also appreciate your taking the time to send us your suggestions and comments. We hope that you will bring to our attention any other matters which you believe might warrant our interest. To the extent that you would like to report a tip or complaint, please consider directly forwarding that information through the SEC’s Website (http://www.sec.gov/complaint/select.shtml) dedicated to efficiently processing such information.

Sincerely,

Katherine Hsu
Chief
Office of Structured Finance

Absolutely!!!!!!! That will put a stop to this rogue Wall Street/Bankster regime.

Wish i could tach u how to be happier! Guess u r too old to change!

SCUDDER? will work too… like a roach in the light!