Product: Debt collection

This Affidavit and Notice of Complaint is being filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for a more transparent investigation. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. and attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) known herein after as the " debt collector '', have ( robo-signed ) enforced an illegally forged and void assignment and denies the consumer remedy to a complete and accurate investigation in regards to the alleged transfer to the named trust XXXX XXXX Asset-Backed Certificates Series XXXX by way of the Assignment of Mortgage executed on XXXX/XXXX/2009 and recorded on XXXX/XXXX/09 [ Instrument # XXXX XXXX XXXX Page XXXX ], which caused a void or voidable lien to attach to property address : XXXX XXXX 

There are issues where the consumer has been condemned and denied remedy and now would like to offer this affidavit in regard to the chain of title to property and for the refusal of the debt collector to independently conduct or outsource an investigation of the assignment and their employee 's performance, despite the consumer 's request to review ALL documents ( proofs ) subject to public access and to certify all parties activities in regard to the void Assignment of Mortgage alleging a transfer to the named trust XXXX XXXX Asset-Backed Certificates Series XXXX. 

XXXX and the lender/creditor AMERICA 'S WHOLESALE LENDER ( no longer in business ) are the only recorded lien holders of the mortgaged property and promissory note and without full disclosure of the purpose and intent, the consumer by virtue of his right to ownership and legal title in property in the mortgage, was used as an accommodating party in this mortgage contract, to mortgage ; warrant ; grant and convey to XXXX '' ( solely as nominee for Lender AMERICA 'S WHOLESALE LENDER ), said property and said conveyance caused a separation in the mortgage files [ note and mortgage ]. 

The " debt collector '', has taken unfair advantage of the misinformed consumer by acting as Vice President of XXXX in collusion with financial entities after a default occurred, to use the private database called XXXX to circumvent a securitization procedure ( establishing priority of liens ) and the property 's legal owner [ valid recorded lien holder ], avoiding the expense of promptly recording the transfer [ assignment ], thus leaving concealed behind XXXX the [ securitization ] and the time frame in which a property transfer [ assignment ] should be made to a trust and recorded. Pursuant to Landmark v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX 2009 ) ( in this case the XXXX Court provides the most cogent state court analysis of the problem created by securitization - the " splitting '' of the note and the mortgage and the real party in interest and standing problems that the holder of the mortgage has when it can not also show that it has clean and clear legal interest in the note ). 

XXXX assignment does not transfer a mortgage under New York law. The secured lender is the person who holds the promissory note the mortgage secures. For the bank, alleged lender, to prove it was the noteholder, the bank, alleged lender, need to supply proof of a written assignment of the note or to produce the original note, endorsed over to the bank, alleged lender of public record. The XXXX assignment is ineffective because XXXX never owned the note. XXXX assignment is ineffective to transfer ownership of a mortgage. Ownership of a mortgage is in issue, the person claiming to own the mortgage must produce an assignment from the original lender or the original promissory note, and that it 's properly endorsed. 

After a default of the mortgage occurred the " debt collector '', acted as Vice President of XXXX and executed a mortgage transfer on behalf of XXXX XXXX as trustee, that involves the element of an void assignment and forgery which was used to commenced a foreclosure.