Product: Mortgage

On or about XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, WA, posted a Notice of Default ( NOD ) on our door. 
We requested a mediation from the new " loan servicer '' ( XXXX " transferred '' or " sold '' the loan to XXXX Mortgage ). After several delays, we finally met with them XXXX ( over a year later ). They would not do a thorough analysis of our financial ability to cover the $ XXXX monthly mortgage, stating abruptly that they only went by our form XXXX tax statement for income. They refused to acknowledge that a home business has greater cash flow than the tax doc will show when a large percentage of the property/home/mortgage interest is written off. Another " meeting '' was scheduled for XXXX, but XXXX 's representative did not even call in to the meeting. After another 6 months, in XXXX, XXXX XXXX, started the foreclosure process again. 
It is our belief, in reading FDCPA rules, Truth in Lending Act Rules, et al., that XXXX acted in bad faith, not only stretching out the process in order to be able to foreclose on our sole domicile, but in refusing to analyze our actual finances that would have, without a doubt, shown our ability to resume payments. 
We filed suit in XXXX of XXXX to block a foreclosure, and were granted a XXXX by Judge Plese of the XXXX XXXX, WA, court system by showing " just cause. '' The suit was filed against XXXX XXXX Loans ( XXXX ), which was " merged '' with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, as well as others involved, which now includes Rushmore. 
XXXX attorneys remanded our case to the federal court in XXXX. Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX was assigned our case. He delayed the case from XXXX to XXXX, and after nearly 9 months, dismissed the case without good cause shown, denied our appeals, and finally denied our XXXX ( b ) motion with about XXXX words without apparently even reviewing it. We have appealed this to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, but Rushmore Loan Management Services and XXXX XXXX conspired to deprive us of our sole and only home, posting a notice on our door on or about XXXX XXXX, with a foreclosure date of XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 
I have attached files showing date discrepancies on the date XXXX took over our loan, the final XXXX stating they took over the loan on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and posting a DOS on our door on XXXX XXXX, a clear violation of the 20 day rule on our requesting a mediation. 
Also attached are XXXX documents supporting our allegations of " bad assignments '' that were noted in our XXXX ( b ) motion to the Fed Court, " XXXX, in its individual capacity and without identifying its principal, executed a false/forged assignment of deed attempting to transfer interest in the XXXX ( Plaintiff ) loan to XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. ( Exhibit XXXX XXXX attached hereto and incorporated by reference ) on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. '' And again, " Defendant XXXX claims to be an equitable assignee by assignment of deed of trust ( Plaintiff 's Exhibit XXXX attached hereto and incorporated by reference ). The instrument relies solely upon the previous assignment instrument which has been shown to be rendered as void by operation of law. Thus, XXXX 's claim of equitable beneficial ownership of Plaintiff 's loan obligation is rendered void by operation of same laws. '' This is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. There are forged documents within our " loan process '' and other irregularities. XXXX has provided conflicting dates and undated allonges. If the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reviews the forged instruments, irregularities, illegal actions, and bad assignments, starting with XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and now Rushmore, it is our belief that these entities will be found to have committed multiple accounts of fraud and will be fined accordingly, or worse.