Product: Debt collection

XXXX. Now comes, XXXX XXXX XXXX, a living man with sole recorded interest in the property located at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY XXXX, so named as Plaintiff in this action against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), so named as Defendant supposedly acting on behalf of the Deutsche Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX On behalf of the holders of the XXXX XXXX Mortgage Acquisition Trust XXXX Asset backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series XXXX, hereinafter ( " TRUST '' ) did file a Summons and Complaint for Foreclosure on XXXX XXXX, XXXX at XXXX XXXX, in Supreme Court of New York State, XXXX XXXX against Plaintiff . This filing was fraught with legal misrepresentations, fabricated documents, and fictious falsehoods designed to steal the above property through fraud. Plaintiff has first-hand knowledge of the facts that are presented before this court, and fully aware of all fabricated and FALSE documents recorded in Public Record and entered into this court in case # XXXX. Defendant has cause substantial damages to the plaintiff in his effort. 

I, XXXX XXXX XXXX, affirms under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of New York, that the foregoing is true and correct. I am of sound mind and body and have full and personal knowledge of the issues being presented. 

Plaintiff, by and through his attorney, Seeks a determination of the extent of a lien and discharge ability of debt allegedly held by Deutches Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereinafter DB or defendant ), purportedly trustee for XXXX XXXX MORTGAGE ACQUIZITION TRUST XXXX XXXX BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES XXXX ( hereinafter XXXX ) DB, plaintiffs in the NYS Supreme Court of XXXX XXXX INDEX Number case XXXX XXXX XXXX were never, and are not, a party to the original contract from the beginning. The original Mortgage Contract ( # XXXX ) and Note ( # XXXX ), is between XXXX XXXX XXXX ( who closed down for business XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX signed XX/XX/XXXX, recorded with the XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, NY, on XX/XX/XXXX. See Original Note attached hereto. EXHIBIT A and Original Mortgage EXHIBIT XXXX ), See XXXX XXXX attached hereto. EXHIBIT B ) Plaintiff has suffered extensive injury throughout the entire process due to malicious, intrinsic fraud, resulting in plaintiff incurring legal fees in excess of {$240000.00} USD over 14 years of litigation, as well as having been defrauded of over {$190000.00} USD in illegal payments, plus interest, while Defendants sued on behalf of a fictitious plaintiff, the TRUST The alleged creditor DB herein never had, and does not have, standing to sue on the original Mortgage and Note ( # XXXX ) as it is unlawfully attempting to do as it never has, and does not now, control these documents and fraudulently has stated that it does in the New York State Supreme Court action in the County of XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereinafter Plaintiff or XXXX XXXX XXXX executed a Mortgage Contract ( Recorded Instrument # XXXX ) and an Original Mortgage Note ( # XXXX ) with XXXX XXXX XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX. The executed documents were recorded with the XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, New York. 

The alleged creditor DB herein is suing for an alleged Note ( # XXXX ), which is not a note but an unsecured security instrument with a XXXX # XXXX, governed by the rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange commission, and not the law of promissory notes. See XXXX brief of Professor XXXX XXXX XXXX CPA, MBA. DBA dated XX/XX/XXXX attached hereto There is no registration, no claim, no evidence, explanation of or indication of XXXX XXXX XXXX. ever assigning the mortgage and note to XXXX XXXX  or DB to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX herein after XXXX. The Alleged creditor states The Note and Mortgage were transferred to Deutsche Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX, as Trustee, on behalf of the holders of the XXXX XXXX Mortgage Acquisition Trust XXXX XXXX Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series XXXX as evidenced by an assignment of Mortgage dated XX/XX/XXXX and recorded on XX/XX/XXXX. See : DBs REPLY TO DEBTOR 'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY dated XX/XX/XXXX, at paragraph XXXX. However, the fact is that there never a transfer of neither the Mortgage nor the Note from XXXX XXXX XXXX to DB nor was there any such transfer recorded at the county clerk of XXXX XXXX. Thus, as a result of these statements being fraudulent, DB has no standing and never did. 


Further, any purported rights of DB to foreclose on the mortgage herein were foregone through the settlement agreements of the trust at issue. For instance, the alleged creditor herein was compensated in the amount of XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX dollars ( the Gross Settlement Amount ). Dated XX/XX/XXXX. See : XXXX XXXX SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT XXXX, Page XXXX attached hereto were settled. The XXXX settlement agreement states on page XXXX as follows : Recital : WHEREAS, certain XXXX entities were the Seller, Sponsor, Depositor and/or Servicer for the residential mortgage-backed securitizations identified on the attached EXHIBIT XXXX ( the Trusts ) and WHEREAS, pursuant to the governing agreements certain XXXX entities have contributed or sold loans originated by various entities into the Trusts ( the Mortgage Loans ) and WHEREAS, the Institutional Investors have further alleged that the servicing of Mortgage Loans held by the Trusts did not meet the required standard imposed by the Governing Agreements and WHEREAS, on XX/XX/XXXX, the Institutional Investors issued instructions to certain of the Trustees to open an investigation into potential breaches of certain representations and warranties and potential servicing breaches in certain of the Trusts. 
Attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked as EXHIBIT C-1 is a copy of this Agreement.

Thus, it should be clear to this Court that DB is fraudulently attempting to recover from the debtor herein on an instrument that it has already recovered on. Further, as a result of these settlements, it should also be clear to this Court that alleged creditor has no standing herein.

This is only one of several such settlements brokered by the SEC. Thus, as the alleged creditor is well aware as are the attorneys representing DB, the alleged Note ( # XXXX ), it is claiming it has a right to recover on has not been controlled by it since the securitization by XXXX and sale to XXXX XXXX on the date of XX/XX/XXXX. Page XXXX of EXHIBIT C demonstrates DB was part of the settlement, Page 58 of EXHIBIT C demonstrates the DB was paid 40 % on this settlement. Page 43 of EXHIBIT C demonstrates the trusts in question. 

Another example of a second Settlement filed with the XXXX COUNTY CLERK on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX  with index # XXXX listed on Page XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX  AGREEMENT EXHIBIT XXXX attached hereto. Page 52 demonstrates the acceptance of the settlement by DB Director XXXX XXXX, and Vice President XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Page XXXX demonstrates the TRUST in question. XXXX XXXX Demonstrates a payout of over 85 % to DB. 

Further, the actual Mortgage contract was never transferred at all, let alone for consideration and neither was the original Note as alleged by the creditor. Thus, the alleged creditor is attempting to double, even triple dip on an alleged Note that it never had the legal right to recover on at all. 

This presents a significant legal issue/claim, as the stated purported Note holder of the Original Wet Ink mortgage documents is named to be XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX which is not possible. Furthermore, there are XXXX other entities claiming to be in possession of or the owner of the alleged Note ( # XXXX ) See XXXX brief of Professor XXXX XXXX XXXX CPA, MBA. DBA dated XX/XX/XXXX attached hereto. 

The XXXX XXXX of Professor XXXX XXXX CPA, filed contemporaneously with this Complaint, states the following issues concerning the alleged creditors standing in this Court : XXXX. XXXX XXXX Mortgage Acquisition Trust XXXX no longer exists and filed its last XXXX with the Securities and Exchange Commission in XXXX XXXX and XXXX. XXXX XXXX Mortgage Acquisition Trust XXXX was involved in litigation with the Securities and Exchange Commission and XXXX XXXX XXXX which litigation was settled and included the transfer of all assets in the Trust being transferred to XXXX XXXX and Deutsche Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX bank ) was named Trustee, not Deutches Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX sued both Deutsche Bank XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX as well as 100+ other banks, over the Trust and other Trusts as the assets were non-existent ; and XXXX. The Note ( # XXXX ) was with XXXX XXXX and was not transferred Professor XXXX is a Certified Public Accountant with over 43 years of professional accounting experience in the private, public, and governmental sectors. His areas of expertise include auditing, forensic accounting, taxation, accounting, and financial ethics, all of which he currently teaches as an adjunct professor at a private university in California. 


JURESDICTION XXXX. This is an adversary proceeding in which the Plaintiff ( XXXX ) is/are Seeking discharge of debt allegedly held by DB 2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157 and 1334. 
XXXX. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157 ( c ) ( h ) ( i ) ( k ) 4. Plaintiff has standing to bring this action pursuant to Local Rules 4004-1 5. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1409 ( a ) and Local Rule 1073-1 of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the XXXX  XXXX  XXXX New York XXXX 
XXXX. The adversary relates to In re XXXX XXXX XXXX, a XXXX  XXXX case pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the XXXX  XXXX  of New York, XXXX XXXX, with case number XXXX XXXX. Defendant DB is not a registered corporation in New York and such an entity has never filed with the New York State Department of State, therefore never was permitted access to the NYS courts, by law.