Product: Mortgage

To warn PennyMac and the CFPB of the immediate actions that have occurred today by XXXX using actions of PennyMac, via a Title company representing PennyMac. 

Concerning PennyMac CFPB filing XXXX PennyMac has unknowingly been used in this effort to take our home by the second position. The second position did this by using the title company to represent PennyMac. ( see photos attached ) They then intimidated with a builder/lawyer conflict of interest ( attached ), giving us direction on how to communicate with PennyMac. After that they used their lawyer and these ( attached ) illegal notification actions to justify this to the court. It is wrong. 

We had our day in court today concerning the filed CFPB case.with XXXX XXXX this information is associated with that filed claim. I think this can build support for PennyMac as their efforts to help have been fantastic. It is unfortunate that XXXX has used Documents and representatives of PennyMac, by the title company to also support the deception that occurred today. XXXX has been negligent. our original complaint concerning the XXXX representing lawyer, deception and Potential corruption. I do Hope for help from XXXX ASAP because we now have a three day eviction notice. We also hope for help from the CFPB or any other federal entities to avoid the 3 day court ordered eviction. Here is what occurred with the XXXX representing lawyer.. First, we pointed out in our conversation with XXXX and the prior filing the conflict of interest in having a lawyer for the bank also represent the builder. They approached a fix to this conflict by hiring a different lawyer and using the XXXX XXXX as a witness. This was beneficial to providing support for the scam/fraud/corruption claim. The testimony provided by the XXXX lawyer showed contradiction and deception under oaths This hearing was recorded. It was explained in detail the effort to post a notice of sale via affidavit. They XXXX XXXXXXXX explained that as well as having no recollection of a XXXX Notice being placed and the XXXX notice was the one that mattered anyways that would indicate only one notice. We had received two notices not one. One placed in XXXX, signed but dated XXXX. The other was posted in XXXX, both were dated XX/XX/2022. Copies provided. Why would a lawyer with XXXX foreclosures and XXXX reversals do this? The one from XXXX was extremely suspicious to us because it was the day after we made our first trial payment with PennyMac. We then immediately contacted the number on the Notice, the XXXX XXXX. We were told the Foreclosure and Sell had been canceled. Looking at the evidence pack provided by the XXXX team, there was one notice with the appropriate accompanied XXXX affidavit. But we had received two both dated the same date, ( copies provided ). Looking further in the near Chronolgically ordered evidence pack. There was another one, with no affidavit and it is dated XX/XX/2022. The same date. Why would it not be placed by the other document? It had to be included in case we had both of ours, they would not want to withhold evidence but again distance it from the other that had an affidavit. Two by each other with only one affidavit would draw attention as well as two near each other dated the same. The two originals were stuck on our door at two different times ( attached ). One in XXXX, signed, No afidavit. The other in XXXX, signed with affidavit. Why would you sign one that had an XXXX date on it and put it on the door of someone in XXXX with no affidavit? We have both originals that were stuck to our door. One in XXXX that was not remembered by the XXXX XXXX but dated XXXX it had with no affidavit and then the one in XXXX with an affidavit. How many times had this trick and deception been applied to homeowners to force them into bankruptcy to avoid it or to give them their home under deceptive pretense. The XXXX lawyer made specific note as to most petiole file bankruptcy right before. If this is the case does this type of confusion and deception not press people into undue situations that they may have avoided or handled differently?