Product: Mortgage

Ocwen and XXXX bank attempting illegal foreclosure with fraudulent documents and a mortgage that was discharged 6 years ago. 
1. The Plaintiffs filed their claim for judicial foreclosure on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, at Count XXXX in paragraph XXXX of the Plaintiffs complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Default occurred on XXXX XXXX, XXXX about six years after the alleged default by the Sole Home Owner. The Plaintiffs filed with the Court see XXXX XXXX a letter of default on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, but although the letter does not detail a default or any details of the Default. In part the letter explicitly states in small print on the bottom of the document " that if this mortgage was in active Bankruptcy or has been discharged in Bankruptcy the notice does not pertain to the Sole Home Owner '' - this is paraphrased. 

2. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Debtor/Defendant filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter XXXX in the Federal Bankruptcy Court of the District of Columbia. Debtor Declaration, see XXXX XXXX paragraph XXXX. XXXX of the creditors listed on Debtors petition was XXXX Mortgage, who at the time proclaimed to own the mortgage of the home where the Debtor is the Sole Home Owner of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX DC XXXX. XXXX XXXX, Id. At paragraphs XXXX and XXXX docket entry XXXX, which is the Petition for Bankruptcy, subsequently on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, the Bankruptcy Court granted Debtor a discharge of her debts under Sec XXXX of the Bankruptcy XXXX EXHIBIT XXXX paragraph XXXX docket entry XXXX. The Plaintiffs claim for Judicial Foreclosure is therefore conclusively time-barred as discerned from the face of the complaint. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX.The Plaintiff entered appearance and had the opportunity to file their action during and immediately post-Bankruptcy discharge of the Defendant, but for unknown reasons to Defendant, the Plaintiff did not show or act timely. 

COUNT XXXX THE NOTE IS NOT A GENUINE INSTRUMENT 3. The Plaintiff provided an exhibit which on its face constitutes an allonge, but this allonge was not attached to the Note and the allonge was not numbered as an exhibit. The allonge was redacted to remove the loan number of the original transaction, see XXXX XXXX. 

4. The exhibit of the allonge indicated that the allonge was endorsed in blank on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, by XXXX, the original Lender. The individual who signed the endorsement was XXXX XXXX, the President, and was stamped the Certified Original by XXXX see EXHIBIT XXXX. This copy was provided to XXXX XXXX XXXX of the XXXX office of Consumer Protection Agency via fax XXXX XXXX, XXXX by Ocwen. XXXX mortgage filed Chapter XXXX on XXXX XXXX, XXXX and was indicted for nationwide fraud and shut down ; yet the Plaintiff and their Counsels supplied a new version as of current see EXHIBIT XXXX with a different stamp replacing the Certified Original of The Lending Connection, by XXXX XXXX as XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The original purported allonge in blank now bears a new stamp naming XXXX XXXX Mortgage as having standing. 

5. There are several issues with this document which the Borrower alleges to be a fraud on the Court and on the Borrower ; a. ) The allonge was not necessary as the Note appears to have sufficient space to place stamps of endorsements. 

b. ) The Sole Home Owner has an un-redacted copy of the allonge See EXHIBIT XXXX, which was mailed to her by XXXX, where the loan number appears on the XXXX, on the very top of the XXXX, which the Sole Home Owner has in her possession see EXHIBIT XXXX the allonge included identifying information which indicated that the allonge was faxed to the XXXX the document number is written on the allonge to be DOC XXXX page XXXX on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 

c. ) The XXXX was endorsed in Blank by the Lending Connection. The said allonge has another