Product: Debt collection

Re : MDK File # XXXX Sent via Certified U.S. Mail XXXX, and FAX ( XXXX ) XXXX Dear Manley Deas Kochalski : With regard to your letter about a debt you are trying to collect. You contacted me by mail, on XX/XX/XXXX and identified the debt as : XXXX XXXX  XXXX d/b/a XXXX XXXX. 
I am in receipt of your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX which I never received via U.S. Mail but was able to download a copy from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Tuesday XX/XX/XXXX. 
I see that you were not able to provide the requested documentation but substituted another of the many alleged Original copies of the Note and Mortgage. 
Please be advised of the following : 1. Owner XXXX XXXX XXXX alleges that XXXX XXXX does not have the requisite evidence needed to claim it is the holder of Owners Note. 
2. An ever-increasing quantity of lawsuits filed on behalf of homeowners, governmental agencies and MBS investors have accused XXXX of fraudulently creating documents in order to justify legal entitlement to institute foreclosure proceedings. As such, Owners conducted an Internet search on the so-called endorser of Owners note and discovered that other documents allegedly indorsed by XXXX XXXX as VP of XXXX ( and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) bore an exact replica of the so-called indorsement which appears on page 4 of Owners promissory note. When said indorsement on Owners note is transposed directly over other alleged indorsed documents by XXXX XXXX found on the Internet, the signature and stamp are precisely and absolutely identical. 
3. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that Promissory Note and Mortgage were intentionally falsified by utilizing a computerized photo-shopped stamp, or some other device to create said blank indorsement allegedly signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
4. For Owners note to be considered bearer paper, Ms. XXXX must have personally indorsed Owners note and her signature must have been authenticated by a notary. 
5. Owners allege that Ms. XXXX did not personally indorse Owners Note, nor was her signature authenticated by a legal notary, thus rendering said document as fraudulent. 
6. XXXX and XXXX, the law firm prosecuting the instant lawsuit on XXXX  behalf, have openly admitted to altering foreclosure documents in a manner similar to what was necessary to falsify the Indorsement on Owners Note in the instant case. 
On a front page XXXX XXXX article dated Saturday XX/XX/XXXX entitled Altered Documents Stay XXXX Foreclosures it was stated : XXXX and XXXX XXXX, one of the top three law firms used by mortgage servicers to handle their local foreclosure actions, reported to the court that, in a breach of protocol, affidavits in the cases were changed ... the admission to the court by XXXX and XXXX does not involve rubber-stamping of documents but rather removing the signature page, altering the affidavits content and reattaching the content page, the ( XXXXk County Circuit Court ) said. 
7. XXXX has successfully claimed legal entitlement to institute foreclosure proceedings by fraudulently falsifying Owners Note and Mortgage in order to claim ownership of the Owners indebtedness and literally steal XXXX XXXX XXXX home and property. 
8. For XXXX, or their attorneys, XXXX and XXXX, to falsify the indorsement on Owners Note and Mortgage, the signature page had to be removed, the indorsement printed or affixed, and the content page reattached, in the exact same process XXXX and XXXX admitted to in XXXX County court records. 
9. By falsifying the Indorsement on Owners Note, XXXX has committed criminal fraud thus voiding Owners note ab initio. 
Criminal fraud voids a contract, ab initio, both at law and in equity, whether the object be to deceive the public, third persons or one party endeavor thereby to cheat the other. Antle v. Sexton, 137 III. 410, 27. N. E. 691 [ affirming 32 III. App. 437 ] ; Crocker v. Manley, 164 III. 282, 56 Am. St. Rep. 196, 45 N. E. 577 ; Prentice v. Crane, 234 111. 302, 84 N. E. 916 ; Gillespie v. Fulton Oil & Gas Co., 236 III. 188. 86 N. E. 210 ; Prout v. Hoy Oil Co., 263 111. 54, 105 N. E. 26 ; Wachsmuth v. Martini, 45 111. App. 244.

The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire. Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis. 550, 279 NW 79 ( 1938 ). 
10. Owners allege that said Indorsement is defective and was meant to facilitate a fraudulent foreclosure ; a practice routinely not caught by defense attorneys nor the courts. 
Computer-generated bank records or testimony based thereon are often offered without proper foundation, or are summarized without being introduced. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Medina, supra, 01 C 768, 2001 WL 1558278 ( N.D.Ill., Dec. 5, 2001 ) ; FDIC v. Carabetta , 55 Conn. App. 369, 739 A.2d 301 ( 1999 ). 
11. Moreover, XXXX  falsification of Owners documents is subject to fine and imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1341 : Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency ( as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act ( 42 U.S.C. 5122 ) ), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than {>= $1,000,000} or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

In US v. Robinson 03-4136 March 2004 App sc -- 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 3910, * ; 88 Fed. Appx. 660 -- United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Ryan Robinson, Defendant-Appellant. -- o. 03-4136 -- United States Court of Appeals for The Fourth Circuit -- 88 fed. Appx. 660 ; 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 3910 Def Robinson was an employee of CSRA INC. which sold manufactured housing. To sell more homes, Robinson participated in a fraudulent scheme where he provided falsified financial information such as inflating both income and down payment. This information was sent via facsimile to out of state lenders who relied upon this information when considering a loan application. Fifty fraudulent transactions resulted in buyers defaulting on the loan and the home being repossessed and sold at a loss of {$990000.00}. Robinson was sentenced to 57 months in prison for participating in this fraud.

12. If XXXX   argues that its crimes and violations of the law have exceeded the Statute of Limitations, according to the Doctrine Of Fraudulent Concealment, said Statute is subject to being tolled : If a lender conceals wrongdoing, thereby preventing a borrower from discovering a cause of action, the statute of limitation will be tolled until the date the plaintiff, through due diligence, would have learned of the existence of a claim. The doctrine of fraudulent concealment operates to toll the statute of limitations, when a plaintiff has been injured by fraud and remains in ignorance of it, without any fault or want of diligence or care on his part. Holmberg v. Arnlbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 397 ( 1946 ) ( quoting Bailey v. Glover, 88 U.S. ( 21 Wall. ) 342, 348 ( 1874 ) ; see Maggio v. Gerard Freezer & Ice Co., 824 F.2d 123, 127 ( 1 st Cir . 1987 ).

13. Despite this record admission which is binding upon
XXXX, XXXX, both directly and indirectly through its Servicer XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, has instituted a foreclosure proceeding where it claims, in official court filings and documents filed in the public record and sent to the Owners herein through the mails, to be the successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank for purposes of attempting to justify legal entitlement to institute foreclosure proceedings, doing so based upon nothing more than an unsworn allegation supported by fraudulent documents.