Consumer complaint: XXXX XXXX through SPS, Inc. aided and abetted XXXX who defrauded Plaintiff XXXX XXXX on both loan contracts and then called XXXX XXXX hundreds if not thousands of times creating a psychological, emotional and physical state of virtual arbitrary detention resulting in extended injury and hardship. 
This illegal prohibited foreclosure action was improperly commenced first in XXXX, was withdrawn by Defendants ( to make way for the Replacement adhesion contract dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX ), then filed again eight months later, on an invalid expired contract, by the Defendants with the instant Summons and Complaint of XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX Bank ( " XXXX '' ) / XXXX XXXX Bank et al., ( " XXXX '' ) solicited XXXX XXXX to refinance his home in XXXX. XXXX / XXXX, et al., lied at the instant contracts XXXX XXXX, XXXX origination about XXXX XXXX ' credit score, saying it was XXXX points Lower than it actually was. No one can lie- ( XXXX - Prohibited acts ). Defendants do not deny it. 
XXXX, now a division of XXXX et al., lied in order to place the contract into a subprime security, managed by trustee ( " XXXX Bank '' ) XXXX, bought by many investors through bankrupt XXXX, bought by XXXX for pennies on the dollar. Defendant XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX For XXXX XXXX Mortgage Loan Trust XXXX ( " XXXX '' ) as Trustee first managed the trust which held XXXX owned alleged loan contract, for XXXX, then for XXXX after XXXX bought XXXX with XXXX ' $ XXXX loan portfolio on or about XXXX XXXX, XXXX, for only $ XXXX. 
XXXX keeps violating consumer protection laws, including TCPA violations of excessive calling and fraud, with impunity because the fines are already built into their strategy as just a cost of doing business. They could spend 95 % of the value of the XXXX ' {$300.00} XXXX loan portfolio in legal costs and still make money. They do not care about puny court fines or the law because they keep breaking it. the sophisticated Defendants, XXXX, brought fraud upon the state court by filing, in scienter, the first invalid, prohibited, expired, usurious and illegally originated mortgage loan contract which included rates of 13.50 % and 17.50 %. 12 % is the maximum in CT, see XXXX XXXX which states : " Loans at greater rate than twelve per cent prohibited. No person and no firm or corporation or agent thereof, ..., shall, as guarantor or otherwise, directly or indirectly, loan money to any person and, directly or indirectly, charge, demand, accept or make any agreement to receive therefore interest at a rate greater than twelve per cent per annum. CT ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX. ) Also Cited : Whether contract is made in evasion of this section is question of fact, XXXX. ( XXXX clearly made the second adhesion Replacement contract to evade the illegal first contact with virtually no change in interest ). " Voluntary taking or reservation of more than legal interest is per se usurious ; specific intent to violate this section is not essential. '' XXXX. ( XXXX / XXXX replaced the illegal tainted prohibited contract with an adhesion Replacement contract ). " Renewal notes as tainted with usury of original note. '' XXXX. ( XXXX adhesion Replacement note / Replacement contract was tainted by the old expired illegal usurious note ). 
" A first mortgage given to secure the performance of an illegal and unenforceable loan is equally ineffective. '' XXXX. ( XXXX second adhesion Replacement loan contract is ineffective. That is why they continued to sue on the first contract. This agency should ask Defendants to explain. XXXX would be wise to settle this out of court for no less than 10 % of the original {$710.00} XXXX complaint 

Company response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law