Consumer complaint received 2022-01-14
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: IL
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Sub-issue: Seized or attempted to seize your property

Complaint:
Complaint, XXXX and XXXX against XXXX XXXX and Wells Fargo bank for illegal seizure of my property and theft of my money. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  acting as Trustee for non-existing XXXX XXXX XXXX filed illegal foreclosure case XXXX XXXX v XXXX which resulted in theft of my property and my money as revenue for one of Wall Street Investment Banks who conspired with XXXX Bank to defraud me and the Court. 

I want to provide evidence, based on full review of my entire property Title how I was robbed by XXXX of Wall Street Investment Banks, probably XXXX XXXX. Its hard to say since it is a highly covered mafia-style operation supported by Courts who block homeowners attempts to conduct discovery. 

Based on my review, it was likely XXXX XXXX who initiated the XXXX, but could be Bank XXXX XXXX who accrued XXXX. It is possible to find who received XXXX from forced sale of my property to cover for a fake mortgagewhere no one loaned me any money and merely passed information about securization established with a pre-prior owner around XXXX or even earlier.. 

I created over {$25.00} revenue per {$1.00} loaned by XXXX to the pre-prior owner XXXX XXXX in XXXX which was masqueraded as a loan with XXXX. This original loan was subject to at least XXXX securitization schemes where the original loan was never released. My transaction was XXXX round in the scheme. 

In XXXX information about this loan was passed to XXXX XXXX as a virtual loan from XXXX Bank, without releasing of any prior debt which I am sure was secretly declared as defaulted. XXXX was investor in the seventh round of securitization. 

According to XXXX release prepared by XXXX ( who never appeared in the chain of ORourkes title ) for MERS that only Mortgage was released for unknown consideration, but ORourkes Note was not released. XXXX received {$100000.00} of information about money from XXXX Bank dressed as a loan based on XXXX defaulted debt. 

In XXXX information about this scheme was passed to me masqueraded as loan with XXXX. XXXX Bank did not receive a cent from this transaction and prepared a XXXX to XXXX where XXXX released her virtual loan for {$1.00} ( XXXX dollar ) consideration. What happened to my loan with XXXX? Why lender XXXX Bank agreed to get {$1.00} as consideration for its {$100000.00} loan to XXXX in XXXX? That consideration received by MERS in XXXX and for whom? 

XXXX, who was unaware of XXXX XXXX ( or other investment bank ) creative manipulation with securitization schemes behind her back, passed this unmarketable title to XXXX, whom nobody loaned a cent since here was no lender who can receive these money and release this debt. 

XXXX, without any clue, passed this unmarketable Title to me in XXXX and in XXXX XXXX Bank who illegally sold my property for {$130000.00} passed it to the new owner who has absolutely no legal rights to this property. As the result, The XXXX of XXXX can not be fixed since all prior debt was never released because here was no creditor. All new recording was forged and falsified. 

I am definitely going to challenge all decisions in my case since it was based on fraud upon the XXXX and total lack of any jurisdiction personal or subject matter and demand to return me my property, disgorge ill driven profits and pay me fair compensation for my role as Investor in this scheme. I am entitled under the law to know who received {$130000.00} after forced sale of my property on XX/XX/XXXX ; why XXXX Bank agreed to release XXXX mortgage and Note for {$1.00} ; where are money allegedly loaned to me. 

If a foreclosure is not intended to pay a creditor with an unpaid loan account receivable, it isnt a foreclosure and the lawyers and their various clients and participants in foreclosure schemes have no right to the remedy. In nearly all cases that the amount of money paid to a prior lender is entirely or mostly fictional in all cases of refinancing and nearly all cases in purchase money mortgages. As long as the same underlying investment bank is the same for both the Buyer and Seller or the same for both the new XXXX and the old lender. 

But in cases where the Seller gets money ( equity ) at least some money is actually produced for closing. So for example, if the Seller nets {$50000.00} from the closing statement, that is what the Seller receives and the Seller does not care where it came from. If the homeowner receives {$50000.00}, that is what the homeowner receives and the homeowner does not care where it came from because the homeowner does not know that he or she has been surreptitiously recruited into a scam plan for the sale of unregulated securities. So, XXXX received some money after closing probably around {$60000.00} but these money were not coming from my loan with XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank did not received anything ( {$1.00} ) to release XXXX {$100000.00} mortgage, BUT each new closing produces a brand new securitization chain. In plain language, if the investment bank is selling securities worth {$18.00} for each dollar that is reportedly paid in closings, then each closing represents another {$18.00}. So if you have an alleged purchase money mortgage plus XXXX refinancing transactions, the total generated could be as high as {$54.00} for each dollar reported as paid in all the closings. Those reports of payment are also entirely fictional insomuch as they include money that was NOT paid. 

So a {$200000.00} mortgage represents the base transaction in a {$10.00} XXXX scheme. This is why so many people on XXXX XXXX received bonuses equal to XXXX times their previous annual earnings. It is also how convicted felons who had {$10.00} per hour jobs earned upwards of {$1.00} XXXX per year. It was a heist. Most of that money went to investment banks who then scattered the funds all over the world. They are still sitting on trillions of dollars. If homeowners were only allowed the minimum introductory fee ( common on XXXX XXXX that would mean that the homeowner was entitled to receive a {$200000.00} payment in exchange for issuing virtual notes and virtual mortgages and the homeowners consent to treat them as real. 

What makes me burn is the idea that the players can get back the money they paid to homeowners without any consideration for their role in an undisclosed transaction that can no longer be unwound. In such instances, it is up to a court to reform the transaction to reflect the economic realities. But XXXX is doing that. I think there is a strong case for that. The investment banks dont want to do that because they refuse to share with lowly homeowners. And the courts are both brainwashed and somewhat corrupt because they are accepting instructions about mortgage cases. 

The bottom line is that in most cases, whether the transaction involved a resale of the home or refinancing, only a fraction of the money you thought was transacted was actually present. Its not just that they should have been paid more it is that the homeowner did not receive the money he or she promised to pay back. This fact is part of a pattern of active concealment directed by investment bankers that starts with the initial transaction and continues right up to and including the foreclosure sale and eviction. 

I issued the note and mortgage for far more than any money paid on my behalf. I didnt owe the money but they got me to promise to pay it anyway. This is a joke and a bonus for investment bankers but it is a loss for me. Each new transaction left the previous XXXX intact and started a new securitization infrastructure. So a home that was subject to an initial securitization claim could end up with as many as XXXX securitization infrastructures, all with sales to investors for far more than anything paid to or on behalf of the homeowner. And each securitization infrastructure led to sales of around {$18.00} in securities for {$1.00} of apparent money that was asserted to have been transacted with the homeowner. 

Do the math. A single transaction falsely labeled as a mortgage loan can produce up to {$96.00} for each dollar originally paid to or on behalf of the homeowner. XXXX you think you should have been told about that? It turns out that the question is fully answered in the XXXX Truth in Lending Act. And the answer is yes, you should have been told that because the purpose of the XXXX was to prevent virtual creditors from being substituted for actual creditors who were responsible for compliance with lending laws, rules and regulations. Event table-funded loans were declared against public policy, but this is much worse. It takes an essential component out of the transaction falsely labeled as a loan. 

If you believe the transaction consisted at least partly of paying off an old XXXX, then you DO want the outgoing wire transfer or other means of payment. If the prior and new XXXX were funded by direction from the same investment bank it would be unusual for that portion have to have been sent to the old lender because it is long out of the picture. But it is still common because the investment banks dont want to alert the closing agent that the deal was a scam. So they direct a wire transfer to a certain depository account bearing the name XXXX XXXX or some such thing that is actually controlled by the common underwriting investment bank. 

So if you ever get those wire transfer receipts, you want to trace down the ownership of the depository account. For example, XXXX XXXX ( or any other investment bank ) can open an account named XXXX. It is still a XXXX XXXX account and they can go out and buy groceries with whatever is in the account. 

But to the outside world the homeowner and the closing agent they would swear that XXXX was involved. And they would be 100 % wrong. XXXX for its part has no record of the transaction because it was not their money and they take no legal action against the use of their name because they are part of the game. 

So the bottom line is that there was no payoff of the old XXXX and no cancellation of the note or underlying obligation asserted by fake representatives of a nonexistent creditor owning a nonexistent loan account receivable. If there was an existing loan account receivable that would make XXXX of those thinly capitalized nonentities the owner of the right, title, and interest to payments, balance, and interest something the investment banks would never permit. 

I am entitled for disclosures from XXXX Bank and Wells Fargo Bank ; I am entitled to reverse this void decision and enter a new decision in my favor, return me stolen property and disgorge ill-gained profits. I am entitled to receive a fair compensation for my services as Investor in this scheme. 


Best Regards, XXXX XXXX If XXXX Bank behind the scene was XXXX XXXX they made about {$25.00} per $ of EACH securitization ( {$200.00} per {$1.00} ), based on Comptrollers Report. If XXXX - {$16.00} ; if XXXX XXXX it was {$180.00} per {$1.00} in each securitization. 

Here is the math. 

XXXX. My virtual " loan '' with XXXX was $ XXXX XXXX. Seller XXXX XXXX virtual loan with XXXX Bank was {$100000.00} XXXX. XXXX Bank accepted {$1.00} as consideration for its loan with XXXX XXXX. XXXX obviously received real money about {$70.00} at the closing. 

Where $ XXXX were coming from? Obviously not from my " loan '' if XXXX " lender '' XXXX received only {$1.00}. 
The only source of money to pay XXXX $ XXXX was XXXX XXXX Bank 's operating pool consisted of XXXX money. 

As soon as I signed my Promissory Note, this $ XXXX cost of doing business evaporated from {>= $1,000,000} profits I generated as Investor for {$170000.00} information given to me as a " loan '' plus my payments, plus {$130000.00} proceeds from sales of my property. I only received property keys which were later stolen from me by XXXX. 

Scheme with XXXX resulted in {>= $1,000,000} revenue plus her $ XXXX down payment and about $ XXXX in 4 years monthly payment, minus $ XXXX as her commission from, minus property taxes and insurances paid by XXXX. So XXXX received maybe $ XXXX as Investor for generating {>= $1,000,000} revenue from {$100000.00} virtual loan with XXXX. 

XXXX, pre-prior owner, had about XXXX schemes behind her back, based on {$31000.00} initial commission paid to her as Investor in the scheme, which generated $ XXXX x XXXX x {$25.00} per {$1.00} in each scheme = {>= $1,000,000}. 

Total revenue from the XXXX was {>= $1,000,000} minus commission $ XXXX to XXXX and about $ XXXX to XXXX. 

I received nothing except property keys, which was stolen from me by judges to generate $ XXXX additional revenue for XXXX Bank who was hiding behind fake XXXX. 

I am definitely entitled for 5 % finder fee from {>= $1,000,000} profits, which is {$210000.00} plus at least 15 % as Investor for generating this revenue, which would be another {$640000.00}. Total commission due to me is {$860000.00} plus all damages for losses resulted in risks associated with the scheme, loss of property and extreme emotional distress.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation