Consumer complaint received 2016-07-21
Company: Law Offices of Les Zieve
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Other mortgage
Issue: Application, originator, mortgage broker

Complaint:
UNVERIFIED DEBT - UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST VICTIM 1. On XXXX XXXX, 2016, ZIEVE, XXXX, & XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) filed an " Unverified Unlawful Detainer '' Complaint against me ( XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX , me ) without having produced evidence of validation of a debt owed. 
2. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Paragraph XXXX ) are the lead Attorney 's that brought this action against me, without providing evidence or a person of knowledge to make a claim for relief. 
3. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) allege successor-in-interest- have changed their company name to make the case complex ; however, ALL Parties belong to the CFPB Case No. ( s ) XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ( Nothing has changed ). 
4. XXXX has recently transferred the alleged loan to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) on or about XXXX XXXX, 2016 ; however, failed to inform the XXXX that they were in an Administrative " DEFAULT '', for " Non Compliance '' and " Non Response '' to a " Request to Produce Documentation for Inspection ''. 
5. XXXX are Mortgage Servicing Companies, therefore the " Cease and Desist '' in place must transfer over to XXXX and the company must provide adequate documentation before bringing any legal action against XXXX. 
6. XXXX looks to side-step over XXXX, XXXX required documentation of ownership, and various other pertinent documents belonging to the property in this subject matter. 
7. XXXX refuses to acknowledge that there is " Circumstantial Evidence '' which proves that XXXX is a " Victim of Identity Theft '' and has proven the injury within the FTC, IRS, FTB, SHERIFF 'S DEPT. ; CONSUMER PROTECTION SEC. - CRIMINAL BRANCH ; DEPT. FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ; AND ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
8. XXXX has provide a preponderance of " Evidence '' to support and substantiate her claim ; however, XXXX representatives refuse to acknowledge the injury and seeks to re-injure and extort unjust claims for personal gain ( 1692g sec.809 ). 
9. The Attorney 's have been given Notice of Defective Chain of Title ; however those attorney 's proceed to make false claims that the Complaint was " Verified ''. 
10. IF the Complaint has been verified, there should not be any further delays in producing validation of debt. 
11. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, A Subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) must not be allowed to bring any legal action without producing the required documents. 
12. In the interest of " Justice and Judicial Economy '' it would be a waste of " Taxpayers '' money to litigate an action which we both already know ... " The Servicer and Bank do not have Standing to bring an action against XXXX. '' 13. XXXX has suffer from a nefarious identity theft, which the attorney ( s ) of record and various other conspirators aid and abetted the act, by coaching, filing false documentation, collecting fees from a criminal enterprise ( S ) who injured XXXX. 
14. The NEW Attorney 's ( Paragraph No. XXXX ) should be informed of the current ( XXXX 2016 ) XXXX Complaint, that is being assigned for " Investigation ''. And to prepare any and ALL documents which support their contentions of new ownership and debt claims to the property, including but not limited to the Notary Line Items related to Title ( XXXX & XXXX ). 
15. The Identity Theft is an identical name as Complaint-Filer ; however the birth origin is different, and the race of the two parties are clearly different ( XXXX and Complaint-Filer is XXXX ). 
THE BANKS AND THEIR SERVICER ( S ) HAVE " NO STANDING '' TO SUPPORT A CLAIM OF SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, HOLDER OR ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST RELATED TO THE PROPERTY OR XXXX XXXX XXXX. THIS IS A FALSE CLAIMS ACT - Vio. " R.I.C.O. ''

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation