On XX/XX/XXXX we closed a sub-prime, non-fixed mortgage with XXXX. XXXX XXXX   purchased the note and mortgage as the saying goes before the ink was dry, on XX/XX/XXXX. This team created many pooling agreements, for which the lenders were sanctioned heavily. There are many more happenings between then and now, to make a long story short we will not opine. But we can point to every bit of the way if questions are asked. 
1. XXXX shortened our home by 400 sq.ft. on the main level in the appraisal, that resulted in a sub-prime loan instead of the conventional loan. Come to find out XXXX was only looking for sub-prime loans. We were duped as they stated they dealt in conventional loans. Again, we were misled to believe we did not have the equity needed for a good loan, we had good credit, we were solicited and told they were the best lenders they even had a set of best practices that no other lender adopts. Come to find out XXXX 's former name XXXX XXXX was sanctioned with those " best practices '' under the XXXX presidency. The XXXX presidency honored XXXX as XXXX was his number one contributor. 
2. The Truth in Lending Act. This Act was promulgated to offset the shenanigans mentioned above. A necessary or mandatory element to defeating the Act is and was soldiers or lawyers continually setting precedent effectually knocking the under pinning out the Act. This can not be better shown or exposed, as the Supreme Court decision in XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX completely exposes bad precedent for many years. The unanimous Court clearly states that the Act has some how been misinterpreted. That Congresses intent is unquestionably clear. There is no need to clarify or amend, it is clear! 
XXXX. We argued XXXX XXXX. XXXX No. XXXX, the very same precedent that XXXX corrects. The XXXX Court got it wrong and ruled against us and then added a bunch of costs and fees on top of it to further insult and harm us. Our attorneys simply asked us to suck it up and take like a man or woman. Realistically we were told ignorance of the law is no excuse. But we got it right. We were nondisclosed the appraisal at closing, when we did get the appraisal it was after the 3 or 7 day rescind period that put us in the 3 year rescind exception, we refused to make payments until the appraisal was renegotiated or prepayment penalty excused in a letter to the lender. The pretender lender XXXX refused to admit that the appraisal was missing 400 sq. ft. at approximately {$100.00} a sq.ft. equaling {$40000.00}. in equity plus more inaccuracies like stating our home was in a urban area when it is in a rural area. 
4. The lender has been trying to get a sheriff sale. We have been fighting. The last time the lender tried to get the finial ok from the lower Court which would put a end to our rescission defense or plaintiff claim in adversary court over rescission. The lower Court found that the lender had SCHOCKED the conscience of the Court. But the lender found more precedent that does not fit by law or fact to achieve the sheriffs sale on XX/XX/XXXX. The lender convinced the bankruptcy Court that abandonment is the precedent to seek the sheriff sale. Yet in 16 years the lender never has mowed the lawn or plowed the driveway or heated the home that we built so pipes would not freeze or fixed anything. 
We are parties of interest. We absolutely have a valid TILA claim of rescission. The trustee somehow has closed its eyes that the lender should be liable to return to the estate what would be due to us when the lender is forced to abide by law under the TILA rescission statute. An appeal that has been filed by us, and we have submitted our brief. Now the lender pleas to the appeal Court for time to file its response brief, or discretion to allow the lender to escape the precedent that would be made because the law and facts are with us. The adversary Court got it wrong and the damage has not been done. The Judges even if they are good appointees should realize that the Constitution is paramount. We have been wronged and can be corrected. That correction is that by following congress 's intent and the Supreme Courts command in XXXX, we have abided by the procedure set out in Reg Z and the TILA. The reasoning is we are interested parties and plaintiffs in a valid Adversary claim of property. The lender has convinced the Bankruptcy Court and appeal Court to remove the stay that protects us. To allow this lifting of the stay will quash our right to legally prove that we legally rescinded.

By not lifting the stay it would quash any legal claim the lender has. And correctly put the lender in a position to honor the legal rescission that still is. But the sheriffs sale will by law end our search for justice. Irreparable harm will be inflicted if the sheriffs sale is allowed.

The lender has admitted to pretty much every wrong that it has been accused of, and yet the Courts seem to treat the lender as if they have clean hands.