This Affidavit and Notice Complaint is being filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for a more transparent investigation. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. and attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ), [ hereinafter " debt collector '' ] who believes that after an Assignment was executed they were authorized to execute a Sheriff Deed on Mortgage Sale that is valid and has denied the consumer remedy to a complete and accurate investigation re : to the alleged transfer to the named trust XXXX XXXX Asset-Backed Certificates Series XXXX, which caused a void or voidable lien to attach to property address : XXXX XXXX XXXX 

There are issues where the consumer has been condemned and denied remedy and now offers this complaint for their refusal to independently conduct or outsource an investigation into the assignment despite the consumer 's request to review ALL documents ( proof of claims ) subject to public access and to certify all parties activities in regard to the void Assignment [ transfer ] to the named trust. 

The " debt collector '', refused, despite the consumer 's request to provide ( proof of claim ) which would verify its debt collection activities and that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) attorney for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. was in fact the Vice President of XXXX and did not act in collusion with the banks to use the private database called XXXX to circumvent a securitization procedure ( establishing priority of liens ) and the property 's legal owner [ valid recorded lien holder ] to avoid the expense of properly recording a transfer, thus leaving concealed behind XXXX the ( securitization ) and the time frame in which a property assignment ( transfer ) should be made to the trust and recorded. Pursuant to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ( in this case the XXXX XXXX provides the most cogent state court analysis of the problem created by securitization - the " splitting '' of the note and the mortgage and the real party in interest and standing problems that the holder of the mortgage has when it can not also show that it has clean and clear legal interest in the note ). 

XXXX assignment does not transfer a mortgage under XXXX law. The secured lender is the person who holds the promissory note the mortgage secures. For the bank, alleged lender, to prove it was the noteholder, the bank, alleged lender, need to supply proof of a written assignment of the note or to produce the original note, endorsed over to the bank, alleged lender of public record. The XXXX assignment is ineffective because XXXX never owned the note. XXXX assignment is ineffective to transfer ownership of a mortgage. Ownership of a mortgage is in issue, the person claiming to own the mortgage must produce an assignment from the original lender or the original promissory note, and that it 's properly endorsed. 

After the Assignment of Mortgage occurred, the " debt collector '', had ABSOLUTELY no authority, interest, either legal or beneficial in the assignment or the named trust, but yet executed or administered the following documents to be executed on behalf of XXXX XXXX as trustee : XXXX DEED ON MORTGAGE SALE [ recording XXXX/XXXX/XXXX Instrument # XXXX XXXX XXXX Page XXXX ] ; LEGAL DESCRIPTION ( i.e. property ) [ Page XXXX ] ; AFFIDAVIT OF AUCTIONEER [ Pg. XXXX ] ; AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION XXXX XXXX. XXXX ] ; EVIDENCE OF SALE [ Pg. XXXX ] ; NON-MILITARY AFFIDAVIT XXXX XXXX. XXXX ] ; AFFIDAVIT REGARDING REDEMPTION [ Pg. XXXX ] ; AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE [ Pg. XXXX XXXX. 

The above documents involve the element of forgery [ robo-signing ] which was used in collusion with the assignment as an attempt [ transfer ] and to sale/auction property to the " HOLDERS '' of the named trust to commence foreclosure, but in reality no actual sale/auction or foreclosure could ever take place under void assignments.