I have been fighting a wrongful and fraudulent mortgage foreclosure since XX/XX/XXXX in the Court of Common Pleas XXXX County Pennsylvania. The judge has not considered any of the prima facie evidence of a fraudulent assignment and lack of standing of the plaintiff. I have submitted in my case and has not granted a hearing. Now the opposing counsel has entered their Motion for Summary Judgement. The plaintiff 's attorney 's are or have filed an In rem action lawsuit against my wife and me. In a In rem jurisdiction the defendants have no rights because their action is against the mortgage, and not the note. So they do n't have to produce the original note ( if there even is one ). Listed below are the material facts in controversy that the judge and the plaintiff 's attorney 's have completely ignored : Issues Relating to this Foreclosure On paragraph XXXX of the said complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the Mortgage was assigned to it by way of the XXXX mentioned assignments. 
There is no mention of the manner with which the note was transferred to the plaintiff. 
The plaintiff did not state in the complaint that it has possession of both the Fixed Rate Note and the Mortgage. 
The trustee for the XXXX Master Participation trust is XXXX. Nowhere in the complaint is a mention of XXXX. 
Examiners ' Comment No. XXXX That the plaintiff, which is the trust itself and not represented by its trustee, did not state anything about the note in the complaint, coupled with the fact that the assignments were executed only six to seven years after the assignments, brings into question whether the mentioned endorsements and assignments did in fact effectuate actual physical transfers of the note and mortgage or whether this entity is actually in possession of them. 
These documents must be presented in court, in the presence of the borrower and/or counsel, and if demand is necessary in order to effectuate the presentment, that demand shall be addressed to whoever represents XXXX Master Participation Trust, which may not be XXXX, the trustee. 
End of Analysis ; See Audit Support Affidavit From a Certified Fraud Examiner : Documents Reviewed 8. Securitization Audit Report dated XX/XX/XXXX 9. Fixed Rate Note dated XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX Allonges 10. Mortgage dated XX/XX/XXXX 11. Alleged Assignment of Mortgage dated XX/XX/XXXX and recorded on XX/XX/XXXX 12. Alleged Assignment of Mortgage dated XX/XX/XXXX and recorded on XX/XX/XXXX 13. Complaint in Mortgage Foreclosure filed on XX/XX/XXXX Conclusion 14. Based on the documents presented for review and the analysis set forth in the Securitization Audit Report, multiple parties could claim ownership of the subject note and the associated financial obligation. The borrower has a right to identify and be accountable to the real owner, and only the real owner, of the obligation. 

15. There is currently no holder in due course ( as defined by the Uniform Commercial Code ) of the subject loan given the alleged robo-signing noted in paragraph XXXX. 

16. Multiple parties could claim ownership of the financial obligation associated with the subject note : a. the alleged Assignment of Mortgage discussed in paragraph XXXX is void assuming the document was in fact robo-signed, which points to the original lender as the holder of the note. 
b. the complaint for foreclosure claims that XXXX Master Participation Trust is entitled to collect on the financial obligation. 
To protect the borrower from multiple claims of ownership, further information is necessary to determine the true holder entitled to enforce the subject note. Any claims of ownership should be supported by indisputable evidence such as proof of transfer of value or other accounting records. 



END OF REPORT