Consumer complaint received 2016-06-02
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage
Issue: Taking/threatening an illegal action — Seized/Attempted to seize property
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (MI)

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 XXXX.and attorneys XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), [ hereinafter " debt collector '' ] believes that after an Assignment and Sheriff Deed on Mortgage Sale was executed as being valid, they were authorized as debt collectors to defend against federal court proceedings and has denied the consumer remedy to a complete and accurate investigation XXXX : 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. 

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 all activities associated with the mortgage account, 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 named trust. 

The " debt collectors '', refused, despite the consumer requesting ( 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 ( 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 Landmark v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ( in this case the XXXX Supreme Court 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 and Sheriff Sale occurred, the " debt collector '', had ABSOLUTELY no authority, interest, either legal or beneficial in the assignment, sheriff sale or the named trust, but yet commenced to defend the foreclosure of property in federal court when all related documents executed involved the element of forgery [ robo-signing ] which was used in collusion with the banks as an attempt assign [ transfer ] and sale/auction property to the " HOLDERS '' of the named trust to effectuate the foreclosure, but in reality no actual sale/auction or foreclosure can take place under a void assignment. 

As made available on XXXX the [ Registrant ] Depositor XXXX [ sec # XXXX ] filed the prospectus [ XXXX ] on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX under [ SEC File number XXXX ] in XXXX : XXXX XXXX Asset-Backed Certificates Series XXXX and the trustee XXXX XXXX and it is clear their holdings and investments should be notified.