Consumer complaint received 2017-12-31
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: EVERBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (GA)

XX/XX/XXXX SENT VIA EMAIL XXXX & U.S. MAIL XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX. 
XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Georgia XXXX SENT VIA EMAIL XXXX & US MAIL XXXX XXXX , XXXX. 
XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Georgia XXXX NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST EFFORTS TO OBTAIN POSSESSION OF XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, GEORGIA XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX & XXXX, This letter is in response to a letter that I expect to and anticipate receiving shortly from your office. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, the same day that I received a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX from your law partner, XXXX XXXX, I sent you a response letter explaining in detail my position with respect to illegal and unethical foreclosure of the subject property referenced above ( see Exhibits A-B ). 

First, as will be explained in greater detail below, the foreclosure auction involving the subject property that occurred on XX/XX/XXXX is void ab initio for a myriad of reasons, based on civil regulatory violations, criminal conflict of interest, criminal complicity, fraud and other criminal conduct. 

LACK OF STANDING Prior to the foreclosure auction on XX/XX/XXXX, I had previously filed at least two ( 2 ) lawsuits against XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX within the past two ( 2 ) years in XXXX County Superior Court ( later removed to Federal District Court ) related to their improper noticing my home for foreclosure ( please take judicial notice ). 

By virtue of XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX having been a named as a Co-Defendant in multiple lawsuits also naming the Servicer ( XXXX ), Trustee ( XXXX ) and Investor ( XXXX   ), XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, as a law firm, had a conflict of interest and therefore had no standing or authority to conduct the foreclosure sale to begin with. 

FIRST ACT AND COUNT OF CIVIL & REGULATORY VIOLATIONS & CRIMINAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CRIMINAL COMPLICITY AND CRIMINAL FRAUD In addition to the Mortgage Servicer ( XXXX ), Trustee ( XXXX ) and purported Investor ( XXXX ) having no standing to foreclose on the subject property to begin because of a continued conflict of interest as described above, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX also did not having standing to foreclose on the subject property as they did not include the name of the true Investor in their notices to myself nor did they disclose such in the required ad they ran in the XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX, not XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, was and is the actual and true Investor prior to and the time of the foreclosure auction. 

This was confirmed to me by an XXXX employee, XXXX ( last name not provided ) believed to be in the Loss Mitigation Unit at XXXX, Employee ID # XXXX at XXXX XXXX EST on Monday XX/XX/XXXX. 

The concealment of the true investor constitutes an act of fraud in the foreclosure transaction and violates various provisions of Title 44 of the Official Code of Georgia. 

This fact and this fact alone, voids the transaction in its entirety. 
SECOND ACT AND COUNT OF CIVIL & REGULATORY VIOLATIONS & CRIMINAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CRIMINAL COMPLICTY AND CRIMINAL FRAUD Second, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX individually and collectively violated numerous provisions of consent orders that they entered into over the past decade with several Federal Agencies, including Consumer Protection Financial Bureau, the Office of Comptroller General, The United States Department of Justice and the Office of Thrift Supervision, well prior to their initiating foreclosure of the subject property. 

In addition, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX violated various rules issued by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX governing the conditions that must be met before a mortgage company can foreclose, including, but not limited to : 1 ) Demonstrated and Actual Good faith consideration of a homeowners request for loss mitigation options ; 2 ) Full, thorough and good faith consideration of homeowners request for loan modification ; 3 ) Denying a homeowners request for loss mitigation options only if there is a sufficient and articulable basis and reason to do so and ; 4 ) The right of a homeowner to appeal the denial of request for loss mitigation options or loan modification prior to the foreclosure auction. 

XXXX, et al did none of the above and so in addition to XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  not having standing to foreclose on the subject property because of a conflict of interest, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, likewise did not have actual or equitable standing to foreclose on the subject property either. 

THIRD ACT AND COUNT OF CIVIL & REGULATORY VIOLATIONS & CRIMINAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CRIMINAL COMPLICITY AND CRIMINAL FRAUD On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I received an anonymous letter advising that bid rigging occurred during the foreclosure auction on XX/XX/XXXX. Since your clients, XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX submitted the winning bid, I assume that the bid rigging scheme involved them both. ( see Exhibit C ). 

I notified the XXXX County Clerk of Courts office, the United State Department of Justice and the XXXX County District Attorneys office of this. ( see Exhibits D-E ). 

Assuming that your clients or others engaged in bid rigging during the foreclosure sale, the foreclosure transaction is void from the inception and this is on top of the fraud and conflicts of interest noted above. 

FOURTH ACT AND COUNT OF CIVIL & REGULATORY VIOLATIONS & CRIMINAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CRIMINAL COMPLICITY AND CRIMINAL FRAUD Following the removal of the multiple cases I filed against XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, from XXXX Superior Court to Federal District Court for the XXXX District of Georgia, the cases were assigned to Magistrate Court Judge XXXX XXXX, who unbeknownst to me, was formerly a Partner with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who has and still represents XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX and is paid XXXX of dollars each year for doing so. 

Also assigned to the case as the Supervisory Federal Judge, was Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Rather than Judge XXXX follow standard protocol and recuse herself because of an actual conflict of interest, she chose to remain on the Magistrate Court Judge and proceeded to issue recommendations and rulings adverse to myself and in favor of the Banks, all of which were adopted and mirrored by Judge XXXX final order ( s ) from the Report ( s ) and Recommendations ( s ) from Judge XXXX. 

Suffice it to say, that none of the rulings and orders by Judges XXXX and XXXX are enforceable. On the contrary, as one would expect, all rulings issued by both conflicted Federal Judges are void and unenforceable with Judicial Complaints pending against both for violations of their Judicial Oath and Conduct Prejudicial to the effect and expeditious administration of the courts business. 

Thus, even though these cases in Federal District Court appear to be administratively closed, all are in fact subject to and will in fact be vacated and set aside through Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because of such conflicts of interest on the part of the Federal Magistrate Court Judge, XXXX XXXX, which were imputed to Judge XXXX. 

Your firms continued involvement in this case is not only constitutes obstruction of justice, but is also tantamount not only to perpetrating a fraud on the court punishable by disbarment, but also constitutes clear and undeniable violations of Bar Rules 1.2 and 8.4 prohibiting an attorney from knowingly assisting a client in the commission of a crime or fraudulent act and conduct on the part of an attorney that involves dishonesty, fraud and deceit. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX cc : XXXX County Clerk of Court XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX County District Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, United States Attorney ( DC Circuit ) FBI Public Integrity Section