Consumer complaint received 06-06-2017 about Debt collection (Mortgage debt) with CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (CA).
Issue: False statements or representation
Sub-issue: Attempted to collect wrong amount

Complaint: This matter refers to CFPB Case Number XXXX and inappropriate CFPB closing the file by notifying me that i : had received an answer from XXXX XXXX XXXX when i : did not. Today, XX/XX/XXXX, i : received a canned and inappropriate answer and subsequent repeated misconduct by the alleged attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's fraud on CFPB as a government body.
Please take notice that XXXX XXXX has incorrectly cited that my complaint has been addressed in previous court decisions. For number of independent reasons, this is a false and fraudulent assertion which mr. attorney is well aware of those fraudulent misrepresentation which are in part elucidated below : 1. CFPB must sanction this attorney 's misconduct as a matter of law based on the following facts : 2. Page 47 of the document that XXXX XXXX XXXX send me, is Instrument Number XXXX which reads as follows and is a nullity as a matter of law, see attachment, XXXX in this instrument number XXXX has attempted to transfer the security out of a closed trust that closed in XX/XX/XXXX ( see attached exhibit as evidence of the closed trust ) to XXXX. XXXX then in instrument number XXXX, ( on page 48 of the instrument that XXXX send to me ) attempts falsely to reinsert the security back into the closed trust that closed in XX/XX/XXXXwhich is clearly in clear violation of Internal Revenue Code 860 ( f ), ( g ) and ( d ) and are ultra vires acts.
3. Ultra vires acts means that trusts were acting outside of their own by laws. Pretender lenders entered into a complex series of transactions to avail themselves of significant tax benefits. Another purpose of the structure was to create bankruptcy remoteness. A critical part of securitization is to establish that the trusts assets are bankruptcy remote, meaning that they could not be claimed by the bankruptcy estate of an upstream transferor of the assets. Congressional Oversight Panel, XX/XX/XXXX Oversight Report Examining the Consequences of Mortgage Irregularities for Financial Stability and Foreclosure Mitigation at n. 35 ( 2010 ). It is against public policy to permit companies such as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX as trustee and others to violate their own representations to the public, CFPB and to the Government without consequence.
4. Stated differently, CFPB will be aiding and abetting these companies to continue with their money laundering and Ponzi scheme, since there was no loan to me from any of the these fictitious entities if no remedy is availed to me and to all others in the fake trust indentified in CFPB Case Number XXXX also attached. Such a result would not promote the interests of the CFPB.
<P/>
5. None of my court actions passed the motion the dismiss, inappropriately and incorrectly, therefore none of my declarations and exhibits in CFPB Case Number XXXX, were discussed or addressed in any court.
6. None of the courts that Mr. attorney cited, had or have jurisdiction, because they all were bribed based on facts on records, at USDC, in state court, in XXXX District court of Appeals and in the XXXX Circuit court of Appeals. Again, based on facts on records, those judges were bribed.
7. Here are some additional courteousy evidence to CFPB : attached are true and correct copies of first pages of two instruments filed in county of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX namely : A ) Instrument Number XXXX which is a lease agreement between judge XXXX XXXX XXXX/XXXX 's husband XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX University, and i : request that the court take mandatory judicial notice of all evidence presented to CFPB under Fed. Rule 201 ( d ). Pursuant to Fed. Rule 201 ( e ) ; And, B ) Instrument Number XXXX which is Deed of Trust where XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is the grantee and judge XXXX and her husband XXXX XXXX XXXX or their so called trust are the Grantor. As it is evident before CFPB, Judge XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX have obtained bribes of {>= $1,000,000} labeled as " loans '' on a leased property, which is clearly violation of Title 18 USC 1346.
8. Therefore, as it is evident before CFPB, judge XXXX XXXX XXXX not only obtained bribes labeled as " loans '' on a leased property but also XXXX while obtaining bribes labeled as " loans '' on terms that are not available to the public, also violated XXXX XXXX loan limits. In XX/XX/XXXX ( attached instrument Number XXXX ) when judge XXXX XXXX XXXX  obtained her bribe labeled as a " loan '', the XXXX XXXX Loan limit was {$410000.00}, however, judge XXXX received more than $ 1.7M of bribe labeled as a loan on terms that are not available to the public on a leased property which surpassed the XXXX XXXX Loan Limits by ~ 4 folds. How can judge XXXX rebut these facts? lower court 's judge XXXX has been cut red handed and can no longer be a public official with all these baggage, 18 U.S. Code 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses.
9. Based on facts on records obtained from the government following Petitioner 's demand under FOIA, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( lower court judge ) received bribes of {$120000.00} as ofXX/XX/XXXX, and judge XXXX XXXX XXXX received bribes of {$66000.00} as of XXXX from COUNTY OF XXXX XXXX while taking official actions.
10. Attorneys from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX brought the matter that the County Court judges were bribed and corrupt back to court inXX/XX/XXXX. In this case known as XXXX XXXX, the three judge appellate court once again ruled in favor of XXXX saying that the counties were violating state law. The appellate judges stated : The bottom line : Sec Section 68220 subdivision ( a ) plainly requires any county paying its judges supplemental benefits as of XX/XX/XXXXto continue to pay its judges supplemental benefits, including all judges who took office afterXX/XX/XXXXalbeit subject to the right of the county in the first two sentences of subdivision ( b ) to terminate those benefits after specified notice. The county has no choice and no discretion to fix judicial compensation, which has thus been prescribed by the Legislature. The opt-out provisions of the first two sentences of subdivision ( b ) provide the only choice a county has in that situation, and even then theres no fixing of compensation, just a choice to pay the prescribed amount or not to pay any supplemental compensation at all.
<P/>
XXXX XXXX shifted the dynamic. The burden is now on the judges including the administrative judges at CFPB, the Clerk and its deputies, the counties, the local courts, the U.S. Attorney General, the State Legislature, the State Attorney General, the District Attorneys, the Commission on Judicial Performance and the Supreme Court and others to enforce the law. Not only all the orders issued by these bribed judges are void as a matter of law at XXXX XXXX but also the Superior Court judges must either give back all the monies received since XX/XX/XXXXif such were above the annualXX/XX/XXXX level, or the judges and the counties , county supervisors, local courts and presiding judges and employees of both face criminal prosecution on both the state [ California Penal Code Sections 96.5 and 182 ( a ) ( 5 ) ] and federal level [ 18 U.S.C. Section 1346 ]. Additionally, the judges may be impeached by the State Assembly and convicted by the State Senate for misconduct in office. Further, the judges may be removed from office by the Commission on Judicial Performance and the California Supreme Court for taking illegal payments. The question now is will these individuals and entities fulfill their obligations? judicial bribery while taking official actions, vi
olation of 18 USC 1346. 11. Moreover, these judges have been acting in complete
defiance of enacted California and Federal Laws, to wit : 12 CFR 226.15 d, ( 1 ), ( 2 ), and ( 3 ), TILA at 1635 et. seq., Reg Z. by Federal Reserve, and SCOTUS SCOTUS unanimous decision in XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 729 F. 3d 1092 ( XXXX Cir. XX/XX/XXXX ), cert. granted, 82 U.S.L.W. 3366 ( U.S. XX/XX/XXXX ) ( Docket No. XXXX, SCOTUS Unanimous decision XX/XX/XXXX Author : XXXX XXXX ) since i : already have my non judicial judgment at TILA 1635 et seq. and CFPB must zealously protect my legal rights at TILA, Id.
12. The biggest mistake lawyers make is jumping into the middle of a fact pattern instead of starting at the beginning. Most foreclosures involve trusts at some point in the chain. And most trust, just like the fake trust identified here, do not exist as " legal persons ''. Without a legal person there can be no " jural act. '' Hence the Court lacks and lacked jurisdiction to perform any act other than the ministerial act of dismissing the foreclosure action in judicial states or striking the substitution of trustee, the notice of default and the notice of sale in
non-judicial states as a matter of law. 13. Any recorded document involving a nonexistent legal person should also be removed from the county records. 14. The fact is that
many trusts do not exist as " legal persons. '' just like the fake trust indentified that had no money to pay to pay for anything and was never formed properly. The drafting of an instrument declaring the intent to create a trust does not create a trust until it is signed by a trustor.
15. A trust instrument that relies upon the attachment of exhibits does not create a trust until the exhibits are attached. 16. The signing of a trust instrument with all the necessary exhibits attached does not create a trust with legal standing to do anything until assets are transferred into the trust. 17. The alleged trust instruments relied upon by foreclosing parties ( complete strang
ers to the alleged financial transactions ) are unsigned. They never had all the exhibits attached, the most important of which of course would be the alleged mortgage loan schedule. And the fake REMIC trusts never, based on facts on records send to CFPB, contained any assets or loans.
18. The reason is quite simple. The pretender lenders never intended to use any of the trusts except as window dressing to cover their actual activities, which is money laundering and Ponzi schemes. 19. The pretender lenders have been relying on misdirection in order to get CFPB and others to take the trust seriously. 20. Since
the alleged trust was never completely and legally formed, it does not and did not exist as a legal person. This is a jurisdictional issue that can not be waived or ignored by any court. Since the trust does not exist and did not exist as a legal person then it does not have any of the rights claimed by Mr. attorney XXXX purporting to represent the alleged trust. It might just as well be XXXX XXXX a fictional character. And anyone who derives their authority from XXXX XXXX, has nothing -- - no rights, powers or obligations except the obligation to represent facts and arguments that are true to the best of the lawyer 's knowledge and belief.
21. All of this is well-known to foreclosure mills and XXXX XXXX XXXX Instead of refusing to act on blatantly invalid void documents and instructions, XXXX proceed because he gets paid to proceed. If XXXX did n't proceed, XXXX would n't get paid. And they would lose a 5 star client.
22. By the admission of XXXX, the alleged trust is and was empty and never had any assets, no other evidence exists to the contrary.
23. CFPB is requested to send safe harbor letters ( frivolous litigation ) that would require both the attorney XXXX and his nonexistent client to pay fees for defending a completely bogus action.
24. The problem is not just that the real party in interest has not been named. The problem is that there is no party entitled to perform any legal act. Hence the jurisdiction of all courts are completely absent ; and any action taken by any of those courts as though the trust existed, is completely void and without any statutory or constitutional authority.
25. This is not a tactical objection in order to obtain a " free house '' for me. It is a direct challenge to all court 's authority to take any action other than issuing a summary judgment and payment of my damages. And it is an invitation to CFPB to take a close a look at foreclosure mills as they do to the low hanging fruit of solo foreclosure defense lawyers who get charged with " foreclosure rescue schemes. ''

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation