Consumer complaint received 2021-08-20 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
The directors/agents of NEWREZ failed to respond to the plaintiffs affidavits referenced in the following certified mailing numbers : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX delivered XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX delivered XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX delivered XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX delivered XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX delivered XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX delivered XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX delivered on XX/XX/XXXX I have reason to believe and I do believe that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, mailed XXXX XX/XX/XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, mailed XXXX XX/XX/XXXX were returned to sender due to an act of the intended recipient. 
9. This affidavit is made pursuant to The National Banking Act of 1864 ( Public Law 38, Ch. 106, 13 Stat. 99-118 ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( 15 USC 1692 ), USC Title 12 ( Banks and Banking ), & UCC Article 3 ( Negotiable Instruments ).

10. It is a fact of Statue by and through the Constitution and laws of the United States that the said Directors of NEWREZ LLC has a statutory oath to support the Constitution and the Banking Statues of the United States. In particular, the notice of registration of that oath is listed at Section 9 & 55 of the National Banking Act of 1864 ( Public Law 38, Ch. 106, 13 Stat. 99-118 ). 
11. Inside of the provisions of that statute the Bank Directors have allowed for direct violations of their oath as a financial agent of the federal government. Those actions include : Extending a Mortgage agreement for beyond the prescribed statutory limit, not providing consideration in a said loan, or providing from an external source in violation of the original agreement ( as Banks can not loan capital Stock or the Stock of their depositors according to the statute ), failing to answer several freedom of information requests as well as failing to answer to challenges to the debt though they are required to by the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act, endorsing the Note/Bond after the initial transaction in order to receive funds through my signature, fraudulently acting as and assuming the legal position of a Lender when in fact they provided no consideration in the contract, transferring a loan after actions and notices of fraud had been made against the transaction in violation of Public Volume 17, 42nd Congress Stat. 13-15 shown as code at 42 USC 1983 for Actions under Color of Authority or Fraudulent and or illegal transactions. I request the oaths of office for the above listed defendants, so be it. 
12. The loan for my XXXX XXXX home was allegedly secured from XXXX XXXX XXXX by NewRez in XXXX of XXXX. The first scheduled payment was made in XX/XX/XXXX, on time, and every other payment was made on time until I, the consumer, challenged the validity of the alleged debt in XXXX of XXXX. Per 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( g ) cease of payment shall occur until the validity of the debt has been proven. NewRez and its agents violated 15 U.S.C. 1592 ( g ) and 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( b ) by disclosing a late payment status to the 3 major credit bureaus thus damaging the plaintiffs credit history. It was then that the abusive practices such as the wrongful reporting of a late payment caused marital problems outlined in 15 USC 1692 ( a ). At the present time the validity of the alleged debt still has not been proven. XXXX has defaulted on his opportunity to cure multiple times. Such is evidenced by his acquiescence and tacit agreement and XXXX is now in breach of contract for failure to discharge the alleged balance of my account. XXXX has also failed to cease and desist despite multiple notices and is in violation of 17 U.S.C. 501 copyright infringement.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation