Consumer complaint received 2021-04-08 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Seized or attempted to seize your property
Company: Law Offices of Les Zieve
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
URGENT INTERVENTION REQUIRED! WRIT OF EXECUTION MUST BE VACATED IMMEDIATELY DUE TO VOID NOTE, VOID ASSIGNGMENTS AND VOID TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE. 

California non-judicial foreclosure is a creature of statue and must be strictly construed prior to conducting a foreclosure sale. The loan in question was an unsecured HELOC loan. The CCP 2924 governing duly perfected title has not been met by the alleged company to conduct a foreclosure sale and it warrants the title be restored to XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. The alleged loan was liquidated in XX/XX/XXXX, also charged off in XXXX of XXXX as explained below, which is impossible if it was already liquidated in XXXX. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX declare they are victims of identity theft by a 3rd party debt collector attorney, ZBS LAW, LLP and we allege VIOLATION OF The ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT OF 1946 AT 5 USC 551 et seq. FOREIGN AGENT REGISTRATION ACT. OF 1938 AND F.D.C.P.A. ACT 1692. 

TIMELINE OF EVENTS : Executed by XXXX XXXX a State citizen of the Republic State of California, on XX/XX/XXXX and recorded on XX/XX/XXXX Deed of Trust ( DOT ) Instrument # XXXX as the sole borrower of the Subject Mortgage for the purpose of encumbering the Promissory Note ( NOTE ), Loan # XXXX. DOT appears to indicate two ( 2 ) Trustees within the alleged instrument. 
o XXXX  is stated in two places on page 2 of said DOT, upper left hand corner and in the first paragraph the alleged Trustee, which is not registered with Pennsylvanias Secretary of States online database. 
o XXXX  is stated as trustee on Pg. eight 8. This is erroneous because it failed to state with specificity who the Trustee was on XX/XX/XXXX. The alleged Note violates key UCC codes is not secured by the alleged deed of trust. ( See Exhibit 1, DOT ) VOID DOT. See Unrecorded, Incomplete assignment of deed of trust below. ( AODOT ). 

On XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX was asked to sign as Borrower even though hes not a borrower on the NOTE ). Named Lender XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( XXXX ) on the DOT failed to record a quitclaim deed or interspousal deed to remove a non-borrower XXXX XXXX. 

See Chain of Title Expert witness who can and will appear in court if called upon to testify to his findings : ( See Exhibit 2, Affidavit of XXXX XXXX MORTGAGE XXXX INVESTIGATIONS, CHAIN OF TITLE XXXX. 

Allegedly executed on XX/XX/XXXX NOTE WITH BALLOON PAYMENT ; Pg. two ( 2 ) signature purportedly of XXXX XXXX is a ) forged NOTE XXXX has presented to us and the US bk court was examined and declared by a handwriting expert XXXX XXXX that the signature of alleged borrower XXXX XXXX is not authored by XXXX XXXX. ( See Exhibit 3-EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION WITH ITS EXHIBITS ). b ) is allegedly executed by XXXX XXXX XXXX as Managing Director of Original Lender, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. The alleged copy of the original note does not present any indorsements. It allegedly states by : XXXX XXXX XXXX with a line over the alleged name. XXXX XXXX XXXX alleged signature appears to be stamped or electronically inserted on the alleged NOTE. An emailed copy of an alleged NOTE for the 1st trust deed sent by XXXX  XXXX XXXX on the same property known as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Ca was submitted to XXXX XXXX for her expert conclusion in comparing the two alleged signatures of XXXX XXXX XXXX NOTES and other known documents with his name on it. Examined and declared by a handwriting expert XXXX XXXX that the signature of alleged XXXX XXXX XXXX is not evidencing a wet signature, appears to be a stamp or electronic insertion to the alleged NOTES and she concludes neither NOTES are signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX. NOTE in question is VOID. 

Entrenched in Commercial law and summarized in axiom : equity does not allow a thief to use a stolen NOTE to foreclose on the Akrabians ( mortgage lien if one existed ). Liquidated in XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX # XXXX shows liquidated in XX/XX/XXXX leaving a zero ( {$0.00} ) balance pursuant to XXXX  XXXX. Contract extinguished in XXXX ( See Exhibit -INVESTOR DATA ) and ( Exhibit 5-XXXX XXXX  ). 
XXXX ceased to exist on XX/XX/XXXX. This is a huge issue when fraudulent documents are being recorded after this date and executed from XXXX in the County of XXXX XXXX, lands office. 

Bankruptcy Ch XXXX case filed on XX/XX/XXXX converted to Ch XXXX, XXXX was discharged on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX  OR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ), was listed as a secured creditor due to concealment of information by XXXX  XXXX XXXX, when they were not secured creditor. In XXXX, approximately XXXX ( XXXX ) years after the discharge, an alleged assignment from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as Trustee for the Benefit of the Certificateholders of the XXXX XXXX, Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, XXXX XXXX ( alleged TRUSTEE OF THE ALLEGED TURST ) was recorded violating the discharge injunction, detailed in AODOT 2 below. ( See Exhibit 6, Bk schedule D and DISCHARGE Akrabians could and would not have known who to list as the real party in interest, entitled to be listed on the bankruptcy Schedule XXXX The loan was disputed in XXXX and is still disputed due no lien due to liquidation in XX/XX/XXXX and new discoveries of fraudulent manufactured documents recorded by ZBS LAW, LLP as stated below. 

XXXX failed to report to the US Bankruptcy court that the alleged loan was liquidated in XX/XX/XXXX as that created false liability, racketeering, tort, mental anguish and irreparable harm to the Akrabians. 

XXXX 2- Allegedly Executed on XX/XX/XXXX and recorded on XX/XX/XXXX ( almost 2 years after the XXXX bk discharge ) Instrument # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX which ceased to exist on XX/XX/XXXX, allegedly assigned of DOT to The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , as Trustee for the Benefit of the Certificateholders of the XXXX XXXX , Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, XXXX XXXX ( alleged assignee ). a ) There is no reference to a corporate resolution or other document indicating XXXX XXXX, who is reported to be a robosigner, had the authority to execute this assignment on behalf of the closed entity, XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX in XXXX b ) He specifically states he reviewed and executed 200+ assignments daily with 99 % accuracyand sign assignments of mortgages and deeds of trusts to assist with foreclosure process and assist signing non-MERS assignments His alleged claim makes him a suspect for knowingly and fraudulently forging documents and publicly recording into record by false claims. ( See Exhibit 7, XXXX XXXX Resume ) ( See Exhibit 8, XXXX 2  ) VOID ASSIGMENT. 

XX/XX/XXXX, Debt Validation letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX states the alleged loan was discharged on XX/XX/XXXX. The alleged payment history from XXXX XXXX shows a XXXX balance on the top of page 1 ( See Exhibit 9, PMT HISTORY ), ( XXXX ) balance, consistent with the XXXX data and the XXXX data. 

XXXX XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX Inst # XXXX allegedly executed by XXXX XXXX of XXXX  XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Thats recorded 4 months later as it appears to be backdated, from XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX. to XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ( See Exhibit 10, XXXX  3 ). However, XXXX months earlier ( XX/XX/XXXX XXXX  # 2 ), XXXX  XXXX XXXX created and recorded document titled Assignment of Deed of Trust allegedly assigning the subject deed of trust from XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX to the XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX Trust. Therefore, this alleged assignment would be INVALID on its face merely because XXXX  XXXX XXXX was no longer the owner if the previous assignment was valid. THERE EXISTS NO EVIDENCE OF DEBT. VOID ASSIGMENT. 

There is no assignment from XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX to XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX. as proof of the XX/XX/XXXX acquisition in the subjects propertys recorded chain of title. 

XXXX 4- Allegedly Executed on XX/XX/XXXX, and recorded on XX/XX/XXXX Instrument # XXXX GAP ASSIGNMENT. ( See Exhibit 11, XXXX 4 ), XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, ( XXXX ) as its Attorney in Fact from The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as Trustee for the Benefit of the Certificateholders of the XXXX XXXX, Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, XXXX XXXX allegedly assigned to XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX. The subject instrument states The purpose of this document is to correct the break in chain caused by the assignment recorded XX/XX/XXXX as Instrument # : XXXX from XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX. to XXXX XXXX, XXXX. This alleged assignment is VOID ab initio as the Gov Code 27201 dos not allow corrections of chain of title that effects the ownership. VOID ASSIGMENT. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX replied to Akrabians/homeowners debt validation request. XXXX stated that it started servicing this account effective XX/XX/XXXX and was charged off as of XX/XX/XXXX. ( See Exhibit 12 - REPLY XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX DEBT VALID REQUEST ) allegedly by an the deed of trust from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  to XXXX Mortgage, XXXX. An assignment is not designed to record who is servicing a loan but who owns the loan. There is no ownership at this point. XXXX XXXX, XXXX purchased the loan as a third-party debt collector? The alleged loan is liquidated to a XXXX  amount in XXXX of XXXX. The letter further states The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as Trustee for XXXX Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Certificates, XXXX XXXX, and is the current owner of the Note. This is in complete contrast of the recorded documents. According to the recorded chain of title, on the date of this reply ( XX/XX/XXXX ) AND after Notice of Default, XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX is the alleged owner. Also, if XXXX XXXX, XXXX charged off this loan as a servicer on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX is stating it started servicing the loan in XX/XX/XXXX, who owned and/or serviced this loan from XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX? We allege that this behavior is clear evidence of FEDERAL FINANCIAL CRIME BY THE THIRD-PARTY DEBT COLLECTORS, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  AND XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX TO INTENTIONALLY STEAL THE TITILE OF XXXX  WIHTOUT OWNERSHIP RIGHTS AND NOW IN THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER COURT TO FORCE EVICITION. 

XXXX 5- Executed on XX/XX/XXXX and Recorded on XX/XX/XXXX Instrument # XXXX purports to assign the DOT , from XXXX XXXX, XXXX . to XXXX XXXX XXXX.. NO DEBT, NO LOAN, NO HARM TO WCSI. ( See Exhibit 13, XXXX5 ) VOID ASSIGNMENT. 

XXXX6- Executed on XX/XX/XXXX and recorded on XX/XX/XXXX, Instrument # XXXX, XXXX XXXX VP Operations of XXXX XXXX waited three months to allegedly assign from XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( See Exhibit 14, XXXX6 ) VOID ASSIGNMENT. On XX/XX/XXXX, Zieve, Brodnax & Steele, LLP replied to the homeowners debt validation request as the representative for the current servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX . The letter goes on to state the amount of the lien which is serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX . The current beneficiary of the deed of trust is XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX . It then goes on to state the lien was transferred to this company in XX/XX/XXXX. However, the recorded chain of title shows by way of a document titled Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust ( XXXX6 ) it was transferred on XX/XX/XXXX and recorded three ( 3 ) months later on XX/XX/XXXX. ( See Exhibit 15, Zieve Ltr. XX/XX/XXXX ). 

Allegedly Executed on XX/XX/XXXX, and recorded On XX/XX/XXXX Instrument # XXXX allegedly Substitution of Trustee ( SOT ) from XXXX to Zieve, Brodnax & Steele, LLP. The original the Lender, XXXX  did not assign this alleged instrument to Zieve, Brodnax & Steele, LLP. ( See Exhibit 16, SOT ). DOT paragraph 21 states Lender, at Lenders option, may from time to time appoint a successor trustee to any Trustee appointment hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county where the Property is located. Lender on the DOT is named XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( XXXX ) and there is no evidence of said Lender appointing a successor trustee. VOID SOT. After the loan liquidation in XXXX, simply put, there is no lender to perform this task. 

Allegedly Executed on XX/XX/XXXX and recorded on XX/XX/XXXX, Instrument # XXXX alleged Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust NOD purports the DOT recorded on XX/XX/XXXX is in default. No where in the body of the subject instrument is the current beneficiary clearly stated. ( See Exhibit 17, NOD ). 
The alleged SOT is recorded concurrently with an alleged Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust, ( NOD ), where the Civil Code 2924 ( b ) requires an affidavit to be attached to the SOT. This violation did not create a duly perfected title code. VOID NOD. 

ZBS Law, LLP fka Zieve, Brodnax & Steele, LLP ( hereinafter ZBS ) is an entity and conducts business at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX. It appears that ZBS, to date conducts business in the State of California ( SOS ) without State registration as required by law, without Fed Tax Id, without dba with the county. ( See Exhibit 18, ZBS BUSINESS STATUS ). Law Offices of LES ZIEVE is registered with SOS but transact in commerce under the name ZBS Law, LLP fka Zieve , Brodnax & Steele LLP, without meeting the requirement to transact in commerce. 
ZBS as a third-party alleged trustee has not shown neutral position when it acted with unclean hands as follows : a ) First, as an alleged attorney representing XXXX per letters dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ; ( See Exhibit 19, ZBS LETTERS ). 
b ) Allegedly on XX/XX/XXXX substituted trustee by recording of an alleged SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE ( hereinafter, SOT ) as exhibited 15. 
c ) On XX/XX/XXXX, in state court fraudulent action, it acts as WCSIs attorney again, making allegations in the UD court without facts or standing. ( See Exhibit 19 UD COMPLAINT ). 
d ) Made erroneous claims alleging XXXX is in first lien position in its communications letters stated above. See Zieve above referenced exhibit as Zieve ltrs. 
ZBS LAW LLP violated 11 U.S. Code 524, XXXX bankruptcy discharge injunction. 

Executed on XX/XX/XXXX and recorded XX/XX/XXXX, a Notice of Trustees Sale. ( NOTS ) The sale was set for XX/XX/XXXX. VOID NOTS. 

Bankruptcy case Case No. : XXXX filed on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX aka XXXX XXXX XXXX a CH XXXX bk in duress. She and her family were in extreme fear of loss of title and possession of property, the only home they owned. The alleged so-called lender XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( XXXX ) has alleged to have bought a lien form XXXX per XXXX Ch XXXX bankruptcy proof of claim. There is no evidence of XXXX ever being a holder in due course. XXXX is purported to be a 3rd party debt collector hidden under the guise of a financial institution. Due to not yet discovered full evidence of the fraud, XXXX XXXX signed a forbearance agreement without prejudice, in good faith, with XXXX  unbeknown to her at the time that all of the above aforementioned alleged lenders/servicers in concert together fraudulently recorded unlawful documents missing three elements to conduct a foreclosure sale thus harmed the XXXX family and stole their title on XX/XX/XXXX. 

Attempting to cause a person to do something by telling that person that such action is required by law, when it is not required by law, may be a felony. 
18 USC 242 provides that whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 
18 USC 245 provided that Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, intimidates or interferes with any person from participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States ; [ or ] applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States ; shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

42 USC 1983 provides that every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 
XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, prior to realizing the NOTE is forged, requested Certified Copies of the alleged NOTE and allonges, if they existed. To the best of Akrabians knowledge and detailed record keeping of timeline to the events prior to the foreclosure, XXXX XXXX declares that the alleged ALLONGES TO NOTE were not prepared and presented until after the conflict arose and only ten 10 days prior to XXXX XXXX filing the Ch XXXX bankruptcy case on XX/XX/XXXX. At no point in time prior were the alleged ALLONGES by XXXX or its predecessors presented in response to multiple debt validation by qualified written request. Fraud vitiates everything UNITED STATES v. THROCKMORTON. ( See Exhibit 20, XX/XX/XXXX REQUEST LETTER 1 ) and ( Exhibit 21, ALLEGED ALLONGES EXHIBITED BY XXXX IN THE XXXX CH XXXX BK ). 

To hoodwink the court, in XXXX Bk Case No. : XXXX, XXXX filed an alleged unrecorded and incomplete assignment naming the TRUSTEE OF THE ALLEGED TURST purportedly executed on XX/XX/XXXX. Alleged DOT is recorded on XX/XX/XXXX. California is a race statutes state pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1214 and therefore the law of first in time, first in right applies here because the alleged DOT in question was recorded one day after the alleged unrecorded, incomplete assignment. Debt was unsecured on XX/XX/XXXX and Instrument # XXXX is VOID ab initio. Pursuant to Ca Comm. Code 9313 ( b ), it states : a secured party may perfect a security interest in negotiable documents, goods, instruments, money, or tangible chattel paper by taking possession of the collateral. The alleged unrecorded assignment did not have the lien secured on XX/XX/XXXX. ( See Exhibit 20, UNRECORDED/INCOMPLETE ASSIGNMENT BEFORE RECORDING DEED OF TRUST ) The allege unrecord, incomplete assignment was deceptively filed in the XXXX  XXXX Ch XXXX bk with a declaration of XXXX XXXX, Operations Manager at XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX, who purported that this is a valid assignment. A copy of the alleged said assignment was never mailed to the XXXX prior to XXXX, thus violating 15 USC 1641 ( g ) ( 1 ) ( D. The said alleged assignment was never produced as a proof of claim despite numerous times of request debt validation from all of the alleged parties herein. The said assignment surfaced and was buried among other alleged documents filed in the bk court in XXXX, referenced as Exhibit C in a Supplemental Motion requesting from the bk court lift from automatic stay. 

( 1 ) In addition to other disclosures required by this subchapter, not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer, including ( D ) the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX has statutory Civil Liability pursuant to 15 USC 1640 ( a ) Individual or class action for damages ; amount of award ; factors determining amount of award : Except as otherwise provided in this section, any creditor who fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this part, including any requirement under section 1635 of this title, subsection ( f ) or ( g ) of section 1641 of this title, or part D or E of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of - ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iv ) in the case of an individual action relating to a credit transaction not under an open end credit plan that is secured by real property or a dwelling, not less than {$400.00} or greater than {$4000.00}. 

Executed XX/XX/XXXX and recorded XX/XX/XXXX TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE ( TDUS ) all stated within the alleged TDUS is falsified information for the purpose of property theft induced by fraud. ( See Exhibit 21, TDUS ) VOID TDUS ab initio.

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