Consumer complaint received 2026-04-14 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief
Company: Guidiville Indian Rancheria
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
FORMAL NOTICE OF EQUITY CONVERSION & SYSTEMIC FRAUD TO : * NY State Attorney General ( Real Estate Finance/Consumer Fraud ) Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) Office of Inspector General ( OIG ) From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX RE : Fraudulent Instrument & Identity Conversion Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Index # XXXX ) STATEMENT OF FACT I am officially reporting the criminal conversion of {$48000.00} from my primary residence equity. This was executed through a " Bridge Fraud '' scheme that utilized a historical record to link my asset to a third-party debt belonging to a professional debtor, XXXX XXXX . EVIDENCE OF ROLE INVERSION & IDENTITY THEFT The foundation of this fraud rests on the malicious misidentification of my legal relationship with the primary debtor, XXXX XXXX. TRUTH : ( Index # XXXX ) : In XXXX, I was the Plaintiff and Landlord in a XXXX XXXX XXXX proceeding. I successfully evicted XXXX XXXX from my property at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and obtained a money judgment against her. FRAUD : ( Index # XXXX, File # XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : On XX/XX/XXXX, the law firm of XXXX XXXX XXXX filed a Request for Judicial Intervention ( RJI ) falsely labeling me as a " Tenant/Occupant '' of XXXX XXXX property at XXXX XXXX XXXX . LINK : By digitally " bridging '' my name from a XXXX case where I was her adversary to a XXXX case where I was labeled her associate, the firm manufactured the legal standing to attach her {$48000.00} deficiency to my primary residence at XXXX XXXX XXXX. DO CUMENTARY FRAUD & TEMPORAL DISCREPANCIES The timeline of the recorded instruments is physically impossible and indicates manual backdating of financial documents. The " Loan Modification Agreement '' for XXXX XXXX XXXX is dated XX/XX/XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX LAWSUIT : The RJI ( Index # XXXX ) Original Filing Date : XX/XX/XXXX RJI Filing Date : XX/XX/XXXX ( Sequence XXXX ) This was used to link me to the XXXX debt, and was not filed until XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXthree months after the modification was allegedly signed. It is logically impossible to sign a modification agreement to resolve a lawsuit that did not legally exist for another 90 days. The document contains manual, handwritten notations : " new money XXXX XXXX and " new Unpaid Balance XXXX. '' These notes confirm that the {$48000.00} was manually injected into the contract outside of standard automated banking protocols. On the face of the recorded modification, the handwritten entry " new money XXXX '' corresponds to the specific filing fees and mortgage taxes required to " record '' the new debt. This proves the {$48000.00} wasn't a calculation error ; it was a deliberate, manual entry designed to XXXX out the loss on XXXX XXXX XXXX. Per the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX was filed simultaneously with the Civil Action on XX/XX/XXXX. This " cloud on title '' was used as a lever to force the XXXX XXXX XXXX modification. By placing a " Lis Pendens '' ( Notice of Pendency ) on a property where I was a landlord-investor, the firm effectively froze my ability to transact until I " accepted '' the XXXX debt. The law firm 's own billing records ( XX/XX/XXXX ) indicate an " Inquiry of XXXX XXXX '' regarding my location. This confirms a " Sewer Service '' strategy : they intentionally avoided my verified primary residence address at XXXX XXXX XXXX since XXXXwhich they clearly possessedto ensure I did not have the opportunity to contest the " Tenant '' designation in court nor was I aware of it. The foreclosure action explicitly states it is seeking to foreclose a mortgage dated XX/XX/XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) on the property at XXXX XXXX XXXX. My legal judgment and successful eviction of the debtor ( XXXX XXXX ) occurred in XXXX XXXXseven months before the mortgage in question even existed. I could not have been a " tenant '' or '' occupant '' of a property under a mortgage that did not exist during the time of our only documented legal interaction. I successfully closed the sale of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. This documented real estate transaction proves I was a Principal Seller liquidating an asset for profit exactly 12 days before the XXXX mortgage ( XX/XX/XXXX ) was even executed. The claim that I moved from a successful sale into a destitute tenancy with an evicted adversary is a physical and logical impossibility. During the period of the alleged tenancy ( XXXX ), I successfully secured and satisfied multiple private mortgages from lender XXXX XXXX XXXX Principal : {$7500.00} and {$14000.00} ) in a house I AM currently living in. Furthermore, I secured an institutional mortgage with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. These recorded Satisfactions of Mortgage prove I was a credible, performing borrower. The law firm willfully ignored these public records of my financial independence to manufacture a " tenant '' identity. The law firm utilized a XXXX Transcript of Judgment ( XXXX # XXXX ) to bypass modern due diligence. They purposefully linked my identity to a high-volume debtor ( XXXX XXXXassociated with XXXX local filings ) to camouflage a fraudulent {$48000.00} transaction. RECORDING DISCREPANCIES : Per the County Clerk receipt ( Control # XXXX ), the Request for Judicial Intervention ( RJI ) was not filed until XX/XX/XXXX. This further confirms that the XX/XX/XXXX Loan Modification was a fraudulent, backdated instrument, as it preceded the courts involvement by nearly five months. There is probability that the law firm of XXXX XXXX XXXX held undisclosed conflicts of interest, potentially representing multiple parties within the XXXX foreclosure while simultaneously facilitating the extraction of equity from my unrelated primary residence. This proves the law firm did not use actual occupancy records or " due diligence '' to name me in the XXXX action. Instead, they performed a " Name Sweep '' of old XXXX XXXX records, found a XXXX judgment, and blindly attached my name to a XXXX foreclosure on a mortgage that started long after she left my property. I have the XXXX XXXX Eviction, the XXXX XXXX Sale, the XXXX XXXX Mortgage, and the XXXX backdated theft. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX referencing a debt amount of approximately {$48000.00}. This almost identical figure was manually injected into my XXXX XXXX XXXX " Loan Modification '' under the guise of an " unpaid balance. '' The involvement of secondary market debt buyers like XXXX ( and their affiliates ) explains the manual injection of the {$48000.00} figure. Following the initiation of the fraudulent foreclosure the entity XXXX ( or its designated servicer ) issued documentation on XX/XX/XXXX regarding the {$48000.00} debt. This timeline confirms that XXXX moved to capitalize on the " Identity Conversion '' within 90 days of the law firms manual data injection. The speed of this transition proves this was not a clerical oversight by a local firm, but a coordinated effort to " flip '' a non-performing XXXX debt into a collectible XXXX asset by attaching it to my verified residence at XXXX XXXX XXXX. Between the initial signatures in early XXXX ( XXXX ) and the XXXX intervention in XX/XX/XXXX, a six-month " processing window '' occurred. During these 180 days, the law firm and the servicing entities had ample opportunity to verify the public recordspecifically my XXXX Sale, my XXXX Satisfactions, and my XXXX XXXX Mortgage. They chose to ignore the history of my ownership at XXXX XXXX XXXX. Instead, they used this six-month window to " age '' the fraudulent {$48000.00} debt until it appeared legitimate enough for institutional collection. There is also mention of XXXX XXXX, I have or never have had any financial obligation to XXXX until XXXX which also has been paid off early before the length of the loan. CORRECTION 1. I request that the AGs office investigate the manual handwritten notations on my mortgage instruments as evidence of XXXX XXXX. 2. A full audit of the " Blank '' digital files in the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX office that bridge these unrelated property indexes. 3. The immediate removal of the fraudulent debt from my title, as it was obtained through identity conversion and a fraudulent instrument. 4. Based on the documented chronological impossibilities and the forensic evidence of manual data injection, I formally insist the following : 5. Immediate legal nullification of the " Loan Modification '' d ated XX/XX/XXXX. This document is a product of fraud in the factum, as it references a legal action ( Index # XXXX ) that did not exist at the time of execution. 6. Full removal of the deficiency of equity from the title of XXXX XXXX XXXX. This sum represents a third-party debt belonging to XXXX XXXX that was manually converted into my personal liability. 7. An investigation into the handwritten notations " new money XXXX '' and " new Unpaid Balance XXXX '' on the XXXX instruments. These markings are the " fingerprints '' of a manual equity extraction outside of automated banking protocols. 8. An inquiry into the law firm of XXXX XXXX XXXX and their XX/XX/XXXX " XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. '' This investigation must address why the firm intentionally bypassed my verified, residence and employment history to ensure I was never served or aware of the " Tenant '' designation. 9. A permanent injunction against XXXX and all subsequent debt buyers from reporting or attempting to collect on any derivative of the XXXX fraudulent record. 10. An audit of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) to identify how the " Bridge Fraud '' was coded into the system to link two unrelated property indexes. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed : XXXX XXXX__________ Date : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Untimely response