Debt Collection Legal Dispute

In a MA motion to re-enjoin please enhance and correct if necessary: Westlaw Case The Third Circuit decision Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC, number *-*(3rd Cir. Feb. *,*): It states any person who uses any instrumental or interstate commerce or makes in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debt, * USC § *(a) * is a debt collectors. They had no right to come into court purporting to be creditors as they are not even secured debt collectors. This is also a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act along with the Dodd Frank Act. Did you like my responses so far?

enhance and corrected: The bankruptcy court order lifting King’s stay prejudiced this case in Western Housing Court. The court violated King's constitutional rights as it relied on a void court order instead of determining whether there was a secure claim. It was void from the sense that, your Honor, did not have jurisdiction to grant relief to the debt collectors because the party did not establish that they suffered a concrete injury, provide the chain of title, or provided any business records. There is not one certification or affidavit as to how they became a holder.

enhance and correct: King is challenging subject matter jurisdiction. If they were a real party in interest it would be very easy to prove. Debt collectors could have produce the evidence but instead they have been relying upon an order based on the fictitious documentations submitted in the housing court claiming that the matter has already been adjudicated, which has allow the debt collectors to avoid providing any authenticated evidence concerning all core issues.

Enhance and correct: Violations: Debt collector published a foreclosure with no supporting evidence that it ever became a party to the promissory note that was executed by the original refinance lender, CLI, prior to them going into liquidating bankruptcy January *, *. The bifurcated loans initiated August *, *, of $* million and $*,* totaling $*,*,*, greatly exceeded the Town of Longmeadow assessed value of $*,*,*. The note was never sold, transferred or assigned prior to CLI initiating liquidating bankruptcy January *, *.

Enhance and correct: The evidence is clear, in order for this party to establish that they became a real party in interest to the promissory note, according to the Third Circuit of Appeals, they would have had to produce a promissory note that had been negotiated by an endorsement proving that a holder sold, transferred or assigned it prior to CLI being in default.

Enhance and correct: The only purported evidence that this party has produced was an assignment by a non-party to the promissory note. However, they did submit, in the WHC summary judgment and in attorney Fumarola’s affidavit, a fraudulent document called the Adjustable Rate Note and attached falsified undated allonges, that were robo signed by Michelle Sjolander, in an attempt to comply with UCC *-*. The code states that all allonges had to be permanently affixed to the promissory note for the endorsement to be valid. They attached it to a partially signed and unauthenticated adjustable-rate note. There is no evidence that the original refinance lender ever negotiated an endorsement of the promissory note to any entity prior to or during the declared liquidating bankruptcy.

Enhance and correct Without such evidence this court must vacate its previous order. King asked this court to reverse itself, make the debt collectors a party to this action, and sanctions should be brought pursuant to the third circuit of appeals and Massachusetts statutes. It is clear that the debt collectors came before the court knowing that they did not have evidence that they ever owned, purchased or had control of the promissory note. They did not have an affidavit from Bank of New York Mellon stating that they had personal knowledge as to the sale and transfer of the promissory note along with the chain of title. They failed to attach the affidavit which should have been accompanied by the authenticated assignments and business records from each party in the chain of title. This action has not occurred.

Enhance and correct: The court must find that the debt collector has committed fraud upon the court for failing to produce the required evidence and for making multiple false statements. Somehow, without any evidence, attorneys’ clients claimed to be the holder of King’s promissory note which was time-barred. The last payment on the promissory note was January *, *, as CLI filed liquidating bankruptcy. The purported assignment of the mortgage contract was December *, *, nearly 10 years after any payment on the note, surpassing the 6 year Massachusetts statute limit on unsecured debt becoming time-barred. There is not any record of any payment on the promissory note in over 16 years, as per contract of the mortgage, payments could only be paid to a holder of the note.

Enhance and correct In addition, the Kings were induced into and illegal loan modification by Bank of America Home Loans, who as records show was not a party to the loan, which was another violation of the FDCPA.

Enhance and correct: Please see attached assignment of the mortgage executed by MERS. In Bank of New York versus Silverberg, 86A.D.3d *, * (*) the New York Supreme Court ruled that MERS was not authorized to assign mortgages in New Jersey because MERS was not the lawful holder of the note. The court also ruled that MERS was not authorized to assign the power to foreclose. MERS, also announced nationally in Reuters News as of July *, *, that they would no longer be responsible for any assignments, not to mention court cases in which it was established that MERS could only act on behalf of the original lender. In this case, CLI no longer exists.

Enhance and correct: Furthermore, records show that SPS purportedly sent the 90 day right to cure on June *, *. Records also show that MERS purportedly assigned the mortgage of * Memery Lane on December *, *, which is further verification of the purchase of unsecured debt. UCC Article * governance and negotiable instruments such as promissory notes which dictates that you must buy the note which is not in default in order to become a holder.

Enhance and correct: Conclusion Self-incriminating unauthenticated allegations have been submitted by debt collectors in the summary process and throughout the case, verifying fraud upon the court and lack of jurisdiction, which can be challenged at any time. All of the parties to be enjoined have participated directly or indirectly with the litigation. I'm also requesting documented evidence of all the parties’ attorneys representation along with the contract from Bank of New York Mellon as trustee officers indicating confirming their representation.

AI, For District of Massachusetts what is the standing order of reference for the bankruptcy court under title *

Is there a form or more details?

AI,In Massachusetts is there a rule or law stating that once there's an adversary proceeding in a title * bankruptcy, if not resolved the case must be decided in the District Court and not referred back to the lower court.

Does the standing order of reference allow the case to go back to the lower court? And how do I Fine the standing order of reference for Massachusetts?

In filing a designation of items and statements of issues to be included in the record for the bankruptcy appeals court, what is the format? Can you give me a sample