Website Under Construction

 

If This Case Go To The United States Supreme Court Corla Reeves Jackson Will Win Her Case On Her Complaints With Flying Colors And More Guaranteed!

A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid.  A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).  Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).  When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994).

There is nothing else to do on this case-complaint except close it out the legal way because its a (VOID JUDGEMENT).  The name was changed on the complaint from the beginning by Bradley Arant Boult Cummings and Mobile County Circuit Court, taking off (ET, AL) when they recorded the case-complaint, which didn’t match the motion Corla Jackson filed styled (Corla Jackson vs. GMAC Mortgage Corporation ET, AL.) this is recorded.  This is Fraud and Fraud Upon The Court, using deceptive practices, that they never corrected prior to the illegal wrongful foreclosure (June 1, 2012) that was based upon a Relief From Stay by Judge Shulman on Arrears dated back prior to GMAC fabricated Assignment of Mortgage filed (July 11, 2008) after Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).  This was Fraud and Fraud Upon the Court, GMAC didn’t own the property when they created their new loan (January 3, 2005) and they didn’t own the property prior to their fabricated assignment filed (July 11, 2008) to collect arrears on period, in addition to this GMAC never Conveyed their fabricated loan-mortgage (0835002124) over to Corla Jackson that they created to themselves for illegal profits, personal gain or favor. This is a crime, that’s recorded from the beginning.  

In addition to the above, Judge Kristi Dubose illegally changed the name on the Complaint by staying the case the way Bradley Arant Boult Cummings (Jon Patterson) told her to Stay the Complaint filed (May 31, 2012) which could not be done by any rule of law without Corla Jackson filing a Motion in writing stating, she made a mistake on the she styled the name on her complaint as (Corla Jackson vs. GMAC Mortgage Corporation ET, AL.).  Judge Dubose and Bradley Arant Boult Cummings (Jon Patterson) knew better, that the Plaintiff Corla Jackson had to change the way she styled her complaint in writing by law, not Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, because its the law.  This is a real case-complaint on (Fraud Upon the Court) by Officers of the Court which is a Federal Crime, from the beginning.   

FRAUD UPON THE COURTIn the United States, when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as “fraud upon the court”, is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation. Officers of the court include: lawyers, judges, referees, and those appointed; guardian ad litem, parenting time expeditors, mediators, rule 114 neutrals, evaluators, administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.  Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court.  In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury…. It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial functionthus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted

A Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486. If an appeal is taken, however, the appellate court may declare void any orders the trial court signed after it lost plenary power over the case. “A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning, and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment. It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.

A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid.  A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).  Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).  When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006). MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion. The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.

 2 U.S. Code § 2605: Servicing of mortgage loans and administration of escrow accounts: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In reJacobson , 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr.W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Violation of 18 U.S.A. § 1962(b) which prohibitsany person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.  

See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.  See: Governed Laws and Security Laws under Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13-using deceptive practices and more.   

A proof of execution by a subscribing witness cannot be used in conjunction with any quitclaim deed, grant deed document (other than a trustee’s deed or a deed of reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust or security agreement. (Government Code section 27287 and Civil Code section 1195(b)

A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).  Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court.  In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury…. It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial functionthus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted

 

THE JUDGES LINKED TO THIS CASE-COMPLAINT COMMITTED CIVIL FRAUD UPON THE COURT. THEY ALL KNEW CORLA JACKSON NEVER HAD A LOAN-MORTGAGE WITH GMAC BECAUSE IT WAS RECORDED.  CLICK HERE

 

THE LIES IS OVER TRUTH-UNCOVERED-MORE!

READ MORE: CLICK HERE

 

Website Under Construction:  Click Here       Click Here     Click Here  

A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court“, OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).  It has also been held thatIt is not necessary to take any steps to have a void judgment reversed, vacated, or set aside, It may be impeached in any action direct or, collateral.‘ Holder v. Scott, 396 S.W.2d 906, (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1965, writ ref., n.r.e.).  It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907). When appeal is taken from a void judgment, the appellate court must declare the judgment void. Because the appellate court may not address the merits, it must set aside the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the appeal.  A void judgment may be attacked at any time by a person whose rights are affected. See El-Kareh v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 874 S.W.2d 192, 194 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ); see also Evans v. C. Woods, Inc., No. 12-99-00153-CV, 1999 WL 787399, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Aug. 30, 1999, no pet. h.).   

Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. A Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486.  It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J.,concurring). 

It has also been held thatIt is not necessary to take any steps to have a void judgment reversed, vacated, or set aside, It may be impeached in any action direct or, collateral.‘ Holder v. Scott, 396 S.W.2d 906, (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1965, writ ref., n.r.e.).  A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907). 

The 14th amendment of the United States Constitution gives everyone a right to due process of law, which includes judgments that comply with the rules and case law.  Most due process exceptions deal with the issue of notification. If, for example, someone gets a judgement against you in another state without your having been notified, you can attack the judgement for lack of due process of law. In Griffen v. Griffen, 327 U.S. 220, 66 S. Ct. 556, 90 L. Ed. 635 a pro se litigant won his case in the Supreme Court who stated, A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment.  

A Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486.  It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J.,concurring).  If an appeal is taken, however, the appellate court may declare void any orders the trial court signed after it lost plenary power over the case, because a void judgment is a nullity from the beginning and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment.  A Void Judgement is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights. Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).  A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court,either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).  Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).  When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994).

A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).  A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgmentIt is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J.,concurring).  See” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006). MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion. The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.

It has also been held thatIt is not necessary to take any steps to have a void judgment reversed, vacated, or set aside, It may be impeached in any action direct or, collateral.‘ Holder v. Scott, 396 S.W.2d 906, (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1965, writ ref., n.r.e.).  A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907). 

When appeal is taken from a void judgment, the appellate court must declare the judgment void. Because the appellate court may not address the merits, it must set aside the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the appeal.  A void judgment may be attacked at any time by a person whose rights are affected. See El-Kareh v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 874 S.W.2d 192, 194 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ); see also Evans v. C. Woods, Inc., No. 12-99-00153-CV, 1999 WL 787399, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Aug. 30, 1999, no pet. h.).   Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. 

See” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008). 

Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan, Therefore, the matter is dismissed with prejudice.

See: Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] _ So. 3d _ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC.  FRAUD UPON THE COURT:

 

Since the trial court’s dismissal “with prejudice” was void, it may be attacked either by direct appeal or collateral attack Ex parte Williams, No. 73,845 (Tex.Crim.App. 04/11/2001). A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning, and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment.  It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J.,concurring).  A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid.

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements.  A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).   Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”.  In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury…. It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  Section 35-10-9: Sales contrary to article null and void. All sales of real estate, made under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of this article, shall be null and void, notwithstanding any agreement or stipulation to the contrary. (Code 1907, §4134; Code 1923, §7849; Code 1940, T. 7, §561.).  

GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, didn’t own the property, when they illegally created their new mortgage loan number (0835002124) January 3, 2005) from the beginning…

A Void Judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by Fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999). Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).  When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994).

A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgmentA Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486.  It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J.,concurring).  

The Illegal Foreclosure is based upon a New Mortgage Loan (0835002124) that was illegally created (January 3, 2005) by GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., with fabricated Arrears Attached for (5) payments of $1,920.64 each for 02/2005 through 06/2005, with the intent to do an illegal foreclosure without lack of standing for illegal profits personal gain or favor which is not of any law, its a Federal crime. The loan itself is VOID; it was illegally created without lack of standing (January 3, 2005) prior to the fabricated Assignment of Mortgage GMAC Law Firm created and filed (July 11, 2008) After Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).  

 

Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) Judge Never Approved These Arrears To Be Paid To GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., In The Debtors Chapter 13 Plan.  In Addition To This, They Had Already Embezzled The Money From Corla Jackson Account and Trustee’s and Insurance Proceeds-More.  These Crooks with  GMAC Was Paid (2) or More Times Without Lack Of Standing.  This False Proof Of Claim Under Judge Shulman Proves This Was A White Collar Crime Robbery They Covered Up!  This Robbery was Way Over One Hundred Thousand Dollars, This is Recorded So No One Can Lie, That is What They Covering Up….

GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Assignment of Mortgage in (Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama) is Fraud and Void by the rule of Federal Law.  The New Mortgage Loan was Created (January 3, 2005) prior to the Assignment filed (July 11, 2008).  This is recorded.  

See Evidence: Case 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 54 Filed 11/24/15 Page 38-40

See Evidence: Case 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 17 Filed 04/10/12 Page 41

Judge Shulman: Arrears dated back to (March 2006) and prior to (July 11, 2008) Assignment of Mortgage is Fraud. 

See: Case 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 71-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 26-46

Evidence: Payment History

See: Case 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 71 Filed 05/22/17 Page 127-135

Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) Never Approved These Arrears To Be Paid To GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., In The Debtors Chapter 13 Plan.  In Addition To This, They Had Already Embezzled The Money From Corla Jackson Account and Insurance Proceeds, GMAC Was Paid (2) or More, This Confirms This Was A White Collar Crime Robbery They Covered Up!  This Robbery was Way Over One Hundred Thousand Dollars, This is Recorded So No One Can Lie, That is What They Covering Up….

Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court,either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999). When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter,but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994).

GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., didn’t own the property (January 3, 2005) they illegally created their new mortgage loan (0835002124) to themselves, for illegal profits.  In addition to this, GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., never conveyed a recorded deed, title or mortgage contract agreement between Corla Jackson and GMAC Mortgage Corporation et, al., aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., et, al., after they created their new mortgage loan (0835002124) to themselves (January 3, 2005).

GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., didn’t have a Trustee’s Deed Of Sale, Recorded Release-Cancellation-Satisfaction of the Original Note between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation (January 3, 2005) prior to creating their new mortgage loan number (0835002124), they were without lack of standing. 

The mortgage contract agreement executed (May 26, 2004) is between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation.  The loan number 651003367 servicing number 001347464-8 is recorded in Instrument 2004042906 Book 5605 Page 1910 in the amount of ($240,000.00) filed (June 10, 2004).  This Mortgage Contract Agreement between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation is based upon Terms and Conditions which was Breached by GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., without lack of standing (January 3, 2005).   

GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., didn’t have a Recorded Assignment of Mortgage from Option One Mortgage Corporation (January 3, 2005) to collect a debt-payments from Corla Jackson, by the rule of Governed and State Law when they initiated their foreclosure proceeding from the very beginning under the initial bankruptcy case (05-13142).  They committed Fraud and concealed they didn’t own the property as well as payments they had embezzled from Corla Jackson without lack of standing in (2005).  

See Evidence: Case 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 54 Filed 11/24/15 Page 38-40

See Evidence: Case 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 17 Filed 04/10/12 Page 41

A Void Judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by Fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).  Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).  When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994).

A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgmentA Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486.  It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J.,concurring).  

It has also been held thatIt is not necessary to take any steps to have a void judgment reversed, vacated, or set aside, It may be impeached in any action direct or, collateral.‘ Holder v. Scott, 396 S.W.2d 906, (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1965, writ ref., n.r.e.).  A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907). 

Section 35-10-9: Sales contrary to article null and void. All sales of real estate, made under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of this article, shall be null and void, notwithstanding any agreement or stipulation to the contrary. (Code 1907, §4134; Code 1923, §7849; Code 1940, T. 7, §561.).  

Section 6-5-255

Failure or refusal of purchaser to reconvey title.

If the purchaseror his or her vendee or transferee fails or refuses to reconvey to such party entitled and desiring to redeem such title as the party acquired by the sale and purchase, such party so paying or tendering payment shall thereupon have the right to file in the circuit court having jurisdiction thereof a complaint to enforce his or her rights of redemption.

(Acts 1988, No. 88-441, p. 647, §9.)

Assignment: An assignment of mortgage must be in writing and recorded. 35-4-51.

Demand to Satisfy: The Mortgagee (holder of the mortgage) must satisfy the mortgage upon payment and demand from the mortgagors (borrowers) to satisfy the mortgage. 35-10-26.

Recording Satisfaction: Upon demand, the Mortgagee “shall file a properly executed and notarized satisfaction of the mortgage or otherwise cause the mortgage to be satisfied”.  35-10-26

Marginal Satisfaction: Marginal satisfaction is still recognized. 35-10-27.

Acknowledgment: An assignment or satisfaction must contain a proper Alabama acknowledgment, or other acknowledgment approved by Statute. 34-4-29.

When appeal is taken from a void judgment, the appellate court must declare the judgment void. Because the appellate court may not address the merits, it must set aside the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the appeal.  A void judgment may be attacked at any time by a person whose rights are affected. See El-Kareh v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 874 S.W.2d 192, 194 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ); see also Evans v. C. Woods, Inc., No. 12-99-00153-CV, 1999 WL 787399, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Aug. 30, 1999, no pet. h.).

A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).  It has also been held thatIt is not necessary to take any steps to have a void judgment reversed, vacated, or set aside, It may be impeached in any action direct or, collateral.‘ Holder v. Scott, 396 S.W.2d 906, (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1965, writ ref., n.r.e.).  A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907). 

The law is well-settled that a void order or judgement is void even before reversal“, VALLEY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 (1920) “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgements and orders are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850).

A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).  When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter,but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994).  

A Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486. If an appeal is taken, however, the appellate court may declare void any orders the trial court signed after it lost plenary power over the case. “A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning, and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment. It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights. Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).  

A void judgment is a nullity from the beginningand is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment.  It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J.,concurring).  See” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006). MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion. The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.

CLICK HERECLICK HERECLICK HERECLICK HERE

 

 

 

 

THE JUDGES LINKED TO THIS CASE-COMPLAINT COMMITTED CIVIL FRAUD UPON THE COURT.  THEY ALL KNEW CORLA JACKSON NEVER HAD A LOAN-MORTGAGE WITH GMAC BECAUSE IT WAS RECORDED.  

CLICK HERE

 

THE LIES IS OVER TRUTH-UNCOVERED-MORE!

READ MORE: CLICK HERE

 

A Void Judgment Will Not Support An Appeal No Due Process Prior To Illegal Foreclosure and The New Loan (0835002124) Was Created Prior to, Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama, Which Is Null and Void By The Rule Of Governed Law.  All The Orders Issued In (2005) by Law is Null and Void.

The 14th amendment of the United States Constitution gives everyone a right to due process of law, which includes judgments that comply with the rules and case law. Most due process exceptions deal with the issue of notification. If, for example, someone gets a judgement against you in another state without your having been notified, you can attack the judgement for lack of due process of law. In Griffen v. Griffen, 327 U.S. 220, 66 S. Ct. 556, 90 L. Ed. 635 a pro se litigant won his case in the Supreme Court who stated:

A judgement obtained in violation of procedural due process is not entitled to full faith and credit when sued upon in another jurisdiction. National Exchange Bank v. Wiley, 195 U.S. 257; Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 23; Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U.S. 394, 401. Moreover, due process requires that no other jurisdiction shall give effect, even as a matter of comity, to a judgement elsewhere acquired without due process.  

That’s What Bradley Arant Boult Cummings and Morrison & Foerster Did In New York, Under Judge Martin Glenn!  Then They Came Back To Alabama and Used Those Orders To Carry Out Their Crime Based Upon Judge Martin Glenn Illegal Orders That Is Based Upon Fraud and Fraud Upon His Court On A Void Judgment With No Due Process, No Remand, No Summary Judgment From The United States District Court For The Southern Division Of Alabama Under Case (12-00111).

They Had Judge Martin Glenn Denying Victims Lifts Of Automatic Stay To Proceed To Trial, Using His Orders To Carry Out Their Crimes Outside Jurisdiction Based Upon Fraud and Fraud Upon The Court Without Due Process, A Summary Jugment and Remand Back To The United States Bankruptcy Couret For The Southern Division Of Alabama, Where The Case Initially Came From Prior To Circuit Court.

18 U.S. Code § 3231 – District courts: The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States. Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof.  June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 826.

A Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486. If an appeal is taken, however, the appellate court may declare void any orders the trial court signed after it lost plenary power over the case. “A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning, and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment. It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). 

 

EVERYONE KNOW WHAT NO DUE PROCESS MEANS, NO REMAND, NO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRIOR TO THE ILLEGAL FORECLUSRE JUNE 1, 2012.  CORLA REEVES JACKSON AUTOMATICALLY WIN ALL PRIOR JUDGMENTS THE JUDGMENTS ARE VOID!

THERE WAS NO DUE PROCESS IN CASE (12-00111) IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DIVISION OF ALABAMA.  THIS IS RECORDED IN FEDERAL COURT RECORDS IN CASE (12-00111).  THE REMAND TOOK PLACE (FEBRUARY 3, 2016) ON JUDGMENTS THAT WERE VOID!  

 

A Void Judgment Will Not Support An Appeal No Due Process Prior To Illegal Foreclosure and The New Loan (0835002124) Was Created Prior to, Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama, Which Is Null and Void By The Rule Of Governed Law.  All The Orders Issued In (2005) by Law is Null and Void.

Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) Orders Were All Violated and More.  It Appears The Initial Bankruptcy Case Tried To Stop Them, But All The Orders Were Violated and Covered Up By The State Of Alabama and Its Law Firms and Lawyers Linked To This Crime To Date, Which Voids All Orders Issued After (2005) Because GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, Didn’t Own The Property They Created Their New Loan Under In (2005) and More.  There Was Never A Mortgage Contract Agreement-Agreement Between Corla Jackson and GMAC, This Was Recorded.

This Is Why Corla Reeves Jackson Will Win Her Case In The United States Supreme Court If Need, This Is Recorded Facts Guaranteed! 

STATEMENT OF FACTS BY THE RULE OF GOVERNED LAW

A Void Judgment Will Not Support An Appeal No Due Process Prior To Illegal Foreclosure and The New Loan (0835002124) Was Created Prior to, Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama.  The New Fabricated Mortgage Loan Number (0835002124) ) is Null and Void by the Rule Of Govern Law.  

Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) Orders Were All Violated and More.  It Appears The Initial Bankruptcy Case Tried To Stop Them, But All The Orders Were Violated and Covered Up By The State Of Alabama and Its Law Firms and Lawyers Linked To This Crime To Date, Which Voids All Orders Issued After (2005) Because GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, Didn’t Own The Property They Created Their New Loan Under In (2005) and More.  There Was Never A Mortgage Contract Agreement-Agreement Between Corla Jackson and GMAC, This Was Recorded.

This Is Why Corla Reeves Jackson Will Win Her Case In The United States Supreme Court If Need, This Is Recorded Facts Guaranteed!  

A Void Judgment Will Not Support An Appeal No Due Process Prior To Illegal Foreclosure and The New Loan (0835002124) Was Created Prior to, Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama.  The New Fabricated Mortgage Loan Number (0835002124) ) is Null and Void by the Rule Of Govern Law.  

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect, Lubben v. Selevtive Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972).

A void judgment is one which from the beginning was complete nullity and without any legal effect, Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D. Fla. 1980).

Void judgment is one that, from its inception, is complete nullity and without legal effect, Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, reconsideration denied 149 F.R.D. 147, affirmed 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D. Ill 1992).

Void judgment is one where court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or entry of order violated due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).

Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was, was a complete nullity and without legal effect, Rubin v. Johns, 109 F.R.D. 174 (D. Virgin Islands 1985).

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree – Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).  CLICK HERE TO SEE EVIDENCE AND MORE

 

FEDERAL RULE (60b) (59b) FRAP 25(a)(2)(B)

Corla Jackson wasn’t behind in payments in (2005) or prior to Option One Mortgage Corporation closing (April 30, 2008) this is recorded.  The Crime occurred in (2005) and they didn’t pay for the damages to date, violating the Mortgage Contact Agreement executed (May 26, 2004) terms and conditions and more.  

See Case: 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 71-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 102

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71-3 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 13. 

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71 Filed 05/22/17 Page 127-135.

BREAKING HEADLINE NEWS 3.30.2018

Atlanta Took On The (New Appeal Under Case 17-12563-CC )  FREE! :  Atlanta Want All The Crooks Linked To This Crime because their Courts Were Defrauded As Well on the 1st Appeal filed by Corla Jackson.  Bradley Arant Boult Cummings covered up the Crime their Affiliate Firms and (Sirote & Permutt P.C.) Committed Here.   The State Of Alabama Covered Up The Crimes Their Law Firms and Corrupted Judges Did, With Illegal Orders based upon Fraud and Fraud Upon Alabama Courts, that lead to Widespread Fraud and Fraud Upon The Court outside Alabama Jurisdiction because they filed the Illegal Orders with Pacer-ALA Court-More, with the Intent To Corrupt This Case-Complaint to date Willfully and Illegally, which cannot be ignored or denied its recorded facts.  

Corla Jackson Identity, Property, and Credit was Stolen Through Her Credit Initially so no one could see she had been robbed.  In Addiction To This, Corla Jackson’s Civil Rights, Consumer Rights and More Were Violated as Well As Securities Laws with the Use Of the New Fabricated Note-Mortgage Loan Number (0835002124) that was Illegally Created by their Client GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC In (2005) Without Lack Of Standing, with the intent to Embezzle Payments from her Original Note-Mortgage .  The Assignment Of Mortgages Were Both Fraud.  See:   Option One Mortgage Corporation (4/30/2008).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

Alabama Tired To Get The Case Back, Atlanta Court-Judge Refused To Give The Case Back To Alabama, They Defrauded Atlanta As Well Linked To This Case-Complaint, Prior To This (New Appeal Under Case 17-12563-CC) because the Next Stop Is The United States Supreme Court, where Corla Jackson would Prevail Guaranteed!  The Lies Is Over…  

 Governing Rules:  Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the assertion of affirmative defenses in civil cases that are filed in the United States district courts. Rule:  8(c) specifically enumerates the following defenses: “accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge inbankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute oflimitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. 

See: The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.  Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the… matter is dismissed with prejudice.  

(See 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Conspiracies to Interfere With Civil Rights “ (See 42 U.S.C. § 1985); Conspiracy Against Rights of Citizens” (See 18 U.S.C. § 241); Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law” (See 18 U.S.C. § 242); The Jurisdictional Statue for Civil Rights Cases (See 28 U.S.C. § 1443); and Peonage Abolished (See 42 U.S.C. § 1994).  See: Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] _ So. 3d  (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC.  

CORLA REEVES JACKSON IS NOW TAKING APPLICATIONS FOR A LAWYER BECAUSE SHE SAVED THIS COMPLAINT AND ITS PENDING TRIAL IN ATLANTA, IN WHICH SHE WILL PREVAIL NOW.  THE NEW JUDGE IN ATLANTA ON THE APPEAL filed by CORLA JACKSON said CORLA JACKSON DIDN’T FILE FRIVOLOUS APPEAL!   See Jackson Initial Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) and Other Complaints that was covered up from the public:   OCWEN Corrupt Organization Has Been Doing This Since (2002) Using Deceptive Practices with Trump and Jeff Sessions Affiliates to date (2018) Guaranteed.   See:   Bradley Arant Boult Cummings :   Option One Mortgage Corporation (4/30/2008).

Alabama Tired To Get The Case Back, Atlanta Court-Judge Refused To Give The Case Back To Alabama, They Defrauded Atlanta As Well Linked To This Case-Complaint, Prior To This (New Appeal Under Case 17-12563-CC) because the Next Stop Is The United States Supreme Court, where Corla Jackson would Prevail Guaranteed!  The Lies Is Over…  

See: The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.  Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the… matter is dismissed with prejudice.  

(See 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Conspiracies to Interfere With Civil Rights “ (See 42 U.S.C. § 1985); Conspiracy Against Rights of Citizens” (See 18 U.S.C. § 241); Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law” (See 18 U.S.C. § 242); The Jurisdictional Statue for Civil Rights Cases (See 28 U.S.C. § 1443); and Peonage Abolished (See 42 U.S.C. § 1994).  See: Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] _ So. 3d  (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC.  

The Primary Purpose of this law suit is to Invoke Securities Laws Rules and Regulations’ in Alabama in addition to Invoking Laws that protect All Citizens Civil Rights by the rule of Governed Law, Applicable by Law, which has clearly been violated, in addition to the purpose of this lawsuit is to enforce the terms and conditions of the Original Note-Mortgage loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8) and to be compensated for all the damages caused from (2005-2018) to date.  

None of this should have never occurred, Corla Jackson wasn’t in Default of her Original Mortgage-Note, when she was robbed in (2005) by the Alabama Law Firm Sirote & Permutt P.C., and their client GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC with the intent to Embezzle Payments-Money from the Mortgage Contact Agreement Executed (May 26, 2004) between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation under the Original Note loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8).  The Assignment Of Mortgages Were Both Fraud.  See:   Option One Mortgage Corporation (4/30/2008).

Sirote & Permutt P.C., and their client GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC with the intent to Embezzle Payments-Money from the Mortgage Contact Agreement Executed (May 26, 2004) between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation under the Original Note loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8) to Apply to their Fabricated Note Without Owning her Property and Without Lack Of Standing.  

The United States Federal Government Must Shut Down the Money Laundering Corrupt Organization, that can be traced back as far as (2002) The Whistle Blower Corla Reeves Jackson Says, and we all know she is telling the truth, shoes of her that has followed this story and complaint and her cases since (2005)Corla Reeves Jackson is the Whistle Blower that Saved Millions of Citizens and they don’t know it yet. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

See: The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.  Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the… matter is dismissed with prejudice.  (See 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Conspiracies to Interfere With Civil Rights “ (See 42 U.S.C. § 1985); Conspiracy Against Rights of Citizens” (See 18 U.S.C. § 241); Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law” (See 18 U.S.C. § 242); The Jurisdictional Statue for Civil Rights Cases (See 28 U.S.C. § 1443); and Peonage Abolished (See 42 U.S.C. § 1994).  See: Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] _ So. 3d  (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC.  

This Crime was initiated in (2005) under bankruptcy case (05-13142) under loan number (0835002124) without lack of standing, violating the terms and agreement under the Original Note in the Mortgage Contact Agreement Executed (May 26, 2004) between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation under the Original Note loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

Judge York and Judge Johnston Both Knew When They Issued Their Illegal Ejectments Based Upon Fraud Upon The Alabama Courts GMAC No Longer Owned The Fabricated Note They Sold, This Was Recorded and More.   1   2   3   4   5   6    7   8   9  10  11  12

JUDGE YORK KNEW, HRB and Block Financial may be subject by reason of the Final Judgment as to Option One Mortgage Corporation nlk/Sand Canyon Corporation (“Sand Canyon“), entered on May 2, 2012 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California a, Civil Action No. 12-633 (the “Final Judgment”).   The Final Judgment, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins Sand Canyon from violations of sections 17(a) (2) and 17(a) (3) of the Securities Act in the offer or sale of any security. Sand Canyon is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of HRB that has ceased the mortgage loan origination activities and mortgage servicing operations involved in the Commission’s allegations that led to the Final Judgment and discontinued its remaining operations.  This Is Public Records, Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).   See:   (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

 Governing Rules:  Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the assertion of affirmative defenses in civil cases that are filed in the United States district courts. Rule:  8(c) specifically enumerates the following defenses: “accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge inbankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute oflimitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. 

Corla Reeves Jackson saved the United States Government and they do know this, and allowed her to take her story worldwide through national media and more, while they watch her force the crooks to leave their paper trail through the Judicial System to see who all was involved to date and more.  Corla Reeves Jackson says it was rough and hard to allow this to happen at her expense to date, but this had to be done, in order to protect everyone land and homeowner Nationwide and Investors Worldwide, linked to Mortgages backed by Securities.   

It Was Corla Jackson that made the public aware that the United States Federal Government was being robbed as well, which made matters worse.  Corla Reeves Jackson said someone had to do something and Corla Reeves Jackson did did do something, she took it to social media, but social media didn’t know how and why her case-complaints were being blocked in Alabama with Illegal Orders based upon Fraud and Fraud Upon Alabama Courts, which lead to Widespread Fraud and Fraud Upon Courts Outside Alabama’s Jurisdiction, and Affiliates Jurisdictions and More.  This entire case is recorded and more which is Historic!

Corla Reeves Jackson says, the same people that robbed the United States Federal Government and Investors Worldwide has taken over the White House, this is facts Guaranteed.  The reason they Hacked the Election 2016, is because the DEMOCRATS Blocked the Corrupt Organization from robbing Citizens, Investors On Wall Street, and the United States Federal Government, Tax Payers and More, by Amending New Laws, Rules and Regulations, after the Banks, Servicers, and Mortgage Fraud Corrupt Organizations got busted under President Barack Obama’s Watch, they busted them because they were following this story online to see what the hell was going on.

When they found out this story was true they busted on Stealing Mortgages and Victims Identities to Fabricated New Loans To Rob The FEDS, and More Using Deceptive Practices.  After this Occurred, the Election was Hacked In (2016) and Trump and Sessions went In And Laws Were Changed and More, Linked To Massive Stolen Mortgages and Securities Laws Under Dodd Frank.

The Democrats and Some Republicans Help Stop The Massive Stolen Mortgage Fraud Ring Corrupt Orgianization From Robbing Citizens, Investors On Wall Street, and the United States Federal Government, Tax Payers , around PSA, Pools Of Trust, the SEC, FDIC and More, by Amending New Laws, Rules and Regulations.  After the Election was Hacked immediately after Trump and Sessions took Office, new laws and more were changed for the worse.  It was Trump and Sessions Affiliates, whom is linked to the banking crimes for big illegal profits, personal gain and favor.  Trump and Wilbur Ross was both were benefiting from the Stolen Mortgage Profits as well as Jeff Sessions through the Alabama Law firms using deceptive practices.   OCWEN Corrupt Organization Has Been Doing This Since (2002) Using Deceptive Practices with Trump and Jeff Sessions Affiliates to date (2018) Guaranteed.   See:   Bradley Arant Boult Cummings :   Option One Mortgage Corporation (4/30/2008)

The Mortgage fraud settlement funds that were given to the state of Alabama to help the victims never reached all the victims.  The state of Alabama gave the funds to their law firms, business, and affiliates, whom in return invested big money in their campaigns. 

Corla Reeves Jackson continued to fight for Justice for all Wrongful Foreclosure and Property Owner Victims, as well as for her Civil Rights, and More.  They Big Alabama Law Firms and their affiliate firms continued robbing the Federal Reserve, Wall Street Investors and More to date, around the SEC, where they left off at, after Trump and Sessions took office, They Got Worse.  Alabama’s State Firm and Their Affiliate Firms were getting illegal orders from corrupted Judges link to the firms and their corrupted mortgage fraud operation organization illegal profiting ring, blocking victims complaints from being heard with illegal orders, that was based upon Fraud and Fraud upon Alabama Courts, which lead to Widespread Fraud and Fraud Upon Courts Outside Their Jurisdiction and State, this is recorded. 

They knew victims were being robbed to date and had not been paid by their corrupted mortgage fraud operation organization illegal profiting ring, blocking Victims complaints from being heard with illegal orders that was based upon Fraud and Fraud upon Alabama Courts, which lead to Widespread Fraud and Fraud Upon Courts, Outside Their Jurisdiction and State.  Their Corrupt mortgage fraud operation organization illegal profiting ring, law firms were blocking Victims complaints from being heard with illegal orders, based upon fraud and fraud upon the court while they continued to take over the United States Mortgages to date linked to Trump and Sessions Affiliates.  The Corrupt Organization Has Been Doing This As Far Back As (2002) Guaranteed.

Jeff Sessions State and Affiliate Firms Is Involved, Wilbur Ross, and Many of Trump Affiliates.  Bare in Mine Trump Had a Mortgage Company under another Name, and he Obtain Funds from Wilbur Ross, Linked to Massive Stolen Mortgage Profits and More Guaranteed. 

OCWEN Corrupt Organization Has Been Doing This Since (2002) Using Deceptive Practices with Trump and Jeff Sessions Affiliates to date (2018) Guaranteed.   See:   Bradley Arant Boult Cummings :   Option One Mortgage Corporation (4/30/2008)

Trump and his affiliate think because the Election 2016 that allowed them to change Dodd Frank Laws, this will allow his affiliates to keep the fund they robbed Victims, USA, Investors Pools Of Trust and more of, that they never got from the corrupt organization which include OCWEN.

The New Law Trump Changed Under Dodd Frank was to Unblock the law so his money people linked to this corrupt organization on massive stole mortgages illegal profits, continue with illegal profits and more after he and Jeff Sessions took office, knowing Victims were never paid and had continued to be robbed to date the State of Alabama was covering up, which is a crime. 

Trump Affiliates Wilbur Ross and Jeff Sessions Affiliates were not prosecuted for the crime they are linked to with the corrupt organization and OCWEN.  Jeff Sessions Affiliate Firm Bradley Arant Boult Cummings is involved big time in the Mortgage Fraud Operation with the corrupt organization, with Wilbur Ross and OCWEN to date Guaranteed. 

Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions and their Affiliates linked to this crime, Massive Stolen Property’s and Property’s knew Victims Could Not Get the Harp-Tarp Funds, because they were blocked, with Illegal Orders based upon Fraud and Fraud Upon Alabama Courts and because their names were never replaced back on their property’s which allowed the Corrupt Illegal Mortgage Fraud Operation Servicers to keep the money due to victims, and without paying victims and the Feds and More, around the SEC, Federal Reserve, Wall Street Investors Trust, and More. 

Donald Trump Changed Dodd Frank Laws immediately after taking office, and Sessions Affiliates Issued Illegal Orders to block this complaint and more, thinking they could get away with this crime, so they all would benefit from him being elected by a Hacked Election 2016, which include Deutsche Bank.    

The laws Trump Changed is not going to work, on cases and assignments that was illegal created under fabricated notes prior to his dismantling of Dodd Frank Laws that helped him and his affiliates, while in office, and prior to taking office.  Donald Trump should be impeached, and Sessions should step down, his campaign funds came from Alabama’s Firms that committed this robbery with corrupted judges illegal orders linked to him and more and he know this!

Deutsche Bank is involved in the Massive Stolen Mortgage Fraud Ring with Trump Affiliates as well as Sessions Affiliates!

OCWEN Corrupt Organization Has Been Doing This Since (2002) Using Deceptive Practices with Trump and Jeff Sessions Affiliates to date (2018) Guaranteed. 

 

 BREAKING HEADLINE NEWS 3.29.2018

Comes now Corla Jackson (Plaintiff) who being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows and invokes the jurisdiction of any Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1332, and 1367.  The purpose of this lawsuit is to enforce the terms and conditions of the Original Note-Mortgage loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8) and to be compensated for all the damages caused from (2005-2018) to date.  

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  

See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

See Case: 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 71-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 102

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71-3 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 13. 

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71 Filed 05/22/17 Page 127-135.

This action is brought to redress statutory violations pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq., (RICO), 15 U.S.C. §2301 et seq., 18 U.S.C. §1341 et seq., (Mail and Wire Frau d), 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq., Truth-In-Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §1681et seq., Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq., Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 12 U.S.C. §1205, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 15 U.S.C. §1639, Home Ownership Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), 15 U.S.C. §1601, et seq., Fair Credit Billing Act, and 15 U.S.C. §45,Trade Commission Act (FTCA).

Corla Jackson (Plaintiff) also brings this action for common law breach of contract, tortuous interference with contractual relations, unjust enrichment, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, reckless and wanton misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, conversion, and pendent jurisdiction for statutory violations under AL. Gen. Stat. §42-110a, et seq., the Alabama Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), and AL., Gen. Stat. §36 a-645, et seq., the Alabama Consumer Credit Reporting Act (“CCCRA”). 42 USC 1983 and Tort Claims Acts. 

Corla Jackson (Plaintiff) brings this Complaint for herself against GMAC Mortgage Corporation Et, Al., aka GMAC Mortgage LLC Et, Al., and RESCAP Et, AL, aka Residential Capital Corporation Et, Al, aka Residential Capital LLC Et, Al., and severally to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, costs of suit, and past attorneys-more to date, saying and complaining as follows:  The Lawyers’s Didn’t Do This Himself, Neither did (Lacy) They Went Around The Key Facts:

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES, CIVIL CONSPIRACY, CONTRACT CLAIMS. RACKETEERING CLAIMS. MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD, FAIR DEBT COLLECTION, NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS, FRAUD CLAIMS, DEFAMATION CLAIMS, BREACH OF CONTRACT,  RESPA VIOLATION CLAIMS, FRAUD CLAIMS, INTENTIONAL DISTRESS, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, FAIR CREDIT REPORTING, TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE, TRUTH IN LENDING CLAIMS, CONVERSION CLAIMS, RECKLESS MISCONDUCT, HOME OWNERSHIP & EQUITY PROTECTION CLAIMS, TRADE COMMISSION ACT, VICARIOUS LIABILITY, DECLARATORY RELIEF, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, 42 U.S.C. §1982 CLAIMS,

Corla Jackson never had a loan-mortgage contract agreement or recorded deed between GMAC and Corla Jackson under loan number (0835002124) this is the red flag-that cannot be ignored…. GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, didn’t provide any Burden of Proof, the case was Discharged January 20, 2010, the Corrupted Judges Knew this because its recorded… They violated the mortgage contract agreement-breached executed between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation under the Original Note loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8) this was recorded yall!   

See Case: 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 71-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 102

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71-3 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 13. 

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71 Filed 05/22/17 Page 127-135.

See: The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.  

Governing Rules:  Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the assertion of affirmative defenses in civil cases that are filed in the United States district courts. Rule:  8(c) specifically enumerates the following defenses: “accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge inbankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute oflimitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. 

See:   Bradley Arant Boult Cummings  :   Option One Mortgage Corporation (4/30/2008)

1   2   3   4   5   6    7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15

 

BREAKING HEADLINE NEWS 3.28.2018

This Crime was initiated in (2005) under bankruptcy case (05-13142) under loan number (0835002124) without lack of standing, Violating the terms and conditions in the agreement under the Original Note in the Mortgage Contact Agreement Executed (May 26, 2004) between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation under the Original Note loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8).  

Option One Mortgage Never Filed A Proof Of Claim Stating Corla Jackson Was Behind In Payments Because She Wasn’t When She Was Robbed by, GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC Under Their New Fabricated Note Loan Number (0835002124) Which Had Nothing To Do With Mortgage Contact Agreement Executed (May 26, 2004) between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation under the Original Note loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8).  The Assignment Of Mortgages Were Both Fraud.  See:   Option One Mortgage Corporation (4/30/2008).

Sirote & Permutt P.C., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings and their affiliate firms and lawyers, actually fabricated (2) Assignment of Mortgages here, that is not valid by any rule of law.  They Judges that issued their illegal orders seen the Assignment of Mortgages Were Not Valid.  See Evidence-More.

Wilbur Ross-AHM-AHMSI-Homeward or Option One Mortgage Didn’t Own Corla Jackson Property Prior To (April 30, 2008) this was Recorded.  The Feds Owned The Fabricated Note That Was Illegally Created In (2005) Without Lack Of Standing In (2005).    Take A Look At This World, The Lies Is Over!

HRB and Block Financial may be subject by reason of the Final Judgment as to Option One Mortgage Corporation nlk/Sand Canyon Corporation (“Sand Canyon“), entered on May 2, 2012 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California a, Civil Action No. 12-633 (the “Final Judgment”).   The Final Judgment, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins Sand Canyon from violations of sections 17(a) (2) and 17(a) (3) of the Securities Act in the offer or sale of any security. Sand Canyon is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of HRB that has ceased the mortgage loan origination activities and mortgage servicing operations involved in the Commission’s allegations that led to the Final Judgment and discontinued its remaining operations.  This Is Public Records, Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).   

See:   Bradley Arant Boult Cummings: ….. Wilbur Ross-AHM-AHMSI-Homeward or Option One Mortgage Didn’t Own Corla Jackson Property Prior To (April 30, 2008) this was Recorded.  The Feds Owned The Fabricated Note That Was Illegally Created In (2005) Without Lack Of Standing In (2005).    Take A Look At This World, The Lies Is Over!  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

Corla Jackson wasn’t behind in payments in (2005) or prior to Option One Mortgage Corporation closing (April 30, 2008) this is recorded. The Crime occurred in (2005) and they didn’t pay for the damages to date, violating the Mortgage Contact Agreement executed (May 26, 2004) terms and conditions and more.  GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC owed Corla Jackson thousands of Dollars in payments they robbed her of and applied to their fabricated note (0835002124).   In addition to this, they owed Corla Jackson Millions of Dollars in Massive Damages from (2005-2018) to date.    Sirote & Permutt P.C., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings and their affiliate firms and lawyers, actually fabricated (2) Assignment of Mortgages here, that is not valid by any rule of law.  They Judges that issued their illegal orders seen the Assignment of Mortgages Were Not Valid.  See Evidence-More.

Wilbur Ross-AHM-AHMSI-Homeward or Option One Mortgage Didn’t Own Corla Jackson Property Prior To (April 30, 2008) this was Recorded.  The Feds Owned The Fabricated Note That Was Illegally Created In (2005) Without Lack Of Standing In (2005).    Take A Look At This World, The Lies Is Over!

This Crime was initiated in (2005) under bankruptcy case (05-13142) under loan number (0835002124) without lack of standing, violating the terms and agreement under the Original Note in the Mortgage Contact Agreement Executed (May 26, 2004) between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation under the Original Note loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8). 

Judge York and Judge Johnston Both Knew When They Issued Their Illegal Ejectments Based Upon Fraud Upon The Alabama Courts GMAC No Longer Owned The Fabricated Note They Sold, This Was Recorded and More.   1   2   3   4   5   6    7   8   9  10  11  12

JUDGE YORK KNEW, HRB and Block Financial may be subject by reason of the Final Judgment as to Option One Mortgage Corporation nlk/Sand Canyon Corporation (“Sand Canyon“), entered on May 2, 2012 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California a, Civil Action No. 12-633 (the “Final Judgment”).   The Final Judgment, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins Sand Canyon from violations of sections 17(a) (2) and 17(a) (3) of the Securities Act in the offer or sale of any security. Sand Canyon is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of HRB that has ceased the mortgage loan origination activities and mortgage servicing operations involved in the Commission’s allegations that led to the Final Judgment and discontinued its remaining operations.  This Is Public Records, Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).   See:   (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

 Governing Rules:  Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the assertion of affirmative defenses in civil cases that are filed in the United States district courts. Rule:  8(c) specifically enumerates the following defenses: “accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge inbankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute oflimitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. 

GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Sirote & Permutt P.C. or the State Of Alabama, never paid Corla Jackson or the Courts on the funds they Embezzled under their fabricated note GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC created in (2005) under Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) without lack of standing.     When did the State Of Alabama County Of Mobile, start issuing loan numbers-Assignments Of Mortgages…?  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.   The Assignment of the Mortgage appears in Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama, States Loan Number 0835002124, from State Of Alabama County Of Mobile, with No Address, Phone Number-Contact Number, to Verify the Assignment Of Mortgage by The Rule Of Servicing Laws, Governed Laws and More.  This Violates the the terms and Conditions and more in the Mortgage Contact Agreement Executed (May 26, 2004) between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation under the Original Note loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8). 

Corla Jackson never had a loan-mortgage contract agreement or recorded deed between GMAC and Corla Jackson under loan number (0835002124) this is the red flag-that cannot be ignored…. GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, didn’t provide any Burden of Proof, the case was Discharged January 20, 2010, the Corrupted Judges Knew this because its recorded… They violated the mortgage contract agreement-breached executed between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation under the Original Note loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8) this was recorded yall!   

See Case: 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 71-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 102

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71-3 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 13. 

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71 Filed 05/22/17 Page 127-135.

See: The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.  

The Assignment of the Mortgage appears in Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama, States Loan Number 0835002124, from State Of Alabama County Of Mobile, with No Address, Phone Number-Contact Number, to Verify the Assignment Of Mortgage by The Rule Of Servicing Laws, Governed Laws and More.  This Violates the the terms and Conditions and more in the Mortgage Contact Agreement Executed (May 26, 2004) between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation under the Original Note loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8). 

When did the State Of Alabama County Of Mobile, start issuing loan numbers-Assignments Of Mortgages…?  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA. A proof of execution by a subscribing witness cannot be used in conjunction with any quitclaim deed, grant deed document (other than a trustee’s deed or a deed of reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust or security agreement. (Government Code section 27287 and Civil Code section 1195(b)

This Assignment did’t have a Trustee’s Deed Of Sale, Amount Of Mortgage Shown and Owed, it does not have a reconveyed Mortgage Contract Agreement back to Corla Jackson under loan number (0835002124) prior to July 11, 2008, prior to any of the False Proof of Claims in any of the Bankruptcy’s, or prior to the illegal foreclosure June 1, 2012. Assignment Of Mortgages has rules and regulations on transferring a mortgage and deed of trust, titles and reconveyance mortgages, satisfactions-releases-cancellations of original notes, loans and more. 

The Code of Alabama 1975 Section 35-10-9: Sales contrary to article null and void: All sales of real estate, made under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of this article, shall be null and void, notwithstanding any agreement or stipulation to the contrary.  (Code 1923, § 9018; Code 1940, T. 47, §172.

THEY KNEW THEIR STATE LAW FIRM AND THEIR CLIENT HAD ROBBED CORLA JACKSON ITS RECORDED AND MORE GUARANTEED!

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  

Judge York and Judge Johnston Both Knew When They Issued Their Illegal Ejectments Based Upon Fraud Upon The Alabama Courts GMAC No Longer Owned The Fabricated Note They Sold, This Was Recorded and More.   1   2   3   4   5   6    7   8   9  10  11  12

JUDGE YORK KNEW, HRB and Block Financial may be subject by reason of the Final Judgment as to Option One Mortgage Corporation nlk/Sand Canyon Corporation (“Sand Canyon“), entered on May 2, 2012 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California a, Civil Action No. 12-633 (the “Final Judgment”).   The Final Judgment, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins Sand Canyon from violations of sections 17(a) (2) and 17(a) (3) of the Securities Act in the offer or sale of any security. Sand Canyon is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of HRB that has ceased the mortgage loan origination activities and mortgage servicing operations involved in the Commission’s allegations that led to the Final Judgment and discontinued its remaining operations.  This Is Public Records, Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).   See:   (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

 Governing Rules:  Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the assertion of affirmative defenses in civil cases that are filed in the United States district courts. Rule:  8(c) specifically enumerates the following defenses: “accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge inbankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute oflimitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. 

THEY KNEW THEIR STATE LAW FIRM AND THEIR CLIENT HAD ROBBED CORLA JACKSON ITS RECORDED AND MORE GUARANTEED!

 

BREAKING HEADLINE NEWS 3.27.2018

THIS IS WHAT THE STATE OF ALABAMA CORRUPTED JUDGES AND THEIR STATE LAW FIRMS AND AFFILIATE FIRMS IS COVERING UP

THEY KNEW THEIR STATE LAW FIRM AND THEIR CLIENT HAD ROBBED CORLA JACKSON ITS RECORDED AND MORE GUARANTEED!

This Case and Complaint Was Pending Trial In Mobile Country Circuit Court For Fraud Under The Grounds Of Rule 60b.  The State Of Alabama Brought In Judge Youngpeter Over This Complaint, Whom Was Involved In This Crime.  Judge Youngpeter Worked For (Sirote & Permutt P.C.) He Corrupted The Case For His Firm and Affiliate Firm (Sirote & Permutt P.C.) and (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings) Whom Was The State Of Alabama Firm Link To The Alabama AG Luther Strange.  They Were Involved In Massive Stolen Property’s and Mortgages Backed By Securities Big Time!

BARE IN MIND: WHILE ALL OF THE ABOVE WAS GOING ON (CORLA REEVES JACKSON) WASN’T BEHIND IN PAYMENTS AND NEVER HAD A LOAN OR A RECORDED DEED BETWEEN CORLA JACKSON AND GMAC UNDER LOAN NUMBER (0835002124) THIS IS RECORDED.  

Corla Jackson wasn’t behind in payments in (2005) or prior to Option One Mortgage Corporation closing (April 30, 2008) this is recorded.  The Crime occurred in (2005) and they didn’t pay for the damages to date, violating the Mortgage Contact Agreement executed (May 26, 2004) terms and conditions and more.  

See Case: 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 71-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 102

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71-3 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 13. 

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71 Filed 05/22/17 Page 127-135.

See: The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.  

The Assignment of the Mortgage appears in Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama, States Loan Number 0835002124, from State Of Alabama County Of Mobile, with No Address, Phone Number-Contact Number, to Verify the Assignment Of Mortgage by The Rule Of Servicing Laws, Governed Laws and More.  This Violates the the terms and Conditions and more in the Mortgage Contact Agreement Executed (May 26, 2004) between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation under the Original Note loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8). 

When did the State Of Alabama County Of Mobile, start issuing loan numbers-Assignments Of Mortgages…?  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA. A proof of execution by a subscribing witness cannot be used in conjunction with any quitclaim deed, grant deed document (other than a trustee’s deed or a deed of reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust or security agreement. (Government Code section 27287 and Civil Code section 1195(b)

This Assignment do not have a Trustee’s Deed Of Sale, Amount Of Mortgage Shown and Owed, it does not have a recoveyed Mortgage Contract Agreement back to Corla Jackson under loan number (0835002124) prior to July 11, 2008, prior to any of the False Proof of Claims in any of the Bankruptcy’s, or prior to the illegal foreclosure June 1, 2012. Assignment Of Mortgages has rules and regulations on transferring a mortgage and deed of trust, titles and reconveyance mortgages, satisfactions-releases-cancellations of original notes, loans and more. 

The Code of Alabama 1975 Section 35-10-9: Sales contrary to article null and void: All sales of real estate, made under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of this article, shall be null and void, notwithstanding any agreement or stipulation to the contrary.  (Code 1923, § 9018; Code 1940, T. 47, §172.

THEY KNEW THEIR STATE LAW FIRM AND THEIR CLIENT HAD ROBBED CORLA JACKSON ITS RECORDED AND MORE GUARANTEED!

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  

Judge York and Judge Johnston Both Knew When They Issued Their Illegal Ejectments Based Upon Fraud Upon The Alabama Courts GMAC No Longer Owned The Fabricated Note They Sold, This Was Recorded and More.   1   2   3   4   5   6    7   8   9  10  11  12

JUDGE YORK KNEW, HRB and Block Financial may be subject by reason of the Final Judgment as to Option One Mortgage Corporation nlk/Sand Canyon Corporation (“Sand Canyon“), entered on May 2, 2012 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California a, Civil Action No. 12-633 (the “Final Judgment”).   The Final Judgment, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins Sand Canyon from violations of sections 17(a) (2) and 17(a) (3) of the Securities Act in the offer or sale of any security. Sand Canyon is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of HRB that has ceased the mortgage loan origination activities and mortgage servicing operations involved in the Commission’s allegations that led to the Final Judgment and discontinued its remaining operations.  This Is Public Records, Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).   See:   (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

 Governing Rules:  Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the assertion of affirmative defenses in civil cases that are filed in the United States district courts. Rule:  8(c) specifically enumerates the following defenses: “accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge inbankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute oflimitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. 

 

BREAKING HEADLINE NEWS 3.26.2018: Updates Listed At Bottom Of The Page

BREAKING HEADLINE NEWS 3.25.2018

Update As You Know Will Be Posted Throughout The Week, So The FEDS Will Know I See What They See They Got Them.  The Case Is Outside Alabama Now. The Only Thing They Have Confirmed Is Corla Jackson Didn’t File A Frivolous Appeal, She File a Non-Frivolous Appeal Which Is Great!  The Case Is Uncovered But They Ruling Hasn’t Taken Place  Yet.  The People That Is Linked To This Crime That Committed This Crime Should Be Worried Because Is Uncovered and its Bad.  

See: The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.  

The Assignment of the Mortgage appears in Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama, States Loan Number 0835002124, from State Of Alabama County Of Mobile, with No Address, Phone Number-Contact Number, to Verify the Assignment Of Mortgage by The Rule Of Servicing Laws, Governed Laws and More.  This Violates the the terms and Conditions and more in the Mortgage Contact Agreement Executed (May 26, 2004) between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation under the Original Note loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8). 

When did the State Of Alabama County Of Mobile, start issuing loan numbers-Assignments Of Mortgages…?  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA. A proof of execution by a subscribing witness cannot be used in conjunction with any quitclaim deed, grant deed document (other than a trustee’s deed or a deed of reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust or security agreement. (Government Code section 27287 and Civil Code section 1195(b)

This Assignment do not have a Trustee’s Deed Of Sale, Amount Of Mortgage Shown and Owed, it does not have a recoveyed Mortgage Contract Agreement back to Corla Jackson under loan number (0835002124) prior to July 11, 2008, prior to any of the False Proof of Claims in any of the Bankruptcy’s, or prior to the illegal foreclosure June 1, 2012. Assignment Of Mortgages has rules and regulations on transferring a mortgage and deed of trust, titles and reconveyance mortgages, satisfactions-releases-cancellations of original notes, loans and more. 

The Code of Alabama 1975 Section 35-10-9: Sales contrary to article null and void: All sales of real estate, made under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of this article, shall be null and void, notwithstanding any agreement or stipulation to the contrary.  (Code 1923, § 9018; Code 1940, T. 47, §172.

How Did Judge Hardesty-Judge York-Judge Johnston-Get This Federal Case-Complaint Back Over To The State Courts  In The First Place, Without A Remand Initially…?  Diversity jurisdiction legal definition of Diversity Diversity of Citizenship.  A phrase used with reference to the jurisdiction of the federal courts which, under the U.S. Constitution, Art. III, § 2, extends to cases.  (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions and matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusively” which included motions to dismiss” ejectments” unlawful detainers ” violations of a prior judge orders” which is all part of the plaintiffs or defendants defense.  

Lower courts cannot make these decisions” in  reference to the jurisdiction of the federal courts which, under the U.S. Constitution, Art. III, § 2, extends to cases.  (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions and matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusively” which included motions to dismiss” ejectments” unlawful detainers ” violations of a prior judge orders” which is all part of the plaintiffs or defendants defense on cases that is stayed pending federal damages and trial; on criminal offenses” such as identity theft and theft of property under federal laws.

There was never a Recorded Deed or Mortgage Contract Agreement under loan umber (0835002124) between the Defendant-Appellee-Defendant Appellee’s GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., and the Plaintiff-Appellant Corla Jackson prior to Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) and Bankruptcy Case (10-04820) and Bankruptcy Case (11-01545) or prior to the wrongful foreclosure dated (June 1, 2012) filed (June 13, 2012), No once can get Arrears dated back to (2006) without lack of standing in (2006) especially under a fabricated loan number (0835002124).  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

The Defendant-Appellee-Defendant Appellee’s GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., loan number (0835002124) was created without lack of standing in (2005) and the Assignment Was Prepared By Sirote & Permutt P.C.,  on (June 19, 2008) filed (July 11, 2008).  Their Fabricated Assignment Under (Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama) Prove Sirote & Permutt P.C. and their client GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Did In Fact Commit This Crime in (2005) Under Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) Under Their Loan Number (0835002124) Without Lack Of Standing.  This Is Recorded…. See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  

When Judge Johnston and Judge York Issued Their Illegal Ejectments under Case (CV-2013-902219),  GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Was Closed, OCWEN Owned GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC.,  Fabricated Loan (0835002124) That They Created Illegally In (2005) In Corla Jackson Name Under Her Property and Credit Without Lack Of Standing.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.   1   2   3   4   5   6    7   8   9  10  11  12

See:   (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

It is illegal to knowingly and with intent to defraud, file a bankruptcy petition or other document, or make a false or fraudulent representation, claim.  18 US 157 also applies to involuntary bankruptcies. This statute is based on the wire, mail, and bank fraud statutes. See 18 US 1341, 1343, and 1344, respectively.  

  • Perjury. 18 US 1621. Perjury is punished by a maximum of 5 years in prison.
  • Conspiracy. 18 US 371. Conspiracy has a maximum 5-year prison sentence (or less if the underlying crime has a lesser penalty, such as a misdemeanor).
  • Wire fraud. 18 US 1341. This offense has a possible sentence of 20 years in prison, or 30 years with a possible $1,000,000 fine where the offense impacts a financial institution.
  • Mail fraud. 18 US 1343. Mail fraud has the same penalties as wire fraud.
  • Bank fraud. 18 US 1344. Bank fraud is a criminal offense with a possible penalty of 30 years imprisonment and $1,000,000 fine.
  • RICO (racketeering). 18 US 1962. The sentence for a RICO charge can be 20 years incarceration.
  • Finally, 18 US 157 prohibits any scheme to defraud another, or attempt, during bankruptcy. The sentence for this charge is a maximum 5 years in federal prison. 

It is illegal to knowingly and with intent to defraud, file a bankruptcy petition or other document, or make a false or fraudulent representation, claim.  18 US 157 also applies to involuntary bankruptcies. This statute is based on the wire, mail, and bank fraud statutes. See 18 US 1341, 1343, and 1344, respectively.

In a federal prosecution for conspiracy, the defendant is typically charged with two offenses. First, he is charged with conspiracy. Second, he is charged with the offense that he and his co-conspirators were conspiring to commit. This is known as the object of the conspiracy. For instance, a person charged in connection with a drug or burglary.

Conspiracy against the rights of citizens. See 18 USC 241. This offense has a sentence of 10 years in prison.

  • Conspiracy against the rights of citizens. See 18 USC 241. This offense has a sentence of 10 years in prison. 
  •  
  • Conspiring in bribery of sporting contests. See 18 USC 224.

Under 18 USC 371, a person can be charged with conspiracy based on two elements

  1. An agreement to commit a criminal offense.
  2. An overt act that furthers the conspiracy.

The US Attorney does not have to prove that the agreement was in writing. It can be verbal and still subject the parties to criminal liability.

It is not a violation of double jeopardy for the defendant to be prosecuted and sentenced for both the conspiracy and the offense he agreed to commit.

Each is a separate and distinct offense.

 

In Bulloch v. United States,[7] the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury…. It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted. 

GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., (Law Firm Sirote & Permutt P.C.) Willfully Went Back And Committed The Same Crime Over Again by Fraud, Over Again Under Judge Shulman into (2) More Bankruptcy Cases They Illegally Forced Corla Jackson Into under Case (10-04820) and (11-01545) with More Fabricated and Altered Documents, After Option One Mortgage Closed and After Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) Was Discharged (January 20, 2010), This Is Recorded.  

See § 695. Fraud on the court: Fraud in obtaining or maintaining default judgment as ground for vacating or setting aside in state courts, 78 A.L.R.3d 150  Construction and application of provision of Rule 60(b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that Rule does not limit power of Federal District Court to set aside judgment for “fraud upon the court,” 19 A.L.R. Fed. 76.  

 Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the “Court”) does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. The Court is an unbiased, but methodical “creature” which is governed by the Rule of Law… that is, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, all which is overseen by Constitutional law.

When Judge Johnston and Judge York Issued Their Illegal Ejectments under Case (CV-2013-902219),  GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Was Closed, OCWEN Owned GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC.,  Fabricated Loan (0835002124) That They Created Illegally In (2005) In Corla Jackson Name Under Her Property and Credit Without Lack Of Standing.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.   1   2   3   4   5   6    7   8   9  10  11  12

The Code of Alabama 1975 Section 35-10-9: Sales contrary to article null and void: All sales of real estate, made under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of this article, shall be null and void, notwithstanding any agreement or stipulation to the contrary.  (Code 1923, § 9018; Code 1940, T. 47, §172.

Option One Mortgage Corporation (4/30/2008)

Judge York and Judge Johnston Both Knew,  A proof of execution by a subscribing witness cannot be used in conjunction with any quitclaim deed, grant deed document (other than a trustee’s deed or a deed of reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust or security agreement. (Government Code section 27287 and Civil Code section 1195(b):    1   2   3   4   5   6    7   8   9  10  11  12

Judge York and Judge Johnston Both Knew,  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  

See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.   Governed Laws and Security Laws were violated, under Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13 and More…

See: The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.  Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the… matter is dismissed with prejudice.  (See 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Conspiracies to Interfere With Civil Rights “ (See 42 U.S.C. § 1985); Conspiracy Against Rights of Citizens” (See 18 U.S.C. § 241); Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law” (See 18 U.S.C. § 242); The Jurisdictional Statue for Civil Rights Cases (See 28 U.S.C. § 1443); and Peonage Abolished (See 42 U.S.C. § 1994).  See: Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] _ So. 3d  (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC.  

See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

This Was A White Collar Crime Robbery Carried Out Their The United States Federal Bankruptcy Courts With State Law Firms and Affiliate Firms Fraudulent Proof Of Claims, Violation Of The Initial Judges Orders, an Automatic Stay, Embezzlement Of Funds and Money From (2005-2010) Under A Fabricated Note Created In (2005) Without Lack Of Standing, Robbing Corla Jackson In Direct Payments and Trustees Payments, Via The Conditionally Denied Oder To The Bar Date, and After The Bar Date Around the Court and Judge Mahoney.  

This Is Very Serious, the Complaint and Cases Were Covered Up By The State Of Alabama Corrupted Judges With Illegal Orders, That Has Also Been Uncovered.  GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Was Never Approved After The Bar Date Is What This Will Boil Down To and It Was Recorded and Ignored!

OCWEN Reported The Crime, That’s Why They Haven’t Took The Home They Trying To See What The Hell Happen Before They Got Involved.  Plus Corla Jackson Loan Number Is Still FROZEN to prevent OCWEN For Doing Anything Because They Didn’t Pay, and This Was Their Job To Find Out What Happened Not Corla Jackson Job Because She Didn’t Have An Independent Foreclosure Review To See What Happened.

Corla Jackson says the Independent Foreclosure Review was Block By Bradley Arant Boult Cummings and Morrison & Foerster LLP and Their Affiliate Firms.  So Right Now No One Is Moving Because Corla Jackson Was Robbed and The State Of Alabama Covered It Up Using Their Affiliate Firms.  The Big Question Is Why Didn’t Corla Jackson Lawyers and Law Firms Tell Her After The Bar Date (October 24, 2005) GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, Wasn’t Approved By Judge Mahoney In Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) They Were Conditionally Denied all The Way Up To (March 1, 2006) and They Violated The Order Issued (March 1, 2006) and Filed A Proof Of Claim Without The Terms and Condition Attached, and The Court’s Order After (March 1, 2006) Approving Them Into The Plan With The Mortgage Contract Agreement-Agreement Between Corla Jackson and GMAC under Loan Number (0835002124).

On February 22, 2017, an Alabama State Judge York, Willfully and Illegally Committed Civil Fraud Upon The Court and Covered Up The Crime Again With Illegal Orders, This Has Been Uncovered and Confirmed.  Jude York Knew GMAC Committed This Crime In (2005) Because Their Assignment They Fabricated Is Recorded After Option One Mortgage Closed (4.30.2008) That Was Prepared By The Law Firm That Committed This Crime Initially (Sirote & Permutt P.C.) On (June 19, 2008) That Was Filed (July 11, 2008).  This Crime Occurred and Was Initiated In (2005) Under Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) Without Lack Of Standing.  The Loan Was Created In Corla Jackson Name Under Her Credit and Property Prior To (Sirote & Permutt P.C.) Fabricated Assignment They Prepared On (June 19, 2008) That They Filed (July 11, 2008) under Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama .  Judge York Knew This Is Recorded! 

What Sirote & Permutt P.C., Law Firm Did Was, They Had Sand Canyon Assign Them Over Their Mortgage To Make It Appear As If They Had An Assignment Prior To Option One Mortgage Closing On Their Backdated Assignment Which Didn’t Help, That Makes Matters Worse, Because Corla Jackson Wasn’t Behind In Payments.  The Mortgage Contract Agreement Executed (May 26, 2004) was between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation, under loan number 651003367 servicing number 001347464-8.   There was no new recorded deed or mortgage contract agreement-agreement filed and recorded under the new fabricated loan number (0835002124) in 2005, by the Plaintiff GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., prior to initiating their illegal foreclosure actions in Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) in 2005.   GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Didn’t Own Corla Jackson Property In (2005) Prior To Creating Their New Loan (0835002124).

JUDGE YORK KNEW, HRB and Block Financial may be subject by reason of the Final Judgment as to Option One Mortgage Corporation nlk/Sand Canyon Corporation (“Sand Canyon“), entered on May 2, 2012 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California a, Civil Action No. 12-633 (the “Final Judgment”).   The Final Judgment, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins Sand Canyon from violations of sections 17(a) (2) and 17(a) (3) of the Securities Act in the offer or sale of any security. Sand Canyon is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of HRB that has ceased the mortgage loan origination activities and mortgage servicing operations involved in the Commission’s allegations that led to the Final Judgment and discontinued its remaining operations.  This Is Public Records, Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).

See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

 Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the… matter is dismissed with prejudice.  (See 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Conspiracies to Interfere With Civil Rights “ (See 42 U.S.C. § 1985); Conspiracy Against Rights of Citizens” (See 18 U.S.C. § 241); Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law” (See 18 U.S.C. § 242); The Jurisdictional Statue for Civil Rights Cases (See 28 U.S.C. § 1443); and Peonage Abolished (See 42 U.S.C. § 1994). 

See: Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] _ So. 3d  (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

The Trustees Didn’t Inform Judge Mahoney What Was Going On Until It Was To Late, and They Had To Account For All The Embezzled Funds Sirote & Permutt P.C. Had Embezzled With Their Client GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortage LLC, Around Judge Mohoney Order.  

The Big Question Who Was The Trustees Law Firms During This Time-That Was Linked To Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, Sirote & Permutt P.C. and the State Of Alabama From (2005-2010) Under Bankruptcy Case (05-13142).

Technically The Case Was Suppose To Be Administered To Prevent This From Occurring.  Corla Jackson Believe The Trustees Law Firm Is Link To The Firms That Committed The Crime, That Help Manipulated The Situation.  At This Point , The Only Person I Can Say Did No Wrong Doing Was Judge Mahoney She Issued The Orders and They Were Violated, and Covered Up.  

 

BREAKING HEADLINE NEWS 3.24.2018

Corla Reeves Jackson Found Out Today What The State Of Alabama’s Corrupted Law Firms-Lawyers -GMAC Bankruptcy Trustee Lawyers-Law Firms Did With Alabama Bankruptcy Trustees Law Firm, That Was Over Payments-Money With Access To Their Records and More.   Know Wonder The FEDS Will Not Allow The State Of Alabama Bankruptcy Court’s Receive Cash or Payments Anymore, Payments Has To Be Sent Outside Alabama Now After Corla Reeves Jackson Case-Complaint, A Lot Was Discovered.

I’m Going To Cut Through The Chase And Tell What The FBI-FEDS Found Out, GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, Claims Were All Disallowed After The Bar Date,  October 25, 2005.

Had Read The Docket Sheets With The Orders Issued In Bankruptcy Case Versus Listening To The Law Firms and Lawyers That Committed This Crime They Would Have Discovered This, Its In Black and White.  I Will Show You The Details, That Was Recorded and Covered Up By The State Of Alabama’s AG Luther Strange, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP., Sirote & Permutt P.C., Morrison & Foerster LLP., and  All The Other Law Firms and Lawyers Linked To This Crime, Including Corla Reeves Jackson Lawyers Who Was Told Not To Tell Her The Truth, All This Was Kept From Corla Jackson.  Let There Be No Mistake, Judge Mahoney Didn’t Do Anything Wrong, She Thought Corla Reeves Jackson Lawyers Told Her, That GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Was Not Approved After The Bar Date.

Now We Know How The Law Firm and Its Clients Embezzled Payments From Corla Reeves Jackson, She Didn’t Know That Judge Mahoney Had Blocked GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC From Taking More Money From and Funds Through The Courts, After She Found Out By A Non-Corrupted Trustee On What Happen After The Money Had To Be Accounted For, Before Corla Reeves Jackson Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) Could Be Discharged January 20, 2010.

The Money Had To Be Accounted For Because, GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Was Conditionally Approved Until The Bar Date, and After They Were Not Approved Based Upon The Following Terms and Conditions Of The Order Issued March 1, 2006, They Ran Off With All Corla Reeves Jackson Money and Never Returned It To Her or Through The Courts.  Alabama Law Firms Affiliate Firm Was Over This Case So We Know How They Got The Money Without Getting Busted, and Filing Claims Around Judge Mahoney and Trustee’s, Without Getting Caught Until It Was To Late.  Now We All Know What The Law Firms and The State Of Alabama AG Luther Strange Covered Up and More Guaranteed.  This Is Recorded So No One Can Lie.  

Corla Reeves Is Shocked That Her Lawyer’s and Law Firms Kept This Info From Her, While GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Continued To Embezzle Money From Her Around Judge Mahoney Orders and More!  

If The Corrupted Judges Had Pulled The Orders Issued in Bankruptcy Case Instead Of Not Doing Their Job Using The Documents and Motions The Law Firms and Lawyers Provided Them That Committed This Crime They Would Not Have Gotten Defrauded By The Law Firms and Corrupted Judges.  It States In Black and White REDUCE AND ALLOW TO THE AMOUNT PAID BY DEBTOR, CORLA REEVES JACKSON WAS THE DEBTOR, and NOT GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Its Recorded! 

This Explains Why The State Of Alabama Law Firm Sirote & Permutt P.C., Illegally Forced (Corla Reeves Jackson) Back Her Second and Third Bankruptcy Under Judge Shulman Based Upon Fraud, They Were Trying To Prefect Altered Documents With A Back Dated Assignment Of Mortgage Filed After Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).  

What The Law Firm Sirote & Permutt P.C. and Their Client GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Did Was They Altered Documents Using A Copy Of Corla Jackson Loan Documents between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation, under loan number 651003367 servicing number 001347464-8, Taking Off Her Loan and Servicing Number At The Top Of The Copy Of The Mortgage Contract Agreement between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation, Leaving The Altered Documents In Blank At The Top Of Each Page, With The Intent For This Altered Mortgage Contract to Act As The Mortgage Contract Agreement Of Their Fabricated Loan (0835002124) With Their Fabricated Back Dated Assignment.  This Is Recorded…

I Bet By The Time This Case Is Over The Law Firm Did The Robbery and They Know Who Took Out A Loan In Corla Jackson Name Under Her Property and Credit for Illegal Profits, Personal and Favor.   Its Impossible For GMAC Not To Know Who Took Out The Loan (0835002124) In (2005) in Corla Jackson Name Under Her Credit and Property Without Lack Of Standing.  

This Is Clearly A Conspiracy, Corruption and More That Was An Inside Job, White Collar Crime Robbery For Big Illegal Profits, Which Is A Federal Crime.  The State Of Alabama AG Luther Strange Covered Up This Crime His Affiliates and Firm Committed, He Was Involved With The Law Firms That Defrauded Judges and Courts Outside Of Alabama’s Jurisdiction With Alabama Corrupted Judges Illegal Orders!

Jeff Sessions Is Covering Up This Big White Collar Crime Robbery In Alabama Dated Back To (2005) , He Had To Know About This.  Its His Affiliates That Committed This Crime, The State Of Alabama Covered Up Based Upon Fraud and Fraud Upon Alabama Courts With Illegal Orders.  Corla Jackson Says The Trustee’s Law Firms Got The Proof Of Claim Sheets Altered Making It Appear As If GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Was Granted Leave To File A Proof Of Claim Without The Order Issued March 1, 2006 Being Reversed When It Was.  

If The Judges Had Read The Orders Issued In Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) They Would Have Caught On To The Deceptive Practices The Alabama Trustee’s Law Firm or Clerk Has Worded To Deceive People, But If You Notice It Says It Was Filed By The Lawyer That Committed The Crime, and His Law Firm!  Example He Has Filed His Claims Reduce and Allow, Which Was Disallowed and Amended To The Amount The Debtor Corla Jackson Paid Because They Embezzled Money From Her and the Courts, and The Money They Ran Off With Had To Be Accounted For Before Corla Jackson Could Be Discharged January 20, 2010, GMAC Was Never Approved After The Bar Date By Judge Mahoney By A Court Order, After They Violated Her Order Issued March 1, 2006…  

The Trustees and Bradley Arant Boult Cummings Said Corla Jackson Lawyer Was Involved In This Crime.  Corla Jackson Says Both Lawyers Knew GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Wasn’t Approved After The Bar Date, October 25, 2005 by A Court Order.  Judge Mahoney Got Tired Of Telling Sirote & Permutt P.C. What They Had To Produce, So She Granted Them a Leave To File A Proof Of Claim Based Upon All The Following Terms and Conditions In The Order Issued March 1, 2006, That They Violated.  

Corla Jackson Says Initial Lawyer (M.Lacy-Law Firm Did Reported GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Stating They Had Committed Fraud, Now We Know Why, They Had Defrauded Her and Her Law Firm.

It Was The Trustees Law Firms Over Alabama Bankruptcy Courts That Did Something Very Wrong, With GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Law Firm and Barry Freedman, This Is What They Trying To Keep Covered Up!

 Now We Know The Truth Its A Relief Knowing What Really Happened Here.  Corla Jackson Says Barry Freedman Fooled The Hell Out Her, By Getting Her Bankruptcy Case Discharged January 20, 2010, So GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Could Go Back With Fabricated Documents and a Fabricated Back Dated Assignment Under Judge Shulman, With The Intent To Commit Fraud With Altered Documents Is What Happened.

I Know Barry Freedman Is Involved Because He Never Told Me About All The Judges Orders He Lied, The Trustees Gave Me Copies and Told Me That Is How I Found Out He Was Involved Initially, and Then Others Started Saying What He Did For Them and More.  Barry Freedman Tried To Put All The Blame On Judges Shulman But I Know He Was Involved As Well As Judges Shulman A Trustee, with Sirote & Permutt P.C. and Bradley Arant Boult Cummings.  I Know The Truth Now Guaranteed.  

No Honest Lawyer Hide All The Orders On A Cases His Client Won, To Prevent Her From Being Robbed By Crooks, But Barry Freedman Did.  Ms. Lacy Did Report This But She May Have Been Ignored By The Trustee The State Had Over This Case To Help Carry Out This Crime.  I Do Know Barry Freedman Covered Up The Orders Issued By Judges Mahoney based Upon His Objections That Was Granted and Amended To The Amount The Debtor Corla Jackson Paid GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., So Her Bankruptcy Case Could Be Discharged.  

I Believe Barry Freedman Was Behind That As Well Using Deceptive Practices and Is Now Busted, Or He Would Have Told Me The Truth About All The Orders Judge Mahoney Issued To Protect Me and My Estate.  The Bottom Line My Lawyers Knew The Judges Issued Orders To Protect Me and He Covered It Up, Knowing I Was Being Robbed By Sirote & Permutt P.C., Fraud Upon The Courts Under The Name, GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC… 

This Is Why Judge Mahoney and The Trustee’s Good People Didn’t Know What The Hell, Corla Jackson Lawyers Were Doing Around Them, Until It Was To Late.  Corla Jackson Says She Finally Know The Truth Now, The Lies Is Over!.. 

In Addition To All Of The Above, It Was Discovered Corla Jackson Wasn’t Behind In Payments When She Was Robbed In (2005)  with Arrears of (5) payments of ($1,920.64) each for (02/2005) through (06/2005) totaling ($10,409.64).    

You Can’t Get Any Worse Than This, Sirote & Permutt P.C. Willfully Committed Civil Bankruptcy Fraud To Rob Corla Reeves Jackson In Black and White, Its Recorded To Date, So No One Can Lie!  In Fact They Didn’t Even Own The Property They Fabricated Their Clients New Loan (0835002124) Under Based Upon Fraud, With The Intent To Profit From This Crime With Their Client, Now They All Busted Guaranteed.  

All The Evidence Is There But, John Hunter and Colleen McCullough with Sirote & Permutt P.C.,  Was Filing False Proof Of Claims and More Around the Court, From Their Office Computers, With The Intent To Corrupt and Manipulated The Docket Sheet, To Make Things Appear One Way When It Was Another Way, When Everyone Should Have Read The Court Orders and Docket Sheet Very Carefully and They Would Have Seen The Truth.

This Is Why The Judges That Was Over The Complaints Had To Read Judge Mahoney Orders, and Minute Entry, and The Contents Of The Docket Sheet and Orders Very Carefully, and Had They Done This, They Would Have Seen The Judge Mahoney Disallowed Sirote & Permutt P.C., Proof Of Claims, and Motion For Relief From Automatic Stay Multiple Times!

Judge Mahoney Finally Put It In Writing In An Order Issued March 1, 2006, That Sirote & Permutt P.C.-GMAC Was Conditionally Denied,  Under Loan Number (0835002124).  Corla Jackson Was Robbed Without Being Behind In Payments, You Can’t Get Any Worse Than This, Its Recorded!  

Thank God The Judges Didn’t Issue An Order For GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC to Steal Corla Jackson home or to Take Payments, or She Would Have Been In Trouble, Because Corla Jackson Wasn’t Behind In Payments Prior To January 20, 2010, this is recorded.   Judge Mahoney Stopped Them, But Corla Jackson Law Firm and Lawyers Didn’t Tell Her, That How They Robbed Corla Jackson Around The Courts She Was Paying Them, Prior To The Bar Date and After The Bar Date And Now One Told Her A Dam Thing, Until After She Had Been Robbed!

HRB and Block Financial may be subject by reason of the Final Judgment as to Option One Mortgage Corporation nlk/Sand Canyon Corporation (“Sand Canyon“), entered on May 2, 2012 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California a, Civil Action No. 12-633 (the “Final Judgment”).   The Final Judgment, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins Sand Canyon from violations of sections 17(a) (2) and 17(a) (3) of the Securities Act in the offer or sale of any security. Sand Canyon is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of HRB that has ceased the mortgage loan origination activities and mortgage servicing operations involved in the Commission’s allegations that led to the Final Judgment and discontinued its remaining operations.  This Is Public Records, Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).   See:   (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

 Governing Rules:  Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the assertion of affirmative defenses in civil cases that are filed in the United States district courts. Rule:  8(c) specifically enumerates the following defenses: “accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge inbankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute oflimitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. 

ALL THE COURTS AND JUDGES AFTER JUDGE MAHONEY CASE (05-13142) WAS FRAUD UPON THE COURT.  WHAT HAPPEN THEY DIDN’T READ OR THEY IGNORED THE ORDERS IN BANKRUPTCY CASE (05-13142) LINKED TO THE FABRICATED LOAN (0835002124) THAT WAS CREATED IN (2005) UNDER GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION AKA GMAC MORTGAGE LLC., WITHOUT LACK OF STANDING..   

08.04.2005: All Creditors Were Conditionally Approved Until The Bar Date Which Was October 25, 2005.  The Judge Made The Final Decisions On Who Was Allowed and Disallowed Based Upon All Her Following Terms and Conditions.

08.26.2005: Sirote & Permutt P.C., filed a Motion For Relief From Stay  Under GMAC Mortgage Corporation With The Intent To Illegally Foreclose On Corla Jackson and Her Property Under Their Fabricated Loan Number 0835002124, Immediately After All Creditors Were Conditionally Approved Until The Bar Date Which Was October 25, 2005. 

09.22.2005: Sirote & Permutt P.C., and GMAC Mortgage Corporation Motion For Relief From Stay  Filed (08.26.2005) Was Conditionally Denied Without Prejudice, by Judge Mahoney because GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, Didn’t Own The Property in 2005.  The Had To Present A Court Order From Judge Mahoney and An Affidavit On The Payments Owed To GMAC Mortgage Corporation Under Loan Number (0835002124).  

10.25.2005: The Order Confirming Corla Jackson Chapter 13 Plan Was Approved, Without GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Being Approved.  Sirote & Permutt P.C. Was Conditionally Denied Without Prejudice (09.22.2005). 

01/20/2006: Sirote & Permutt P.C., and GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., filed another (Motion For Relief From Stay) to foreclose on Corla Jackson Property without owning her Property under their loan number (0835002124) they created in (2005).

02.15.2006-Minute Entry:  Sirote & Permutt P.C., and GMAC Mortgage Corporation Motion For Relief From Stay  Filed (01.20.2006) Was Conditionally Denied Without Prejudice, again by Judge Mahoney.

02.15.2006: Sirote & Permutt P.C., -GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, then Committed Civil Bankruptcy Fraud and Provided The Courts With A False Affidavit, stating Corla Jackson Owed Them ($14, 809.60) In Payments-Arrears dated back to 2005, under loan number (0835002124) with a copy of Corla Jackson Loan Documents behind their Proof Of Claims to Act As The Agreement between Corla Jackson and GMAC, new loan number (0835002124).  The Judge Oh’ No” I’m Not Buying this, I’m No Fool or Crazy, this Affidavit is not legible or legal, Judge Mahoney then Requested the Burden Of Proof.    

 03.01.2006: Sirote & Permutt P.C., -GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, Sirote & Permutt P.C., -GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, Motion For Relief From Stay filed (01/20/2006) was Conditionally Denied (03.01.2006).   

Judge Mahoney Told Sirote & Permutt P.C. John Hunter, I’m tired of telling you what I Need In Order To Grant GMAC a Leave To File A Proof Of Claim.  This Time, I’m going to put it in a Court Order, Spelling Out All The Terms and Condition I’m Requesting From You to Grant GMAC Leave To File A Proof Of Claim based Upon The Following Terms and Condition In The Order Issued 03.01.2006.  

Sirote & Permutt P.C., John Hunter Ignored The Judge and filed their Proof Of Claim for ($14,809.60) on (03.03.2006) without Court’s Order After ( 03.01.2006) Based Upon The Following Terms and Conditions In The Order, Violation a Court Order and Corla Jackson Automatic Stay Terms and Conditions.  This Man Was CRAZY!

During This Time, My Lawyer Didn’t Explain That I Wasn’t Suppose To Be Giving GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC Money and Payments, So They Kept Threatening Me To Give Them Money and Payments, I Told My Lawyer, That They Were Taking All My Money In Direct Payments and They Were Cashing In On My Insurance Policy’s and More.  The Lawyer Typed Up The Report On To Add To (Amendment To Schedules) For The Trustee’s, on November 24, 2006, but I don’t see where she recorded it at on November 24, 2006.  I see the copy Of Her (Amendment To Schedules) telling the trustees about the Fraud by GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortage LLC, and More.

 It Was To Late Then, I Had Been Robbed Of Thousands Of Dollars, My Credit, Insurance Policy’s, and the Property Through My Credit, GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC reported they had foreclosed on the Corla Jackson and her Property since (April 2005) around the Court’s Orders and Automatic Stay.  

The Law Firms Violated The Court Orders, Illegally Blocking Corla Jackson From Taking a Loan To Fix Her Property.  The Law Firm Committed This Crime With Their Client While, They Carry Out The Robbery So They Both Would Benefit and Profits From Her Estate and All Her Insured Covered Losses, and All The Money They Ran Off With and More, Without Lack of Standing.  

My Lawyers Can’t Tell Me They Didn’t Know, Corla Jackson Was Being Robbed, Someone Told Them Not To Say Anything, while they carried out the White Collar Crime Robbery For Big Illegal Profits!

 

TO BE CONTINUED

 

FRAUD UPON THE COURT: In the United States, when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as “fraud upon the court”, is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.

Officers of the court include: lawyers, judges, referees, and those appointed; guardian ad litem, parenting time expeditors, mediators, rule 114 neutrals, evaluators, administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.  Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication”.  In Bulloch v. United States, the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury…. It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function-thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.

Thank God Judge Mahoney Did Her Job Correctly In Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) Its Recorded… 

The Lies Is Over Guaranteed!

To Be Continued…  

 

 

Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the “Court”) does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. The Court is an unbiased, but methodical “creature” which is governed by the Rule of Law… that is, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, all which is overseen by Constitutional law. The Court can ONLY be effective, fair and “just” if it is allowed to function as the laws proscribe.  The sad fact is that in MOST Courts across the country, from Federal Courts down to local District courts, have judges who are violating their oath of office and are NOT properly following these rules, (as most attorney’s do NOT as well, and are usually grossly ignorant of the rules and both judges and attorneys are playing a revised legal game with their own created rules) and THIS is a Fraud upon the Court, immediately removing jurisdiction from that Court, and vitiates (makes ineffective – invalidates) every decision from that point on.  Any judge who does such a thing is under mandatory, non-discretionary duty to recuse himself or herself from the case, and this rarely happens unless someone can force them to do so with the evidence of violations of procedure and threat of losing half their pensions for life which is what can take place. In any case, it is illegal, and EVERY case which has had fraud involved can be re-opened AT ANY TIME, because there are no statutes of limitations on fraud.

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).    Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.

Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

 

11/8/05     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-5, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-5 ]     1  / 1   424B5   … – e22764_424b5   240
10/4/05     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-4, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-4 ]     1  / 1   424B5   … Supplement – e22553_424b5   243
7/14/05     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-3 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Definitive Materials – file001   HTML
5/3/05     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-2 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corp – d328276   242
1/12/05     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1 ]     1  / 1   424B5   … Supplement – b403648_424b5   239
1/11/05     424B5         1  / 1   424B5   … Supplement – b403648_424b5   239
10/5/04     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-3 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation – d267762   213
4/12/04     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Acceptance Loan Trust 2004-2 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corp – d222686   213
1/21/04     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-1 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corp – d201380   205
10/16/03     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mort Accep Corp Asset Backed Cert Ser 2003-6 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation – d178424   209
7/23/03     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Accep Corp Asset Back Certs Ser 2003 5 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation – d159369   206
6/13/03     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Accep Corp Asset Back Certs Ser 2003-4 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation – d149222   202
4/18/03     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Accep Corp Ast Back Certs Ser 2003-3 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation – d136512   207
3/14/03     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mort Acceptance Corp Asset Back Cert Ser 2003 2 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation – d127726   201
1/15/03     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mort Accept Corp Asset Backed Certs Ser 2003 1 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corp – d116286   204
10/29/02     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Accept Corp Asset-Backed Cert Se 2002-6 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation – d99666   201
7/30/02     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Loan Tr Asset Backed Cert Ser 2002-5 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation – d80413   199
6/7/02     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Accept Corp Asset Backed Cer Ser 2002-4 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation – d70482   250
4/25/02     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mort Accept Corp Asset Backed Cert Ser 2002-3 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation – d59914   202
3/13/02     424B5  [ re:  Option One Mortgage Loan Tr Asset Backed Cert Ser 2002-2 ]     1  / 1   424B5   Option One Mortgage Acceptance Corporation – d50504   184

 

order to be considered for a loan modification under the agreement, you must meet the following criteria:

  1. your loan was originated by Option One between 2004 and 2008; , they violated the consent orders-and more-dates were extended…
  2. your loan is currently serviced by American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
  3. the property securing your loan is your primary residence;
  4. you currently occupy the home; and
  5. you are or become at least 45 days late on your mortgage payment’s before May 6, 2013 because you cannot afford your mortgage payment

JUDGE YORK  AND JUDGE JOHNSTON BOTH KNEW CORLA JACKSON WAS ROBBED THEY COVERED IT UP WITH ILLEGAL ORDERS!

HRB and Block Financial may be subject by reason of the Final Judgment as to Option One Mortgage Corporation nlk/Sand Canyon Corporation (“Sand Canyon“), entered on May 2, 2012 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California a, Civil Action No. 12-633 (the “Final Judgment”).   The Final Judgment, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins Sand Canyon from violations of sections 17(a) (2) and 17(a) (3) of the Securities Act in the offer or sale of any security. Sand Canyon is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of HRB that has ceased the mortgage loan origination activities and mortgage servicing operations involved in the Commission’s allegations that led to the Final Judgment and discontinued its remaining operations.  This Is Public Records, Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).

GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC Didn’t Own The Mortgage-Note Anymore and They Knew This, It Was Recorded! 

Judge York and Judge Johnston Both Knew,  A proof of execution by a subscribing witness cannot be used in conjunction with any quitclaim deed, grant deed document (other than a trustee’s deed or a deed of reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust or security agreement. (Government Code section 27287 and Civil Code section 1195(b):    1   2   3   4   5   6    7   8   9  10  11  12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

JURISDICTION ESTOPPEL  In the practice of law, judicial estoppel (also known as estoppel by inconsistent positions) is an estoppel which precludes a party from taking a position in a case which is contrary to a position they have taken in earlier legal proceedings.  This Complaint-Case Was Initiated Under Bankruptcy Case (05-13142).    GMAC Mortgage Didn’t Own he Note They Created Their Loan Under In (2005) The Burden Of Proof They Provided In Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) In (2005) Was (Civil Bankruptcy Fraud) Sirote & Permutt P.C. Covered Up, Using Deceptive Practices, This Is Recorded.  

The Alabama State Court couldn’t have found a valid assignment of the Mortgage appears in Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama., filed on (July 11, 2008),  to be the validly of an executed mortgage created in (2005) under Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) to represent a legally enforceable transfer of title to GMAC Mortgage Corporation, LLC., after Option One Mortgage Corporation Closed (April 30, 2008).  

HRB and Block Financial may be subject by reason of the Final Judgment as to Option One Mortgage Corporation nlk/Sand Canyon Corporation (“Sand Canyon“), entered on May 2, 2012 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California a, Civil Action No. 12-633 (the “Final Judgment”).   The Final Judgment, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins Sand Canyon from violations of sections 17(a) (2) and 17(a) (3) of the Securities Act in the offer or sale of any security. Sand Canyon is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of HRB that has ceased the mortgage loan origination activities and mortgage servicing operations involved in the Commission’s allegations that led to the Final Judgment and discontinued its remaining operations.  This Is Public Records, Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).

See:   (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the… matter is dismissed with prejudice.  (See 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Conspiracies to Interfere With Civil Rights “ (See 42 U.S.C. § 1985); Conspiracy Against Rights of Citizens” (See 18 U.S.C. § 241); Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law” (See 18 U.S.C. § 242); The Jurisdictional Statue for Civil Rights Cases (See 28 U.S.C. § 1443); and Peonage Abolished (See 42 U.S.C. § 1994). 

(See 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Conspiracies to Interfere With Civil Rights “ (See 42 U.S.C. § 1985); Conspiracy Against Rights of Citizens” (See 18 U.S.C. § 241); Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law” (See 18 U.S.C. § 242); The Jurisdictional Statue for Civil Rights Cases (See 28 U.S.C. § 1443); and Peonage Abolished (See 42 U.S.C. § 1994). 

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Fourteenth Amendment states: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. Const. amend.

Fraud on the court is one of the most serious violations that can occur in a court of law.  If fraud on the court occurs, the effect is that the entire case is voided or cancelled and” Any ruling or judgment that the court  has issued will be void.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED: The Fourteenth Amendment states: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. Const. amend.

Discrimination – unfairness – bias – prejudice: Plaintiffs have been discriminated against and treated with unfairness, bias and prejudice by this Court and the opposing counsel. An uninterested, lay person, would question the partiality and neutrality of this Court” Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.”In re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)…

Corla Jackson wasn’t behind in payments in (2005) or prior to Option One Mortgage Corporation closing (April 30, 2008) this is recorded.  The Crime occurred in (2005) and they didn’t pay for the damages to date, violating the Mortgage Contact Agreement executed (May 26, 2004) terms and conditions and more.  

See Case: 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 71-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 102

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71-3 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 13. 

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71 Filed 05/22/17 Page 127-135.

Governing Rules:  Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the assertion of affirmative defenses in civil cases that are filed in the United States district courts. Rule:  8(c) specifically enumerates the following defenses: “accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge inbankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute oflimitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. 

The filing of a bankruptcy petition triggers the automatic stay that halts most pre-petition litigation against a debtor. See 11 U.S.C. §362(a)(1).  The stay does not, however, suspend the commencement or continuation of criminal proceedings against a debtor  See 11 U.S.C. §362(b)(1).  Generally, actions for civil contempt are considered private collection devices 8 The Court subsequently granted (Corla Jackson) Automatic Stay On (March 1, 2006)” and Objections Dated (July 15, 2009) Entered (July 16, 2009) Was Granted After The (Appellee-Defendant) Violated The Order Issued (March 1, 2006). 

See: Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] _ So. 3d  (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

An affirmative defense to a civillawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant’s otherwise unlawful conduct.  In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, and waiver. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense,[1]insanity, and the statute of limitations.

Governing rules: Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the assertion of affirmative defenses in civil cases that are filed in the United States district courts. Rule 8(c) specifically enumerates the following defenses: “accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” 

 

Judge York and Judge Johnston Both Knew,  A proof of execution by a subscribing witness cannot be used in conjunction with any quitclaim deed, grant deed document (other than a trustee’s deed or a deed of reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust or security agreement. (Government Code section 27287 and Civil Code section 1195(b):    1   2   3   4   5   6    7   8   9  10  11  12

HRB and Block Financial may be subject by reason of the Final Judgment as to Option One Mortgage Corporation nlk/Sand Canyon Corporation (“Sand Canyon“), entered on May 2, 2012 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California a, Civil Action No. 12-633 (the “Final Judgment”).   The Final Judgment, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins Sand Canyon from violations of sections 17(a) (2) and 17(a) (3) of the Securities Act in the offer or sale of any security. Sand Canyon is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of HRB that has ceased the mortgage loan origination activities and mortgage servicing operations involved in the Commission’s allegations that led to the Final Judgment and discontinued its remaining operations.  This Is Public Records, Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).

See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

There was never a Recorded Deed or Mortgage Contract Agreement under loan umber (0835002124) between the Defendant-Appellee-Defendant Appellee’s and the Plaintiff-Appellant Corla Jackson prior to Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) and Bankruptcy Case (10-04820) and Bankruptcy Case (11-01545) or prior to the wrongful foreclosure dated (June 1, 2012) filed (June 13, 2012) on Arrears dated back to (2006) without lack of standing in (2006).  The Defendant-Appellee-Defendant Appellee’s loan number (0835002124) was created without lack of standing in (2005) and the Assignment of Mortgage dated (June 19, 2008) filed (July 11, 2008) prove that. 

Option One Mortgage Corporation (4/30/2008)

Judge York and Judge Johnston Both Knew,  A proof of execution by a subscribing witness cannot be used in conjunction with any quitclaim deed, grant deed document (other than a trustee’s deed or a deed of reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust or security agreement. (Government Code section 27287 and Civil Code section 1195(b) .

The Code of Alabama 1975 Section 35-10-9: Sales contrary to article null and void: All sales of real estate, made under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of this article, shall be null and void, notwithstanding any agreement or stipulation to the contrary.  (Code 1923, § 9018; Code 1940, T. 47, §172.) …

1   2   3   4   5   6    7   8   9  10  11  12

 

 CONTINUED

BREAKING HEADLINE NEWS 3.26.2018: Updates Listed At Bottom Of The Page

SEE DOCKET SHEET IN THE INITIAL BANKRUPTCY CASE (05-13142): FOLLOW ALONE AS IT’S BEING EXPLAINED

 

ALL THE COURTS AND JUDGES AFTER JUDGE MAHONEY CASE (05-13142) WAS FRAUD UPON THE COURT.  WHAT HAPPEN THEY DIDN’T READ OR THEY IGNORED THE ORDERS IN BANKRUPTCY CASE (05-13142) LINKED TO THE FABRICATED LOAN (0835002124) THAT WAS CREATED IN (2005) UNDER GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION AKA GMAC MORTGAGE LLC., WITHOUT LACK OF STANDING..   

REFER TO DOCKET SHEET IN BANKRUPTCY CASE (05-13142) TO FOLLOW ALONE AS THIS IS EXPLAINED

08.04.2005: All Creditors Were Conditionally Approved Until The Bar Date Which Was October 25, 2005.  The Judge Made The Final Decisions On Who Was Allowed and Disallowed Based Upon All Her Following Terms and Conditions.

08.26.2005: Sirote & Permutt P.C., filed a Motion For Relief From Stay  Under GMAC Mortgage Corporation With The Intent To Illegally Foreclose On Corla Jackson and Her Property Under Their Fabricated Loan Number 0835002124, Immediately After All Creditors Were Conditionally Approved Until The Bar Date Which Was October 25, 2005. 

09.22.2005: Sirote & Permutt P.C., and GMAC Mortgage Corporation Motion For Relief From Stay  Filed (08.26.2005) Was Conditionally Denied Without Prejudice, by Judge Mahoney because GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, Didn’t Own The Property in 2005.  The Had To Present A Court Order From Judge Mahoney and An Affidavit On The Payments Owed To GMAC Mortgage Corporation Under Loan Number (0835002124).  

10.25.2005: The Order Confirming Corla Jackson Chapter 13 Plan Was Approved, Without GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Being Approved.  Sirote & Permutt P.C. Was Conditionally Denied Without Prejudice (09.22.2005). 

01/20/2006: Sirote & Permutt P.C., and GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., filed another (Motion For Relief From Stay) to foreclose on Corla Jackson Property without owning her Property under their loan number (0835002124) they created in (2005).

02.15.2006-Minute Entry:  Sirote & Permutt P.C., and GMAC Mortgage Corporation Motion For Relief From Stay  Filed (01.20.2006) Was Conditionally Denied Without Prejudice, again by Judge Mahoney.

02.15.2006: Sirote & Permutt P.C., -GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, then Committed Civil Bankruptcy Fraud and Provided The Courts With A False Affidavit, stating Corla Jackson Owed Them ($14, 809.60) In Payments-Arrears dated back to 2005, under loan number (0835002124) with a copy of Corla Jackson Loan Documents behind their Proof Of Claims to Act As The Agreement between Corla Jackson and GMAC, new loan number (0835002124).  The Judge Oh’ No” I’m Not Buying this, I’m No Fool or Crazy, this Affidavit is not legible or legal, Judge Mahoney then Requested the Burden Of Proof.    

 03.01.2006: Sirote & Permutt P.C., -GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, Sirote & Permutt P.C., GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, Motion For Relief From Stay filed (01/20/2006) was Conditionally Denied (03.01.2006).   

Judge Mahoney Told Sirote & Permutt P.C. John Hunter, I’m tired of telling you what I Need In Order To Grant GMAC a Leave To File A Proof Of Claim. This Time, I’m going to put it in a Court Order, Spelling Out All The Terms and Condition I’m Requesting From You to Grant GMAC Leave To File A Proof Of Claim based Upon The Following Terms and Condition In The Order Issued 03.01.2006.  

03.03.2006: Sirote & Permutt P.C., John Hunter and Colleen McCullough, Continued to Ignored The Judge Orders and Sirote & Permutt P.C.-John Hunter, went around the Court, and Judge Mahoney and filed their Proof Of Claim for ($14,809.60) on (03.03.2006) without Court’s Order and a Agreement between Corla Jackson  and GMAC.  This Violated the Order issued (March 1, 2006) Terms and Conditions to file a proof of claim.  This also Violated Corla Jackson Automatic Stay Terms and Conditions, under her Mortgage Contract Agreement executed May 26, 2004, between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation because, Corla Jackson wasn’t behind in payments when GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage Robbed Her in (2005) on the Arrears Sirote & Permutt P.C., and GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., Were Embezzling through courts and trustees based upon Fraud, for additional profits., this is recorded.

Sirote & Permutt P.C., and their lawyers, law firms and affiliate firms linked to this crime, had an illegal mortgage fraud profiting ring like DOCX, stealing Massive Stolen Mortgages and More for illegal profits, using deceptive practices with corrupted judges illegal orders, is the bottom line here on what they covering up around the SEC and FEDS!  They Were and Are Robbing Victims and The State Of Alabama State Firm Bradley Arant Boult Cummings and Luther Strange Knew This, They Were Involved with Sirote & Permutt P.C., illegal stolen mortgage property ring.  

09.15.2006: Corla Jackson lawyer filed a Motion for her to Incur Debt-Loan to help pay bills and do temporary repairs to her home and more, after she was robbed. 

10.24.2006: Judge Mahoney issued a Court Order Granting Corla Jackson to take a loan-Incur Debt in Bankruptcy Case (05-13142).  This took her payments up from ($480, 00) to ($601.00-$660.00) a month.  It was later discovered Corla Jackson couldn’t Incur Debt because GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, reported on her Credit Report to multiple credit agencies that she had a loan with them under loan number (0835002124) and they had foreclosed on her property since (April 2005).   Corla Jackson was Devastated, her credit and identity had been stolen, as well as her property and the courts and trustees didn’t pick up on this, no one did because they couldn’t see this.  GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC and their law firm Sirote & Permutt P.C. covered this up from the courts and they refused to remove all the negative information they reported to the credit agencies, with the intent to tie up Corla Jackson from using her assets and home, while they carry out their white collar crime robbery, through the courts thinking they would never get busted.

Judge Mahoney issued a Court Order Granting Corla Jackson to take a loan-Incur Debt in Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) on (10.24.2006) could not be done. The trustees was still forcing Corla Jackson to pay them ($601.00-$660.00) month, versus ($480, 00) a month.  The Trustee’s and Courts couldn’t see and didn’t know GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC and their law firm Sirote & Permutt P.C. covered up what they did to Corla Jackson to block her from Incurring Debt, under Bankruptcy Case (05-13142). 

Corla Jackson over paid her Bankruptcy Payments without incurring a Debt, and Without Being Behind in Payments under the fabricated loan, GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC and their law firm Sirote & Permutt P.C.  defrauded the court with, for additional payments and more, this is recorded.

What happen here, is the State Of Alabama Law firms Covered Up a Federal Crime they committed, and the State Of Alabama covered it up.  They knew GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC and their law firm Sirote & Permutt P.C.. clouded the title on Corla Jackson property and robbed her, of her identity, credit, assets-property, insurance policy’s, payments and more, by using deceptive practices.  They  covered it up with illegal orders, while they continued to carry out the crime to date based upon fraud and fraud upon Alabama Courts with corrupted judges and their crooked law firms and their affiliates firms.      

10.24.2006: Judge Mahoney issued a Court Order Granting Corla Jackson to take a loan-Incur Debt in Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) on (10.24.2006) could not be done. The trustees was still forcing Corla Jackson to pay them ($601.00-$660.00) month, versus ($480, 00) a month.  The Trustee’s and Courts couldn’t see and didn’t know GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC and their law firm Sirote & Permutt P.C. covered up what they did to Corla Jackson to block her from Incurring Debt, under Bankruptcy Case (05-13142). 

During This Time, My Lawyer Didn’t Explain That I Wasn’t Suppose To Be Giving GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC Money and Payments, So They Kept Threatening Me To Give Them Money and Payments, I Told My Lawyer, That They Were Taking All My Money In Direct Payments and They Were Cashing In On My Insurance Policy’s and More.  The Lawyer Typed Up The Report On To Add To (Amendment To Schedules) For The Trustee’s, on November 24, 2006, but I don’t see where she recorded it at on November 24, 2006.  I see the copy Of Her (Amendment To Schedules) telling the trustees about the Fraud by GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortage LLC, and More.

12.14.2006: At This Point, Corla Jackson went to another lawyer (Mims) after all this occurred, her identity, credit, land , insured covered losses, policy’s and more had been stolen, she need a lawyer fast, beside her lawyer (Lacy) to handle a Civil Matter, she had been robbed, without being behind in payments and more, and this was being covered up.  

1.25.2007: Motion Filed By Sirote & Permutt P.C. GMAC Trustee Firm-Clerk:  GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC and their law firm Sirote & Permutt P.C.  had a Trustee immediately file a a Motion to Dismiss Corla Jackson Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) without her being behind in payments and without a new loan to Incur Debit Raising her payments.   The Order issued 10.24.2006: Judge Mahoney issued a Court Order Granting Corla Jackson to take a loan-Incur Debt in Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) on (10.24.2006) could not be done. The trustees was still forcing Corla Jackson to pay them ($601.00-$660.00) month, versus ($480, 00) a month.

1.26.2007: ORDER GRANTING Motion To Retain Lawyer (MIMS).  ENTERED 1.28.2007:

02.06.2007: Corla Jackson Initial Bankruptcy Lawyer (Lacy) filed and Objection to 1.25.2007 Motion to Dismiss filed by Trustee without lack of standing.

02.26.2007: Corla Jackson says this is unreal-she jumped to defend herself, because at this point something was going on in Alabama robbing the FEDS, Victims and more around the SEC, Federal Reserve and More.  This is when Corla Reeves Jackson filed an Objection To the Claim Filed By GMAC (03.03.2006) in the amount of ($14,809.60) herself, because Sirote & Permutt P.C., had committed civil fraud upon the court for illegal profits, personal gain or favor unlawfully, around Jude Mahoney Order issued (March 1, 2006).  

Who ever was Administrating her Bankruptcy Case 05-13142) wasn’t protecting Corla Jackson, her estate-Original Note backed by securities and more.  The law firm affiliates linked to the trustee-clerk linked to this crime, was illegally allowing Sirote & Permutt P.C., to steal an Estate, payments from trustees-insured covered losses, direct payments from Corla Jackson and More, around the Federal Judge Mahoney Court Orders, and Court! Something had to be done so, Corla Reeves Jackson Jumped In!   

04.12.2007: ORDER GRANTED to Corla Jackson Initial Lawyer (Lacy) on her Motion filed 02.06.2007, on the Objection filed by the trustee 1.25.2007 for Motion to Dismiss bankruptcy case, without lack of standing.  Corla Jackson wasn’t behind in payments and she was blocked from getting the loan granted to incur debt because GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC reported on her credit report they owned her property under their fabricated loan number (0835002124) and they had foreclosed since (APRIL 2005).  This was Massive Damages!

Corla Reeves Jackson says it appears GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC ., Law Firm-Lawyers Sirote & Permutt P.C., was dealing with clerks and affiliates they knew or people that trusted them, that they DECEIVED.  Regardless someone had to see Sirote & Permutt P.C. had Violated the Judges Orders Issued (March 1, 2006) that protected Corla Reeves Jackson and her Estate.

05/08/2007: Order and Notice Dismissing Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) for Failure to Comply With Consent Order On (5/08/2007) , Entered 05/08/2007, all in the same day, was around Judge Mahoney.  This Dismissal was done by, Geraldine S. Lester, without a Signature!  What happen was Sirote & Permutt P.C., GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC ., had the case dismissed around Judge Mahoney, stating they were not paid to the trustee ($601.00-$660.00) month, versus ($480, 00) a month.  

The Order they presented to Geraldine S. Lester, without a Signature was Fraud.  That was the Order issued (March 1, 2006) by Judge Mahoney which didn’t require a Signature, based upon the terms and conditions in the order.  The Order issued 10.24.2006: Judge Mahoney issued a Court Order Granting Corla Jackson to take a loan-Incur Debt in Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) on (10.24.2006) could not be done. The trustees couldn’t force Corla Jackson to pay them ($601.00-$660.00) month, versus ($480, 00) a month without incurring debt by the rule of law, and Sirote & Permutt P.C., GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., knew this.

This is the Order that Sirote & Permutt P.C., GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., VIOLATED THE AUTOMATIC STAY, filing their Proof of Claims Under without the terms and conditions of the order-Agreement between Corla Jackson and GMAC.  

This Was The Violation of The Automatic Stay, during the Judge Graddick Case on All The Insured Covered Losses, Sirote & Permutt P.C., GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., wanted the money on all the insured covered losses, versus giving it to Corla Jackson and her Lawyer MIMS!  

There was no Real Signature from Judge Mahoney (05.08.2007) she singed all her Orders personally in this matter because there was corruption and fraud by the law firm and lawyers.  The Case Had To Be Reinstated! 

The ORDER Entered (05.08.2007) VIOLATED AN AUTOMATIC STAY ORDER ISSUED MARCH 1, 2006.  The case had to be Reinstated.  Corla Jackson Lawyer (Lacy) filed the Motion to Reinstated the Bankruptcy Case 05-13142 on (05.21.2007)  the Motion was GRANTED on (06-27.2007).  What they did was they Dismissed Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) to Issue an Illegal Order for Profits Under Judge Graddick, in state court, Violating Corla Reeves Jackson Automatic Stay.

AFTER THE CASE HAD TO BE REINSTATED FOR FRAUD VIOLATING ALL JUDGE MAHONEY ORDERS, THERE WERE NO MORE RESPONSES FROM, Sirote & Permutt P.C., GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., They Ran With The Money and All… 

 

 TO BE CONTINUED

JUDGE YORK KNEW, HRB and Block Financial may be subject by reason of the Final Judgment as to Option One Mortgage Corporation nlk/Sand Canyon Corporation (“Sand Canyon“), entered on May 2, 2012 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California a, Civil Action No. 12-633 (the “Final Judgment”).   The Final Judgment, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins Sand Canyon from violations of sections 17(a) (2) and 17(a) (3) of the Securities Act in the offer or sale of any security. Sand Canyon is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of HRB that has ceased the mortgage loan origination activities and mortgage servicing operations involved in the Commission’s allegations that led to the Final Judgment and discontinued its remaining operations.  This Is Public Records, Option One Mortgage Closed (April 30, 2008).    See:   (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006).  MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.  See” The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.

BARE IN MIND: WHILE ALL OF THE ABOVE WAS GOING ON (CORLA REEVES JACKSON) WASN’T BEHIND IN PAYMENTS AND NEVER HAD A LOAN OR A RECORDED DEED BETWEEN CORLA JACKSON AND GMAC UNDER LOAN NUMBER (0835002124).  THIS IS RECORDED,  Corla Jackson wasn’t behind in payments in (2005) or prior to Option One Mortgage Corporation closing (April 30, 2008) this is recorded. The Crime occurred in (2005) and they didn’t pay for the damages to date, violating the Mortgage Contact Agreement executed (May 26, 2004) terms and conditions and more.  GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC owed Corla Jackson thousands of Dollars in payments they robbed her of and applied to their fabricated note (0835002124).  In addition to this, they owed Corla Jackson Millions of Dollars in Massive Damages from (2005-2018) to date, they never paid her for and more.    

Corla Jackson wasn’t behind in payments in (2005) or prior to Option One Mortgage Corporation closing (April 30, 2008) this is recorded. The Crime occurred in (2005) and they didn’t pay for the damages to date, violating the Mortgage Contact Agreement executed (May 26, 2004) terms and conditions and more.  GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC owed Corla Jackson thousands of Dollars in payments they robbed her of and applied to their fabricated note (0835002124).  In addition to this, they owed Corla Jackson Millions of Dollars in Massive Damages from (2005-2018) to date, they never paid her for and more.   

 

Corla Jackson never had a loan-mortgage contract agreement or recorded deed between GMAC and Corla Jackson under loan number (0835002124) this is the red flag-that cannot be ignored…. GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, didn’t provide any Burden of Proof, the case was Discharged January 20, 2010, the Corrupted Judges Knew this because its recorded… They violated the mortgage contract agreement-breached executed between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation under the Original Note loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8) this was recorded yall!   

See Case: 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 71-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 102

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71-3 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 13. 

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71 Filed 05/22/17 Page 127-135.

See: The earlier decision in Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, published held: “The assignment of the Defendant’s note and mortgage, having not been assigned from the Depositor to the Trust, is therefore VOID as in being in contravention of the PSA.  

Alabama Tired To Get The Case Back, Atlanta Court-Judge Refused To Give The Case Back To Alabama, They Defrauded Atlanta As Well Linked To This Case-Complaint, Prior To This (New Appeal Under Case 17-12563-CC) because the Next Stop Is The United States Supreme Court, where Corla Jackson would Prevail Guaranteed!  The Lies Is Over…  

 

My Research Is Completed Backed By The Evidence and More.  GMAC Placed Its Subsidiary’s Into Bankruptcy under Judge Martin Glenn in New York On (May 14, 2012).  The Alabama Law Firm Ran and Started Doing Illegal Foreclosures Without A Summary Judgment, Remand, or Due Process, Robbing Government, Wall Street Investors Trust, Victims, and More for Big Illegal Profits around the Trustee’s In New York, Using Deceptive Practices.   The Alabama Law Firms and Their Affiliate Firms Illegally Foreclosed on Their Fabricated Notes under Stolen Property, After GMAC Placed Its Subsidiary’s Into Bankruptcy Without Bankruptcy Approval, Without a Summary Judgment, Remand, or Due Process. 

They Have Robbed The United States Federal Government, Wall Street Investors Trust, Victims and More, This Is What They Trying To Keep Covered Up, Which Is A Bigger Crime. Judge Martin Glenn Denied Victims a Lift Of Automatic Stay To Proceed To Trial Demand By A Jury Trial First, Prior To Issuing His (July 13, 2013) Order Granting GMAC Subsidiary’s A Lift Of Automatic Stay To Proceed Foreclosures and Evictions, Which Violated Constitutional Laws and More Using Deceptive Practices. The Illegal Foreclosures Was Done Illegally, Without A Summary Judgment, Remand, or Due Process, Under The Fabricated Notes Without Lack Of Standing.  This Violated Constitutional Laws On Affirmative Damages, State Damages and More, This Is What They Were Covering Up With Illegal Orders That Was Based Upon Fraud and Fraud Upon The Courts, Which Is A Bigger Crime. 

In Addition To This, The Servicers and Their Debt Collectors Didn’t Tell All Victims GMAC Filed Bankruptcy In New York, Corla Jackson Found Out Because She Sued Them and Both Complaints Were STAYED In The United States District Court For The Southern Division Of Alabama Under Case (12-00111) This Is Recorded. The Law Firms Got Around The Law By Filing Another Case Number Under Alabama Corrupted Judges They Knew With The Intent To Help Them Carry Out These Crimes Such As This That They Are Covering Up In Alabama, Guaranteed.

When Judge Martin Glenn Found Out He Had Been Shafted and Defrauded He Started Issuing Illegal Orders To Cover Up The Crime He Committed With All Those Illegal Orders That Is Based Upon No Due Process, No Remand or Summary Judgment Prior To The Illegal Foreclosure Dated (June 1, 2012)  In This Particular Case-Complaint, This Is Recorded.  Foreclosure Judicial Laws and Nonjudicial Laws Were Violated Multiple Ways Using Deceptive Practices Guaranteed.

 

This Website Is Under Construction While Being Updated…

  

Governing Rules:  Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the assertion of affirmative defenses in civil cases that are filed in the United States district courts. Rule:  8(c) specifically enumerates the following defenses: “accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge inbankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute oflimitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. 

 

OCWEN Corrupt Organization Has Been Doing This Since (2002) Using Deceptive Practices with Trump and Jeff Sessions Affiliates to date (2018) Guaranteed.   See:   Bradley Arant Boult Cummings :   Option One Mortgage Corporation (4/30/2008)

 

1   2   3   4   5   6    7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15 

 

 

THE LIES IS OVER TRUTH-UNCOVERED-MORE!

READ MORE: CLICK HERE

 

THE JUDGES LINKED TO THIS CASE-COMPLAINT COMMITTED CIVIL FRAUD UPON THE COURT.  THEY ALL KNEW CORLA JACKSON NEVER HAD A LOAN-MORTGAGE WITH GMAC BECAUSE IT WAS RECORDED.  

CLICK HERE

 

 

 

Website Under Construction While Being Updated

 

 

Leave a Reply