GMAC illegally filed (2) proof of Claims

Transcription

1 GMAC illegally filed (2) proof of Claims Violating All The Federal Bankruptcy Court Orders In The Initial Case GMAC Initial Proof Of Claim (Conditionally Denied) Exhibit 6 Motion For Relief From Automatic Stay (Denied) Exhibit 6 2 nd Motion For Relief From Automatic Stay (Denied) Exhibit 7 GMAC Defective Affidavit Arrears (Conditionally Denied) Exhibit 7 GMAC VIOLATED COURT ORDER-AUTOMATIC STAY ORDER MARCH 1, THE COURT CONDITIONALLY DENIED MOTION FOR RELIEF OF AUTOMATIC STAY AND THEIR GMAC PROOF OF CLAIM BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS ORDER DATED MARCH 1, GMAC WAS STEALING IDENTITIES TO ROB THE FEDS-WALL STREET- VICTIMS FOR ILLEGAL PROFITS Exhibit 8 Objections Filed By Corla Jackson Attorney (7/16/09) Was GRANTED Exhibit 10 Amended To The Amount Paid By Debtor-Trustee s Exhibit B Claim Number 1 $238, Arrears No Longer Owed Exhibit B Claim Number 7 $14, Arrears No Longer Owed Exhibit B-10-11

2 Claim Number 1 Denied-Disallowed $238, Amended ORDER Disallowing Claim 1 ( ) Reduced and Allow To Amount Paid By Debtor Claim Number 7 Conditionally Denied Reversed Disallowed $14, Trustee s Cancel Payments-Checks Going To GMAC Amended ORDER Disallowing Claim 7 ( ) Reduced and Allow To Amount Paid By Debtor-Trustee s-to GMAC $2, Amended ORDER Disallowing Claim 7 ( ) Reduced and Allow To Amount Paid By Debtor-Trustee s- To GMAC $ Discharge Of Bankruptcy Case ( ) January 20, 2010 Trial Exhibit 2 Docket Sheet Bankruptcy Case ( ) Bankruptcy Trustee s Case Overview Bankruptcy Trustee s Discharge Details Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit B

3 GMAC Violated The Court Order-Automatic Stay March 1, 2006 Exhibit 8 Objections Filed By Corla Jackson Attorney (7/16/09) Was GRANTED Exhibit 10 Amended To The Amount Paid By Debtor-Trustee s Exhibit B Claim Number 1 $238, Arrears No Longer Owed Exhibit B Claim Number 7 $14, Arrears No Longer Owed Exhibit B GMAC Initial Proof Of Claim (Conditionally Denied) Exhibit 6 Motion For Relief From Automatic Stay (Denied) Exhibit 6 2 nd Motion For Relief From Automatic Stay (Denied) Exhibit 7 GMAC Defective Affidavit Arrears (Conditionally Denied) Exhibit 7 COURT ORDER Exhibit 8

4 The Court Reversed This Order! But This Is What They Said That GMAC Violated.. COURT ORDER Conditionally Denied GMAC Motion For Relief From Automatic Stay. GMAC leave to file a Proof Of Claim was Conditionally Denied with (Specific Terms- Conditions) they had to provide the court, and the Court had to provide them before GMAC could file a Proof Of Claim. The Court Order Specifically Stated It is ORDERED that GMAC S Motion for Relief from Stay is CONDITIONALLY DENIED upon the following terms and conditions: 1. The sum of $16, ($16, post-petition arrearage $1, $15,365.12; 07/05-01/06 late $715.12), $ attorney s fees, and $ court costs) having been repaid in open court in one lump sum of $1,920.64; the remaining balance of $14, shall be repaid through the Debtor s Chapter 13 Plan. 2. GMAC is Granted leave to file a proof of claim in the amount of ($14,809.60) 3. Beginning with March, 2006 payment, Debtor shall continue to make timely monthly direct payments to GMAC in accordance with the COURT S ORDER CONFIRMING, the Debtor s Chapter 13 Plan and the Agreements between the Debtor and GMAC. 4. The Debtor shall otherwise comply with all terms and provisions of the COURT S ORDER CONFIRMING the DEBTOR S CHAPTER 13 PLAN and the AGREEMENTS between the DEBTOR and GMAC. 5. If the Debtor fails to comply with the conditions stated herein, GMAC shall notify the debtor by sending the Debtor a notice of default. Should the Debtor fail to cure the default with ten days from the date of the letter, the automatic stay of 11U.S.C. 362 shall automatically TERMINATE as it pertains to the Real Property and GMAC shall be free to enforce any and all its right, title, and interest in and to the Real Property in accordance with

5 the loan documentation between the parties and applicable law. GMAC shall send said notice and Debtor may cure said default on (2) separate occasions only. Upon the third default of the Debtor to timely remit the regular or arrearage payments referenced above, then the automatic stay 11 U.S.C. 362, shall automatically TERMINATE and GMAC is authorized to immediately exercise all its rights under its mortgage without further order or the court. Debtor shall be responsible for attorney fees incurred for noncompliance with this Order including any fee for notices required pursuant to any order of this court. The Court Reversed This Order! The Debtor Corla Jackson In Case ( ) Did Not Violate The Order Issued To Her (March 1, 2006). This Is Recorded. Refer To Docket Sheet Case ( ). Exhibit A

6 This mortgage backed by securities under loan ( ) servicing number ( ) was stolen and a new account was set up illegally, using deceptive practices for illegal profits under a new account and loan number ( ) without lack of standing in (2005) going around the SEC, Federal Reserve and more. This action arises from false and misleading statements and omissions in registration statements, prospectuses, and other offering materials pursuant to which certain residential mortgage-backed securities ( RMBS ) were purchased by Freddie Mac. Among other things, Banks and Servicers documents falsely represented that the mortgage loans underlying the RMBS complied with certain underwriting guidelines and standards, and presented a false picture of the characteristics and riskiness of those loans. These representations were material to Freddie Mac, as they would have been to any reasonable investor, and their falsity violates Sections 11,12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq., as well as Sections (A)(ii) and (C). Freddie Mac justifiably relied servicers misrepresentations and omissions of material fact to its detriment. In addition to its strict statutory liability under federal securities law and liability under state law, Banks and Servicers statements and omissions give rise to liability under state common law. Between( September 23, 2005 and May 30, 2007) Freddie Mac purchased over $6 billion in Certificates issued in connection with 21 securitizations that were virtually all sponsored and underwritten by FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, AS CONSERVATOR FOR THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION. The Federal Housing Finance Agency is a federal agency located at 1700 G Street, NW in Washington, D.C. FYFE was created on July 30, 2008, pursuant to the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HEAR), Pub L. No , 122 Stat. 2654, codified at 12 U.S.C et seq. ( HEAR ), to oversee the Federal National Mortgage Association ( Fannie Mae ), Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. On September 6, 2008, the Director of FYFE, also pursuant to HEAR, placed Freddie Mac into conservatorship and appointed FYFE as Conservator. In that capacity, FYFE has the authority to exercise all rights and remedies of Freddie Mac, including, but not limited to, the authority to bring suits on behalf of and/or for the benefit of Freddie Mac. 12 U.S.C. 4617(b)(2).

7 Freddie Mac is a government-sponsored enterprise chartered by Congress with a mission to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the United States housing and mortgage markets. As part of this mission, Freddie Mac invested in RMBS. Freddie Mac is located at 8200 Jones Branch Drive in McLean, Virginia. Between ( ) (Ally Financial Inc. ( Ally ) was a leading, multi-national financial services firm with a corporate center in New York, has approximately $179 billion of assets and operations in approximately 25 countries. Between ( )" Ally was the parent and sole owner of GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc. and Residential Funding Services, LLC. Prior to 2010, Ally was known as GMAC, LLC. Between ( )" GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc. ( GMACM ) is a wholly-owned subsidiary and the mortgage arm of Ally. GMACM is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1100 Virginia Drive, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania GMACM transacted business in New York. GMAC Mortgage LLC did not own any interest in the (DEFENDANT) Corla Jackson property when it commenced its Ejectment action on (08/21/2013). GMAC Mortgage LLC did not have standing to bring that action and, consequently, the trial court could not acquire subject-matter jurisdiction over the Ejectment Action, in any court. GMAC Mortgage LLC did not have standing to bring its (EJECTMENT ) action or a trial over the GMAC Mortgage Ejectment Action and order is (TORT, NULL, MOOT, AND VOID). This case is straight out FRAUD UPON THE COURT. OPTION ONE MORTGAGE NO LONGER OWNED MORTGAGES

8 ALLY-RESCAP-GMAC MORTGAGE LLC-ALLY BANK The Fraud Upon The Court Illegal Judgment in the (GMAC Mortgage LLC vs. Corla Jackson) from the trial court is void. This case should have been vacated with a Judgment in favor of the (DEFENDANT) Corla Jackson. In addition to this" because a (Void Judgment Will Not Support An Appeal) this court should dismiss the appeal, in favor of the (DEFENDANT) Corla Jackson GMAC Mortgage LLC did not own any interest in the (DEFENDANT) Corla Jackson property when it commenced its Ejectment action on (08/21/2013). GMAC Mortgage LLC did not have standing to bring that action and, consequently, the trial court could not acquire subject-matter jurisdiction over the Ejectment Action, in any court. GMAC Mortgage LLC did not have standing to bring its (EJECTMENT ) action or a trial over the GMAC Mortgage Ejectment Action and order is (TORT, NULL, MOOT, AND VOID). This case is straight out FRAUD UPON THE COURT. State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law. Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n 35, 96 S. Ct 3037, 49 L Ed. 2d 1067 (1976) Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States, wars against that Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).

9 See: Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms , 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: 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. 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. Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order... 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 cannot 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.

10 TO BE CONTINUED BACK TO HOME PAGE