Cyber Z

This review is from a real person who provided valid contact information and hasn't been caught misusing, spamming or abusing our website. Check our FAQ

Verified Reviewer

Best service

stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full
What a company really a humble and polite staffs and the owner was very kind hearted person and very very humble. I highly reccomend this company.
View full review

Preferred solution: Full refund

Anonymous
map-marker Zurich, Zurich

Michael J. Chatwin

Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, PC ("Rosicki");JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Tina M. Genovese ("Genovese");

Christine M. Fox ("Fox");

Shapiro, DiCaro & Barak, LLC ("Shapiro, et al.");

Michael J. Chatwin, attorney ("Chatwin");

Robert W. Griswold, attorney ("Griswold");

Seterus, Inc. ("Seterus");

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. ("HSBC");

Federal National Mortgage Association ("FNMA");

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ("MERS");

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper ("National");

"JOHN DOES" and "JANE DOES", said names being fictitious, these parties intended as those being known and unknown, and which may become known during and throughout these proceedings,

Defendants

______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERSARIAL COMPLAINT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) FRCP Rule 38 & FRBP Rules 9015 & 7001

_____________________________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Deborah Ann Buczek, the Debtor in the above-named Bankruptcy Case, appearing pro se, and files this Adversarial Complaint demanding a trial by jury upon all issues at controversy, alleging upon information, evidence and belief the charges against the Defendants above named.

APPLICATION OF HAINES v. KERNER

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this honorable court apply the standards established by the Supreme Court in Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519,520 (****) such that this pro se Plaintiff not be held to the same strict standards as an attorney during this pleading.

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff, Deborah Ann Buczek, brings this action seeking treble damages, as provided under 18 USC § 362 as pursuant to 18 USC § 152, 157 and 3571 and pursuant to charges alleged against the Defendants under to the False Claims Act 31 USC § 3729, et seq., and all other statutes, codes and laws and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which shall or would apply in any way, that may offer remedy for the violations of the Defendants against the Plaintiff, such violations having caused irreparable harm to the Defendant as set forth more fully below. Plaintiff also seeks declaration that the Defendants have no claim whatsoever to the enforcement of Mortgage and Note, as they are disinterested parties, interlopers, and any claims the Defendants have against this Plaintiff are indeed false and fraudulent, based upon the following below. Plaintiff also seeks the liens, alleged by the Defendants to exist on the Plaintiff's property, removed as provided in Fed. Rules Bankruptcy Proc. 7001 (2), through this complaint.

2. As set forth more fully below, Plaintiff alleges that since at least July 7, 2015, and continuing until the United States filed a Complaint In Intervention on March 27, 2018 against Defendant Rosicki, Rosicki and Associates, PC, that Rosicki, a foreclosure mill specializing in obtaining real property and illicit fee income through false pretenses- specifically, as Rosicki already admits to defrauding FNMA and other homeowners in the state of New York- sought to obtain - through a series of fraudulently contrived, forged and misrepresented documentation, false claims, and material omissions of fact- the real property of this Plaintiff, and defraud this court, FNMA and this Plaintiff of money in the amount of more than $158,000.00. (Rosicki has already pled guilty to similar allegations as set forth in this paragraph in other cases-specifically violations of the False Claims act 18 USC § 3729- as evidenced by the Settlement and Stipulation Agreement Rosicki entered into with the United States ( SEE: ATTACHMENT A: Stipulation and Settlement Agreement- United States v. Rosicki, 1:12-cv-07199-JSR, USDC / SDNY Document 233 filed 12/4/2018 )

________________________________________

1:12-cv-07199-JSR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. PETER D. GRUBEA v. ROSICKI, ROSICKI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al.

Jed S. Rakoff, presiding

Date filed: 09/24/2012

Date of last filing: 01/23/2019

11/27/201****

PROPOSED STIPULATION AND ORDER. Document filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Krause, Andrew) (Entered: 11/27/2018)

3. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges Defendants, and others, conspired and knowingly and willfully participated and acted in furtherance of the schemes to defraud this plaintiff, this Court and others of money and/or real property individually, jointly and/or severally, and conspired to defraud these parties based upon omissions of material facts, preparation of false documents- including but not limited to false Proof of Claims, false and/or forged mortgage Assignments and other documents, false representations and intentional misrepresentations of facts, which forced this Plaintiff into Chapter 13 Bankruptcy proceedings on order to seek the protections afforded by the Federal Bankruptcy Laws against the illegal and unconscionable acts of the Defendants, as set forth more fully below.

5. Defendants did specifically, knowingly and willfully file with this court, among other violations, a known-to-be false Proof of Claim, signed under oath, in furtherance of the scheme instigated by Defendants Rosicki, Genovese and Fox, which was contrived to defraud this Plaintiff and this court of money in a sum above $158,000.00- a sum which the Defendants increase daily, in violation of 18 USC § 152, 157 and 3571 and, as the Defendants used the mail and wire including telephone and electronic communications in furtherance of their criminal conduct and that their criminal conduct affected banks through interstate commerce. Defendants through their criminal conduct and acts also conspired to and did defraud the United States, as set forth more fully below.

6. Plaintiff assert that she is entitled to damages, including but not limited to punitive damages, for the illegal and unconscionable acts of the Defendants, since it was the intent of the Defendants individually, jointly and severally to unjustly enrich themselves and to cause the Plaintiff to capitulate and relinquish her interests in her lifetime and only asset- her primary residence. PLAINTIFF RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND THIS COMPLAINT AS NECESSARY.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 USC § 151, 157, 1334, 1408, 1409.

8. Venue is appropriate in this district pursuant to 31 USC § 3732 as well as 39 USC § 1391 because a substantial part of the events or omissions and acts of the Defendants giving rise to this action occurred in this district.

III.THE PARTIES

9. Plaintiff is Deborah Ann Buczek, the Debtor in the above-named Chapter 13 Bankruptcy proceeding.

10. Defendant Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, PC ("Rosicki") is a New York Corporation with its principle place of business in Plainview, New York. At all times relevant to this action Rosicki has been a law firm specializing in mortgage foreclosure, commonly referred to in the industry as a "mortgage foreclosure mill". Rosicki has an established history showing a pattern of greed and fraudulent activity, culminating most recently in a Complaint filed by the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Manhattan, and copious additional lawsuits, in which Rosicki is currently entangled, which allege similar crimes of an ongoing nature constituting crimes as described under the Racketeer influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Rosicki admitted its culpability in the he Stipulation and Settlement of the case, where it was ordered to pay back in excess of $6,000,000.00 for its criminal conduct and conspiracies to defraud. (SEE: again, ATTACHMENT A Stipulation and Settlement) (SEE: also, ATTACHMENT B: COMPLAINT 1:18-cv-07199-JSR USDC/SDNY). Plaintiff asserts that based upon the historic pattern and continuous criminal conduct and ongoing criminal activities in this case that a presumption of criminal acts and bad faith on the part of Rosicki is reasonable.

11. Defendant Tina M. Genovese ("Genovese") is an attorney, duly licensed to practice law by the State of New York, and at all relevant times was an associate and minion of Rosicki.

12. Defendant Christine M. Fox ("Fox") is an attorney, duly licensed to practice law by the State of New York, and at all relevant times was an associate and minion of Rosicki.

13. Defendant Shapiro, DiCaro and Barak, LLC ("Shapiro") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States and the State of New York, with its principle offices in Rochester, New York. At all relevant times Shapiro was a law firm specializing in foreclosures, known in the industry as a "foreclosure mill", and bankruptcy law firm, and fully aware of the responsibilities therein entailed. Shapiro suspiciously took over for Rosicki immediately upon Rosicki's down fall involving Rosicki's frauds and other criminal conduct when the Complaint was filed by the United States against Rosicki. Shapiro has continued in the furtherance of the frauds against this Plaintiff instigated by Rosicki, as set forth more fully below. Plaintiff asserts that because of the "referral" from Rosicki to Shapiro of this Plaintiff's case, that a presumption of affiliation between these two parties, a furtherance of the frauds initiated by Rosicki against this Plaintiff, and a knowing and willful conspiracy between the two is reasonable.

14. Defendant Michael J. Chatwin ("Chatwin") is an attorney duly licensed to practice law by the State of New York, and at all relevant times was an associate and minion of Rosicki.

15. Defendant Robert W. Griswold is an attorney duly licensed to practice law by the State of New York, and at all relevant times was an associate and minion of Shapiro.

16. Seterus, Inc is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States with its principle office in Hartford, Connecticut. Seterus is a Mortgage Loan Servicing Company claiming authority to act on the behalf of FNMA in these proceedings-specifically claiming that Seterus is the "authorized subservicer for the Federal national Mortgage Association". Plaintiff asserts that based upon the established pattern of prior criminal acts, dubious history, and settlements for a myriad of federal and New York State regulatory violations and criminal activity in the past, as set forth both herein, and more fully below, that a presumption of negligence and frauds by Seterus in this case is reasonable.

17. Defendant HSBC Bank USA, NA is a banking company regulated by the Federal Reserve and the Banking Laws and regulations of the United States. It is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States with its principle offices in New York, New York. Plaintiff asserts that based upon the established pattern of prior criminal acts, criminal history, and settlements for a myriad of federal and New York State regulatory violations and criminal activity in the past, as set forth both herein, and more fully below, that a presumption of negligence and fraud by HSBC in this case is reasonable.

18. Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association ("FNMA") is a government sponsored enterprise ("GSE"), though it has been a publicly traded company and corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States since 1968. Since 2008 FNMA has been under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"). FNMA's principle place of business and main office is located at 3900 Wisconsin Ave, Washington, DC 20016. Plaintiff asserts that based upon the established patterns and histories of acts and business practices conducted by FNMA in the past, as set forth herein, and more fully below, that a presumption of negligence and fraudulent conduct may be presumed against FNMA in this case is reasonable.

19. Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ("MERS") is a subsidiary of MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC. and is a Delaware Corporation existing and operating under the laws of the State of Delaware and the laws of the United States with its principle place of business at 1818 Library Street, Suite 300, Reston, Virginia 20190. Plaintiff asserts that based upon the established history of business practices and conduct by MERS in the past that a presumption of further dubious and negligent and criminal conduct by MERs in this case, as set forth herein, and more fully below, is reasonable.

20. Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC dba Mr. Cooper is a corporation formed and existing under the laws of the United States with its principle offices located at Lake Vista 4, 8000 State hwy 121 By Pass, Lewisville, TX 75067. Plaintiff asserts that based upon the established history and patterns of prior criminal activity, and the frauds perpetrated by, and the myriad of lawsuits and settlements and admissions of guilt by Nationstar, as set forth herein and mire fully below, that a presumption of criminal and negligent acts is reasonable in this case. III. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

21.

22. On October 7, 2008 Plaintiff signed a Home Equity Line of Credit ("HELOC"), which is a revolving line of credit, identifying KeyBank National Association as the Lender and Deborah A. Buczek as the Borrower. (SEE: ATTACHMENT D: HELOC filed 10/21/2008 Book 13423 Pg. 9147: Erie County).

23. On September 2, 2011 Angela Venner, claiming to be Assistant Secretary for HSBC, whose address was 1800 Tyson's Blvd. McLean, VA 22102, signed an alleged "Assignment of Mortgage" with all rights from HSBC to MERS. Suspiciously, Venner's signature was notarized by Frankie Fielder, a South Carolina notary public in Lexington County, SC. More suspiciously, this "Assignment" was not recorded in the Erie County Clerk's Office in New York until 3:12 PM on December 19, 2011, over 3 months after Fielder swore under oath that Venner “personally, appeared before me" in South Carolina. This notarization is therefore highly likely to be a fake, unless Angela Venner has a VERY fast airplane. Incidentally, Assignments of Mortgages that are not authentic, forged, and are not properly notarized are unenforceable. (SEE: ATTACHMENT E: Assignment filed 12/19/2011 Book 13559 Pg. 6653: Erie County).

24. On May 30, 2014, Jacqueline A. Watkins, claiming to be an assistant secretary for MERS signed a "Corporate Assignment of Mortgage" assigning the alleged rights MERS had over a fictional mortgage alleged to exist by Watkins nonsensically back to HSBC. This "Assignment was signed by Watkins in Flint, Michigan and notarized by Nunzia Walker on the same day, in Amherst, New York. Incidentally, Nunzia Walker and Jacqueline Walker worked for PHH Mortgage, and as such had no authority to assign anything involving MERS or HSBC since neither were attorneys-in-fact under power of attorney for either MERS or HSBC. This re-assignment back to HSBC, (signed by unauthorized parties known in the mortgage and banking industry as robo-signers, or more colloquially under the law as forgers) was recorded on 6/11/2014, 11 days after the false notarization occurred. (SEE: ATTACHMENT F: Assignment filed on 6/11/2014 Book 13684 Pg. 189: Erie County)

25. On July 7, 2015 Tina M. Genovese, an attorney with Rosicki, Rosicki and Associates, PC, claiming to represent HSBC's mortgage interests in Plaintiff's real property, filed a "Notice of Pendency" seeking to foreclose upon the Plaintiff's home, relying on the fake and falsely notarized re-assignment, described in paragraph #24 above, for her "authority" to proceed in foreclosing upon Plaintiff's home. (SEE: ATTACHMENT G: Notice of Pendency filed on 7/7/2015 Book 419 Pg. 8049: Erie County).

26. On November 20, 2015 (on a Sunday no less!), Frances Y. King, alleging to be the assistant secretary for HSBC in Depew, New York signed an "Assignment of Mortgage" assigning all rights from HSBC to FNMA in Dallas, Texas. On the same day Donna B. Shaw, a notary public in Columbia, SC "notarized" Kin's signature on this assignment and miraculously got it recorded on 11/23/2018 at 3:55 pm all the way back in Erie County, New York. (SEE: ATTACHMENT H: Assignment filed 11/23/2015Book 13746 Pg. 5012: Erie County).

27. On June 27, 2017 Patrick McCabe designating himself "Vice President", though he never clearly specifies Vice-President of what on his signature line, signed an "Assignment of Mortgage" from FNMA to MTGLQ Investors, LP. This was the final assignment to date in this case involving Plaintiff's property. it was filed on 7/12/2017. (SEE: ATTACHMENT I: Assignment filed 7/12/2017 Book 13818 Pg. 1561: Erie County).

28. On January 26, 2018 Mark K. Broyles, attorney for KeyBank National Association filed a Lis pendens against the Plaintiff's property. (SEE: ATTACHMENT J: Lis Pendens filed 1/26/2018 Book 422 Pg. 4454: Erie County).

29. On July 20, 2018 the Plaintiff, being forced into Bankruptcy by the false claims of the defendants as set forth herein, and more fully below, sought Bankruptcy protection from the Defendants by filing for Chapter 13 protection through this court. (Case in Re: Buczek no. 18-1****)

30. On September 25, 2018, Michael J, Chatwin signed and filed a Proof of Claim on behalf of Shapiro. DiCaro and Barak, LLC, claiming to be attorneys for Seterus and that Seterus was the subservicer for FNMA on OFFICIAL FORM 410.

32. On September 25, 2018, as part of their Proof of Claim filed by Shapiro, as prepared under oath by their minion Chatwin, Seterus, et al. relies upon an Assignment attached to the Proof of Claim for their authority to proceed. This Assignment is from HSBC Bank USA, NA to FNMA dated 10/20/2015; signed by Frances Y. King, allegedly on 10/20/2015 in Depew, NY; notarized on the same day by Donna B. Shaw, in Columbia, SC and recorded on 11/23/2015 (over 1 month later) in Erie County in Book13746 Pg. 5013. (This assignment has been referred to previously and is identified as Attachment H). It was relied upon by Seterus, Shapiro and Chatwin to initiate proceedings against his Plaintiff in their Proof of Claim and may be part of Claim 6-1 Part 2 in this Case. (SEE: ATTACHMENT K: Assignment attached to Proof of Claim with Seterus Claim 6-1 Part 2 Case No. 1-18-1****-CLB Pages 22 - 24 of 24pgs filed 9/25/2018).

IV. FACTS

A. THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE DOCUMENT

33. The crux of the arguments presented by the Defendants, and specifically in the Proof of Claim by Seterus, and the core of controversy between the Plaintiff and Defendants, surrounds the reliance upon the "Mortgage" alluded to by both parties. Due to a plethora of nonsensical, fraudulently assigned and difficult to understand Mortgage Assignments involving the property involved, it is impossible at all relevant times to figure out which "Mortgage" is referred to by the Defendants. This is because at no time whatsoever, on any Assignment recorded, is there a copy of what the Defendants refer to as the "Mortgage" which is being assigned. It is therefore necessary, in order to develop an informed opinion, to the veracity of the claims of either party, that a full reading and understanding of the Original Mortgage Document must be undertaken. Hereinafter the term "Mortgage" shall refer to the Original Mortgage Document. (ATTACHMENT C). In relevant parts, the Plaintiff's reliance upon the Original Mortgage, and its terms, as specifically and unequivocally set forth below, are as follows:

34. The Plaintiff relies upon the terms of the Original Mortgage document filed on 4/25/1994. (ATTACHMENT C). What follows are the EXACT terms of the Mortgage, taken verbatim from the Mortgage Contract as recorded and agreed to by both parties to the Mortgage- The Borrower and the Lender.

35. The Borrower on the Mortgage is Deborah A. Buczek.

36. The Lender on the Mortgage is REPUBLIC BANK FOR SAVINGS.

37. The Lender is a corporation or association which exists under the laws of the State of New York.

38. The Mortgage Document specifically states: "Note". The note signed by the borrower and dated April 20, 1994, will be called the "Note". The Note shows that I owe the Lender [Republic Bank for Savings One hundred ten thousand five hundred thirty-six and 00/100Dollars (US $110,536.00).

39. The Mortgage involves and consists of 3 separate and distinct sections:

(1) The Mortgage Document itself;

(2) The New York Rider, attached thereto, and incorporated by inference and reference throughout the Mortgage Document; and,

(3) The Note also attached thereto and incorporated by inference and reference throughout both the Mortgage Document and the New York Rider. For the purposes of this case, the "3 parts" shall mean the Mortgage Document, the New York Rider and the Note

40. As a matter of common wisdom in contract law, and in the way the Mortgage contract is conceived, neither of the 3 sections set forth above render the Mortgage contract enforceable without the correlation and inclusion of the other parts. In other words, neither of the 3 parts is independent of the other, and that all 3 comprise the Mortgage contract.

41. The terms of the Mortgage contract in its entirety determine the enforceability of the Mortgage.

42. the Borrower and the Lender are the only 2 parties to the Mortgage contract and are referred to herein as "both parties".

43. Any change to any of the terms of the Mortgage contract requires the agreement of both parties, and the terms changed must be in writing with the written consent of both parties.

44. The terms of the Mortgage contract are binding upon both parties the Borrower and the Lender, equally.

45. Since the Mortgage contract requires the 3 parts, the "Original "Note is an inseparable part of the Mortgage Contract, as a matter of law. (See: Carpenter v. Longan, 83 US 271, 273, 21 L. Ed 313 US Sup. Ct.:"As a matter of law the Original Note and Mortgage must be produced by the creditor alleging a debt exists". " The mortgage and the Note are inseparable, the former as essential and the latter as incident".)

46. As Affidavit of Lost Note signed under penalties of perjury by a person having second or third hand "knowledge" of the existence of an alleged note constitutes perjury because that person never had possession, true knowledge or any proof of the existence of the alleged note, as a matter of law. (SEE: Longan, supra, Sup. Ct. 83 US 271, 273: "An alleged previous creditor's Affidavit of Lost Note does not substitute the necessity of an Original note to enforce a mortgage".)

47. The Mortgage document states: "Any notice will be given by delivering it or by mailing it by first class mail unless applicable law requires delivering it by another method."

48. The Mortgage document states: "The security instrument [Mortgage] is governed by federal law and the law that applies in the place where the property is located."

49. Federal law required that if Republic Bank for Savings sold or transferred the mortgage or any interests to another party, that Republic Bank for Savings, and NOT the third party give Notice to the borrower. This is also explained in the Mortgage contract that Republic Bank for Savings notify the Plaintiff, not the third party.

50. The mortgage document states: "PLAIN LANGUAGE SECURITY INSTRUMENT”. This Security Instrument contains promises and agreements that are used in real property security instruments all over the country. It also contains other promises and agreements that vary, to a limited extent, in different parts of the country. My promises and agreements are stated in 'plain language'. "

51. The Mortgage Document states that: "I will pay to the LENDER in time principle and interest due under the Note and any prepayment and late charges due under the Note."

52. The mortgage Document states again that: "Any notice that must be given to me under this Security Instrument will be given by delivering it or by mailing it by first class mail unless applicable law requires use of another method."

53. The Mortgage contract states that: "LAW THAT GOVERNS THIS SECURITY INSTRUMENT. This Security Instrument is governed by federal law and the law that applies in the place where the Property is located [New York State].

54. The Mortgage contract states that: "I [Borrower] will be given a conformed copy of the Note and of this security Agreement.

55. No conformed copy of the Note was given to the Borrower. The only copy to ever appear, in these or any other proceedings, is a photocopied and altered copy/facsimile of the Note. This "copy of the Note" has been obviously, on its face, altered, and the included alterations were made at as date and time after the alleged signature of the Borrower was applied. These alterations and additions to the copy of the Note are not initialed by the Borrower, nor are they agreed to in any separate agreement, as required under law. Therefore, the altered photocopied facsimile of a Note cannot constitute an Original note as required under the law pursuant to the Supreme Court's requirements, as set forth in Longan, US 83, 271,273.

56. The Mortgage contract states that: "NOTE HOLDER's RIGHT TO SELL THE NOTE OR AN INTEREST IN THE NOTE; BORROWER's RIGHT TO NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LOAN SERVICER. The Note, or interest in the Note, together with this Security Instrument, may be sold one or more times. I may not receive any prior notice of these sales."

57. Paragraph 56 above (which is paragraph 19 of the covenants section of the Mortgage contract) conflicts with paragraph 14 and paragraph 15 of the covenants section of the Mortgage contract. This ambiguity is confusing to the point of rendering the Note violative of its requirements under paragraph 4 of the Mortgage contract itself, which deals with the Plain Language restrictions and terms of the Mortgage contract and my notice requirements

58. The Mortgage contract states that: "The entity that collects my monthly payments due under the Note, together with this Security Instrument is called the 'Loan Servicer'.

There may be a change of the Loan Servicer as a result of the sale of the Note, there also may be one or more changes of the Loan Servicer unrelated to the sale of the Note. The law requires that I be given written notice of any change of the Loan Servicer. The written notice must be given in the manner required under paragraph 14 [ of the Mortgage contract Covenants section] above and under applicable law. The notice will state the name and address of the new loan servicer and tell me the address to which I should make my payments. The notice also will contain any other information required by law."

59. These notice requirements regarding the loan servicer explained in paragraph 58 above (paragraph 19 covenants section of the Mortgage contract), also contradict paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Mortgage contracts and are violative of the requirements set forth in the Plain Language restrictions of the Mortgage contract. The complexity, ambiguity and nonsensical terms of the contract and its covenants are deceptive and confusing to the point of rendering the entire contract unenforceable, even if it is the Mortgage contract being disputed.

60. All obligations set forth in the Mortgage contract exist only between the Lender and Borrower.

61. Of utmost importance is paragraph 22 of the Mortgage contract itself. It states that: "LENDER's OBLIGATION TO DISCHARGE THIS SECURITY INSTRUMENT.

When Lender has been paid all amounts due under the Note and under this Security Instrument, Lender will discharge this Security Instrument be delivering a certificate stating that this Security Instrument has been satisfied.

62. Pursuant to the Mortgage contract, it is the Lender's obligation to discharge the Mortgage as the Security Instrument when it is paid in full. It is not a matter of who pays the Security instrument (Mortgage) in full. This is clear through the Plain Language of Paragraph 22 of the covenants of the Mortgage contract. If the Mortgage is paid in full by any other party, the Mortgage is paid in full and the Mortgage id to be discharged under these terms. These terms were agreed to by the Borrower and lender at inception, and cannot be changed by any other third party, regardless of what rights they claim to have acquired. If a third party pays off the Mortgage, in order that it then acquires the Mortgage contract, that third party has acquired a worthless security instrument pursuant to the Plain Language of this clause. That is the fault of the third party, and not of this Borrower. Indeed, the Mortgage contract has been paid off under the terms of this clause, by and through the consideration exchanged by the third party to the Lender, if this occurs. Any other interpretation of the mortgage contract is not in the Plain Language of this paragraph. The discharge of this Borrower's Mortgage should be rendered if the Lender accepted consideration of the original Mortgage contract, as a matter of contract law, and as the specific term of the Mortgage contract- as written on plain language.

B. THE NEW YORK RIDER TO MORTGAGE

63. The New York Rider to Mortgage document ("Rider") is an attachment and part of the Original Mortgage contract which includes specific promises with the Lender. It is clearly incorporated by inference and reference throughout the Mortgage contract and is an integral and necessary part of the entire agreement in the Mortgage contract between the Borrower and lender, as a matter of New York and federal contract law.

64. Rider Paragraph 25 states that: "This Rider makes certain changes and additions to the attached Mortgage. Whenever the terms the terms, conditions and promises contained in the Mortgage (Paragraphs 1 through 24) differ or conflict with this Rider, the provisions of this Rider will control."

65. Rider Paragraph 25 states that: the "conditions and promises contained in the 'Mortgage' attached are in paragraphs 1-24 of Mortgage document."

66. Mysteriously, suspiciously and uncontrovertibly, the Mortgage Document relied upon and submitted to this court by every party claiming to be a prior creditor or assignor of the Mortgage contains far in excess of 24 paragraphs. Indeed, the Mortgage document itself consists of no less than 29 Paragraphs. Under the Plain Language Security Instrument restrictions of the Mortgage document in and of itself, there is no way that the Mortgage relied upon by any alleged previous or current creditors is enforceable.

67. Paragraph 42 of the Rider states that: RIDER PARAGRAPHS 25 to 41 VOID IF MORTGAGE SOLD TO FNMA, GNMA or FHLMC. If the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) buys all or some of the Lender's rights under the Mortgage and the Note, the promises and agreements in Paragraphs 25 to 41 of this Rider will no longer have any force and effect. This Rider is part of the attached Mortgage and by signing it.

68. On 11/20/2015 the "Mortgage" alleged was sold to FNMA. (SEE: ATTACHMENT H)

69. Even if it was somehow determined that the Rider was controlling, and that the words in the Rider's body "just don't matter", which would be a preposterous conclusion of law under the Plain Language Standards of the Mortgage contract, and if the terms of the Rider were concluded to be in full force and effect or not, the terms of the mortgage submitted and relied upon by the alleged creditors is nonsensical, not understandable, and unenforceable under the Plain language Standard because the combined and necessary terms of the Mortgage, Rider, Covenants and Note, quite plainly, do not make sense.

70. Poor construction of an unenforceable contract, be it a Mortgage or otherwise, are not the fault of a Borrower who did not draw up the contract and cannot be conceived to be so.

71. There are numerous problems contributing to the unenforceability of the photocopied and altered Mortgage contract which is relied upon by the alleged creditors.

72. The mortgage contract involves a Covenants section which was obviously added to the original Mortgage document. This is obvious on its face by the fact that the type font is completely different from the Mortgage document.

73. The covenants section, while obviously added to the Mortgage contract, and signed at some other time, is not dated by the Borrower, making it an altered and unoriginal document which cannot possibly be relied upon. This makes the photocopied, unoriginal, and altered Mortgage document, covenants section and Rider, impossible to enforce.

74. The Rider’s nonsensical and unenforceable terms, as set forth above, impossible to understand or ever enforce.

75. The Mortgage document, the Rider and the Covenants refer to and rely completely on terms alleged to exist in an original "Note" which has never been produced, and indeed, by admission of the alleged creditors, does not even exist. This alone renders the entire Mortgage unenforceable pursuant to the Supreme Court in Longan.

C. THE ORIGINAL NOTE

76. The Original Note referred to herein means the Original wet-ink Note originally signed by the Borrower and NOT any copy or facsimile made thereof.

77. The Original Note is referred to 55 separate times in the body of the Mortgage document, the Covenants Section and the New York Rider to the Mortgage which is relied upon by the alleged creditors in this case.

78. Indubitably, the Note is an integral and necessary part of the Mortgage document and the Mortgage and Note are inseparable. Both are necessary to establish that any debt exists and must be originals since they are negotiable instruments under the circumstances.

79. Without an original Promissory Note and Mortgage no creditor may prove a debt exists.

80. As a matter of law, a One Hundred Dollar bill is a Federal Reserve "Note". If a $100 bill is lost, shredded or otherwise destroyed, one is not entitled to present an altered photocopy or reasonable likeness of the $100 bill to use in exchange for the real one. One must possess an original. Likewise, the same applies here.

81. Defendants Seterus, FNMA, Shapiro, Chatwin and Griswold rely upon an alleged photocopy of a Mortgage document without presenting an Original Note or copy thereof in their Proof of Claim. Neither party possesses on Original Note or Mortgage document necessary to prove a debt exists. It is not the burden of the Debtor, but the burden of the Creditor to establish a debt exists under Federal Rules of Bankruptcy.

82. As a matter of common wisdom under contract law, no dent exists between these parties as Debtor and Creditor.

83. No original Note exists in this case, and therefore no debt exists. Because of these facts any lien alleged to exist or presented against Plaintiff's property is invalid, false and must be removed.

84. Without an Original Note, mentioned 55 times in the Mortgage document relied upon by Defendants Seterus, FNMA Shapiro, Chatwin and Griswold, the Mortgage alluded to is worthless and unenforceable.

85. It is not the responsibility of the Borrower to maintain the security of the Note for safekeeping. It is the responsibility of the alleged lender because without it, he has no claim.

86. These Defendants have not presented and do not possess any valid original Note.

87. The Defendants cannot dispute the fact that no valid original Note exists.

88. Defendants Seterus, FNMA, Chatwin and Griswold have no authority to proceed here because on June 27, 2017 FNMA, whom Shapiro, Chatwin, Griswold and Seterus claim to represent, did "convey, grant, assign, transfer and set over the described Mortgage, as the same has not been consolidated, extended or modified, with all interest secured thereby, all liens, and any rights due or to become due thereon to MTGLQ Investors, LP. (SEE; ATTACHMENT I: ASSIGNMENT, filed on 7/12/2017 Book 13818 Pg. 1561: Erie County).

89. Based upon the facts stated on paragraphs 76-88 above, the claims of the Defendants Seterus, FNMA, Shapiro, Chatwin, and Griswold as filed on their Proof of Claim with this court, neither of these Defendants has any legal claim to the rights of the Mortgage or Note, because it was sold by them to MTGLQ on 7/12/2017.

D. ASSIGNMENT OF THE MORTGAGE FROM HSBC TO MERS RECORDED ON 12/19/2011

90. On 9/7/2011 HSBC Bank USA NA through as Assignment of Mortgage "assigned" its alleged mortgage interest rights to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS). (SEE: ATTACHMENT E: ASSIGNMENT filed 12/19/2011 Book 13559 Pg. 6654: Erie County)

91. HSBC Bank USA NA claims in their Assignment that it is "the holder of the Mortgage described below" indicating a Mortgage clearly showing Republic Bank for Savings as the holder of the mortgage. HSBC show no proof of how it obtained the mortgage and instead relies upon a falsely contrived and nonsensical Mortgage Assignment which is fraudulently made to look like an authentic assignment of mortgage. HSBC was never the holder of the Mortgage or Note alluded to.

92. The "Assignment" states also that: "For value received HSBC Bank USA, NA successor by merger to HSBC Bank USA f/k/a Republic Bank of New York successor by conversion to Republic National Bank of New York successor by merger to Republic Bank for Savings, successor to Manhattan Savings Bank", etc. etc., ad nauseam. HSBC NEVER provides any proof of mergers or successions, nor do they ever present a valid original Mortgage or Note or Assignment from Republic Bank for Savings to any one of these other banks.

93. This Assignment was made purely for the purposes of fraud and to monetize and sell this Mortgage on the secondary mortgage markets.

94. In this Assignment the term "HSBC Bank USA, successor by merger to HSBC Bank USA" does not even make any sense. HSBC did not, and could not merge with itself, and even if this was possible- which it isn't- where did HSBC get the Assignment from Republic Bank for Savings? In truth HSBC did not and never did receive such an assignment of mortgage.

HSBC did not merge with HSBC. They are the same bank.

95. The remaining claims on this Assignment sating that: "HSBC f/k/a [formerly known as] Republic Bank of New York" is likewise nonsensical and incoherent. HSBC is Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation. HSBC is an International banking Conglomerate operating in the US under HSBC Bank USA, and it was NEVER "formerly known as" Republic Bank of New York. This is another lie made up by HSBC and its minions within the Assignment that was designed to trick courts into believing the "Assignment" was authentic upon perusal. No valid chain of Assignment exists showing that HSBC ever had rights over the Original Mortgage and Note. Likewise, no chain of Assignment exists giving power to HSBC, or its minions, to transfer their right over the Mortgage and Note alluded to.

96. All additional successor ships and mergers alleged in this ridiculously contrived fraudulent conveyance titled "Assignment of Mortgage" are false, misrepresented, irrelevant or unsupported.

97. No documentation proving a valid chain of ownership, possession or rights to the Mortgage document or Note involving this Plaintiff as Debtor and HSBC as Creditor exists.

98. HSBC never had any legal authority to assign any part of the Plaintiff's Mortgage or Note.

99. The Mortgage and Note alluded to by HSBC is unenforceable as presented.

100. Angela Venner, allegedly an assistant Secretary for HSBC, signed the Assignment in controversy here on 9/7/2011 in McLean Virginia, as shown on the face of the document. Venner did not have legal authority to make such an assignment and was a robosigner

101. Frankie Felder, a South Carolina notary in a document-forging mill in Chapin, South Carolina notarized Venner's signature on the Assignment. Felder swore under oath that Venner "personally appeared" before her on 9/7/2011 and signed the Assignment in person.

102. Based upon the paragraphs 90-101 above, the Assignment from HSBC to MERS is fraudulent, forged, legally invalid and unenforceable.

103. The Defendants at HSBC and MERS were aware of the fraud committed by falsifying the Assignment under oath, and did it anyway, and they did and still do so on a routine basis because no one even tries to stop the fraud by these two mortgage giants and criminals.

104. The submission of this Assignment as a matter of public record is a fraud upon the courts and a fraud against this Plaintiff designed to obtain the real property of this Plaintiff through false pretenses and theft by deception on the part of Defendants HSBC, MERS and by Venner and Felder.

E. ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE FROM MERS BACK TO HSBC RECORDED ON 6/11/2014 (THE UNEXPLAINABLE ASSIGNMENT)

105. On May 30, 2014 MERS, through a Corporate Assignment of Mortgage, re-assigned the assigned Mortgage alluded to back to HSBC from MERS.

106. This re-assignment was nonsensical, incoherent and unexplainable as a normal course of business.

107. Plaintiff has good cause to believe that this re-assignment, instigated by MERS, was for the purposes of avoiding criminal liability and culpability in the frauds already perpetrated by HSBC against homeowners in New York, for which HSBC was indicted, found guilty and fined by the New York Attorney General for fraudulent Mortgage practices, HSBC admitted to wrong doing in the multi-million dollar settlement it entered into with the NY Attorney General. There is no doubt, as a matter of record that HSBC is an actor in bad faith and was a criminal enterprise, based upon its historic pattern of fraudulent activities. SEE: ATTACHMENT L: HSBC case info with Attorney General of NEW YORK).

108. Jacqueline A. Watkins, claiming to be an assistant secretary, now for MERS, signed this "Assignment" in Flint, Michigan on May 30, 2014, as shown on the face of the Assignment.

109. Nunzia Walker, a notary public in New York, notarized Watkins's signature swearing to the fact that Watkins personally appeared before her in New York.

110. This Assignment was also done without authority because neither Walker or Watkins had authority or capacity to Assign a Mortgage contract for MERS. MERS itself never obtained authority or rights previously in order that they may have again transferred them back to HSBC in the first place!

111. Walker and Watkins are both robosigners, and the Assignment made without authority or rights to the Mortgage and Note constitutes a fraudulent transaction and construction of a fraudulent document.

F. ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE FROM HSBC TO FNMA RECORDED ON 11/23/2015.

112. On 11/20/2015 HSBC caused to be signed and recorded an Assignment of Mortgage to FNMA. This Assignment was made only 5 months after the last assignment form MERS back to HSBC was recorded on 6/11/2014.

113. This Assignment, now from HSBC to FNMA was made with HSBC claiming to be the holder of the Mortgage and Note securing the Plaintiff's property. This statement was materially false since at no time did HSBC ever obtain, retain or assume any rights to a Mortgage document or Note involving the Plaintiff's property. They merely claimed to have this right.

114. This fraudulent Assignment stated that HSBC, among other things, hereby assigned "all beneficial interest under that certain security instrument described below together with the note(s) and obligations therein described and the money due and to become due thereon with interest and all rights accrued or to accrue under said security instrument" to FNMA. These statements could not be MORE FRAUDULENTLY MADE!

115. However, the mere fact that the Mortgage was sold to FNMA activated the terms of the Mortgage in paragraph #43 of the New York Rider, which voided paragraphs #25 to #41 of the Rider. (SEE: ATTACHMENT C: Mortgage: New York Rider section Para. 43).

116. There is no provision in the Mortgage contract, or in the New York Rider, that if the Mortgage was ever assigned to anyone else after it was sold to FNMA that the provisions of paragraph #42 would reinstate and become effective again. Any belief or assumption that this is true is clearly outside of the terms of the Mortgage contract. This occurrence after the sale and Assignment took place to FNMA was never addressed in the terms of the Mortgage contract, so it is not possible to presume this, as a matter of contract law. Therefore, once sold to FNMA paragraphs 25 to 41 of the New York Rider were forever VOID pursuant to paragraph 42 of the New York Rider.

117. Based upon the facts in paragraph 114 - 116 above, the Mortgage alluded to would be without any further effect and unenforceable.

118. Based upon the fact that FNMA never had possession of, or any rights to, the Mortgage contract and Note, this Assignment is fraudulent and unenforceable and without a legal effect.

119. Upon confirmation and contact already made with FNMA, FNMA denies that it has any interest at all in Plaintiff's property and that it specifically does not hold the Mortgage contract or Note on Plaintiff's property. This is verifiable over the FNMA website.

120. This Assignment was signed by Frances Y. King, assistant secretary for HSBC (a known robosigner title), in Depew, New York on 11/20/2015

121. This Assignment was Notarized by Donna B. Shaw, a South Carolina notary, on 11/20/2015 in Columbia, SC. Shaw swore under oath that King "personally appeared before her" that day, which is false.

122. More suspiciously this Assignment was then recorded in Erie County, New York on 11/23/2015.

123. This Assignment was forged by robosigners without authority to make the Assignment since neither was an officer for HSBC or FNMA.

G. ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE FROM FNMA TO MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP RECORDED ON 7/12/2017.

124. On 6/27/2017 Patrick McCabe, a vice president, signed the final Assignment of Mortgage recorded against this Plaintiff's property. This Assignment state in relevant part that:

"For good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION ("Fannie Mae") [FNMA]..., by these presents does convey, grant, assign, transfer and set over the described Mortgage as the same has not been consolidated, extended or modified, with all interest secured thereby, all liens and any rights due or to become due thereon to MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP" ["MTGLQ"].

124. It is beyond dispute that on 6/27/2017 FNMA sold the mortgage document described to MTGLQ for "good and valuable consideration" with "sufficiency" as stated and agreed upon in writing by both parties in this Assignment.

125. This Assignment does not show or explain in any way how FNMA acquired the Mortgage document or any right thereto, which entitled it to sell to MTGLQ.

126. This Assignment does state " See Exhibit attached for Assignments" in an attempt to bestow credibility to the Assignment at first glance. However, there were no "attached Assignments" as mentioned in the body of the Assignment itself. Therefore, there is no chain of rights or ownership prove nor provided that allow FNMA to sell anything to MTGLQ.

127. FNMA never had any ownership, possession or any rights whatsoever to the Mortgage or Note on the Plaintiff's property, and indeed FNMA agrees to this fact and has told this to the Plaintiff on numerous occasions. The website also confirms this fact.

128. This is the last Assignment, as of today's date that is recorded in Erie County, New York against this Plaintiff's property.

129. This Assignment confirms through FNMA that it sold the Mortgage to MTGLQ and has no rights whatsoever to proceed in this Bankruptcy. This sale was made by HSBC for "valuable consideration”, "the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged" in the Assignment. The Mortgage sold was the one alleged to exist between Deborah A. Buczek and Republic Bank for Savings. This is an admission of fraud by FNMA since it had no authority and presented no valid authority to make this sale and transference for compensation as it has indicated occurred on the face of the Assignment.

130. The Assignment/Sale in conjunction with binding paragraph #22 of the Mortgage contract set forth in the Assignment proves prima facie that:

(1) the Mortgage between the Plaintiff (Buczek) and the Lender (Republic Bank for Savings) was paid in full by good and valuable consideration with sufficiency; and'

(2) the FNMA received the compensation for a Mortgage it did not possess, own or have any rights to whatsoever;

(3) FNMA was a party to the fraudulent transference of a Mortgage document to MTGLQ and received compensation for the fraudulent transfer; and

(4) that MTGLQ bought a worthless and unenforceable photocopy of a Mortgage document when it purchased said document from FNMA, at its own risk.

131. Binding paragraph #22 of the Mortgage contract between this Plaintiff and Republic Bank for Savings states: "When Lender is paid all amounts due under the Note and under the Security Instrument, Lender will discharge the Security Instrument by delivering a certificate stating that the Security instrument has been satisfied". (SEE: ATTACHMENT C: Mortgage: Paragraph #22)

132. According to the Defendants HSBC, Seterus- who is a co-conspirator with FNMA in these frauds, MERS and the terms of the Mortgage contract, the Lender was paid "good and valuable consideration", "the sufficiency of which" was "hereby acknowledged" by the "holder" of the Mortgage and Note, by their OWN ADMISSION in throughout the trail of Assignments filed by the Defendants.

133. The Lender Republic Bank for Savings is in default and breach of contract for failing to honor its obligations under paragraph #22 of the Mortgage contract, because the original Mortgage has been paid by the alleged Creditor's own admissions in their Assignment.

134. Paragraph #22 of the Mortgage contract is written under the Plain English standard.

135. Paragraph #22 does not require that the Plaintiff (Borrower) be the only party to pay off the "amounts due under the Note and this Security Instrument". It states, "when Lender has been paid". The Assignments state Lender has been paid.

136. While Republic Bank for Savings is the Lender and the Plaintiff's name appears as Borrower on the alleged Mortgage document, no one knows who the Lender or the Borrower are on the alleged Note because no Original enforceable Note has ever been produced by either party.

137. Based upon the foregoing no debt exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendants above named. Since no enforceable legal debt exists, any liens remaining or alleged to remain against Plaintiff's property must be removed.

H. NOTICE OF PENDENCY FILED ON 7/7/2015 BY DEFENDANTS HSBC, ROSICKI and GENOVESE.

138. On July 7,2015 Defendant Tina M. Genovese, acting on behalf of Rosicki Law Firm and HSBC, caused to be filed in the Erie County New York Clerk's Office a Notice of Pendency.

(SEE: ATTACHMENT: G: NOTICE OF PENDENCY filed 7/7/2015 Book 419 Pg. 8049: Erie County)

139. The Notice of Pendency state that: "Notice is hereby given, that an action has been commenced and is pending in this court [Supreme Court of the State of New York - County of Erie] upon a Complaint of the above named plaintiff [HSBC Bank USA NA] against the above named defendants [Deborah A. Buczek, et al.] for the foreclosure of a certain Mortgage given by: Deborah A. Buczek to Republic Bank for Savings bearing date of April 20, 1994 and recorded in Book 12625 of Mortgages at Page 507 in the County of Erie on April 25, 1994. Thereafter said mortgage was assigned to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for HSBC Bank USA NA by assignment of mortgage bearing date September 7, 2011 and recorded under Book 13559 of the Mortgages at Page 6653 in the County of Erie on December 19, 2011. [ 3 months after it was originally forged] Thereafter said mortgage was assigned to HSBC Bank USA NA by assignment of mortgage bearing date May 30, 2014 and recorded under Book 13684 of Mortgages at Page 189 in the County of Erie on June 11, 2014."

140. This Notice of pendency was signed by Tina M. Genovese, acting on behalf of Rosicki's firm for HSBC Bank USA NA.

141. The notice of Pendency was rife with falsehoods and easily verifiable lies perpetrated by Genovese on behalf of the criminal enterprise known as the Rosicki Law firm for the purposes of acquiring Plaintiff’s real property and money from the Plaintiff under false pretenses and frauds. Specifically, the Notice relied upon the false and fraudulent assignments mentioned above as a pretext for foreclosure.

142. Genovese, Rosicki and HSBC all knew that the Assignments lacked the appropriate chain of assignment and that the Assignment presented did not ever at any time establish a transfer of the original Mortgage to HSBC. These Defendants also knew that at no time did any of them possess the necessary original Mortgage or Original Note necessary to enforce a foreclosure action in the State of New York. The Assignments, mortgage and note referred to and relied upon by Genovese, Rosicki and HSBC were known to be forgeries by these Defendants.

143. The criminal conduct committed by Genovese, as now admitted by the Rosicki firm in Rosicki's Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with the United States government, by filing this Notice of Pendency to illegally obtain Plaintiff's real property is presumed, based upon the historic pattern of criminal activity in the Rosicki firm.

144. Based upon paragraphs 138 - 143 above, Rosick and HSBC should be ordered by this court to withdraw its Notice of Dependency and Complaint of foreclosure.

145. This fraudulent Notice of dependency is filed by Rosicki, Genovese and HSBC are demonstrative of the furtherance of ongoing fraud and deceptive mortgage practices and is violative with the HSBC's and Rosicki's settlement agreements entered with the New York Attorney General's Office and the United States respectively.

I. THE PROOF OF CLAIM FILED UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY ON 9/25/2018 BY THE SHAPIRO LAW FIRM BY MICHAEL J. CHATWIN ON BEHALF OF SETERUS AND FNMA.

146. On July 20, 2018 Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy protection against the Defendants seeking protection against Defendant’s false, unsupported and fraudulent claims that they were creditors.

147. On September 25, 2018, in furtherance of the fraudulent acts set forth more fully and specifically below, defendants Seterus, FNMA Shapiro and Chatwin filed a Proof of Claim in Plaintiff's bankruptcy case. (SEE: ATTACHMENT K: Proof of Claim filed 9/25/2018 case no. 18-1****)

148. The Proof of Claim states the current Creditor to be "Seterus, Inc. as the authorized subservicer for Federal national Mortgage Association "Fannie Mae" [FNMA], a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America" (SEE: ATTACHMENT K: Proof of Claim)

149. The Proof of Claim states the claim as $146,689.17. (SEE: ATTACHMENT K: Proof of Claim; Claim 6-1, Part 2, Question 7).

150. The Proof of Claim states that the basis for the Proof of Claim is the "Mortgage Note" [which does not exist, and which neither Seterus or FNMA never possessed]. (SEE: ATTACHMENT K: Proof of Claim; Claim 6-1, Part 2, Question 8).

151. The Proof of Claim states that the claim is secured by a lien on the Plaintiff's real property.

(SEE: ATTACHMENT K: Proof of Claim; Claim 6-1, Part 2, Question 9).

152. The Proof of Claim states that the "Basis for Perfection" is "Recorded mortgage". (SEE: ATTACHMENT K: Proof of Claim; Claim 6-1, Part 2, Question 9).

153. The Proof of Claim was signed under penalty of perjury by Shapiro minion Michael J. Chatwin on behalf of Defendants Seterus and FNMA.

154. The Proof of Claim relies upon and includes the same plethora of fraudulent assignments and false and unauthorized conveyances that are disputed by this Plaintiff, and whose authenticity will be challenged at trial. SEE: ATTACHMENT K: Proof of Claim: Claim 6-1, Part 2

155. The chain of Assignments relied upon in the Proof of Claim ends with the final Assignment assigning all rights and interests in the "Mortgage" from HSBC to FNMA. (SEE: ATTACHMENT K: Proof of Claim; Claim 6-1 Part 2).

156. However, on June 27, 2017 FNMA sold all its interest in the Plaintiff's real property and the alleged Mortgage and Note to MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP. (SEE: ATTACHMENT I: filed 7/27/2017 Book 13818 Pg. 1561: Erie County)

157. Seterus, FNMA, Shapiro and Chatwin intentionally omitted this Assignment to MTGLQ from this court because it proves irrefutable that neither FNMA of Seterus possessed any claim whatsoever against this Plaintiff when they filed the Proof of Claim, even though the MTGLQ Assignment was made by FNMA- who Shapiro alleges to represent. It is without doubt that the MTGLQ assignment was made nearly 2 full years BEFORE Seterus's Proof of Claim was filed, and the MTGLQ Assignment was a matter of Public Record since 7/27/2017. It is impossible that Defendants Seterus, FNMA, Chatwin and Griswold did not know of this Assignment, and that they did not intentionally withhold it from this court.

158. The purpose of the Defendants above withholding the MTGLQ Assignment from this court was to defraud this court and to defraud this Plaintiff of money and real property. Also, it is the intent of Shapiro, Chatwin and Griswold to defraud FNMA of money for bogus legal fees for prosecuting a claim involving a Mortgage in which FNMA denies having any interests.

159. Based upon the foregoing, it is undeniable that the Proof of Claim filed by Seterus and FNMA through Shapiro, Chatwin and Griswold is prima facie evidence that the attorneys under oath did intentionally violate Title 18 USC § 152, 157 and 3571 with the purpose and intent to defraud this court, the Plaintiff, and their client FNMA of money and property, as set forth more fully and specifically below. The penalty for Shapiro, Chatwin and Griswold for filing this prima facie false Proof of claim, as provided in 18 USC § 152,157 and 3571 is up to $500,000 each and up to 5 years in prison.

161. Based upon the frauds and false Assignments relied upon above by the Defendants, any liens against this Plaintiff's real property must be removed in the interests of justice.

162, Under that same standards applied to the Rosicki Law Firm in their case filed by the United States, The Shapiro Law firm, Chatwin, Griswold and Seterus did also conspire and defraud FNMA of money through false billing and statements.

163. Plaintiff is entitled to damages from these Defendants for their illegal and unconscionable criminal acts, as provided by law.

164. It has most recently come to the attention of this Plaintiff, and the court needs to be informed of this fact, that in furtherance of the criminal frauds and forgeries perpetrated and relied upon by Shapiro, Chatwin, Griswold, Seterus and FNMA by affiliation, that Griswold has responded to this Plaintiff's OBJECTION to their claim filed in this court. Griswold has referred to dubious documents, which were not even in existence at the time that the Proof of Claim was filed, for his defense of the criminal acts of Shapiro, Chatwin, Seterus and FNMAmade by the filing of the false Proof of Claim. Among these non-existent documents Griswold claims that the MTGLQ Assignment was re-assigned back to FNMA. He also claims this occurred years ago and that the Assignment didn't get recorded. Based upon the historic pattern of lies, deceit and falsehoods presented by this crooked den of thieves, there is no reason to believe these as of yet non-existent documents are authentic. In fact, there is a strong presumption that these alleged documents are also forged in order to cover-up the false Proof of Claim and avoid the criminal and financial penalties which these Defendants face. Regardless, on its face the Proof of Claim filed by Seterus and FNMA through the Shapiro firm is indubitably false and in violation of 18 USC 152, 157 and 3571, as of the time it was filed. These defendants cannot escape that fact.

V. LEGAL PROVISIONS UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND THEIR PENALTIES.

165. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 9 (b) provides in relevant part that:

"In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent knowledge and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally".

166. Title 18 USC § 152 Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery

provides that: A person who

(1) knowingly and fraudulently conceals from a custodian, trustee, marshal or other officer of the court charged with the control or custody of property, or, in connection with a case under Title 11, from creditors or the United States Trustee, any property belonging to the estate of a debtor;

(2) knowingly or fraudulently makes a false oath or account in or in relation to any case under Title 11;

(3) knowingly or fraudulently makes a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of Title 28, in or in relation tony case under Title 11;

(4) Knowingly or fraudulently presents any false claim for proof against the estate of a debtor, or uses any such claim in any case under Title 11, in a personal capacity or as or through an agent, proxy or attorney;

(5) knowingly or fraudulently receives any material amount of property from a debtor after the filing of a case under Title 11, with intent to defeat the provisions of Title 11;

(6) knowingly or fraudulently gives, offers, receives or attempts to obtain any money or property, remuneration, compensation, reward, advantage or promise thereof for acting or forbearing to act in any case under Title 11;

(7) in a personal capacity or as an agent or officer of any person or corporation, or with intent to defeat the provisions of Title 11, knowingly or fraudulently transfers or conceals any of his property or the property of such other person or corporation;

(8) after the filing of a case under Title 11 or in contemplation thereof, knowingly and fraudulently conceals, destroy, mutilates, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any recorded information (including books, documents, records and papers) relating to the property or financial affairs of a debate; or

(9) after the filing of a case under Title 11, knowingly and fraudulently withholds from a custodian, trustee, marshal or other officer of the court or a United States Trustee entitled to its possession, any recorded information 9 including books, documents, records, and papers) relating to the property or financial affairs of a debtor.

167. Title 18 USC § 157 Bankruptcy fraud

provides that: A person who, having devised or intending to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud and for the purpose of executing or concealing such a scheme or artifice or attempting to do so--

(1) files a petition under Title 11; or

(2) files a document proceeding under Title 11; or

(3) makes a false or fraudulent representation, claim or promise concerning or in relation to a proceeding under Title 11, at any time before or after the filing of the petition, or in relation to a proceeding falsely asserted to be pending under such title, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

168. Title 18 USC § 1014 Loan and credit applications generally; renewals and discounts; crop insurance

provides that: Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of ... a Federal Reserve Bank..., any institution insured by the Federal Deposit insurance Corporation... or a mortgage lending business, or any person or entity that makes in whole or in part a federally related mortgage loan, as defined in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 [ 12 USC § 2602], upon any application, advance, discount, purchase, purchase agreement, commitment, loan...or any change or extension of any of the same, by renewal, deferment of action or otherwise, or the acceptance, release, or substitution of security therefore, shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years or both.

169. Title 18 USC §1016 Acknowledgment of appearance or oath

provides that: Whoever being an officer authorized to administer oaths or to take and certify acknowledgments, knowingly makes any false acknowledgement, certificate, or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation by any person with respect to any proposal, contract, bond, undertaking, or other matter submitted to, made with, or taken on behalf of the united States or by any Department or Agency thereof, concerning which an oath or affirmations required by law or lawful regulation, or with respect to the financial standing of any principal, surety, or other party to any such proposal, contract, bond, undertaking, or other instrument, shall be fined under this Title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

170.Title 18 USC § 1018 Official certificates or writings

provides that: Whoever being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this Title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

171. Title 18 USC § 1021 Title records

provides that: Whoever, being an officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to record a conveyance of real property or any other instrument which by such law may be recorded, knowingly certifies falsely that such conveyance or instrument has or has not been recorded, shall be fined under this Title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

172. Title 18 USC §1341 Frauds and swindles

provides that: Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice to defraud or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives there from, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this Title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

173. Title 18 USC § 1343 Fraud by wire, radio, or television

provides that: Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, television communication in interstate commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this Title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

174. Title 18 USC § 1349 Attempt and conspiracy

provides that: " Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this Chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense of which was the object of or intent of the conspiracy.

175. Title 18 USC § 1021 Title records

provides that: "Whoever, being an officer of the court [ i.e. attorney ] or other person authorized by any law of the United States to record a conveyance or any other instrument which by such law may be recorded, knowingly certifies that such conveyance or instrument has or has not been recorded, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

176. Title 18 USC § 1962 Prohibited activities

provides that: (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any 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.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

177. Title 18 USC § 3057 Bankruptcy investigations provides that:

(a) Any judge, receiver, or trustee having reasonable grounds for believing that any violation under chapter 9 of this title or other laws of the United States relating to insolvent debtors, receiverships or reorganization plans has been committed, or that an investigation should be had in connection therewith, shall report to the appropriate United States attorney all the facts and circumstances of the case, the names of the witnesses and the offense or offenses believed to have been committed. Where one of such officers has made such report, the others need not do so.

(b) The United States attorney thereupon shall inquire into the facts and report thereon to the judge, and if it appears probable that any such offense has been committed, shall without delay, present the matter to the grand jury, unless upon inquiry and examination he decides that the ends of public justice do not require investigation or prosecution, in which case he shall report the facts to the Attorney General for his direction.

178. Title 28 USC § 524 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure

provides that:

(a) Appropriations for the Department of Justice are available to the Attorney General for payment of--

(1) notarial fees, including such additional stenographic services as are required in connection therewith in the taking of depositions, and compensation and expenses of witnesses and informants, all at the rates authorized or approved by the Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General for Administration; and

(2) when ordered by the court, actual expenses of meals and lodging for marshals, deputy marshals, or criers when acting as bailiffs in attendance on juries.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (a) of this section, a claim of not more than $500 for expenses related to litigation that is beyond the control of the Department may be paid out of appropriations currently available to the Department for expenses related to litigation when the Comptroller General settles the payment.

(c)(1) There is established in the United States Treasury a special fund to be known as the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the “Fund”) which shall be available to the Attorney General without fiscal year limitation for the following law enforcement purposes--

(A) the payment, at the discretion of the Attorney General, of any expenses necessary to seize, detain, inventory, safeguard, maintain, advertise, sell, or dispose of property under seizure, detention, or forfeited pursuant to any law enforced or administered by the Department of Justice, or of any other necessary expense incident to the seizure, detention, forfeiture, or disposal of such property including--

(i) payments for--

(I) contract services;

(II) the employment of outside contractors to operate and manage properties or provide other specialized services necessary to dispose of such properties in an effort to maximize the return from such properties; and

(III) reimbursement of any Federal, State, or local agency for any expenditures made to perform the functions described in this clause;

(ii) payments to reimburse any Federal agency participating in the Fund for investigative costs leading to seizures;

(iii) payments for contracting for the services of experts and consultants needed by the Department of Justice to assist in carrying out duties related to asset seizure and forfeiture; and

(iv) payments made pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the Attorney General if such payments are necessary and directly related to seizure and forfeiture program expenses for--

(I) the purchase or lease of automatic data processing systems (not less than a majority of which use will be related to such program);

(II) training;

(III) printing;

(IV) the storage, protection, and destruction of controlled substances; and

(V) contracting for services directly related to the identification of forfeitable assets, and the processing of and accounting for forfeitures;

(B) the payment of awards for information or assistance directly relating to violations of the criminal drug laws of the United States or of chapter 77 of title 18, sections 1956 and 1957 of title 18, sections 5313 and 5324 of title 31, and section 6050I of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

(C) at the discretion of the Attorney General, the payment of awards for information or assistance leading to a civil or criminal forfeiture involving any Federal agency participating in the Fund;

(D) the compromise and payment of valid liens and mortgages against property that has been forfeited pursuant to any law enforced or administered by the Department of Justice, subject to the discretion of the Attorney General to determine the validity of any such lien or mortgage and the amount of payment to be made, and the employment of attorneys and other personnel skilled in State real estate law as necessary;

(E)(i) for disbursements authorized in connection with remission or mitigation procedures relating to property forfeited under any law enforced or administered by the Department of Justice; and

(ii) for payment for

(I) costs incurred by or on behalf of the Department of Justice in connection with the removal, for purposes of Federal forfeiture and disposition, of any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant associated with the illegal manufacture of amphetamine or methamphetamine; and

(II) costs incurred by or on behalf of a State or local government in connection with such removal in any case in which such State or local government has assisted in a Federal prosecution relating to amphetamine or methamphetamine, to the extent such costs exceed equitable sharing payments made to such State or local government in such case;

(F)(i) for equipping for law enforcement functions of any Government-owned or leased vessel, vehicle, or aircraft available for official use by any Federal agency participating in the Fund;

(ii) for equipping any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft available for official use by a State or local law enforcement agency to enable the vessel, vehicle, or aircraft to assist law enforcement functions if the vessel, vehicle, or aircraft will be used in a joint law enforcement operation with a Federal agency participating in the Fund; and

(iii) payments for other equipment directly related to seizure or forfeiture, including laboratory equipment, protective equipment, communications equipment, and the operation and maintenance costs of such equipment;

(G) for purchase of evidence of any violation of the Controlled Substances Act, the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, chapter 96 of title 18, or sections 1956 and 1957 of title 18;

(H) the payment of State and local property taxes on forfeited real property that accrued between the date of the violation giving rise to the forfeiture and the date of the forfeiture order; and

(I) payment of overtime salaries, travel, fuel, training, equipment, and other similar costs of State or local law enforcement officers that are incurred in a joint law enforcement operation with a Federal law enforcement agency participating in the Fund.

Amounts for paying the expenses authorized by subparagraphs (B), (F), and (G) shall be specified in appropriations Acts and may be used under authorities available to the organization receiving the funds. Amounts for other authorized expenditures and payments from the Fund, including equitable sharing payments, are not required to be specified in appropriations acts. The Attorney General may exempt the procurement of contract services under subparagraph (A) under the Fund from division C (except sections 3302, 3501(b), 3509, 3906 , 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41, section 6101(b) to (d) of title 41 , and other provisions of law as may be necessary to maintain the security and confidentiality of related criminal investigations.

(2) Any award paid from the Fund, as provided in paragraph (1)(B) or (C), shall be paid at the discretion of the Attorney General or his delegate, under existing departmental delegation policies for the payment of awards, except that the authority to pay an award of $250,000 or more shall not be delegated to any person other than the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Any award pursuant to paragraph (1)(B) shall not exceed $500,000. Any award pursuant to paragraph (1)(C) shall not exceed the lesser of $500,000 or one-fourth of the amount realized by the United States from the property forfeited, without both the personal approval of the Attorney General and written notice within 30 days thereof to the Chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.

(3) Any amount under subparagraph (G) of paragraph (1) shall be paid at the discretion of the Attorney General or his delegate, except that the authority to pay $100,000 or more may be delegated only to the respective head of the agency involved.

(4) There shall be deposited in the Fund

(A) all amounts from the forfeiture of property under any law enforced or administered by the Department of Justice, except all proceeds of forfeitures available for use by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to section 11(d) of the Endangered Species Act ( 16 U.S.C. 1540(d) ) or section 6(d) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 ( 16 U.S.C. 3375(d) ), or the Postmaster General of the United States pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 2003(b)(7) ;

(B) all amounts representing the Federal equitable share from the forfeiture of property under any Federal, State, local or foreign law, for any Federal agency participating in the Fund;

(C) all amounts transferred by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 9705(g)(4)(A) of title 31; and

(D) all amounts collected--

(i) by the United States pursuant to a reimbursement order under paragraph (2) of section 413(q) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853(q)); and

(ii) pursuant to a restitution order under paragraph (1) or (3) of section 413(q) of the Controlled Substances Act [ 21 U.S.C.A. § 853(q)] for injuries to the United States.

(5) Amounts in the Fund, and in any holding, accounts associated with the Fund, that are not currently needed for the purpose of this section 1 shall be kept on deposit or invested in obligations of, or guaranteed by, the United States and all earnings on such investments shall be deposited in the Fund.

(6)(A) The Attorney General shall transmit to Congress and make available to the public, not later than 4 months after the end of each fiscal year, detailed reports for the prior fiscal year as follows:

(i) A report on total deposits to the Fund by State of deposit.

(ii) A report on total expenses paid from the Fund, by category of expense and recipient agency, including equitable sharing payments.

(iii) A report describing the number, value, and types of properties placed into official use by Federal agencies, by recipient agency.

(iv) A report describing the number, value, and types of properties transferred to State and local law enforcement agencies, by recipient agency.

(v) A report, by type of disposition, describing the number, value, and types of forfeited property disposed of during the year.

(vi) A report on the year-end inventory of property under seizure, but not yet forfeited, that reflects the type of property, its estimated value, and the estimated value of liens and mortgages outstanding on the property.

(vii) A report listing each property in the year-end inventory, not yet forfeited, with an outstanding equity of not less than $1,000,000.

(B) The Attorney General shall transmit to Congress and make available to the public, not later than 2 months after final issuance, the audited financial statements for each fiscal year for the Fund.

(C) Reports under subparagraph (A) shall include information with respect to all forfeitures under any law enforced or administered by the Department of Justice.

(D) The transmittal and publication requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (B) may be satisfied by

(i) posting the reports on an Internet website maintained by the Department of Justice for a period of not less than 2 years; and

(ii) notifying the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate when the reports are available electronically.

(7) The provisions of this subsection relating to deposits in the Fund shall apply to all property in the custody of the Department of Justice on or after the effective date of the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1983.

(8)(A) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as necessary for the purposes described in subparagraphs (B), (F), and (G) of paragraph (1).

(B) Subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D), at the end of each of fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996, the Attorney General shall transfer from the Fund not more than $100,000,000 to the Special Forfeiture Fund established by section 6073 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.

(C) Transfers under subparagraph (B) may be made only from the excess unobligated balance and may not exceed one-half of the excess unobligated balance for any year. In addition, transfers under subparagraph (B) may be made only to the extent that the sum of the transfers in a fiscal year and one-half of the unobligated balance at the beginning of that fiscal year for the Special Forfeiture Fund does not exceed $100,000,000.

(D) For the purpose of determining amounts available for distribution at year end for any fiscal year, “excess unobligated balance” means the unobligated balance of the Fund generated by that fiscal year's operations, less any amounts that are required to be retained in the Fund to ensure the availability of amounts in the subsequent fiscal year for purposes authorized under paragraph (1).

(E) Subject to the notification procedures contained in section 605 of Public Law 103-121 , and after satisfying the transfer requirement in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, any excess unobligated balance remaining in the Fund on September 30, 1997 and thereafter shall be available to the Attorney General, without fiscal year limitation, for any Federal law enforcement, litigative/prosecutive, and correctional activities, or any other authorized purpose of the Department of Justice. Any amounts provided pursuant to this subparagraph may be used under authorities available to the organization receiving the funds.

(9)(A) Following the completion of procedures for the forfeiture of property pursuant to any law enforced or administered by the Department, the Attorney General is authorized, in her discretion, to warrant clear title to any subsequent purchaser or transferee of such property.

(B) For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the Attorney General is authorized to transfer, under such terms and conditions as the Attorney General shall specify, real or personal property of limited or marginal value, to a State or local government agency, or its designated contractor or transferee, for use to support drug abuse treatment, drug and crime prevention and education, housing, job skills, and other community-based public health and safety programs. Each such transfer shall be subject to satisfaction by the recipient involved of any outstanding lien against the property transferred, but no such transfer shall create or confer any private right of action in any person against the United States.

(10) The Attorney General shall transfer from the Fund to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund amounts appropriate to reflect the degree of participation of the Department of the Treasury law enforcement organizations (described in section 9705(o) of title 31 ) in the law enforcement effort resulting in the forfeiture pursuant to laws enforced or administered by the Department of Justice.

(11) For purposes of this subsection and notwithstanding section 9705 of title 31 or any other law, property is forfeited pursuant to a law enforced or administered by the Department of Justice if it is forfeited pursuant to--

(A) a judicial forfeiture proceeding when the underlying seizure was made by an officer of a Federal law enforcement agency participating in the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund or the property was maintained by the United States Marshals Service; or

(B) a civil administrative forfeiture proceeding conducted by a Department of Justice law enforcement component or pursuant to the authority of the Secretary of Commerce.

(d)(1) The Attorney General may accept, hold, administer, and use gifts, devises, and bequests of any property or services for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the Department of Justice.

(2) Gifts, devises, and bequests of money, the proceeds of sale or liquidation of any other property accepted hereunder, and any income accruing from any property accepted hereunder--

(A) shall be deposited in the Treasury in a separate fund and held in trust by the Secretary of the Treasury for the benefit of the Department of Justice; and

(B) are hereby appropriated, without fiscal year limitation, and shall be disbursed on order of the Attorney General.

(3) Upon request of the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury may invest and reinvest the fund described herein in public debt securities with maturities suitable for the needs of the fund and bearing interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the current average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States or comparable maturities.

(4) Evidences of any intangible personal property (other than money) accepted hereunder shall be deposited with the Secretary of the Treasury, who may hold or liquidate them, except that they shall be liquidated upon the request of the Attorney General.

(5) For purposes of federal income, estate, and gift taxes, property accepted hereunder shall be considered a gift, devise, or bequest to, or for the use of, the United States.

179. Title 18 USC § 152 Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery

provides that: A person who

(1) knowingly and fraudulently conceals from a custodian, trustee, marshal, or other officer of the court charged with the control or custody of property, or, in connection with a case under title 11, from creditors or the United States Trustee, any property belonging to the estate of a debtor;

(2) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false oath or account in or in relation to any case under title 11;

(3) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, in or in relation to any case under title 11;

(4) knowingly and fraudulently presents any false claim for proof against the estate of a debtor, or uses any such claim in any case under title 11, in a personal capacity or as or through an agent, proxy, or attorney;

(5) knowingly and fraudulently receives any material amount of property from a debtor after the filing of a case under title 11, with intent to defeat the provisions of title 11;

(6) knowingly and fraudulently gives, offers, receives, or attempts to obtain any money or property, remuneration, compensation, reward, advantage, or promise thereof for acting or forbearing to act in any case under title 11;

(7) in a personal capacity or as an agent or officer of any person or corporation, in contemplation of a case under title 11 by or against the person or any other person or corporation, or with intent to defeat the provisions of title 11, knowingly and fraudulently transfers or conceals any of his property or the property of such other person or corporation;

(8) after the filing of a case under title 11 or in contemplation thereof, knowingly and fraudulently conceals, destroys, mutilates, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any recorded information (including books, documents, records, and papers) relating to the property or financial affairs of a debtor; or

(9) after the filing of a case under title 11, knowingly and fraudulently withholds from a custodian, trustee, marshal, or other officer of the court or a United States Trustee entitled to its possession, any recorded information (including books, documents, records, and papers) relating to the property or financial affairs of a debtor, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

180. Title 18 USC § 153 Embezzlement against estate provides that:

(a)Offense.

A person described in subsection (b) who knowingly and fraudulently appropriates to the person’s own use, embezzles, spends, or transfers any property or secretes or destroys any document belonging to the estate of a debtor shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b)Person to Whom Section Applies.

A person described in this subsection is one who has access to property or documents belonging to an estate by virtue of the person’s participation in the administration of the estate as a trustee, custodian, marshal, attorney, or other officer of the court or as an agent, employee, or other person engaged by such an officer to perform a service with respect to the estate.

181. Title 18 USC § 154 Adverse interest and conduct of officers provides that:

A person who, being a custodian, trustee, marshal, or other officer of the court

(1) knowingly purchases, directly or indirectly, any property of the estate of which the person is such an officer in a case under title 11;

(2) knowingly refuses to permit a reasonable opportunity for the inspection by parties in interest of the documents and accounts relating to the affairs of estates in the person’s charge by parties when directed by the court to do so; or

(3) knowingly refuses to permit a reasonable opportunity for the inspection by the United States Trustee of the documents and accounts relating to the affairs of an estate in the person’s charge,

shall be fined under this title and shall forfeit the person’s office, which shall thereupon become vacant.

182. Title 18 USC § 155 Fee agreements in cases under title 11 and receiverships

provides that:

Whoever, being a party in interest, whether as a debtor, creditor, receiver, trustee or representative of any of them, or attorney for any such party in interest, in any receivership or case under title 11 in any United States court or under its supervision, knowingly and fraudulently enters into any agreement, express or implied, with another such party in interest or attorney for another such party in interest, for the purpose of fixing the fees or other compensation to be paid to any party in interest or to any attorney for any party in interest for services rendered in connection therewith, from the assets of the estate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

183. Title 18 USC § 156 Knowing disregard of bankruptcy law or rule

provides that:

(a)Definitions. In this section

(1) the term “bankruptcy petition preparer” means a person, other than the debtor’s attorney or an employee of such an attorney, who prepares for compensation a document for filing; and

(2) the term “document for filing” means a petition or any other document prepared for filing by a debtor in a United States bankruptcy court or a United States district court in connection with a case under title 11.

(b) Offense.

If a bankruptcy case or related proceeding is dismissed because of a knowing attempt by a bankruptcy petition preparer in any manner to disregard the requirements of title 11, United States Code, or the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the bankruptcy petition preparer shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

184. Title 18 USC § 157 Bankruptcy fraud provides that:

A person who, having devised or intending to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud and for the purpose of executing or concealing such a scheme or artifice or attempting to do so

(1) files a petition under title 11, including a fraudulent involuntary petition under section 303 of such title;

(2) files a document in a proceeding under title 11; or

(3) makes a false or fraudulent representation, claim, or promise concerning or in relation to a proceeding under title 11, at any time before or after the filing of the petition, or in relation to a proceeding falsely asserted to be pending under such title, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

185. Title 18 USC § 1623 False declarations before grand jury or court

provides that:

(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.

(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if

(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and

(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.

In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.

(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.

186. Title 18 USC § 1001 Statements or entries generally provides that:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

View full review
Dorene P Mwl

This review is from a real person who provided valid contact information and hasn't been caught misusing, spamming or abusing our website. Check our FAQ

Verified Reviewer
| map-marker East Islip, New York

Horrasement

stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full
Original review Apr 29, 2022
I just tried calling to find out about a check made out to me in February 2019 that was never cashed? Instead I was overtalked about a free alert button????
View full review

Preferred solution: Replacement check

User's recommendation: Stay away

Anonymous
map-marker New Paltz, New York

REMOVAL OF INACCURATE FORECLOSURE REPORT

Good Morning, We are requesting the removal of an inaccurate foreclosure listed on our credit reports. For Both myself and my husband Robert's credit reports....immediately. Signed, Sandra and Robert Heinitz
View full review

User's recommendation: NNNNNOOOOOOOOO

Anonymous
map-marker Visalia, California

Time for Class Action lawsuit people!

stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full

I am willing to join a class action. My situation has been a nightmare.

They have counted every payment I've made for the last 4 years as late and they all show on my credit report. I have never had a late payment to them! Never been charged a late fee! I have never had a notice of foreclosure (which, after 4 years I think I would get ?) Every time I contact them they say they have 30 days to 'investigate.' That 30 days has turned into 14 months.

Even received a letter from their own attorney saying I was not late, but Seterus refuses to fix their records. The only reason I found out about the late payments is I applied to another company to refinance. And for those of you who don't know, Seterus is a loan servicer, not a lender. Your actual mortgage loan holder is not them.

My mortgage holder is Fannie Mae (800-732-****). You will need to call your holder and complain to them directly about Seterus. If enough of us do it maybe something will be done. They have 5 days left on this 30 day go-round.

If it's not fixed I will file suit. How many of you want to join a class action?

View full review
149 comments
Guest

Any of you guys ever consider also contacting the media about this? I think that would not be a bad idea...

Kimerly Ydu

Seterus located 5 out of 18 missing mortgage payments. The other 13 payments have been deposited into STMI VP

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Kimerly Ydu

This evidence has gone undetected because SunTrust Mortgage Inc. Seterus IBM & Fannie Mae refuse to exam all original documents.

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-1864900

My name is not Kimberly

Guest

hazard claim, gone wrong, they paid the contractors however, at closing, they demanded the last pay out back, title insurance paid, now title insurance suing me for that payout.

Imer Ote

I am going through a nightmare as I write this, waiting for my accountant to go over my escrow account, it appears as though they extorted payments and inflated escrow as well as my principal and interest payments. Once I know if there is a lawsuit kindly let me know

Kyli Sha

Im ready too, transferring my loan to Mr. Copper terribly.

I think they charged me for hazard insurance, then transferred it with none!

Attorneys please help us. Thanks

Krisa Asd

please count me in. They are meanest horrible people.

Eloyce Ykf

I’m in let’s do this they are screwing me so bad. I’m gonna lose my home!

Laverne Dhd

I am on board to sue them please contact if a lawyer is found to handle the case

View more comments (148)
Laishdeo R

I don't understand why a sales advertisement came on whe I was attempting to reach my mortgage company

stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full
I need an address to send my last 2 paystubs. ps. What does the word pissed mean at the agree box below?
View full review

Preferred solution: An address so that I can fax my last 2 paystubs

User's recommendation: Do not ask me if I am older than 50

Jane W Brr

This review is from a real person who provided valid contact information and hasn't been caught misusing, spamming or abusing our website. Check our FAQ

Verified Reviewer

Incorrect Mortgage information

stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full
Trying to call and get pushed to a free medical alert button recorded messages..faked to seem like youre talking to a real person, total BS!
View full review
Cons:
  • Many

Preferred solution: Need mortgage info changed

User's recommendation: Don’t bother

Kimberlee C Nby

Attempt to contact company unsuccessful.

I called customer service and listened to the advertisements for car insurance. Was not able to speak with a human or leave a message. I attempted to email and am still waiting for the code to send my email after I review and submit my code which never arrived.
View full review

Preferred solution: I need a copy of my letter closing the deed in lieu of foreclosure from my property at 2556 Medford High Ridge, MO 63049

User's recommendation: do not do business with Seterus Mortgage Company

Anonymous
map-marker Littleton, Colorado

Possible class action suit

stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full
I'm another individual who has had a very negative experience with Seterus. Any additional information about a class action would be appreciated
View full review

User's recommendation: D

Anonymous
map-marker Leonardo, New Jersey

Lousy Product Support

stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full
John Deere sucks moose***s! Tried to get replacement wheels for my LA135 riding mower, and they don't carry them. Went to Home Depot and Lowes, and they look like the stopped selling this junk. No parts of course. So now I'm trying to install two aftermarket wheels on it. Plenty of videos on the Web on how to take the wheels off, but NOTHING on how to install them. There's a clip that's a pain to get off to remove the old tire, and impossible to re-install. Naturally, there's zilch on the Deere website. You can't call them directly because the SOB's don't list their phone number. Tried to send them a comment on their website, but the link just takes me to a blank page. Hmmm....Looks like they're trying to dodge all the ripped-off customers with buyers remorse. Gonna be NeverDeere for me from now on. It's NeverDeere for me moving forward.
View full review

User's recommendation: Avoid John Deere like the plague!!!!!

Jahliyah Awu
map-marker Romeoville, Illinois

Payoff letter

Requesting copy of payoff letter
View full review
Anonymous
map-marker Sarasota, Florida

Mortgagr

stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full
There was no customer service. The call was dropped and I couldn't even get through. They ruined my credit and I have no recourse as of yet.
View full review

User's recommendation: Stay away they are owned by Mr. Cooper also

Cathy L Rav

This review is from a real person who provided valid contact information and hasn't been caught misusing, spamming or abusing our website. Check our FAQ

Verified Reviewer
| map-marker Daly City, California

Unsatisfied

stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full
I am unable to contact them to find out how much interest I paid in 2019. Disconnected number and no email address. Its not even bad service, its no service at all!
View full review

Preferred solution: 2019 statement

User's recommendation: If possible use another lender.

Charles J Rag

Interest amount for 2019

I am trying to get the interest info to filed my taxes.
View full review
Cons:
  • Damaged my credit and suspense account scams
  • Caused mortgage delay

Preferred solution: Just a correspondent of mortgage interest paid

Anonymous
map-marker Clearwater, Florida

1098 from Seterus

I did not receive the 2019 **** form
View full review
Zaniah Frt
map-marker Palmetto, Florida

Need to know my property tax 1098

Number is no longer available
View full review

Brands Related to Seterus

Why Trust Reviews on PissedConsumer?

  • Professional auto and live moderation
  • 100% user-generated content
  • Equal opportunity and protection
  • Zero tolerance for fake reviews
  • Verified content
  • PissedConsumer is on the Inc. 5000 list

For more information read Blog article