Whisperings in the Wind regarding "In re Franklin" and "Holt v WF" echoes in the Canyons of "Justice"


Whisperings in the Wind regarding “In re Franklin” and “Holt v WF” echoes in the Canyons of “Justice”

Whisperings in the Wind regarding “In re Franklin” and “Holt v WF” echoes in the Canyons of “Justice”

Cases: In re: Cynthia Carrsow-Franklin | ORDER SDNY BK Judge Drain: ROBO-SIGNER ADMITS TO MANUFACTURING DOCS…30 pages of “Sock’em” delivered to WF and Freddie Mac.


From an email SFF received for discussion:

1. Is the documented events described in these two Orders clear and convincing specific evidence of fraud on the courts?

2. What entities/persons are the architects, engineers and directors of the fabrication of evidence in anticipation of litigation?

3. How will the “UST” office deal with the exposure of the fabricationn of evidence in the bankruptcy cases involved in similar/identical cases in order to facilitate the trustee duties to the court, the borrower, the estate and to the real creditors?

4. What impact will / are these cases having on Wells Fargo’s document credibility?

5. Do the acts described in these cases have the potential of constituting civil and criminal racketeering and other criminal violations?

6. Does the document creation disclosed in great detail and documented in these cases form the basis for criminal claims of filing false documents under false pretenses?

7. Does the document creation disclosed facilitate the declaration of void foreclosure judgments and proofs of claims in bankruptcy? For example, in Florida, a judgment procured by fraud and that is void is forever subject to legal challenge.

8. How will judges in foreclosure cases and in bankruptcy matters be able to consider any endorsements or assignments to be reliable in the future?

9. If the REMIC securitized trusts cannot acquire a pledge of a loan or an equitable interest in a mortgage post closing date of the trust; the trust does not ever hold the note or own the loan pursuant to the PSA and the ultra vires robosigning and other such acts of trustees or other agents of the trust are worthless and not enforceable or subject to ratification (NY or Del), the legal result is that the trust is not a holder with the right to enforce the debt or pursue an equitable mortgage? And, if this is true, what is the proper characterization of the acts committed by the trustees, the lawyers and the law firms?

for starters….

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



This post was written by:

- who has written 9262 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

2 Responses to “Whisperings in the Wind regarding “In re Franklin” and “Holt v WF” echoes in the Canyons of “Justice””

  1. Charles Reed says:

    Wells Fargo is guilty of using these “forgeries” that Kennerty is talking about and they been created by the law firm of Kozeny & McCubbin who is representing Wells in the Holm v. Wells.

    I got three of the “forgeries” and the Assignment of Deed of Trust (one of) is created by the head of the foreclosure dept of the firm in Sara Knittel who is an Sr Attorney of the firm but moonlights as an Assistance Secretary of MERS for no pay, but somehow assigns this document to Wells Fargo who is not and was never the “holder in due course”!

    Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) was the “holder in due course” until they endorsed the Note in blank endorsement and relinquished it to the Ginnie Mae on Aug 6, 2003, which forever separated the blank Note and debt. Wells Fargo somehow in Jul 31, 2006 entered into a mortgage servicing agreement that does not make legal sense to service the loan, as the loan are already in the Ginnie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) without having ownership of the debt.

    WaMu maintain the debt because its not purchase, but what is fatal is the debt is only secured with the Notes which WaMu will never possess again in the history of time. The Ginnie Mae MBS are in default as the issuer of the securities in WaMu no longer exist and there is no debt from the homeowner that can be collected as there a breach in the contracts/Notes! This duck is cook so let put a folk in it! SEC Whistleblower claim!

  2. Hallelujah! Let justice roll down like a mighty stream.


Leave a Reply

Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com