&
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….