I therefore formulated the following allegations:

Dear Richard Hightower,

Thank you for your response to QWR dated October 27th 2015, you referenced a case number being; 151016-001169.

Having read your response I have gathered vital information, with-which I therefore formulated the following allegations:

My understanding is that the servicer must furnish, upon request by a timely QWR, the name, address, telephone number and other pertinent information about the identity of the Note Holder, the Owner of the Note, and information about who is the Holder in Due Course of the negotiable instrument I signed in favour of the Originator, GE Money Bank.

Ocwen failed, above, to provide a timely answer to the QWR, because it did not make an attempt to answer or address the compulsory questions posed in the Qualified Written Request, according to RESPA.

Ocwen failed to name the identity of who Owns and Holds my Note, does this mean that no one owns the Note?

Does an original WET-blue ink Note exist?

Ocwen did not show any exhibit that it is the servicer according to RESPA.

The TIL which Ocwen EXHIBITED to authenticate debt, is incorrectly tabulated.

Ocwen must rectify any errors on the TIL.

Ocwen being a debt collector failed to verify any alleged debt.

Ocwen falsely represented the character, amount, or legal status of the alleged debt.

Ocwen communicated or threatened to communicate credit information which was known or which should have been known to be false.

Ocwen failed to communicate that a debt was disputed.

Ocwen used false representations or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt.

Ocwen used false representations or deceptive means to obtain information concerning my identity and my property.

Ocwen collected amounts not authorized by the agreement or permitted by law.

Ocwen failed to validate any alleged debt associated with my property.


The Note Ocwen provided as an exhibit is Endorsed in Blank, above, representing that this Blank Endorsement makes the note Bearer Paper, but this is false because Ocwen is unable to show documented evidence, that the Note would conform with items (a) through (e) as seen below in detail, as is required by contracted law in their pooling and Servicing Agreement, to prove that the note is genuine or that the note is Bearer Paper.

a. Since the first endorsement is in “blank” (no payee is named or designated) then the note becomes a “bearer instrument” by operation of law;

b. There must be both a delivery and an acceptance receipt to document the transfer and delivery of the bearer note from the originator to the sponsor;

c. There must be a delivery and an acceptance receipt to document the transfer and delivery of the bearer note from the sponsor to the depositor;

d. There must be a delivery and an acceptance receipt to document the transfer and delivery of the bearer note from the depositor to the Trust; and

e. The designated document custodian for the Trust should maintain possession of all such documents including the original bearer note.
The record reflects that there are a total of 3 distinct Notes for the same debt, this is also wrong, there can only be one Original Note.

The home-owner therefore cannot recognise which note is genuine, or if any of the three unique presented Notes is the real Note.

Federal-court jurisdiction is limited to actual Cases and Controversies. U. S. Const., Art. III. A controlling factor in the definition of such a case or controversy is standing, ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U. S. 605, 613, the requisite elements of which are well established and settled, the UNDERSIGNED cites these elements in the this case to demonstrate that because OCWEN cannot cure its lack of standing in this instant, Ocwen may have subjected itself to counter-claim litigation because of the many failed attempts to assert itself on the property owner, theses wanton lawless actions may have caused Ocwen to become liable to the Home-Owner for suffered damage.

OCWEN must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the this transaction and [must] allege unlawful conduct and such conduct must be able to be redressed by the requested relief. Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751. Pp. 6n8.
Since a federal court’s jurisdiction is dependent upon the standing, of the litigant, which includes both constitutional standing and prudential standing. Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Am. United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982); 4 Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 128- 29 (2004) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)), and because Ocwen has on several occasions, made unlawful attempts to side step and averting both the constitutional standing and prudential standing with its well settled protocols, the defendant has been damaged.


Foreclosure agents and servicers must prove they have authority to act for a party that has standing. In re Scott, 376 B.R. 285 290 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2007); Kang Jin Hwang, 396 B.R. at 767; Jacobson, supra at 12. Standing requests are governed by FED. R. BANKR. P. 4001(a)(1), to which FED. R. Bankr. P. 9014 is applicable. Rule 9014, in turn, incorporates Rule 7017, which makes FED. R. Civ. P. 17 applicable (“[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”;). The standing doctrine “involves both constitutional limitations on federal-court jurisdiction and prudential limitations on its exercise.” Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 128-29, 125 S. Ct. 564, 160 L. Ed. 2d 519 (2004) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 45 L. Ed. 2D 343 (1975)).
Constitutional standing under Article III requires, at a minimum, that a party must have suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the defendant’s conduct, that the injury be traced to the challenged action, and that it is likely to be redressed by a favourable decision. (Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Am. United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S. Ct. 752, 70 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1982)(citations and internal quotations omitted)).
Beyond the Article III requirements of injury in fact, causation, and re-addressability, the creditor must also have prudential standing, which is a judicially-created set of principles that places limits on who can sue. Ocwen will never have the required standing to properly bring a suit against the undersigned, Ocwen must be mindful of serious risk, exceeding the value of the underlining property, for the liability of litigation by the undersigned, may-be severe.

The entire transaction was a fraudulent set up from the very onset, the property-owner was set up for failure, the Home-Owner was sold a property where the Property description was erroneously stated, as such that, the home owner would never get marketable title to the home he purchased, except if the Title insurance, which the buyer paid at closing, pays out and fixes the error in the Property description, with judicial review. The Home-Owner have been paying a mortgage that he could never own, every single payment was a loss, paid to a party who has not been verified by fact check to be the party in Interest, and because the property description is wrong, no no seasoned secured lien in possible, in this particular Title.

The Home owner seems to own one of three properties or none at all, based on faulty property descriptions. Many of the apartments have fake property addresses, fake buyers, and in some cases no buyer at all, many of the apartments are in the same trusts and some may have common servicers like my Servicer OCWEN, the commonalities are stunningly reminiscent Causes of Action.

The appraised value of the transaction was inflated and the property owner’s income was also inflated to suit a transaction, in a particular true NINJA style. The property owner is an African American as seen on the Loan Application, below,
Suffice to note the loan application listed the Home Owner as an African American. The only African American owner in the building.

Most of the signatures on this particular transaction were not signed by the undersigned. None of the Notes I examined were signed by me, the undersigned.
ACCORDING TO TILA 15 U.S. Code § 1635.

Right of rescission as to certain transactions
I executed this transaction in 2007 surviving all through the Great Housing Bust, in 2010 I realised that this was a sham transaction. I require a refund of ALL on my monthly payments, a cancellation of the loan based on fraud and TILA Rescission, specifically, I WISH TO CANCEL, based on the fact that I was not informed of the identity of the true LENDER on my Deed of Trust, from the onset and to date, I am not informed as to who is the lender.

The closing cannot end until I am told who was the true Lender. Furthermore, if I had known at the closing, that the transaction I entered into was based on a securitized transaction where everyone made money and profit I would have formulated a more beneficial arrangement, accordingly, to include personal profit from my property.


Below, is a group of cases seen on the Court Docket Records of the DC Superior Court System, all of these home-owners are being foreclosed on Illegally with notes which do not confer Standing on Ocwen Loan Servicing to foreclose, all of the home-owners are of Latino or African American decent. Ocwen is using racial bias to abuse people of minority groups, and to steal their homes,

with insufficient paperwork, this practise is not new Ocwen is known for back-dating documents and general robo-signing and outright fraud.

What is wrong with that picture?

As seen above this is an instrument recorded in the DC Jurisdiction, the assignment pro-ports that the Originator of the Loan transferred the Note and deed of trust to a Trust, several years after the trust was closed. The name of the Trust is U.S. Bank National Associations trustee for the registered holders of ABFC 2007-WMC1 TRUST ASSET BACKED FUNDING CORPORATION ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-WMC1
The Originator having pro-ported to transferred this Note and Deed of trust is not permitted by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement which dictated how this particular transaction shall be conducted, by contractual agreement. Additionally the Deed of trust is Robo-Signed by a known Robo-Signer.

Service Release welcome Letter
Ocwen did not EXHIBIT the Service Release welcome Letter, which proves it is the servicer, and it cannot backdate this mandatory disclosure after the fact, therefore it is not the servicer of this transaction, inclusive of which it does not have the legal ability to report of the credit of the Home-Owner. The undersigned demands that all of the credit reporting by Ocwen and all of its prior agents servicers be immediately removed.
Erroneous Credit reporting
Ocwen claims to report to 4 credit reporting agencies. The undersigned demands that all of the credit reporting must be removed from all four of the Credit Reporting Agencies, this must be done by Ocwen as these reports are erroneous at whole, based on the fact that the Note is not a Genuine Instrument and does not evidence any debt, as stated and by the reasons herein, Ocwen lacks US Constitutional Article III standing to report the Credit reporting Agencies and it must remove the reporting. Failure of Ocwen and its agents to remove the credit reporting immediately, will result in litigation. Additionally because the TIL is not correctly tabulated all of the credit reporting must be removed forever.

The “Holder in due course” doctrine relates to the notes and has nothing to do with the Deed of Trust. In order to assert a “holder in due course” status, the transfer of the note to the Trust via the required chain must occur before the note is in default and the transferee must take the note without knowledge or notice of any claims or defects in the document. If the note is in default during any link in the transfer process, the holder in due course status is lost.


There is a scriveners error in the property description of the apartment I purchased. I am puzzled as I seem to be looking at three different apartment numbers on my Deed of Trusts. I think the confusion came as a result of the fraud, where there is a second Note and Deed of Trust on the file, both these amounts are in the aforementioned Trust.


There is a provision in the Saving DC Homes Act which allows for a mediation by the home-owner and the owner of the loan, but Ocwen cannot be a part of this mediation process, as the note, and the assignment of Deed of Trust are not Genuine instruments, and therefore do not evidence any debt by the home-owner to Ocwen or any of the entities who have come forward to make a money claim to the undersigned.

The Trustee or Ocwen does not posses, the Standing to file a lien on my property pursuant to the residential mortgage or the assignee for foreclosure of my residential property. The detailed reasons for Ocwen to lack Standing to file a Lien on my property is clearly defined in this complaint and are in compliance with the stated black letter law.

Ocwen have stated the above in its letter as a response to QWR , but the assertion that Ocwen is precluded from answering certain questions which pertain to details about my transaction, is a misconception, as Cornell Law legal information Institute publishes the law which disagrees with Ocwen as seen below;


(e) Duty of loan servicer to respond to borrower inquiries
(1) Notice of receipt of inquiry
(A) In general
If any servicer of a federally related mortgage loan receives a qualified written request from the borrower (or an agent of the borrower) for information relating to the servicing of such loan, the servicer shall provide a written response acknowledging receipt of the correspondence within 5 days (excluding legal public holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays) unless the action requested is taken within such period.
(B) Qualified written request For purposes of this subsection, a qualified written request shall be a written correspondence, other than notice on a payment coupon or other payment medium supplied by the servicer, that—
(i) includes, or otherwise enables the servicer to identify, the name and account of the borrower; and
(ii) includes a statement of the reasons for the belief of the borrower, to the extent applicable, that the account is in error or provides sufficient detail to the servicer regarding other information sought by the borrower.
(2) Action with respect to inquiryNot later than 30 days (excluding legal public holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays) after the receipt from any borrower of any qualified written request under paragraph (1) and, if applicable, before taking any action with respect to the inquiry of the borrower, the servicer shall—
(A) make appropriate corrections in the account of the borrower, including the crediting of any late charges or penalties, and transmit to the borrower a written notification of such correction (which shall include the name and telephone number of a representative of the servicer who can provide assistance to the borrower);
(B) after conducting an investigation, provide the borrower with a written explanation or clarification that includes—
(i) to the extent applicable, a statement of the reasons for which the servicer believes the account of the borrower is correct as determined by the servicer; and
(ii) the name and telephone number of an individual employed by, or the office or department of, the servicer who can provide assistance to the borrower; or
(C) after conducting an investigation, provide the borrower with a written explanation or clarification that includes—
(i) information requested by the borrower or an explanation of why the information requested is unavailable or cannot be obtained by the servicer; and
(ii) the name and telephone number of an individual employed by, or the office or department of, the servicer who can provide assistance to the borrower.


The undersigned have paid Title Insurance in favour of the Originator of the transaction at hand, that since the property description is so badly damaged, then the Title Insurance should pay out to any creditors, the title will remain in the hands of the undersigned.

The Trustee and Ocwen cannot prove that it has U. S. Constitution Article III to foreclose;, Ocwen cannot satisfy this basic element with lawful success, and the history of Ocwen in similar cases across the country also attests to the fact which the undersigned Home-Owner alleges “that Ocwen lacks standing”.

The sole entity who can have marketable title on this otherwise clouded title mess, is the Home-Owner, this acts in the Interest of the District of Columbia, clouded Titles should not be allowed in DC, it was the Lenders who created the mess in the first place, why is the home owner stuck? I pray for a Satisfaction of Deed of Trust, effecting the cancellation of the subject Lien.

Sincerely presented,


About Here and Now

I rant about issues concerning foreclosure, real estate law and any topic of interest. Normally my day job is Fashion and Costume Design. I like writing and reading interesting subjects.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.