THIS IS (FRAUD UPON THE COURT) EVIDENCE AND MORE

BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS CHANGED THE NAME ON

CORLA JACKSON COMPLAINT (2) TIMES WITHOUT CONSENTING HER

AND AROUND HER WITHOUT LACK OF STANDING UNDER CASE (12-

00111) PRIOR TO THE MOVE AND AFTER IT WAS MOVED...

BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS ILLEGALLY USED

DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND ALTERED THE COMPLAINT FROM

MOBILE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, THAT WAS IN THE NAME OF

EL (CORLA JACKSON VS.

GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION ET, AL.). THEY WILLFULLY

ATTERED THE NAME ON THE COMPLAINT PRIOR TO REMOVING

IT OVER TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DIVISION OF ALABAMA IN THE NAME OF (CORLA

JACKSON VS. GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, WITHOUT THE

ET, AL ATTACHED.

ONCE THIS WAS DONE, THEY CHANGED THE NAME AGAIN

USING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES UNDER JUDGE DUBOSE.

THIS TIME BY A COURT ORDER ISSUED BY JUDGE DUBOSE

UNDER CASE (12-00111) ON (MAY 31, 2012) TO CARRY OUT

THE ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE DATED (JUNE 1, 2012)

WITHOUT THE COURT ORDER AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT,

CAUSING MASSIVE DAMAGES TO DATE THEY COVERED UP

WITHOUT DUE PROCESS BY THE RULE OF LAW UNDER

CASE (12-00111). THIS IS RECORDED.

THIS IS FRAUD UPON THE COUR USING DECEPTIVE

PRACTICES TO CARRY OUT AN ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE

(JUNE 1, 2012). BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS ABUSED

THE LAW WITH THE INTENT TO CORRUPT THE CASE-

COMPLANT IN NEW YORK UNDER MARTIN GLENN,

PREVENTING CORLA JACKSON LIFT OF AUTOMATIC STAY

BASED UPON FRAUD UPON THE COURT OUT OF ALABAMA

INITIALLY. BECAUSE OF THIS AND THE NAME CHANGE, THIS

CAUSED DAMAGES. THE ORDER MADE IT APPEAR AS IF THERE

WERE NO OTHERS INVOLVED, AND THE ORDER ISSUED

RELEASEING THE OTHER GAVE GMAC MORTGAGE ILLEGAL

GROUNDS TO ILLEGALLY FORECLOSE ON THE HOME, MAKING

IT APPEAR AS IF THERE WERE NO OTHERS INVOLVED, THAT

CORLA JACKSON WAS SUING, WHICH WAS FALSE. IT WAS A

TRICK THEY PULLED, THEY COVERED UP...

CORLA JACKSON FILED HER COMPLAINT ON HER MOTIONS WITH (ET,

AL.) IN CASE (CV-2012-000049) IT WAS FILED AS, CORLA JACKSON VS.

GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION ET, AL., BECAUSE THERE WERE

OTHERS, NOT YET KNOWN LINKED TO THE GMAC MORTGAGE

CORPORATION MORTGAGE DIVISION COMMITTED DATED BACK TO

(2005) UNDER LOAN NUMBER (0835002124) FOR ILLEGAL PROFITS.

THIS LOAN GMAC CREATED IN CORLA JACKSON NAME UNDER HER

CREDIT AND PROPERTY WAS WITHOUT LACK OF STANDING BASED

UPON FRAUD IN (2005) AND THEY KNEW THIS.

THE LAW FIRMS FOR GMAC CONTINUED TO COMMIT FRAUD TO

COVER UP THIS CRIME THEY COMMITTED IN (2005) FOR ILLEGAL

PROFITS, PERSONAL GAIN OR FAVOR. THIS COMPLAINT WAS

REMOVED FROM MOBILE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OVER TO JUDGE

KRISI DUBOSE UNDER CASE (12-00111).

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

THE NAME ON CORLA JACKSON COMPLAINT SHE FILED WAS

(CORLA JACKSON VS. GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION ET, AL.)

MEANING ALL PARTIES INVOLVED NOT YET KNOWN.

THE NAME ON THE COMPLAINT WAS ALTERED BY BRADLEY

ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS (2) TIMES, WITH THE INTENT TO

CORRUPT THIS COMPLAINT WHICH IS A FEDERAL CRIME, THAT

CANNOT BE DENIED OR IGNORED ITS RECORDED FACTS. BY

THE RULE OF LAW THIS COULD NOT BE DONE. BY THE RULE OF

CONDUCT THIS COULD NOT BE DONE.

BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION LAW AND CONSUMER LAWS

AND THE LAW IN GENERAL THIS COULD NOT BE DONE, NO ONE CAN

CHANGE A NAME ON A COMPLAINT BY A COURT ORDER.

THIS CAUSED MASSIVE DAMAGES MULTIPLE WAYS, BY MAKING IT

APPEAR AS IF THERE WERE NO OTHERS WHEN THERE WAS OTHERS

LINKED TO THIS CRIME THAT WAS UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF GMAC.

THIS IS MORE THAN A VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS THIS IS A

FEDERAL CRIME, CORRUPTION, FRAUD UPON THE COURT, AND

MORE. THIS CAUSED MASSIVE DAMAGES MULTIPLE WAYS.

MARTIN GLENN SAID HE COULD NOT LIFT THE AUTOMATIC

STAY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OTHERS INVOLVED WHEN

THERE WERE THEY TOOK OFF (ET, AL.) AND GMAC MORTGAGE

LLC HAD ALREADY FORECLOSED ON THE HOME (JUNE 1, 2012)

UNDER GMAC MORTGAGE LLC.

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC DIDN‟T HAVE A COURT ORDER OR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (JUNE 1, 2012) TO FORECLOSE ON THE

PROPERTY UNDER CASE (12-00111) WITHOUT DUE PROCESS BY

THE RULE OF LAW.

BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE

COURT WILLFULLY CORRUPTED THE CASE IN VIOLATION OF THE

RULE OF LAW, RULE OF CONDUCT AND THEY VIOLATED GOVERNED

LAWS AND MORE.

THIS IS A ROBBERY THEY COMMITTED BASED UPON FRAUD AND

FRAUD UPONT THE ALABAMA COURT, THEY COVERD UP, WHICH IS A

BIGGER CRIME.

THIS CANNOT BE IGNORED OR DENIED ITS RECORDED FACTS. GMAC

AND ITS LAW FIRMS COVERED UP MASSIVE STOLEN MORTGAES...

BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS COMMITTED FRAUD IN THIS

CASE-COMPLAINT AND MORE. GMAC DIDN‟T HAVE LACK OF

STANDING ON ARREARS DATED BACK TO (2006) TO FORECLOSE ON A

HOME BASED UPON FRAUD UPON THE COURT IN CASE (11-01545).

GMAC DIDN‟T OWN THE NOTE OR HAVE AN ASSIGNMENT IN

(2006) THEY WERE WITHOUT LACK OF STANDING BY THE RULE

OF LAW WHICH WAS VIOLATED MULTIPLE WAYS IN ALABAMA,

WHICH CAUSED MASSIVE DAMAGES TO DATE THE STATE OF

ALABAMA CORRUPTED JUDGES AND LAW FIRMS COVERED UP

INITIALLY. IN ADDITION TO THIS LEGAL DOCUMENTS WERE

ALTERED AND A BLANK ALLONGE WAS USED WHICH IS

UNENDORESED WHICH VOID ALL ORDERS ITS FRAUD.

See: Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16,

2011] _ So. 3d _ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home

Loans, LP ("BAC"), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the

mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant's house before the

mortgage had been assigned to BAC. :

See: Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008).

“Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan therefore, the matter

is dismissed with prejudice.

In Bulloch v. United States, the court stated "Fraud upon the court

is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not

fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements

or perjury.... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or

influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not

performed his judicial function-thus where the impartial functions

of the court have been directly corrupted. Rule 60. Relief from a

Judgment or Order...

GMAC Mortgage LLC did not own any interest in the

(DEFENDANT) Corla Jackson property when it commenced its

Ejectment action on (08/21/2013).

GMAC Mortgage LLC did not have standing to bring that action

and, consequently, the trial court could not acquire subject-matter

jurisdiction over the Ejectment Action, in any court.

GMAC Mortgage LLC did not have standing to bring its

(EJECTMENT ) action or a trial over the GMAC Mortgage

Ejectment Action and order is (TORT, NULL, MOOT, AND

VOID). This case is straight FRAUD UPON THE COURT

ALL THE ORDERS THE STATE OF ALABAMA

ISSUED TO CORRUPT THIS COMPLAINT TO STEAL

JACKSON HOME WITH BRADLEY ARANT BOULT

CUMMINGS AND THEIR AFFILIATE FIRMS, WAS

BASE STATE JUDGES ILLEGAL ORDERS, THAT IS

FRAUD UPON THE COURT. THIS WAS COVERED

UP FROM VICTIMS, JACKSON AND MORE

GUARANTEED. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

FRAUD UPON THE COURT: In the United States, when an officer of the court is

found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the

impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a

crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice

that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.

Officers of the court include: lawyers, judges, referees, and those appointed; guardian ad litem, parenting time expeditors, mediators, rule 114

neutrals, evaluators, administrators, special appointees, and any others whose

influence are part of the judicial mechanism. Fraud upon the court" has been

defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud

which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by

officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual

manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for

adjudication".

In Bulloch v. United States, the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is

directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or

fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.... It is where the court or a member

is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not

performed his judicial function-thus where the impartial functions of the court have

been directly corrupted.

IF THIS ISN’T (FRAUD UPON THE COURT

AND CORRUPTION) WHAT IS...?

BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS CHANGED THE NAME

ON CORLA JACKSON COMPLAINT (2) TIMES IT‟S RECORDED...

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

THE NAME ON CORLA JACKSON COMPLAINT SHE FILED WAS

(CORLA JACKSON VS. GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION ET,

AL.) MEANING, ALL PARTIES INVOLVED NOT YET KNOWN.

THE NAME ON THE COMPLAINT WAS ALTERED BY BRADLEY

ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS (2) TIMES, WITH THE INTENT TO

CORRUPT THIS COMPLAINT WHICH IS A FEDERAL CRIME.

THIS CANNOT BE DENIED OR IGNORED ITS RECORDED FACTS.

BY THE RULE OF LAW THIS COULD NOT BE DONE. BY THE RULE

OF CONDUCT THIS COULD NOT BE DONE.

This is COMPLAINT is in reference to (3) bankruptcy cases caused by GMAC

Mortgage Corporation et, al., AKA GMAC Mortgage LLC. The initial bankruptcy

case is (05-13142). The second bankruptcy case is (10-04820), this case was

ORALLY DISMISSED without going to court period. The third bankruptcy case is

(11-01545).

BACKGROUND OVERVIEW: BANKRUPTCY CASE: 05-13142

GMAC created a new account-loan-mortgage in Corla Jackson name under

her credit and property without lack of standing in (2005). GMAC loan

number is (0835002124).

GMAC illegally created a loan without a mortgage contract agreement,

without a recorded deed, without a leasehold agreement and without

money being loaned to Corla Jackson as GMAC stated when they filed their

proof of claim on arrears from (02/2005) through (06/2006).

GMAC owned their loan number (0835002124) but they didn’t own the

property and they didn’t have permission to use Corla Jackson name to set

up a new account and mortgage in her name under her property without

lack of standing in (2005).

GMAC illegal proof of claim was filed by Sirote & Permutt Law Firm Of

Alabama, on (06/15/2005) without lack of standing in (2005).

FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND BANKRUPTY FRAUD

It Is True, GMAC willfully and illegally created a new account- loan (0835002124)

in Corla Jackson name under her credit and property prior to bankruptcy case

(05-13142) on arrears from (02/2005) through (06/2005). Because of this, it sent

Corla Jackson into her initial bankruptcy case (05-13142) on (June 1, 2005)

without lack of standing.

GMAC filed a proof of claim without money being loaned to Corla

Jackson, without a mortgage contract agreement, without a recorded

deed, without a leasehold agreement between Corla Jackson and

GMAC. What they did was they made a copy of the mortgage

contract agreement between Corla Jackson and Option One

Mortgage Corporation, and inserted it behind their proof of claim,

with the intent to make it appear as if the mortgage contract was

under loan number (0835002124).

See Trial Exhibit (6)

11 U.S.C. § 362 : US Code: (d)(4) as to such real property in any prior case under

this title, for a period of 2 years after the date of the entry of such an order, except that

the debtor, in a subsequent case under this title, may move for relief from such order

based upon changed circumstances or for other good cause shown, after notice and a

hearing; (21) under subsection (a), of any act to enforce any lien against or security

interest in real property - (A) if the debtor is ineligible under section 109(g) to be a

debtor in a case under this title; or (B) if the case under this title was filed in violation

of a bankruptcy court order in a prior case under this title prohibiting the debtor from

being a debtor in another case under this title; (22) subject to subsection (l), under

subsection (a)(3), of the continuation of any eviction, unlawful detainer action, or

similar proceeding by a lessor against a debtor involving residential property in

which the debtor resides as a tenant under a lease or rental agreement and with

respect to which the lessor has obtained before the date of the filing of the

bankruptcy petition....

Diversity jurisdiction legal definition of Diversity ... Diversity of Citizenship. A

phrase used with reference to the jurisdiction of the federal courts which, under the

U.S. Constitution, Art. III, § 2, extends to cases. (a) The district courts shall have

original jurisdiction of all civil actions and matter in controversy exceeds the sum or

value of $75,000, exclusively" which included motions to dismiss" ejectments"

unlawful detainers " violations of a prior judge orders" which is all part of the

plaintiffs or defendants defense. Lower courts cannot make these decisions"

in reference to the jurisdiction of the federal courts which, under the U.S.

Constitution, Art. III, § 2, extends to cases. (a) The district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of all civil actions and matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

$75,000, exclusively" which included motions to dismiss" ejectments" unlawful

detainers " violations of a prior judge orders" which is all part of the plaintiffs

or defendants defense on cases that is stayed pending federal damages and trial;

on criminal offenses" such as identity theft and theft of property under federal

laws.

This property-mortgage was already backed by securities under loan (651003367)

servicing number (001347464-8) was stolen and a new account was set up

illegally, using deceptive practices for illegal profits under a new account and loan

number (0835002124) without lack of standing in (2005) going around the SEC,

Federal Reserve and more. This action arises from false and misleading

statements and omissions in registration statements, prospectuses, and other

offering materials pursuant to which certain residential mortgage-backed securities

(“RMBS”) were purchased by Freddie Mac. Among other things, Banks and

Servicers documents falsely represented that the mortgage loans underlying the

RMBS complied with certain underwriting guidelines and standards, and presented

a false picture of the characteristics and riskiness of those loans.

These representations were material to Freddie Mac, as they would have been to

any reasonable investor, and their falsity violates Sections 11,12(a)(2), and 15 of

the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq., as well as Sections 13.1-

522(A)(ii) and 13.1-522(C). Freddie Mac justifiably relied servicers

„misrepresentations and omissions of material fact to its detriment.

In addition to its strict statutory liability under federal securities law and liability

under state law, Banks and Servicers statements and omissions give rise to liability

under state common law. Between( September 23, 2005 and May 30, 2007)

Freddie Mac purchased over $6 billion in Certificates issued in connection with

21 securitizations that were virtually all sponsored and underwritten by

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, AS CONSERVATOR FOR

THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency is a federal agency located at 1700 G Street,

NW in Washington, D.C. FYFE was created on July 30, 2008, pursuant to the

Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HEAR), Pub L. No. 110-289, 122

Stat. 2654, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 4617 et seq. (“HEAR”), to oversee the Federal

National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), Freddie Mac and the Federal

Home Loan Banks. On September 6, 2008, the Director of FYFE, also pursuant to

HEAR, placed Freddie Mac into conservatorship and appointed FYFE as

Conservator. In that capacity, FYFE has the authority to exercise all rights and

remedies of Freddie Mac, including, but not limited to, the authority to bring suits

on behalf of and/or for the benefit of Freddie Mac. 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2).

Freddie Mac is a government-sponsored enterprise chartered by Congress with a

mission to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the United States housing

and mortgage markets. As part of this mission, Freddie Mac invested in RMBS.

Freddie Mac is located at 8200 Jones Branch Drive in McLean, Virginia. Between

(2004-2005) (Ally Financial Inc. (“Ally”) was a leading, multi-national financial

services firm with a corporate center in New York, has approximately $179 billion

of assets and operations in approximately 25 countries.

Between (2004-2005)" Ally was the parent and sole owner of GMAC Mortgage

Group, Inc. and Residential Funding Services, LLC. Prior to 2010, Ally was

known as GMAC, LLC. Between (2004-2005)" GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc.

(“GMACM”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary and the mortgage arm of Ally.

GMACM is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1100

Virginia Drive, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034. GMACM transacted

business in New York.

Between (2004-2005) Residential Capital LLC (“ResCap”) is a wholly-owned

subsidiary of GMACM and originates, services, and securitizes mortgage loans in

the United States, including New York. ResCap was incorporated in the State of

Delaware and its principal office is located at One Meridian Crossings,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423. Prior to 2007, ResCap was known as Residential

Capital Corporation.

GMAC-RFC Holding Company, LLC, doing business as GMAC Residential

Funding Corporation (“GMAC-RFC”), is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ResCap

and acquires residential mortgages and loans, which it then packages as mortgage-

backed securities and sells to institutional investors. GMAC-RFC was incorporated

in the State of Delaware and its principal office is located at 8400 Normandale

Lake Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437. GMAC-RFC transacted business

in New York. Residential Funding Company, LLC (“RFC”) is a wholly-owned

subsidiary of GMAC-RFC. RFC, is a Delaware corporation, has an office in New

York, has appointed an agent for service of process in New York, and has

consented to the jurisdiction of the New York courts.

Prior to October 2006, RFC was known as Residential Funding Corporation. RFC

was the sponsor of all 21 of the Securitizations. Defendant RFC is the parent and

sole owner of Homecomings Financials, LLC (“HFN”), the originator of loans

underlying the Certificates for 13 of the 21 Securitizations and, upon information

and belief, the only Ally subsidiary that originated residential mortgage loans

during the relevant time period. Prior to 2006, HFN was known as Homecomings

Financials Network, Inc. Ally Securities, LLC is an SEC-registered broker-

dealer and is registered to do business in New York.

Prior to August 1, 2011, Ally Securities, LLC was known as Residential Funding

Securities, LLC, which was doing business as GMAC RFC Securities and prior to

2007, Residential Funding Securities, LLC was known as Residential Funding

Securities Corporation (collectively, “RFS”). RFS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Ally, and was registered to do business in New York. RFS was the co-lead

underwriter for five of the Securitizations and was an underwriter for an additional

six of the Securitizations. Freddie Mac purchased five of the Securitizations from

RFS in its capacity as co-lead underwriter of those Securitizations.

Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc. (“RAMP”) is a wholly owned

subsidiary of GMAC-RFC and its principal office is located at 8400 Normandale

Lake Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437. RAMP was the depositor for five

of the Securitizations and transacted business in New York. RAMP, as depositor,

was also responsible for preparing and filing reports required under the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to the Securitizations.

Residential Asset Securities Corporation (“RASC”) is a wholly-owned

subsidiary of GMAC-RFC and its principal office is located at 8400 Normandale

Lake Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437. RASC was the depositor for 10

of the Securitizations and transacted business in New York. RASC, as depositor,

was also responsible for preparing and filing reports required under the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934.

Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. (“RALI”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of

GMAC-RFC and its principal office is located at 8400 Normandale Lake

Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437. RALI was the depositor for 6 of the

Securitizations and transacted business in New York. RALI, as depositor, was also

responsible for preparing and filing reports required under the Securities Exchange

Act of 1934. Defendants Ally, GMACM, ResCap, GMAC-RFC, RFS, RAMP,

RASC and RALI are referred to together herein as “GMAC.”

The United States District Court of the Southern Division Of Alabama had

jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 22 of the Securities Act of 1933,

15 U.S.C. § 77v and Section 7 of Article VI of the New York State Constitution.

The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to C.P.L.R. §§

301 and 302. The Venue was proper in this district pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 503

because one or more of the parties resides in this county. The underwriters reside

or have their principal place of business in this county and many of the alleged acts

and transactions, including the preparation and dissemination of the Registration

Statements, occurred in substantial part within New York County, New York.

Residential Mortgage-Backed Securitizations Generally Asset-backed

securitization involves pooling cash-producing financial assets and issuing

securities backed by those pools of assets. In residential mortgage-backed

securitizations, the cash-producing financial assets are residential mortgage loans.

In the most common form of securitization of mortgage loans, a sponsor the entity

that acquires or originates the mortgage loans and initiates the securitization

directly or indirectly transfers a portfolio of mortgage loans to a trust. In many

instances, the transfer of assets to the trust is a two-step process in which the

sponsor first transfers the financial assets to an intermediate entity, typically

referred to as a “depositor,” and then the depositor transfers the assets to a trust.

The trust is established pursuant to a pooling and servicing agreement or trust

indenture entered into by, among others, the depositor for that securitization.

RMBS are the securities backed by the underlying mortgage loans in the trust.

Some residential mortgage-backed securitizations are created from more than one

cohort of loans, called collateral groups, in which case the trust issues different

tranches of securities backed by different groups of loans. For example, a

securitization may involve two groups of mortgages, with some securities backed

primarily by the first group, and others primarily by the second group. Purchasers

of the securities (in the form of certificates) acquire an ownership interest in the

assets of the trust, which in turn owns the loans. These purchasers are thus

dependent for repayment of principal and payment of interest upon the cash flows

from the designated group of mortgage loans primarily mortgagors‟ payments of

principal and interest on the mortgage loans held by the related trust.

RMBS are generally issued and sold pursuant to registration statements filed with

the SEC. These registration statements include prospectuses, which describe the

general structure of the investment, and prospectus supplements, which set forth

detailed descriptions of, among other things, the mortgage groups underlying the

certificates. Certificates are issued by the trust and sold pursuant to the registration

statement, the prospectus and prospectus supplement. Underwriters purchase the

certificates from the trust and then offer, sell or distribute the certificates to

investors. A mortgage servicer manages the collection of proceeds from the

mortgage loans.

The servicer is responsible for collecting homeowners‟ mortgage loan payments,

which the servicer remits to the trustee after deducting a monthly servicing fee.

The servicer‟s duties include making collection efforts on delinquent loans,

initiating foreclosure proceedings, and determining when to charge off a loan by

writing down its balance. The servicer is required to report key information about

the loans to the trustee. The trustee (or trust administrator) administers the trust

funds and delivers payments due each month on the certificates to the investors.

For each of the 21 Securitizations, Table Of Contents identifies the: (1) sponsor;

(2) depositor; (3) underwriter; (4) principal amount issued for the tranches4

purchased by Freddie Mac; (5) date of issuance; and (6) the loan group or groups

backing the Certificate for that Securitization (referred to as the “Supporting Loan

Groups”). Securitization Process: The Sponsors Grouped Mortgage Loans in

Special-Purpose Trusts. In each case, the sponsor purchased the mortgage loans

underlying the Certificates purchased by Freddie Mac for its Securitizations either

directly from the originators or through affiliates of the originators. RFC sponsored

21 Securitizations and sold the acquired loans to one of three depositors, all of

which are RFC-affiliated entities: RALI, RAMP and RASC. RALI, RAMP and

RASC were wholly-owned, limited-purpose financial subsidiaries of GMAC-RFC

and affiliates of RFC.

The sole purpose of RALI, RAMP and RASC as depositors was to act as a conduit

through which loans acquired by the sponsor could be securitized and sold to

investors. As depositors for all 21 of the Securitizations, RALI, RAMP and RASC

transferred the relevant mortgage loans to the respective trusts for each of those

Securitizations, in each case pursuant to Assignment and Recognition Agreements

or Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements that contained various representations and

warranties regarding the mortgage loans for the Securitizations.

In (2004-2005) As part of each Securitization, the trustee for that Securitization, on

behalf of the Certificate holders, executed a Pooling and Service Agreement

(“PSA”) with the relevant depositor and the relevant servicer. In each case, the

trust, administered by the trustee, was required to hold the mortgage loans,

pursuant to the related PSA and issued certificates, including the Certificates,

backed by such loans. Freddie Mac purchased the Certificates, through which it

obtained an ownership interest in the assets of the trust, including the mortgage

loans.

The Trusts Issued Securities Backed by the Loans: Once the mortgage loans

were transferred to the trusts in accordance with the PSAs, each trust issued

Certificates backed by the underlying mortgage loans. The Certificates were then

sold to investors, including Freddie Mac. Each Certificate entitles its holder to a

specified portion of the cash flows from the underlying mortgages in the

supporting loan group for that certificate. Therefore, the value of the Certificates,

derived in part from the likelihood of payment of principal and interest on the

Securitizations, depends upon the credit quality of the underlying mortgages, i.e.,

the risk of default by borrowers and the recovery value upon default of foreclosed-

upon properties.

The Certificates purchased by Freddie Mac were issued and sold pursuant to Shelf

Registration Statements filed with the SEC on a Form S-3.5 The Shelf Registration

Statements (“S-3”) were amended by one or more Form S-3/A (the “Amendments”

or “S-3/A”) filed with the SEC. The Individual Defendants signed the six Shelf

Registration Statements (and amendments thereto) that were filed, in each case, by

RALI, RAMP or RASC. The SEC filing number, registrants, signatories, and filing

dates for all six Shelf Registration Statements with Amendments, as well as the

Certificates purchased by Freddie Mac covered by each Shelf Registration

Statement, are reflected in Multiple Tables Of Contents.

RFC was formed in 1985 as a wholly-owned subsidiary of GMAC-

RFC for the purpose of issuing mortgage-backed securities through its

affiliates RALI, RASC and RAMP. RFC was a leading sponsor of

mortgage-backed securities at all relevant times based largely in part on

GMAC-RFC becoming one of the largest issuers of mortgage-backed

securities in the world. According to Inside Mortgage Finance, GMAC-

RFC issued (i) $42.336 billion of non-agency mortgage-backed

securities in 2004, (ii) $56.93 billion in 2005, making it the fifth largest

issuer in 2005; (iii) $66.19 billion in 2006, making it the fourth largest

issuer in 2006; and (iv) $32.4 billion in 2007, which still made GMAC-

RFC the eighth largest issuer in 2007.7 2011Mortgage Market Statistical

Annual, Vol. II (Inside Mortgage Finance Publ‟ns, Inc., 2011).

RFC was the sponsor of all 21 Securitizations. In that capacity, RFC determined

the structure of the Securitizations, initiated the Securitizations, purchased the

mortgage loans to be securitized, determined distribution of principal and interest,

and provided data to the rating agencies to secure investment grade ratings for the

Certificates sold to Freddie Mac. RFC also selected RALI, RASC and RAMP as

the special-purpose vehicles that would be used to transfer the mortgage loans

from RFC to the trusts, and selected RFS or the Non-GMAC Underwriter for the

Securitizations, including RFS. In its role as sponsor, RFC knew and intended that

the mortgage loans it purchased would be sold in connection with the securitization

process, and that certificates representing such loans would be issued by the

relevant trusts.

For all 21 Securitizations that it sponsored, RFC also conveyed the mortgage loans

to RALI, RASC and RAMP, as depositor, pursuant to an Assignment and

Recognition Agreement or a Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement. In these

agreements, RFC made certain representations and warranties to RALI, RASC and

RAMP regarding the groups of loans collateralizing the Certificates purchased by

Freddie Mac. These representations and warranties were assigned by RALI, RASC

and RAMP to the trustees for the benefit of the Certificate holders.

RFS was formed in 1990 and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ally. RFS is an

investment bank, solely operating as a registered broker-dealer with respect to the

issuance and underwriting of residential and commercial mortgage-backed

securities. At all relevant times, RFS was one of the leading underwriters of

mortgage and other asset-backed securities in the United States. According to

Inside Mortgage Finance in 2004, RFS underwrote over $8.9 billion of non-agency

mortgage-backed securities.

In 2005, the data shows that RFS underwrote $14.5 billion, and in 2006 and 2007,

RFS underwrote $12.4 billion and $10.2 billion in non-agency mortgage-backed

securities, respectively. RFS was the co-lead and selling underwriter for five of

the 21Securitizations and an underwriter for an additional six Securitizations. In

that role, it was responsible for underwriting and managing the offer and sale of the

Certificates to Freddie Mac and other investors. RFS was also obligated to conduct

meaningful due diligence to ensure that the Registration Statements did not contain

any material misstatements or omissions, including as to the manner in which the

underlying mortgage loans were originated, transferred and underwritten.

GMAC-RFC employed its wholly-owned subsidiaries, RFC, RALI, RASC and

RAMP, in the key steps of the securitization process. Unlike typical arm‟s length

securitizations, the Securitizations involved various Ally subsidiaries and affiliates

at virtually each step in the chain. For all 21 Securitizations, RFC was the sponsor

and either RALI, RASC or RAMP was the depositor. GMAC-RFC, as the sole

corporate parent of RFC, RALI, RASC and RAMP had the practical ability, in

connection with the Securitizations, and the issuance and sale of the Certificates to

Freddie Mac, to direct and control the actions of RFC, RALI, RASC and RAMP,

and in fact exercised such direction and control over these activities.

Ally, GMACM and ResCap: ResCap wholly owns GMAC-RFC and GMACM

wholly owns ResCap. ResCap, as the sole corporate parent of GMAC-RFC, had

the practical ability to direct and control the actions of GMAC-RFC, and in fact,

exercised such direction and control over the activities of this entity related to the

issuance and sale of the Certificates to Freddie Mac.

GMACM, as the sole corporate parent of ResCap, had the practical ability to

direct and control the actions of ResCap, and in fact, exercised such direction and

control over the activities of this entity related to the issuance and sale of the

Certificates to Freddie Mac. As detailed, supra, the Securitizations involved all of

the GMAC at virtually every step in the process, and Ally profited substantially

from this vertically integrated approach to mortgage-backed securitization.

Furthermore, ResCap shared overlapping management with the other GMAC

entities. For example, in 2007, David Applegate served as President of GMACM;

the COO of ResCap, GMACM‟s direct subsidiary; the Chairman and CEO of

GMAC-RFC, ResCap‟s direct subsidiary; and Principal Executive Officer of

RALI, GMAC-RFC‟s direct subsidiary, for which he signed a Shelf Registration

and amendment thereto. Similarly, Bruce Paradis served as CEO of GMAC-RFC

and then CEO of ResCap, while also serving as the Director, President, and CEO

of RALI, RAMP, and RASC -- in which capacity he signed three Shelf

Registration Statements and amendments thereto.

An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts

other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the

defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise

unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of

limitations, the statute of frauds, and waiver. In criminal prosecutions, examples of

affirmative defenses are self defense,[1] insanity, and the statute of limitations.

Governing rules Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the assertion

of affirmative defenses in civil cases that are filed in the United States district courts.

Rule 8(c) specifically enumerates the following defenses: "accord and satisfaction,

arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge in

bankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow

servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of

limitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative

defense." Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that affirmative

defenses be based on "knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry

reasonable under the circumstances.

Sep 20, 2010 · Ally Financial Inc.‟s GMAC

Mortgage unit told brokers and agents to

halt foreclosures: Victims Loans Was Serviced

From The Following States Listed Below That Was

Affected. Victims Need To Look On Their

Statements And See Where Their Loans Was Serviced

From: Connecticut" Hawaii" Illinois' Indiana" Kansas"

Louisiana" Maine" Nebraska" North Carolina” North

Dakota" Ohio" Oklahoma" South Carolina" South

Dakota" Vermont" Wisconsin” Pennsylvania" Iowa"

Kentucky" Florida" New York" New Jersey" New

Mexico...

GMCA Mortgage LLC and the State Of Alabama Violated ALLY-GMAC

ORDERS. They Continued to commit this crime illegally against Corla Jackson

they were after all her insured covered losses they were using and profiting from

around the SEC and Federal Reserve. This is an ILLEGAL RELIEF based

upon arrears dated back to (2006) without lack of standing in (2006).

In addition to the above, the ILLEGAL RELIEF under case (11-01545) is based

upon FRAUD with ALTERED DOCUMENTS on a loan backed by security‟s

between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage which had nothing to do with the

loan GMAC fabricated back in (2005) without lack of standing in (2005) this is

recorded and more. The Alabama Law firms were stealing property‟s back by

security‟s from the FEDS with services which cannot be ignored or denied its facts!

The distinction between civil and criminal contempt lies in the rights that are

being vindicated and the level of willfulness of the conduct: Civil contempt has as

its aim the vindication of a private right of a party to litigation and any penalty

imposed upon the contemnor is designed to compensate the injured private party for

the loss of or interference with that right ( State of New York v. Unique Ideas, 44

N.Y.2d 345, 405 N.Y.S.2d 656, 376 N.E.2d 1301). Criminal contempt, on the other

hand, involves vindication of an offense against public justice and is utilized to protect

the dignity of the judicial system and to compel respect for its mandates (King v.

Barnes, 113 N.Y. 476, 21 N.E. 182). Inasmuch as the objective is deterrence of

disobedience of judicial mandates, the penalty imposed is punitive in nature (State of

New York v. Unique Ideas, supra). Although the line between the two types of

contempt may be difficult to draw in a given case, and the same act may be

punishable as both a civil and a criminal contempt, the element which serves to

elevate a contempt from civil to criminal is the level of willfulness with which the

conduct is carried out (compare Judiciary Law, § 753, subd. A, par. 3 [civil contempt],

with id., § 750, subd. A, par. 3 [criminal contempt]; see, e.g., Sentry Armored Courier

Corp. v. New York City Off-Track Betting Corp., 75 A.D.2d 344, 429 N.Y.S.2d 902).

McCormick v. Axelrod, 453 N.E.2d 508, 512 (N.Y.), amended by, 454 N.E.2d 1314

(N.Y. 1983); accord McCain v. Dinkins, 639 N.E.2d 1132, 1137 (N.Y. 1994).

A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an

individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of an

action.” Wells Fargo Bank, v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603, 897

N.E.2d 722 (2008). It went on to hold, ” If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it

owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.

Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not

own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the… matter is dismissed with prejudice.” Wells

Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). Wells Fargo does not own

the mortgage loan Therefore, the matter is dismissed with prejudice.

18 U.S.C. § 1028 : US Code - Section 1028:

Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents,

authentication features, and information (a) Whoever, in a circumstance described

in subsection (c) of this section - (1) knowingly and without lawful authority

produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false

identification document; (2) knowingly transfers an identification document,

authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such

document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority; (3)

knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or

more identification documents (other than those issued lawfully for the use of the

possessor), authentication features, or false identification documents; (4)

knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for

the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document,

with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States; (5)

knowingly produces, transfers, or possesses a document- making implement or

authentication feature with the intent such document-making implement or

authentication feature will be used in the production of a false identification

document or another document-making implement or authentication feature which

will be so used; (6) knowingly possesses an identification document or

authentication feature that is or appears to be an identification document or

authentication feature of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event

designated as a special event of national significance which is stolen or produced

without lawful authority knowing that such document or feature was stolen or

produced without such authority; (7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses,

without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent

to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any

No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may

set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the

highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” Butz v.

Economou, 98 S.Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S.Ct. at

261 (1882)” Further it is the obligation of every Judge to honor, abide by, and uphold

not only the Constitution and laws of the State, but they are bound by the laws and

Constitution of the United States as well.

See: Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order

(a) CORRECTIONS BASED ON CLERICAL MISTAKES; OVERSIGHTS AND

OMISSIONS. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from

oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of

the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice.

But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is

pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.

(b) GROUNDS FOR RELIEF FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR PROCEEDING. On

motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from

a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have

been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,

or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

FRAUD UPON THE COURT: In the United States, when an officer of the court is

found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the

impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a

crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice

that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.

Officers of the court include: lawyers, judges, referees, and those appointed;

guardian ad litem, parenting time expeditors, mediators, rule 114 neutrals, evaluators,

administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the

judicial mechanism. Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court

of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the

court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial

machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases

that are presented for adjudication".

A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an

individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of an

action.” Wells Fargo Bank, v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603, 897

N.E.2d 722 (2008). It went on to hold, ” If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it

owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.

Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells

Fargo does not own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the matter is

dismissed with prejudice.” Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867

N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan

Therefore, the matter is dismissed with prejudice.

In Bulloch v. United States,] the court stated "Fraud upon the

court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself

and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents,

false statements or perjury.... It is where the court or a member

is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the

judge has not performed his judicial function-thus where the

impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.

Because Bradley Arant Boult Cummings & Morrison & Foerster

Committed Bankruptcy Fraud Under Their Own Case To

Prevent From Paying Corla Jackson For Massive Damages They

Cased Dated Back To (2005)' With The Intent To Defraud The

Honorable Judge Martin Glenn Based Upon Fraud.

Corla Jackson Due (10) Times The Amount She Ask For Which

Was (One Hundred Million Dollars). I should have sued them

for (One Billion Dollars) because they continued to commit

fraud upon the Federal Courts to cover up this crime to date.

The Orders Issued Under Bankruptcy Case Prevented GMAC

From Committing Fraud Again Altering Documents After (July

21, 2010) In Which They Violated (Dodd Frank Laws)

Consumers Laws (CFPB) Orders And More. 1 2 3 4 5 6

51. False Claims—18 U.S.C. § 152(4)

879. Bankruptcy Fraud—18 U.S.C. § 157

Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not

own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the… matter is dismissed with prejudice.” Wells

Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). Wells Fargo does not own

the mortgage loan Therefore, the matter is dismissed with prejudice.

In Bulloch v. United States,] the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is

directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or

fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.... It is where the court or a member

is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not

performed his judicial function-thus where the impartial functions of the court have

been directly corrupted.

FRAUD UPON THE COURT: In the United States, when an officer of the court is

found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the

impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a

crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice

that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.

Officers of the court include: lawyers, judges, referees, and those appointed;

guardian ad litem, parenting time expeditors, mediators, rule 114 neutrals, evaluators,

administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the

judicial mechanism. Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court

of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the

court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial

machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases

that are presented for adjudication".

BACK TO THE HOME PAGE