Emergency Request for Help to Stop Chase Home Finance's from Evading Predatory Loan Practices
Summary
Given that all reasonable efforts have failed to stop Chase Home Finance’s Fraudulent Foreclosure, this emergency request to avoid these irreparable harms is in line with the law of public policy, public interest and justice.
Lowell, Massachusetts, May 8, 2007 - Mr. Pierre Augustin of Lowell, Massachusetts, a victim of predatory lending, has timely and legally invoked the Truth-in-lending Act (TILA) right of rescission pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635 and M.G.L. c. 140D 10(f) and 260 § 5A to protect his property rights. Thus, the mortgage on his property is considered void and unenforceable upon rescission according to the law enacted by Congress.
Despite Mr. Augustin’s legal objections and defenses, Chase Home Finance & Deuthsche Bank National Trust are going forward with their illegal and fraudulent foreclosure action which is clearly improper and immoral. Silence is consent. Would you please make every effort to help stop this Fraud? Next time, it might be you.
“Unequivocally, to allow these foreclosure proceedings to go any further will not only be a gross injustice but will violate all notions of public policy, will trample the spirit of the law and will violate the equal protection principle as well as disregard the notion of the pledge of allegiance of the United States of America Pledge that states “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty [and justice for all]”, said Mr. Augustin
TILA is a remedial statute designed to protect and to defend consumer’s property rights such as Mr. Augustin’s, who is not on equal footing with lenders such as Chase Home Finance or Deuthsche Bank National Trust, who are powerful corporations with unlimited budget and who are represented by the most savvy lawyers of Partridge, Snow and Hahn, LLP, Providence, Rhode Island, Tel. (401) 861-8293, who are determined to violate and to usurp the law to achieve their aim of stripping away his home illegally and fraudulently.
This is an emergency request and alert to the public, consumer protection organizations and public officials to stop Chase Home Finance and Deuthsche Bank National Trust since all other remedies, reasonable and good faith efforts have failed. The auction sale scheduled on May 16, 2007 will be irreversible and render any subsequent and pending legal actions moot. Mr. Augustin can be reached at 617.202.8069.
# # #
Qualified Written Letter Sent to Chase Home Finance and Deutsche National Trust Company
Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se
28 Cedar Street
Lowell, MA 01852
Tel: 617-202-8069
April 12, 2007
Attorney Charles Lovell
Attorney for Chase Home Finance
and Deutsche Bank National Trust
Providence, RI 02903
Dear Attorney Charles:
In honoring your request to respond to your letter dated April 4, 2007, I am not waiving any rights under TILA, including the 20-day respond period that had expired since October 10, 2006. I categorically reject all allegations made on that letter since my TILA rescission notice sent to you on September 21, 2006, has precedence, negate your foreclosure actions and voided the security interest in my property.
Please treat this letter as a “qualified written request” under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se disputes this debt and notice of foreclosure since on September 21, 2006, you have received a TILA notice of rescission which voided the security interest and the note on his principal dwelling.
Therefore, I must point out that you are in:
· Violation of the Truth-In-Lending Act (TILA) notice of rescission sent to defendants on September 21, 2006 which automatically void the security interest in my property. (Reg. Z §§ 226.15(a)(2), 226.23(a)(2), Official Staff Commentary § 226.23(a)(2)-1) and 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b).
· Violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Massachusetts Debt Collection Laws, Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting ACT and seeking punitive damages per 15 USC 1681 n(a)(2), 15 USC 1681o, 15 USC 1692e(8).
· Violation of Statute of Limitation. If you or any of the defendants disputes the plaintiff’s right to rescind, they should have filed a declaratory judgment action within twenty days after receiving the rescission notice, before the deadline of October 10, 2006 to return the plaintiff’s money or property and record the termination of its security interest according to 15 USC 1635(b).
· On November 15, 2006, you and all the other defendants were on notice that they were in default for TILA violations (see docket # 80, Case #: 06-10368).
· Violation of the statute of limitations and fraudulent assignment of the mortgage. Without a security interest in the plaintiff’s property, New Century Mortgage, Chase Home Finance, Deuthsche Bank National Trust and any other parties do not have the authority to foreclose or to assign neither the mortgage nor the note.
· Violation of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), (East Coast Properties v. Galang, 308 A.D.2d 431, 765 N.Y.S.2d 46 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Neither you nor any of the defendants are Real Party in Interest or Holder in Due Course, since the TILA notice of rescission automatically voids the security interest.
· Violation of the rule of law, since neither you nor any of the defendants have Standing to pursue foreclosure action because, once TILA notice of rescission is given, the lien or security interest in plaintiff’s property becomes void ab initio, even if a court has not yet ruled on the validity of the plaintiff’s rescission (Willis v. Friedman, Clearinghouse No. 54,564 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 2, 2002)).
In summary, Mr. Augustin states that the mortgage is not valid and in violation of TILA (failure to respond to TILA rescission notice by October 10, 2006) by not complying with required procedures. Without an interest in the debt, you do not have the authority to foreclose since you do not have an enforceable security in the property because the mortgage and note assignment were improper and ineffective.
If you are not the current holder of the note and mortgage relating to Mr. Pierre R. Augustin’s mortgage account, please provide the name and address of said true owner of the obligation (15 USC, 1641(f)(2)) or holder and indicate your relationship to this entity. Therefore, absent of transferring debt precludes action for foreclosures because the assignment of the mortgage alone is a nullity, the note cannot be enforced and in violation of U.C.C. requirement. This is a Fraudulent maneuver.
Mr. Augustin loan account should be zero due to TILA rescission notice. Thus, the Loan account is in error. In invoking the protection of the service act, Mr. Pierre R. Augustin is challenging this notice of foreclosure since the foreclosure proceeding is erroneous (12 USC 2602(1)(a). Do take the necessary action to correct this error in responding to this qualified written request by complying with 12 USC 2605(d), 12 USC 2605(e) and 12 USC 2505(f). Thank you for taking the time to acknowledge and answer this request as required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (sec. 2605(e)).
Sincerely,
Pierre R. Augustin, MPA, MBA
617-202-8069
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
STOP Illegal Foreclosure by Chase Home Finance
Emergency Request for Help to Stop Fraudulent Foreclosure Action by Chase Home Finance
Summary
Given that all reasonable efforts have failed to stop Chase Home Finance’s Fraudulent Foreclosure, this emergency request to avoid these irreparable harms is in line with the law of public policy, public interest and justice.
Lowell, Massachusetts, May 8, 2007 - Mr. Pierre Augustin of Lowell, Massachusetts, a victim of predatory lending, has timely and legally invoked the Truth-in-lending Act (TILA) right of rescission pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635 and M.G.L. c. 140D 10(f) and 260 § 5A to protect his property rights. Thus, the mortgage on his property is considered void and unenforceable upon rescission according to the law enacted by Congress.
Despite Mr. Augustin’s legal objections and defenses, Chase Home Finance & Deuthsche Bank National Trust are going forward with their illegal and fraudulent foreclosure action which is clearly improper and immoral. Silence is consent. Would you please make every effort to help stop this Fraud? Next time, it might be you.
“Unequivocally, to allow these foreclosure proceedings to go any further will not only be a gross injustice but will violate all notions of public policy, will trample the spirit of the law and will violate the equal protection principle as well as disregard the notion of the pledge of allegiance of the United States of America Pledge that states “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty [and justice for all]”, said Mr. Augustin
TILA is a remedial statute designed to protect and to defend consumer’s property rights such as Mr. Augustin’s, who is not on equal footing with lenders such as Chase Home Finance or Deuthsche Bank National Trust, who are powerful corporations with unlimited budget and who are represented by the most savvy lawyers of Partridge, Snow and Hahn, LLP, Providence, Rhode Island, Tel. (401) 861-8293, who are determined to violate and to usurp the law to achieve their aim of stripping away his home illegally and fraudulently.
This is an emergency request and alert to the public, consumer protection organizations and public officials to stop Chase Home Finance and Deuthsche Bank National Trust since all other remedies, reasonable and good faith efforts have failed. The auction sale scheduled on May 16, 2007 will be irreversible and render any subsequent and pending legal actions moot. Mr. Augustin can be reached at 617.202.8069.
# # #
Qualified Written Letter Sent to Chase Home Finance and Deutsche National Trust Company
Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se
28 Cedar Street
Lowell, MA 01852
Tel: 617-202-8069
April 12, 2007
Attorney Charles Lovell
Attorney for Chase Home Finance
and Deutsche Bank National Trust
Providence, RI 02903
Dear Attorney Charles:
In honoring your request to respond to your letter dated April 4, 2007, I am not waiving any rights under TILA, including the 20-day respond period that had expired since October 10, 2006. I categorically reject all allegations made on that letter since my TILA rescission notice sent to you on September 21, 2006, has precedence, negate your foreclosure actions and voided the security interest in my property.
Please treat this letter as a “qualified written request” under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se disputes this debt and notice of foreclosure since on September 21, 2006, you have received a TILA notice of rescission which voided the security interest and the note on his principal dwelling.
Therefore, I must point out that you are in:
· Violation of the Truth-In-Lending Act (TILA) notice of rescission sent to defendants on September 21, 2006 which automatically void the security interest in my property. (Reg. Z §§ 226.15(a)(2), 226.23(a)(2), Official Staff Commentary § 226.23(a)(2)-1) and 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b).
· Violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Massachusetts Debt Collection Laws, Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting ACT and seeking punitive damages per 15 USC 1681 n(a)(2), 15 USC 1681o, 15 USC 1692e(8).
· Violation of Statute of Limitation. If you or any of the defendants disputes the plaintiff’s right to rescind, they should have filed a declaratory judgment action within twenty days after receiving the rescission notice, before the deadline of October 10, 2006 to return the plaintiff’s money or property and record the termination of its security interest according to 15 USC 1635(b).
· On November 15, 2006, you and all the other defendants were on notice that they were in default for TILA violations (see docket # 80, Case #: 06-10368).
· Violation of the statute of limitations and fraudulent assignment of the mortgage. Without a security interest in the plaintiff’s property, New Century Mortgage, Chase Home Finance, Deuthsche Bank National Trust and any other parties do not have the authority to foreclose or to assign neither the mortgage nor the note.
· Violation of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), (East Coast Properties v. Galang, 308 A.D.2d 431, 765 N.Y.S.2d 46 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Neither you nor any of the defendants are Real Party in Interest or Holder in Due Course, since the TILA notice of rescission automatically voids the security interest.
· Violation of the rule of law, since neither you nor any of the defendants have Standing to pursue foreclosure action because, once TILA notice of rescission is given, the lien or security interest in plaintiff’s property becomes void ab initio, even if a court has not yet ruled on the validity of the plaintiff’s rescission (Willis v. Friedman, Clearinghouse No. 54,564 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 2, 2002)).
In summary, Mr. Augustin states that the mortgage is not valid and in violation of TILA (failure to respond to TILA rescission notice by October 10, 2006) by not complying with required procedures. Without an interest in the debt, you do not have the authority to foreclose since you do not have an enforceable security in the property because the mortgage and note assignment were improper and ineffective.
If you are not the current holder of the note and mortgage relating to Mr. Pierre R. Augustin’s mortgage account, please provide the name and address of said true owner of the obligation (15 USC, 1641(f)(2)) or holder and indicate your relationship to this entity. Therefore, absent of transferring debt precludes action for foreclosures because the assignment of the mortgage alone is a nullity, the note cannot be enforced and in violation of U.C.C. requirement. This is a Fraudulent maneuver.
Mr. Augustin loan account should be zero due to TILA rescission notice. Thus, the Loan account is in error. In invoking the protection of the service act, Mr. Pierre R. Augustin is challenging this notice of foreclosure since the foreclosure proceeding is erroneous (12 USC 2602(1)(a). Do take the necessary action to correct this error in responding to this qualified written request by complying with 12 USC 2605(d), 12 USC 2605(e) and 12 USC 2505(f). Thank you for taking the time to acknowledge and answer this request as required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (sec. 2605(e)).
Sincerely,
Pierre R. Augustin, MPA, MBA
617-202-8069
Summary
Given that all reasonable efforts have failed to stop Chase Home Finance’s Fraudulent Foreclosure, this emergency request to avoid these irreparable harms is in line with the law of public policy, public interest and justice.
Lowell, Massachusetts, May 8, 2007 - Mr. Pierre Augustin of Lowell, Massachusetts, a victim of predatory lending, has timely and legally invoked the Truth-in-lending Act (TILA) right of rescission pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635 and M.G.L. c. 140D 10(f) and 260 § 5A to protect his property rights. Thus, the mortgage on his property is considered void and unenforceable upon rescission according to the law enacted by Congress.
Despite Mr. Augustin’s legal objections and defenses, Chase Home Finance & Deuthsche Bank National Trust are going forward with their illegal and fraudulent foreclosure action which is clearly improper and immoral. Silence is consent. Would you please make every effort to help stop this Fraud? Next time, it might be you.
“Unequivocally, to allow these foreclosure proceedings to go any further will not only be a gross injustice but will violate all notions of public policy, will trample the spirit of the law and will violate the equal protection principle as well as disregard the notion of the pledge of allegiance of the United States of America Pledge that states “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty [and justice for all]”, said Mr. Augustin
TILA is a remedial statute designed to protect and to defend consumer’s property rights such as Mr. Augustin’s, who is not on equal footing with lenders such as Chase Home Finance or Deuthsche Bank National Trust, who are powerful corporations with unlimited budget and who are represented by the most savvy lawyers of Partridge, Snow and Hahn, LLP, Providence, Rhode Island, Tel. (401) 861-8293, who are determined to violate and to usurp the law to achieve their aim of stripping away his home illegally and fraudulently.
This is an emergency request and alert to the public, consumer protection organizations and public officials to stop Chase Home Finance and Deuthsche Bank National Trust since all other remedies, reasonable and good faith efforts have failed. The auction sale scheduled on May 16, 2007 will be irreversible and render any subsequent and pending legal actions moot. Mr. Augustin can be reached at 617.202.8069.
# # #
Qualified Written Letter Sent to Chase Home Finance and Deutsche National Trust Company
Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se
28 Cedar Street
Lowell, MA 01852
Tel: 617-202-8069
April 12, 2007
Attorney Charles Lovell
Attorney for Chase Home Finance
and Deutsche Bank National Trust
Providence, RI 02903
Dear Attorney Charles:
In honoring your request to respond to your letter dated April 4, 2007, I am not waiving any rights under TILA, including the 20-day respond period that had expired since October 10, 2006. I categorically reject all allegations made on that letter since my TILA rescission notice sent to you on September 21, 2006, has precedence, negate your foreclosure actions and voided the security interest in my property.
Please treat this letter as a “qualified written request” under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se disputes this debt and notice of foreclosure since on September 21, 2006, you have received a TILA notice of rescission which voided the security interest and the note on his principal dwelling.
Therefore, I must point out that you are in:
· Violation of the Truth-In-Lending Act (TILA) notice of rescission sent to defendants on September 21, 2006 which automatically void the security interest in my property. (Reg. Z §§ 226.15(a)(2), 226.23(a)(2), Official Staff Commentary § 226.23(a)(2)-1) and 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b).
· Violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Massachusetts Debt Collection Laws, Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting ACT and seeking punitive damages per 15 USC 1681 n(a)(2), 15 USC 1681o, 15 USC 1692e(8).
· Violation of Statute of Limitation. If you or any of the defendants disputes the plaintiff’s right to rescind, they should have filed a declaratory judgment action within twenty days after receiving the rescission notice, before the deadline of October 10, 2006 to return the plaintiff’s money or property and record the termination of its security interest according to 15 USC 1635(b).
· On November 15, 2006, you and all the other defendants were on notice that they were in default for TILA violations (see docket # 80, Case #: 06-10368).
· Violation of the statute of limitations and fraudulent assignment of the mortgage. Without a security interest in the plaintiff’s property, New Century Mortgage, Chase Home Finance, Deuthsche Bank National Trust and any other parties do not have the authority to foreclose or to assign neither the mortgage nor the note.
· Violation of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), (East Coast Properties v. Galang, 308 A.D.2d 431, 765 N.Y.S.2d 46 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Neither you nor any of the defendants are Real Party in Interest or Holder in Due Course, since the TILA notice of rescission automatically voids the security interest.
· Violation of the rule of law, since neither you nor any of the defendants have Standing to pursue foreclosure action because, once TILA notice of rescission is given, the lien or security interest in plaintiff’s property becomes void ab initio, even if a court has not yet ruled on the validity of the plaintiff’s rescission (Willis v. Friedman, Clearinghouse No. 54,564 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 2, 2002)).
In summary, Mr. Augustin states that the mortgage is not valid and in violation of TILA (failure to respond to TILA rescission notice by October 10, 2006) by not complying with required procedures. Without an interest in the debt, you do not have the authority to foreclose since you do not have an enforceable security in the property because the mortgage and note assignment were improper and ineffective.
If you are not the current holder of the note and mortgage relating to Mr. Pierre R. Augustin’s mortgage account, please provide the name and address of said true owner of the obligation (15 USC, 1641(f)(2)) or holder and indicate your relationship to this entity. Therefore, absent of transferring debt precludes action for foreclosures because the assignment of the mortgage alone is a nullity, the note cannot be enforced and in violation of U.C.C. requirement. This is a Fraudulent maneuver.
Mr. Augustin loan account should be zero due to TILA rescission notice. Thus, the Loan account is in error. In invoking the protection of the service act, Mr. Pierre R. Augustin is challenging this notice of foreclosure since the foreclosure proceeding is erroneous (12 USC 2602(1)(a). Do take the necessary action to correct this error in responding to this qualified written request by complying with 12 USC 2605(d), 12 USC 2605(e) and 12 USC 2505(f). Thank you for taking the time to acknowledge and answer this request as required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (sec. 2605(e)).
Sincerely,
Pierre R. Augustin, MPA, MBA
617-202-8069
Emergency Request for Help to Stop Fraudulent Foreclosure Action by Chase Home Finance
Summary
Given that all reasonable efforts have failed to stop Chase Home Finance’s Fraudulent Foreclosure, this emergency request to avoid these irreparable harms is in line with the law of public policy, public interest and justice.
Lowell, Massachusetts, May 8, 2007 - Mr. Pierre Augustin of Lowell, Massachusetts, a victim of predatory lending, has timely and legally invoked the Truth-in-lending Act (TILA) right of rescission pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635 and M.G.L. c. 140D 10(f) and 260 § 5A to protect his property rights. Thus, the mortgage on his property is considered void and unenforceable upon rescission according to the law enacted by Congress.
Despite Mr. Augustin’s legal objections and defenses, Chase Home Finance & Deuthsche Bank National Trust are going forward with their illegal and fraudulent foreclosure action which is clearly improper and immoral. Silence is consent. Would you please make every effort to help stop this Fraud? Next time, it might be you.
“Unequivocally, to allow these foreclosure proceedings to go any further will not only be a gross injustice but will violate all notions of public policy, will trample the spirit of the law and will violate the equal protection principle as well as disregard the notion of the pledge of allegiance of the United States of America Pledge that states “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty [and justice for all]”, said Mr. Augustin
TILA is a remedial statute designed to protect and to defend consumer’s property rights such as Mr. Augustin’s, who is not on equal footing with lenders such as Chase Home Finance or Deuthsche Bank National Trust, who are powerful corporations with unlimited budget and who are represented by the most savvy lawyers of Partridge, Snow and Hahn, LLP, Providence, Rhode Island, Tel. (401) 861-8293, who are determined to violate and to usurp the law to achieve their aim of stripping away his home illegally and fraudulently.
This is an emergency request and alert to the public, consumer protection organizations and public officials to stop Chase Home Finance and Deuthsche Bank National Trust since all other remedies, reasonable and good faith efforts have failed. The auction sale scheduled on May 16, 2007 will be irreversible and render any subsequent and pending legal actions moot. Mr. Augustin can be reached at 617.202.8069.
# # #
Qualified Written Letter Sent to Chase Home Finance and Deutsche National Trust Company
Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se
28 Cedar Street
Lowell, MA 01852
Tel: 617-202-8069
April 12, 2007
Attorney Charles Lovell
Attorney for Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank National Trust Providence, RI 02903
Dear Attorney Charles:
In honoring your request to respond to your letter dated April 4, 2007, I am not waiving any rights under TILA, including the 20-day respond period that had expired since October 10, 2006.
I categorically reject all allegations made on that letter since my TILA rescission notice sent to you on September 21, 2006, has precedence, negate your foreclosure actions and voided the security interest in my property.
Please treat this letter as a “qualified written request” under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se disputes this debt and notice of foreclosure since on September 21, 2006, you have received a TILA notice of rescission which voided the security interest and the note on his principal dwelling.
Therefore, I must point out that you are in:
· Violation of the Truth-In-Lending Act (TILA) notice of rescission sent to defendants on September 21, 2006 which automatically void the security interest in my property(Reg. Z §§ 226.15(a)(2), 226.23(a)(2), Official Staff Commentary § 226.23(a)(2)-1) and 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b).
· Violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Massachusetts Debt Collection Laws, Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting ACT and seeking punitive damages per 15 USC 1681 n(a)(2), 15 USC 1681o, 15 USC 1692e(8).
· Violation of Statute of Limitation. If you or any of the defendants disputes the plaintiff’s right to rescind, they should have filed a declaratory judgment action within twenty days after receiving the rescission notice, before the deadline of October 10, 2006 to return the plaintiff’s money or property and record the termination of its security interest according to 15 USC 1635(b).
· On November 15, 2006, you and all the other defendants were on notice that they were in default for TILA violations (see docket # 80, Case #: 06-10368).
· Violation of the statute of limitations and fraudulent assignment of the mortgage. Without a security interest in the plaintiff’s property, New Century Mortgage, Chase Home Finance, Deuthsche Bank National Trust and any other parties do not have the authority to foreclose or to assign neither the mortgage nor the note.
· Violation of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), (East Coast Properties v. Galang, 308 A.D.2d 431, 765 N.Y.S.2d 46 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Neither you nor any of the defendants are Real Party in Interest or Holder in Due Course, since the TILA notice of rescission automatically voids the security interest.
· Violation of the rule of law, since neither you nor any of the defendants have Standing to pursue foreclosure action because, once TILA notice of rescission is given, the lien or security interest in plaintiff’s property becomes void ab initio, even if a court has not yet ruled on the validity of the plaintiff’s rescission (Willis v. Friedman, Clearinghouse No. 54,564 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 2, 2002)).
In summary, Mr. Augustin states that the mortgage is not valid and in violation of TILA (failure to respond to TILA rescission notice by October 10, 2006) by not complying with required procedures. Without an interest in the debt, you do not have the authority to foreclose since you do not have an enforceable security in the property because the mortgage and note assignment were improper and ineffective.
If you are not the current holder of the note and mortgage relating to Mr. Pierre R. Augustin’s mortgage account, please provide the name and address of said true owner of the obligation (15 USC, 1641(f)(2)) or holder and indicate your relationship to this entity. Therefore, absent of transferring debt precludes action for foreclosures because the assignment of the mortgage alone is a nullity, the note cannot be enforced and in violation of U.C.C. requirement.
This is a Fraudulent maneuver. Mr. Augustin loan account should be zero due to TILA rescission notice. Thus, the Loan account is in error. In invoking the protection of the service act, Mr. Pierre R. Augustin is challenging this notice of foreclosure since the foreclosure proceeding is erroneous (12 USC 2602(1)(a).
Do take the necessary action to correct this error in responding to this qualified written request by complying with 12 USC 2605(d), 12 USC 2605(e) and 12 USC 2505(f). Thank you for taking the time to acknowledge and answer this request as required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (sec. 2605(e)).
Sincerely,
Pierre R. Augustin, MPA, MBA
617-202-8069
Given that all reasonable efforts have failed to stop Chase Home Finance’s Fraudulent Foreclosure, this emergency request to avoid these irreparable harms is in line with the law of public policy, public interest and justice.
Lowell, Massachusetts, May 8, 2007 - Mr. Pierre Augustin of Lowell, Massachusetts, a victim of predatory lending, has timely and legally invoked the Truth-in-lending Act (TILA) right of rescission pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635 and M.G.L. c. 140D 10(f) and 260 § 5A to protect his property rights. Thus, the mortgage on his property is considered void and unenforceable upon rescission according to the law enacted by Congress.
Despite Mr. Augustin’s legal objections and defenses, Chase Home Finance & Deuthsche Bank National Trust are going forward with their illegal and fraudulent foreclosure action which is clearly improper and immoral. Silence is consent. Would you please make every effort to help stop this Fraud? Next time, it might be you.
“Unequivocally, to allow these foreclosure proceedings to go any further will not only be a gross injustice but will violate all notions of public policy, will trample the spirit of the law and will violate the equal protection principle as well as disregard the notion of the pledge of allegiance of the United States of America Pledge that states “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty [and justice for all]”, said Mr. Augustin
TILA is a remedial statute designed to protect and to defend consumer’s property rights such as Mr. Augustin’s, who is not on equal footing with lenders such as Chase Home Finance or Deuthsche Bank National Trust, who are powerful corporations with unlimited budget and who are represented by the most savvy lawyers of Partridge, Snow and Hahn, LLP, Providence, Rhode Island, Tel. (401) 861-8293, who are determined to violate and to usurp the law to achieve their aim of stripping away his home illegally and fraudulently.
This is an emergency request and alert to the public, consumer protection organizations and public officials to stop Chase Home Finance and Deuthsche Bank National Trust since all other remedies, reasonable and good faith efforts have failed. The auction sale scheduled on May 16, 2007 will be irreversible and render any subsequent and pending legal actions moot. Mr. Augustin can be reached at 617.202.8069.
# # #
Qualified Written Letter Sent to Chase Home Finance and Deutsche National Trust Company
Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se
28 Cedar Street
Lowell, MA 01852
Tel: 617-202-8069
April 12, 2007
Attorney Charles Lovell
Attorney for Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank National Trust Providence, RI 02903
Dear Attorney Charles:
In honoring your request to respond to your letter dated April 4, 2007, I am not waiving any rights under TILA, including the 20-day respond period that had expired since October 10, 2006.
I categorically reject all allegations made on that letter since my TILA rescission notice sent to you on September 21, 2006, has precedence, negate your foreclosure actions and voided the security interest in my property.
Please treat this letter as a “qualified written request” under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se disputes this debt and notice of foreclosure since on September 21, 2006, you have received a TILA notice of rescission which voided the security interest and the note on his principal dwelling.
Therefore, I must point out that you are in:
· Violation of the Truth-In-Lending Act (TILA) notice of rescission sent to defendants on September 21, 2006 which automatically void the security interest in my property(Reg. Z §§ 226.15(a)(2), 226.23(a)(2), Official Staff Commentary § 226.23(a)(2)-1) and 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b).
· Violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Massachusetts Debt Collection Laws, Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting ACT and seeking punitive damages per 15 USC 1681 n(a)(2), 15 USC 1681o, 15 USC 1692e(8).
· Violation of Statute of Limitation. If you or any of the defendants disputes the plaintiff’s right to rescind, they should have filed a declaratory judgment action within twenty days after receiving the rescission notice, before the deadline of October 10, 2006 to return the plaintiff’s money or property and record the termination of its security interest according to 15 USC 1635(b).
· On November 15, 2006, you and all the other defendants were on notice that they were in default for TILA violations (see docket # 80, Case #: 06-10368).
· Violation of the statute of limitations and fraudulent assignment of the mortgage. Without a security interest in the plaintiff’s property, New Century Mortgage, Chase Home Finance, Deuthsche Bank National Trust and any other parties do not have the authority to foreclose or to assign neither the mortgage nor the note.
· Violation of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), (East Coast Properties v. Galang, 308 A.D.2d 431, 765 N.Y.S.2d 46 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Neither you nor any of the defendants are Real Party in Interest or Holder in Due Course, since the TILA notice of rescission automatically voids the security interest.
· Violation of the rule of law, since neither you nor any of the defendants have Standing to pursue foreclosure action because, once TILA notice of rescission is given, the lien or security interest in plaintiff’s property becomes void ab initio, even if a court has not yet ruled on the validity of the plaintiff’s rescission (Willis v. Friedman, Clearinghouse No. 54,564 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 2, 2002)).
In summary, Mr. Augustin states that the mortgage is not valid and in violation of TILA (failure to respond to TILA rescission notice by October 10, 2006) by not complying with required procedures. Without an interest in the debt, you do not have the authority to foreclose since you do not have an enforceable security in the property because the mortgage and note assignment were improper and ineffective.
If you are not the current holder of the note and mortgage relating to Mr. Pierre R. Augustin’s mortgage account, please provide the name and address of said true owner of the obligation (15 USC, 1641(f)(2)) or holder and indicate your relationship to this entity. Therefore, absent of transferring debt precludes action for foreclosures because the assignment of the mortgage alone is a nullity, the note cannot be enforced and in violation of U.C.C. requirement.
This is a Fraudulent maneuver. Mr. Augustin loan account should be zero due to TILA rescission notice. Thus, the Loan account is in error. In invoking the protection of the service act, Mr. Pierre R. Augustin is challenging this notice of foreclosure since the foreclosure proceeding is erroneous (12 USC 2602(1)(a).
Do take the necessary action to correct this error in responding to this qualified written request by complying with 12 USC 2605(d), 12 USC 2605(e) and 12 USC 2505(f). Thank you for taking the time to acknowledge and answer this request as required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (sec. 2605(e)).
Sincerely,
Pierre R. Augustin, MPA, MBA
617-202-8069
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
