The district court is the proper venue Pursuant to the United States governments invoking 18 U.S.C. § 983(a), administrative civil forfeiture
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
A Federal Question arises out of the defendants enforcing a Security Instrument alleged to combine uniform covenants for national use subject to limited variations by jurisdiction to constitute a uniform security instrument covering real property, done under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), including those concerning competition and conflict of interest.
Plaintiff alleges a misconceived federal policy brought by passage of certain enactment under TARP that systematically incorporates an oppressive means and intolerant method for enforcement alleged against public policy. In the passage of the “Act” passed in 2008, the call, by its own admission, is to the devices and instrumentality granted to the secretary of the United States department of treasury held under sec. 108. This is the controversy and raises arguments against the Conflicts of interest. And subsection (a) standards required.
CAUSES FOR ACTION SEEKING RELEIF ‘
Plaintiff argues the foreclosure proceedings to date, fails whereby the secretary has issued stern regulations or prohibitive guidelines that otherwise lack sufficiency for debt collectors who are officers of the court to impose martial law and or pursue government claims deemed to promote, and not prohibit conflicts of interest that have arisen in connection with the improper administration and materially misstated execution of the authorities provided under this Act.
Defendants are alleged FEDERALLY APPOINTED FINANCIAL AGENTS led by THE APPOINTED TRUSTEE solely INCIDENTAL TO TRUST and therein made by appointment QUALIFIED TO EXECUTE THE REPOSSESSION OF BAILMENT COLLATERAL. By operations of law the passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), which created TARP, the Treasury has thrown to private entities, including investment management firms, LAW FIRMS, accounting firms, and consulting firms, to assist with implementation of the $700 billion bank bailout. As of the end of August, Treasury had entered into 108 transactions to procure nearly $450 million worth of services.
Defendants under TARP provides the Treasury to have entered into two forms of substantive agreements, ONE WITH CONTRACTORS AND ONE WITH FINANCIAL AGENTS. The argument is Treasury utilizes contractors for basic services like document management, legal support, and information technology, WHILE FINANCIAL AGENTS ACT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT and may hold and manage money. While financial agents have a fiduciary obligation to the government, they “do not take an oath of office … stand for election … nor are they subject to civil service rules.” Rather, “Their goal is to turn a profit – not to advance the public good.”
Defedants are shown from discovery to date to pursue draconian collections practices steeped in material misstatements and falsified publishing of instruments so to bring claims against a mortgage viewed by operations of law as an INSTALLMENT CONTRACT. Under the deceptive uses of the installment contract are the rights of parties thought on one hand-held to a CONVENTIONAL MORTGAGE yet promulgate foreclosure under a deceptive “REVERSE PURCHASE AND SALE” method or by the defendants own admission a “REPO” SALE solely to wash back the value of derivatives and converted equitable interests into securities.
Plaintiff asserts a “REPO” SALE used solely to wash back the value of derivatives and converted equitable interests into securities allows the agents to adjudicate the matter held under state foreclosure laws clearly held as not one in the same with the states jurisdiction over a power of sale.
expert testimony / email@example.com
Not an attorney and not intended as legaladvice – call your state bar for more information about retaining an attorney