October 5, 2016

United States Securities Exchange Commission

SEC Office of the Whistleblower 100 F Street NE

Mail Stop 5631

Washington, DC 20549

Phone: (202) 551-4790

Fax: (703) 813-9322

Reference: Bankruptcy Fraud Case-Complaints

GMAC Mortgage LLC vs. Corla Jackson

Mobile County Circuit Court Mobile AL

DV-2012-902844 - 02-CV-2013-902219

Reference Complaint In Violation Of Dodd Frank Act CFPB Consent Orders

GMAC Mortgage LLC - Option One Mortgage Corporation n/k/a Sand

Canyon Corporation (Sand Canyon) - Ocwen Financial Corporation -

Altisource - (HLSS) Home Loan Servicing Solutions

Dear United States Securities Exchange Commission

SEC Office of the Whistleblower:

In This Particular Bankruptcy Fraud Case And Complaint” The July 21, 2010,

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and (CFPB) Consumer Protection Act” (the

“Act”) and Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and

Section 21C of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and

13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13. Were

Violated By” (GMAC Mortgage Corporation et, al. - GMAC Mortgage LLC and

Its Law Firms (Sirote & Permutt” Bradley Arant Boult Cummings - Morrison &

Foerster - Johnston & Freedman - Johnson & Freedman - Prince, McKean,

McKenna & Broughton LLC – RCO Legal P.C.).

There Are Several (Alabama Law Firms Linked To Massive Stolen Mortgages

Backed By Security’s Going Around The SEC And Federal Reserve” Wall Street

Investors And More). The Violate Governed Federal Laws” Consumer Protection

Laws For Illegal Profits” Personal Gain Or Favor Using Deceptive Practices

Through Corrupted Judges” Which Cannot Be Ignored Or Denied Its Recorded

Facts. They Continued Committing The Crime After The Dodd Frank Act Went In

To Effect On (July 21, 2010) Through Corrupted Judges Illegal Orders Based

Upon Fraud And Fraud Upon The Courts.

In This Particular Case” The Bankruptcy Judge Shulman Was Warned About The

Illegal Orders He Was Issuing To GMAC Mortgage LLC Law Firm (Sirote &

Permutt) After The Alabama AG Took Office (2) Illegal Bankruptcy Cases (10-

04820) and (11-01545) In Violation Of Bankruptcy Laws” Linked To The Initial

Bankruptcy Case (05-13142).

Judge Shulman Knew He Was Violation The Dodd Frank Laws” Consumer

Protection Laws” Bankruptcy Laws And All The Orders Issued Under Bankruptcy

Case (05-13142) Disallowing GMAC Mortgage Arrears Dated Back To (2006-

2007) Prior To (June 19, 2008) and After” AFTER” Option One Mortgage

Corporation n/k/a Sand Canyon Corporation ceased originating mortgage loans

and activity’s in December 2007 and, in April 2008, selling its assets” servicing

rights and discontinued its remaining operations on (April 30, 2008).

HRB and Block Financial may be subject by reason of the Final Judgment as to

Option One Mortgage Corporation nlk/a Sand Canyon Corporation ("Sand

Canyon"), entered on (May 2, 2012) by the United States District Court for the

Central District of California a, Civil Action No. 12-633 (the "Final Judgment").

The Final Judgment, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins Sand

Canyon from violations of sections 17(a) (2) and 17(a) (3) of the Securities Act in

the offer or sale of any security. Sand Canyon is an indirect, wholly owned

subsidiary of HRB that has ceased the mortgage loan origination activities and

mortgage servicing operations involved in the Commission's allegations that led to

the Final Judgment and discontinued its remaining operations.

On April 24, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged

Option One Mortgage Corporation (“Option One”), a subsidiary of H&R Block

Inc. (“Block”), with misleading investors in several offerings of subprime

residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”).

To settle the SEC’s fraud charges, Option One, now known as Sand

Canyon Corporation, agreed to Option One originated, sold and serviced

subprime mortgage loans. In 2006 and 2007, Option One was one of the

nation’s largest subprime originators with originations of nearly $40 billion in its

fiscal 2006.

In its complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of

California, the SEC alleges that between January and March 2007, Option One

offered and sold more than $4.3 billion of RMBS in seven separate offerings.

RMBS are debt obligations that represent claims to the cash flows from pools of

residential mortgage loans.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Option One misled investors in its RMBS by

promising to repurchase or replace mortgages in its RMBS that breached

representations and warranties. These promises were rendered misleading by

Option One’s failure to disclose that its financial condition was significantly

deteriorating and it could not meet its repurchase obligations on its own.

The SEC further alleges that at the time Option One offered and sold the RMBS, it

needed to rely on voluntary financial support from Block to meet its financial

obligations but that Block was under no obligation to continue providing that

financing. Option One never disclosed this information to investors.

Option One, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, consented to

the entry of an order permanently enjoining it from violating Sections 17(a)(2)

and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and requiring it to pay disgorgement of

$14,250,558, prejudgment interest of $3,982,027, and a $10,000,000 civil penalty.

The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the court.

Bankruptcy Corrupted Judge Shulman Was Warned About GMAC Mortgage LLC-

Sirote & Permutt Committing Fraud And Fraud Upon The Court Under Him.

Bankruptcy Judge Shulman Kept Committing Fraud And Fraud Upon The Court

Willful” and Repeatedly Ignoring The Crimes (Sirote & Permutt Law Firm And

Lawyers Were Committing) Linked To Stolen Mortgages Backed By Security”

Using Deceptive Practices. He Kept Covering Up The Crimes As They Committed

Them With (Illegal Orders) Using Deceptive Practices” That Is Based Upon Fraud

and Fraud Upon The Court” Under A Fabricated Note With Arrears For Illegal

Profits Without Lack Of Standing.

The Mortgage Contract And Agreement Dated (5/26/2004) Is Between (Corla

Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation). The Note Was Secured By

Multiple Policy’s And Security Trust” Under Loan Number (651003367)

Servicing Number (001347464-8)” Which (Prevented Judge Shulman From

Issuing An Illegal Relief To Foreclose) On Corla Jackson Property For Illegal

Profits Without Lack Of Standing. Corla Jackson Note Was Backed By

Security’s Under the Original Note” Which Had Nothing To Do With GMAC

Mortgage LLC And He Knew This It Was Recorded.

There Was Never A Recorded Deed Between Corla Jackson and GMAC Prior To

(June 19, 2008) On Arrears Dated Back To (2006-2007) Linked To The Original

Bankruptcy Case-Complaint (05-13142). The Relief Judge Shulman Issued With

Arrears Dated Back To (2006-2007) Is FRAUD-FRAUD UPON THE COURT”

GMAC Mortgage LLC Didn’t Have Lack Of Standing In (2005-2006-2007) Prior

To The Fabricated Assignment Dated (June 19, 2008).

GMAC Mortgage Corporation et al. - GMAC Mortgage LLC Didn’t Have Lack Of

Authority To Collect A Debt-Payments From Corla Jackson Prior To (6/1/2005)

To Initiate A Proof Of Claim (06/15/2005) Under Bankruptcy Case (05-13142)

Because GMAC Mortgage LLC Didn’t Have Lack Of Standing.

GMAC Mortgage Corporation-GMAC Mortgage LLC” Didn’t Own The Note

Under Loan Number (651003367) Servicing Number (001347464-8) That Was

Backed By Security’s and Linked To Multiple” Insured Covered Losses. In

Addition To This They Didn’t Have An Assignment” Mortgage Contract

Agreement” or A Recorded Deed Between Corla Jackson and GMAC” Prior To

(June 19, 2008). The Assignment Was Fabricated After” Option One Mortgage

Corporation n/k/a Sand Canyon Corporation ceased originating mortgage loans

and activity’s in December 2007 and, in April 2008, selling its assets” servicing

rights and discontinued its remaining operations on (April 30, 2008).

GMAC Mortgage Corporation-GMAC Mortgage LLC” Didn’t Have Legal

Authority To Collect A Debt-Payments From Corla Jackson Under Her Property”

By The Terms And Conditions In The (Mortgage Contract Agreement Between

Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage) Under The Loan Number (651003367)

Servicing Number (001347464-8) Without Lack Of Standing.

Governed Laws Point Out” Strict Pooling And Servicing Requirements” When It

Comes To Collecting A Debt-Payments Linked To Mortgages Backed By

Security’s On Loans That Are FDIC Insured” In Addition To Consumer

Protection Laws That Protect Victims From SCAMS Like This For Illegal Profits”

Personal Gain Or Favor. Bankruptcy Fraud And Fraud The Court Is A Federal

Crime” In Addition To Security’s Fraud” Linked To Stole Property” Money”

Identity’s” And More. Sirote & Permutt” and Their Affiliate Firms And Lawyers

Willful Committed Bankruptcy Fraud For Illegal Profits” With The Intent To

Cover Up Crimes Linked To Massive Stolen Mortgages Backed By Security’s That

They Were Illegally Profiting From In Alabama Using Deceptive Practices”

Which Harmed Victims And They Knew This” And Continued Robbing FEDS and

Their Victims Of Alabama To Date” With Illegal Judges Orders By Corrupted

Judges They Knew Linked Their Firms And Lawyers.

See In Bulloch v. United States,[7]

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.

Judge Shulman Listen To Bradley Arant Boult Cummings And Sirote &

Permutt Versus Up Holding Federal Bankruptcy Laws. Judge Shulman

Chose To Continue Violation The Federal Laws Covering Up The Crime He

Committed” With The Firms That Committed Bankruptcy Fraud And Fraud

Upon The Court Under Him...

When Things Started To Un-Cover He Took An Early Retirement” To Get

Away From The Crime He Committed Here” Knowing He Had To Run And

Retire Fast Before He Got Busted For Fraud Corruption Conspiracy”

Fraud Upon The Court And More” Linked To Massive Stolen Mortgages In

Alabama With The Same Firms. He Never Reported This Crime He

Committed” Instead He Kept Issuing Illegal Orders To Keep It Covered Up!

At This Point” This Case Is A Federal White Collar Crime Robbery That Took

Place In Mobile Alabama” That Was Covered Up And Carried Out Based Upon

Fraud And Fraud Upon The Court.

GMAC Mortgage Corporation and Its Law Firm (Sirote & Permutt) Willful And

Illegally Forced (Corla Jackson) Into Her Initial Bankruptcy Case” Filing A Proof

Of Claim And Complaint On (06/15/2005) Under Case (05-13142) Without Lack

Of Standing. At That Time” GMAC Mortgage Corporation-GMAC Mortgage LLC

Didn’t Own The Note Or An Assignment On (06/15/05).

BURDEN OF PROOF: GMAC DIDN’T OWN THE NOTE OR AN ASSIGNMENT

WHEN THEY FILED THEIR INITIAL PROOF OF CLAIM UNDER

BANKRUTPCY CASE (05-13142) THAT THEY GOT THEIR ARREARS BASED

UPON UNDER JUDGE SHULMAN DATED BACK TO (2006-2007) UP TO

(JUNE 19, 2008) AFTER OPTION ONE MORTAGE WAS SOLD AND CLOSED

APRIL 30, 2008). THE EJECTMENT IS NULL AND VOID” THIS IS FRAUD!

SEE PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHBIT’S: (6) (1- A- B) and Exhibit (21).

The Mortgage Contract Between Corla Jackson And Option One Mortgage

Corporation Dated (5/26/2004). The Loan Number Is (651003367) the Servicing

Number Is (001347464-8).

GMAC Mortgage LLC Fraudulent Fabricated (Assignment) Was Issued By

(Brian D. Mcconnell) On (June 19, 2008) After This Crime Was Committed”

and After Option One Mortgage Corporation n/k/a Sand Canyon Corporation

ceased originating mortgage loans and activity’s in December 2007 and, in April

2008, selling its assets” servicing rights and discontinued its remaining

operations on (April 30, 2008).

HRB and Block Financial may be subject by reason of the Final Judgment as to

Option One Mortgage Corporation nlk/a Sand Canyon Corporation ("Sand

Canyon"), entered on May 2, 2012 by the United States District Court for the

Central District of California a, Civil Action No. 12-633 (the "Final Judgment").

The Final Judgment, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins

Sand Canyon from violations of sections 17(a) (2) and 17(a) (3) of the Securities

Act in the offer or sale of any security.

Sand Canyon is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of HRB that has ceased the

mortgage loan origination activities and mortgage servicing operations

involved in the Commission's allegations that led to the Final Judgment and

discontinued its remaining operations.

It is illegal to knowingly and with intent to defraud, file a bankruptcy petition or other

document, or make a false or fraudulent representation, claim.

18 US 157 also applies to involuntary bankruptcies. This statute is based on the wire,

mail, and bank fraud statutes. See 18 US 1341, 1343, and 1344, respectively.

Perjury. 18 US 1621. Perjury is punished by a maximum of 5 years in prison.

Conspiracy. 18 US 371. Conspiracy has a maximum 5-year prison sentence (or less if the

underlying crime has a lesser penalty, such as a misdemeanor).

Wire fraud. 18 US 1341. This offense has a possible sentence of 20 years in prison, or 30

years with a possible $1,000,000 fine where the offense impacts a financial institution.

Mail fraud. 18 US 1343. Mail fraud has the same penalties as wire fraud.

Bank fraud. 18 US 1344. Bank fraud is a criminal offense with a possible penalty of 30

years imprisonment and $1,000,000 fine.

RICO (racketeering). 18 US 1962. The sentence for a RICO charge can be 20 years

incarceration.

Finally, 18 US 157 prohibits any scheme to defraud another, or attempt, during

bankruptcy. The sentence for this charge is a maximum 5 years in federal prison.

It is illegal to knowingly and with intent to defraud, file a bankruptcy petition or other

document, or make a false or fraudulent representation, claim. 18 US 157 also applies to

involuntary bankruptcies. This statute is based on the wire, mail, and bank fraud statutes.

See 18 US 1341, 1343, and 1344, respectively.

In a federal prosecution for conspiracy, the defendant is typically charged with two offenses.

First, he is charged with conspiracy. Second, he is charged with the offense that he and his co-

conspirators were conspiring to commit. This is known as the object of the conspiracy. For

instance, a person charged in connection with a drug or burglary.

Conspiracy against the rights of citizens. See 18 USC 241. This offense has a sentence of

10 years in prison.

Conspiring in bribery of sporting contests. See 18 USC 224.

Under 18 USC 371, a person can be charged with conspiracy based on two elements

1. An agreement to commit a criminal offense.

2. An overt act that furthers the conspiracy.

The US Attorney does not have to prove that the agreement was in writing. It can be verbal and

still subject the parties to criminal liability.

It is not a violation of double jeopardy for the defendant to be prosecuted and sentenced for both

the conspiracy and the offense he agreed to commit.

Each is a separate and distinct offense.

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 unlawful activity that

constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any

applicable State or local law.

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.. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331§ 1331.

Federal question. Federal district court had general jurisdiction of subject matter

of claims for declaratory judgment against state and county officials on ground that

certain provisions of state constitution and statutes contravened U.S.C.A.Const.

Amend. 14 and violated Civil Rights Act, § 1981 et seq. of Title 42. Hearne v.

Smylie, D.C.Idaho 1964, 225 F.Supp. 645, reversed 84 S.Ct. 1917, 378 U.S. 563,

12 L.Ed.2d 1036, appeal dismissed 85 S.Ct. 1571, 381 U.S. 420, 14 L.Ed.2d

476.Federal Courts 2324(1).

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.

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.

Section 1983 made relief in the form of money damages available to those whose

constitutional rights had been violated by a person acting under State authority.

Normally, constitutional rights violations are remedied by specific performance

including injunctions by the courts. Circumstances changed in 1961 when the

Supreme Court of the United States articulated three purposes that underlay the

statute: "1) 'to override certain kinds of state laws'; 2) to provide 'a remedy where

state law was inadequate'; and 3) to provide 'a federal remedy where the state

remedy, though adequate in theory, was not available in practice.' "[4][5]

Now the statute stands as one of the most powerful authorities with which state

and federal courts may protect those whose rights are deprived. Section 1983 of

the 1871 Civil Rights Act provides a way individuals can sue to redress when

their federally protected rights are violated, like the First Amendment rights and

the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Section 1983 can be used to redress violated rights based on the

federal Constitution and federal statutes. Today, the 1871 Civil Rights Act can be

invoked whenever a state actor violates a federally guaranteed right.

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. Residential Capital, LLC v. Fed. House. Fin. Agency

(In re Residential Capital, LLC) (2nd Cir., 2013). Rule 54(b) certification was

improper and thus certified the order as a final judgment pursuant to ARCP 54(b).

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;

Corla Jackson Was Not Behind On (5) Payments When She Was Forced

Into Bankruptcy (06/15/2005) Under False Pretense Under Case (05-13142)”

Which Made All Other Proof Of Claim Under Other (2) Illegal Bankruptcy Case

Under The Same Fabricated Loan Number And Arrears Null Moot And Void”

Because It Was Fraud And Fraud Upon The Court.

Judge Shulman Had To See Those Illegal Arrears GMAC Mortgage Put

Before Him Was Dated Back To (2006-2007) Prior To The Fabricated

Assignment Dated June 19, 2008)” Was Fraud And Without Lack Of Standing

He Was Told By Objections Filed By Corla Jackson Lawyer Filed (ECF)...

See FEDERAL COURT ORDER Issued (March 1, 2006) Under

Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) GMAC Mortgage Corporation-GMAC

Mortgage LLC Filed A (Relief from Automatic Stay) That Was (Conditionally

Denied Based Upon All The Following Terms And Condition) (1-4) Before (5)

Could Be Invoked By GMAC if they owned right, title, and interest to the Real

Property in accordance with the Loan Documentation between the parties and

applicable law on (March 1, 2006) in which they did not.

See (#1): Spells Out Number (2-4) Before Number (5) Could Be Invoked By

GMAC. The Order Stated Under Number (1) That The Debtor- Defendant

(Corla Jackson Paid in Open Court One Lump Sum Of $1,920.64) This Was”

Corla Jackson House Payment Paid In Open Court On (March 2006).

The Remaining Balance of ($14,809.60) Was To Be Re-Paid Through The

Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan. See # (1) and # (2) Of The Order Issued (March 1,

2006).

See (#2): GMAC Was Granted leave to file a proof of claim in the amount

of The Reference Under Number (1) Spelled Out In the Amount ($14, 809.60) Was

To Be Re-Paid Through The Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan. See # (1) and # (2) Of

The Order Issued (March 1, 2006).

See (#3): Beginning With (March 2006 Payment As Shown In The Order

Issued (March 1, 2006) Listed Above Under (#1) Of The Order Issued March 1,

2006)” Spelled Out The ( Debtor-Defendant Corla Jackson shall continue to

make timely monthly direct payments to (GMAC) in accordance with the

COURT’S ORDER CONFIRMING THE DEBTOR’S CHAPTER 13 PLAN and the (AGREEMENT) BETWEEN THE DEBTOR-DEFENDANT and GMAC.

The (Court Never Issued An Order After March 1, 2006) Confirming The

Debtors Chapter 13 Plan and Agreement Between The (Debtor-Defendant Corla

Jackson) and GMAC. GMAC Law Firm (Sirote & Permutt) Violated The

Order Using Deceptive Practices And (Filed A Proof Of Claim With The Old

Chapter 13 Confirmation Order Issued Case 05-13142 Doc 21 Filed 10/25/05

Entered 10/25/05 That Was Filed Without The Agreement Between The

(Debtor-Defendant Corla Jackson and GMAC).

Upon (Further Order Of The Court The Court On March 1, 2006) The Court

Issued The Order With Strict Terms and Conditions” That Had To Be Met Prior

To Filing A Proof Of Claim In The Amount Of ($14, 809.60) Which Was Willful

and Illegally Violated By The (GMAC & Its Lawyers) Willful “Using Deceptive

Practices” without the Agreement Between The Debtor-Defendant Corla Jackson

and GMAC.

There Was Never A Recorded Deed Between Corla Jackson And GMAC

Prior to GMAC Filing Their Proof Of Any Of Their Claim On (06/15/2005 Or

(07/25/11) On Arrears Dated Back To (March 2006).

GMAC Leave To File A Proof Of Claim Was (Reversed and Disallowed) By

Objections Filed (July 15, 2009) That Was Granted To Corla Jackson On

(September 18, 2009) and Amended To The Amount Paid by Debtor Corla Jackson

On (October 1, 2009) Sustaining The Initial Order Dated (September 18, 2008

Inside The (Amended Order Dated September 18, 2009) So There Will Be No

Mistakes Or Confusing On What Order She Was Speaking About Being Sustained.

There Were No Responses Filed Through The Court Under Bankruptcy Case

(05-13142) By GMAC Mortgage Corporation-GMAC Mortgage LLC Prior To The

Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan and Debts Were Discharged With No More Arrears

Owned On (January 20, 2010” Because They Didn’t Own The Note Or An

Assignment Prior To Initiating Their Proof Of Claim (06/15/2005)” Without

Lack Of Standing For Illegal Profits.

See (#4): The Debtor Shall Otherwise Comply With All The Terms and

Provisions Of The Court’s Order Confirming the Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan and

the AGREEMENT Between the DEBTOR-DEFENDANT Corla Jackson and

GMAC. Corla Jackson Complied With The Court Order Issued (March 1, 2006).

See (#5): Court Order Dated (March 1, 2006) filed (ECF) Case (05-13142) Doc

30 Filed 03/01/06 Entered 03/01/06. GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION-

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC Didn’t Own Right, Title, and interest in and to Real

Property in accordance with loan documentation between the parties and

applicable law” Prior to (June 19, 2008). The Damages Occurred In (2005) Up

Unto (June 19, 2008). The Courts Never Issued An Order Confirming The

Agreement Between Corla Jackson The Debtor And GMAC” After March 1,

2006” Is Recorded. There Were No More Responses From GMAC...

On April 24, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Option One

Mortgage Corporation (“Option One”), a subsidiary of H&R Block Inc. (“Block”),

with misleading investors in several offerings of subprime residential mortgage

backed securities (“RMBS”).

To settle the SEC’s fraud charges, Option One, now known as Sand

Canyon Corporation, agreed to Option One originated, sold and serviced

subprime mortgage loans. In 2006 and 2007, Option One was one of the

nation’s largest subprime originators with originations of nearly $40 billion in its

fiscal 2006.

In its complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of

California, the SEC alleges that between January and March 2007, Option One

offered and sold more than $4.3 billion of RMBS in seven separate offerings.

RMBS are debt obligations that represent claims to the cash flows from pools of

residential mortgage loans.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Option One misled investors in its RMBS by

promising to repurchase or replace mortgages in its RMBS that breached

representations and warranties. These promises were rendered misleading by

Option One’s failure to disclose that its financial condition was significantly

deteriorating and it could not meet its repurchase obligations on its own.

The SEC further alleges that at the time Option One offered and sold the RMBS, it

needed to rely on voluntary financial support from Block to meet its financial

obligations but that Block was under no obligation to continue providing that

financing. Option One never disclosed this information to investors.

Option One, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, consented to

the entry of an order permanently enjoining it from violating Sections 17(a)(2)

and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and requiring it to pay disgorgement of

$14,250,558, prejudgment interest of $3,982,027, and a $10,000,000 civil penalty.

The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the court.

This Assignment Was Done On (06/19/2008) After” Option One Mortgage

Corporation n/k/a Sand Canyon Corporation ceased originating

mortgage loans and activity’s in December 2007 and, in April 2008,

selling its assets” servicing rights and discontinued its remaining

operations on (April 30, 2008).

There Is Thousands Of Victims Linked To Bradley Arant Boult Cummings Crimes

In Multiple States” Judge Martin Glenn Never Should Have Trusted (Bradley

Arant Boult Cummings And Morrison & Foerster Under Bankruptcy Case (12-

12020) and (12-12032) To Over See Fraud Cases” Because They Were Involved In

The Massive Stolen Mortgage Ring With Banks And Servicers For Illegal Profits

Through Their Affiliate Firm (Sirote & Permutt) And More...

Judge Shulman Was Warned About The Illegal Orders He Was Issuing To

GMAC Mortgage LLC Law Firm (Sirote & Permutt) After The Alabama AG

Took Office. Judge Shulman Was Warned About GMAC Mortgage LLC-

Sirote & Permutt Committing Fraud And Fraud Upon The Court” Which He

Repeatedly Ignored’ And Covered Up The Crime He Committed Here

Willful” Thinking The Truth Would Never Be Released Like This That Is

Why He Ran Taking An Early Retirement” After Harming Victims!

SPECIAL ALERT:

NOTICE (BRIAN D. MCCONNELL SIGNATURE ON HIS DECLARATION

DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2016) DO NOT MATCH HIS FABRICATED

ASSIGNMENT DATED (JUNE 19, 2008). THIS IS FRAUD COMMITTED

AFTER THE DODD FRANK LAW WENT INTO AFFECT JULY 21, 2010.

In Addition To The Above” California Notary Laws Were Violated By (R.A.

Salazar) Whom Never Reported The Books And Records On (BRIAN D.

MCCONNELL) Authentication Requirements By Any Rule “To Transfer A Note

Or An Assignment Over To GMAC Mortgage LLC” On A Note Backed By

Security’s Because” Option One Mortgage Corporation n/k/a Sand Canyon

Corporation ceased originating mortgage loans and activity’s in December 2007

and, in April 2008, selling its assets” servicing rights and discontinued its

remaining operations on (April 30, 2008).

In Bulloch v. United States,[7]

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.

Sincerely,

/s/ Corla Reeves Jackson