On 10-23-13 I received the plaintiff’s motion for leave, and motion to amend their original complaint. They want to amend their original complaint filed May 2007, to now include FNMA as assignor and **** as assignee dated August 13, 2013 and recorded.
Indiana statues 15A state the party may amend their complaint anytime before the responsive pleading is filed. My attorney at the time filed a response to the complaint and counterclaim, September 2007 their complaint was filed May 2007.
I discovered documentation that the property was sold to FNMA as a mortgage back securities November 1, 1994 and according to a memo from original lender, dated 3-30-95, they retained, without forwarding the original documents (appears to be standard operational procedure) to the mortgage pool, valued $54 Million containing the note and mortgage that matured 12-1-2002 with a “0” balance.
FNMA sold the note and mortgage on October 2, 2002 to Freddie Mac, and there is evidence the property has changed hands over and over again. I discovered this information only a few weeks ago. Since that time I’ve received threats and reprisals and now this motion to amend as of yesterday.
What we have here is clearly a huge ponzi-scheme with worldwide implications. The Court had over 100 pending cases with the plaintiff prevailing in almost all of the cases, even cases that contained forged, invalid, and fraudulent documents with only the mortgage servicer listed as plaintiff, without substituting or amending their complaint.. This case has been reported to the US Justice Department with supporting exhibits.
The plaintiff (currently in the news with pending settlement) are doing all of this without changing the real party in interest in the caption portion of their complaint. Indiana TR15C states a party has 120 days to change party. My former counsels and I stated since 2007, that there was evidence that FNMA bought the property November 1, 1994 but the plaintiff failed to acknowledge it. FNMA was not mentioned in their original complaint and the plaintiff listed in the complaint is a different party that filed the original complaint. Multiple pleadings and a subpoena was served on plaintiff and FNMA and they denied they owned the original note and mortgage. In the original complaint the plaintiff claimed they held the original note and mortgage.
Question: Their case that disposed 5-15-12 is falling apart, but how do I respond