Whether the court must take as true the sworn testimony of the Respondents that they are not a Trust and also take as true that they are a trust when it suits Respondents

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The securitization of a mortgage into a closed trust require that the servicer carry PMI on every loan, and that any default is paid in full by the collection of that insurance, satisfying the mortgage. In the instant case, the insurance recovery was not credited to the borrowers account, unjustly enriching the lender. This was accomplished in the name of a trust which no longer existed, by obtaining foreclosures in the name of an unlicensed, non-registered trust. This entity sought a triple-bonanza of payouts from the parties connected to these mortgages by obtaining three separate payouts—first, by filing fraudulent class actions and false billing statements; second, by collecting PMI proceeds without crediting Petitioners’ mortgage; and third, by profit on sale of Petitioners’ ; ; ; property. -'To aid its defense in New Jersey state proceedings, the Respondent swore under penalty of perjury that they are “not an individual, estate or a trust”. Later in the federal district and circuit courts, Respondent conveniently switched positions, claiming to be a trust. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Whether the court must take as true the sworn testimony of the Respondents that they are not a Trust | and also take as true that they are a trust when it suits Respondents. 2. Whether a non-existent entity, who could not lawfully securitize a note and mortgage into an already closed trust, have standing or capacity to do business, ‘ acquire a mortgage and foreclose? | | ii