Dear Mr. Michael J. Bujold, Esq. (CC: DOJ US Trustee , Department of VA Email: ( michael.j.bujold@usdoj.gov )
I received AI-generated runaround with your robo-stamped signature sent to me from “US Trustee” general email address. So, I don’t know who prepared and who sent it to me.
This AI runaround did not answer any merits of my complaint against US Trustees Vara and Maggio or any of my inquiries and demands to investigate.
To the contrary, this AI-generated runaround fully sided with US Trustees Vara and Maggio wrongful, illegal and perhaps criminal conduct where US Trustees Vara and Maggio illegally converted my securitized “VA Guaranteed loan ” allegedly pooled in GinnieMae Trust where Bank of New York is alleged Trustee into a conventional non-securitized non-VA guaranteed non-GinnieMae pooled Transaction where US Trustees Vara and Maggio fraudulently promote faux “servicer” PennyMac Loan Services LLC as my the only original Creditor – without anyone else at all – and enforce it as a conventional non-securitized, non-VA Guaranteed, not GinnieMae insured transaction.
As a lawyer you must understand contract laws, Bankruptcy laws and at least basic principals of securitization.
If the transaction sold to me as VA guaranteed securitized loan which was promised to be pooled into GinnieMae Trust, then US Trustees Vara and Maggio statements that PennyMac Loan Services LLC is my the ONLY original Creditor are brazen lies and fraud upon the Court.
Moreover, IF my Note was allegedly sold as thousands shares to numerous investors who purchased GinnieMae securities – as insisted PennyMac – its illegal and criminal for US Trustees Vara and Maggio to rely and promote flagrantly fabricated, forged, fraudulent and prohibited by DOJ “settlements” documents to artificially “reconstruct” my Note as the whole instrument by forged Allonged in favor of ONE party – PennyMac – who DENY being my Creditor – and enforce it as a conventional, non-securitized non-VA guaranteed, non GinnieMae insured.
PennyMac many times personally DENIED that it is my Creditor.
US Trustees Vara and Maggio lied to the Court and to me that PenyMac IS my Creditor.
All my payments are collected by OTHER payees who opened a straw account under name of PennyMac Loan Servicing, LLC – none of whom are parties in my case.
You have an obligation personally to respond to this letter since it raises issues about your practice of law, and it raises issues of potentially negligent, erroneous or fraudulent representations concerning your position at US Trustee who is acting negligent, reckless, careless and enabling wrongful unlawful, illegal and perhaps criminal conduct [racket under RICO and extortion under Hobbs Act] by US Trustee lawyers Vara and Maggio; and verify the status of PennyPac as a purported Creditor – which is denied by PennyMac.
I am sending this directly to the email address you have posted on the website for the California Bar where you are registered as a lawyer, and the original letter is being sent to you at the mailing address you have posted on that site. I did not find any of your legal registration in other States, including Michigan.
Attached is a letter I received that purports to be under your signature. This leads me to question whether you drafted the letter, authorized it, or signed it since the signature is clearly a digital signature. It also leads me to question whether you are allowing non-lawyers to send out correspondence in your name, as though it came from a lawyer. I’m sure that you must be aware that a lawyer may not lend his license to a non-lawyer, as this would be aiding the unlicensed practice of law.
Similarly, if you hold position as DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR FIELD OPERATIONS it is inappropriate for you to use AI without disclosing the name of AI and who programmed it or delegate your duties to investigate and send me this absurd robo-stamped runaround to someone else, who probably not even under your purview.
Moreover, I never gave you or anyone else my written consent to use AI generated correspondence or electronic signatures in our communication. Only hand wet-ink signed. UETA and E-sign Acts mandate personal verification of e-signatues when challenged.
If the letter did come from you, I can understand your desire and intention to provide a cover up and support to your fellow lawyers Vara and Maggio – regardless of their wrongful, illegal and perhaps criminal conduct – if you conducted a real investigation to verify that PennyMac Loan Services LLC is in fact my only the original Creditor who paid value for my alleged “debt” as mandated under UCC 9-203 who maintains an unpaid loan account receivable and who has made such assertion in writing. So far I have only received implied assertions of ownership of my “loan,” which does no include a definition of what you or US Trustees Vara and Maggio mean by “loan.”
I have never seen a copy or report asserting that it is a report of the history of the loan account receivable on the books of any creditor. I have only received “Payment History” that is produced by access to data that does not appear to be managed, input, or administered by PennyMac. I have never received any direct communication from any creditor whom PennyMac asserts representation or agency.
Bear to repeat, US Trustees Vara and Maggio lied to Judge Dales that PennyMac is my ONLY and the ORIGINAL CREDITOR is a securitized VA guaranteed transaction – which simply never happened and cannot happen in the real life under any circumstances no matter how hard US Trustees Vara and Maggio lie to the Court. PennyMac deny being my Creditor – which is also evident that US Trustees Vara and Maggio are liars and fraudsters.
Based upon all prior efforts and correspondence, notices and statutory letters and responses, it appears that in using the word “loan” you mean control (not ownership) of a note and mortgage and that the use of the word “loan” does not include any accounting ledger on the books of any creditor showing ownership of an unpaid loan account receivable.
Thus far, despite my repeated efforts to obtain this confirmation or validation or response, PennyMac and you (if you sent the attached letter) have refused to supply it either because you don’t possess it or because you have no access to such an unpaid account on the accounting ledger of some company, bank or other entity that maintain a current unpaid loan account receivable — i.e., one that could show receipts and disbursements (receipts from homeowner and disbursement to creditors).
I have employed financial experts who are thoroughly familiar with current claims for securitization of debt and they have looked at this case. Their conclusion is that if it ever existed, the loan account receivable was extinguished and that it is impossible for PennyMac or anyone else to produce a copy or report of an unpaid loan account receivable in the accounting ledger of any person or entity.
The attached letter does nothing to satisfy my statutory requests for information concerning the existence and current status of such a loan account receivable. Or any investigation of the merits of my Complaint.
The failure of anyone to produce any document or assertion of an identified loan account receivable now raises the inference, if not the legal presumption, that such an account does not exist.
The fact that you might not know that you are either writing letters or allowing others to write letters under your digital signature wherein the information contained is erroneous or fraudulent does not absolve you from your duty, as a licensed member of the Bar and employee of the Government, of due diligence and inquiry.
The answer to all of this is simple. Either you did send the letter or you did not. Either there is a creditor who currently maintains an unpaid loan account receivable on their account ledger or there is no such creditor.
If such a creditor exists, then validate or confirm that with a direct statement from the creditor that produces the copy or report of the unpaid loan account receivable from origination to the present plus a signed statement from the named creditor that PennyMac is authorized to administer, collect and enforce the account.
This demand is standard protocol in the banking industry and in the Government practices for so-called “consumer protection” duties.
If it were otherwise then any unscrupulous player could assert the right to administer, collect and enforce any debt to the detriment of both the real creditor and the real debtor.
Awaiting your response I am
Sincerely,
Elena Fedorova
Three Individuals Charged in Scheme to Defraud Department of Veterans Affairs of Over $9.1M
05/02/2025 08:00 AM EDT
Three men were charged with participating in a scheme to defraud the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) of over $9.1 million in education benefits, including funds from the Post 9/11 GI Bill education benefit program. One of the men has pleaded guilty for his role in the scheme.
Foreclosures among veteran homes have been a significant issue since 2008, particularly in the aftermath of the financial crisis and due to the end of foreclosure-avoidance programs. Specifically, the end of the VA Servicing Program (VASP), a program designed to help veterans avoid foreclosure, has put tens of thousands of veteran homeowners at risk, with a recent report by NPR indicating that thousands of veterans are facing foreclosure due to a combination of economic hardships… continue reading