FINAL Comment . . . Until I have MEANINGFUL case update to report

Point 1: Who EVER said CRIMINAL charges were contained in original Connecticut class action? CIVIL RICO (Racketeering) charges were included, but only governmental authorities can bring criminal charges in a court of law. What I shared with the whole wide world in posts was that information reflecting criminal misconduct, sent to me by at-the-time workers within Ocwen's Orlando facility, had been turned over to the FBI (with the hope, obviously, that criminal charges would result). As most informed folk know, the FBI typically does not make public statements about the existence or non-existence of criminal investigations, so that is where that lies. The class action complaint, avaliable via the CBS website, NEVER once mentioned criminal charges (those who have eyes to see, let them see).Point 2: INFORMED folk know that once the MDL consolidates supposedly similar cases in one court for pretrial proceedings (meaning, for motion practice including motions to dismiss, discovery including depositions, and summary judgment hearings) the federal court to whom the matters are transferred typically will NOT render redundant the MDL consolidation order. The transferee court (in my first-hand experience as a lawyer who has litigated in a number of federal class actions arounf the USA, as well as based on my prolific research into other class actions nationwide) will not sever and remand ANY complaint which has class allegations back to its original forum, in advance of the completion of pretrial proceedings (which is why the cases almost always settle or get dismissed collectively once the MDL transfer occurs).The transferee court MAY remand upon motion, cases which demonstrate that they are so DISSIMILAR that it would be unjust to lump them in with the MDL pack. For example, the Hanson complaint was against Ocwen and Moss Codilis and was grounded on about 18 claims, largely federal, such as Fair Debt Collection, Fair Credit Reporting, RICO, Fraud, Intentional and Neglicgent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Breach of Contract, Unfair Trade Practices, etc. Many of the other transferred cases also named either Ocwen and/or Moss Codilis, and invoked FDCPA or breach of contract.IF somebody sued Ocwen in STATE court asserting on an INDIVIDUALIZED BASIS that Ocwen had illegally forclosed their home, or that Ocwen had violated a bankruptcy injunction, and Ocwen petitioned the MDL to transfer the case and the MDl did, then the Chicago Court might entertain a remand motion, because that claim is dissimilar to the claism in the consolidated cases.It was precisely due to KNOWING in advance the risks of MDL consolidation, that my fight to oppose consolidation reached almost legendary proportions. We spoke against it in Jacksonville; our opposition to certain structures continued into Chicago. Judge Norgle ruled, and (as lawyers are expected to do) we said 'thank you' and accepted the non-appealable, interlocutroy, orders.So, PLEASE, for those who do not have the FACTS or are not fully informed on substantive and procedural law: refrain if you will from sacarstic discourses or the throwing of darts without knowing the facts. SHOW ME ONE CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AGAINST OCWEN BASED ON FRAUDULENT LOAN SERVICING (as opposed to 'my home and mine alone was foreclosed,' etc.) WHICH HAS BEEN REMANDED SINCE BEING TRANSFERRED TO CHICAGO, AND I WILL ... you pick what you will have me do once you prove that. Seriously! Someone show me a successfully remanded federal-law-based class action case against Ocwen, and I shall sell you a real, live unicorn with wings! Posting a confusing docket sheet which does not identify what the 'Associated Cases' are about, and then insinuating that somehow a 'gentleman's' (sacarstic words) silence is suspicious is a deep disservice both to the anxious victims and to the 'gentleman' who had previously taken you into his closest confidence and shared with you information imparted directly to only a handful of other folk. It reminds me of one Shakespearan drama, where an unnamed Roman Emperor says in shock to an unnamed Roman Senator: 'Et tu, Brutus?'I will not engage in any further, futile, point-counter-point debates here. I have a right to my silence and I have never told anyone that I will individually save their house by marching into the sunset on a donkey tilting at windmills. I am NOT in this litigation to win brownie points, esle I would be constantly posting all over the Net to keep my name in the minds of readers.I will not be baited into responding again unless I have breaking news to report to the victims who are starining for answers and to whom I have stated in private emails that they each have their own obligation to check with the Court in Chicago for updates, as I am one person, with time constraints, who is NOT being paid and who will likely not recoup the sums invested to date. My goal remains intact: to focus on Ocwen and not be distracted by non-facts. I have a life to live. Thank you.