What is now beginning to surface are the losses attributed to the massive amount of fraud that mortgage originators created and passed on to Freddie Mac with two specific types of origination fraud know as “Double-Funding”, “Double Selling” or “Double Warehousing” fraud and Assignment Fraud.

“Double-Funding” involves a mortgage originator sending simultaneous funding requests for the same loan to two different warehouse lenders. Both warehouse lenders, unaware of each other, would send funding for the loan to the title companies specified by the mortgage originator. The mortgage originator then disburses the money from one lender to the borrower, while directing the title company to wire the money received from the other lender to mortgage originator’s bank account. The mortgage originators then provide fabricated mortgage documents to the warehouse lenders that falsely represented that the lender’s funds had, in fact, been used to finance borrower loans.

Assignment Fraud involves modifications to the original loan where the name of the bank who actually owns the note is changed on execution of the Loan Modification Agreement. The problem with these “modifications” (actually new loans with new “lenders”) is that the old loans remain unaffected. The existing cloud on title to the property, the mortgage deed (or deed of trust), the note, the obligation, the purported assignments etc. is being compounded by attempts to allow impostors to foreclose on the mortgage, collect on the note, modify the loan, or approve a short sale. The time bomb is title where securitized loans were recorded, foreclosed, modified or sold. The parties (other than the borrower and possibly the Trustee on the Deed of Trust) had actual knowledge that the “lender” was not the Lender, the terms of the obligation were already changed at the time of closing, the appraisal was false, the underwriting was negligent or fraudulent, the Good Faith Estimate was by definition rendered neither in good faith nor even close to an accurate estimate, and the list goes on and on.

In determining whether a particular loan is part of a “double-funding” or “double-selling” scheme, examiners and forensic accountants should look for as evidence that a mortgage originator is engaging in this scheme and participating in a pattern of deception, forgery and fraud. Once demonstrated, these indicators inevitably point to fraudulent affidavits and assignments of mortgages filed in the public records.

As you examine your loan documents you should be looking for the following:

1. Loan originators, servicers and their lawyers forge documents with “squiggle marks” that are not the marks, initials or signatures of the actual officer that is notarized to be the signatory.

2. Signature, initials or “squiggle marks” differ for the same signatory from document to document.

3. Squiggle marks and full signatures that are diametrically opposed to the known signature of the signatory.

4. Pre-stamped assignments and notary signatures on assignments, affidavits and proof of claims.

5. Back-dating of dates on assignments and signatures of officers dating years after either a company is no longer in business or the officers are no longer with the company.

Examples of this can be seen here: Notice that the notary swears under oath that they witnesses the signature on these documents in 2001. However in the State of Texas, notaries are commissioned for 4-years. The notary stamps on these documents expires in 2006 making it impossible for this notary to have witnessed anything in 2001. Again, these are all loans originated by Memorial Park Mortgage, sold to Freddie Mac and then, as demonstrated here, other banks on forged and fraudulent assignments.

6. The forgery of forbearance agreements and modification agreements.

7. Missing assignments or multiple assignments of the same instrument filed in the public records are a direct result of multi-pledging and the use of the same collateral, the mortgage loan, to pool into securities or pledge for other financing and should be viewed as an overt act of fraud when encountered.

As an example: Freddie Mac was finally compelled by a court to admit to purchasing this particular loan even though no assignment to Freddie Mac was ever filed in the public records.

8. The discovery of pre-dated, backdated and fraudulent assignments of mortgages or endorsements either completely filled in or left blank to be filled in before or after the fact to support the future allegations of a foreclosing party. These fraudulent assignments are typically discovered by examiners in the servicers files or MERS files when MERS acts on the servicers behalf. These documents are created for the sole purpose of assisting in concealing known frauds and abuses by originators, prior servicers and are designed specifically to conceal the true chain of ownership of a borrower’s loan.

Here is an example from a loan from Memorial Park Mortgage of Houston, Texas that was first sold to Freddie Mac and then to several other banks by the originator. Notice that the bank to whom the assignment is made is left blank as are the instrument number and several other blanks. More importantly, notice that the assignment has already been signed and notarized. This document was produced in discovery by CitiMortgage even though an assignment to them already existed in the public records.

9. No escrow instructions or settlement statements should trigger the examiner to immediately attempt to locate the assignment of the mortgage. Multiple or missing assignments coupled with an inability to produce escrow and settlement statements demonstrate a deliberate concealment of the ownership of the borrower’s mortgage debt obligation and the actual lender to whom the borrower is indebted.

10. Lack of possession of the original note demonstrating the proper chain of title and legal right to foreclose should be noted as evidence of fraud. Coupled with a missing assignment or multiple assignments is further evidence of the existence of fraud.

A common practice by some banks party to or victims of this kind of fraud is the fraudulent concealment from the court and the borrower that the financial institution does not have possession of the note. Of special note is the use of known false, fraudulent, and forged affidavits and assignments by those institutions unable to demonstrate their possession of the original note.

The effects and implications are more far reaching than a borrower simply having their debt extinguished. Debt extinguishment or dismissal of foreclosure actions could be obtained if it can be shown the entity filing the foreclosure:

1. Does not own the note;

2. Made false representations to the court in pleadings;

3. Did not have the proper authority to foreclose;

4. Does/did not have possession of the note;

5. All indispensable parties (the actual owners) are not before the court or represented in the pending foreclosure action.

This kind of fraud is not difficult to detect once you know the indicators.

27 Responses

  1. What if the originating lenders name was forged? I have an alonge to note with a known forged signature of Peter Belli. I also have a sworn affidavit from this mans attorney stating its a forgery. On top of my mothers name was forged, Peter Belli was a federal witness against Allied home mortgage capital. Big case, US V. Allied Jim Hodge.
    I would think if the lenders name was forged, then its no good.

  2. What if the deed was forged in order to get assignment of mortgage and now the bank who the assignment of mortgage is with is forclosing on property that the deed was forged?

  3. Quick Call Eric Schneiderman and Eric Holder …… HA HA HA HA HA …….


  5. Is their anything I can do if the first page of the good faith Estimate was forged.The 1 page was forged the second page has my husband signature.

  6. forgery by life insurance agent for loan requests

  7. I find the layout of the “double funding” issue very frustrating. When I locate a header that captures my intereste, and I read the body of the article. When I want to view the comments relating to this interesting story written by Gregory Montelaro, dont clutter up his story with crap that doesnt pertain to his article.

  8. What about an assignment made two years after lender on documents is defunct/bankrupt and the servicer assigns mortgage deed of trust to a trustee? NO further attachments of right to assign.

    Note they have (alleged is original signatures/endorsed in blank, no further information)?

    Do I have the right to know who the trustee (true beneficiaries are)

    This loan has been securitized.

  9. i need help in understand how first franklin financial recorded two deed of trust one with 22 pages and the another one with 9 pages. claim that they had both loan but at the last minute they change their mind and we had to get another lender now chase never recorded their assignment but they did report to the credit bureau. now four years later i default on both my loans. chase transfer the loan to radian services now they recorded as if the transfer was done by first franklin and recorded as if the assignment was done in august of 2002 but was not recorded until may of 2006. radian them transfer the loan to pacific national holdings inc their lawyer les a zieve them get first american title insurance substitute trustee to record a trustee sale which it never matter she and the notary was in another state at the time of the sale now please someone explain to me how could this be. i know i would have to file a complaint i just hope that is just showing the judge the proof

  10. I’m not an attorney so I can’t give you any legal advice, but you might want to check with an attorney specifically regarding “fraudulent concealment”. If you didn’t get your TILA until 2007, the statute of limitation for fraud may have been tolled until 2007 giving you 4-years to act from that point.

  11. This post documents the circumstances of our mortgage matter to a TEE, including false and forged documents. I know it’s fraud but how do you get someone to do something about it. Our problem is we obtained our mortgage loan in 2000 and did not receive the TILA disclosure form until 2007, when we demanded copies of all the documents regarding the mortgage, we contacted the servicing company but ,of course, they can not find anything wrong with the paperwork. Can someone advise me on how to get help.

  12. ALL,

    Here is the guide I put together for looking up public records for fraudulent assignments. It is based in Florida but can be used everywhere. Any feedback is welcomed, good and bad. If you think something should be added just let me know. We can keep it a working document adding the forgeries that you all come across.

    If anyone needs help finding information on your “vice president” or “assistant secretary” just let me know and I will see what I can come up with.

    Feel free to pass it on to anyone you think it may help…

    Good luck!


  13. Make sure you read your Deed of Trust carefully. The majority of them are very specific in the powers you granted to the Trustee or Substitute Trustee as it involves the sale of your home at a foreclosure sale. Typically, if the high bidder is any other party besides the holder of the note, the sale must be for cash. If a third party is claiming to have been the high bidder, they, and the Trustee will have a receipt. Further, Trustees are required to account for the disbursement of funds from the sale.

  14. angry&not taking it check your docs (NOD etc..) to see if they bear notary seals and also check to see if the trustee that they used for substitution holds a valid real estate license in your state. if not and they foreclosed, changed ownership and everything then thay are subject to major fraud for unlawfully conveying title, if the property is still in your name but you were evicted you need to file a quiet title action by adverse possession, I’m pretty sure that’s the one you’d need. good luck and god bless

  15. maineloanmodifications your right when it comes to the FDCPA being part of the issue, I mean just look at the bottom of every litton loan statement it say in bold “LITTON LOAN SERVICING IS A DEBT COLLECTOR”. as for the whole double selling and whatnot I have 2 different companies that do not exist in the state of california or anywhere else that I looked both claiming they own my house because they bought it at an auction that never took place and there has been nothing recorded in the county recorders office reflecting any change of ownership I’m still the current owner of record. the first 1 Giant Gate Group Corp only shows up or calls at night to hand deliver documents claiming to own the property and to offer me money to help with my eviction process, they also have claimed to have recorded thier interests at the recorders office but have not and continue to refuse to stop harrassing me and contact me by mail and do things the lawful and proper ways they should be done. the 2nd one is Tillamook Partnership that also doesn’t exsist but they actually went as far as to hire an attorney & file an UD by the name of Steven D. Siverstein he apparently does exsist and has a valid cal bar license even though his signature looks like chickenscratch, if this guy contacts you in any way please follow this link (it’s to a RICO suit filed against him) and try to get in contact with the plaintiff or his attorney.

  16. oh yea

    it appears a certain Marti Noriega who claims to be a MERS vice pres
    on my NOD recorded @ the county recorders office
    is receiving her email @ litton loan & @ cbass
    & a search returned ;
    Formal Meeting Roster,
    California Mortgage Bankers Association
    Western States Loan Servicing Conference
    attendance by Company listing
    Litton Loan Servicing – Marti Noriega – Houston, TX

    very busy traveling between MERS in Flint , Mich. & Houston Texas
    go figure..its not my place to call someone A liar & a it?

  17. zurenarrh,

    My aps and Settlement don’t match either, 2 completely separate applications, neither of which I had ever seen.

    They have to be able to tell you the accurate accounting to foreclose. So that is a peice of evidence, maybe they don’t have the loan.
    I am pretty sure the address change is also a concern, I tried to find it, I do have it somewhere it could be an honest mistake but in this case, it was many documents, it would have to be handed to lender liike that with all the mark ups.

    The loan amounts is a GFE issue, TILA,
    This is a good question as for the amount, you, like I, do not have the accurate accounting.

    Was the Mortgage amount the same as the lender or the Closing,and was it the higher or lower? Not that that neccesarily tells the story either, because it can be lower and look lower, but still not be accurate and there are likely many other inaccurate entys and other issues beyond that.

  18. Here’s a strategy for borrowers in pre-default.

    Send the attorney that is sending you the Right to Cure letter a DEBT VALIDATION LETTER. The attorney is now under compliance of the FDCPA as a collection agent and he must provide PROOF OF THE ORIGINAL DEBT.

    TITLE VIII – DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES [Fair Debt Collection Practices Act]
    § 803. Definitions [15 USC 1692a]
    As used in this title —
    (6) The term “debt collector” means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

    So when a collection agency is assigned, or has purchased, your debt, they are NOT the creditor. They are the debt collector and the actions they take are all governed by the FDCPA.

    If the Attorney under these provisions plays hardball he is opening himself to Damages under the FDCPA.

    What attorney representing a pretender lender will continue to play hardball knowing that the Plaintiff has no standing or possession of the Note and is not a creditor.

    Fannie Mae claims to be the investor, but that only means they HOLD the note endorsed in blank, that DOES NOT MEAN they have the lawful right to enforce it as a secured debt.

    Considering MERS, the mortgage has not been transferred and assigned lawfully, the Note was not negotiated per UCC.

    Attorneys KNOW THIS, so CALL THEM WHAT THEY ARE….a Collection Agent for a Pretender Lender.

  19. neil

    “In determining whether a particular loan is part of a “double-funding” or “double-selling” scheme, examiners and forensic accountants should look for as evidence that a mortgage originator is engaging in this scheme and participating in a pattern of deception, forgery and fraud. Once demonstrated, these indicators inevitably point to fraudulent affidavits and assignments of mortgages filed in the public records.”

    i received a rely to QWR including – accounting for life of the loan.

    i HAVE the accounting evidence ,
    2 different book entries
    1st- p&i broken out to org loan,
    2nd-p&i broken out loan mod [forbearance agreement] its abbreviated [frbnc].

  20. maineloanmodifications,
    I think the “Daly Defense” is the best one there is. When I first thought of challenging the theft of my house, I thought of using it. But most people, judges included and perhaps especially, cannot believe that our money is created out of nothing. It would be a hard row to hoe in court…


    I received a response to my second QWR today–they said it wasn’t a “real” QWR and so didn’t send me everything I asked for. But they did send me something I didn’t have before–a series of pairs of Uniform Residential Loan Applications. One in each pair is filled out and signed by my mortgage broker, and its companion is filled out by an employee of the “Lender.”

    There are notable discrepancies between the applications, which were for a refinance loan. The broker’s version of the application gives the price I originally paid for my house, while the “Lender’s” version of the application inflates that amount.

    So let’s say my broker said on his version of the application that I originally paid $100K (not the actual amount) for my house with a current lien against the house of $90K. The “Lender” then says on his version of the application that I originally paid $105K for my house with a current lien of $88.5K. What I signed at closing was one of the “Lender’s” versions of the application.

    The question is: Is this duplication and falsification of applications standard practice? Is this legal? Because I don’t see how it could be…

  21. I informed the court of points 1 – 4. They ruled for plaintiff anyway.

    What does one do to motivate the court to rule in accordance with the facts and the law? I’m sure stymied.

  22. Why read WSJ when you can come here
    and get the ~livingtruth~.

    I am so greatful for all this education and
    wisdom. I will soon post a question I hope
    I can get help with; from people here who
    are walking the path ahead of the point
    where I am just starting now to tread.

  23. I knew banks were double-selling long ago. Simple deductive reasoning. Banks only foreclose if they want to, and they only want to if they are guaranteed to make money. Taking advantage of the title confusion is just too easy for the unscrupulous mortgage industry.

  24. Once you are able to identify the elements that indicate Double-Selling fraud, you can quickly recognize those loans in the property records that stick out like a sore thumb. Here are a few examples of what you should be looking for.

    This is a loan to Claudia Spofford,, table-funded by FREDDIE MAC through their agent, Memorial Park Mortgage of Houston, Texas who subsequently delivered the loan to FREDDIE MAC. Through a “Double Selling” scheme, Memorial Park Mortgage sold and assigned a second set of forged documents to ABN Amro Mortgage Group. Then, eighteen months later, Memorial Park Mortgage then sold it a third time to Principal Residential Mortgage.

    This is a loan to Steve Nucci,, table funded by FREDDIE MAC through their agent, Memorial Park Mortgage who subsequently delivered the loan to FREDDIE MAC. Through the same “Double Selling” scheme, Memorial Park Mortgage sold and assigned a second set of forged documents to ABN Amro Mortgage Group. Apparent from the record, Memorial Park Mortgage then sold and assigned a third set of forged documents to Principal Residential Mortgage, evidenced by the Release of Lien filed by Principal Residential Mortgage a year later. Oddly, Memorial Park Mortgage then did the impossible and sold and assigned for a fourth time to Principal Residential Mortgage a loan that had been paid off and released to Principal Residential Mortgage three months earlier.

    Finally, this is a loan to James Endler,, table-funded by FREDDIE MAC though their agent, Memorial Park Mortgage who subsequently delivered the loan to FREDDIE MAC. Through the same “Double Selling” scheme, Memorial Park Mortgage sold and assigned a second set of forged documents to ABN Amro Mortgage Group. Apparent from the record, Memorial Park Mortgage then sold and assigned a third set of forged documents to Washington Mutual evidenced by the Release of Lien filed by Washington Mutual two years later. Special attention should be paid to the return address on the Washington Mutual Release. This address is registered to a number of different companies such as Vertex Computer Solutions, The Houston Police Foundation and several telephone repair companies – and oddly, FREDDIE MAC, all under the control of Charlene Floyd. Washington Mutual has no record of this address.

    It should be noted that in 2004 Wells Fargo sued Memorial Park Mortgage alleging a similar fraud involving 54 loans Memorial Park Mortgage sold to Wells Fargo. The suit was dismissed by Wells Fargo following an undisclosed settlement.

    These types of transactions are not that uncommon. What the mortgage originator and Freddie Mac are counting on is that you will never figure out how to track the documents down.

  25. Why are we not quoting from this old Landmark case regarding Consideration and the Federal Reserve creating money through checkbook entry, therefore not of lawful consideration.

    This seems to sum up table funded loans, huh?


    Reprinted in part from The Daily Eagle, Issue of Feb. 7, 1969

    The fate of companies and individuals — and governments is entirely at the mercy of banks. Their power is stupendous, both in creating and granting of loans, but in their arbitrary recall, with or without notice. This Court decision in the United States may well be the beginning of the end of some of their powers.

    A Minnesota Trial Court’s decision holding the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and void; Holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and void; Declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and the Sheriff’s Sale to be void. This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State Banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself, his country, and to the people of the world, for that matter, to study this decision very carefully and to understand it. For upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.

    On May 8, 1964 the writer Mr. Jerome Daly executed a Note and Mortgage to the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota, which is a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Both Banks are private owned and are a part of the Federal Reserve Banking System.

    In the Spring of 1967 Mr. Daly was in arrears $476.00 in the payments on this Note and Mortgage. The Note was secured by a Mortgage on real property in Spring Lake Township in Scott County, Minnesota. The Bank foreclosed by advertisement and bought the property at a Sheriff’s Sale held on June 26, 1967. Mr. Daly made no further payments after June 26, 1967 and did not redeem within the 12 month period of time allotted by law after the Sheriff’s Sale.

    The Bank brought an action to recover the possession to the property in the Justice of the Peace Court at Savage, Minnesota. The first 2 Justices were disqualified by Affidavit of Prejudice. The first by Mr. Daly and the second by the bank. A third one refused to handle the case. It was then sent, pursuant to law, to Martin V. Mahoney, Justice of Peace, Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, who presided at a Jury trial on December 7, 1968. The Jury found the Note and Mortgage to be void for failure of a lawful consideration and refused to give any validity to the Sheriff’s Sale. Verdict was for Mr. Daly with costs in the amount of $75.00.


    The president of the Bank admitted that the Bank created the money and credit upon its books by which it acquired or gave as consideration for the Note; that this was standard banking practice, that the credit first came into existence when they created it; that he knew of no United States Statutes which gave them the right to do this. This is the universal practice of these banks.

    Mr. Morgan appeared at the trial on December 7, 1968 and appeared as a witness to be candid, open, direct, experienced and truthful. He testified to 20 years of experience with the Bank of America in Los Angeles, the Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis and the Plaintiff in this case. He seemed to be familiar with the operations of the Federal Reserve System.

    He freely admitted that his Bank created all of the Money or credit upon its books with which it acquired the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964. The credit first came into existence when the Bank created it upon its books. Further he freely admitted that no United States law gave the bank the authority to do this. There was obviously no lawful consideration for the Note. The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except a little ink.

    NOTE: It has never been doubted that a Note given in a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private corporations, for the purposes of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful.

    No complaint was made by the bank that the bank did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan, the path of duty was made direct and clear for the jury. Their verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, comfortable to the laws in this Court on December 7, 1968.

    The Justice who heard the case handed down the opinion attached and included herein. Its reasoning is sound. It will withstand the test of time. This is the first time the question has been passed upon in the United States. I predict that this decision will go into the history books as one of the great documents of American history. It is a huge cornerstone wrenched from the temple of Imperialism and planted as one of the solid foundation stones of Liberty.


    The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute on the facts for the jury to resolve.

    Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions, incorporated under the laws of the United States, are in the law to be treated as one and the same bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

  26. I have TWO loans (predatory) for my real property in WA State.
    BOTH were simultaneously closed in OREGON, and sealed by a notary licensed in OREGON. The WA contracts listed my county (Clark County, WA) as the location of the signing. The notary crossed out “Clark County” with her pen on MOST of the documents and hand-wrote “Clackamas County” (where we closed, in the brokers office).

    I just now found a document, sent to me by my servicer (probably by mistake) an “Allonge to note” dated the same date of our CLOSING, that we NEVER saw… no signatures, in favor of the original lender, and executed by US, to pay to the order of our servicer the balance of our loan. The servicer did not take possession of our loan for two months after closing, when it was sold. How can this be?

    Are there ANY attorneys who are willing to help us with this? We rescinded the loans and need enforcement representation. Please help, nobody seems to be confident that they are famliar enough with TILA laws to do it. Thanks. Contact me by replying to this posting, I will be notified.

  27. Great stuff, Keep it coming!!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: