Signors in Fabricated Documentation reported

This is an example of the information I am requesting that everyone send in so we can pool information. I am entering the names and parties in key words so you can search for them. My goal with HERS is to have an ever increasing database that will speed the research for forensic analysts and lawyers.

The following six orders by Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, of King, should be of interest:

American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 07206/2007 (11 Sep 2007)
In American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, on September 11, 2007, Judge SCHACK denied an application for a judgemnt of foreclosure and sale of a Kings County property without prejudice due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing.  The plaintiff American Brokers Conduit instituted suit on February 28, 2007, but did not receive an interest in the mortgage which is subject of the suit until a March 5, 2007 assignment (CFRN 2007000169450).  This case is a little bizarre in that American Brokers Conduit seems to have assigned the mortgage to ITSELF at a different address in Melville, New York.  The case does have a good discussion of the case authority requiring a plaintiff to have standing.
American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 07206/2007 (28 Jan 2008)
In American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, on January 28, 2008, Judge SCHACK denied an application for an order of reference due to the plaintiff’s failure to include an affidavit of merit by the party.  Rahter than having an officer of American Brokers Conduit execute the affidavit of merit, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of merit excuted by a Robert HARDMAN, who identified himself as Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS).
Aurora Loan Services, LLC v SATTAR, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 15208/2007 (09 Oct 2007)
In Aurora Loan Services, LLC v SATTAR, Judge SHACK denied an application for an order for service by publication and dismissed the complaint by Aurora Loan Services, LLC, due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing.  The plaintiff pled a promissory note and mortgage iin which the promissory note was in favor of First Magnus Financial Corporation and the mortgage was recorded in favor of MERS.  Judge SCHACK notes that there is no evidence whatsoever within the record that the mortgage was assigned in favor of the plaintiff and notes that no such mortgage assignemnt was either pled or recorded.  Judge SCHACK goes on to note that First Magnus Financial Corporation had gone out of business in AUgust 2007 and filed for bankruptcy on August 21, 2007.  The opinion then contains a thorough discussion of the case authority requiring a plaintiff to have demonstrable standing in order to be eligible to maintian a suit.  In addition to dismissing the suit, Judge SCHACK also cancelled the notice of pendency.  Judge SCHACK also found the original complaint and suit to be frivolous, but declined to impose sanctions upon the law firm filing the suit because it was the first instance that the Court had noted such conduct.
Bank of NY NA v OROSCO, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 32052/2007 (19 Nov 2007)
In Bank of NY NA v OROSCO, Judge SCHACK denied an application for an order of reference due to the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate ownership of the mortgage for the subject property.  The plaintiff pled an assignment from MERS to Bank of New York dated August 21, 2007, but Judge SCHACK noted that this assignment had never been recorded.  But Judge SCHACK went on to note that Bank of New York also pled an affidavit executed by a person who is identified as Keri SELMAN.  Judge SCHACK notes that while in her affidavit in the OROSCO case she identified herself as an Assistant Vice President for Bank of New York, in another case before Judge SCHACK Keri SELMAN had signed an affidavit identifying herself as a Vice President of “Countrywide Home Loans, Attorney in Fact for Bank of New York”.  Judge SCHACK ordered that Ms. Keri SCHACK furnish an affidavit describing her employment history for the previous three years. [In point of fact, this would seem to be Keri or Kerri L. SELMAN (b 26 Aug 1969 – Los Angeles, CA), formerly Keri Lynn ATWOOD, of McKinney, Texas.  She seems likely to be an employee of Countrywide, which has a large servicing facility near where Ms. SELMAN lives.]
Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 22375/2006 (11 May 2007)
In Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, on May 11, 2007, Judge SCHACK denied an application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing.  Judge SCHACK noted that the foreclosure was commenced in July 2006 by Deutsche Bank.  After obtaining an order of reference (November 16, 2006) and after preparing an affirmation of regularity (January 10, 2007) and during the pendency of the action, Deutsche Bank seems to have assigned the mortgage to MTGLQ Investors, L.P. on January 19, 2007 (recorded February 7, 2007). Judge SCHACK therefore denied the plaintiff’s application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale without prejudice expressly inviting the Plaintiff to amend its pleadings to appropriately to correct the identity of the plaintiff. Judge SCHACK cites Gretchen Morgenson’s April 6, 2007, New York Times article “Fair Game; Home Loans: A Nightmare Grows Darker” in his opinion.
Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 22375/2006 (14 Jan 2008)
In Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, on May 11, 2007, Judge SCHACK denied a renewed application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing (see case above).  He noted that the defects identified within his May 11, 2007, order remained unaddressed.  In addition, he noted the presence of a affidavit of merit executed by a Mr. Jeff RIVAS, who was identified as Deutsche Bank’s “Vice President Default Timeline Management”.  He then notes the presence of mortgage assignment within the files executed the same date which identifies Mr. Jeff RIVAS as the “Vice President Default Timeline Management” for Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, the assignor of a the mortgage to Deutsche Bank.  Judge SCHACK points out that if Mr. RIVAS was acting as an officer of both the grantor and the grantee of the assignment that this would create a conflict rendering the conveyance VOID.  Judge SCHACK then directs that Mr. RIVAS’ employment history be clarified in any future application for a foreclosure order.  Judge SCHACK then goes on to note that Deutsche Bank and MTGLQ Investors, L.P. are also shown to share the same address at 1661 Worthington lioad, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, where suspicious transactions executed by one Scott ANDERSON seem to be occuring.  Judge SCHACK then also demands an explanation as to WHY so many corporations seem to be sharing the SAME suite in West Palm Beach.

Judge Arthur M. SCHACK is a Justice of the Supreme Court of New York for King County. [See ]

60 Responses

  1. I am aware of three titles used by Keri Selman; 1.asst. v.p. for Bank Of New York, 2. V.P. for BONY, 3. V.P. for Countrywide Hone Loans Inc.. Is any aware of any other titles used by Ms. Selman in an affadavit supporting an assignment of mortgage or in an assignment of mortgage at anytime, but especially from 2006 – 2008. Also, can anyone cite a single case of foreclosure being denied ala Judge Schack using the mortgage assignment defense or any other defense in Nassau County Supreme Court (a few miles as the crow flies from judge Schack’s courtroom) from 2005 -present?

  2. The loan pool my ex-husbands loan is in (on my home, but that’s a whole other part of the fraud) stopped reporting to the SECOND in 2006. Suddenly there is an assignment recorded in 12-2009 to BNY Mellon. I have tried calling BNY Mellon and they tell me they are the trustee, but that maybe there was a Power of Attorney somewhere that allowed MERS to assign Recontrust as the new Trustee so they can foreclose. Which doesn’t make sense since Recontrust was listed on the original deed as the trustee. How can I tract the history of the note? It appears the loan pool closed or went bankrupt in 2006 since I have found it listed in class action lawsuits dating back to 2008.

  3. If all these people are dual employees of both MERS and the member-company of MERS, to be precise with their recording of hours, why has the IRS not requested to have said employees submit the necessary report of the income received directly from MERS for the hours worked as a MERS-employee?

    I know they actually can not submit such documents since they do not exist but it would put them in the spot of admitting all such documents EVERYWHERE are fraudulent OR that the employees had evaded reporting of income on their tax returns. If they maintain that they worked those hours for no renumeration from MERS, did they actually get paid for those hours instead by their ‘real’ employer? If this is true, their claimed relationship with MERS should be an obvious sham.

    If they then try to claim they signed via a power of attorney, then the signed documents would refute that claim. No such POA was claimed on the Substitution of Trustee in front of me.

    For any of the employees who are actual employees of any bank, there are strict rules that have to be followed with BOARD-level documentation of the hours such dual-employees spend working for the ‘other’ employer. HOW HAVE THOSE BEEN HONORED ALSO?

    Other financial and trust-related businesses would possibly need the same rules instituted, if not already in place. (We don’t need to have state-regulated entities or usage of a company owned by a bank to be used to avoid the same rules.)

    Do we need to put a bug in the ear of the IRS? plus the state and federal banking compliance monitoring agencies?

    This would put an end to MERS as it exists currently. Without the false documents, the value of the system is diminished. If this action is what it takes to end the deception, so be it.

    Can we interest the ‘feds’ in making it easier on these poor judges? Help all the courts by making it universely known that all these documents are invalid?

    The banking rule compliance issues should be a source of a bit of money for the feds. The IRS might not come up with any added tax, but the false documents could lead to civil penalties for all the states to go after. With some of these foreclosure mills having hundreds of employees and a penalty per signing, that could be a hefty fee.

    This is the easier way to cause these practices to change. Lower cost to prosecute and the foreclosure mills would not directly have the deep pockets. They might have to turn to their source of cases to help defending the mess.

    I see that the state of Tennessee has decided to sue MERS for the failure to file the documents, failure to pay the fees, and the clouding of all titles where MERS was used in their state. If even ONE state does declare MERS to be a fraud, it SHOULD shut it down, essentially. To ENSURE that is happens, we need everyone to send a copy of that suit to their own state AG and to the state banking regulators. See “”

  4. To Ian”

    RE: DB “flip” Nope, won’t work. Jusge Schack requires the creditor to produce the Note. the “flip” would appear as an Indorsement on the Note. They are back to square one, required to prove the sale, transer of value (“consideration”), proper ownership, all the problems. And who (that is a legit buyer at arm’s length) is going to spend their cash to buy a DB-held Note in the first place? Nobody sane. So you already know the “buyer” is yet another “pretender lender.”

    Judges that are wise to this are going to put the brakes on these creditor stunts. Unfortunately, this is a very small number of Judges. Most just rubber-stamp the papers. So it is up to YOU, the Debtor, to do your own analysis and show the Court where the flaws are.

  5. Confirming Juan Pardo MERS/Ocwen cross employment. Have a dozen docs confirming this from NH/MA registries of deeds.

    Also, have confirmation of one Carla Tinoco, witnessing and notarizing Pardo’s MERS docs. Ms. Tinoco is also a confirmed Ocwen employee as she has appeared as Doc prep for Ocwen. Ms. Tinoco’s FL Notary registration also confirms business address of Ocwen:

    Commission Detail
    Notary ID:1264522
    Last Name:Tinoco
    First Name:Carla
    Middle Name:
    Birth Date:07/30/75
    Transaction Type:NEW
    Certificate:DD 912557
    Issue Date:07/31/09
    Expire Date:07/30/13
    Bonding Agency:Atlantic Bonding Company
    Mailing Address:1661 Worthington Rd.
    Ste. #100
    WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33409-0000

  6. To Jan van Eck- your answer addresses previously recorded assignments in Deutsche Bank’s name. What I meant to ask, was: if, say next month, DB has another 100 foreclosures in judge schack’s courtroom, we all know that the assignments are recorded just prior to the defaul notice, or after it, as it turns out, could they not just be switching the legalities into the name of another entity? And thereby keep DB away from a judge who knows all and doesn’t miss a thing. Just a thought.

  7. to IAN:

    Your post 3.25 at 5:15:

    Deutsche Bank and the others cannot “flip” the properties to try to get out from underneath Judge Schack’s eagle eyes. the “Flip” would show up in the chain of title if the new front-man tried to foreclose. Judge Schack would “sua sponte” order the parties to appear before him (possibly by a Show Cause Order) to demonstrate that the transaction was arm’s length, for full value, and “commercially reasonable.” And if not….
    Look out! Watch the Hammer come down.

    And they cannot go to some other courtroom, as the property is in his Court. So have a nice day, Deutsche Bank!

  8. to JUDY:

    Further to your questions posed on March 25 at 3:57 pm. I regret that I am not remotely qualified to answer your question(s).

    I would make one comment: the ability of the “MERS-employee-du-jour” to go appoint a “Substitute Trustee” is probably limited, or non-existent. The ability to appoint a Substitute trustee would be governed by provisions in the Trust Agreement; it is not something that the Trustor can just go do willy-nilly. If there is no Authority, then the powers of the Substitute Trustee are void. Nothing can happen without proper authority.

    There may be some issue between powers and acts of the Sub that are “void”, as opposed to “voidable.” I am not competent to offer suggestions on this subtlety. Can someone else chime in and help out here?

  9. Judy

    Brought up cut-off date quite some time ago. Nevertheless, assignments are being done months and even years later. How courts have been “buying” these clearly false (on cut-off date alone) assignments is beyond me. Further, you have to look at “attorney in fact” and “limited power of attorney” carefully – very often also invalid.

  10. Tony —

    You are a warrior … if you have any documents regarding Resecuritization (CDO’s, Credit Default Swaps) for Credit Suisse (CSFB) it would be greatly appreciated.

    Please forward anything of significance to

    Thank You!!!

  11. Regarding a ‘Cutoff date’ for a certificate in trying to trace a note:

    My loan closed in August 2005 and was recorded in September 2005. The CWABS 2005-10 then seems resonable. However, there are various ‘xyz’ labeled certificates that are not possible to ‘figure out’ just based on the date.

  12. Judy,
    Has any ones raised the issue of the “cut-off” date etc. dates. This is how you will best determine the approx. *trust*

  13. Regarding Sharps CDO II LTD:

    I can see that there is a ‘2005-10’ CountryWide entry listed within the ‘Sharps’ but I do not know if this is includes my own note for sure.

    I have information that does identify CWABS 2005-10 as being my ‘investor’. [BoNY-Mellon as the Trustee. Gee BoNY-Mellon would also be the trustee if it is in the Sharps…..]

    Question Number 1:
    How do I trace this more precisely? I’m currently relying on a court filing from Litton to even have this much information about the ‘investor’.

    Question Number 2:
    BofA is also claiming to be the ‘succesor beneficiary’. [Original lender on Note and DOT is Americas Wholesale Lender – a fictitious trade name of CountryWide. Nominal beneficiary is MERS. Can anyone explain how both BofA’s claim and the ‘CWABS’ investor info provided earlier are both correct, simultaneously? Possible layers of Trusts or securitizations? Or is BofA just making a wild bluff since the original attorney for me was not even requesting to see the original note?

  14. Jan van Eck

    To your post to me on March 25 – know DB is up to their necks – and the other “trustees” are also included.

    Think government knows this.

    Will contact you as soon as I am able.

  15. This might answer some question in this Huge lawsuit filed 1/14/2010. Involves EVERYONE!

    Maine State Retirement Savings et al v Countrywide Financial et al

  16. To Jan van eck- thanks for the tutorial on allonges, assignments,etc. You have cleared up alot of what I had problems grasping, as so many snippets of information on this site are disjointed, or partial, or incomplete, and it is hard to put the pieces together.
    Regarding Judge Schack keeping DB from infesting his courtroom, would they not be simply flipping the case to some other entity to push the foreclosures? After all, the courthouse has to be in the same county as the property, no? thanks again, Jan

  17. Judy- I believe Litton is partially owned by by Goldman Sachs, also Richard B. Litton Jr. of Litton was appointed in Jan. 09 as a member of the Federal Reserve Board’s consumer financial advisory board. You may be able to find some link among the entities to help you.

  18. To Jan van Eck,

    Well, I presume that there will not be any other relationship between QLS and the actual Trust. IF there was, Litton, which is the SERVICER, would not have had cause to attempt to use the ‘MERS-employee-du-jour’ (Marti Noreiga) technique to try to name QLS as the Substitute Trustee.

    Litton has indicated the ‘investor’ is CW-ABS or CWABS certificates 2005-10 with BoNY-Mellon as the trustee for the certificate-holders.

    At this point the trustee question is rhetorical, I think, for my case (though understanding the point may help in delving thru the myiad layers of securitization). You indicated that “QLS would have to be acting as the Trustee for someone else’s Trust”.

    Could that be possible if there is already a Trustee for the pooled asset? or would this be a trust for some part of the pooled assets? What would this trust have in it? Would it possibly be ‘holding’ some indication that money was invested in the certificates?

    Also, on a DIFFERENT front, with this action occurring in CA, I took note of a different case where Quality is the ‘Trustee’ bringing forth a foreclosure action (QLS does a LOT of these for Litton). What I’m seeing is that the court cited the following:”The trustee’s role in preparing for and
    conducting the sale is set forth in detail in Civil Code section 2924 et seq. “The trustee in
    nonjudicial foreclosure is not a true trustee with fiduciary duties, but rather a common
    agent for the trustor and beneficiary. (Vournas [v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. (1999)] 73
    Cal.App.4th [668,] 677.) The scope and nature of the trustee’s duties are exclusively
    defined by the deed of trust and the governing statutes”

    Do the CA statutes match with what you had said?

    Note that the fraudulent MERS-signed doc is being brought to the attention of the court. (I pointed this out to my new attorney as I turned my case over to him after I discovered ‘Marti’ on LivingLies. The forensic audit had not been done by the prior attorney.)

    [Thanks Neal!]

    Why does Litton use such a company do be the ‘Trustee’ on almost all their foreclosures in CA?

  19. to JUDY:

    The “Noriega” is male, I recall his name as Manuel Noriega, not the dictator from Panama currently sitting in Jail. this one works for an alter-ego of Deutsche Bank, or at least did some time ago.

    As to your questions of the 24th:
    – The way you verify the signature of Marti Noriega on your document is to find some other document and compare the two.

    – A California “form” can be notarized in Texas, sure. BUT: the person making the signature on the Form has to be physically standing in front of the Notary. So: if the signature belongs to someone working in California, and the Notary is in Texas, then the document is probably (most likely) a fraud. What happens is that these documents are signed off by the hundreds in one office, stuffed into an envelope, sent off to the Notary, and there they are all blithely stamped as Notarized.. These “Slimeball Finance Co.” outfits do it all day long.

    – As far as Notary Melissa Bell’s stamp is concerned, the use of M. Bell on the central registry and full spelling in the stamp does not invalidate the stamp. What you want to do is check the expiry date in the stamp and compare it with the central registry. the registry says the commission expires on March 28, 2011. If the stamp says something different, then somebody has a lot of explaining to do.

    – If I understand the last point, you indicate that “Quality Loan Servicing” is listed as a “substitute trustee.” That is VERY suspicious. Servicing outfits are almost never Trustees. It is possible. QLS would not be a “trust,” as you think; they “might” be a Trustee for someone else’s Trust. They would have to demonstrate the Appointment, which has to be in writing, of course. Should be an interesting document (if you can get your hands on it).

  20. Tony,
    Please send to:
    StopForeclosureFraud at gmail com

    I appreciate it. I looked into Sharp and I found my primary res. there. Thanks!

  21. dinsfla,

    I know alot about the Indymac C-1 Corp I have a ppm on the notes that it produced. If you need it let me know I’ll email it to you.

    I suggest you look into the Sharp CDO II and check to see if your trust is in there. If not I have a whole lot of private information that is not given to the public one the Indymac C-1 Corp.

  22. Here you go, but they made a pg for the information itself.

  23. To Jan van Eck,

    You referenced ‘one Noriega’ on a post today. May I presume that to be the ‘Marti Noreiga’ who has already been ‘outed’ for her signatures as a MERS employee when her own Facebook and Linkedln pages declare she is a Litton or CBASS employee (CBASS being the corporation that owns Litton)?

    Do we have any KNOWN valid signatures of Marti’s that can be used to validate that she did sign these documents? I know the MERS-employee documents with her signature are fraudulent. In my case Litton is the very company who is now in charge of servicing of my mortgage. Is Litton a target for legal action for the fraudulently signed docs bearing their employee’s name?

  24. Tony —
    Can not find SHARPS CDO II LTD. & SHARPS CDO II CORP. prospectus anywhere. Please provide link and/or directions to view.
    Thank you.

  25. If we could only get a Powerful Law Firm to invest $$ because this will be an expensive fight. Like Jan van Eck mentioned this is where it needs to be fought and fought hard!

    I live not far from Armonk, White Plains, Bedford, Greenwich CT., etc…but if these cities could speak…I would love to hear it! Esp. Greenwhich since many Investment & Advisors are based here.

    Funny to think Mr. Geithner lives about 5 minutes from me….but hasn’t been able to sell his home in Larchmont, NY.


  26. To Alina:

    I have seen them used in PA, but not everywhere, they normally just use an ink-pad stamper.

    Although, my small local community bank, uses both, the ink-pad stamper, and the embosser. Food for thought, they never got involved in any of this mortage mess, and have had strick standards for years. Quakertown National Bank, or QNB.

  27. to Alina:

    Uniformly used in Connecticut. typically used in New England.

  28. Jan van Eck,

    As a notary who has been around for over 20 years, I can tell you that the use of the embossing stamp went out long ago. There is no longer any requirement in any state I have worked in (GA, FL, TX) to use one – as a matter of fact, I do not believe you can even purchase one these days. I could be wrong and there may be some states where this is still a practice, but I am not aware of any state.

  29. note to readers here:

    The “equity” referred to in the post to Bert Thompson has nothing to do with your “equity” or lack of it in your house. “Equitable claims” is a legal concept as to the type or style of claim or controversy before the Court. You can be completely underwater or “upside-down” in your loan and have a “claim in equity” before the Court. Same word; different concept.

  30. to Bert Thompson:

    Unless that “VP” in Virginia habitually gets on an airplane and flies out to Texas for the specific purpose of having your Assignment of Mortgage notarized, which I rather doubt, then you are staring document fraud in the face.

    Under the principles espoused in Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240, a party in equity (and all property matters are matters of equity) that in first instance perpetrates a fraud on the Court (which is what a land-record document fraud is), ” shall have the Court House doors shut against him in limine, and his claim shall not be heard.” “And his cause shall not be advanced, for to do so would make the Court an Abetter of iniquity.”

    Bye-bye finance co’s case.

    Post your details here if you like, and we can collectively take a look at it. Or just go to any good consumer-law firm in your area and have them sue for Quiet Title on the basis of lender fraud, and your Mortgage gets struck. b e sure to ask for money damages, especially from the parties to the fraud.

  31. BSE,

    This 240 pg document is a Resecuritization (CDO’s, Credit Default Swaps) of hundreds of trust. Deutsche Bank National Trust and many other trustees say that they are the trustees of these formers trust, when this perspectus says others wise.

    This would explain why there are law suits being file of people of the former trust saying they are missing payments, because they were pledge to pay someone else and the former trust are empty with no money.

    This prospectus was issued out in the Ireland stock exchange on June 28, 2007. The prospectus outlines who the certificates were really given to in the former trust(s) and who they pledge the trust to and who has priority claim over who.

    So in a nut shell the new trust is called Sharps CDO II LTD, if you look on pg 201 of this you will see all the pledge trust(s) that was given to issue out the new trust Sharps CDO II LTD.

    So not only did they Resecuritized the former trust to make this new one. Deutsche Bank National Trust is just collecting Servicing fees of the former trust(s) and has given up the role of trustee to Bank of New York.

    When Deutsche Bank filed suit against the FDIC they were trying to get a claim and they were denied. They settled with One West, but I wondered why wouldnt you just take the trust funds since you are the trustee and take your fees as the PSA states?

    Of course they couldnt because they didnt have any rights to the trust (plus the trust was empty) and could only get there fees if One West passed the funds to them. Since One West just brought servicing rights from the FDIC they are just making a killing just being a service fee collection agency.

    So I suggest that everyone read this document ( I know its long) and check and see if your trust in this. If it is you will have alot of weight against Deutsche Bank if they are coming in saying they have a stamp note to them, when in fact they should not because that wasnt the last stop.

    One last funny thing on 17th and 20th of July 2009 there was a letter sent over the Irish Stock Exchange saying that the Class A note holders were not paid and claiming the Trust in now in default. Under the new prosectus if the trust is in default then they take the underlying trust and sell its papers at a auction until all the senior note holders are paid.

    I dont know if they took it to auction or not but if it did then, that would mean some hedge fund brought it at penny’s on the dollar and are just reaping in the rewards.

  32. to Leo II:

    The specific requirements for a Notary to Notarize a document varies from State to State. A “seal” by an embossing press, typically a small hand-held device, is typically used and placed over the notary’s signature to avoid altering the signature. It is not always an iron-clad requirement. Most notaries use them, more for their own protection than yours. Such “seals” typically do not show up on photocopies. You have to inspect the Original Document.

    A Notary that habitually does not use a Seal is either sloppy, or is winking at document fraud. However, the absence of seal by itself is NOT evidence of criminal intent.

    If your Notary was not a commissioned Notary on the date the Assignment of Mortgage was prepared, and her stamp appears on the document, and the document itself purports to, by its appearance, to have been manufactured in 2006, then the persons involved have perpetrated a document fraud. However, it is also theoretically possible that the Document was typed up in 2006 and sat, unsigned, in someone’s drawer until 2009. the manufacturers of the document are going to have their hands full trying to explain that one away. Why not prepare a fresh Assignment?

    Stay after Laura Buxton. Follow that paper trail, and whatever else you can dig up on her. Looks like she is the capstone in that arch. If you can find a number of other documents that show the same pattern, then file a Grievance with the Statewide Grievance Committeeasking for disbarment inquiry. the Committee “should” take allegations of perpetrating document fraud very seriously. That will force even more disclosures out of the woodwork.

    Be sure to file suit against Buxton’s employer. Ask for big-money damages.

  33. That Indenture should read: “…SERIES 2001-5.”

    Anybody in conflict flowing from that Indenture, contact me for class-action lawsuits. nail these bums.

  34. to “Anonymous:”

    Deutsche Bank is in very deep. I am sitting on a copy of an Indenture, a Real Estate Asset Trust, titled as the IMPAC CMB REAL ESTATE ASSET TRUST SERIES 2005-1, CLASS A. that is about as Alphabet-soup as it gets. The key pages were fabricated inside the DB offices by DB personnel on their word-processor PC on or about 16 March 2003. The document was supposed to be of August 2001. The IMPAC “trust” was supposed to be located in California. The “notary” that “witnessed” the signatures turns out to be a DB employee; notary “Nicholas Charles Gisler” received his first Notary commission on 26 march 2003, yet he affirmed by signature and stamp that a certain “Noriega” signed the Indenture before him on August 30, 2001. The stamp did not even exist in 2001. Notary commissions are good for only four years in California; the expiry stamp on the Commission stated: commission expires 25 March 2007.

    DB is in this up to their necks. I have them cold on document fraud. You want to nail these guys? Just keep following the trails; they are not even skillful in covering up.

  35. Jan van Eck

    Really great post to Ian. Disagree on one thing – do not think that the “alphabet-soup entity” is owned “by the likes of Deutsche Bank “

  36. Tony,
    I got an interesting email to my blog BUT when I replied POOF they disappeared! I have been researching this for a bit now.

    I need information on the following tip:

    “Deutsche Bank National Trust passed the certificate to the administator of the main trust Maples Finance Limited, You want to check out Indymac c1-1 Corp they are incorporated in Cayman Islands.”

    This is where most of the Corporations are formed.

    Maples Finance, which provides clients with a multi-jurisdictional legal and specialized management service from offices in Jersey, the British Virgin Islands and Dublin as well as the Cayman Islands. Maples Finance also provides management and administration services for Cayman Islands’ investment funds and Cayman Islands’ structured finance vehicles.

    Maples Finance provides directives to structured finance vehicles which undertake a wide range of transactions including, loans and loan programmes, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), cashflow CDOs, securitizations and structured investment vehicles.

    All of which have been issued to and are held by Maples Finance Limited, a licensed trust company incorporated in the Cayman Islands (in such capacity, the ” Trustee Share“), under the terms of a declaration of trust in favor of charitable purposes. The Issuer will not have any material assets other than the Collateral Securities and certain other eligible assets. The Collateral Securities and such other eligible assets will be pledged to the Trustee as security for the Issuer’s obligations under the Notes and the Indenture.

    This is where we need to find the info.


  37. Tony

    Can you explain details regarding your post..The link points to a PDF that is over 240 pages…


  38. To Jan van Eck:

    The Notary was a Notary on December 21, 2009. She was not a Notary on June 28, 2006, the date Laura Buxton claims to have prepared the Assignment of Mortgage.

    Is the Notary required to emboss a seal on the document as part of the Notarization process? (There doesn’t appear to be a seal on the Assignment of Mortgage.)

    Also, due to the different dates, 3-1/2 years apart, is it possible that the Notary either knowingly or unknowingly committed fraud when she notarized the signatures on the Assignment of Mortgage?

    Additionally, I ran into another attorney friend tonight who has successfully defended the only two foreclosure cases brought to him. After explaining what we’ve been discussing here, he suggested that I file criminal charges against these folks, indicating that he knows of one such prosecution with an almost identical set of facts. I expect to speak with him at length over the weekend and will post anything of relevance as soon thereafter as possible.

  39. BTW, I ask about verifying that the ‘Substitute Trustee’ is indeed a TRUST since I saw a post that made a point that any named ‘TRUSTEE’ must really be a TRUST.

    Quality Loan Servicing was nominated by Litton Loan Service’s employee (via MERS) as the Substitute Trustee in place of ReconTrust.

    I may have a case where BofA was in too many of the ‘roles’. The servicing was transferred on the very day the modified payments were to start per a signed and notarized mortgage modification agreement. The transfer was an attempt to justify the ‘mod’ not ‘happening’. RESPA does not agree with that. They ignored me. They never contacted me about any reason the mod was not occurring. I had been assured it was ‘my mod’. The BofA employees have stated that ‘all AG Mods’ were canceled. Well, they think that is the word. Actually the correct term is ‘BREACHED’.

    So now I have some funny-looking documents being filed and what appears to be a bogus attempt to foreclose. Who knows who really has the note. Litton has filed documents saying that the ‘investor’ is CWABS with BoNY-MELLON as the trustee. Strangely BofA claims to be the beneficiary in more-recently filed documents in my court case. If BofA is ACTING for the investor, what the hell is Litton doing? The beneficiary LITTON should be ‘working for’ would seem to be the CWABS trustee. Certainly, I question whether BofA would have bought the mortgage back from the pooling (CWABS) once it was in litigation without advising the court at least. I do not understand how I can have BofA make the claim that they ARE the ‘successor beneficiary’ when CWABS was otherwise identified as the ‘investor’.

    Also, how would they deal with the original ‘Lender’ being a fictitious business name and the only beneficiary named is MERS as ‘nominal beneficiary’? Will I have more fictitious assignments to be looking for?


  40. How do we verify that the signatures purported to be those of the notorious fraudulent ”MERS’ employee, Marti Noreiga, is actually her signature? My docs with her signature do match others I’ve found but I have yet to verify that those are her valid signature. [Yep, Marti we know you REALLY work at LITTON/CBASS.]

    Also, can a California form be notarized legally in Texas?

    Can the Texas notary’s seal vary from the listing on the state registry? I found ‘M. Bell’ listed with the ‘commission expiration date of March28, 2011’ which shows on the stamp but the NAME on the stamp is ‘Melissa Bell’, not the ‘M Bell’ on the registry. Is the stamp a forgery?

    The document was dated 7/28/2009 but notarized on 8/4/2009. I wonder if they were also elsewhere on that date.

    The TX registry shows M. Bell as living at 12323 W. Village Dr. Apt A, Houston TX 77039

    How do I verify that the substitute ‘TRUSTEE’ really is a TRUST? Quality Loan Servicing would not be the first name I’d pick for the name of an actual TRUST company.

    Thanks for any help!

  41. To Jan van Ec:

    More great points!

    I’m having a joint meeting tomorrow with four attorneys from two firms-one of whom has 50 foreclosure defense cases at this time-to lay out the facts, discuss our options, merge our forces and plan our attack against these (and other) parasites.

    Stay tuned. I’ve been efforting for months to make this meeting occur, all the while, chafing at the bit to sink my teeth into any and all of the foreclosing sociopaths.

  42. to IAN:

    Remember that when you started up your home loan, you signed TWO documents. One was the “Note,” or a promissory note, which stated how much you borrowed and what the interest rate would be and for how many years.

    The second document you signed was the “mortgage,” or in some parts of the country, the Deed of Trust (I will call them both “mortgages” just to keep it simple). The Mortgage is nothing more than a security instrument, that provides “collateral” for the Note. With a Mortgage, you place your property “in hock” to “secure the Note.” [With a Deed of Trust, it is a bit more complex: in effect you place your property into the hands of a Trustee and in theory you pay the Trustee the Note payments, and he keeps track of it, and when you are through paying then he hands you back your Deed with a Release, or “satisfaction” – except in practice the Trustee does little of this and the money end is handled by a “servicer”, who is typically a slimeball.)

    The general, old-line principle is that “the Mortgage follows the Note.” Thus, in old-line cases, once the Note transfers, the Note “Holder” can enforce even if the Mortgage is not yet signed over to him by “assignment,” but it does have to get assigned prior to the final stage of Foreclosure where the Judgment is entered.

    Now what has been happening is that outfits like Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse and a whole slew of alphabet-soup outfits like “GRP Loan” and “DLJ Mortgage Capital” have been bouncing these Notes around among themselves. They do this even after the Note has been paid off by a “credit default swap,” so your “stale” or defaulted Note is paid, just not paid by you. Yet the Notes themselves never end up stamped Paid, because the person who paid them never possessed the Note – the people running the sham corporations set up in the Cayman Islands or Delaware or wherever are still sitting on the Note. So they sell the Note, already paid but never stamped off, to some alphabet-soup entity which in turn is likely owned by the likes of Deutsche Bank and they then look your State Court Judge straight in the eye and say: “Hey, Judge, he didn’t pay the Note, so give us the property.” And the State Court Judge just goes ahead and Orders it, because he is clueless. Alternatively, the Trustee holding your Deed of Trust just goes and sells off your property without even bothering to go to Court, and kicks you out on the street.

    Now when these alphabet-soup people and their “Trusts” sell the Notes back and forth, they are required to “stamp” the Note and sign it over to the next “owner” [note I said Owner, not Holder}. Except in most cases they never do, or do so improperly. To make it easy, these clowns have been using blank sheets of paper called “Allonges.” There are strict rules to using allonges, but nobody pays attention to them, and most Judges have no clue what the Rules are. So the allonge just sits in the file instead of being “firmly affixed” to the Note. Or it is stapled on the back, then later removed, and maybe re-stapled, which is not “firmly affixed” and so becomes Invalid.

    The allonge is supposed to function as a parallel Indorsement, which is the stamp of transfer with the signature of the Officer of the vendor on it. But those transfer stamps are all phony because they are not in sequence, they do not bear the signature of an Officer, and other imperfections. So you can attack the Indentures and the Allonges as making the possession of the Note invalid to the person sitting on it. That is to say, the person sitting on the Note may be the “owner” or the “person in possession,” but DOES NOT have the power to enforce the Note. So the Note becomes unenforceable as to the mortgage, the security instrument.

    A Mortgage is not transferred by an allonge (or at least is not supposed to). These are done by way of a separate document termed an “assignment of mortgage,” which is then “recorded” by filing the document at the County Clerks’ Office (or Town Clerk office), paying a transfer tax if any, paying filing fees, and getting them stamped in. The recordation is an ancient requirement, and is there for purposes of public policy, as the public has a strong interest in being able to establish the ownership and encumbrances on all property in the community.

    But since these transfers cost money, the bankers invented MERS to sidestep the payment of the fees (a fraudulent act, to be sure) or otherwise simply ignored intermediate transfers and never bothered with the chain of assignments, so you have a “break in the chain of title.”

    The latest twist is for the clowns to simply Indorse the Note “in blank” or “to bearer,” making your Note “bearer paper.” Except, of course, a Mortgage cannot be recorded “in blank” so it cannot be enforced against the property. At least, that is the theory, but you still have to convince the Judge.

    And therein lies your problem: you have to convince the Judge. And that is everyone’s problem. Very few judges have a clue, mostly because nobody is screwing with their mortgages. The clowns wouldn’t dare.

    To your specific question: an “assignment of mortgage” will not show the amounts due and owing, or the payments made. The assignment, and the mortgage itself, only show a security interest in the property to secure the Note. All the rest is part of the Note. In the old days, your payments were actually individually recorded onto the actual Note; nobody does that anymore. they probably should, but they don’t. At best you might get a computer printout, and the person handing the printout to you (or the Judge) has no clue as to who made it (e.g. put the figures in), how to read it, when it was printed, or where, or much of anything else. Nonetheless, it is typical experience that Judges just accept that stuff as if it were the Gospel truth. [And, once again, that is another big problem.]

    the Note you signed is typically two or three pages long and starts off at the top in bold letters: “Promissory Note”, and the first line reads something like: “I, Ian, Promise to pay the sum of $250,000 to Slimeball Finance Co. in 360 equal payments of $1150 each, etc etc.”… “And, to secure this promissory Note, I grant an Security Interest in my property at 123 Main Street, by means of a Mortgage …”

    And there you go.

  43. To Jan van Eck- your posts are enlightening. The matter I am still having problems with, put bluntly, is: How do I tell the difference between an assignment of mortgage, wherein the amounts due and owing are stated, the transferor and transferee are listed, and the property description is included, vs the actual note with indorsements, or, allonges. I am confused, please clarify this for me. Thanks!

  44. to Leo II:

    Your “Laura Buxton” as attorney never was “under duress.” By definition an attorney cannot be under duress in the performance of duties including documents to be recorded on public land records. An attorney is an “Officer of the Court.” By definition no Officer of the Court can ever be “under duress.” An “Officer of the Court” has a sword duty to uphold the Law, the bar, and all matters of Public Policy. Fabricating land record documents is not quite part of those duties and obligations.

    Go find out if and when “Laura Buxton” was an attorney in your State. then file a bar Complaint for manufacturing fraudulent public records. It is disbarrable.

    Of course, you do have to convince the Statewide Grievance Committee……. Maybe yes, maybe no.

  45. To: Jan van Eck and Deontos:

    Thank you both.

    Jan, great points!

    Also, as I further scrutinized the “Assignment of Mortgage”, I realized how unlikely/impossible it would have been for Laura Buxton to have prepared the document on June 28, 2006 and know on that date that on December 21, 2009, Scott Anderson would be a VP (of what?), Juan Pardo would be an Assistant Secretary (of what?) and that they would appear together before a Notary on to assign the Mortgage to HSBC Bank.

    Laura Buxton, if you’re reading this, consider these options:

    1. Possibly face criminal prosecution for possibly/allegedly conspiring to commit Fraud, actual Fraud, attempted theft by deception, Racketeering and more, or,

    2. Contact an attorney with experience in representing clients who spill their guts about their employer’s possible/alleged illegal conduct, also known as a Whistle Blower’s lawsuit, for which a cWhistle Blower employee can be awarded a LARGE SUM OF NON-TAXABLE CASH and attorney fees for having to have worked under duress and fear of losing their job if they refused to perform tasks the knew or should have known might be ILLEGAL!

    Again, thanks to Jan van Eck and Deonts! And Neil, of course!!

  46. to Leo II:

    All your documents that you describe are frauds, of course. When you file your suit or cross-claims, you can use the phrase “the documents, the Indorsements and the purported detached allonges that are back-dated all are tainted by the fragrance of fraud.”

    I always found that “fragrance” part a nice turn of phrase.

    On to the specifics: if your phony “assignment” of Scott Anderson is dated by notary as Dec 21, 2009, then that is the date is (allegedly) was made. “There is no basis for claiming an “effective date” of three and a half years earlier except to lay a foundation for fraud. ” that is what you claim, and then you let them try to prove otherwise (which they cannot, since that is exactly what they are up to).

    Scott Anderson never “worked” for MERS. MERS is a fantasy that sits up in Flint, Michigan, with 17 employees. It then has ten thousand “vice presidents” none of whom have ever showed their faces in Flint, and probably do not even know where Flint is. You man Anderson is probably a lower-level employee inside Delta, probably not even an “officer” of Delta. MERS was set up to allow individual participants, who pay a fee (these being bank-type entities) to “borrow” the status of VP from MERS. MERS is nothing more than a sham.

    Juan A. Pardo is “Assistant Secretary” of WHAT? Is the claim that he is Asst Sec of MERS? Rubbish.

    For Carla the Notary, check with the State Notaries Commission, part of the Secretary of State, for the dates of her notary commission. You can buy a certified copy of the Commission Dates from the Sec of State for about $10. You need a cert copy as it is self-authenticating in Court. If she was not certified as a notary on the date on the document, Dec 2009, then you have a fraud. If she was certified in 2009 but not in 2006, then how does Dela propose to have the effective date on a date where the notary was not authorized?

    There is no such thing as an “effective date” of an allonge. the date is the date it was created. the allonge has to be “firmly affixed” to the Document. An Allonge is used with a Note, not an assignment of mortgage. There has to be no blank space left on the Note before an allonge can be used, and that includes the back page of the last page of the Note. The proper way to affix an allonge is with glue to the bottom of the previous page, or with a brass rivet. Multiple staple holes tells you that the allonge was taken apart and re-fastened, defeating the term “firmly affixed” (not very firm if you take it apart!).

    the allonge has to recite the original loan number on it, the original Obligor, the property address, and a ton of other stuff. See other postings on Allonges, also there are good recitations on the Web generally. I suspect your allonge was manufactured separate from the Note, not even in the same State, and that cannot be; an allonge has to be created when affixed to the Note, and all countersigned so as to avoid later claims that the allonge was invalid or not properly made, and certainly to avoid any claim of intervening allonges that were removed!

    Everything you are looking at is a complete fraud. I can smell it from here. But…you have to convince the Judge. Keep digging.

  47. Anyone who had a Deed of Trust with:
    Wells Fargo,
    American Home, Residential Funding Company, Washington Mutual Bank,
    and many others you might want to check this link out.

  48. Come one, come all, need to foreclose? Don’t have the note, mortgage or even title? Monroe County Pennsylvania Sheriff, Tax Assessor and Prothonotary will gladly fabricate a deed. No need for a note – we will allow you to foreclose without standing – more money for us, who also have relatives in the real estate broker business. No assignment – who cares? As long as you don’t try to take our “locals” homes, you are welcome to any “transplant” home you want. What the heck, we overcharged them and overtaxed them anyway and they are catching on fast – we need new suckers!

  49. Leo II,

    Look at what has been posted here by “Jan van Eck”, myself and others. Go to and READ UP ALLONGES there also.

    Then get your microscope and examine the document. Look for the numerous clues to FRAUD in factum related to that one document. IT COULD MAKE YOUR CASE.

  50. i have a assignment signed by MERS assistant secutary who works in va and noterized in texas. this is fraud sombody needs to go to jail.we need a good jugde like shack and some good attorneys here in
    california. somebody please help

  51. I’m just about in tears thank god that there a few of us that believe there are few good men in our justice system it’s all we have left for the future of our children and their children. judge shack show em the way home

  52. Would anyone care to comment about this?:

    This ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE is made and entered into JUNE 28, 2006, from MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., as nominee for DELTA FUNDING CORPORATION, whose address is 3300 SW 34 Avenue, Suite 101, Ocala, FL 34474, its successors and assigns, (“Assignor”) to HSBC BANK USA, N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE……………

    This “Assignment” was Notarized on DECEMBER 21, 2009. The person “signing” on behalf of MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., ACTING SOLELY AS NOMINEE FOR DELTA FUNDING CORPORATION was Scott Anderson, Vice President. His “signature” is a couple of scribble marks that appear to be SA.

    This ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE document was “Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of/or Attested by Juan A. Pardo, Assistant Secretary.” Juan’s “signature” appears to be a fish hook looking “J.”

    The Notary stamp names Carla Tinoco. Her “signature” is a connected “CS.” There are no seals on the document.

    This ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE document was prepared by Laura Buxton, Ocwen Loan Servicing. There is an Attorney Code beneath where her name is typed and beneath that are the handwritten initials, in parentheses, of JRS.

    There’s an ALLONGE payable to the same HSBC, “signed” by Juan A. Pardo with the same fish hook “J”, His title at Ocwen on this document is “Manager of Account Management.” Juan’s signature on the ALLONGE is dated December 21, 2009. (Juan has two different job titles on December 21, 2009.) The following appears beneath his signature on the ALLONGE: “The effective date of the allonge is JUNE 28, 2006.”

    Looking forward to your comments!!

  53. MERS fradulent signatures on MERS Assignement by MERS “Assistant Secretary”-

    * MERS Assistant Secretray- John Kennerty
    * Document produce in Signature Mill town of: Fort Mill, South Carolina
    *Research shows John Kennerty signed Notices of Trustee documents in other states before and after our assignemnt date as:
    1) MERS Assistant Secretary
    2) VP of Communication for American Servicing Company
    3) VP of Sales, Wells Fargo

    WOW this guy gets around???any help on this one???

  54. Judge Schack should sponsor night classes and teach the Judges in Suffolk County Supreme Courts and have Judge Arlen Spinner as his back-up.

  55. Oh for a Judge Schack in every Jurisdiction.


    1) Loan closed for $580,000 Sept. 12 2004 by SB Finanacial Services.

    2) Loan sold on same day Sept 12, 2004 to MS for $593,000

    The documents show the loan was preapproved by MS and sold on same day of loan to MS, but the HUD/TILA show the SB Finacial Services and the docs show the date and time of the $593,000 wire from

  57. All readers here may note that Judge Arthur M. Schack sits in Brooklyn, NY (Brooklyn is “Kings County”). Deutsche Bank has taken such a shellacking for its fraudulent signatures and affidavits and lack of standing in Judge Schack’s Court that DB now flatly forbids any of its loan servicers or attorneys to file any foreclosure suit there, as long as Judge Schack remains on the Bench. He will be there a long time; they have a long wait.

    Judge Schack is unique in that he will challenges these pretender-lenders even when the Obligor (the homeowner) has failed to file an Appearance, has failed to Answer the suit, and has failed to show up in Court. He holds the pretender-lenders’ feet to the fire, on the Court’s own inherent broad authority. This is known is Court-speak as “sua sponte” (“spontaneous by the self”).

    Judge Schack does not let these bums get away with anything.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: