JP Morgan: 8 people, 18,000 signed affidavits per month

The bottom line is that none of these signors of affidavits have ANY personal knowledge regarding any document, event, or transaction relating to any of the loans they are “processing.” It’s all a lie.

In a 35 hour workweek, 18,000 affidavits per month computes as 74.23 affidavits per JPM signor per hour and 1.23 per minute. Try that. See if you can review a file, verify the accounting, execute the affidavit and get it notarized in one minute. It isn’t possible. It can only be done with a system that incorporates automation, fabrication and forgery.

Editor’s Note: Besides the entertaining writing, there is a message here. And then a hidden message. The deponent is quoted as saying she has personal knowledge of what her fellow workers have as personal knowledge. That means the witness is NOT competent in ANY court of law to give testimony that is allowed to be received as evidence. Here is the kicker: None of these loans were originated by JPM. Most of them were the subject of complex transactions. The bottom line is that none of these signors of affidavits have ANY personal knowledge regarding any document, event, or transaction relating to any of the loans they are “processing.” It’s all a lie.

In these transactions, even though the investors were the owners of the loan, the servicing and other rights were rights were transferred acquired from WAMU et al and then redistributed to still other entities. This was an exercise in obfuscation. By doing this, JPM was able to control the distribution of profits from third party payments on loan pools like insurance contracts, credit defaults swaps and other credit enhancements.

Having that control enabled JPM to avoid allocating such payments to the investors who put up the bad money and thus keep the good money for itself. You see, the Countrywide settlement with the FTC focuses on the pennies while billions of dollars are flying over head.

The simple refusal to allocate third party payments achieves the following:

  • Denial of any hope of repayment to the investors
  • Denial of any proper accounting for all receipts and disbursements that are allocable to each loan account
  • 97% success rate in sustaining Claims of default that are fatally defective being both wrong and undocumented.
  • 97% success rate on Claims for balances that don’t exist
  • 97% success rate in getting a home in which JPM has no investment


JPM: Cantrel deposiition reveals 18,000 affidavits signed per month

HEY, CHASE! YEAH, YOU… JPMORGAN CHASE! One of Your Customers Asked Me to Give You a Message…

Hi JPMorgan Chase People!

Thanks for taking a moment to read this… I promise to be brief, which is so unlike me… ask anyone.

My friend, Max Gardner, the famous bankruptcy attorney from North Carolina, sent me the excerpt from the deposition of one Beth Ann Cottrell, shown below.  Don’t you just love the way he keeps up on stuff… always thinking of people like me who live to expose people like you?  Apparently, she’s your team’s Operations Manager at Chase Home Finance, and she’s, obviously, quite a gal.

Just to make it interesting… and fun… I’m going to do my best to really paint a picture of the situation, so the reader can feel like he or she is there… in the picture at the time of the actual deposition of Ms. Cottrell… like it’s a John Grisham novel…


SFX: Sound of creaking door opening, not to slowly… There’s a ceiling fan turning slowly…

It’s Monday morning, May 17th in this year of our Lord, two thousand and ten, and as we enter the courtroom, the plaintiff’s attorney, representing a Florida homeowner, is asking Beth Ann a few questions…  We’re in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida.

Deposition of Beth Ann Cottrell – Operations Manager of Chase Home Finance LLC

Q.  So if you did not review any books or records or electronic records before signing this affidavit of payments default, how is it that you had personal knowledge of all of the matters stated in this sworn document?

A.  Well, it is pretty simple, I have personal knowledge that my staff has personal knowledge of what is in the affidavit on personal knowledge.  That is how our process works.

Q.  So, when signing an affidavit, you stated you have personal knowledge of the matters contained therein of Chase’s business records yet you never looked at the data bases or anything else that would contain those records; is that correct?

A.  That is correct.  I rely on my staff to do that part.

Q.  And can you tell me in a given week how many of these affidavits you might sing?

A.  Amongst all the management on my team we sign about 18,000 a month.

Q.  And how many folks are on what you call the management?

A.  Let’s see, eight.


Isn’t that just irresistibly cute?  The way she sees absolutely nothing wrong with the way she’s answering the questions?  It’s really quite marvelous.  Truth be told, although I hadn’t realized it prior to reading Beth Ann’s deposition transcript, I had never actually seen obtuse before.

In fact, if Beth’s response that follows with in a movie… well, this is the kind of stuff that wins Oscars for screenwriting.  I may never forget it.  She actually said:

“Well, it is pretty simple, I have personal knowledge that my staff has personal knowledge of what is in the affidavit on personal knowledge.  That is how our process works.”

No you didn’t.

Isn’t she just fabulous?  Does she live in a situation comedy on ABC or something?


Well, I know a homeowner who lives in Scottsdale, Arizona… lovely couple… wouldn’t want to embarrass them by using their real names, so I’ll just refer to them as the Campbell’s.

So, just the other evening Mr. Campbell calls me to say hello, and to tell me that he and his wife decided to strategically default on their mortgage.  Have you heard about this… this strategic default thing that’s become so hip this past year?

It’s when a homeowner who could probably pay the mortgage payment, decides that watching any further incompetence on the part of the government and the banks, along with more home equity, is just more than he or she can bear.  They called you guys at Chase about a hundred times to talk to you about modifying their loan, but you know how you guys are, so nothing went anywhere.

Then one day someone sent Mr. Campbell a link to an article on my blog, and I happened to be going on about the topic of strategic default.  So… funny story… they had been thinking about strategically defaulting anyway and wouldn’t you know it… after reading my column, they decided to go ahead and commence defaulting strategically.

So, after about 30 years as a homeowner, and making plenty of money to handle the mortgage payment, he and his wife stop making their mortgage payment… they toast the decision with champagne.

You see, they owe $865,000 on their home, which was just appraised at $310,000, and interestingly enough, also from reading my column, they came to understand the fact that they hadn’t done anything to cause this situation, nothing at all.  It was the banks that caused this mess, and now they were expecting homeowners like he and his wife, to pick up the tab.  So, they finally said… no, no thank you.

Luckily, she’s not on the loan, so she already went out and bought their new place, right across the street from the old one, as it turns out, and they figure they’ve got at least a year to move, since they plan to do everything possible to delay you guys from foreclosing.  They’re my heroes…

Okay, so here’s the message I promised I’d pass on to as many JPMorgan Chase people as possible… so, Mr. Campbell calls me one evening, and tells me he’s sorry to bother… knows I’m busy… I tell him it’s no problem and ask how he’s been holding up…

He says just fine, and he sounds truly happy… strategic defaulters are always happy, in fact they’re the only happy people that ever call me… everyone else is about to pop cyanide pills, or pop a cap in Jamie Dimon’s ass… one or the other… okay, sorry… I’m getting to my message…

He tells me, “Martin, we just wanted to tell you that we stopped making our payments, and couldn’t be happier.  Like a giant burden has been lifted.”

I said, “Glad to hear it, you sound great!”

And he said, “I just wanted to call you because Chase called me this evening, and I wanted to know if you could pass a message along to them on your blog.”

I said, “Sure thing, what would you like me to tell them?”

He said, “Well, like I was saying, we stopped making our payments as of April…”

“Right…” I said.

“So, Chase called me this evening after dinner.”

“Yes…” I replied.

He went on… “The woman said: Mr. Campbell, we haven’t received your last payment.  So, I said… OH YES YOU HAVE!”

Hey, JPMorgan Chase People… LMAO.  Keep up the great work over there.

22 Responses

  1. angelo

    “True sale” is a very complicated topic that has really not been addressed in US Courts. One court case that came close to addressing it – was settled. However, it is clear from the new FASB rules 166 and 167, that most trusts organized as “Qualifying Special Purpose Entities” (IRS criteria) did not meet regulations for a “true sale.” – as these QSPEs must now be brought back onto balance sheet. This is why these QSPEs are now disqualified.

    One of the most fundamental rules for a “true sale” is that the sponsor/seller did not not retain control over the SPV/QSPE. Clearly in your case, Countrywide as the Sponsor/Seller, Depositor, and servicer – retained control.

    A change of loan number often signals that the loan was sold – but you need discovery to verify. Production of a note with a loan number that no longer exists is certainly questionable. Change of loan number is often done with a repurchase or sale of the whole loan. Also, check your credit report.

    Yes it is likely that company that paid out on CDS owns rights to your loan. This is why government bailed out AIG – AIG could not pay the CDS – and government paid for AIG and set up fund for ownership in AIG’s place..

    Chain of title is essential in some states. Others states just do not care and go by “holder of the note” – even if the holder is Joe Blow from down the street with no rights whatsoever. These states are, of course, more difficult. But, if you claim bankruptcy in these states – the creditor must be identified – Joe must do more than just hold the note – he must prove right – and complete chain should be established.

    In your case, since your assignment was in in December 2009, violation of the TILA Amendment is clear (1641 (g) – I believe. Being retroactive is not even a question – they were obligated to divulge the creditor to you. And, security investors, servicers, trusts, and trustees are NOT the creditor according to the Federal Reserve Interim Opinion (which is now law). So start with demanding your creditor. You have 2 year statute of limitations for new TILA Amendment violation. Cannot dilly dally.

    If the wrong creditor is attempting to foreclose – you have an action. Not only is this fraud – but it also deprived you of the right to negotiate with your true creditor – which, by the way, is the purpose of the TILA Amendment.

    Good luck.


  2. Angry
    Thanks for the info. – It was very helpful.

    Can you explain to me “true sale”

    I know my loan was serviced by countrywide and then was tranfered to Litton years ago. When it was transfered the loan # did change. Do you think Litton is the subservicer or master servicer now because of the dilution of countrywide?

    Also, How can I go about proving that the trust wasnt a valid SPV, any ideas?

    Did countrywide need an assignment of the mortgage and endorsement of note from household to them for the purchase into the trust, I would think so, Right?
    So if that wasnt done, the chain of title is screwed up.

    Litton offered my a terrible Mod, and i turned it down, I think that they might try and do better because if they take this to court, they might lose everything.

    Also, I checked fannie/freddy and it says that they dont own the loan. Is it possible for the Co. that paid out a CDS now owns my mortgage?

    One of the problems I have is that I dont think TILA violations are enough to dismiss a foreclosure complaint.

  3. angelo

    You have to decide for yourself whether or not you want to pursue. It is a difficult process and you have to me angry enough to stay with it. I am sure Neil can provide an expert witness if you choose to pursue.

    Countrwide purchased mortgages originated by others see – “Countrywide Home Loans is engaged primarily in the mortgage banking business, and as such, originates,
    purchases, sells and services mortgage loans.” Thus, Countrywide likely purchased loans from Household Bank FSB. – and/or purchased servicing rights.

    Also did your loan number change? Could indicate a repurchase – meaning never made it into Trust. This is not definitive – but a possibility.

    Your assignment in 2009 is a violation of the TILA (we have discussed before). Amendment since they have not identified the creditor and they were obligated to do so. Creditor must be the party who accounts for your loan on balance sheet – a trustee does not do this.

    BNY cannot be a trustee to a trust that was never a valid SPV trust. It appears, that since Countrywide continued to “control” the Trust, the sale to Trust was not a “true sale.”
    Also, your trust was old, Countrywide is gone (sold to BOA), and credit ratings on the Trust were below standards for MBS pass-throughs. All the Trusts have been torn apart with remnants now being consolidated on owners balance sheet due to FASB new rules. But yours was likely dissolved quite some time ago since it was never a true sale, it was below standards, and Countrywide is gone.

    Very good post on this site about MERS. Could be wrong on this – but I tend to think that many mortgages that were MERS were purchased by Fannie/Freddie. If that is the case, then Fannie/Freddie is the creditor. Have you checked to see if it was a Fannie/Freddie loan?

    Litton loan is a subservicer of problem loans from various mortgage servicers and private investors. Your loan could be anywhere if Litton is servicer – including with a distressed debt buyer.

    My own feeling is that title is so messed up that many really do not even own their homes. You either have to fight it or give up because without a fight you will never have clear title.

    angry & NOT TAKING IT – provides a good source for discovery requests. You have to make sure your claims are valid or you may not even get to discovery. You already have a claims for TILA violation. Best to find an knowledgeable attorney – know this is often expensive but bankruptcy attorneys are much less. Bankruptcy attorneys – if good – will force identity of creditor. And, will then expose if any false claims, or assignments, have been made.

    Mortgages and servicing fraud are rampant – there are many avenues, as we learn from this site, to pursue.


  4. Hello,The theme of your blog is very good to me, I hope more interflow with you this Topic.

  5. I wish our default had been like this… with laughter and knowledge. Ours was made because we could not affor the payments with 2/3 commission cuts due to the economic mess and the uncertainty caused by election year. KUDOS to Mr. Campbelll (or Mr. George etc.)
    Hopefully they will have two homes soon.

  6. angelo
    read thru Brian Davies discovery requests here.. for ref as what to ask for.
    btw … i didn’t mean to be a jerk in the other post!

  7. angelo
    it will not matter what you ask litton load [ they’er total fuk sticks] for in discovery. you will get nothing of any importance or relevance to what you seek in a suit against them, so you may as well ask for proof of jimmy hoffa , 9/11 & roswell will have the same results.

    its all a stone wall tactic , Litton load will just accept the sanctions if they even have sanctions enforced . BOOOOOOOOO!

    the post @ this link is the best explanation of this “game” i have read yet .

    Foreclosure Fraud- Crisis in Our Courts…From a Consumer’s Perspective
    June 5th, 2010 · 3 Comments · Foreclosure
    More in more in this debate and discussion of the fundamental unfairness and outright fraud and deceit that has become the foreclosure courtroom, non-lawyers “get it” and say it best.

  8. Also, litton loan is now the servicer. when I start doing discovery what are some of the major documents that I should be asking for, that can collaborate this info.

  9. Anon

    My original lender was Household bank FSB, so how does all of this jive. And here is the best, they just assigned only the mortgage in dec 2009 to BNY Mellon from mers. There wasno assignments from Household to countrywide or mers, etc.
    Do you think I should fight this? and what angle would you take to show that there is some major fraud going on?
    Furthermore, do you think this trust still exsists?

    Can you explain how BNY cannot be the trustee in this case.

    Also do you know of any expert witnesses who might be able explain this to a judge, that i can hire?

  10. angelo

    This mortgage fraud mess is bigger than any of us could ever imagine. And, when I first started out looking at what was going on (6 years ago) – I never imagined it would effect so many people. Was I wrong on that.

    Your trust is a perfect example of a transaction that was not a “true sale.” A “true sale” SPV must be organized as bankruptcy remote – from the originator or sponsor/seller. Countrywide did everything – they sold loans to themselves- and continued control as the servicer. This “continued” control negates a “true sale”. Bank of NY is not only not the creditor – it cannot be the trustee to a trust that was never even a valid bankruptcy-remote SPV.. .

    Countrywide was never an investment banking capable of marketing triple A securities for MBS. This is the subject of Countrywide’s demise and legal actions against them – including Attorney General action that resulted in a settlement mandating modifications.

    Since Countrywide sale of loans to it’s own SPV were not a true sale – they, technically remained on Countrywide’s balance sheets (although they likely reported otherwise). This means the successor to Countrywide – Bank of America Corporation – acquired all Countrywide’s assets, liabilities, and legal responsibilities. BOA is the successor in interest. They own the loans – or can account for where the loan may currently be (on whose balance sheet) if the loan has been sold.

    There are only 4 tranche holders (certificates) to this trust. That is there were only four investors (this does not mean security investors – who are not creditor and may only hold securities derived from the the SPV original trust. See attached “Method of Distribution” for only “investors” (tranche/certificate holders) to the trust.

    I am attaching excerpts from prospectus that should help you. Read carefully (Method of Distribution is not properly aligned – check out yourself for proper alignment). Clearly, Countrywide originated loans, sold loans to itself as subsidiary depositor, retained servicing rights as a subsidiary, and sold the largest proportion of the certificates to the Trust to itself – also a “security” underwriter subsidiary. These loans were never properly rated – as these were subprime – not qualifying as collateral for triple A MBS. Countrywide was bad news – and why did BOA buy them??? Many theories.



    (To Prospectus dated July 17, 2002)



    Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
    Master Servicer

    Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2002-BC3
    Distributions are payable on the 25th day of each month,
    beginning in September 2002


    CWABS, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and a limited purpose finance subsidiary of Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

    See “The Depositor” in the prospectus.


    Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

    See “Servicing of the Mortgage Loans – Countrywide Home Loans” in this
    prospectus supplement.

    Master Servicer

    Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP.

    See “Servicing of the Mortgage Loans – The Master Servicer” in this prospectus

    The following classes of certificates are being offered pursuant to this prospectus supplement and the accompanying prospectus:

    Principal Pass-Through Price to Underwriting Principal Proceeds to
    Balance(1) Rate(2) Public Discount Proceeds % Depositor

    A $ 421,250,000 Variable 100.00000% 0.20833% 99.79167% $ 420,372,409.88
    A-R (3) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)
    M-1 $ 28,750,000 Variable 100.00000% 0.26042% 99.73958% $ 28,675,129.25
    M-2 $ 27,500,000 Variable 100.00000% 0.41667% 99.58333% $ 27,385,415.75
    B-1 $ 22,500,000 Variable 100.00000% 0.81333% 99.18667% $ 22,317,000.75

    Countrywide Securities Corporation (Lead Manager)
    JPMorgan (Co-Manager)
    Lehman Brothers (Co-Manager)
    Blaylock & Partners, L.P. (Co-Manager)


    CWABS, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and a limited purpose finance subsidiary of Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

    See “The Depositor” in the prospectus.


    Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

    See “Servicing of the Mortgage Loans – Countrywide Home Loans” in this
    prospectus supplement.

    Master Servicer

    Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP.

    See “Servicing of the Mortgage Loans – The Master Servicer” in this prospectus


    The Bank of New York, a New York banking corporation.

    See “Description of the Certificates — The Trustee” in this prospectus


    BNY Western Trust Company, a California corporation and a subsidiary of the


    Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Underwriting Agreement among the Depositor, Countrywide Securities Corporation (an affiliate
    of the Depositor, the Seller and the Master Servicer), J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Lehman Brothers Inc. and Blaylock & Partners, L.P. (collectively, the “Underwriters”), the Depositor has agreed to sell the Offered Certificates
    (other than the Class A-R Certificates) (the “Underwritten Certificates”) to the Underwriters, and the Underwriters have severally agreed to purchase from the
    Depositor the initial Certificate Principal Balance of each Class of the Underwritten Certificates from the Depositor set forth below.


    Securities J.P. Morgan Lehman Blaylock &
    Class Corporation Securities Inc. Brothers Inc. Partners, L.P.
    —– ———– ————— ————- ————–

    A…………………………. $315,937,500 $42,125,000 $42,125,000 $21,062,500
    M-1……………………….. 21,562,500 2,875,000 2,875,000 1,437,500
    M-2……………………….. 20,625,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 1,375,000
    B-1……………………….. 16,875,000 2,250,000 2,250,000 1,125,000
    ———— ———– ———– ———–
    Total……………….. $375,000,000 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $25,000,000

    The Depositor has been advised by the Underwriters that the Underwriters intend to make a market in the Underwritten Certificates but no Underwriter has any obligation to do so. There can be no assurance that a
    secondary market for the Underwritten Certificates (or any particular Class thereof) will develop or, if it does develop, that it will continue or that such market will provide sufficient liquidity to Certificateholders.

  11. Anon

    I have to tell you, im a pretty intelligent man (2 mathematics degrees), but when i read your posts about the spv, underwriter, etc. I feel very inadequite…LOL

    Maybe you can help me out and give me your take on what might have happened to my loan. From my summons and complaint the Plaintiff is Bank of New york mellon for certificate holders CWABS 2002-BC3.
    In the PSA it says that the:

    CWABS was the depositor

    Countrywide home loans was the seller

    Countrywide home loans servicing was the master servicer

    Can you give kind of a flow chart, so to speak, of how this might have gone down. I know this is for entertainment purposes only.

    Who might have been the security underwriters?,like you save bought the certificates. From the 424b5 prospectus supplement it names countrywide securities(manager) jp morgan(co-manager) lehman bros(co-manager) and blaylock brother(co-manager), not really sure who they are.

    Like always thanks for your time and commitment to the cause.

  12. It’s all federal racketeering and they don’t care what they do. They got a litigation slush fund from the FDIC of 1.4 Billion to run over the consumers who put their heads up.

    Put them on notice that we all know. Here is my notice to Sheila Bair asking for her personal attention to my consumer protection issue. I mean she helped create this mess by helping JP Morgan obtain WAMU.

    It’s time to step up our game and make our voices heard.

  13. angelo

    The TILA Amendment does not yet appear to be utilized in courts – only know of one case – and the judge let the claim stand.

    I have always said that there is a distinction between “security investor” and “investor.” The TILA Amendment clearly states that security investors are not the creditor.

    Certificate holders to SPV is different – they “may” possibly be deemed “investors”. In the process of securitization, all the certificates to the trust are sold to the security underwriter (except a few residual tranches that are not intended for securitization pass-through securities). And, of course – it is only the security investors parent who actually accounts for the purchased certificates since security underwriter subsidiaries do not file independent financial statements.

    It is typical to have about 20 tranches (or classes) of certificates in an SPV – including the non-sold residual tranches. The security underwriters keep certain “certificate” tranches for themselves (or all of them if they choose )and sell the other tranches, if they can, to financial institutions. Then, CDOs are formed from multiple “certificate” tranches and multiple SPVs and CDO “synthetic” securities are sold to “security investors.” And, then “squared CDOs” are formed from the synthetic CDOs and sold to other “security investors”.

    The original SPV certificates and derived “synthetic securities” are intended only for pass-through of current cash receivable payments – and, therefore, only beneficial interests – and holders cannot be considered the creditor under the TILA.

    But, assume also as devils advocate, that the “certificate holders” “investors” are the creditor. This, means at most – you would have 20 (the number of tranches) multiple investors in your loan. These tranches are not equal, the lower tranches have a much smaller proportion of the “share” of the “pool.”. The TILA Amendment states that the party with the largest proportional “investment” must disclose itself as the creditor. Thus, the certificate (tranche holder(s) with the largest share on it’s books (which must now be brought on balance sheet) is your creditor.

    Further, as more and more SPVs and CDOs are being consolidated onto balance sheets (and subsequently being written-off), there are fewer and fewer of the original “twenty or so” tranche certificate holder “investors”. The tranche holders are the only relevant party as to an “investor.” As tranche holders drop off – the party holding the largest portion of the remaining bag is likely the security underwriter that purchased ALL the SPV certificates from the onset Thus, your creditor is parent corporation of the security underwriter that securitzed the loans into it’s off-balance sheet SPV. That is, unless the parent corporation has written off the tranche “investment” itself – and sold to distressed debt buyers – who will never disclose themselves to you.

  14. Anon

    I agree with you totally, The 2009 TILA amendment should have taken care of that, but obviously it didnt.
    My question is, just playing devils advocate, If numerous entities did buy into these pooled loans(SPV), how can they list all the certificate holders.

    And even if they did, how can they all agree to modify a single loan from the pool(trust)?

  15. Angelo

    Ok – but I know of same problems even when a party is still paying. We have a right to know who is owed the money. Cannot just be “somebody.”

    Foreclosure Fraud – deposition is very enlightening. Particularly find interesting the part about servicer – holding the note and owning the note – and whether money is owed to any other party for which Chase is “servicing” for (p 42-44). That is the big secret.

    Also find interesting parts about vice president/assistant secretary for multiple entities – and the POA. Always an important document to look at is the POA. – and to cross reference how POA is derived from the PSA/Prospectus.

    Thank you for posting.

  16. Anon

    I hear ya, but the problem is judges dont want people who dont pay their mortgage to get a house free and clear. They are saying to themselves, I pay my mortgage, so they are not going to walking away free and clear. Its human nature.
    Even though the pretender lenders, foreclosure mills, etc. are circumventing the rule, I feel that the judges still think that we owe somebody and will kick everything w/o prejudice and let them refile correctly.
    Thats where the true battle lies. IMHO!

  17. Here is the full deposition we published over two weeks ago if interested…

    Full Deposition of Beth Cottrell Chase Home Finance – Robo-Signer Extraordinaire

    It is fascinating to read in its entirety…

    Thanks for sharing!

  18. Look – question is – how are the courts allowing bogus representation and docs to go through??

    We do not want to hear about settlements. We want decisions in which the judge acknowledges what is really going on. This is the only way the nightmare will stop. Individual settlements will not help the massive fraud. We need back-up, via decisions, to stop the massive fraud. Need to group together.

  19. We are in a very similar situation. Just swap out JPM for Deutsche bank and we haven’t defaulted, yet.

    Our mortgage isn’t a mers but was assigned 4 years after the closing date by crystal moore and there is only 1 assignment recorded. I think that there ought to be at least 3.

    Thinking of defaulting, I’m not on the mortgage only my wife is.

    Rather than risk the deficiency judgement as I live in a non-judicial state, we were thinking about suing for our title outright.

    I’m note sure if the is feasable though. Where would I start?

    I’m fairly confident that there are numerous deficiencies surrounding our mortgage.

    The note and mortgage has most likely been split.
    There are obvious assignments missing.
    The one assignment that is recorded was recorded over 4 years after we closed, which prolly doesn’t qualify as “duly”.
    The assignment is fraudulant as crystal moore and brian bly don’t have intimate knowledge of my account.
    There was no power of attorney attached to the assignment, yet the assignment states she is signing as power of attorney for citi residential.

    I don’t think that the bad assignments can ever be remedied because the assignment from argent mortgage to ameriquest is missing as is the assignment from ameriquest to argent securities.

    The single assignment recorded is from argent mortgage right to deutsche bank, skipping over 2 links.

    What do yal think? Can I make this case in a court of law? Where do I begin?


  20. LMAO!!!!

    Great stuff.

    Can definitely use it

  21. Strike all of her affidavits.

    Prepare an affidavit of your own as summary evidence (anti-summary really).

    Get ready for trial.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: