Deposition of Notorious David L Stern Foreclosure Mill employee by Florida AG

Date: October 7, 2010 9:15:51 AM GMT-07:00
Subject: Holy Smokes – EXPLOSIVE Deposition of Notorious David L Stern Foreclosure Mill employee by Florida AG released to public

Explosive.  An employee of the notorious FL Foreclosure Mill David L. Stern coughs up all the hidden and illegal details in a deposition taken 9-22-2010 by the Florida Attorney General’s office.

September 22, 2010
17                Office of the Attorney General
110 Southeast 6th Street, 10th Floor
18                Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 – – –
3 Deposition taken before Kalandra Smith, Court
4 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
5 Florida at Large, in the above cause.
6 – – –
9 having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined
10 and testified as follows:

1 Q Let’s go to the assignments of mortgage. They
2 were prepared in-house?
3 A Yeah.
4 Q You’re smiling. You want to tell me about
5 them?
6 A Assignments were done sometimes after the
7 final judgement was entered.
8 Q Do you know why that is?
9 A Because that’s what we were directed to do

19 Q Can you tell me the execution of the
20 assignments, how it worked?
21 A Assignments were prepared again from the
22 casesum. All of our stuff comes from the casesum. They
23 would be stamped and signed by a notary or not. Per
24 floor we had a designated spot to place them and Cheryl
25 would come once a day and sign them.
1 Q Sign them as what?
2 A As –
3 Q For the bank?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Or for MERS or whoever it was for?
6 A Correct.
7 Q Would these notaries be there watching her as
8 she signed?
9 A No.
10 Q She would just sit there and sign stacks of
11 them?
12 A Correct. As far as notaries go in the firm I
13 don’t think any notary actually used their own notary
14 stamp. The team used them.
15 Q There were just stamps around?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And you actually saw that?
18 A I was part of that.
19 Q You did it? Are you a notary?
20 A No, I’m not.
21 Q Did you sign as a witness?
22 A I did not. I signed as a witness on one
23 document and after that I decided that I didn’t want to
24 put my name as a witness anymore.
25 Q Tell me about the stamps. You stamped them?
1 A Yeah, I had stamps. Each team had a notary on
2 them or notaries that I was aware of. Whether they were
3 or weren’t wasn’t –
4 Q You had stamps?
5 A Correct. We would stamp them and they would
6 get signed.
7 Q Stamp them in blanks?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Who would sign them?
10 A Other people on the team that could sign the
11 signature of the person or just a check on there or
12 whatever.
13 Q Was that common practice?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Was that standard practice?
16 A Pretty much.
17 Q What about the witnesses?
18 A Those would be signed by juniors who were –
19 Q Standing there?
20 A Here, sign this. It has to go to Cheryl, sign
21 it. Then it would go and sit at the desk where Cheryl
22 would sign everything.
23 Q Out of view of the notary and out of view of
24 the witnesses?
25 A Correct.
1 Q Do you know who implemented this procedure?
2 A Cheryl.
3 Q Cheryl did?
4 A Um-hum.
5 Q Did anybody else sign with the firm for the
6 banks?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Who was that?
9 A There were people that were responsible for
10 signing Cheryl’s name. Cheryl, Tammie Sweat, and Beth
11 Cerni. Those were the only three people that could sign
12 Cheryl’s name. If you ever look at assignments you’ll
13 see that they are not all the same.
14 MS. EDWARDS: What are the names again?
15 Cheryl, Tammie?
16 THE WITNESS: Tammie Sweat and Beth Cerni.
17 MS. EDWARDS: Could you spell that.
20 Q Did they practice Cheryl’s signature?
21 A I would assume so.
22 Q Did you ever see them?
23 A Not practicing but I’ve seen them sign it.
24 Q Did you see somebody sign Cheryl’s name?
25 A Yes.
1 Q That wasn’t Cheryl?
2 A Yes. All the time.
3 Q Did Cheryl know about this?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Was it at her direction?
6 A Yes.

16 Q Did anyone quit as far as you know due to the
17 practices?
18 A I’m sure but they wouldn’t come right out and
19 say I quit because of the practices. I know that people
20 had left because they were uncomfortable with the things
21 that they were being asked to do, as most of us were.
22 When it got really sticky there were a lot of us that
23 weren’t here.
24 Q What does really sticky mean?
25 A They wanted us to start changing the documents
1 and stuff and doing stuff that we weren’t supposed to be
2 doing as far as service.
3 Q What documents did they want you to change?
4 A Manpower documents. A lot of judges started
5 requiring, because of the Jane and John Doe issues,
6 required that you have a military search for all the
7 defendants. If you named a Jane and John Doe as an NKA
8 you had to pull a military search on them. Unless you
9 have somebody’s social security number technically you
10 can’t pull a military search supposedly.
11 The program that we used for the program that
12 we used, you could put in the main defendant’s social
13 security and John or Jane Doe’s name and it would give
14 us a military search saying that they were in the
15 military.
16 Q You would get their social security number
17 because the bank documents contained it?
18 A Correct. The lenders, the referrals had the
19 socials.
20 Q Did you put the social in on everybody to find
21 out their address for service?
22 A Not everybody. I personally did not do it
23 because I refused to do it. I wasn’t going to falsify a
24 military document. I was told that that’s fine,
25 somebody else on your team will do it.
1 Q What do you mean falsify a military document?
2 A Well, I’m using the main defendant’s social
3 security number on somebody else’s name, not his name.
4 John Doe and the main defendant was James, I was taking
5 James’ social security number and putting John Doe’s
6 name in there. I wasn’t but that’s what the practice
7 was. The judges started saying we’re not going to
8 consider service completed until –
9 Q There’s a miliary search?
10 A Correct.
11 Q So why wouldn’t they use the right social
12 security number for the right person?
13 A Because you don’t have a social for an NKA or
14 unknown tenant. They wouldn’t enter a final judgement
15 unless the military doc was there.
16 Q So you just used anybody’s?
17 A Correct.

9 A So what we had to do from that point, again
10 the affidavits were still split in two pages, at that
11 point we were supposed to be sending them back to the
12 banks to be signed now. The problem being that a lot of
13 times we wouldn’t get them back or executed in time for
14 the hearings. So we had what they called signature
15 pages that Tammie Sweat or someone else would have in
16 their possession. If we couldn’t get it back from the
17 bank executed in time we would just take a signature
18 page and put it on the affidavit.
19 Q What was on the signature page?
20 A The signature and notary from the bank.
21 Q Were these documents photocopied or were they
22 original documents?
23 A Some were photocopied.
24 Q How would you get that many from a bank
25 original? The bank supplied them to you.
1 A Well, what would happen would be like if I had
2 file A and that one didn’t go to hearing because there
3 was something wrong with it and file B was going to
4 hearing but it was the same bank, I would take the
5 signature page from A and give it to B.
6 Q Oh give it to another file?
7 A And just re-execute this file.
8 Q Okay. That was common practice?
9 A Yes, after Cheryl couldn’t sign.
10 Q Did Cheryl know?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Cheryl knew about all the practices because
13 she is the one who ran the office?
14 A She was the one who implemented them.
15 Q Were there any other activities or practices
16 over at David Stern’s firm that made you feel
17 uncomfortable or that you were unwilling to do?
18 A I don’t know how to answer that question.
19 It’s a loaded one.
20 Q Take your time.
21 A Yeah. Some of the things that were done there
22 just were not on the up and up.
23 Q Explain to me in as much detail as you can
24 what those things were.
25 A I don’t even know where to start with it.

14 Responses

  1. Jan van Eck,

    Sterns can go to Hell! He will be safer in Hell as there is no extradition treaty for him to worry about. Plus the climate in Hell is perfect for him since he likes it hot.

    My case was cancelled due to Sterns errors and fraud. (Sterns firm has yet to re-file the case) His firm assigned my mortgage from the IMH Assets Mortgage Trust to Deutsche 17 months after the foreclosure was filed.

    April 2008 Sterns files for Foreclosure contrary to negotiations with GMAC to modify Mortgage.

    January, 2009 I received first notice that I was sued, a default judgement was entered. (Sterns never served me with notice). A false affidavit was entered that stated service was attempted but that I moved out of my home and the person answering the door was renting my home. (That is where Sterns screwed up). Had he not filed a fraudulent affidavit stating such lies about me I would have likely rolled over like so many others.

    February, 2009 case was cancelled due to errors under FL Rules regarding service to defendant by Sterns firm.

    October, 2009 After spending 1,000 plus hours searching and researching, I did a reverse search of FL Court filings using my last name and happened upon the fraudulent assignment completed by Sterns.

    October 2010, still waiting on Sterns to make his next move.

  2. WHAT if we agreed to a short sale for a securtized loan to avoid our foreclsure lawsuit, due to the duress of a foreclosure lawsuit in floirda, filed by David Sterns office.

    Sterns office filed an Assignmetn of Mortgage that said XYZ trust owned our loan in June 2005, when the orginating lender has sent me a letter stating the loan was sold/assigned in blanck in July 2005. Also, the assignment says XYZ trust owned the loan in July 2005 and the Pooling and Service agreement for XYZ trust states it went in to effect September 2005, so the loan could not have been owned in July 2005, when the pooling and service agreement had not even been established yet.

    can we sue someone for fraud?

  3. to Barbara Ann Jackson: you probably still own the house. Any proceeding based on fraudulent claims or fraudulent documents is void.

    As to Dave Stern, remember that he just sold his law practice to “investors” who paid him $140 million for it. My guess of its value this afternoon: zero.

    Last I heard, Stern took his fancy yacht to Bimini in the Bahamas to hunker down. But they have an extradition treaty. Considering that each uttering of a false document upon the land records (and presented into court) is an independent felony, and they were dumping 2,000 documents a day for years, it looks like there is serious jail time coming up. Gotta look for a place with no extradition treaty. Venezuela is a bit rough. Brazil, anyone?


    You wrote:

    “if the banks would stop playing games and really do modification none of this would be occurring”

    The banks cannot modify what they don’t possess, that’s the problem. All of this needs to be occurring so that politicians, the MSM, and all of the others who believe that this problem is happening due to the people who bought more house than they could afford….these people will finally see the truth behind the lies.

    It’s 100% fraud, and to spell it any other way, is an attempt to direct attention from the men behind the curtains, pulling the levers of finance and politics, oh, and the largest Ponzi scheme of all time.

  5. keep us informed and continue to give us the tools to keep fighting, need names of lawyer in n.y. who get it

  6. if the banks would stop playing games and really do modification none of this would be occurring, i am sure the majority of homeowners are wiser now and if given the chance they would avoid the pitfalls of falling behind, so continue to fight to stop foreclosures and ask the president and all his men to force banks to cram loans

  7. Foreclosure fraud, among other things causes people to become harmed due to not cooperating with unlawful property confiscation. Foreclosure fraud enables things like repetitive, illegal property flipping; illegitimate homelessness, underhanded evictions; it enables unscrupulous foreclosure mill lawyers (especially when judges abet deceit) to deceptively hold auctions and make insider bids to acquire properties, and causes blighted neighborhoods. (See link for proof)

    I paid my NON-SUBPRIME mortgage for 7 years prior to abusive marriage. When a foreclosure mill lawyer fraudulently foreclosed via a defunct lender’s identity, the courts castigated me for opposing the foreclosure mill lawyer’s red flag use of the defunct lender’s identity, and Bankruptcy “lift stay” motions and “proof of claim” documents under Wells Fargo’s name.

    Years later, the foreclosure lawyer used the non-existent lender’s identity, to carry out a ‘simulated’ auction (in my absence), and an inside bid was made on my home. The foreclosure lawyer had the property deed recorded into the name of the non-existent lender, and 3 months later, the newspaper showed Freddie Mac as paying the non-existent lender over $86,000. At the end of the year, I discovered that Wells Fargo had gotten in on the foreclosure sham by filing a false IRS form 1099-A for my property when I received an IRS tax bill.

    It’s not simply loss of my home that ‘eats my lunch’, it’s such things as horrible, horrible YEARS of judicial abuses, privacy invasions, danger for my safety, blackballed from LAW employment, and other reprisals to which I am yet subjected, due to APPALLING LAND GRAB racketeering (AKA) foreclosure. And, it is similar appalling injustices of which I know have happened to other people, merely because they also lawfully sought their rights to DUE PROCESS OF LAW. I will not cease speaking out / I’m not an Internet troll. I am doing every lawful thing I know, because I simply want MY LIFE BACK. *

  8. Just more smoke and mirrors. Make the illegitimate legitimate enough times and the people will begin to accept it as commonplace. It’s fraud, none the less.

  9. Looks like the AG in Florida took some money and the borrowers still get screwed. Horrible deal and there’s no guarantee because if the bank doesn’t own the loan how are they gonna modify?

  10. News from AG Florida about Wells Fargo and
    Wachovia :

  11. Thank you Jennifer Brunner! Ohio SOS who les this charge.

  12. Thank You Mr President. And thank you Mr Garfield and the rest of the brave Consumer advocates. We are fighting the forces of evil. Very Evil.


  13. The President states he won’t sign HR 3808.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: