More Orders From Judge Shack in New York

“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 http://www.nycourtsystem.com/Applications/JudicialDirectory/Bio.php?ID=7029077 ]”

DETAILS, DETAILS, DETAILS

10 Responses

  1. You must see this!

    Forget about the affidavits now they are using “FAKE LAWYERS”

    Judge Schack catches yet another fraud…

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/12/02/nysc-judge-schack-tears-up-wamus-counsel-for-defective-verification-phony-ny-house-counsel-wamu-v-phillip/

  2. I need a lawyer in New Mexico that gets it. The list on this website doesn’t list one at all. I can’t seem to find one anywhere.

  3. Mers is a trackin system industry owned it’s not a person has no employees no one on the payroll per se holds nothing so can transfer nothing has no interest in tbd security nstrument the chairman was deposed and these points were made yet mets I’d what messed things up
    kriegers book is billiant by the way ylou can order online don’t know him not spoken to hm but his intentions are good
    and today my atty tells me that he has a case where mers is now the owner I choked on my coffee

  4. Our justice system needs a Judge Schack Boot Camp on securitiization and MERS for all Judges.

  5. Is US Recordings, Inc the same type of electronic mortgage recording “shop” as MERS?

  6. American Brokers Conduit was bankrupt by 2007 but American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. “dba” continues servicing the loans. I too have the differen’t addresses of 520 Broadhollow and 538 Broadhollow Mellville N.Y. with Cindy Ellis Vice President of MERS.signing. Deutsche Bank had no troubles getting copies of rate riders and deed from an American Brokers Conduit extension co. here in Calif. Sucks Calif. is non-judical and can’t find lawyers to defend.

  7. what is worse is that the MERS RECORDS ARE NOT PUBLIC, YOU AS THE MORTGAGOR HAVE NO WAY OF LOOKING INTO ANY KIND OF MANIPULATION. PERFECT FOR BANK FRAUD

  8. Very , very interesting thought process…Is”.Matrix” now a reality anyone???? Think about it.

  9. goodmorning people i couldn’t sleep another one of those nights,

    i have a thought?
    all of those mortgages were registered in the name of M.E.R.S
    not merscorp but m.e.r.s which is just a software program
    ok bear with me but what if i recorded a mortgage to a chair? basicly that is the same as a software program once i recorded it i just killed the mortgage how would a chair ever be able to assign or transfer anything it is just an object like a software program it would just sit there and do nothing like a black hole
    it could not collect and anyone that tried to collect would be fraud the software program couldn’t collect any payments or take me to court how could it
    so what I’m trying to say is once the mortgage was recorded in the name of M.E.R.S then all rights for anyone or company to collect or enforce have been extinguished
    i just gave the rights to a mortgage to an non entity that cannot collect with out some form of outsider influence which can not exist the software program isn’t an intelligent person it is just a program.
    so in conclusion think about it
    if i recorded a mortgage to a chair how would a chair collect or how would it be injured if i didn’t pay?
    ok try to go back to sleep just thought i would throw it out there any thoughts people?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: