Two “Original” Wet Ink Notes Submitted in the Same Case by the Florida Default Law Group and JPMorgan Chase

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION SEARCH, REPORT, ANALYSIS ON LUMINAQ

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is exactly what the BAP appellate judges said when I listened in on an appeal — that they had several occasions in which on the same docket, two completely unrelated parties both claimed to be the holder of the original note and both claimed to have the right to foreclose. The appearance of apparent “wet ink” signatures clearly means that the pretenders have graduated to more sophisticated forgeries of documents using the miracles of modern technology.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Foreclosure Fraud of the Week – Two “Original” Wet Ink Notes Submitted in the Same Case by the Florida Default Law Group and JPMorgan Chase

Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on April 27, 2010 · 41 Comments

Here is a new little game I am going to play. Each week I will be taking ten random foreclosure cases out of the Palm Beach County court house and picking out the one that has the most fraudulent document in the file.

Be it a Pleading, a BOGUS Assignment, a Fabricated Note, a Forgery, or an Assistant Attorney General that works for both the AG Office and a Foreclosure Mill at the same time…

Two “Original” Fabricated Notes?

In my last Foreclosure Fraud of the Week we talked about Poor Photo Shop skills.

This week we will expand on that topic.

Hold onto your hats. This one could possibly be a game changer.

Below are TWO “Original” Wet Ink Notes submitted in the same OPEN case by the notorious Florida Default Law Group.

One submitted by Ms. Ashleigh Politano Esq and the other by Tamara M. Walters Esq.

I am very grateful for this find since it corroborates some theories I have had.

I personally believe, that in most cases, the “Original” notes are purely high quality COPIES. The reason I say this is because almost EVERY “Original” note I examine, the blue “wet ink” signature is always the same odd colored blue. You know, the blue that comes off a printer or copy machine. I have yet to find that same elusive blue colored pen in any stationary store.

I think that the Foreclosure Mills and the Default Processing firms have electronic copies of the notes and just print them out however they need them, or they just replace the last page with a fabricated one that is endorsed to the plaintiff.

Not only that, the last page of the note, in many cases, is a different quality paper then the first few pages.

Now I know these are some conspiracy theorist type allegations, so bear with me and see for yourselves below.

Most judges do not want to hear those theories, so lets take it a step further to possibly opening their eyes.

Remember that these are both “Original” Notes filed in the same case, both with “wet ink” signatures, by the Florida Default Law Group, so they should be identical, right?

I took the liberty on taking screen shots of the “Notes” where I thought there might be frauds perpetrated on the court.

Examine the full Certified Copies below to compare…

I labeled them;

NOTE ONE (Submitted by Ashleigh Politano Esq)

and

NOTE TWO (Submitted by Tamara M. Walters Esq)

I highly doubt that the TRUE note holder had both of these as originals on hand.

Worm your way out of this one FDLG…

There are more to come…

Enjoy!

4closureFraud

1-561-880-LIES
Florida Foreclosure Defense
Law Offices of Carol C. Asbury
www.FightTheBanksNow.com

UPDATE 04/29/10

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum Launches Investigations into Florida Default Law Group and Docx, LLC a/k/a Lender Processing Services

UPDATE 04/29/10

WSJ is Watching – Foreclosure Lawyers Face New Heat In Florida

Click on Images to Enlarge

Notices of Filing Original “Notes”

1st Page of Notes
Payments

1st Page of Notes
VOID

Last Page of Notes
Documentary Tax

Last Page of Notes
Borrowers Signature

Last Page of Notes
Endorsement to Plaintiff by Plaintiff

Last Page of Notes
Original Endorsement to VOID

NOTE ONE
(Submitted by Ashleigh Politano)
Defendant has retained counsel

37 Responses

  1. I was scanning over the topics covered on this post and onbserved the unusual subject matter. What the Post is seemingly about is the existence in the case of 2 purported “same” “original” notes?

    One or two writers seem to have personal knowledge of the underlying facts if I can follow the string.

    I think the subject matter is at least potentially significant. We cannot really tell what the two partly copied documents are or were purported to be. Maybe if someone out there does know the facts they could help me know whether there is any actual misrepresentation here. Or was one represented as a [poor] copy? To me it looks like intentional document alteration—–so question is whether it was with intent to defraud–ie misrepresent as real? But maybe the quality of the copies of copies etc was soooo poor that they are even supposed to be the same note-but I am very curious? Anybody care to respond on the substance please?

  2. Louise,

    Believe some AGs will not sign — hope their influence is spread.

  3. “no one may have any standing left once the AGs sign a settlement. ” This statement is very important, however, I do not think they will sign the agreement. It is just too p&^s poor to be tolerated. How wimpy can they get? It’s going to be a real interesting Fourth of July. Burmese8@yahoo.com

  4. Oh Gee— I missed the last posts!!!

    M.Soliman – only reiterating standard definitions. If you do not like — do not read.

    I am not Cathy. Have always been here only to help in whatever way I can. Not in any business — and any suggestions, ideas, or theory, is my own — and not to be utilized in any pleadings or business practice. As I have stated numerous times — I am not attorney – and not in the business of hire to help homeowners.

    I am destroying your business?? I do not even know what business you are in. Whatever that business it is — I have always wished you good luck – and have hoped that whatever you do is in homeowners best interest. If you have a no-fail approach to foreclosures — good for you!!!! I have NEVER criticized you. And, have actually expressed that your accounting research may have some very good merit. But, believe that merit should be presented before AGs.

    Again, I have no intention to “destroy” your business – I have no idea what your business is!!! I have no idea of who you are. And, will not speculate as you do with me.

    Here is the catch – no one may have any standing left once the AGs sign a settlement. If you have any information that should be communicated to the AGs — go for that too!!! We NEED that!!!! So, if you have another avenue, pursue it!!! By all means!! I am not here to stop you.

    nomods,

    I have often discussed FASB 140 and 166 and 167. You must have missed those posts.

    Personally, I have never been on M. Soliman’s personal website. Have always wished him good luck — and the best. If he can save homeowners’ homes — I give him much credit.

    Again, my best to M. Soliman despite his comments to me. I hold no grudge – I do not care about my “reputation” — and, I only care about the people.

  5. To Anonymous, I been following LL for 3 years and in that time frame you have never discussed or brought topics on GAAP,FAS 140.M Soliman has preached FAS 140 Over 2 years ago through his personal website, yet you are now saying what?Where do u credit your findings.

  6. Roger

    The asets of the bank that are siezed related to this ocntroversy are common stock that represent the liability owed to the bank. The goofball fed charged off the common stock – THAT IS WHY YOUR HOME IF FREE AND CLEAR. Capitatipn is impossible and write downs by its own admission force a manipulation of the trustee sale in California. Also the same in other states,

    Okay rhetorical fraudsters —remember you heard it hear.

    expert.witness@live.com

  7. Can someone please explain, in layman’s terms, the difference between the Note and the Obligation? Thanks

    Note – debtor and a lender
    Obligation – Obligee right to receive dividends

  8. Anonymous

    Your hearsay contribution to a pleading is plagerizing and you cannot evidence what your saying. You now venturing into my arguments and seeking to what – create merit for yourselk as cathy or what ever your name is. ”. This is a fraud and a vile misrepresentation – bunk game of extortion . .assuming your linked to the NG business machine here.

    Cathy, your detroying my business at my personal expense is still based on assumptions and lacks merit. Your missing the decisive points you need from an insider’s perspective.

    1.Bailee letters are a fraud
    2.Purpose of blank endorsements
    3.Recourse provisions exclude the foreclosure
    4.Substitution of assets is accounting fraud
    5.Circumstances are to avoid recognition
    6.Itemized ledger detailing the cut off and transfers
    7.Revocation of the delivery as a contribution to capital structure
    8. Hypothication for leveraging accounts and balances

    Now That you have this to research …come on back with more gems of wisdom. Its childish and setting your web site “Who is Annonymous” for litigation and even obstruction …people are suffereing fro this game of sneak and solicit…

  9. Anon, I am telling you whatever the Gov’t says or banks say, it is the opposite. Read my other posts. They are just trying us to re affirm the debt which has been payed.

    And yes, they are selling collection rights. Just like in credit cards which is why I keep posting credit card stuff. Credit cards were the testing ground. People default and banks wrote-off and sent collections to highest bidder to collection companies. Then coll co’s send you letters to pay the debt. It’s all BS, where are assignments and contract law in all that. There is none, but people believe they can be sued. PEOPLE BELIEVE, that is all. So people either settle or pay or file BK. But people don’t know, so it’s made all so complicated.

  10. Make It Happen,

    From another site — and not sure best explanation —
    “A mortgage is a loan that consists of two different legal obligations. The first obligation is represented by a promissory note under which the borrowers promise to repay the money borrowed. The second legal obligation is the granting of a mortgage lien on the collateral property.”

    Now you have to ask — in a refinance — why is that borrowers did not receive the note back — stamped- PAID IN FULL. What was actually discharged by refinance — and by what authority??

    Where are the Letters of Transmittal for refinance?? (meaning where were the documents sent?? — they were NOT sent directly to any trustee for any trust).

    Government trying to push through mods — you already had a “mod” — if you refinanced — but, no one told you this. You paid fees as if — you had a complete new refinance with a new lender. Nope.

  11. Ann ,

    Is this Watson related in any way to Watson Title of FT Lauderdale ,, or to Watson Realty?

  12. Has anyone pursued the issue of judges and their pension plans which have mortgage backed securities as an investment. State of South Carolina employee pension plan has sued BONYMellon for bad investments using mortgage back securities. I smell a conflict of interest. Burmese8@yahoo.com

  13. Can someone please explain, in layman’s terms, the difference between the Note and the Obligation? Thanks

  14. Mike H,

    They are not selling the note multiple times — they are selling collection rights on a note that never likely existed.

  15. THE A MAN,

    Agree with you — but, how do we fix the problem in courts??

  16. Mortgage Assignment Fraud – Marshall C. Watson Law Firm
    Action Date: March 12, ForeclosureFraud.org
    The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) announced on March 11, 2011, that it is taking its foreclosure cases away from the Marshall C. Watson Law Firm. The Watson firm, based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, was one of the firms most often used by Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and mortgage-backed trusts to foreclose in Florida. The Watson Firm came under the scrutiny of the Economic Crimes Division of the Florida Attorney General for improper loan documentation and foreclosure practices.

    In over ten thousand Florida foreclosure cases, the Watson firm used mortgage assignments signed by the firm’s own employees to prove that their clients owned the mortgages. In most of these cases, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and mortgage-backed trusts were claiming to own the mortgages. Fannie, Freddie and the trusts lost or never obtained the mortgage assignments needed to prove ownership.

    In these cases, two associate lawyers in the Watson firm, Patricia Arango and Caryn Graham, signed the Assignments to the trusts so that the foreclosures could proceed. When Arango and Graham signed these mortgage assignments, they did not disclose that they were lawyers in the Watson Firm. Instead, Arango and Graham signed as officers of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

    In the last three years, Arango and Graham signed as officers of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for the following lenders on over 10,000 documents used in Florida foreclosures:

    • Aegis Wholesale Corporation;
    • America Imperial Mortgage Business, Inc.;
    • American Bancorp Mortgage Corp.;
    • American Home Mortgage;
    • America’s Wholesale Lender;
    • BNC Mortgage, Inc.;
    • Century 21 Mortgage;
    • Countrywide Bank, FSB;
    • Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.;
    • CTX Mortgage Company, LLC;
    • Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services;
    • Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC;
    • E-Loan, Inc.;
    • First Choice Funding Group;
    • First Magnus Financial Corporation;
    • Flagstar Bank, FSB;
    • Greenpoint Mortgage Funding;
    • Guaranteed Mortgage Bankers;
    • HomeAmerica Mortgage Corp.;
    • Interstate Home Loan Center, Inc.;
    • Ivanhoe Financial, Inc.;
    • KB Home Mortgage Company;
    • MFC Mortgage Inc. of FL;
    • Quicken Loans, Inc.;
    • Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.; and
    • Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC.

    On the majority of these documents, the date of the alleged transaction is falsely stated. The documents were so poorly prepared that in many cases, the new owner is shown to have acquired the mortgage months and even years AFTER the foreclosure cases were filed by those new mortgage owners.

    The Watson Firm was also the law firm that most frequently used mortgage assignments prepared by Docx, LLC. The assignments from Docx, LLC include thousands of documents with forged signatures of Linda Green, Tywanna Thomas and Korell Harp, as well as dozens of documents where the lenders were identified as “Bogus Assignee” and “A Bad Bene.” These Docx-prepared assignments also falsely stated the dates of the alleged transfers, and even the authority of the signers to sign on behalf of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

    Despite the well-documented problems with foreclosure cases brought by the Watson Firm, Fannie Mae has not removed the firm from its list of approved law firms. Fannie Mae removed Florida firm Ben-Ezra & Katz in February, 2011, and required the firm to transfer over 15,000 files. Fannie also removed The Law Offices of David J. Stern in Plantation, Florida. That firm announced that it would stop doing all foreclosure work as of March 31, 2011.

    No criminal charges have been filed in any case involving forged or fraudulent loan documents used by banks and mortgage lenders to foreclose.

    While courts have been critical of such documents and have added requirements to civil procedure rules so that law firms can be sanctioned for using such documents, no sanction has ever included any criminal charges.

  17. *mary – you may want to check out http://www.4n6.com/inkDating.php

  18. Hello! Has anyone been paying attention! I have been saying this since 2005 when i discovered there was more than one Note on my home.
    Since that time I have been blogging about all the
    bogus counterfeit color photocopies I have discovered in foreclosure cases.
    The Ponzi scheme consisted of selling the same
    Note multiple times to different investors on the secondary market. The servicers were the key to the
    scam because they set up reserve accounts with
    part of the proceeds so the investors could receive
    their monthly payments. As long as new investors
    bought into the program, the scheme could continue but it all collapsed in 2008 when not enough investors bought in and the reserve accounts ran dry. First Bear-Stearns and then Lehman collapsed and the whole Ponzi scheme un
    raveled. This is not rocket science!

  19. Anonymous a better word for Scammed is we are being Conned by the Judges.

  20. Anonymous This is from my experience where I was able to show Backdating Robo signing and the 3 Superior Court Judges in 3 seperate cases did not care.

    I wanted to add that I agree with you Anonymous but the judges dont.

    Everytime we get close the Judges find another excuse not to side with us (California). They make the rules as they go in favor of the banks. This in itself is a Scam Ask any kid who grew up in the streets. He or she will tell you that we are being Scammed.

    Only Judge Samuel Buford of the Central California Bankruptcy court enforced the law here in California.

    http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jc2009/references/bjep/UCC_Paper_L0325086.PD

    The other judges dont.
    THIS IS VERY SIMPLE THEY BROKE THE CHAIN OF TITLE AND COMINGLED FUNDS IN ORDER TO COVER IT UP THEY ARE USING ALL THESE SCAMS. ROBOSIGNING LOST NOTES, NOT RECORDING TRANSFER OF TITLE, TOO BIG TOO FAIL ETC….. MORAL HAZARD WINDFALL PROFIT. ETC…… any idiot knows that by now. to answer

    Anonymous Why? your answer is in the above paragraph. WE ARE BEING SCAMMED.

    NEVER AGAIN.

  21. PS, the attorney firm, has been sent a letter from Florida Attorney General, Economic Crimes Division, similar to the other mills.

  22. Another question:

    Why would the initiating attorney be listed on the composite report of servicer. Her name is in the user name section and so is the notary who notarized the alleged assignment for servicer?

    I have also noticed in the Note section that one of the parties I spoke to many times at this servicing company , is listed in the notes section as: ownership belongs to *** ****(her name). What does that mean, does anyone know??

  23. My note has that same funky type blue ink, I wondered about it the first time I looked at it.

    Need to have it tested.

    Anyone know a reputable company specializing in that in central florida???

  24. MAHER, explain the trust entering receivership and the subsequent NPL’s path into collection rights.

    When the QSPE is dissolved, the assets remain in the form of

    what?

    LIABILITIES (carry value)

    the real asset (house) is

    what?

    DIVESTED through DE-RECOGNITION?

    LEAVING

    WHAT?

    DEBT COLLECTION RIGHTS?

    and?

    LIABILITIES???

  25. Telling you — if you had a refinance — the new note for new refinance — is non-existent.

    All you had was a modification of a “scratch and dent” prior false default loan. And, most likely, falsely put into default BEFORE you refinanced. Thus, refinance was nothing more that a refinance of falsely labeled default loan — and, was in effect, nothing but a front to generate more fees — and, a higher debt owed (and no longer a secured loan).

    If you think that anyone that previously owned your loan was about to give it to someone else, this is in error. No one was about to “give away” your loan to anyone else.

    And, as to loans restructured from original trust — to which the loan was never documented as part of — or repurchased in the process, — those restructures are NOT part of the original trust.

    Foreclosures happening without victims EVER knowing who is the CREDITOR – and who is stealing their home.

    But, again and again and again — need to organize and demand accountability from congressional representatives.

    Fight your own court battle — but ALSO organize. .

    THE A MAN — – You have to always ASK —– WHY?????

  26. Yes there were many instances in which the borrower signed several notes on the table, thee were mistakes made on numbers, etc., however, this does not justify the pretenders to come with several versions of the same document.

  27. GUYS!!

    The borrower is not in default, the PSA requires for the servicer to pay trust through some ingenious mechanisms.

    The loans have been paid off several times over by many diferent financial and special purpose vehicles as well as the TAXPAYERS, Credit Default Swaps, insurance, and many more crap these people pulled out there.

    But to get to that info is almost impossible. In Maryland several law firms are in trouble with the law because of fraudulent assignments, affidavits, etc.

    In my own case, the banksters recreated the note after the documents were destroyed. It has been impossible to get the copies from the settlement, but the few documents we have show great differences in signatures and seals.

    t was faster to photoshop, recreate than to have you sign a new set of documents, how could they explain the investors they had to go back to the borrower when they had already sold the loans many times over.

  28. I can second him with my own experience on this one.

  29. M. Soliman is correct on this one.

  30. The original note was defective and held up settlement – new note was produced and orignial defect never discarded.

    Happens all the time – careful people if your selling information in a frenzy of fraud claims .knonw what is and is not fraud in a receivership mishandeling of documents and files. Private right to action for fraud – foreclosing parties have no …..no right of …..fraud ? Forget it!

    Beat them on merit and not fraud claims

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  31. Something should be obvious here to everyone at, WHITNESS THE HAND(S) AND SEAL(S) OF THE UNDERSIGNED. One must assume the Notary Seal is present on the document, and I will make the assumption that it is. But, Florida notary law does not allow for a scribbled initial of the notary. When the Notary signs their Oath, that same signature must be presented on every notarized document they sign thereafter.

    Maybe I’m missing something here as to whom these people are, if so let me know.

  32. Class Action Bankruptcy case against Chase Home Finance, llc as servicing agent to Argent Mortgage.

    No agency, double assignment by Wayne Lee of Argent to Wayne Lee President of Ameriquest and then from Wayne Lee President of Ameriquest in Blank.

    The proof of claim is by Argent. Aldarado & Ass. a foreclosure law firm in Santa Ana, California filed this and it appears that they are filing many bogus documents.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/50608683/class-action-chase-home-fiance-llc

    brian davies

  33. Last week we the Florida Homeowners took the fraudulents assignments, blew them up poster size. Then we got on the Freedom buses to Florida Capitol to show them to the Justices of Supreme Court, Senators, and Representatives at Tallahassee.

    I start to see Judges dismisses cases due to fraudulents documents. The tide is turning. Keep fighting. E-mail your concerns and fraudulents documents to your state law makers, Attorney General and Justices of Supreme Court and newspaper reporters.

  34. Especially the judges in California. We pay them so much money with great pension funds and they Piss on us. Licensed Criminals

  35. The Judges piss on us.

  36. Psst – hey kid, come here…. (recent law school grad)

    Want to learn how to make some money real quick, see these papers – just sign here… no, don’t look at em’, there ya’ go!

    I can see you got real talent kid, you’re just the kind of person we need here at FDLG.

    I can see you’ll be “going places” with our firm!!!

  37. And we are all supposed to look the other way because the borrower is in default and allow the banks to do whatever they want. That is the rule of law? Steve Vondran, California and Arizona Foreclosure Defense and Bankruptcy Lawyer.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: