COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

EDITOR’S NOTE: I have in my possession a copy of an actual letter, an actual computer printout, and an actual fabricated assignment prepared by the foreclosure mill for signature by Bank of America. The foreclosure mill acknowledges the referral of the case for foreclosure and states that it did not include the necessary documentation — so they did it themselves. In my opinion the letter and its content clearly shows complicity by the law firm and Bank of America in creating a document for which they had no authority to create or sign.

The Grantor under the assignment sent to BOA for signature was US Bank as Trustee for JP Morgan Acquisition Trust. THE ASSIGNMENT “DRAFTED” BY MILLSAP IS ALREADY SIGNED. THE SIGNATURE IS “BY SERVICER, BAC” AND SIGNED BY THOMAS E PECESH, AVP OF BAC. THE NOTARY SEAL SAYS “LAWRENCE COUNTY, (PA)” WHILE THE NOTARIZATION CLAUSE STATES IT WAS IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. MILLSAP IS LOCATED IN ST. LOUIS MISSOURI. THE LETTER AND “DRAFT” WERE SENT FROM MILLSAP AND INTENDED FOR BOA. Therefore when the letter was sent it did not contain a “draft” it contained a signed (forged, fabricated) assignment with coded instructions for BOA to supplement their files with the new document all nicely signed, sealed and delivered in ST. Louis with a Pennsylvania Notary and a supposed Pennsylvania signor, who supposedly is AVP of BAC, all on behalf of US Bank who obviously wasn’t even in the loop.

This is not conspiracy THEORY.

Here is the actual letter contents cut and pasted —-

Dear Sir/Madam:
We received in our office the above-referenced file for the purpose of foreclosure. The referral did not include the necessary Assignment of Deed of Trust. Our office has drafted the missing
Assignment of Deed of Trust. Our office cannot proceed further without a complete chain of  assignments. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact our office.

31 Responses

  1. hello,

    whom ever wrote the blog on Millsap and Singer please contact me by email chisolm.bridget@yahoo.com
    I am having major issues with this law firm trying to steal property, They have fabricated documents , stole payments , lied in court , and is working with the advocacy groups as well otp procure information,
    Email me I need your assistance.

  2. Urgent read, please SHARE, foreclosure king Thomas P. Dore may be behind criminal threats against Todd Wetzelberger:


  3. @E.Tolle—

    Yes, haven’t you heard, the new word they use to replace “illegal” is “sloppy”.

    All those poor prisoners in jail, they just got a little “sloppy”…

    Lets just figure out a way to blame the homeowner—yeah, that’s the ticket!!!!!!!!!!

  4. The FDIC, Bair said, has found a “not insignificant” number of such cases.

    “Not insignificant”? Can anyone in government bring themselves to actually say it? Not insignificant would also imply that these acts are “slightly felonious”, brought about by people who “infringed upon laws” in order to “maximize their wealth enhancement”, while causing “abundance abatement” to millions who more than likely deserved it, so what’s the problem?” replied OCC’s John Walsh.

    The “REAL GENUINE” truth of the matter is that Sheila Bair is the ONLY person in D.C. that isn’t counting on a massive 7+ figure paycheck and cushy corner office high rise after departing the beltway. The rest are assholes selling us all downstream for free $$$.

    Everybody now:

    What do we need? STOCKADES!

    When do we need them? NOW!

    What do we need? STOCKADES!

    When do we need them? NOW!

    ad infinitum!

  5. @foreclosureblues, the notary and prior chain are valid issues. I was pointing out that the post title seems to suggest some scheme of forgery or “fabrication” when in fact law firms drafting documents for client execution is not merely common but pretty much the whole point. As with many of the posts, the true issues get lost in post titles that are either misleading or meant to inflame the boards…

  6. tnharry…correct…drafted by M&S…signed by BAC

    but, BAC in Plano…notary PA?

    and BAC on behalf of us bank TT for JPM

    with same plano address

    and the issue of prior lack of assignment?

  7. I’m not seeing the whole story here. Are we assuming the law firm merely drafted the assignment for signature by BAC or that the law firm actually “signed” the assignment as well? The former is normal course of business while the latter is obviously a problem. Unfortunately the post is a little short of details that make this either completely normal or a true issue.

  8. uprootedone,

    More good points from you..

    The problem with a settlement — is that no wrongdoing is admitted. And, how will this affect individual cases going forward???


    I understand.

  9. May 11, 2011, 8:30 PM
    Don’t Let Go of the Anger

    William D. Cohan on Wall Street and Main Street.


    One of the most frustrating facts of the recently abated financial crisis is that those who might have been partly responsible for it have got off scot-free. The only two people prosecuted criminally — the Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin — were found not guilty by a jury in Brooklyn. Other potential culprits — Angelo Mozilo, chief executive of Countrywide Financial, Joseph Cassano, chief executive of AIG Financial Products, and Dick Fuld, the chief executive of Lehman Brothers — were either slapped with a small civil penalty, in the case of Mozilo, or the Justice Department made the decision not to prosecute after months of investigation.

    What’s worse, not only did bankers escape with no penalty, they walked off with millions of dollars in their pockets while American taxpayers got left holding the bag. Since the crisis was caused by greedy decisions made by one leader after another at various Wall Street firms and at other businesses, like mortgage originators and credit ratings agencies, that attached themselves to Wall Street like pilot fish on a shark, the dearth of prosecutions, or even attempted prosecutions, seems especially unconscionable. The least the Justice Department could do, in declining to prosecute, would be to make available the reams of documents on which it based its decisions, so that the American public can understand why prosecutors let these people walk. Without seeing what the prosecutors have seen, we are left with a sense of frustration and injustice.

    It has always been a mystery to me why the American people’s reaction to this lack of accountability has been so consistently passive. Why is it that thousands will protest, for weeks, the efforts by the Republican governor of Wisconsin and his Republican allies in the state legislature to strip Wisconsin’s public employees of hard-won benefits and contractual rights, but there is barely a peep uttered — save from a handful of Code Pink activists — in the face of trillions of dollars of American treasure used to bail out the very banks and securities firms that caused the Great Recession in the first place? Nor is there a whisper of collective protest when the very banks we bailed out turn around and pay their thousands of employees nearly $150 billion in compensation and bonuses in 2010 — as if they were deserving — while the rest of us continue to suffer from stubbornly high unemployment, miniscule interest rates on our savings and fast-rising commodity prices (as on oil and food) that Wall Street speculators, in part, drive higher and higher.

    Indeed, what we hear from the likes of Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Bob Diamond, the chief executive of Barclays PLC, is that the time has come to stop bashing the banks and their executives for their roles in causing the Great Recession. “Not all banks are the same and I just think that this constant refrain ‘bankers, bankers, bankers’ is just unproductive and unfair,” Dimon told a panel at the World Economic Forum, in Davos, in January. “People should just stop doing that.” At the same conference, the French president Nicolas Sarkozy lashed out at Dimon. “Don’t be accusatory of us,” Sarkozy told him in front of a group of hundreds. “The world has paid with tens of millions of unemployed, who were in no way to blame and who paid for everything.”

    Sarkozy was right then, and he is still right: We must not let the passage of time dim our ire at those who have yet to be held responsible for causing this financial crisis. We must register our dissatisfaction — in the streets if need be — with a system that rewards the fat cats for their outrageous behavior at our collective expense and that re-established the status quo on Wall Street without a moment’s reflection on whether the system itself needed an overhaul.

    Now, it seems, some people are sufficiently fed up to “fight back,” as they are saying. This Thursday, after a week of demonstrations, including at Goldman Sachs’s new headquarters on West Street in Manhattan and at Bank of America’s New York new headquarters on West 42nd Street, a group calling itself onmay12.org has organized a series of protests on and around Wall Street itself to “make big banks and millionaires pay.” The group is a coalition of labor unions, community and progressive groups that were catalyzed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed city budget that cuts childcare services, teachers and public safety, among others, while continuing to give tax benefits to corporations that remain in the city.

    “We are connecting the dots from the big banks that crashed our economy, destroyed millions of jobs and foreclosed on millions of family homes to the human impact here in the financial capital of our country,” said Michael Kink, the executive director of Strong Economy for All Coalition and one of the event’s organizers. In an interview, he cited similar protests being organized in Chicago, Charlotte and Oakland, and cited specifically his outrage at how Oakland is forced to close its public libraries — in order to save $5 million a year — at the same time the city still pays Goldman Sachs $5 million a year for interest-rate swaps. He wonders, where is the shared sacrifice? “This is a national effort to hold banks accountable,” he said.

    Where such protests take us is never certain, of course. They might lead to an emboldened grass-roots effort to push politicians and regulators in Washington to insist on some measure of accountability for Wall Street executives, or they could just be more meaningless blips in the never-ending 24-hour news cycle. Either way, the protests are long overdue.

    (This is my last regular Opinionator column after nearly 18 months. It has been an honor to be a small part of The Times’s opinion family.)

    This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

    Correction: May 12, 2011

    An earlier version of this column incorrectly stated that Wall Street firms paid nearly $150 billion in bonuses in 2010; the figure reflects both compensation and bonuses.

  10. Finally you have pointed out that the AGs are all settling “what”. No investigation, no charges, no names. I never had a case where I went to the AG and said “would you settle this allegation first so I don’t have to do my job”. 50 states with 50 different sets of laws and violations committed within seperate states. No one finds this odd? What would be even more strange is that an alleged criminal settled (with the advise of the best attorneys money can by) something they have not been charged with. Regardless of the amount, what would the alleged crimes be that they in effect are admitting to?

  11. A Must Read!

    Warning: This is a long blog post. But if you follow mortgage servicing, I think you’ll find it worth reading. Despite lots and lots of media coverage of the servicing fraud settlement, nobody seems to understand the real story that’s going on. I think that this post will explain a lot.

    Let’s start by recapping what we know. Back in March we started hearing media reports of a proposed penalty for servicers in the $20-$30B range. Then the American Banker published a 27-page term sheet from the AGs for servicing standards. Next, Huffington Post published a 7-page CFPB powerpoint presentation.

    Then came the draft C&D orders and then in April, the final C&D orders (which eliminated the ridiculous “single point of contact which need not be a single person” and replaced it with “single point of contact as hereinafter defined” and then failed—quite deliberately—to define it anywhere in the document).

    Now there’s another round of activity and conflicting reporting. The American Banker reported that there was a new AG term sheet proposed and that principal reductions were off the table. That turns out to be incorrect, as Shahien Nasiripour reported in the Huffington Post.

    The new AG term sheet that the American Banker referenced deals only with servicing standards. The American Banker assumed that this mean that principal reductions were off the table because they weren’t referenced in the term sheet. In fact they are still very much in play.

    They’re just in a second, separate term sheet. So now there are two separate term sheets–one covering servicing standard and another covering monetary issues/principal reductions. (Recall that the original AG term sheet did not cover the monetary issues—that was clearly for a separate document.) We are also hearing news reports that the banks are offering to settle for $5B and won’t go above $10B.

    So how do we make sense out of all of this?
    The short answer is that the fight is not over a piddling $5B or $10B or even $20B. The banks would buy peace in a second for $20B and servicing reform. So what does that tell us? It indicates that the negotiations are over a substantially bigger figure than $20B.

    And this explains everything about the banks’ negotiating strategy including the recent attacks on Elizabeth Warren by the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page and by Congressional Republicans on the CFPB.
    Take the time to read this one here…

  12. the package was actually received by the homeowner Fed Ex from BAC in Plano. it was intended to be sent back to M&S. the package originated in st louis…went to plano…then to homeowner…

    the assignment was created by M&S in St louis for a signature from BAC in Plano…it was a us bank TT for JPM Chase CWABS 2006…which was listed as having the same address as BAC…dated 4/20/2011

    the really crazy thing about it was the BAC VP Signature being notarized from PA

  13. “What does the SEC verify, ever?”
    if they [sec] have been paid…
    what else matters?

  14. Concerned
    fwiw… the notice of default triggers the lps desktop to move into action..the presses roll…money comes out the other end.
    we should talk..the criminals at litton got some splanin to do now….luuuucy! freak 4 u at comcast dot net


    Didn’t you notice that my complete post was DRIPPING in SARCASM? Actually, that is an understatement, it was overflowing with sarcasm.

    Yep, I know they needed the AWL to CW assignment then a CW To CWABS, Inc assignment, then the assignment from CWABS, Inc to BNY-Mellon for the benefit of CWABS 2005-10 cert-holders. Those were the MINIMUM assignments needed.

    Depending on the way the TRIED to maneuver that AWL thing into the trust, they could have even needed more initial assignments.

    Basically, I question if they sat on these loans and only got docs generated in the case of a default, because they KNEW they had to falsify documents to get the loans into the trusts. It was not a matter of cutting corners, these were just NOT legal loans to transfer.

    The fact that the SEC has never sniffed out any of the false “America’s Wholesale Lender Corporation” problems, makes me think that the SEC either never looks at any of the example loans that are supposed to be in any trust, or they have never seen an AWL loan listed as being transferred into any trust.

    What does the SEC verify, ever?

  16. Man I could have a lot of fun with something like that:D

  17. EULE,

    SIGMA (there were also other “Greek” names) was a Structured Investment Vehicle (SIV) that contained many SPV (Special Purpose Vehicles) — which are the bogus trusts that claim to hold current collection rights.


    The whole chain of assignments is NOT –“Ameica’s Wholesale Lender Corpoation to the BNY-Mellon Trustee for the CWABS 2005-10 certificate-holders.” This is an incomplete chain — whether or not the documents are fabricated.


    You need to get help from an attorney.

    judge —

    As Sheila Bair states — it will take years to unfold all that went on.

    AGs have been sleeping. .

  18. BofA moved the servicing of my own loan to Litton. It also apparently did not contain any assignment(s).

    While I do not have the original of Litton’s fabrications, I think mine are worth a comparison.

    Litton went several notches better than the assignment drafted by Millsap. You see, Litton drafted and signed one that did that whole chain of assignments in ONE nice little ole single step, from the never-formed Ameica’s Wholesale Lender Corpoation to the BNY-Mellon Trustee for the CWABS 2005-10 certificate-holders. That means BofA doesn’t have to assemble any of the document chain should have been generated 5 years ago. (sarcasm here). Five years ago, that assignment would have been to BNY as Trustee for the CWABS 2005-10. Note that BNY merged with Mellon after this CHAIN of assignments should have been created, but Litton saved the day assigning to the Trustee F/K/A BNY. (sarcasm) And they save all those trees and all that ink and time and trouble of assembling all the signers and notaries. (more sarcam)

    So what if the original ‘LENDER’ never existed, Litton could STILL claim to use MERS’ role as Nominee (sarcasm here).

    Litton could still assign that ‘WILD’ loan to the Trust that had closed 5 years earlier. (sarcasm here)

    Litton could still assign a defaulted loan to that closed pool. (sarcasm here)

    Litton could use the MERS ability to assign to also transfer that pesky NOTE (uh, you know that note that also is ‘wild’ and does not even have MERS on it) (SARCASM HERE)

    Litton had also used the ‘beneficiary’ role of MERS to appoint a substituted Trustee for my transaction. Just ignore that pesky clause in the Deed that states very clearly the entity that can do the substitution is the LENDER. Well, given that the LENDER corporation was never ever formed by CW or BofA, I understand how much they wanted to have that pesky problem covered up. Just get good ole Goldman Sucks And F**** to put together a document that use MERS to do it.

    All together, BofA got even more fraud, eh, I mean work, out of Litton.

  19. I received a notice granting relief from stay
    Can anyone in California help with that
    I can be emailed at info@automechanics.com

  20. The Numbers getting smaler :


    and some change :

    On May 1 Chase Home Finance LLC merged into JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association (“JPMCBNA”). By now all transactions should have no reference to Chase Home Finance LLC and instead be JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Although the primary impact is to the documents such as the Insuranc

  21. All right you two other link posters, now I’ve got to post one…


    and thanks, I did miss the Thigpen settlement one – will now go read.

  22. Register O’Brien and Thigpen

    Say’s hey put the Brakes on any Settlement with the AG’s and Big Banks, Unless, and until the Registers of Deeds are part of the Settlement!

    Take at Look:

  23. Wow. I hope the homeowner follows through on suing these fraudsters. This needs to be forwarded to the folks who did the 60 Minutes story. Send to Matt Taibbi too. Why is our CONgress doing nothing about this? Never mind…just voicing thoughts out loud, already know the answer.

  24. A lawsuit says JPMorgan profited from the collapse of an investment vehicle named Sigma.


  25. Is there not anyone out there that can prosecute these crooks?

  26. Fraud, fraud and more fraud. Notary fraud, forgery, backdating, fraud on the Regs. of Deeds office, fraud on the court and fraud on the county where the fraudulent assignment was recorded. Fraud does not go away. Once it is in the the official file, it is in there for the duration.

  27. Well now isn’t that just ducky they didn’t have it so they just did it up themselves.Nice to know that if your foreclosure co.can’t or doesn’t complete your paperwork that the always responsible foreclosure mill can and will instead.Wow what a company.Where would we all be without them?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: