Homeowners, Law Enforcement Target Attorney Foreclosure Mills

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: I’m not sure where the piece originated from but it seems credible. I do know that there are approximately 2 dozen lawsuits in the process of being filed or served on law firms that engaged in unlawful robosigning within their offices. “Robosigning” is code for forgery and perjury.

NINE CASES DISMISSED AFTER CLOSED DOOR SESSION IN BALTIMORE

5TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS ISSUE AVOIDED TEMPORARILY

NOTARIES AND LAWYERS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO AVOID CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

FOR FORGED DOCUMENTS AND SUBMITTED WITH PERJURED FOUNDATION TESTIMONY

Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Foreclosure Mill Sweatshop Attorneys, Robosigner Notaries Dodge
Grilling After ‘Behind Closed Doors’ Baltimore Court Hearing Yields
Nine Dismissals
In Baltimore, Maryland, The Daily Record reports:
•Until last Monday, hearings on signature irregularities in
foreclosure filings in Baltimore City Circuit Court have made for
surprisingly good courtroom drama. Special Master Elizabeth A. Ritter,
a former prosecutor, has asked tough questions about practices and
processes at three local law firms, and the lawyers on the stand have
either conceded mistakes or faced further grilling.

•Perhaps having read about their predecessors’ experiences, the
Baltimore firm of Wittstadt & Wittstadt P.A. took a different tack
last week. The Wittstadt brothers and their lawyer, along with the
firm’s support staff and their lawyer, showed up in Judge W. Michel
Pierson’s third-floor courtroom in the morning and, after identifying
themselves on the record, consented to moving the whole proceeding
behind closed doors.

•According to a video recording of the proceeding, before he left the
courtroom, Michael Pate turned to his clients, the notaries, and said,
“Watch my stuff, please. If something happens we’re all in trouble,
OK? You guys more than me.”

•But all that happened during the next few minutes, according to court
records filed thereafter, was the firm agreed to dismiss nine of the
10 cases in question, and Judge Pierson agreed to dismiss the show
cause order in the other.

•There would be no cross-examination of veteran attorneys this time,
no notaries invoking their Fifth Amendment rights.

•The Wittstadt firm seemed to have fared better than firms like
Shapiro & Burson LLC or Friedman & MacFadyen P.A., but they were in no
mood to talk about it as they left the courthouse. The Wittstadts’
attorney, Timothy M. Gunning, identified himself but would not say
whom he represented. Gerard W. Wittstadt introduced himself as “Mickey
Mouse.”

23 Responses

  1. Neil where can we get that video???
    •According to a video recording of the proceeding, before he left the
    courtroom, Michael Pate turned to his clients, the notaries, and said,
    “Watch my stuff, please. If something happens we’re all in trouble,
    OK? You guys more than me.”

  2. CALL TO ACTION

    CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS

    EASILY MODIFIED WORD DOCUMENT TO FAX TO CALIFORNIA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

    INVOLVES THOUSANDS OF HOMEOWNERS ACROSS THE USA, INCLUDING FLORIDA

    I APPRECIATE THIS VERY MUCH

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/59633458/CALL-TO-ACTION-PLEASE-FAX-THIS-TO-CALIFORNIA-ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  3. Re: TnHarry, the post at the beginning, Yea, the FBI sat me on a chair, and said, “yes you were defrauded, but how are Your Hurt? (2010,) I said well it looks like my husband conspired to buy the house and $40,000 more then agreed, so I left the dirty rat.
    And the fraudulent increase made my tax base go up. A dime is a damage.

    (this was before I knew about the other homes)

    The FBI said “Husbands usually do this sort of thing” only reinforcing my suspicions… However, they back then, oh they knew the WHOLE truth, but kept it from me.

    I JUST found out what the builder was doing, and that my husband bought other properties, I also found out the scam was a bait-n-switch. (if he IS innocent)
    The builder finds out the model the serious buyer wants, say a plan 2. and then they show them a beautiful home plan 2 @$800K. The buyer then makes the deposit, and signs paperwork (to support the fact there was deal for Mr. FDIC G Man.

    Then suddenly a BETTER plan 2 comes open- Oh, a buyer just canceled, and its cheaper!

    The buyer then thinks they have switched it all over, but the other deal still gets done, and they have checks, showing the lot number, and paperwork, and applications!

    They could have talked my man into the BIG DREAM! INVEST! or he could have been swindled, or what.. I just don’t know. He will need to prove in in court.

    I do know I have read the entire FDIC case, and it’s jacked up that these criminals are walking free.

    As to the posting on doors, the lack of us each knowing our neighbors led us into this slaughter of the middle class. I do know the home i found the checks on, the chain of title is fishy. I smell a rat.

    NO BFP. No Auction, its all showing on Zillow as NRT, which is NON RECORDED TRANSFER.

    AS to LA COUNTY, The recorders office is the property of First AM.

    I just found THREE documents, titled, “Cancelation of Default” yet the documents are not that! they are builder “completions,” and thy all are missing the instrument numbers on the actual pages. They are merely “Placeholders” and if THEY need to, at a later date … the document they want will appear in the place at a later date.

  4. Excuse me–I dont see the “law enforcement” element here—did I overlook something?

  5. @tnharry, I don’t see the conundrum, as you put it. Let’s say for a moment the assignments were not done in blank when done and so they are an assignment to the trust. While, yes, as I have been hollering for a long time now, to be effective against 3rd parties, an assignment must be recorded.
    At least that’s Nevada’s law. Some states may say an unrecorded assignment is not effective even as to the parties thereto. I don’t know. But Nevada’s for instance, says an unrecorded assignment is binding on the parties thereto: the assignor and the assignee. This means while not recorded, the assignments between X and the trust are binding on those parties, and the assignment would be good as to the trust.(which is another good reason we need to know who executed these assignments) That, in turn, means MERS was toast. Now, in those cases where the bankster alleges the blank endorsements are legally sufficient, I think a list of the banksters so claiming needs to be made, and use it against them as estoppel when those same banksters allege ‘MERS’ can still do this or that – such as an assignment. We shouldn’t let them have it both ways – there was an assignment to the trust, or there wasn’t. They only get to say the assignments to the trust are the bomb one day and not the next if we let them. These guys are getting waaaay too much wiggle room.

    The conundrum, if any, lays in the fact that all appropriate assignments were probably not done in the chain, even if unrecorded, creating a perhaps fatally broken link. But is that really a conundrum? It’s more likely a matter of fact going against enforcement of the dot.
    Now, even if you follow the proposition that the dot follows the note , which then contains an inherent argument that the assignments called for by the psa’s were superfluous, that is not the end of the story. 1) the psa’s did call for the assignments (and yes I know the homeowner maybe can’t rely on this, and 2) since the assignments exist and are binding on the parties thereto, MERS has been booted by said assignment and 3) if states’ laws require, as Nevada’s, assignments to be recorded for enforcement, there’s certainly an issue as to whom may re-assign a dot from the trust. Some evidence of that assignor’s authority needs to be presented, even if it’s the trustee. It isn’t MERS, and that’s the ‘flaw’.
    I appreciate your feedback, even devil’s advocate. These issues are a struggle and I sometimes lose track midway.

  6. Opinion:
    Okay, take off the glasses so you can see.
    Atty/trustee only has that standing if their client has standing.
    Anything outside of that makes him a debt collector and the Supreme Court ruling said they can’t tell you false information to collect on a debt.

    So the only way their client can give them bad information is if they let them. What lawsuit do you know of where you claim an injury and an attorney doesn’t ask for information to support the claim.

    To deal in foreclosures, they needed to be qualified. At least know the statutes of the state, heck talk to a real estate professor at the local university to gain some insight into how to do it successfully in the state they practice in.

    They never expected people to ‘wake up’ and learn something about what was going on because, bankers had done this before during the Great Depression, and they gave us their free education.

    But the internet didn’t exist during the Great Depression, there weren’t as many people with t.v’s back then, the radio was a primary source of info and they controlled that with their relationships.

    We learned enough to call fowl, but people that could help us had their own ‘trust agreements with each other’ such that if one broke the trust and did what was right for the many who called foul, the whole ponzi scheme (house of cards) would fall, and everything is interlocked with each other, business success, society circles, retirements, etc.

    Corrupted man cannot judge man justly.
    This is a soul deviation that will not be pleasant and not worth it for those that participated in the foul.

    When they see they bargained their soul for a gold foiled chocolate coin that melted; their oops will not be our worry.

    A lot of people were hurt by their perceived power and thank goodness the Creator/Architect of this Matrix factored in all scenarios where Universal Law will clean house and the ‘meek’ will get what was taken from them. The land. The earth. We can rebuild our houses.

    Those people who ruled against us are expatriated. They aren’t even us, taking things from us. But they are us in that they have the same soul source. So what they do is automatically known by the entire collective because we are the same ‘soul’ having different experiences from different vantage points.

    There are no secrets and each fractured soul will get the experience the consequence of their actions for ‘denying self’; for forgetting who they were.

    Attorneys can have no more right than their clients had. If they do something wrong, by right of representation (selling their soul to stand in the place of another) they suffer the consequences of their actions.

    If their client isn’t secured the attorney isn’t secured. If the client didn’t have standing the attorney didn’t have standing.

    Being an attorney is not a license to steal. If it is, they should not be called a “Trust”-eeee. They can’t be trust – ed.

    Get rid of the belief (be lie f) system and you can see what is being done. If you can’t see, it’s not your time.

    Light and Love,

    Trespass Unwanted, life, allodial, free, liberty, corporeal, freeman, in jure divino, in jure proprio

  7. @john – it’s certainly a conundrum, and even more so if you happen to be in a jurisdiction that doesn’t follow the “mortgage follows the note” theory. for those that do follow it, assignments are often ignored while the focus is on the note and its travels. and i agree with you – assignments in blank mean nothing. too often they’ve been treated akin to endorsements and that just doesn’t work. and this doesn’t even consider the implication of not assigning properly in those jurisdictions where assignments MUST be recorded to be valid.

  8. @usedkar – it’s so hard to always speak in generalities, but the law firm usually isn’t liable for actions of its client nor is the knowledge of the client imputed to the firm/trustee. knowledge of the agent is imputed to the principal, but not the other way around. we keep dancing around these issues of trustee owing fiduciary duties to borrower to verify, but the only way to verify is to “ask” the servicer. if they provide bad info, how would the atty/trustee know if it is bad? I’ve never seen an instance of the note being endorsed to the law firm and can’t imagine a scenario where it would be necessary or advisable. as to the affidavits with widely varying signatures purporting to be the same individual, I would agree that the trustee/law firm has an obligation to investigate. their own self-interest and ethics would demand it, so the fiduciary duty is moot.

  9. that’s funny, Harry. But I wouldn’t assume it could not happen.

    got a question for you though….
    any thoughts on where the line is drawn between “knowing” or “should have known” regarding the assignment of mortgage that was created by the f/c mill attorney? When they pump out these docs, are they really innocent of wrongdoing because they are acting on the information supplied by the client? How about when the bad affidavits with obvious signature irregularities?
    No responsibility for veracity? How about when the bank endorses the note to the law firm? aren’t they then the trustee?

    and now you’re Darth Vader.

  10. tnharry,right or wrong, I was counting on you to address the assignment of the dot to the trust as called for in the psa’s and its implication. These posts are moving too fast and defy resolution and solutions. So, I’m going to repost my comment, which was made after reading Gardner’s primer, wherein I was reminded of the trust governing documents calling for an assignment of the deed of trust / mortgage :

    Since the psa’s call for a recordable assignment, even in blank – which I think is crazy as well as illiigitimate- questions are raised. WHO signed the assignments and for whom? Shouldn’t there have been an assignment from everyone along the way to the next guy, I mean, even if the final assignment were in blank? Or were the psa’s written in such a fashion as not to clarify this matter? Was it with intent written ambiguously? But let me guess, now these are “bearer” assignments? Say what?
    It’s down right hard to take the extent of some of this rule-bending,
    rule-busting bs. It’s as assinine as “MERS” assignments where the party for whom MERS purports to act remains still a closely-guarded secret. Has anyone in the history of the world every gotten away with this kind of or so much dribble?
    I know if I want to spend all day researching, I could find law which squarely would deny the legitimacy of these blank assignments. But I’m not going to, because it’s not really the point for me here and now.

    WHO signed them, to me, is huge, as is just the fact of the assignment itself.
    And if an assignment were done in blank or at all, then MERS was toast one way or another, was it not? Did these assignments done for the benefit of the trust not divest MERS of its alleged status in the dots? So what is “MERS” (read members) doing executing assignments of dots where assignments already exist?
    Does anyone besides me see this? Even if the assignments subsequently executed by “MERS” (read member) weren’t done by “MERS”, had been done by someone ‘else, it would have had to be by someone with the legal authority to execute the assignment on behalf of the trust.
    It appears to me that the existence of the assignments for the trust, required by the governing documents, has been ‘overlooked’, and actions have been taken as if those assignments, an integral part of the deal, didn’t exist. And even if they wrote “MERS” in those blank assignments, that doesn’t work, either. If it could, they would have just left the dots as they were and not required any assignment for the trust at all.
    I think I’m dead on, but if not, I’m in the hood. If I’m only in the hood,
    then I could use some help here.
    Oh, crud. So that was the scam. The WS gang was the same gang in MERS and they didn’t want to divest MERS by following the psa’s mandate for an assignment of the deed of trust, but they had to convince the investors they were buying mbs’s, so the psa’s had to address this SOMEhow. This reads because had they made the psa’s state that the assignments must be recorded, instead of in “recordable” form, that would have been the end of MERS. But even an assignment in blank would divest MERS….looks like maybe just the best ‘low profile’ assignment they could come up with to later ignore, which is exactly what they have done and are doing.

    Even now, when trustees go after properties, they are ignoring those
    psa mandated assignments. Now that MERS is toast as to foreclosures in its name, why not just ‘own’ those assignments to the trust? They can’t, without an admission that those assignments were ignored in every “MERS” foreclosure. And also, to not ignore them would be an admission that “MERS” can’t assign anything.

  11. Baltimore, that’s in Maryland. right? Wells Fargo is Frederick, Maryland, right? That’s their “Little House of Horrors” where all the files are reproduced for Mr. Kennerty (read his testimony). My affidavits were submitted to the Notary Bureau (SOS) for signature irregularities. They were very efficient.
    First follow up: “Yes, we got it!”
    Second follow up: “Yes, we’re looking at it!”
    Third follow up: “Yes, I have it right here….ummmm….hold on…….it’s right here…..I just saw it…….I’ll call you right back!” click.

    So I sent it to the Governor of Maryland.

  12. @Martha – I read your post as your husband forged your names. If that was wrong then I apologize. I’m still not certain about the facts though – if not your husband, then it sounds like the builders rather than the mortgage company. And if you agree that these are not “your” homes, then why are you posting notices on them?

  13. Wow, Martha…none of it surprises me anymore…there is fraud on so many levels and involving so many people, it’s astounding. A mess of colossal proportions, that is only now finally being recognized, little by little…the effects of this will be felt for a century.

  14. Tnharry. RE: my post does not belong in the “foreclosure posting”

    No Offense, but I think your on the “Dark Side.

    Nevertheless,.. my husband denies even knowing about the “other homes he bought.” so IF that is true, then the builder was using double applications without the buyers knowledge, in a straw-man scam, and then obtaining loans with “indymac” in the buyers (my husbands name in this instant case) and forging my spousal release… and the County… well, they act in conspiracy by letting the builder record the grant deeds, and the deeds of trust, and purposely do NOT index the names, making the whole deal secret to the public record for all purposes.

    See, the buyers, well they could “find” the documents at the recorders office, IF they knew to look up AMERICAN MORTGAGE, but, heck they apparently have no idea of this company even, and the buyers name does NOT get indexed by the County on the docs under AMERICAN MORTGAGE, not until the home is foreclosed on.

    If they go search their names, only the K.Hovnanian (as lender) pops up.

    Then they– the TRUSTEE’S “foreclose” on the home, because gee, the “buyer” stopped making payments, and BOFA and INDYMAC then claimed the loans were made in bad faith, and filed suit, against the builder, and First American.

    Bad faith, why of course it was, my husband could not possibly qualify for two to three other properties.

    And it would be a snowy day in hades, when I knowingly release my interest in my husbands property!

    I started putting notices on doors here in this neighborhood, and the house across the street, that happened to have the same APN on its Grant Deed as mine does…. They have a moving van over there now.

    The FDIC just settled with K.Hovnanian American Mortgage, over a whole diddle of “Bad KHAM Loans” Funny thing is, was that the bad loans all had the lender as “AMERICAN MORTGAGE” and the properties were deeded to only one person, married usually, and the grant deeds all showed “Sole and Separate property.”

    The Counties are complicit in this straw man scam, The lawyers are complicit, and the system is corrupt.

    IF what my husband say’s is true, then they stole his identity, made loans and grant deeded a home down the street to him, then used THAT “sale” to falsify comps to defraud others.

    Probably 20% of homes in this development were sold this way in a massive scam. The builder KNEW the foreclosures were coming, as the buyers had no idea about the loans.

    JPMORGAN KNEW, COUNTRYWIDE KNEW as heck they have my husbands name in “The Matrix” (that’s what they call it not me,) They could have just called him up and said, “hey what about these missed payments on that house across the street?

    So…

    Dear Mr. and Mrs. who got lucky and bought that short sale, or foreclosure,

    If you buy a home in a NEW community, there might be a few wives who did NOT know about the “extra” homes their husbands bought, under AMERICAN MORTGAGE and a forgery is a nullity.

    I sure hope you got some good title insurance. Because here is a Grant Deed, that is NOT in your pretty little chain of title (thanks to the County)…. it states my lucky husband got that nice house for $10.00 and that spousal release, that was recorded.. It’s a forgery.

  15. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/hamp-obama-administration_n_892082.html

    “On Thursday, the administration announced that the forbearance period for HAMP applicants and homeowners with FHA loans could last as long as 12 months.”

    Good, maybe during that time they can figure the complete FRAUD that is HAMP.

  16. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/bank-of-america-mortgage-lawsuit_n_892006.html

    Fighting like hell to get (fraudulent) false default debt modified…

  17. I fail to see the reason, that the judge would allow the closed door proceeding. It fails the smell test. Although it resulted in nine dismissals, how many others could and should be dismissed based on the actions of these people? Homeowners not represented, and those already thrown out on the street are left out of the benefit of this discovery.
    And when Mr Wittstadt identified himself as Mickey Mouse, he should have been informed, that Mickey has a warrant outstanding for felony fraud, and disbarment proceedings to attend.

  18. So does the filing of a “Correction of Assignment of Deed of Trust” wash away their sins? Does it correct the robo and notary fraud problem?

  19. I wish I had “Special Master” Elizabeth Ritter rep’n me. Just her title alone makes me shake in my boots. LMAO

  20. @Martha – no offense, this sounds more like an issue between you and your ex-husband than something within the purview of a foreclosure defense blog

  21. Dear LA COUNTY Recorders Office,

    Can you please tell me why my husband bought three properties without my knowledge, and the Deeds of Trust, were recorded, yet his name was not indexed into the computer system, of that is the only way you allow me to to search for properties. Why is it only the Name, or the document number, or the recorded date?

    Why is the County recording Deeds of Trust with AMERICAN MORTGAGE, and NOT indexing the buyer names-until after foreclosure?

    I also find it odd that in 90-95% of the Deeds of Trust, they are shown as Married, but sole and separate property?

    my name was forged to a document giving up my rights in these properties, and you are keeping the names off the computer.
    Why?

    Martha Nali. An unhappy-used-to-be-wife.

  22. sensing a payoff hummm

  23. […] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, […]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: