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



SEE Known or suspected robo-signers with links[1]

SEE robosigners-signatures samples[1]

SEE List of 420 Robosigners(2)

EDITOR’S NOTE: There are a lot of “services” out there that are now able to provide you with pretty reliable information as to whether one or more of the signors on your mortgage or foreclosure documents is a known robo-signer. OR YOU CAN LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF RIGHT HERE. SEE THE THE ABOVE LINKS.

But the issue is EVIDENCE not information. That someone has signed multiple documents with multiple signatures for multiple “employers” is information, not evidence. You will and should be thrown out of court if you think that identifying the use of a robo signer will win you your case. If it were otherwise you wouldn’t have a defense at all because it would mean that an allegation is as good as proof. And most negative impact cases are decided on the allegation that the borrower didn’t make the payments so who cares about all these technical deficiencies? The fact that the payment might not be due, or that it had already been made by the servicer or that the party claiming to collect it is improper doesn’t get a chance to be heard.

Information provides context and might be admitted as corroboration of real evidence once you have established your foundation for introducing evidence into the court proceeding. To that extent a list of robo signors might be helpful and it might not. Paying for the list will get you nothing more than another ding in your wallet since the list is right here for free.

The issue in YOUR case is whether you have one or more documents that were not properly executed and whether the execution constitutes a forgery, a fabrication, or lack of authority. The clever lawyer will force the burden onto the would-be forecloser to offer witnesses that can testify and prove the authenticity of the document, the signature and its contents. In most cases, that issue slips by and the burden shifts to the homeowner for failure to lodge an appropriate objection.

Remember also that a document can be admitted into evidence as proof of its existence, as proof of the matters recited or both.

So let’s look at what you REALLY need to do. If you think you have a robo-signor on your hands there are actually several possibilities, which is why most people are getting thrown out of court, surprised they lost their case and blaming the Judge for corruption when all he did was apply the rules of evidence. The possibilities are as follows:

  1. The signature is the signature of the person whose name is stamped or typed or written beside the signature.
  2. The signature is NOT the signature of the person whose name is stamped or typed or written beside the signature.
  3. The signature was forged.
  4. The signature was not forgedthe person simply used different signatures for different purposes.
  5. The signature was placed there with permission from the named person on whose behalf the document was signed.
  6. The signature was placed there without permission from the named person on whose behalf the document was signed.
  7. The person whose name is stamped, typed or written beside the signature was authorized to sign the document.
  8. The person whose name is stamped, typed or written beside the signature was NOT authorized to sign the document.
  9. A valid document (corporate resolution, power of attorney etc.) exists authenticating the authority of the person  whose name appears next to the signature.
  10. A valid document (corporate resolution, power of attorney etc.) does not exist authenticating the authority of the person  whose name appears next to the signature.
  11. A witness exists who can authenticate the authorizing documents for signature on the document that you are objecting to.
  12. No witness exists who can authenticate the authorizing documents on the document that you are objecting to.

Unless you know how to deal with all these possibilities, the Judge has no where to go but to say that what you have presented is interesting but it is not evidence. This is accomplished through discovery — investigation, deposition, interrogatories, requests to produce and requests for admission and being very persistent about getting real answers to real questions.

The COMBO and an Expert Witness Declaration will get you part of the way, but you need to know how to present your side of the case in an intelligible manner and quickly because the Judge is not going to give you hours to figure out how to show that the document you are challenging is not valid. Remember that failure to record or even failure to execute properly for recording does not, in and of itself invalidate a document.

Check with a lawyer licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located before you use this information or the services that people want to sell you. Many of those services provide information that might be valuable but only in terms of making further inquiry.

31 Responses

  1. Now that your house is free and clear make yourself a bankrupt remote entity. File yourself a trust and put it in there so that if they attach to you, they can not attach to your home. This can be done now that you won your suit.

  2. ok – Indymac opens up a whole other can of worms as you’ve already discovered. nevertheless – it would seem that cautious congratulations are in order for what you’ve accomplished so far.

  3. tnharry,

    The original lender was IndyMac Bank. I obtained evidence that IndyMac sold the note back in 2004, allegedly to Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac has never made a claim of ownership of the note. OneWest posed as the lender, like it usually does, got an order authorizing sale, even after I gave the court proof of OneWest’s fraud, obtain my property at a trustee sale with a fraudulent credit bid, stripping $100,000 in equity and leaving a $48,000 deficiency, then flipped it to Freddie Mac for $10. I sued them, for some reason neither OneWest or Freddie Mac responded to the complaint and I got a default and quiet title. It was a total absolute miracle. No explanation for why it happened this way. But I’ll take it anyway I can get it.

    I think they are scrambling now because I’m suing them in federal court for money damages, but it’s too late. They can’t undo what they’ve done and the state court has denied their rule 60 motion and hopefully will deny their motion to reconsider, which will be the final nail in the coffin.

  4. @Marilyn Lane,

    I found the recent article from Neils site. I have read it. I can use this.
    Thank you!

  5. and i just re-read that you say you’ve already proven Onewest’s ownership is fraud…it sounds like you may have already won…

  6. It sounds like Onewest was the original obligee on the note. If that’s an incorrect assumption, then ignore everything else I say. There’s been previous discussion that, given that most notes didn’t actually make it into the trusts, the original obligee may be the proper and only entity to enforce. In your situation (especially given the lack of endorsement or allonge out of their name) that entity would seem to be Onewest.

  7. tnharry,

    Oh, and statue of limitation on promissory notes in Colorado is six years.

  8. tnharry,

    Well, actually, there isn’t any conclusive evidence of anyone who can put forward a legitimate claim of ownership of the note, so far anyway. So what I was asking was based on the claims by OneWest and Freddie Mac that they owned the note. The evidence I have shows neither of them have any ownership rights. The trail would end with some trust that Freddie Mac supposedly put the note into when it converted it into a security product. As of now, only OneWest has made a claim of ownership, which we’ve proven was fraud. Freddie Mac has never made such a claim in over two years now.

    The issue of getting the note out of the picture is a new issue that I’m just starting to grapple with. I am suing OneWest in federal court for damages and one of my settlement items will be that I want all the original documents back. That would certainly solve the issue. But if that’s not possible i’m looking at other ways to possibly deal with it.

  9. i re-read your posts to try to find more specific information but don’t see anything to help me. why would the original obligee on the note forge an endorsement in blank? who is the original obligee on the note? by the way, have you looked at your relevant statute of limitation for suits on a note? are you getting close?

  10. tnharry,

    I think you’re right about that, BUT, in this case, what if it was the obligee that executed the forged endorsement?

  11. @carie – i don’t think he’s talking about that at all. he said he successfully quieted title. the home is free and clear, but there’s an unsecured debt out there now. and that’s one hole in the “unsecured debt” theory you have – even if the home is clear, the unsecured creditor could sue, get a judgment, and then record that judgment in the register’s office. suddenly the home is collateral and subject to sale/foreclosure.

    they still have to prove standing, etc. and manage to prove a debt to get a judgment though, so there’s still defenses to be made

  12. i wouldn’t think a forged endorsement, even if you could prove it was forged, would invalidate anything more than the endorsement. logically, the obligee would have been the victim of an endorsement forged, so terminating their rights under the note wouldn’t make sense.

  13. A “debt” does not a mortgage make. Make them prove an actual MORTGAGE…not some alleged “debt”… There is a difference.

  14. Tony

    I’m not asking this because I have to defend my case anymore. It’s just about completely run its course in state court and I managed to win quiet title to my property.

    OneWest and Freddie Mac tried to have the judgment set aside but the judge denied their Rule 60 Motion. Now they have filed a motion to reconsider and produced the original note again, but this time it has an endorsement in blank on it, something that was never seen before now. Nowhere in the record is there a copy with an endorsement stamp on the note, not in over two years now. It’s so stupid because it provides absolutely no defense for the banks. It seems the more I defeat them the dumber they get.

    For them to produce this and make such a big deal out of it is very damning for OneWest and Freddie Mac because it now appears they have submitted a forged endorsement. There are a host of other reasons to dismiss their motion to reconsider as well. All their arguments are groundless and frivolous as usual. I fully expect the judge will deny their motion to reconsider as well.

    The note they have produced would no doubt be an original copy. They produced it over two years ago in the non judicial action they prosecuted against me. Everyone said they could never produce an original but they did. At the time it was devastating.

    But all that horror is over and I’m simply wondering now if anyone has any case law or Colorado statutes that would substantiate a claim that a forged endorsement on a promissory note would render that note unenforceable. Even though I’ve essentially won against the bank, my home is no longer security against the debt, the debt is still there. If this is a forgery, which it certainly appears to be, then I could attack the note and try to render it void.

  15. @in search of Justice

    Refer back to Neil’s website on Mass Court (somewhere between Oct 20 and 23 and you will see on the 23rd I put in a post about there are no statute of limitations on some fraud READ It See If you fit in that catagory

  16. Thank you Tony! Your information is MUCH appreciated.

  17. BMcDonald,

    1. Ask where the “note came from. If they say from “collateral file” or “loan file” as Pat try to tell you it came from, then you have them where want them.

    “Loan File” means not original, but merely COPY of a purported note. Check FASB or FDIC definition of these words you will be shocked in what you find.

    2. Was the loan securitized? If so then it will show even more that they do not have the original documents. As anything sold in the secondary market is not a QFC (qualified financial contract meaning the loan document) but merely a NON QFC merely servicing rights (unsecured debt collection) that were purchased.


    Does this “company” even have control over the res? (property in question) Many people want to claim fraud but instead should be showing court lacks jurisdiction in the matter all together.

    Also this running into bankruptcy court about property rights are wrong. Unless you are making the banks prove there claim (meaning you force them to come into court) any other issue should be in the federal district court. For the bankruptcy court was made by the legislative branch and can not rule on property rights, unless both parties consent.

    Bankruptcy court does not have article 3 powers, and if any lawyer on here try’s to say they do they are lying and you should run from that lawyer quickly. The US Supreme Court said this recently itself.

    Stern V. Marshall 131 S. Ct. 2594; 180 L. Ed. 2d 475

    “Article III, § 1, of the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The same section provides that the judges of those constitutional courts “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour” and “receive for their Services[ ] a Compensation[ ] [that] shall not be diminished” during their tenure….

    As its text and our precedent confirm, Article III is “an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances” that “both defines the power and protects the independence of the Judicial Branch.” Northern Pipeline, 458 U.S., at 58, 102 S. Ct. 2858, 73 L. Ed. 2d 598 (plurality opinion). Under “the basic [**494] concept of separation of powers . . . that flow[s] from the scheme of a tripartite government” adopted in the Constitution, “the ‘judicial Power of the United States’ . . . can no more be shared” with another branch than “the Chief Executive, for example, can share with the Judiciary the veto power, or the Congress share with the Judiciary the power to override a Presidential veto.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 704, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (1974) (quoting U.S. Const., Art. III, § 1)..

    Article III protects liberty not only through its role in implementing the separation of powers, but also by specifying the defining characteristics of Article III judges. The colonists had been subjected to judicial abuses at the hand of the Crown, and the Framers knew the main reasons why: because the King of Great Britain “made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” The Declaration of Independence. The Framers undertook in Article III to protect citizens subject to the judicial power of the new Federal Government from a repeat of those abuses. By appointing judges to serve without term limits, and restricting the ability of the other branches to remove judges or diminish their salaries, the Framers sought to ensure that each judicial decision would be rendered, not with an eye toward currying favor with Congress or the Executive, but rather with the “[c]lear heads . . . and honest hearts” deemed “essential to good judges.” 1 Works of James Wilson 363 (J. Andrews ed. 1896).”

    I know I just probably dropped a bomb shell but I know it was needed to be written. So before you listen to anyone on here who acts like they are lawyer or who works at one, study for yourself and seek the truth. A lot of people on here do not have you best interest at heart.

  18. carie




    TARP Inspector General footnote 35:

    “Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

  20. Pat

    Oh yeah — Info??? Got it.

  21. You can revoke your power of attorney at any time and that will give the federal reserve the right to take back all of the money that the bank borrowed with your signature.

  22. Pat,

    Good advise — get to BK court.

    As to your comment —- “The lender has likely provided you a copy of an original Note, which would be evidence of the original debt.”

    And, regarding subprime “refinances” —- there can be no NOTE to original “debt” (the refinance) — because the subprime “refinance” was never a valid mortgage with a valid note to begin with.

    Gomes only applies to antiquated law in non-judicial states — and, it was very poorly plead. Never plead fraud — as should have been — given the NOTE was invalid to begin with.

    Judicial states will kill it. . .

  23. NY being a lien state , Astoria Federal S & L admitted that they never owned my two condos cause the void ab initio judgments signed in NYSC when the case was under Federal jurisdiction did not give them title, and that FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AND CORONET TITLE HAD TO STEP IN AND INDEMNIFY THE FORGED DEEDS THEY INSURED..

    Fideltiy National Title and Coronet Title refused to indemnify and instead paid a bribe to Judge Alice Schlesinger to rule against the US Supreme Court case of Elliot v. Piersol and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

    Why are corrupt Title companies still operating in our country?

  24. BMcDonald,

    Here is what you face…..

    1. The lender has likely provided you a copy of an original Note, which would be evidence of the original debt.

    2. When they provided the follow up Note with the Blank Endorsement, that likely came from the actual loan file. (Some here are going to claim that the endorsement was done later, and after the court filing of the first Note and that this is fraud. Good luck trying to argue that point. To argue fraud, you must do so with specificity, names, places, timeframes, etc. You haven’t the info to make that fly.)

    3. The squiggle means nothing under CA law. Nor that the endorsement stamp was different than others you have seen. I have all sorts of varied stamps, by the same lender.

    4. Unless you are in BK Court, and the judge is someone like Buford, the Court will likely apply recent rulings like Gomes v Countrywide whereby the Court ruled that 2924 is exhaustive. There is no requirement to prove the Note, MERS is legitimate in CA, etc.

  25. I have a supposed signed and notarized power of attorney for the trustee to foreclose on my property. Ocwen’s Scott Anderson is the alleged VP and Lauren Gold is the notary from FL who supposedly witnessed his presence and signature. In my possession I have 5 -6 different scribbles, called signatures for Scott Anderson. The way we are handling this is to ask for a W-2, 1099, etc…to prove his employment and authority to foreclose. Also, I have an application from the Florida Notary Commission, with the original application for Lauren Gold and the notary signature on the power of attorney is clearly different than on her application to be a notary….plus New Century who was supposed to fund the loan (questions about funding) went bankrupt in 2007, time frame of my loan (2 weeks after) and the loans were sold to Ellington of CT and the servicing contract did not continue with Ocwen. We are still digging and it gets more interesting each day. Anyone have advice as to where to go next and strategy?

  26. If anyone would like the whole document that explains what I wrote below then please email me at
    I also have all of the exhibits to back everything up and a couple of steps to take to help fight back, including templates and the FBI mortgage fraud case review of 2010

  27. When looking at the definition of a “Mortgage Note” it is obvious that it is 
    a “Security Instrument”.  It is a promise to pay made by the maker 
    of that “Note”.  When looking at a copy of a “Deed of Trust” such as the template of a Tennessee “Deed of Trust” form that is on website, it is very obvious that this document is also a
     “Security Instrument”.  
    It  is  a  template  that  is  used  for  MOST  government  purchased 
    loans.  You  will  note  that  the  words  “Security  Instrument”  are 
    mentioned  no  less  than  90  times  in  that  document.  Is  there  ANY 
    doubt it is a “Security”?  When at the closing, the “borrower” is led 
    to believe that the “Mortgage Note” that he signs is a document that 
    binds  him  to  make  repayment  of  “money”  that  the  “lender”  is 
    loaning  him  to  purchase  the  property  he  is  acquiring.  Is  there 
    disclosure  to  the  “borrower”  to  the  effect  that  the  “lender”  is  not 
    really loaning any of their money to the “borrower” and therefore 
    is taking no risk whatsoever in the transaction?  Is it disclosed to 
    the  “borrower”  that  according  to  FEDERAL  LAW,  banks  are  not 
    allowed to loan credit and are also not allowed to loan their own or 
    their  depositor’s  money?  If  that  is  the  case,  then  how  could  this 
    transaction  possibly  take  place?  Where  does  the  money  come 
    from?  Is there really any money to be loaned?  The answer to this 
    last question is a resounding NO!  Most people are not aware that 
    there has been no lawful money since the bankruptcy of the United 
    States in 1933. 
         Since  House  Joint  Resolution  192  (HJR  192)  (Public  law  73­10) 
    was  passed  in  1933  we  have  only  had  debt,  because  all  property 
    and  gold  was  seized  by  the  government  as  collateral  in  the 
    bankruptcy  of  the  United  States.  Most  people  today  would  think 
    they  have  money  in  their  hand  when  they  pull  something  out  of 
    their pocket and look at the paper that is circulated by the banks 
    that they have been told is “money”.  In reality they are looking at a 
    “Federal Reserve Note” which is stated right on the face of the piece 
    of  paper  we  have  come  to  know  as  “money”.  It  is  NOT  really 
    “money”, it is debt, a promise to pay made by the United States! 

    There  are  very  strict  regulations  about what  can  and  cannot  be  done  with  “Securities”.  There  are  very strict  regulations  that  apply  to  the  reproduction  or  “copying”  of “Securities”:  
    The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102‐550, in Section 
    411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color 
    illustrations of U.S. currency provided:  
    The illustration is of a size less than three‐fourths or more than one and one‐
    ch part of the item illustrated   half, in linear dimension, of ea
    The illustration is one‐sided  
    All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic 
    medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the 
    illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are 
    destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use 
     Other Obligations and Securities 
    Photographic or other likenesses of other United States obligations and 
    securities and foreign currencies are permissible for any non‐fraudulent 
    purpose, provided the items are reproduced in black and white and are less 
    than three‐quarters or greater than one‐and‐one‐half times the size, in linear 
    dimension, of any part of the original item being reproduced. Negatives and 
    plates used in making the likenesses must be destroyed after their use for the 
    purpose for which they were made. 
    Title 18 USC § 472  Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities 
    Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to 
    pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent brings into the United States or keeps 
    in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered 
    obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or 
    imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.  
    Title 18 USC § 473  Dealing in counterfeit obligations or securities 
    Whoever buys, sells, exchanges, transfers, receives, or delivers any false, forged, 
    counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, with the 
    intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true and genuine, shall be fined 
    under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. 
    Title  18  USC  § 474  Plates,  stones,  or  analog,  digital,  or  electronic 
    images for counterfeiting obligations or securities 
    Whoever, with intent to defraud, makes, executes, acquires, scans, captures, records, 
    receives, transmits, reproduces, sells, or has in such person’s control, custody, or 
    possession, an analog, digital, or electronic image of any obligation or other security 
    f the United States is guilty of a class B felony. 
         Are  these  regulations  always  adhered  to  by  the  “lender”  when 
    they  have  possession  of  these  “original”  SECURITIES  and  make 
    reproductions  of  them  before  they  are  “sold  to  investors?  How 
    much  has  been  in  the  media  in  the  past  2  years  about  people 
    demanding  to  see  the  “wet  ink  signature  Note”  when  there  is  a 
    foreclosure action initiated against them?  You hear it all the time.  
    Why is that such a big issue?  Shouldn’t the “lender” be able to just 
    bring  the  “Note”  and  the  “Deed  of  Trust”  or  similar  “Security 
    Instrument”  to  the  Court  and  show  that  they  have  the  original 
    documents and are the “holder in due course” and therefore have a 
    legal  right  to  foreclose?  To  foreclose  they  must  have  BOTH  the 
    “Mortgage  Note”  and  “Deed  of  Trust”  or  other  similar  “Security 
    Instrument” ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS in their possession at the time 
    the  foreclosure  action  is  initiated.  Furthermore,  IS  there  a  real 
    honest to goodness obligation to be collected on? 
         Why is it that there is such a problem with “lost Mortgage Notes” 
    as  is  claimed  by  numerous  lenders  that  are  trying  to  foreclose 
    today?  How  could  it  be  that  there  could  be  so  many  “lost” 
    documents all of a sudden?  Could it be that the documents weren’t 
    really lost at all, but were actually turned into a source of revenue 
    that  was  never  disclosed  as  being  a  part  of  the  transaction?  To 
    believe  that  so  many  “original”  documents  could  be  legitimately 
    “lost” in such a short period of time stretches the credibility of such 
    claims beyond belief.  Could this be the reason that MERS (Mortage 
    Electronic Registration Systems) was formed in the 1990’s as a way 
    to supposedly “transfer ownership of a mortgage” without having 
    to  have  the  “original  documents”  that  would  be  required  to  be 
    presented to the various county recorders?  Could it be they KNEW 
    RECORDING  and  had  to  devise  a  system  to  get  around  that 
    requirement?  When the foreclosure action is filed in the court the 
    attorney for the purported “party of interest”, usually the “lender” 
    who is foreclosing, files a “COPY”  of the “Deed of Trust” or similar 
    “Investment  Security”  with  the  Complaint  to  begin  foreclosure 
    proceedings.  Is that “COPY” of the “Security Instrument” within the 
    “regulations” of Federal Law under 18 U.S.C. § 474?  Is it usually the 
    same size or very nearly the same  size as the original document?  
    Yes it is and without question it is a COUNTERFEIT SECURITY!  Who 
    was  it  that  produced  that  COUNTERFEIT  SECURITY?  Who  was 
    involved in taking that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY to the Court to file 
    the foreclosure action?  Who is it that is now legally in possession 
    of that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY?  Has everyone from the original 
    “lender”  down  to  the  Clerk  of  the  Court  where  the  foreclosure  is 
    now being litigated been in possession or is currently in possession 
    of that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY?  What about the Trustees who are 
    involved  in  the  process  of  selling  foreclosed  properties  in  non­
    judicial  states?  What  about  the  fact  that  there  is  no  judicial 
    proceeding in those states where the documentation purported to 
    be  legal  and  proper  to  bring  a  foreclosure  action  can  be  verified 
    without  expensive  litigation  by  the  alleged  “borrower”?  All  the 
    trustee has to do is send a letter to the alleged “borrower” stating 
    they are in default and can sell their property at public auction.  It 
    is just ASSUMED that they have the “ORIGINAL” documents in their 
    possession as required by law.  In reality, in almost every situation, 
    they  do  NOT!!!  They  are  using  a  COUNTERFEIT  SECURITY  as  the 
    basis  to  foreclose  on  a  property  that  was  paid  for  by  the  person 
    who  signed  the  “Mortgage  Note”  at  the  closing  table  that  was 
    converted  to  money  by  the  bank.  When  it  is  demanded  they 
    produce the actual “original signed documents” they almost always 
    refuse  to  do  so  and  ask  the  Court  to  “take  their  word  for  it”  that 
    they  have  BOTH  of  the  original  documents  which  are  absolutely 
    required  to  be  in  their  possession  to  begin  foreclosure  actions.  
    Almost every time the people that are being foreclosed on are able 
    to  convince  the  Court  (in  judicial  foreclosures)  to  demand  that 
    those  “original  documents”  be  produced  in  Court  by  the  Plaintiff, 
    the  foreclosure  action  stops  and  it  is  obvious  why  that  happens!  
    instead, submitted a COUNTERFEIT SECURITY to the Court as their 
    “proof of claim” to attempt to unjustly enrich themselves through a 
    blatantly fraudulent foreclosure action.  One often cited example of 
    this was the decision handed down by U. S. Federal District Court 
    Judge  Christopher  A.  Boyko  of  Ohio,  who  on  October  31,  2007 
    dismissed  14  foreclosure  actions  at  one  time  with  scathing 
    footnote  comments  about  the  actions  of  the  Plaintiffs  and  their 
    attorneys.  See (Exhibit “E”).  Not long after that came the dismissal 
    of 26 foreclosure cases in Ohio by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas 
    M.  Rose  who  referenced  the  Boyko  ruling  in  his  decision.

     If that is the 
    case,  then  the  Fraud  that  has  been discussed  here  falls  under  the 
    RICO statutes of Federal Law.  Didn’t they eventually take down the 
    mob for Racketeering under RICO statutes years ago?  Is it time to 
    take down the “NEW MOB” with RICO once again? 

  28. The bank just produced an alleged original Note with an endorsement in blank stamp. The copy they submitted to the court to do the foreclosure had no endorsement at all on it. Two years later, now they are claiming this one to be the original true and correct copy. The endorsement stamp does not have the name of the signer or their title on it and the signature is just a squiggle, illegible. The endorsement stamp doesn’t look like any other ones I’ve seen from this bank which all have the singers name printed under it and their title. I’m wondering, if they cannot prove this is an valid endorsement, whether it voids the note.

  29. Hi,

    I am dealing with the same thing. DOT was suppose to be signed using only my name. Now that my home was sold to a private investor, and is now a rental propety, I finally really secrutinized my DOT, and found that spouses signature was forged throughout the DOT. My signature was NOT notarized, only the last page of the LIBOR index is notarized. I am blown away. I have a power of attorney, but was told that the bank declined my poa, and only I would sign, and I did!
    My spouses section was left blank.

    Is it too late for me to get my house back? Or is the entire thing done and over?

    Also, Is there ANYTHING on file (court docs), that has JPM Chase stating that they are NOT the successor in interest of the WAMU loans? Because my Ch 7 (filed in 09, but due to court error, it was discharged this yr 2011), states that they are the secured creditor,
    and so does a substituion of title. However, my notice of trustee sale shows the orignal lender as the beneficiary.

    At the time of closing, the DOT states that this non existing entity is the beneficiary. Within the same month a letter states the loan will be transferred to another non existing entity, and to make payments to this non existing entity. WOW!

    Again, Is it too late to move forward? Can this entire deed be voided?
    Is it likely to be voided in California? Hmmmm

    I could just kick myself! I might still be in my home.

  30. Explain the circumstances of the “forged endorsement”.

  31. Does anyone know if a forged endorsement renders the note void or unenforceable? If it does, I need cases to site, statues, Colorado case would be the best.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: