County Recorders Getting Proactive: Conference Call in 30 minutes

Today’s Conference Call: De Facto Foreclosure Moratorium

9,305 San Diego County homeowners face Foreclosure right now!

Web page with all links and info including call registration:

Nov 8, 10:00 am PST: Please join us and John O’Brien, Registrar of Deeds, in Salem, Massachusetts.
Learn about their De Facto Foreclosure Moratorium by refusing to record forged documents sent by the banks.
Approx. 40min presentation, followed by Q&A time.Call registration:

Please type YOUR COUNTY NAME in the ‘remarks’ box.


If the banks cannot record their forged documents on our homes, they cannot foreclose. We must stop the recordings.

Each county recorder can and must follow all our laws and refuse to record fabricated and suspect documents without an Affidavit of Authenticity signed under penalty of perjury and felony, and prison time in some states.

Recording of suspect documents could subject a Recorder to civil and/or criminal liability, and directly violates the Recorder’s Oath of Office to uphold the constitution of the State and the United States. [oath of office]

1. Legal foundation to refuse to record suspect documents [MA law] [help us refence to legal citations for each state]
2. Knowingly recording suspect documents could subject a Recorder to civil and/or criminal liability.
3. Recording Rejection Letter & Affidavit of Authenticity [example) Individual State Penal Codes for Letter

Foreclosure Audits Show the Magnitude:
May 2011: Essex County Audit, Massachusetts
Feb 2012: San Francisco County Audit, California
Forged Docs: Forged NOD VP Sig Forged Notary Sig

How to get this ‘de facto foreclosure moratorium’ enacted in YOUR county:

1. Connect with HOFJ County Directors [email CJ]
2. Email this page link to your County Recorder.
3. Print and present this material to your Recorder
4. Print and present this material to each County Supervisor.
5. Present and present this material to local newspapers and radio stations.
6. Register for Conference Call above.

Join today’s Conference Call for County Recorders, Elected Officials, Interested Parties
How Recorders Can Get a De Facto Foreclosure Moratorium started.

Meet with John O’Brien, MA Registrar, & Kevin Harvey, Key Aide
John Requires “Affidavit of Authenticity” for Robosigned Documents

John’s 3 minutes on Fraud
CBS Atlanta Foreclosure Fraud in Georgia, O’Brien Interview

Nancy Becker, PA Registrar, Quiet Title Against MERS Lawsuit

Jeff Thigpen, NC Registrar, Lawsuit Against Robosigned Docs
Jeff Thigpen Fraud and Foreclosure
Thanks for your support, cj


CJ Holmes, Founder

Home Owners For
San Diego Assist: Jack Settie 760-390-2101 Charles Koppa 760-787-9966

8 Responses

  1. Leah, everyone interested: I don’t think any of the notes were ever endorsed, because if they were transferred at all, it was pursuant to a Sale and Assignment Agreement, the UCC term, (factually the psa) which essentially transfers them in bulk = no endorsement on notes. One element of the transfer by an S & A agreement is that the loans must be sufficiently identified. Another is that the instruments, the notes,* had to be delivered. If the agreement is otherwise properly executed, but the notes weren’t delivered, the UCC (9-203) says it’s not a sale, but does result in ‘perfected security interests’ for the ‘buyer’ of the notes. Instead of a sale occuring, the seller has become a party indentured to the trust
    (or anyone on the other end of S & A agreements) and is the party primarily liable to the trust. if endorsements are called for in the Agreement, and not done, under the UCC, same result: the trust (or any party to such an agreement) acquires a security, not ownership, interest).
    The banksters are executing -forging – endorsements that weren’t there to try to establish 1) both compliance with the PSA and a right for the trust to enforce under Article 3 (v 9) against the homeowner (v to enforce against the indentured party, which right to enforce against the homeowner doesn’t exist to my knowledge under a security interest) 2) avoid their own obligations to the trust as indentured parties, and 3) use a credit bid by the trusts to go after what is their own collateral, not the trust’s collateral. Using a credit bid in their own names would tip their hat that the agreement was not complied with and no sale occurred. Article 9-203(g) says one with a security interest in a note secured by a collateral instrument (mtg or dot) also obtains a security interest in the collateral instrument. So that’s what the trusts likely got, if that – a security interest (disregarding here, and not disrespectfully, NG’s theories).

    Article 9 deals with bulk transfers/ sales of notes by Sale and Assignment agreements, which is how this whole deal was set up. Banksters write papers for each other which says the provisions of 9-203g mean the dot (or mtg) follows the note, but they don’t. Pursuant to 9-203(g), only a security interest in a dot or mtg follows security interest in a note. I can see that might be confusing if one is not up on security interests, but that’s the law. Short version: ownership interest in a collateral instrument does not follow (a mere) security interest in a note.
    Can they endorse the notes at this date (but withOUT pretense it was done earlier) to actually now transfer, by way of Article 3, notes in which the trust has only a security interest? I think they can, but don’t know. We need to know for sure, because imo that’s what’s going on (disregarding that these notes are likely reproductions of digitalized or file copy notes). Even if they can, what they still canNOT do is forge the endorsements and pretend they were there all along.

    What’s in the charade for the banksters:

    First and foremost if the notes’ ownership did not transfer (trust only got security interest) and the banksters had insured the notes, because the banksters actually owned the notes, any insurance payout would, I believe, have reduced the amt owing on the notes and those funds have long gone to mojitas aka ridiculous salaries, bonuses, and perks. Secondly, these particular bulk-sale agreements called for the endorsements as evidence of the transfers. Third, if the notes were not purchased by the trusts (v. just getting security interests), accepting a transfer AT THIS DATE (past the cut-off), if it can be done as a matter of law, has dramatic consequences to the trust’s tax status. Because the banksters were to have acted but didn’t act in a manner which made these deals sales and not just security interests, they would be liable to the investors for their loss of tax status. And that’s why the charade.

    If enough people come to understand bulk sales and believe that was the deal here, and understand what went amiss (starting with no delivery of the notes and the fact that there would be no endorsements on those notes (I have yet to consider the original end by the originator) in the first place, we won’t be that far away from figuring out how to demonstrate certain “realities” to courts. Half of it appears to me to have been right under our noses all along.
    *For a SALE of an asset (note) secured by an interest in real property , the banksters et al recognized the req’t for a written assgt of the collateral instruments, and that’s why the PSA’s called for them.
    Also, there is more to an endorsement on a note than we know just now. Hopefully, we won’t need to care.

  2. Hey joe, if it is a DocX document it is a forgery…have BOA, the same thing.

    For me, this recording thing…oh, New Century is an originator, who got lines of credit and defaulted on them, they are not my lender and I have filed a suit to take them off of my deed. Based on that recordation there should be no foreclosure.

  3. body{font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}p{margin:0px;}

    Just received the email…..At 11:00 AM Darn! Will it be available to view at a later time? The pretender lender has recorded title on my home in thier name. I am fighting eviction. The title appears to be clouded. I am in the midst of filing a federal lawsuit…..Pro-se. I am acquiring new damning information in discovery daily. If I am booted out of my home of 30 years, I feel my chances of prevailing in court are diminished. True? If enough time is allowed to get to the bottom of the lies, I believe most home owners would get thier homes back. So, what’s next for me to do? Why is there so little coverage of this? Maaybe a full hour on 60minutes is due again? Thanks for what you are doing Niel. You and what you are doing is like a beacon in troubled waters for a safe passage home. Sincerely, Ken Wertz

  4. I just came on to the web and found this. I spread the word and would like to try to get in on the next conference. Am reading though all of this now There is always more than one way to kill this. This method sounds like a good one.

  5. The same thing is going on with credit card and other loan lawsuilts. Fraud is being used to gain legal standing, personal knowledgal to win court judgements. Evenyone seems to know this, judge, lawyers on both sides, but I see no one taking action. The same process that ended up with the 24 billion dollar settlement against the banks is on going as I write this. I have proof because I filed a complaint with the state of NC notary dept and their finding was that the notary failed to meet the statutory requirements for a complete and lawful notarial act by notarizing documents without the personal appearance of the principal and failing to administer oaths. This is a scheme to mis-lead our courts into thinking they are what they are in fact not. It is a crime to conspire with others to get money that you do not have a legal right to collect. I don’t want to hear about filing a lawsuilt under the debt laws. Civil court is the wrong verue for this. This is a CRIME. Where are the police? Are we a country of laws? Or Not? Any help would be great, I need legal help. Not for filing a lawsuilt, but to report a crime. email me at,

  6. Fraudulent and forged documents exist all through the alleged chain of title. The ultimate forgery machine is called an autopen.
    A metal plate is made of the victim’s signature and a robotic arm with a pen at the end signs the signature. Quite expensive to produce, It is legally used by officials such as the President of the US, governors, etc. to sign documents legally. However, it is also used as a forgery device. The strange blue ink is actually a copy made by a standard color copy machine.

  7. LDean TX

    How can we get Harris County Clerks office, TX to follow and learn about mortgage fraud? When I go to HCCO they are shocked and what I have learned and what I know about mortgage fraud and
    Robo Signing. I have even been asked to be a advocate for people
    who need help. I just do not know where to start. It was not until Monday, November 5, 2012 I realized that the promissory note was never endorsed by the originator before the trust CWABS 2007-2
    closed. May of 2012, Bank of America sent a promissory note that finally had a endorsement (or robo stamp) of Michele Sjolander.
    In over 1-1/2 years, all of the promissory notes that were sent to me by Bank of America never has a stamp. This is proof that the promissory note was never endorsed before the pool closed. I want to get involved with Harris County Clerk’s office and Harris County Appraisal District to help people save their homes from Illegal Foreclosure before it even starts.

  8. Does anyone know of a forensic document specialist in Florida. One who can substantiate a promissory note, forged by BOA?

    I believe the note was lost and then color copied, from a BW copy, at DOCX in Georgia. The signature ink is a color I’ve never seen before and it is not on a legal size paper. However, my copy of the promissory note is, and it fits in the size properly. There are other inconsistencies.

    I aleady have one, but would like to have a second as well.

    Joe Testa

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: