Now You See Them, Now You Don’t


It is a chaotic circular round of documents emanating ultimately by, for and from the same parties. And somehow it is becoming custom and practice to allow law firm employees to sign important documents that transfer possession, delivery, ownership and servicing rights from one party to another while those parties themselves sign nothing.



I can’t help thinking about whether there is a motion in California and other nonjudicial states that allows you to challenge the right of the attorney to be the attorney of record when the law firm is a fact witness on issues that are central to the case. Having signed the proof of claim, being the trustee (who supposedly represents the party who signs a proof of claim), etc., the question is whether they are acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a third party who might indeed have some objections against the law firm representing the interests of parties whose interests might be antithetical to their own.

In a deed of trust you have the trustor (homeowner) and the Trustee in the middle between the trustor and the beneficiary who presumably is the creditor. By now we know that original beneficiary probably did not make the loan and that the alleged new beneficiary didn’t buy it. The beneficiaries’ claims are only as good as the words on the fabricated paper on which they are written and certain legal presumptions that are routinely misapplied.

So the first sign of trouble is the “Substitution of Trustee” wherein a “New” beneficiary executes a document appointing a new Trustee on the Deed of Trust. Why? What was wrong with the old one if everything was on the up and up? They substitute because they know the original Trustee won’t accept the instructions from the new party because the original Trustee has no objective reason to believe that the new “party” is a “beneficiary”. Who signs that “substitution of Trustee”?

It is usually someone who has been given instructions to sign it on the promise and premise that they have been appointed attorney in fact for the “new beneficiary.” In fact, in many cases their only job is signing documents that they have received instructions to sign. But the actual person signing knows absolutely nothing about the deal and has no knowledge about the facts behind the business of signing such documents — assuming their signature was not forged or robo-signed.

So in this and many if not nearly all cases, the actual signature is supplied by a third party who will then fabricate a power of attorney to do it — still without any facts about why the Trustee needs to be replaced. In most cases it is an employee of the law firm who by definition (?) has no actual interest in the loan, the debt, the note or the mortgage (Deed of Trust). This makes the person who signed it a fact witness and watch how the law firm fights to prevent that person from testifying at deposition or trial. In many cases they will assert that the person is no longer employed and they don’t know where he or she is now located.

And then you have the new Trustee who often turns out to be the same law firm who signed the Substitution of Trustee, making it a double self-serving document for which no legal presumptions should apply since there is no foundation in evidence that establishes the law firm as a real party in interest — and if such evidence existed the law firm would be disqualified from representing the allegedly new beneficiary and from being the Trustee AND advocate against the Trustor. If the legislature meant to allow that sort of thing they would have been violating the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution making the entire nonjudicial statutory scheme unconstitutional.

Who signs the power of attorney once it is fabricated? It is either the law firm employee or an employee who works for a “servicer” who in most cases is not named in any document as servicer. Who signs the validation of the foreclosure? Same person. It is a chaotic circular round of documents emanating ultimately by, for and from the same parties. And somehow it is becoming custom and practice to allow law firm employees to sign important documents that transfer possession, delivery, ownership and servicing rights from one party to another while those parties themselves sign nothing.

That is what they are talking about when they refer to “remote” vehicles. It is a situation where actions are taken and the people for whom the action was taken cannot be tied into the transaction in case someone needs to go to jail, or pay a fine or sanctions. But somehow the Courts have twisted this into meaning that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. The banks can distance themselves from liability for a fabricated transaction but they also can receive the benefits of the fabrication as though they were present. to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

5 Responses


    This motion is based upon California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-310(E), which prohibits an attorney from accepting employment adverse to a former client where by reason of such former representation the attorney has obtained confidential information material to the present case; upon case law providing grounds to disqualify opposing counsel for misconduct and the appearance of impropriety; and upon California law which provides that when an individual attorney is disqualified for conflict of interest, vicarious disqualification of his entire law firm is mandated. This motion is further based upon Code of Civil Procedure, Section 128(a)(5) which grants the court authority to disqualify counsel.

  2. Are you F***king kidding me? Attorney’s have been masquerading around the rules of court for so long, “the court” just allows it. For the past six years, here in Lee County Florida, we’ve had to deal not only with retired judges running an ongoing “Rocket Docket”, but a judiciary complicit with any litigation against the Florida consumer. Message to the Florida Supreme Court: Do you really think you’re immune from the havoc you’ve wreaked on the people of Florida? Guess again.

  3. Great Western Bank had a correspondent relationship with Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) in which the loan was sold to WaMu and then the Fed Gov loan were placed into Ginnie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) as WaMu created the Ginnie MBS as the “issuer”!

    Wells Fargo on Jul 2006 entered into some type of mortgage servicer that had all the blank endorsed Notes transfer physically to Wells as the custodian of record for Ginnie Mae.

    WaMu not longer exist after Sept 25, 2008 as it is seized and declared a “failed bank”. Wells Fargo Bank has this attorney from the same firm representing it in the $3 million lost in Holm v Wells/Freddie with only a $145,000 mortgage balance.

    Attorney Sara Knittel of Kozeny & McCubbin who did create a forgery in the Assignment of Deed of Trust as if Great Western Bank sold the Dept of VA loan to Wells when in fact WaMu purchased the loan on Jul 21, 2009 as verified by the bank through FDIC!

    The Note was signed by my boss the head of the mortgage department to WaMu and WaMu did sign in blank the Note in order to participate in the creating of the Ginnie MBS. Now WaMu has no ability to petition the court because it could not and was not able to regain the blank Note as Ginnie or Wells can return the Note to reunited with the debt!

    Only the bank (WaMu) and the borrower are financially interested in the property and WaMu having purchase the loan did have a financial interest but that was given away when the Note/Contract was endorsed in blank UCC 3 bankruptcy remote procedure and when Wells Fargo a year after WaMu failed the law firm, MERS & Wells did my mail fraud did cause the forged document to be recorded and used in a illegal foreclose of the property and insurance claim against the Dept of VA Guaranty Fund!

    Part of the Feb 2012 SEC Whistleblower Claim!

  4. this whole scheme has been about eliminating the liability to the banks, that’s why the homeowner got the shaft. this is old news. we know that banks are going to weasel their way out of any potential liability anyway they can and the lawyers I have met so far are not really that smart!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: