Attorney Verification of Foreclosure Complaints

This is a blatant flaunting and end run around the rule of law. Following a 15 year tradition of fabricating “facially valid” documents, lawyers are having an employee of the law firm sign documents to verify a complaint or other filing.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

Practically every consult I do for attorneys in litigation involves some document that was fabricated, forged and/or robosigned. This trick at misdirection of the court is accomplished by fabricating a document that looks to be facially valid but contains nothing but blatant lies about the people who signed it, the people who offered it, and the lawyers who pursue a false narrative based upon the presumptive validity of documents they know are not just flawed but more importantly fictitious having been fabricated strictly for the purpose of litigation and foreclosure.

Such documents are inadmissible, so the false proffer in court is that they are old valid and authentic documents that were not fabricated for use in court.

The latest turn (although not new) in these events is the execution of a “verification” or other document to be filed with the court by an employee of a law firm that at least initially starts the foreclosure. You may remember that David Stern and others made millions providing this service to banks, servicers and other parties who were involved in the initiation or maintenance of an action to foreclose. While Stern lost his license to practice law, he made off with tens of millions of dollars in fees directly attributable to falsifying documents.

Like the Bernie Madoff situation, some people were thrown under the bus and some people were not. Madoff’s PONZI scheme was not a singular event involving the the largest economic crime ($60 Billion) in Wall Street history. The publication of it gave convenient cover to underwriting banks and other cooperating entities involved in the absolute greatest of all PONZI schemes — the sale of worthless securities issued by empty trusts (over $5 trillion). The PONZI aspect was the same. But Madoff’s scheme was barely 1% of the amount stolen by Wall Street banks. And the Courts have been unwitting accomplices.

The actual “promise to pay” the investors came from the empty trust and not a homeowner or group of homeowners. The debt owed by homeowners was never owed to either the creditor (the investors) nor the trust (which was empty and never operated).  And the payments came from a dynamic dark pool consisting entirely of investor money that was legally and actually supposed to be in a bank account clearly labeled for the REMIC Trust that issued the RMBS — and then managed by a “Trustee” but the Trustee turned out to have no power. All the payments received by investors came from the dark pool — not from borrower payments or recoveries in foreclosure.

All power was vested in the “Master Servicer” which of course was the underwriter who sold the bogus RMBS in the first place — another hallmark of control always present in PONZI schemes. The entire scheme was based upon invested capital being diverted from the trusts — and then covered up by (a) payments out of the dynamic dark pool (PONZI) and (b) originating rather than buying nonconforming loans (a more elaborate PONZI).  The rest of the money was concealed in “trading profits” that are gradually released from the stockpile of money sucked out of the economy by the participating banks.

All of these transactions were “off balance sheet.” Since there were no “real transactions” in “real life” (loans, sales of loans creating a chain) the obvious fraud could only be covered up by getting court orders on a mass scale that assumed the false bank narrative was true. Those court orders and judgments were the first and only presumptively legal document in the entire chain. This is why the banks seek foreclosures at all costs to seal up potential civil and criminal liability for their initial theft from investors. Modifications must be done for purpose of appearances, but they are an intrusion into the business plan of getting as many foreclosures booked as possible.

In order to obtain such orders judges had to be satisfied that the designated forecloser was indeed a “lender” or “Creditor.” In order to do that the banks had to present fraudulent documents. In order to get the fraudulent documents through the system, the bank attorneys knew that in most cases they would only need to present “facially valid documents.” The judges would not look “under the hood.” And borrowers who could see the scam did not have access to information that would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Hence most contested foreclosures are still resolved in favor of the co-venturers involved in the fraudulent scheme.

Foreclosure mills are among the people whom the banks will readily throw under the bus (“we’re shocked to discover that our law firm was committing such heinous crimes”). If the law firms were unwilling to provide these “extracurricular services” they never would have retained the business of foreclosures. The banks needed to win because they needed that one legal document that would create the almost conclusive presumption that everything that preceded the judgment allowing foreclosure. And the banks knew that could only be done by fraudulent misrepresentations to the courts, to borrowers, to government agencies including law enforcement that to date has jailed absolutely nobody except Lorraine Brown of DOCX.

So what do I say when represented by an obviously  false document executed by an employee of the foreclosure mill? For example I just received (hat tip to Bill Paatalo) one such “verification” in  which the signor declares that the client is out of town and so the law firm is executing the verification for the client.

The obvious response is that (1) being located somewhere else doesn’t prevent an authorized competent person from doing the verification (2) the absence of a competent witness does not give authority to anyone else to verify as though they were a competent witness (3) the verification does not and probably cannot assert that the signor is competent, to wit:

COMPETENCY consists of (a) OATH (b) PERCEPTION (C) MEMORY and (d) the ability to communicate what the witness saw, heard or otherwise experienced personally.

The law firm clearly has no personal knowledge and therefore is executing the verification just to satisfy the elements of a facially valid verification, when both reason and parole evidence clearly shows that the verification is a sham.

Hence, sanctions should be appropriate against the employee who signed it, the lawyer, the law firm and the “client” if the client knew that this was being done. Of course in most cases the party named as bringing the foreclosure is NOT the client, which is another fraudulent misrepresentation in court that would defeat jurisdiction. The client is always the sub-servicer who takes orders from the “Master Servicer”, i.e.  the underwriter who created bogus trusts to issue bogus mortgage bonds and walked away with trillions of dollars.


14 Responses

  1. Yep.

  2. @ ANON ,

    Damn that’s funny ,,, OCWEN complaining about being mistreated with extravagant billing and mystery charges…. when the reason they needed a “monitor” was because that’s exactly how they conducted themselves with subsidiary companies … serves them right.

  3. has anyone see this ? FIS is Fidelity National Why would CA hire them as an independent monitor?

  4. JUST GOGGLE THIS FOR YOUR STATE! Washington case law supports attorneys affidavits without personal knowledge are unacceptable. How ever my case that is in the WA Supreme court under Petition for Review is there only due to an employee assistant attorney Wil Eidson for Stoel and Rives and John Glowney his boss is the only affidavit claiming the docurments are valid under oath when it is impossible for the lawyer to have personal knowledge which is Will Eidsen and the law firm Obstructing Justice by committing felonies. The judge in the Supreiror court accepted this affidavit and the three judges in the Appeals court accepted this hearsay affidavit.
    Potter v. Wilbur-Ellis Co.
    814 P. 2d 670, 62 Wash. App. 318 – Wash: Court of Appeals, 3rd Div …, 1991 – Google Scholar
    … annum interest on past due accounts and attorney fees if turned over to attorney for collection …
    Affidavits submitted in summary judgment proceedings must be based on personal knowledge …
    327 The Potters contend the sale of Tee Time by Wilbur-Ellis without revealing the Green …
    Cited by 26 How cited Related articles Cite SaveMr. Westerdahl’s deposition indicates he had reason to believe something other than Tee Time caused the Green Baron damage.[4] His belief is based on hearsay as to what an extension agent concluded. Affidavits submitted in summary judgment proceedings must be based on personal knowledge. CR 56(e). Wilbur-Ellis has failed to sustain its burden of showing no genuine material factual disputes exist as to a cause of action under RCW 7.72.040(1)(a) and (c). The trial court erred in dismissing this cause of action.

    153 Wn.2d 152, In re Estate of Black – Washington State Supreme and …
    Dec 9, 2004 – Under RCW 11.20.070 as amended by Laws of 1994, ch. … an attesting witness is one who has personal knowledge of the fact that …. [23] Wills – Contest – Attorney Fees – Payable From Estate … Superior Court: The Superior Court for Columbia County, No. … 1»Robert Reiter’s affidavit states the following.
    IN RE: the ESTATE OF Margaret BLACK – Caselaw – FindLaw › Caselaw › Washington › WA Supreme Ct.
    Dec 9, 2004 – Case opinion for WA Supreme Court IN RE: the ESTATE OF Margaret BLACK. … Id. The moving party has the burden of proving there is no genuine issue of material …. RCW 11.20.070(1) states that the court “may take proof of the … outside an affiant’s personal knowledge is not admissible in an affidavit …
    STATE v. OLLIVIER – FindLaw: Cases and Codes › Caselaw › Washington › WA Supreme Ct.
    Oct 31, 2013 – Case opinion for WA Supreme Court STATE v. … in the affidavit, and no violation of CrR 2.3(d) occurred because a copy ….. attributable to defense counsel’s requests); In re Personal Restraint of … the lawyer is privately retained, appointed, or serving in a legal aid or …… I believe that result is unacceptable.
    Records here dispute Treasury nominee’s denial of mortgage-crisis ……/records-here-dispute-treasury-nominees-denial-of-mortgage-cri...
    Feb 11, 2017 – In some cases, mortgage-industry employees even forged … Attorneys who have fought foreclosures in Washington … affidavits or other documents without any personal knowledge as to their accuracy. … McDonald to offset his legal costs, “punish unacceptable behavior, and as a deterrent to bad conduct.
    CR 5(a) – Washington State Courts – Court Rules › Court Rules
    No service need be made on parties in default for failure to appear except that … Sunday or legal holiday, in which event service shall be deemed complete on the first … by affidavit of the person who mailed the papers, or by certificate of an attorney. … personally either within or without the state, or by mail to the attorney at …
    View All Rules – Washington State Courts – Court Rules › Court Rules
    Comments that have no counterpart in the Model Rules are compiled at the end of each ….. Comment Legal Knowledge and Skill [1] In determining whether a lawyer ….. In such cases the lawyer must nonetheless act reasonably to inform the …… law firm and former client an affidavit attesting that the personally disqualified …
    Grimm v. State :: 1969 :: Maryland Court of Special … – Justia US Law › … › Maryland Court of Special Appeals Decisions › 1969
    Grimm v. State. Annotate this Case. 7 Md. App. 491 (1969). 256 A.2d 333 … Poole, Jr., State’s Attorney for Washington County, and Lynn Meyers, Deputy State’s … yard upon which the affiant [Mason] has personal knowledge and probable cause … be confined solely to the affidavit itself, and evidence outside the affidavit, no …
    UPTON, COMMONWEALTH vs., 394 Mass. 363 – Mass Cases

  5. Attorneys will verify anything even if not authorized or unknown by client that attorney is doing Attorneys have full reign

  6. Attorneys routinely verify unlawful detainer (eviction) complaints in California despite the fact that in California attorney verification of complaints is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 446 which states in pertinent part that, “In all cases of a verification of a pleading, the affidavit of the party shall state that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on his or her information or belief, and as to those matters that he or she believes it to be true; and where a pleading is verified, it shall be by the affidavit of a party, unless the parties are absent from the county where the attorney has his or her office, or from some cause unable to verify it, or the facts are within the knowledge of his or her attorney or other person verifying the same. When the pleading is verified by the attorney, or any other person except one of the parties, he or she shall set forth in the affidavit the reasons why it is not made by one of the parties.”

    Code of Civil Procedure section 446 clearly states that the only situations in which an attorney verification of a complaint is proper are when the plaintiff is absent from the county where the attorney has his or her office or is otherwise unable to verify the complaint; or the facts are within the personal knowledge of the attorney verifying the complaint.

    If an attorney has improperly verified a complaint in California that is required by law to be verified such as an unlawful detainer complaint or any complaint that involves possession of, or title to, real property a motion to strike the entire complaint can be filed

    A California Court of Appeal has stated in a published decision that that unless the client’s absence from the county makes it impractical or impossible to have the client sign the verification, an attorney cannot verify a pleading on behalf of their client. In that case the Court of Appeal specifically held that in cases where the client can be reached by mail, verification by an attorney is not allowed.

  7. Reblogged this on California freelance paralegal.

  8. Excellent article Neil. The “off balance” sheet is right on. A “shell” conduit to “hold” only collection rights. But, these were mostly refinances — so how was that possible? Where did they come from? Had to come from somewhere. Right on, also, with “Ponzi” analogy.

  9. Nj Supreme Court denied my certification on the Certificate of dilegent inquiry ( codi) based on fraudulent documents in my foreclosure case. The codi was the solution that the nj judicial system enacted to make sure foreclosures going forward were not poisoned with robo signed and deceptive documents. I was the first in nj to make that challenge. For obvious reasons they declined it. The appellate court stayed far away from the fraudulent assignment of mortgage. Didn’t say anything about note not indorsed until summary judgment which was 7 years after the trust allegedly had ownership. 3 years after the trust closed for the fraudulent assignment of mortgage. Ocwen brought foreclosure complaint in deutsche bank as trustee for certificate holders. The assignment was to deutsche missing all the other chains from originater. The appellate ruled on affidavit of ocwen employee who claimed the trust was the owner. They said it didn’t matter whether they found them Holder or Nonholder they had the right to foreclose. The ignored Holder in due course. They ignored no power of attorney from deutsche to Ocwen. They ignored standing to bring complaint despite the unindorsed note and fraudulent assignment. Codi was challenged from the very beginning in my case. Needless to say I’m very disappointed in the nj judicial system. They are either clueless of the law or they are crooks themselves or for some reason they are afraid to hold the banks accountable. I was denied Hamp twice and I had applied for a new mortgage through 1st alliance lending and was approved. Ocwen and 1st alliance were in partnership to keep people in their homes in 2013. Got letters from both of them. Needless to say Ocwen didn’t show up to 1st alliance lawyers for closing with documents. There was never a time that I didn’t want to pay for my mortgage. They just didn’t want it. I think no ones homes are safe anymore whether they are paying or not. That’s the thing that nj judicial system does not get. They have harmed all of the homeowners. It’s hard to go 30 years without getting into some financial difficulties. And servicers like Ocwen will push them into foreclosure one way or another

  10. Can a verification be done for a non-judicial state like california?

    On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Livinglies’s Weblog wrote:

    > Neil Garfield posted: “This is a blatant flaunting and end run around the > rule of law. Following a 15 year tradition of fabricating “facially valid” > documents, lawyers are having an employee of the law firm sign documents to > verify a complaint or other filing. Get a consult! 20″ >

  11. Neil and all:
    The weakness in the nationwide foreclosure massacre of homeowners is the fable of the “presumption” of validity and credibility of “vouching lawyers”….we see this in many jurisdictions, esp., Md and NJ and of course Fla. Courts cannot simply apply an exception to the evidence codes by allowing proxy vouching as though there is an evidentiary presumption when there is NONE. Personal knowledge is the standard in ALL states and under federal law, period. We have challenges in several states pending on this very issue. If we can assist give us a call or write to us a or 818.453.3585.

  12. Worse than Isis has ugly mask, WFB has mind game modification letter mask passifying time till dragging us vulnrable people under the bus sad they not afraid of government or the law

  13. Hi. I have gone through a non judicial in 2010-2012 and then in 2014 a new party came forward, Wilmington trust for bear stearns 2007sdi and the judge was retiring and she just went a long with everything. Nothing added up. No certfiicates in the supposed custodian file they admitted but then said case laws says homeowner has no right to challenge pooling and servicing agreement and the loan was not even pooled they admitted nor it meet timelines so I truly don’t believe it’s in trust but they said I can’t challenge it. That’s not what I call due process. That’s called cheating. Anyways, lane Powell has had a court order to sell house for over one year now and they haven’t sold it. They are trying to get me to sign docs that say I will drop appeal and I told them I would if they guarantee me that a corrective deed will not be recorded after home reverts back to lender or if home sold to private party. They cannot guarantee me that. If that were to happen then I would know there is fraud on court as I went through a 4 day trial judicially and if all was proffered to court correctly there would not be a need for a corrective deed. So the light hasn’t been any greener fot them to sell the house with the court order but they haven’t. Very odd. I just know after all I’ve endured that Wilmington trust does not have interest and I when I filed a complaint recently with cfpb M&T bank responded on behalf of Wilmington trust and said that WT has no relationship with the note holder. Which is Wells Fargo who said they sold the loan on the secondary market back in 2006 and somehow have the note which by the way was discharged in chapter 7 bk in 2004 but I paid Wells Fargo $200k to retain property. The court of appeals is surprisingly just letting my case sit idle without pressure and I told them I don’t want to hire another attorney because I don’t trust anyone. There’s a big pool of money allotted to clean up the messes and I don’t thing the homeowners best interest is being held like it should based on what I’ve experienced. They cannot stand I had absolute evidence and it involved Wells Fargo. Do you have any recommendation for me? We are into this 8 years and I’ll be dammed if a party waltzs in through fabricated documents and gets an asset for free and received unjust enrichment when we have our real money into it plus my husband built our house. Thanks. I can be reached at 253.397.6670 and reside in corrupt Washington State. Pierce county court system where judges were caught for racketeering years ago.

    Sent from my iPhone


  14. when is Akbertelli out of tampa going to be investigated. chase’s crooked attorneys and as incompetent as the day is long. lawyer terrorists and no that is not a mispelling!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: