The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall today at 3pm Pacific/6pm Eastern: Endorsing the Fraud

 

Charles Marshall Logo Southern California

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).

In this episode, Investigator Bill Paatalo questions a declaration that was submitted in a Washington case in which he has been consulting.

Scott Aronowitz executes as a “Litigation specialist” for Selene Finance, LP.   However, Paatalo’s research shows that Aronowitz is an attorney, but fails to disclose this fact.  Paatalo brings up that this is a new trend where in-house counsel executes mortgage documents without anyone knowing they are licensed attorneys.  In this case  Aronowitz attests that Selene has the original note in its possession, and that he is familiar with the record keeping practices of Countrywide and ReconTrust. (See:paragraph #2).
https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/32256-fl-scott-aronowitz-1223707.html

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-aronowitz-esq-5a5b053a/

 

Of concern, where are the Motions to Compel the note history screenshots (like the Diddrick case attached) proving the bogus note endorsements? In Diddrick, David Spector’s endorsement was placed on the note in 2012 for purposes of litigation. We have the attorney in the infamous Kemp v. Countrywide case also stating in the transcript (attached) that David Spector’s endorsement was placed on the Allonge because it was needed for “litigation”.

In the Arkansas BK case Schiefer v Wells Fargo – Arkansas, Paatalo points out that the Wells Fargo witness admits the endorsement of the WaMu officer was placed on the note by Chase in 2013- despite failing to exist after 2008. The fraud on the court becomes more flagrant.  This fraudulent method of endorsing notes for litigation is the servicer modus operandi, and yet the servicers all have the note history for the endorsements within their servicing platforms to prove they are bogus, etc., WHERE ARE THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL THESE NOTE HISTORIES?!

Is there a legal issue with undisclosed in-house attorneys filing these sworn statements on behalf of their clients / employers in various jurisdictions where they are not authorized or licensed to practice law?   Paatalo’s limited research has revealed that in-house attorneys may have to seek permission from the court to appear and pay a fee for these limited appearances but they are not doing so.

Neil Garfield states that if there is a licensed attorney making these claims without knowledge, a Bar complaint could be filed assuming the attorney doesn’t have the required knowledge to make the declaration. But a homeowner or attorney must state that he did not have the knowledge and why they came to that conclusion.  Since the declaration is not based on personal knowledge, and the attorney likely had no contact with the loan’s boarding or prior history at other servicers, the declaration should be struck.

If he is a licensed attorney a Bar complaint could be filed assuming he did not have the required knowledge to make the declaration. But you must state that he did not have the knowledge and why you have come to that conclusion.
If he is a licensed attorney a Bar complaint could be filed assuming he did not have the required knowledge to make the declaration. But you must state that he did not have the knowledge and why you have come to that conclusion.

Attorney Charles Marshall and investigator Bill Paatalo will discuss bankruptcy procedure and civil lawsuit procedure intersect and how to navigate that intersection for plaintiff’s in non-judicial states looking to file foreclosure lawsuits.

Scott Aronowitz Declaration

Kemp Transcript

BofA Note History Screenshot – Didrick

To Contact Charles Marshall:

California Attorney: Charles Marshall, Esq.
Law Office of Charles T. Marshall

Investigator Bill Paatalo at the

BP Investigative Agency

Office:406-328-4075

Email: info.bpia@gmail.com

4 Responses

  1. Why aren’t the attorneys brought up in ethics charges? Can they be held responsible for “acting” in the capacity they claim while producing fraud on the court? It is time to name names and call the pretendes out. Does anyone have a detailed list of which banks, funds, trusts used the securitization process to defraud? Who were the responsible individuals who ran these schemes at each pretender? Which individuals, attorneys included, produced fraud on the courts. Which Judges have helped by accepting this fraud? Time to name names and show the faces of those who arrogantly consume that which they have stolen. If everyone of the millions harmed posted the list maybe notice would be taken.

  2. We have filed two motions to compel, both of which were denied by the court, despite our repeated requests from the inception of this case to produce the note and attendant documents. The judge ignored all the requirements prescribed by law to produce proof of ownership of the note at our first conference. We filed discovery, followed by second discovery requests, followed by motions to compel.

    In our case it doesn’t seem to matter to the court that no proof to foreclose has EVER been presented in this 5th year of the case. We shall see what transpires in this coming sixth year. We are going to subpoena (tecum duces) the plaintiff. If no production of documents, we will then file for a dismissal, and if denied, on to the Appellate Court.

    All suggestions are welcome.

  3. This is an EXCELLENT direction. Thank you, Bill. The forgeries are rampant, including notes, allonges, assignments, and PRIOR Satisfactions of Mortgages. This is the right direction. Where is the US Government??? Obama covered up, and Trump wants to bring back the cover up. GEEZ.

  4. Licensed attorneys we have seen constantly use their title with its confidentiality permissives to try to obfuscate revelations of facts they know. Recently we suggested to a pro se that they depose the attorney, by court order with a special master if necessary to avoid the monkey business attendant to attorney depositions [they often will not answer any questions]. The key seems to be whether the attorney was ACTING as retained counsel in doing the act complained of or as a mere agent, employee or independent contractor for another, in which case the privileges they assert may evaporate.
    Have a great radio show Neil…..Steve from Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: