If you have CYNTHIA RILEY’s “signature” on any document in your chain of title you need to read this. Same for Jess Almanza. 

MFI-Miami has a file cabinet filled with foreclosure files containing Riley’s stamp that weren’t consummated until months or years after she left Washington Mutual.
Nearly 2/3 of the Washington Mutual Promissory Notes in foreclosure contain an endorsement stamp of former Washington Mutual Vice President Cynthia Riley.
Riley was a Vice President of Washington Mutual until November of 2006
Nearly half of the Washington Mutual loans currently in foreclosure were consummated after November of 2006. Most of them contain Riley’s endorsement.
This was a big mystery until January of 2013 when Cynthia Riley sat for a deposition.
Riley admitted other people in her office used her stamp and she admitted she never stamped any mortgage notes. Riley admitted in her deposition she was hired by JPMorgan Chase in 2009.
She remained employed at JPM-Chase until some time between October of 2014 and April of 2015.  Attorney Daniel Milian attempted to force JPMorgan Chase to have her sit for a deposition in the Zacharakis case. Naturally, JPMorgan Chase dragged their feet with responding to the motion for nearly 6 months. JPMorgan Chase then claimed her whereabouts were unknown.
It appears JPMorgan Chase made sure her whereabouts would remain unknown. They scrubbed the internet of any record of her connection with Washington Mutual or JPMorgan Chase.
MFI-Miami discovered JPMorgan Chase was hiding a dirty secret. They were stamping these Washington Mutual notes with the Cynthia Riley endorsement stamp between 2012 and 2014. Several MFI-Miami clients had their 2009 or 2010 Washington Mutual foreclosure cases with no endorsement stamp suddenly withdrawn. Only to have them refiled in 2013 or 2014 with endorsed notes by Cynthia Riley.
JPMorgan Chase got really sloppy. JPMorgan Chase began compulsively stamping almost every promissory note with Riley’s endorsement stamp. MFI-Miami has a file cabinet filled with foreclosure files containing Riley’s stamp that weren’t consummated until months or years after she left Washington Mutual.

JPMorgan Chase’s compulsive use of Cynthia Riley’s endorsement stamp was beginning to affect the bank’s bottom line in 2015. So what should they do?

JPM-Chase executives went into the basement storage room. They searched through old Washington Mutual boxes and randomly dusted off the endorsement stamp of another former Washington Mutual VP. This time, they picked former Vice President Jess Almanza.

Almanza served as Washington Mutual’s VP of Capital Markets/National Closing Operations until July of 2006. He soon went to work for Bank of America after leaving Washington Mutual according to his Linkedin profile.

Almanza never went to work for JPM-Chase like Cynthia Riley. It appears Almanza’s endorsement stamp was used without his consent.

13 Responses

  1. Anyone have cases involving Trinity Financial Services and Tara Newton?

  2. Circus Court in Chicago is swollen with illegal foreclosures based on robo-stamped “assignments” by Fremont Vice President Michael Koch who obviously does not work for Fremont since 2006 (defunct, now is known as HomeXpressMortgage)

    These stamped signatures are often not even on any Notes – they are on a SEPARATE piece of paper. Some of Fremont Trusts foreclosures were filed in RECENT YEARS, over 10 years after Fremont collapsed.

    Judges don’t care and award properties to thieves Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and others who used Fremont as their sham conduit.

    Another pile of fraudulent is stamped with David Spector, former VP for Countywide Financial .

    After CWF collapsed, Spector run to London where he worked for Morgan Stanley for a while, until called back to action by his employers -Big Banks.

    Now David Spector and Stanford Kurland are CEOs for PennyMac and continue to lie and defraud homeowners and steal for Big Banks.

    My friends lost their home to Bank of America who filed illegal foreclosure based on double-stampled signature of Spector (someone’s hands were shaking) , which does not even look like his handwritten signature.

    BONY acted as a “Trustee” for a non-existing Trust and had Bank of America’s mailing address in Tapo Canyon CA.

    The “Servicer” Bayview sent a “witness” Juan Pensates who lied relentlessly in the Affidavit – but revealed that ALL operations are actually conducted via lockbox agreements via MSP. Judge never asked who owns this MSP and why Pensates told that Servicing was assigned to Bayview by BONY while BOA said they assigned servicing to Bayview.

    Judge didn’t care about lies, expired SOL, invalid contract with non-existing company America’s WhileSale lender (CWF) and warded family’s home to a non-existing “Trust” – no questions asked.

    The same Juan Pensates lied in Florida case, Bayview v. Rita Kay, 2017 and revealed that they “share” servicing with M&T Bank through their “mutually accessible ” computer system, (aka MSP). Local Court dismissed illegal foreclosures because they found Bayview evidence inadmissble.

    Florida 1st Dist. Appeal Court Judges reversed lower Court decision and ruled in favor of thieves.

    NONE of them even asked which system Bayview and M&T Bank shared and who owns this system.

    While China Supreme Court ordered Rating Agencies to be personally liable for promoting fraud; and placed death penalty on “default debt” fund manager, American Government does NOTHING but cover for these crimes

  3. This is a very simple concept. The borrower agreed to make timely payments, and if they fail to do so, they agreed the bank or its assigns could take the property. This isn’t high math.

    Those that attack the contract almost always win; those that don’t always lose!

  4. What a huge mess!!! Thousands of cases OR MORE and hard to understand why attorneys have not apparently chosen to go after all the sources (All the supposed “Paper Mills” that created all this to begin with in attempting to protect all the lenders – AND sadly our very own government!!!

    Seems to me we need consistency and collaboration efforts that we can use nationwide to finally and totally expose just part of what happened here!! A sad day indeed when realizes how our very own government had it “hands dirty” from the state along with all the turkey, corrupt lenders and stock market players!!!!!

  5. @legisman not an either/or question robosigning can be part of deception and invalid/void transaction. If pro se and lawyers force proof of transaction from the beginning and have documented the deception from the lender/servicer then case is strengthens that loan is fraudulent and no reliable evidence of authority.

    Some courts ignore others don’t so we also have to challenge policy and adminstration of courts as Neil has been saying as a constituency and not only to win cases.

    And don’t want to feed narrative that the only scam is those that are advocating for us while making sure we aren’t scammed.

  6. Where are the quants that wrote the damn software?…they know


  8. Legisman, please explain a bit on attacking the contract….seems to me that just about nothing works…it all falls on deaf ears.

    I have assignments by the same employee of Ocwen signed two assignments on the same day for two companies 9 years after the companies went out of business…also 9 years after the so called trusts closed…it fell on deaf ears

  9. THIS robo-siging argument is misinformation disseminated by forensic/securitization/chain of title audit scammers and incompetent attys.


    “ROBO-SIGNED” ASSIGNMENT IS MERELY VOIDABLE AT THE OPTION OF THE INJURED BANK, NOT VOID AB INITIO. (Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 819.); Yhudai v. IMPAC Funding Corp., supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 1257 [WHERE AN ASSIGNMENT IS MERELY VOIDABLE, POWER TO RATIFY OR VOID LIES SOLELY WITH THE PARTIES TO THE ASSIGNMENT].) Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 365 P.3d 845, 852 (Cal. 2016) (explaining that A VOIDABLE TRANSACTION IS SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION BY THE PARTIES); see also Chavez v. Indymac Mortg. Servs., 162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 382, 390 (Ct. App. 2013) (elements of wrongful foreclosure claim under California law). We reject as without merit Ancheta’s contention that the assignments were invalid because they were robo-signed. See Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 15 (Ct. App. 2016) (HOMEOWNERS LACK STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF ROBO-SIGNATURES); KAN V. ONEWEST BANK, FSB, 823 F. Supp. 2d 464, 470 (W.D. Tex. 2011) (dismissing suit for failure to state a claim where one of the arguments was that the mortgage documents were robosigned and therefore somehow invalid); NEAL V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., No. CV 12-08104-PCT-FJM, 2012 WL 3638762, at *4 (D. Ariz. Aug. 24, 2012) (rejecting Plaintiff’s argument that the assignment of the deed of trust and the substitution of trustee are forgeries, were robosigned, and are therefore invalid under state statute because “Plaintiff, who is not a party to either the assignment or the substitution of trustee … does not have standing to challenge the validity of these documents”); RIVAC V. NDEX W. LLC (N.D. Cal., 2013) (District courts have consistently found that conclusory allegations of robo-signing are insufficient to state a claim, absent some factual support. See Baldoza v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 978268 at *13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013); see also Chan Tang v. Bank of America, N.A., 2012 WL 960373 at *10-11 (C.D. Cal. March 19, 2012); Sohal v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 2011 WL 3842195 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011); CHUA V. IB PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, 2011 WL 3322884 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011))…Further, where a plaintiff alleges that a document is void due to robo-signing, yet does not contest the validity of the underlying debt, and is not a party to the assignment, the plaintiff does not have standing to contest the alleged fraudulent transfer. See Elliott v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 2013 WL 1820904 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2013); JAVAHERI V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., No. 2:1D-cv-08185-ODW, 2012 WL 3426278, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13 2012) (holding that “[w]ile the allegation of robo-signing may be true, . . [the plaintiff] lacks standing to seek relief under such an allegation, noting that “District Courts in numerous states agree…” (Plaintiffs here do not dispute that they defaulted on the loan payments, and the robo-signing allegations are without effect on the validity of the foreclosure process); PRATAP V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (N.D.Cal. 2014) 63 F.Supp.3d 1101, 1109.) (“[T]o the extent that an assignment was in fact robo-signed, it would be voidable, not void, at the injured party’s option.”).

    I could provide dozens more cases. Again, the proven methodology is attacking the contract–PERIOD!!

  10. And yet the courts do not allow the homeowner to object as a 3rd Party to the AOM even with proof of it being Robo signed documents, otherwise known as FORGERY and FRAUD on the court. But Neil will continue to blame to Pro Se defendant while protecting his peers in the BAR.

  11. Been fighting since 2010, and winning. Back in those early days, when all of the fraudulent documents were signed by “Vice Presidents” of each criminal company, a quick LinkedIn search would show those people as paper pushers and clerks. I guess the crooks have gotten a little smarter in scrubbing all of their information from social media websites. In fact, a couple of the most recent fraudulent documents in our case are signed by people that have zero social media presence and can’t be found in Google searches. Maybe they don’t exist at all.

  12. And our government did what about it? Our courts don’t like to address these issues.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: