Mnuchin Lies Tip of the Iceberg

Mnuchin’s lies to the U.S. Senate are only symptomatic of the continuous stream of lies producing a new normal of bank arrogance and the continuing push to foreclose on homeowners as a means to gain illicit profits. Perhaps the flagrancy of his lies will awaken lawmakers to the fact that the entire financial system has a growing cancer caused by indifference to the crimes of the banks and resulting damage to tens of millions of Americans.

see http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mnuchin-treasury-onewest-20170130-story.html

The Columbus Dispatch reported Sunday that Mnuchin denied in written responses to questions from the Senate Finance Committee that OneWest engaged in so-called robo-signing of mortgage documents.

The paper said its analysis of nearly four dozen foreclosure cases in Ohio’s Franklin County in 2010 showed that the bank “frequently used robo-signers.”

The practice, prevalent throughout the mortgage industry in the aftermath of the financial crisis, involved employees at financial firms signing foreclosure documents en masse without properly reviewing them.

Democrats sharply criticized Mnuchin during his Jan. 19 confirmation hearing concerning OneWest’s foreclosures while he ran the Pasadena bank from 2009 to 2015. They called the institution, which formerly had been troubled subprime lender IndyMac Bank, “a foreclosure machine.”

“Mnuchin ran a bank that was notorious for aggressively foreclosing on homeowners, and now he’s lying about his bank’s dismal track record in his official responses to the Finance Committee,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Monday. “Working families simply cannot trust him to be the country’s top economic official.”

CHECKLIST — FDCPA Damages and Recovery: Revisiting the Montana S Ct Decision in Jacobson v Bayview

What is unique and instructive about this decision from the Montana Supreme Court is that it gives details of each and every fraudulent, wrongful and otherwise illegal acts that were committed by a self-proclaimed servicer and the “defective” trustee on the deed of trust.

You need to read the case to see how many different times the same court in the same case awarded damages, attorney fees and sanctions against Bayview who persisted in their behavior even after the judgment was entered.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

*

This case overall stands for the proposition that the violations of federal law by self proclaimed servicers, trusts, trustees, substituted trustees, etc. are NOT insignificant or irrelevant. The consequences of merely applying the law in a fair and balanced way could and should be devastating to the TBTF banks, once the veil is pierced from servicers like Bayview, Ocwen et al and the real players are revealed.

I offer the following for legal practitioners as a checklist of issues that are usually present, in one form or another, in virtually all foreclosure cases and the consequences to the bad actors when the law is actually applied. The interesting thing is that this checklist does not just represent my perspective. It comes directly from the Jacobson decision by the high court in Montana. That decision should be read, studied and analyzed several times. You need to read the case to see how many different times the same court in the same case awarded damages, attorney fees and sanctions against Bayview who persisted in their behavior even after the judgment was entered.

One additional note: If you think about it, you can easily see how this case represents the overall infrastructure employed by the super banks. It is obvious that all of Bayview’s actions were at the behest of Citi, who like any other organized crime figure, sought to avoid getting their hands dirty. The self proclamations inevitably employ the name of US Bank whose involvement is shown in this case to be zero. Nonetheless the attorneys for Bayview and Peterson sought to pile up paper documents to create the illusion that they were acting properly.

  1. FDCPA —abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors
  2. FDCPA who is a debt collector — anyone other than the creditor
  3. FDCPA Strict Liability 
  4. FDCPA for LEAST SOPHISTICATED CONSUMER
  5. FDCPA STATUTORY DAMAGES
  6. FDCPA COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
  7. FDCPA PUNITIVE DAMAGES
  8. FDCPA INHERENT COURT AUTHORITY TO LEVY SANCTIONS
  9. CUMULATIVE BAD ACTS TEST — PATTERN OF CONDUCT
  10. HAMP Modifications Scam — initial and incentive payments
  11. Estopped and fraud: 90 day delinquency disinformation — fraud and UPL
  12. Rejected Payment
  13. Default Letter: Not authorized because sender is neither servicer nor interested party.
  14. Default letter naming creditor
  15. Default letter declaring amount due — usually wrong
  16. Default letter with deadline date for reinstatement: CURE DATE
  17. Late charges improper
  18. Extra interest improper
  19. Fees even after they lose added to balance “due.”
  20. Notice of acceleration based upon default letter which contains inaccurate information. [Not authorized because sender is neither servicer nor interested party.]
  21. Damages: Negative credit rating — [How would bank feel if their investment rating dropped? Would their stock drop? would thousands of stockholders lose money as a result?]
  22. damages: emotional stress
  23. Damages: Lost opportunities to save home
  24. Damages: Lost ability to receive incentive payments for modification
  25. FDCPA etc: Use of nonexistent or inactive entities
  26. FDCPA Illegal notarizations
  27. Illegal notarizations on behalf of nonexistent or uninvolved entities.
  28. FDCPA naming self proclaimed servicer as beneficiary (creditor/mortgagee)
  29. Assignments following self proclamation of beneficiary (creditor/mortgagee)
  30. Falsely Informing homeowner they cannot reinstate
  31. Wrongful appointment of Trustee under deed of trust
  32. Wrongful and non existent Power of Attorney
  33. False promises to modify
  34. False representations to the Court
  35. Musical entities
  36. False and fraudulent utterance of a document
  37. False and fraudulent recording of a false document
  38. False representations concerning “US Bank, Trustee” — a whole category unto itself. (the BOA deal and others who “sold” trustee position of REMICs to US Bank.) 

Chase Admits Violations of Consent Order

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

====================================

see http://dtc-systems.net/2015/03/jpmorgan-chase-admits-failure-comply-april-13-2011-independent-foreclosure-review-consent-order/#more-2157

see also 27_page_settlement2

We already knew that the servicers, banks and trustees were violating the settlements and consent orders that were entered against them for filing fraudulent papers in fraudulent foreclosures. Now the question is what to do about it.

With respect to the 2011 consent orders Chase admitted the wrongdoing and the settlement was supposed to compensate and give notice to borrowers who had been defrauded.

In the proposed settlement, Chase acknowledges that it filed in bankruptcy courts around the country more than 50,000 payment change notices that were improperly signed, under penalty of perjury, by persons who had not reviewed the accuracy of the notices.  More than 25,000 notices were signed in the names of former employees or of employees who had nothing to do with reviewing the accuracy of the filings.  The rest of the notices were signed by individuals employed by a third party vendor on matters unrelated to checking the accuracy of the filings.

The first question that SHOULD come to mind is WHY a multi trillion dollar bank would need or want to engage in such practices? After all they were committing perjury by their own admission. The second question is why borrowers who were hurt by this behavior have not used the admissions to win their foreclosure cases? And the third question is what is the effect of these admissions?

The answer lies in the lies. The plain truth is, based upon my direct knowledge in several cases, that Chase did not own the loans, the Trusts therefore could not have purchased the loans and that not only Chase was lying but so was US Bank when it was named in foreclosure actions as Trustee for a Trust that plainly did not purchase the loans nor was any of the paperwork showing a transfer authentic. The underlying transaction simply isn’t there and Chase (and other banks) successfully hoodwinked courts into applying legal presumptions that were plainly contrary to the facts.

I think the admission could be used as an argument that the banks are not entitled to the legal presumptions that normally apply because of the wrongful behavior that they have admitted. If they want to show that the Trust bought the loan then they must prove it and not just produce a self-serving piece of paper that says it happened. we know it didn’t happen. Why should the burden of proof fall on a homeowner with limited resources?

The bank, with virtually unlimited resources and exclusive access to all the information, should be able to show the transaction date, amount and proof of payment (wire transfer receipt, wire transfer instructions, canceled check etc.) for the loans that were allegedly acquired and/or conveyed by the assignor and the assignee. With obviously unclean hands, the banks should not be rewarded for their subterfuge. The bank should not be allowed to claim any presumptions, legal or otherwise, that are normally applied to documents or commercial paper. If they really have a case, let them prove it — or at least respond to discovery without objection on various spurious grounds.

When I represented banks if someone had said that we didn’t own the loan or never funded the loan I would have stopped them dead with proof of the actual movement of money and that would have ended the discussion. Instead we are splitting hairs in court with the banks saying they don’t want to produce actual proof. All they need, according to them, is some self-serving piece of fabricated paper with a forged signature containing perjurious statements and the court is bound to accept such paper and apply legal presumptions that what is written on the paper is true. They have the temerity to argue that when we all know that the paper is inherently untrustworthy and not credible, given their admissions and continuous behavior.

I think discovery directed at compliance with the settlements and consent orders ought to be pressed against the banks, on the grounds that they could not have fulfilled all conditions precedent because among the conditions precedent are the requirements set forth in the settlements and consent orders. At trial I think the argument should be made, using the settlements and consent orders as exhibits, with Judicial notice, that the banks are not entitled to the presumptions and that they must prove every fact they would otherwise have the court “presume” or “assume.”

Comments invited

see also Katie Porter on servicing

Forgery! Now You’ve Got Them, Or Do You?

CHECK OUT OUR EXTENDED DECEMBER SPECIAL!

What’s the Next Step? Consult with Neil Garfield

For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).

Editor’s Analysis: First of all hats off to April Charney, www.nakedcapitalism.com and Yves Smith for the article on Forgery (see link below) James M. Kelley as a forensic document examiner — outstanding work!

This is one of the places where the rubber meets the road, but before you start celebrating take a deep breath: proof of forgery will NOT necessarily stop delay or alter the foreclosure. That is why I start with questioning the monetary transactions before I introduce the document deficiencies, fabrications and forgeries.

You have to put yourself in the Judge’s seat (or more properly, bench). A simple example will suffice to make my point. Suppose I loaned you $100 and you didn’t pay it back the way we agreed. Later I sue you and produce a promissory note you know you never signed but it looks like your signature, but you’ve admitted you owe the $100 and you admit you defaulted. Under those circumstances your evidence of forgery might be excluded from evidence –— because it is already established you owe the money and defaulted. In fact it should be excluded because it is no longer relevant to the proceedings. The debt is not the not — and vica versa.

The note is only evidence of the debt and taking that out of the equation still leaves the admissions, presumptions and witnesses by which the authenticity of the debt and default have already been taken as agreed and irrefutable. Some people look askance as Judges who apply the rules of evidence and accuse them of stupidity or dishonesty. But the truth is the forged fabricated note is at most corroborative evidence of something that is no longer a material issue of fact in dispute. The Judge has little choice but to rule in favor of the forecloser at that point. Hence, we keep pounding on DENY AND DISCOVER.

If you are filing the lawsuit you should, along with the initial summons and and complaint, file whatever discovery requests you have at the same time which all amount to “who are you, what are you doing here, why are you seeking collection of this debt, and by what authority.

Admitting the debt, note, mortgage etc can be either direct (“I admit that”) or indirect/tacit (“I understand what you are saying Judge but there is ample evidence of skullduggery here”). In most cases, either one is enough, especially with a Judge who is already assuming that the bank wouldn’t be there if there was no debt, note and mortgage and the presence of a default.

The borrower, who knows they did get money on loan, knows they did sign papers and knows they didn’t pay, naturally assumes that it is pointless to deny the basic elements of the foreclosure — the debt between the borrower and the forecloser, the note, which is evidence of the debt, and the mortgage, assignments and other instruments used by the banks to get you pointed in the wrong direction. AND THAT is where the defense goes off the deep end every time there is a “bad” decision.

The Judge is going to be looking for admissions by the borrower (not the forecloser) because of a very natural presumption that at one time was a perfectly reasonable assumption — that the bank would not waste time and money enforcing a debt that didn’t exist and a note that was never valid, nor a mortgage that was never perfected.

And the Judge is going to see any avoidance of enforcement on the basis of paperwork as a tacit admission that the debt is real, the default is real, and the note and mortgage were properly executed under proper circumstances —- because that is what banks do! Maybe it isn’t “fair” but it is perfectly understandable why we encountered a mindset that treated borrowers as lunatics when they first came up with the notion that the paperwork was missing, lost, fabricated, forged, robo-signed etc.

The study by Katherine Ann Porter, the San Francisco study and the studies in Massachusetts and Maryland and Massachusetts all point to a credit bid being submitted at foreclosure auction by a party who wasn’t a creditor at all. The San Francisco study said 65% of the credit bidders were strangers to the transaction and strange is the word to use in court. Did it change anything? No!

So where does that leave you? In order to be able to show the relevance of the forgery or fabrication you must attack the debt itself. Where would I be if I sued you on the $100 loan, produced a fabricated, forged note and you DIDN’T admit the debt or the default. The burden falls back on me to prove I gave you the $100.

What if I didn’t give you the $100 but I know someone else did. That doesn’t give me standing to sue you because I am not injured party. Can any of you state with certainty that the loan money you received came from the originator disclosed on the TILA, settlement and closing documents? Probably not because the ONLY way you would know that is if you had seen the actual wire transfer receipt and the wire transfer instructions.

Thus if you don’t know that to be true — that the originator in your mortgage loan was funded by the originator and was not a table-funded loan (which accounts for about 95%-96% of all loans during the mortgage meltdown), why would you admit it, tacitly, directly or any other way?

As a defense posture the first rule is to deny that which you know is untrue and to deny based upon lack of information or deny based upon facts and theory that are contrary to the assertions of the forecloser. Deny the debt. THAT automatically means the note can’t be evidence of anything real, because the note refers to a loan between the originator and the borrower where the borrower unknowingly received the money from a third or fourth party (table funded loan, branded “predatory” by TILA and reg Z).

Your defense is simply “we don’t know these people and we don’t know the debt they are claiming. We were induced to sign papers that withheld vital information about the party with whom I was doing business and left me with corrupt title. The transaction referred to in the note, mortgage, assignments, allonges etc. was never completed. The fact that we received a loan from someone else does not empower this forecloser to enforce the debt of a third party with whom they have had no contact or privity.”

THEN HAMMER THEM WITH THE FORGERY BUT USE SOMEONE AS GOOD AS KELLEY TO DO IT. WATCH OUT FOR CHARLATANS WHO CAN CONVINCE YOU BUT NOT THE COURT. THUS THE DEFICIENT DOCUMENTS CORROBORATE YOUR MAIN DEFENSE RATHER THAN SERVE AS THE CORE OF IT.

Practice Pointer: At this point either opposing counsel or the Judge will ask some questions like who DID give the loan or what proof do you have. If you are at the stage of a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, your answer should be, if you set up case correctly and you have outstanding discovery, that those are evidential questions that require production of witnesses, testimony, documents and cross examination. Since the present hearing is not a trial or evidential hearing and was not noticed as such you are unprepared to present the entire case.

The issues on a motion to dismiss are solely that of the pleadings. At a Motion for Summary Judgment, it is the pleadings plus an affidavit. Submit several affidavits and the Judge will have little choice but to deny the forecloser’s motion for summary judgment.

Attack their affidavit as not being on personal knowledge (voir dire) and if you are successful all that is left is YOUR motion for summary judgment and affidavits which leaves the Judge with little choice but to enter Summary Final Judgment in favor of the homeowner as to this forecloser.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/expert-witnesses-starting-to-take-on-forgeries-in-foreclosures.html

Hiding Behind Advice of Counsel No Better Than Ratings

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Editor’s Comment:

In an article entitled “Legal Beagles in Cross Hairs” WSJ reports that the SEC and many others in law enforcement have on-going investigations into the role of attorneys not misconduct of their clients. For the most part it is an attorney’s solemn duty to represent and advocate the position of his or her client to the utmost of their ability without violating the law. Everyone is entitled to a lawyer no matter how reprehensible their conduct might have been when they committed the act.

But the SEC seems to be leading the way, starting with indictments and convictions of attorneys that kicks aside the clients’ defense of “I did it on advice of counsel.” in wide ranging probes law enforcement agencies are after the attorneys who said it was OK — upon receiving lavish payments, that what the Banks did in setting the securitization structure for the cash trail and setting up the securitization procedure for the document trail and then setting up the contents of the documents that would provide coverage for intentional acts of theft, forgery, fabrication and a variety of other acts.

The attorneys who gave letters of opinion to the investment banks blessing securitization of home and commercial mortgages as they were presented and launched are in deep hot water. This is especially true since the law firms that engaged in these “blessings” had lawyers quitting their jobs leaving behind memorandums to the partners that the law firm itself was committing crimes. The similarity between the blessing of the law firm and the ratings of Moody’s, S&P, Fitch is surprising to some people.

And the attorneys who suggested severance settlements conditioned on employed lawyers or other witnesses on a sudden onset of amnesia are also in the cross-hairs, getting stiff long-term sentences. These are all potential witnesses in what could be come nationwide probes that were blocked by “advice of counsel” claims and brings to mind those many cases where the lawyer for Wells, US Bank, or BOA was fined and sanctioned for lying to the court about facts which they most certainly knew or should have known — like the name of their client.

As these probes continue it may be seen as scapegoating the attorneys or as chilling the confidentiality of the relationship between lawyer and client. But that rule of confidentiality and the defines of advice of counsel vanishes when the conduct of the attorney or indeed a whole law firm is that of a co-conspirator. It is especially unavailable when you have a foreclosure mill that is forging, fabricating and filing documents on behalf of extremely well paying clients.

It would therefore seem to be an appropriate time to file complaints with law enforcement including police and regulatory authorities that are well-written, honed down to a sharp point and which attach at least some evidence beyond the mere allegation of wrong-doing on the part of the attorney or law firm. If appropriate lay people can file the same complaints as grievances with the state Bar Association that is required to regulate and discipline the behavior of lawyers. And attorneys for homeowners and judges who hear these cases are under an obligation to report evidence of wrongdoing or else face disciplinary charges of their own resulting in suspension or disbarment.

Legal Eagles in Cross Hairs

By JEAN EAGLESHAM

The Securities and Exchange Commission is intensifying its scrutiny of lawyers who gave a green light to certain mortgage-bond deals before the financial crisis or have tried to thwart investigations by the agency, according to people familiar with the matter.

The move is at an early stage and might not result in any enforcement action by the SEC because of the difficulty proving lawyers went beyond their legal duty to clients, these people cautioned. In the past, SEC officials generally have gone after lawyers only when accusing them of active involvement in securities fraud or serious misconduct, such as faking documents in a probe.

In recent months, though, some SEC officials have grown frustrated by what they claim is direct obstruction of a few investigations and a larger number of probes where lawyers coach clients in the art of resisting and rebuffing. The tactics include witnesses “forgetting” what happened and companies conducting internal investigations that scapegoat junior employees and let senior managers off the hook, agency officials say. “The problem of less-than-candid testimony … is a serious one,” Robert Khuzami, the SEC’s director of enforcement, said at a conference last month. The stepped-up scrutiny is aimed at both internal and outside lawyers.

Claudius Modesti, enforcement chief at the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, an accounting watchdog created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, said at the same event: “We’re encountering lawyers who frankly should know better.”

The SEC enforcement staff has recently reported more lawyers to the agency’s general counsel, who can take administrative action against lawyers for alleged professional misconduct.

The SEC hasn’t disclosed the number of referrals. Only one lawyer has ever been banned for life from representing clients before the agency because of professional misconduct.

Earlier this year, Kenneth Lench, head of the SEC’s structured-products enforcement unit, said the agency needed to “seriously consider” charges against lawyers in “appropriate cases.” Mr. Lench said he saw “some factual situations where I seriously question whether the advice that was given was done in good faith.”

In July, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission gained the new power to take civil action against anyone, including lawyers, who makes “any false or misleading statement of a material fact.”

The agency, which oversees the futures and options market, hasn’t taken any action yet under the expanded power, according to a person familiar with the matter. A CFTC spokesman declined to comment.

“Frankly, I wish we had the power the CFTC has,” Mr. Khuzami said.

The SEC’s focus on advice provided by lawyers in mortgage-bond deals is part of the wider push by officials to punish alleged wrongdoing tied to the financial crisis. So far, the SEC has filed crisis-related civil suits against 102 firms and individuals, and more cases are coming, according to people familiar with matter.

Some former government officials say stepping up regulatory scrutiny of lawyers for their work on cases snared in investigations by the SEC could send a chilling message. “The government needs to be careful not to deter lawyers from being zealous advocates for their clients,” says John Wood, a former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri.

The only lawyer hit with a lifetime ban by the SEC for his work on behalf of a client is Steven Altman of New York. The client was a witness in an SEC investigation, and the agency alleged that Mr. Altman suggested in a recorded phone conversation that the client’s recollection of certain events might “fade” if she got a year of severance pay.

Last year, an appeals court rejected Mr. Altman’s bid to overturn the 2010 ban. Jeffrey Hoffman, a lawyer for Mr. Altman, couldn’t be reached for comment.

In December, a federal grand jury in Los Angeles indicted lawyer David Tamman on 10 criminal counts related to helping a former client cover up an alleged $20 million fraud. Prosecutors claim Mr. Tamman changed and backdating documents, removed incriminating documents from investor files and lied to SEC investigators in sworn testimony.

“The truth is that my client was set up and made a scapegoat,” says Stanley Stone, a lawyer for Mr. Tamman, adding that his client acted under the advice and guidance of senior lawyers at his former law firm, Nixon Peabody LLP. “We’re going to prove at trial that what was done was not criminal,” Mr. Stone says.

A Nixon Peabody spokeswoman says Mr. Tamman was fired in 2009 “as soon as we learned that he was under SEC investigation and he failed to explain his actions to us.” The law firm has asked a judge to throw out a wrongful-termination suit filed by Mr. Tamman.

A criminal trial last year shows how the SEC could face daunting hurdles in bringing enforcement actions against lawyers for providing bad advice.

“A lawyer should never fear prosecution because of advice that he or she has given to a client who consults him or her,” U.S. District Judge Roger Titus in Maryland ruled when dismissing all six charges against Lauren Stevens, a former lawyer at drug maker GlaxoSmithKline PLC. GSK +0.19%

Ms. Stevens was accused by prosecutors of lying to the FDA and concealing and falsifying documents related to an investigation by the U.S. agency. The federal judge refused to let a jury decide the case, saying that would risk a miscarriage of justice.

Reid Weingarten, a lawyer for Ms. Stevens, couldn’t be reached. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment.

Despite the government’s defeat, “the mere fact she was charged sends a strong signal to other lawyers about the risks of being seen as less than forthcoming in their representation s to the government,” says Mr. Wood, the former federal prosecutor in Missouri. He now is a partner at law firm Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP.


MORE RESOURCES: LIST OF ROBOSIGNORS, SIGNATURE EXAMPLES AND LINKS

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

 

BEWARE! JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE LIST DOESN’T MAKE YOU A WINNER

SEE Known or suspected robo-signers with links[1]

SEE robosigners-signatures samples[1]

SEE List of 420 Robosigners(2)

EDITOR’S NOTE: There are a lot of “services” out there that are now able to provide you with pretty reliable information as to whether one or more of the signors on your mortgage or foreclosure documents is a known robo-signer. OR YOU CAN LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF RIGHT HERE. SEE THE THE ABOVE LINKS.

But the issue is EVIDENCE not information. That someone has signed multiple documents with multiple signatures for multiple “employers” is information, not evidence. You will and should be thrown out of court if you think that identifying the use of a robo signer will win you your case. If it were otherwise you wouldn’t have a defense at all because it would mean that an allegation is as good as proof. And most negative impact cases are decided on the allegation that the borrower didn’t make the payments so who cares about all these technical deficiencies? The fact that the payment might not be due, or that it had already been made by the servicer or that the party claiming to collect it is improper doesn’t get a chance to be heard.

Information provides context and might be admitted as corroboration of real evidence once you have established your foundation for introducing evidence into the court proceeding. To that extent a list of robo signors might be helpful and it might not. Paying for the list will get you nothing more than another ding in your wallet since the list is right here for free.

The issue in YOUR case is whether you have one or more documents that were not properly executed and whether the execution constitutes a forgery, a fabrication, or lack of authority. The clever lawyer will force the burden onto the would-be forecloser to offer witnesses that can testify and prove the authenticity of the document, the signature and its contents. In most cases, that issue slips by and the burden shifts to the homeowner for failure to lodge an appropriate objection.

Remember also that a document can be admitted into evidence as proof of its existence, as proof of the matters recited or both.

So let’s look at what you REALLY need to do. If you think you have a robo-signor on your hands there are actually several possibilities, which is why most people are getting thrown out of court, surprised they lost their case and blaming the Judge for corruption when all he did was apply the rules of evidence. The possibilities are as follows:

  1. The signature is the signature of the person whose name is stamped or typed or written beside the signature.
  2. The signature is NOT the signature of the person whose name is stamped or typed or written beside the signature.
  3. The signature was forged.
  4. The signature was not forgedthe person simply used different signatures for different purposes.
  5. The signature was placed there with permission from the named person on whose behalf the document was signed.
  6. The signature was placed there without permission from the named person on whose behalf the document was signed.
  7. The person whose name is stamped, typed or written beside the signature was authorized to sign the document.
  8. The person whose name is stamped, typed or written beside the signature was NOT authorized to sign the document.
  9. A valid document (corporate resolution, power of attorney etc.) exists authenticating the authority of the person  whose name appears next to the signature.
  10. A valid document (corporate resolution, power of attorney etc.) does not exist authenticating the authority of the person  whose name appears next to the signature.
  11. A witness exists who can authenticate the authorizing documents for signature on the document that you are objecting to.
  12. No witness exists who can authenticate the authorizing documents on the document that you are objecting to.

Unless you know how to deal with all these possibilities, the Judge has no where to go but to say that what you have presented is interesting but it is not evidence. This is accomplished through discovery — investigation, deposition, interrogatories, requests to produce and requests for admission and being very persistent about getting real answers to real questions.

The COMBO and an Expert Witness Declaration will get you part of the way, but you need to know how to present your side of the case in an intelligible manner and quickly because the Judge is not going to give you hours to figure out how to show that the document you are challenging is not valid. Remember that failure to record or even failure to execute properly for recording does not, in and of itself invalidate a document.

Check with a lawyer licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located before you use this information or the services that people want to sell you. Many of those services provide information that might be valuable but only in terms of making further inquiry.

Robo-signing is no magic bullet

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

Research and reporting on robo-signing is no substitute for the COMBO title and securitization search, report and analysis. It is a valuable adjunct to it. The COMBO provides the context in which the presence of robo-signing can be shown to be important — like a substitution of trustee in which the document is shown to be bogus. There, the COMBO report will show that the actions of the pretender were with full knowledge that they were not the creditor and that the document trail and the money trial go into multiple directions, none of which meet. All actions flowing from a false substitution of trustee (and there are many of them, if not most) are voidable if you properly object, keep the burden of proof on the pretender because you know the document cannot be authenticated. If the Judge allows it in anyway then you must bring evidence into court that will destroy the pretender’s prima facie case.

The confusion over robo-signing is causing some mistakes in court. By now there are many lists floating around the internet which name “people” whose name and “signature” have been affixed to legal documents upon which the pretender lenders rely in prosecuting foreclosures. Anyone offering you a magic escape hatch just because one of those robo-names comes up on a list or search is not aware of the court realities in the difference between information and evidence.

Start with the definition: Robo-signing is the act of unknown parties sitting around a table with a bunch of rubber stamps and pens. They receive instructions from the people who hired them as to which name to sign and what stamp to use. They forge the signature of the person whose name has been supplied by their employers, who in turn are working for the Wall Street Banks. Each person who signs a name does so in their own writing and many simply disguise their writing so the forgery is not traced to them.

Robo-signing is not the act of one person signing a lot of documents without reading them. It is the act of falsely presenting a person’s name who has no knowledge their signature is on any particular document.

When you go into court, pointing out the name of a person on the robo-list, you are inviting a dismissal of your claim. Without more, the signature on YOUR documents might be valid. The presumption, especially if it is notarized, is that the signature is valid. So simply identifying the presence of a person whose signature was robo-signed on OTHER documents doesn’t prove and is not evidence that the signature on YOUR documents is not genuine. Several people are making the error of assuming that the Judge will automatically accept the robo-list as evidence of the fabrication and forgery. Like the Banks, you need to lay a proper foundation for the evidence you want to submit with a live witness.

VOID AND VOIDABLE: There is a huge difference between the two. Most lay people regard a robo-signed document as void, and indeed the judge might so decide — but only because all the facts showed that the foundation for authenticity of the document was lacking merit. THAT is an example of a voidable document — i.e., a document whose effect will or might be considered legal in the absence of a successful challenge to the document. Void documents are rare. Those are documents that, under the law of the jurisdiction in which they were found, are declared void on their face because of some defect apparent on the face of the instrument. Even a law that says a document is void usually means that you must challenge it, which procedurally makes it voidable, not void. A void document is one in which any judge or even a clerk would ignore and refuse to consider or record.

The witness must have personal knowledge, under oath, or an expert opinion that will stand up in court. The piece that is missing is the laborious task of digging up not only 18 different signatures attributable to one person, but also the task of showing a signature that has a Presumption of authenticity like the signature affixed to the named person’s own mortgage or other public document. Then you could say to the Judge that you have a signature of Linda Green on the mortgage she has, and that it does not match any of the signatures you found on 18 other documents, INCLUDING THE ONE IN YOUR CASE.

IT IS ONLY WITH THE ADMISSION OF REAL EVIDENCE THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE OR APPELLATE COURT WILL SEE A RECORD OF PROOF SUPPORTING YOUR ALLEGATIONS. A LIST FROM ANOTHER STATE DOESN’T PROVE YOUR CASE. THE PERSON MIGHT HAVE STARTED BY ACTUALLY SIGNING DOCUMENTS AND THEN IT MORPHED INTO DOZENS OF OTHER PEOPLE SIGNING HER NAME. WITHOUT PROOF, THE ANSWER IS MERE SPECULATION AND WILL WORK AGAINST YOU IN COURT.

Then you have the issue of what does this mean, assuming you prove the likelihood of fabrication and/or forgery? You just understand and have a competent report from analyst that traces the chain of title to the property and traces the chain of title to the alleged loan and then traces the money trail in order to show that the securitization of this loan was a faked. Only then if you have made your case regarding the failure of the securitization parties to legally transfer the obligation and legally document the obligation with a legally binding note — only then can you attack the issue of whether the lien was legally perfected or if it is fatally defective.

A statement from an incompetent expert  whose credentials cannot withstand cross examination or some other self proclaimed expert or analyst will not be given any weight at all in the proceedings and will likely not be admitted into evidence, a decision that the appellate court is likely to affirm. This is how we reach “bad law” decisions because the litigant, the lawyer or the service provider giving the information has only provided information, not evidence. Additional statements from the service provider that a document is void is not necessarily correct. each state varies, which is why you need to check with an attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in which the property is located.

Robo-signing is most probably an illegal, even criminal act depending upon which state the property is located in. But the existence of robo-signing, even if you find that your documents show the name of someone whose name was used in robo-signing does not prove they did not sign it. Each case has its own evidence. The litigant and their attorney must be prepared to offer the document into evidence along with testimony in which the credibility and authenticity of the document is cast into doubt. Some judges who are already disposed to ruling for the borrower might be more lenient than others.

But it is still true that most judges are not predisposed in favor of borrowers and that they will certainly apply the rules and laws of evidence very strictly, particularly strict adherence to the laws of evidence is the argument that got you to the point that the authenticity of the signature, notary and witnesses is a question of fact, requiring an evidentiary hearing. when it comes down to it, the party who dug up the list of robo-signers is NOT going to be able to defend a statement that the document is void or even that ti was forged or fabricated. This is because the researcher is not an expert in title, not a lawyer and not possessed with any personal knowledge cornering the signature on the document in question.

That said, the work of these researchers is invaluable because it points the way for the litigant and their lawyer to ask questions in discovery, if you can get that far. In most cases, making assumptions from the information you have can, with the help of properly worded discovery requests, convert that information into evidence. You must realize that the mere report does not relieve you of the burden of proving your case.

Research and reporting on robo-signing is no substitute for the COMBO title and securitization search, report and analysis. It is a valuable adjunct to it. The COMBO provides the context in which the presence of robo-signing can be shown to be important — like a substitution of trustee in which the document is shown to be bogus. There, the COMBO report will show that the actions of the pretender were with full knowledge that they were not the creditor and that the document trail and the money trial go into multiple directions, none of which meet. All actions flowing from a false substitution of trustee (and there are many of them, if not most) are voidable if you properly object, keep the burden of proof on the pretender because you know the document cannot be authenticated. If the Judge allows it in anyway then you must bring evidence into court that will destroy the pretender’s prima facie case.

Pres. and Michelle Obama’s Satisfaction of Mortgage Was Robo-Signed — Clouded Title on Obama Home

Editor’s Note: I have not confirmed this information but it looks completely valid. The president received a satisfaction of mortgage from a fabricated, forged instrument having no validity whatsoever. UPDATE: The notary signatures appear to be forged as well. Do Barack and Michelle have title to this property — or any successors? Or is the title hopelessly defective?

And this time it’s MERS

Submitted by R Sherwood

Well well well…

Lookie what we have here folks…

Is this why they tried to sneak through H.R. 3808? (just kidding)

Just like we have been saying all along, this is so much bigger than  “affidavits.”

Here is another piece of the puzzle, without bringing up the REMIC issues…

Now that YOU are effected personally in this, Mr. President, what are you going to do about it?

Let’s get off the whole CNN Axelrod signals White House opposition to foreclosure moratorium BS…

“The Obama administration opposes a moratorium on home foreclosures, but wants problems involving improper paperwork resolved as quickly as possible, senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday.”I’m not sure about a national moratorium,”

Like my dear friend at the Hamlet puts it

It’s not the foreclosure affidavits only. Hello? It’s the whole kit-n-caboodle. it’s the fabricated assignments of mortgage, fake allonges, robo-stamped endorsements in blank, and satisfactions of mortgage, ignoring SEC and IRS regulations, disregard for the steps required by the REMIC rules. It’s all the top national banks and their servicing arms. The whole of it is a sham. Don’t believe the propaganda that insists otherwise.

Got it?

Now for the fireworks…

First we will start with a screen shot of one of Obama’s Release of Mortgage…

Marshe Craine of Chase signed off on their release of mortgage.

Now you ask, so what is wrong with that?

Nothing on it’s face, but you know how I roll…

With all that is going on with the robosigning, forgeries, fabrications and LIES, we decided to dig into this to see if something was there to help educate the masses on the issues that all of us as Americans face…

Guess what we found…

President Obama is a victim of the robosigning phenomenon that has taken the financial industry by storm…

How else would you explain this?

Check it out…

Random search of signature for Craine

(Click to Enlarge)

Whoa, is that the same Marshe Craine “Vice President” of Chase that signed off, and was notarized I might add BY THE SAME NOTARY, on the Presidents Satisfaction of Mortgage?

Let’s compare…

Hmmm. I’m no handwriting expert but…

Let’ clarify if the same person notarized these documents…

Obama Notary

Random Satisfaction Notary

Looks the same to me on the notary, so if these signatures turn out to be different, she is LYING on one of them, but hey, no big deal, it is just a “technicality”, right?

Not convinced yet?

Okay, let’s dig deeper…

Let’s see if this “Vice President” Marshe Craine is a MERS agent as well.

Yep…

Oh, much better, that signature is much closer to the signature on the President’s Satisfaction of mortgage…

I feel much better now, don’t you?

Was getting a little nervous there for a second…

Didn’t MERS just come out with some statement about how they weren’t involved an any fraud or something like that?

Oh yea they did…

Statement by CEO of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) “The MERS System is not fraudulent, and MERS has not committed any fraud.”

Statement by CEO of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) RESTON, Va.–(EON: Enhanced Online News)–Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) Chief Executive Officer R.K. Arnold today issued the following statement regarding the organization and clarifying certain aspects of its operations: “The MERS System is not fraudulent, and MERS has not committed any fraud.” “MERS is one important … Read more

Anyway, it is a good thing it was the same notary again or we would be in big trouble…

Here is another one just for fun now as a Chase VP…

~

So you see, this whole Foreclosure-Gate crisis has nothing to do with the “deadbeat” borrowers, it never has.

It has to do with the complete lack of the respect of the law by the banking industry.

They got away with it up until now and are trying their damnedest to paper over their crimes.

It is time to say no more…

They tricked all of us, even you Mr. President,  and completely disregarded the basic laws of this country to make a buck.

I  have been beating this drum, along with a few others, for years now and it is time to come to an end.

Mr President, now that you have had the fraud perpetrated on you personally, what are you going to do about it?

The system is broken and the foreclosures need to be stopped NOW.

It is actually worse than you can imagine…

Feel free to call or email me to discuss this further, Mr President.

All documents supporting the screen shots above are available to the media upon request.

The first national news media outlet that chooses to report this to the American Public will get an exclusive on a similar issue effecting another one of the President’s mortgages…

Lookie what we have here folks…

Is this why they tried to sneak through H.R. 3808? (just kidding)

Just like we have been saying all along, this is so much bigger than “affidavits.”

Here is another piece of the puzzle, without bringing up the REMIC issues…

Now that YOU are affected personally in this, ON TWO MORTGAGES, Mr. President, what are you going to do about it?

Let’s get off the whole CNN Axelrod signals White House opposition to foreclosure moratorium BS…

“The Obama administration opposes a moratorium on home foreclosures, but wants problems involving improper paperwork resolved as quickly as possible, senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday.”I’m not sure about a national moratorium,”

Like my dear friend at the Hamlet puts it

It’s not the foreclosure affidavits only. Hello? It’s the whole kit-n-caboodle. it’s the fabricated assignments of mortgage, fake allonges, robo-stamped endorsements in blank, and satisfactions of mortgage, ignoring SEC and IRS regulations, disregard for the steps required by the REMIC rules. It’s all the top national banks and their servicing arms. The whole of it is a sham. Don’t believe the propaganda that insists otherwise.

Got it?

Now for MORE fireworks…

First we will start with a screen shot of ANOTHER ONE of Obama’s Satisfaction of Mortgage…

Urban Roman signed off on their release of mortgage.

Now you ask, so what is wrong with that?

Nothing on it’s face, but you know how I roll…

With all that is going on with the robosigning, forgeries, fabrications and LIES, we decided to dig into this to see if something was there to help educate the masses on the issues that all of us as Americans face…

Guess what we found AGAIN…

President Obama is a victim AGAIN of the robosigning phenomenon that has taken the financial industry by storm…

And it has been happening for OVER A DECADEbehind the veil of MERS…

How else would you explain this?

Check it out…

Random search of signature for Roman

(Click to Enlarge)

Whoa, is that the same Urban Roman “Vice President” that signed off, and was notarized I might add BY THE SAME NOTARY, on the Presidents Satisfaction of Mortgage?

Let’s compare…

Hmmm. I’m no handwriting expert but…

Let’s check another document just to be sure…

Well it is a good thing we did… I was getting worried there…

Let’s clarify if the same person notarized these documents…

Obama Notary

Random Notary Search Beasley

Looks the same to me on the notary, BUT THIS TIME THE NOTARY SIGNATURES DO NOT MACH EITHER, but hey, no big deal, it is just a “technicality”, right?

I feel much better now, don’t you?

Was getting a little nervous there for a second…

Again, didn’t MERS just come out with some statement about how they weren’t involved an any fraud or something like that?

Oh yea they did…

Statement by CEO of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) “The MERS System is not fraudulent, and MERS has not committed any fraud.”

Statement by CEO of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) RESTON, Va.–(EON: Enhanced Online News)–Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) Chief Executive Officer R.K. Arnold today issued the following statement regarding the organization and clarifying certain aspects of its operations: “The MERS System is not fraudulent, and MERS has not committed any fraud.” “MERS is one important … Read more

So you see, once again, this whole Foreclosure-Gate crisis has nothing to do with the “deadbeat” borrowers, it never has.

It has to do with the complete lack of the respect of the law by the banking industry.

They got away with it up until now and are trying their damnedest to paper over their crimes.

It is time to say no more…

They tricked all of us, even you Mr. President,TWICE so far, and completely disregarded the basic laws of this country to make a buck.

I have been beating this drum, along with a few others, for years now and it is time to come to an end.

Mr President, now that you have had the fraud perpetrated on you personally TWICE, what are you going to do about it?

The system is broken and the foreclosures need to be stopped NOW.

It is actually worse than you can imagine…

This is FRAUD period.

Try taking a forged notarized document and submitting it to you local land records and see what happens…

In Florida it is a FELONY.

117.105 False or fraudulent acknowledgments; penalty.-A notary public who falsely or fraudulently takes an acknowledgment of an instrument as a notary public or who falsely or fraudulently makes a certificate as a notary public or who falsely takes or receives an acknowledgment of the signature on a written instrument is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s, 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

117.107 Prohibited Acts
(1) A notary public may not use a name or initial in signing certificates other than that by which the notary public is commissioned.
(2) A notary public may not sign notarial certificates using a facsimile signature stamp unless the notary public has a physical disability that limits or prohibits his or her ability to make a written signature and unless the notary public has first submitted written notice to the Department of State with an exemplar of the facsimile signature stamp.
(3) A notary public may not affix his or her signature to a blank form of affidavit or certification of acknowledgment and deliver that form to another person with the intent that it be used as an affidavit or acknowledgment.
(4) A notary public may not take the acknowledgment of or administer an oath to a person whom the notary public actually knows to have been adjudicated mentally incapacitated by a court of competent jurisdiction, where the acknowledgment or oath necessitates the exercise of a right that has been removed pursuant to s. 744,3215(2) 0r (3 ), and where the person has not been restored to capacity as a matter of record.
(5) A notary public may not notarize a signature on a document if it appears that the person is mentally incapable of understanding the nature and effect of the document at the time of notarization.
(6) A notary public may not take the acknowledgment of a person who does not speak or understand the English language, unless the nature and effect of the instrument to be notarized is translated into a language which the person does understand.
(7) A notary public may not change anything in a written instrument after it has been signed by anyone.
(8) A notary public may not amend a notarial certificate after the notarization is complete.
(9) A notary public may not notarize a signature on a document if the person
whose signature is being notarized is not in the presence of the notary public at the time the signature is notarized. Any notary public who violates this subsection is guilty of a civil infraction, punishable by penalty not exceeding $5,000, and such violation constitutes malfeasance and misfeasance in the conduct of official duties. It is no defense to the civil infraction specified in this subsection that the notary public acted without intent to defraud. A notary public who violates this subsection with the intent to defraud is guilty of violating s. 117.105.
(10) A notary public may not notarize a signature on a document if the document is incomplete or blank. However, an endorsement or assignment in blank of a negotiable or nonnegotiable note and the assignment in blank of any instrument given as security for such note is not deemed incomplete.
(11) A notary public may not notarize a signature on a document if the person whose signature is to be notarized is the spouse, son, daughter, mother, or father of the notary public.
(12) A notary public may not notarize a signature on a document if the notary public has a financial interest in or is a party to the underlying transaction; however, a notary public who is an employee may notarize a signature for his or her employer, and this employment does not constitute a financial interest in the transaction nor make the notary a party to the transaction under this subsection as long as he or she does not receive a benefit other than his or her salary and the fee for services as a notary public authorized by law. For purposes of this subsection, a notary public who is an attorney does not have a financial interest in and is not a party to the underlying transaction evidenced by a notarized document if he or she notarizes a signature on that document for a client for whom he or she serves as an attorney of record and he or she has no interest in the document other than the fee paid to him or her for legal services and the fee authorized by law for services as a notary public.
EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR ACT OF NOTARY
(6) The employer of a notary public shall be liable to the persons involved for all damages proximately caused by the notary’s official misconduct, if the notary public was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time the notary engaged in the official misconduct.

I am sure there  are similar laws in every state.

Again as always, feel free to call or email me to discuss this further, Mr President.

All documents supporting the screen shots above are available to the media upon request.

For more on the above concerns, see here andhere…

~

Michael Redman

4closureFraud.org

1 – 561 – 880 – LIES

ForeclosureFraud@gmail.com

It is just as interesting, if not better than the above…

FRONT PAGE FORGERY — NY TIMES

SERVICES YOU NEED

“Linda M. Tirelli, a lawyer in White Plains who represents Ms. Nuer in the case against Chase. “This is not about getting a free house for my client. It’s about a level playing field. If I submitted false documents like this to the court, I’d have my license handed to me.”

“Judges may dismiss the foreclosures altogether, barring lenders from refiling and awarding the home to the borrower. That would create a loss for the lender or investor holding the note underlying the property. Almost certainly, lawyers say, lawsuits on behalf of borrowers will multiply.”

EDITORS note: you will have to obtain the paper version of the New York Times to see the three examples of obvious forgeries. The fact that it is on the front page of the newspaper is significant in itself. Gretchen Morgenson has done an excellent job of summing up the examples of fabrication, improper purposes, improper procedures and the probability that actual crimes have been committed.

Although it appears that we are rapidly approaching the reality of this situation, the absence of the “fundamentals” is conspicuous. It is true that the industry practice involved conduct by attorneys, servicers, banks, trustees and others that should probably result in disciplinary actions by the agencies that purport to regulate these entities. But the underlying theme of this article as well as the rest of mainstream media is an assumption that the “defaults” actually exist and therefore that the foreclosures are virtually inevitable but for technical violations on the part of the lenders.

This article also highlights the instances where multiple entities attempted to foreclose on the same property using the same alleged mortgage documents, each making the claim that they are the holder of the note, the real party in interest and possessed of standing to initiate foreclosure proceedings. But the article attributes this to the inability of the “lenders” to deal with the volume of defaults in mortgages.

  • The concept that the mortgages themselves may be fatally defective is completely absent from any reporting on the subject.

  • The concept that the default may not actually exist because the actual creditors have mitigated their losses through receipt of third party payments is completely absent from any reporting on this subject.

  • The concept that the encumbrance on the property may never have been perfected or that it is unenforceable now is completely absent from any reporting on the subject.

Don’t make the mistake of confusing information with evidence. The article in the New York Times as well as this article is merely information. Evidence has a legal definition and if you want to prove something you must meet that definition in order to have some fact or document admitted into the court record and considered in a decision. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The courts have improperly admitted representations of counsel and improper affidavits as evidence, under the presumption that the underlying facts were undoubtedly true. It would be equally improper of the court to lend the same presumption to you. And this is why I have reversed myself and now discourage homeowners representing themselves in court.  A licensed experienced attorney hopefully will know how important it is to raise properly framed objections as early as possible in the proceedings in order to take control of the narrative.

In fact, all of the representations of counsel and the proffer of information contained in affidavits, assignments, endorsements, powers of attorney, substitutions of trustee, notices of default, notices of sale, or any of the other documents used to initiate foreclosure proceedings contains nothing more than false allegations that should have been subject to a simple denial by the borrower, thus requiring the party seeking affirmative relief to properly plead and prove their case. This they cannot do because of the absence of any fact or witness that would actually support their case.

These cases are not simply flawed. They are complete shams, a fraud upon the court, the homeowner, and any subsequent party  who believes that they received clear title resulting from a foreclosure or short sale. The current conduct of the pretender lenders and their attorneys and foreclosure mills is only a continuation of the Ponzi scheme that started with the first sale of an alleged mortgage bond to an investor who believed that the proceeds were being used primarily to fund loans that were properly valued and subjected to rigorous industry-standard underwriting procedures. The lies told to the investors who were the actual lenders in these transactions were identical to the lies told to the homeowners who were the borrowers in these transactions. Separating these parties–the lender and the borrower–was the core tactic and requirement of those who originated this fraudulent scheme.

The reason for the stonewalling on answers to qualified written requests, on answers to debt validation letters, and on responses to demands for discovery is not just that the fabrication and forgery of documents will be revealed–a fact well known to attorneys whose employees created and executed the fabrications and forgeries. The greater reason is to maintain the separation between the lender and the borrower. At some point in the evolution of this epic drama the lenders and the borrowers will get together and compare notes. At that time, the revelation of fraudulent and perhaps criminal conduct throughout this fraudulent scheme extending over a decade will be unavoidable. Stonewalling kicks the can down the road while the perpetrators explore their options to avoid liability and prosecution.

Here is a contribution from Ann:

For full Deposition transcripts of Robot Signers, go to
http://www.scribd.com
and put their name on the search.

Many interesting foreclosure legal pleadings and info
at
http://www.scribd.com/83jjmack
http://www.scribd.com/winston2311
http://www.scribd.com/foreclosure
fraud

October 3, 2010

Flawed Paperwork Aggravates a Foreclosure Crisis

04mortgage.html?_r=1&hp

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

As some of the nation’s largest lenders have conceded that their foreclosure procedures might have been improperly handled, lawsuits have revealed myriad missteps in crucial documents.

The flawed practices that GMAC Mortgage, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have recently begun investigating are so prevalent, lawyers and legal experts say, that additional lenders and loan servicers are likely to halt foreclosure proceedings and may have to reconsider past evictions.

Problems emerging in courts across the nation are varied but all involve documents that must be submitted before foreclosures can proceed legally. Homeowners, lawyers and analysts have been citing such problems for the last few years, but it appears to have reached such intensity recently that banks are beginning to re-examine whether all of the foreclosure papers were prepared properly.

In some cases, documents have been signed by employees who say they have not verified crucial information like amounts owed by borrowers. Other problems involve questionable legal notarization of documents, in which, for example, the notarizations predate the actual preparation of documents — suggesting that signatures were never actually reviewed by a notary.

Other problems occurred when notarizations took place so far from where the documents were signed that it was highly unlikely that the notaries witnessed the signings, as the law requires.

On still other important documents, a single official’s name is signed in such radically different ways that some appear to be forgeries. Additional problems have emerged when multiple banks have all argued that they have the right to foreclose on the same property, a result of a murky trail of documentation and ownership.

There is no doubt that the enormous increase in foreclosures in recent years has strained the resources of lenders and their legal representatives, creating challenges that any institution might find overwhelming. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the percentage of loans that were delinquent by 90 days or more stood at 9.5 percent in the first quarter of 2010, up from 4 percent in the same period of 2008.

But analysts say that the wave of defaults still does not excuse lenders’ failures to meet their legal obligations before trying to remove defaulting borrowers from their homes.

“It reflects the hubris that as long as the money was going through the pipeline, these companies didn’t really have to make sure the documents were in order,” said Kathleen C. Engel, dean for intellectual life at Suffolk University Law School and an expert in mortgage law. “Suddenly they have a lot at stake, and playing fast and loose is going to be more costly than it was in the past.”

Attorneys general in at least six states, including Massachusetts, Iowa, Florida and Illinois, are investigating improper foreclosure practices. Last week, Jennifer Brunner, the secretary of state of Ohio, referred examples of what her office considers possible notary abuse by Chase Home Mortgage to federal prosecutors for investigation.

The implications are not yet clear for borrowers who have been evicted from their homes as a result of improper filings. But legal experts say that courts may impose sanctions on lenders or their representatives or may force banks to pay borrowers’ legal costs in these cases.

Judges may dismiss the foreclosures altogether, barring lenders from refiling and awarding the home to the borrower. That would create a loss for the lender or investor holding the note underlying the property. Almost certainly, lawyers say, lawsuits on behalf of borrowers will multiply.

In Florida, problems with foreclosure cases are especially acute. A recent sample of foreclosure cases in the 12th Judicial Circuit of Florida showed that 20 percent of those set for summary judgment involved deficient documents, according to chief judge Lee E. Haworth.

“We have sent repeated notices to law firms saying, ‘You are not following the rules, and if you don’t clean up your act, we are going to impose sanctions on you,’ ” Mr. Haworth said in an interview. “They say, ‘We’ll fix it, we’ll fix it, we’ll fix it.’ But they don’t.”

As a result, Mr. Haworth said, on Sept. 17, Harry Rapkin, a judge overseeing foreclosures in the district, dismissed 61 foreclosure cases. The plaintiffs can refile but they need to pay new filing fees, Mr. Haworth said.

The byzantine mortgage securitization process that helped inflate the housing bubble allowed home loans to change hands so many times before they were eventually pooled and sold to investors that it is now extremely difficult to track exactly which lenders have claims to a home.

Many lenders or loan servicers that begin the foreclosure process after a borrower defaults do not produce documentation proving that they have the legal right to foreclosure, known as standing.

As a substitute, the banks usually present affidavits attesting to ownership of the note signed by an employee of a legal services firm acting as an agent for the lender or loan servicer. Such affidavits allow foreclosures to proceed, but because they are often dubiously prepared, many questions have arisen about their validity.

Although lawyers for troubled borrowers have contended for years that banks in many cases have not properly documented their rights to foreclose, the issue erupted in mid-September when GMAC said it was halting foreclosure proceedings in 23 states because of problems with its legal practices. The move by GMAC followed testimony by an employee who signed affidavits for the lender; he said that he executed 400 of them each day without reading them or verifying that the information in them was correct.

JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America followed with similar announcements.

But these three large lenders are not the only companies employing people who have failed to verify crucial aspects of a foreclosure case, court documents show.

Last May, Herman John Kennerty, a loan administration manager in the default document group of Wells Fargo Mortgage, testified to lawyers representing a troubled borrower that he typically signed 50 to 150 foreclosure documents a day. In that case, in King County Superior Court in Seattle, he also stated that he did not independently verify the information to which he was attesting.

Wells Fargo did not respond to requests for comment.

In other cases, judges are finding that banks’ claims of standing in a foreclosure case can conflict with other evidence.

Last Thursday, Paul F. Isaacs, a judge in Bourbon County Circuit Court in Kentucky, reversed a ruling he had made in August giving Bank of New York Mellon the right to foreclose on a couple’s home. According to court filings, Mr. Isaacs had relied on the bank’s documentation that it said showed it held the note underlying the property in a trust. But after the borrowers supplied evidence indicating that the note may in fact reside in a different trust, the judge reversed himself. The court will revisit the matter soon.

Bank of New York said it was reviewing the ruling and could not comment.

Another problematic case involves a foreclosure action taken by Deutsche Bank against a borrower in the Bronx in New York. The bank says it has the right to foreclose because the mortgage was assigned to it on Oct. 15, 2009.

But according to court filings made by David B. Shaev, a lawyer at Shaev & Fleischman who represents the borrower, the assignment to Deutsche Bank is riddled with problems. First, the company that Deutsche said had assigned it the mortgage, the Sand Canyon Corporation, no longer had any rights to the underlying property when the transfer was supposed to have occurred.

Additional questions have arisen over the signature verifying an assignment of the mortgage. Court documents show that Tywanna Thomas, assistant vice president of American Home Mortgage Servicing, assigned the mortgage from Sand Canyon to Deutsche Bank in October 2009. On assignments of mortgages in other cases, Ms. Thomas’s signatures differ so wildly that it appears that three people signed the documents using Ms. Thomas’s name.

Given the differences in the signatures, Mr. Shaev filed court papers last July contending that the assignment is a sham, “prepared to create an appearance of a creditor as a real party in interest/standing, when in fact it is likely that the chain of title required in these matters was not performed, lost or both.”

Mr. Shaev also asked the judge overseeing the case, Shelley C. Chapman, to order Ms. Thomas to appear to answer questions the lawyer has raised.

John Gallagher, a spokesman for Deutsche Bank, which is trustee for the securitization that holds the note in this case, said companies servicing mortgage loans engaged the law firms that oversee foreclosure proceedings. “Loan servicers are obligated to adhere to all legal requirements,” he said, “and Deutsche Bank, as trustee, has consistently informed servicers that they are required to execute these actions in a proper and timely manner.”

Reached by phone on Saturday, Ms. Thomas declined to comment.

The United States Trustee, a unit of the Justice Department, is also weighing in on dubious court documents filed by lenders. Last January, it supported a request by Silvia Nuer, a borrower in foreclosure in the Bronx, for sanctions against JPMorgan Chase.

In testimony, a lawyer for Chase conceded that a law firm that had previously represented the bank, the Steven J. Baum firm of Buffalo, had filed inaccurate documents as it sought to take over the property from Ms. Nuer.

The Chase lawyer told a judge last January that his predecessors had combed through the chain of title on the property and could not find a proper assignment. The firm found “something didn’t happen that needed to be fixed,” he explained, and then, according to court documents, it prepared inaccurate documents to fill in the gaps.

The Baum firm did not return calls to comment.

A lawyer for the United States Trustee said that the Nuer case “does not represent an isolated example of misconduct by Chase in the Southern District of New York.”

Chase declined to comment.

“The servicers have it in their control to get the right documents and do this properly, but it is so much cheaper to run it through a foreclosure mill,” said Linda M. Tirelli, a lawyer in White Plains who represents Ms. Nuer in the case against Chase. “This is not about getting a free house for my client. It’s about a level playing field. If I submitted false documents like this to the court, I’d have my license handed to me.”

Investigation Highlights Challenges to Foreclosure Docs

Got this off the “Mortgage Servicing News” newsletter:
June 16, 2010
Investigation Highlights Challenges to Foreclosure Docs

By Kate Berry

The backlash is intensifying against banks and mortgage servicers that try to foreclose on homes without all their ducks in a row.

Because the notes were often sold and resold during the boom years, many financial companies lost track of the documents. Now, legal officials are accusing companies of forging the documents needed to reclaim the properties.

Recently, the Florida Attorney General’s Office said it was investigating the use of “bogus assignment” documents by Lender Processing Services Inc. and its former parent, Fidelity National Financial Inc. And a state judge in Florida has ordered a hearing to determine whether M&T Bank Corp. should be charged with fraud after it changed the assignment of a mortgage note for one borrower three separate times.

“Mortgage assignments are being created out of whole cloth just for the purposes of showing a transfer from one entity to another,” said James Kowalski Jr., an attorney in Jacksonville, Fla., who represents the borrower in the M&T case.

“Banks got away from very basic banking rules because they securitized millions of loans and moved them so quickly,” Kowalski said.

In many cases, Kowalski said, it has become impossible to establish when a mortgage was sold, and to whom, so the servicers are trying to recreate the paperwork, right down to the stamps that financial companies use to verify when a note has changed hands.

Some mortgage processors are “simply ordering stamps from stamp makers,” he said, and are “using those as proof of mortgage assignments after the fact.”

Such alleged practices are now generating ire from the bench.

“The court has been misled by the plaintiff from the beginning,” Circuit Court Judge J. Michael Traynor said in a motion dismissing M&T’s foreclosure action with prejudice and ordering the hearing.

The Marshall Watson law firm in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., which represents M&T in the case, declined to comment and the bank said it could not comment.

In a notice on its website, the Florida attorney general said it is examining whether Docx, an Alpharetta, Ga., unit of Lender Processing Services, forged documents so foreclosures could be processed more quickly.

“These documents are used in court cases as ‘real’ documents of assignment and presented to the court as so, when it actually appears that they are fabricated in order to meet the demands of the institution that does not, in fact, have the necessary documentation to foreclose according to law,” the notice said.

Docx is the largest lien release processor in the United States working on behalf of banks and mortgage lenders.

Peter Sadowski, an executive vice president and general counsel at Fidelity National in Fort Lauderdale, said that more than a year ago his company began requiring that its clients provide all paperwork before the company would process title claims.

Lender Processing Services, which was spun off from Fidelity National two years ago, did not return calls seeking comment Tuesday. The company disclosed in its annual report in February that federal prosecutors were reviewing the business processes of Docx. The company said it was cooperating with the investigators.

“This is systemic,” said April Charney, a senior staff attorney at Jacksonville Area Legal Aid and a member of the Florida Supreme Court’s foreclosure task force.

“Banks can’t show ownership for many of these securitized loans,” Charney continued. “I call them empty-sack trusts, because in the rush to securitize, the originating lender failed to check the paper trail and now they can’t collect.”

In Florida, Georgia, Maryland and other states where the foreclosure process must be handled through the courts, hundreds of borrowers have challenged lenders’ rights to take their homes. Some judges have invalidated mortgages, giving properties back to borrowers while lenders appeal.

In February, the Florida state Supreme Court set a new standard stipulating that before foreclosing, a lender had to verify it had all the proper documents. Lenders that cannot produce such papers can be fined for perjury, the court said.

Kowalski said the bigger problem is that mortgage servicers are working “in a vacuum,” handing out foreclosure assignments to third-party firms such as LPS and Fidelity.

“There’s no meeting to get everybody together and make sure they have their ducks in a row to comply with these very basic rules that banks set up many years ago,” Kowalski said. “The disconnect occurs not just between units within the banks, but among the servicers, their bank clients and the lawyers.”

He said the banking industry is “being misserved,” because mortgage servicers and the lawyers they hire to represent them in foreclosure proceedings are not prepared.

“We’re tarring banks that might obviously do a decent job, and the banks are complicit because they hired the servicers,” Kowalski said.

DISCOVERY TIPS: Thieves Guild: Bank of America Flubs Foreclosure, Seizes Wrong House — AGAIN

In virtually all cases you will not find a person with any relationship to the creditor, investor, or pool. This is because servicers, trustees and other firms in the securitization chain are proceeding on their own initiating foreclosures without instructions, knowledge or any documentation from the creditor, investor or pool.

Editor’s Note: Greyhawk is of course right. But his assumption that this doesn’t happen very often is wrong. We have seen Wells Fargo foreclose on the wrong house and Wells Fargo sue itself because it securitized the first mortgage into one pool and securitized the second mortgage into another pool.

The central importance of these articles is NOT that the banks are stupid or negligent. For the litigator, the central importance is EVIDENCE. Think about it. Work backwards from the event. What would need to be absolutely true for a firm to seize a house in which it had no interest? And how can that help you in other cases where the facts are not quite as clear?

Well, for one thing it would require a belief on the part of someone without any personal knowledge of their own (witness is not competent to testify, plausible deniability thus given a layer of support to other firms in the securitization chain) that they DO have an interest. How could that be? It could only be true if they were using documents and a chain of possession of documents that were either falsified (fabricated) or incomplete (in which case they made assumptions that turned out to be false).

In order for them to make those assumptions they would have had to receive the instructions OR the documents from a “Trusted Source”. Find out the identity for the trusted source and work your way back to the person who actually wrote the document, the person who actually signed the document and the person who gave instructions concerning the creation of that documentation along with any written evidence contemporaneous with those events.

In virtually all cases you will not find a person with any relationship to the creditor, investor, or pool. This is because servicers, trustees and other firms in the securitization chain are proceeding on their own initiating foreclosures without instructions, knowledge or any documentation from the creditor, investor or pool.

The reason we know that documents are falsified and that it is not only common practice but institutionalized pattern of conduct to fabricate documents is simple: when you have a  mortgage that is still “performing” (i.e., payments are up to date) and you ask for the the documentation, they don’t have it.

It is ONLY when the “loan” becomes delinquent, or in default or the notice of sale is issued or there is a challenge to the notice of sale that the documents finally show up. And usually it takes 6-12 weeks to get all the documents. Why? If they started foreclosure proceedings, they would have needed those documents ahead of time.

Trustees routinely pull up a title report before starting a non-judicial sale. You shoudl ask for that and anything else the Trustee had at the time of the initiation of foreclosure proceedings and the date of receipt or creation (under oath in interrogatories as to the date of creation of the documents).

Plaintiffs routinely pull up a title report before they file a foreclosure lawsuit in judicial states. Yet when you ask for them, it takes weeks to produce them and when finally produced and examined and investigated, you will often find that the signature was not authorized, the witnesses were in a different state, the notary was in a a different state from either the witnesses or the signatory or that the signatures are forged (i.e., don’t match the normal signatures of the people who signed.

As for the “negligence” theory, here is the problem for them. How could they think they have something when it doesn’t exist. ANSWER: Because it does exist (or WILL exist when they get around to it) and it was thus fabricated and forged.

But it also means something else when you drill down on these transactions. The pressure to get these loans moving in the securitization chain was immense. Many mortgage brokers or originators took the MORTGAGE APPLICATION, changed it and completed the rest of the closing documents by forgery or simply described the loan as completed when they sent data to the first pool, the aggregator, who then took that description and attached it as an exhibit to his “assignment” to the second pool, the SPV pool.

This is precisely what probably happened in the case reported below. Somebody signed a loan application, never went through with the closing but the loan description went up through the securitization chain and so the originators had to treat it as real even though it didn’t exist. And when its number came up, which was fast because if you don’t have any borrower it isn’t hard to imagine that the “loan” went into default immediately due to non-payment from the non-existent borrower, they foreclosed.

This is where April Charney’s “Produce the Note” fame has been misused and misapplied by those who do not understand the rules of evidence as she does. It’s not just the note she’s after. She wants the Plaintiff in Florida and other judicial states, to prove their case and not be permitted to fake it. Those who report negative results using her material have not mastered the basics, applied a non-existent magic bullet and falsely concluded that April and others are wrong. Those who are too lazy to learn the whole story should withhold their judgment. April Charney is right and what she teaches is correct.

Thieves Guild: Bank of America Flubs Foreclosure, Seizes Wrong House — AGAIN

Sun, 01/17/2010 – 14:46 |  GreyHawk

Hat-tip Consumerist.

For some, the slogan “practice makes perfect” is a motto of encouragement to try again, try harder and achieve perfection. For Bank of America, it should be taken as a strong hint to try and do the right thing the first time, not to try and find a better way to seize the wrong house and then attempt to abstain from any recognizable responsibility.

It should be, but it’s not.

BoA has apparently attempted to foreclose on the wrong house once again, according to an article by Laura Elder in the Galveston County Daily News:

GALVESTON — A West End property owner is suing Bank of America Corp., asserting its agents mistakenly seized a vacation house he owns free and clear, then changed the locks and shut the power off, resulting in the smelly spoiling of about 75 pounds of salmon and halibut from an Alaska fishing trip and other damages.

Agents working for Bank of America cut off power to the property by turning off the main switch in the lower part of the house, according to the lawsuit. They also changed the locks, so Schroit was unable to reach the switch to turn the power back on, according to the lawsuit.

“The property sustained water damage, potential mold contamination arising from the standing freezer residue, water, heat and high humidity conditions during the time the electrical power was off,” according to the lawsuit.

This marks the second time known this has known to occur. The Wheelright, Ky, homeowner in that incident filed a lawsuit against the bank for a similar incident: the locks were changed, and the bank refused to pay any damages other than replacement locks.

Accidents happen, but the bank’s responsibility for its actions doesn’t cease to exist simply because it’s a corporate behemoth. If an average person had “accidentally” shut off power to someone else’s home, changed the locks and caused untold damage, that person would be held liable in both criminal and civil court for the actions — amends and liability would most certainly be assigned.

Bank of America’s incapacity to deal responsibly with “errors” that significantly impact the public should be a wake-up call that the bank has other serious issues that need to be addressed, and that the rights and liberties of “corporate personhood” should not ever exceed the rights and liberties of real living people.

%d bloggers like this: