JUDICIAL NOTICE EXPOSED

JUDICIAL NOTICE is just one more legal device by which Banks and Servicers introduce fake documents or documents they can’t get because they are “lost”.

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.
—————-
The use of Judicial notice is widespread. Banks attempt to use it in order to get something into evidence they could not otherwise prove. Homeowners use it for the same reason. Usually both are mistaken in the use of Judicial notice and the Court is in error for accepting it unless the other side fails to raise a proper objection. Like most things, if you fail to object the document or record will be in evidence. That still leaves the issue of how much weight to give the document as evidence.
 *
Generally Judicial Notice is meant to allow introduction of a document that is in the Public Domain and which is maintained by a government institution. Technically the only proof issue that is satisfied by granting judicial notice is that the document exists. What is written on the document or record introduced by way of Judicial Notice is NOT in evidence — only that the document exists. Thus when homeowners try to use judicial notice of something derogatory about the banks or servicers, all they have is a recognition that this document or report is in the public domain — not that the words themselves are true or even in evidence.
 *
The strategy of the Banks and servicers is to file something somewhere in the public domain and then ask for judicial notice without proper foundation for the documents or its contents. The banks and servicers extend this even further if they can get away with it — by getting the Court to take judicial notice of the note, mortgage or assignment. Or by getting the court to accept into evidence the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.
 *
Objections raised on the basis of lack of notice, hearsay, hearsay on hearsay, lack of foundation, and other rules of evidence should be employed aggressively. However this is a two-edged sword. If the Banks get it in they will then argue that since the homeowner is not a party to the PSA the homeowner is barred from raising violations of the PSA as a trust instrument. If the Banks fail to proffer the PSA or fail to get the Court to accept judicial notice they will proceed anyway arguing that the provisions of the PSA are irrelevant anyway.
 *
In fact if you drill down in cross examination you will probably find that it is the self-proclaimed servicer who is the real party in interest with apparent possession of the original note and mortgage, but which in truth are newly minted, doctored or entirely fabricated, instruments that appear at trial.
 *
If you look at the Florida Rules (most states are the same or similar) you will see that even the SEC site is questionable as a source of documents because the documents are not certified. In truth ANYONE can file ANYTHING on the SEC site and then try to get it accepted into evidence — even though the document (PSA) is not even signed or is not even complete.
 *
But regardless of the action by the court the proponent of a document or record introduced by Judicial Notice must still prove the truth of the matter asserted in the document. it is no different than introducing the document using as foundation the testimony of a witness (usually a robo-witness). But there again the testimony of the witness is going to be that the document is some sort of business record. The actual source of the document is almost always guarded and concealed by the Banks and Servicers.
 *
The reason is that many or most of the Bank and Servicer documents are fabricated, forged, robo—signed instruments that are self-serving and not based upon anything that happened in real life. The truth, difficult to prove but nonetheless true, is that the document the so-called business records of the servicer are neither business records of the servicer nor of the alleged REMIC Trust but rather come into real life by way of a printer that prints records and documents fabricated and maintained by a third party “vendor” like LPS/Black Knight in Jacksonville, Florida.
 *
The change in servicer thus involves no actual “boarding” process, since LPS operates like MERS. Anyone can have access and the transfer of the records is really a transfer of access to the IT platforms of LPS where the data and documents are manipulated to create the illusion of generally accepted and facially valid records or documents.
 *
Florida Statute §90.202 Matters which may be judicially noticed.—A court may take judicial notice of the following matters, to the extent that they are not embraced within s. 90.201:
(1) Special, local, and private acts and resolutions of the Congress of the United States and of the Florida Legislature.
(2) Decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of every other state, territory, and jurisdiction of the United States.
(3) Contents of the Federal Register.
(4) Laws of foreign nations and of an organization of nations.
(5) Official actions of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States.
(6) Records of any court of this state or of any court of record of the United States or of any state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States.
(7) Rules of court of any court of this state or of any court of record of the United States or of any other state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States.
(8) Provisions of all municipal and county charters and charter amendments of this state, provided they are available in printed copies or as certified copies.
(9) Rules promulgated by governmental agencies of this state which are published in the Florida Administrative Code or in bound written copies.
(10) Duly enacted ordinances and resolutions of municipalities and counties located in Florida, provided such ordinances and resolutions are available in printed copies or as certified copies.
(11) Facts that are not subject to dispute because they are generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
(12) Facts that are not subject to dispute because they are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.
(13) Official seals of governmental agencies and departments of the United States and of any state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 1, ch. 77-174; ss. 3, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379.
Florida Statutes § 90.203 Compulsory judicial notice upon request.—A court shall take judicial notice of any matter in s. 90.202 when a party requests it and:
(1) Gives each adverse party timely written notice of the request, proof of which is filed with the court, to enable the adverse party to prepare to meet the request.
(2) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379.

INTIMIDATION: Deutsche Bank Sues Foreclosure Fraud Expert’s Son

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: They are getting desperate, but the question is who is “they?” Does Deutsch know that a suit was brought in its name? Deutsch’s actual trust department has nothing to do with these fictitious “Trusts.” Now, just as Colonial sued Reagan in Arizona for just asking a question, Deutsch is suing the son of a foreclosure expert while he is minding his own business studying poetry.

Deutsche Bank Sues Foreclosure Fraud Expert’s Son With No Financial Interest In Her Case

Deutsche Bank Sues Foreclosure Fraud Expert’s Son With No Financial Interest In Her Case

Disgusting…

HuffPO-

But Deutsche Bank wasn’t just going after her. The bank was also attempting to sue her son, Mark Cullen, who is currently pursuing a graduate degree in poetry at the New School in New York. Cullen hasn’t lived in Szymoniak’s house for seven years and is not a party to any aspect of her mortgagehe has no interest in either the property or the loan, and never has had any such interest, according to Szymoniak.

[…]

And other Florida foreclosure experts say it’s difficult to interpret Deutsche Bank’s move as anything other than retaliation for Szymoniak’s media presence. If it is not, in fact, retaliation, they argue, then Deutsche Bank’s lawyers have demonstrated rank incompetence.

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…

John Kennerty, Caryn A. Graham – MERS Assistant Secretary, VP of Documentation, VP of Communications, BofA, Countrywide, Wells Fargo

Editor’s Note: Another example of attorney as MERS Assistant Secretary through access to password and user ID. She is an attorney with Marshall Watson and has appeared on numerous documents signing also as having limited power of attorney for Bank of America, Countrywide, Wells Fargo and probably others. Check your documents in Florida. If you see an assignment or any other document signed by her other than a pleading it is suspect, to say the least. You have the right to see the original, the basis for the “authorization,” and to conduct discovery — interrogatories, request to produce, request for admissions, depositions upon written questions and live deposition.

Caryn A. Graham – MERS Assistant Secretary

Caryn A. Graham – Attorney at Law at foreclosure mill Marshall Watson Fort Lauderdale, FL

Also listed on “Limited Power of Attorney” at Broward county records for BoA, Countrywide, and Wells Fargo.

JOHN KENNERTY-Signed for MERS as VP of Documentation on MERS assignments

JOHN KENNERTY-Signed as VP of Communications for America Servicing Company [owned by Wells Fargo] on other docs

JOHN KENNERTY-Signed as VP for Wells Fargo on other docs

Marti Noriega Signor for MERS is Litton Employee

You referenced ‘one Noriega’ on a post today. May I presume that to be the ‘Marti Noreiga’ who has already been ‘outed’ for her signatures as a MERS employee when her own Facebook and Linkedln pages declare she is a Litton or CBASS employee (CBASS being the corporation that owns Litton)?

Do we have any KNOWN valid signatures of Marti’s that can be used to validate that she did sign these documents? I know the MERS-employee documents with her signature are fraudulent. In my case Litton is the very company who is now in charge of servicing of my mortgage. Is Litton a target for legal action for the fraudulently signed docs bearing their employee’s name?

MERS AND COUNTRYWIDE V AGIN: THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

NOW AVAILABLE ON AMAZON KINDLE!

MERS and Countrywide v Agin Trustee D Ct Mass Aff’d B Ct on Avoidance Mtg 20091117

NOTE FROM EDITOR SEEKING HELP: Rumor has it San Diego has stopped all foreclosures. I need this corroborated or debunked quickly. Can I get a little help here?

The case in this POST comes out of Massachusetts where the cases are not quite stopped, but almost so — AND where property title insurance companies are NOT underwriting ANY policy that covers a home whose mortgage was securitized.

Many thanks to MAX GARDNER for this case and best wishes for his speedy recovery. He’s one of the titans of this movement. we want him around!

The primary point that needs emphasis here is that as you read this case you will see that if you give the Court something SOLID to hang its hat on, you can get the results you want.

The mistake being made repeatedly out there is simple: either the homeowner or the lawyer goes in with a legal argument addressing the conclusions of the case instead of directing the Judge’s attention to the beginning of the case — discovery, motions to compel, TRO etc. based upon discovery requirements.

The obvious requirement that you need to know in your mind what you are talking about it so you know the significance of the issue legally seems to  have escaped all but a few lawyers. Many lawyers are taking half baked “audits” going to court and making legal arguments about a report they have not read, do not understand and which does not contains all the elements needed anyway.

You must educate the Judge not lecture him. You must NOT rely on securitization in your preliminary arguments because it sounds like legal maneuvering to get out of a legitimate debt.

Unfortunately these mistakes are being made even by people who have attended our survey courses. So we are expanding our offering by adding DVDs, Boot Camps and home study.

Our own efforts at providing forensic review and expert support to lawyers has been challenged by the growing demand vs manpower limitations. Consequently, we will embark on efforts to increase the bandwith or resources in terms of people through educational programs. We will then start to refer cases to forensic analysts and lawyers.

We  are starting courses to train, and certify forensic analysts who pick up even the most minute flaw in a document — like a document you you know in your heart is fabricated and forged but feel intimidated by the process of proving it.

In conjunction with specific courses on training forensic analysts we will also offer addtional courses on how to be expert witnesses, how to prepare expert declarations and affidavits and how to defend your expert declarations in deposition or in an evidentiary hearing. The course is also for lawyers who feel they could use a little support on direct and cross examination of experts.


%d bloggers like this: