How You Can Easily Research State Records For Evidence Of Unremediated LPS Robo-Signing Fraud

How You Can Easily Research State Records For Evidence Of Unremediated LPS Robo-Signing Fraud*[1] 

By Eric Mains, Former FDIC Team Leader

Introduction

Many of the banks conducting foreclosures 2008-2013 relied on a few large foreclosure mills to litigate cases for them, and still do. For large banks, it made sense–consolidate your cases with specialized firms employing dozens of attorneys/paralegals, one-stop shop the process. Most of these firms from 2008-2013 used a version of Lender Processing Services (“LPS”) Desktop software program to create needed assignments for claimed holders of loans (Extra stress on the “claimed” part!). Some estimates put LPS’s dominance of the foreclosure software marketplace at 80% of the market during that period. LPS helped banks retain attorneys for foreclosures, and not surprisingly often chose large foreclosure mills to partner with- mills that often times had much in common with the infamous David Stern firm in Florida.

Stern’s firm became infamous for performing foreclosures using robo-signed/ forged documents when parties claiming holder in due course status lacked one inconvenient little thing–proper chain of title backing up their alleged home loans. The Stern law firm was ultimately brought down by its malfeasance after being investigated by the Florida AG’s office and sued successfully in multiple class actions. See http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/judge-class-action-status-for-homeowner-lawsuit-against-florida-law-firm/cQbMHYSVMFUCZOILofW10K/.

The robo-signing scandal was also brought front and center in modern pop culture when CBS’s 60 Minutes newsmagazine aired an episode on the infamous use of “Linda Green” by an LPS unit as a pseudonym to endorse thousands of invalid note assignments. The episode told the story of Lynn Szymoniak’s successful investigation and qui tam lawsuit exposing the rampant use of robo-signing/forgery by banks and foreclosure mills to pursue illegal foreclosure actions. See https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whistleblower-facing-foreclosure-wins-18-million/ .

 

In 2013 a widely touted Consent Judgment (CJ) by the various State AG’s offices claimed to have resolved LPS’s robo-signing practices, see  http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-and-updates/press-releases/2013/2013-01-31-lps-settlement.html . The problem became however, if there were 1000’s of these robo-signed documents out there, how exactly did the AG’s offices follow up to confirm the documents were in fact remediated? How did they confirm the robo-signing/forgery by LPS had stopped? This was what the CJ required, and the State AG’s offices were to get quarterly reports from LPS confirming their compliance through January 2018. So why are the State AG’s offices refusing to release copies of these compliance reports to this day?

Why have they never published a list of the names of known robo-signers to be distributed to homeowners or their attorneys? Or released data on how many homeowners received required remediation under the settlement? Strange behavior from the office(s) of AG’s who collected millions under the settlement with LPS, and claimed a “Win” for consumers…or maybe not so strange if they simply failed to do anything TO follow up on the CJ. So what can the average person, or potentially a class action attorney, do to see if LPS actually complied with the CJ and remediated documents BEFORE foreclosing on homeowners, as the CJ required? Below is a basic guide one can use to get started.

 

STEP #1- Identify the Foreclosure Mill Attorney

 

Attorneys in every state are identified by a unique Attorney number (see ex. below). This makes it very easy to track the cases they have handled if your state has an online database. Unfortunately for large foreclosure mills, this also makes it extremely easy to track the specific foreclosure cases their attorney’s have handled because that’s basically the only kind of cases they handled. Alternately, you can do a search by name of bank, name of trust, etc., in most state databases, but the attorney ID number seems to work best when concentrating on one firm. The example I use below is from the State of Indiana, and uses the IN public roll of attorney database, as well as its Odyssey case management system which allows the user to search non-confidential cases. Most states do provide similar such free database systems to the public. The case lists usually go back up to a decade or more.

 

(Example from Indiana website at https://courtapps.in.gov/rollofattorneys )

Indiana Roll of Attorneys

The Roll of Attorneys is the listing of all attorneys licensed to practice law in Indiana. Search for attorneys by name or attorney number. Each attorney’s record includes license status, disciplinary history, contact information, and any other names the attorney has practiced under.

Top of Form

Search for an Indiana attorney:

By Name :

Last Name (required)

First Name

Attorney Number:

  1. 99999-99

Bottom of Form

Results

Kemper , Lawrence Joseph 18029-29 Carmel IN 10-31-1994 Active In Good Standing

 

STEP #1a- Search For Cases the Firm/Attorney Handled.

 

The mortgage foreclosure cases will be marked as such, with all litigation information available when you click on the details. Once you do that, you have party names, filings, home address of the house being foreclosed, etc. So, say you are looking for all foreclosures handled by a foreclosure mill attorney from 2008-2010, or end of 2012 through 2014? Easy to sort out using a database like above, just refine your search fields.

Prepare a list of foreclosure cases filed by your subject attorney/firm. You will want to narrow it down by the relevant dates LPS & its attorneys were required to remediate documents (2008-2010), as well as looking at foreclosures instigated and completed between early to mid-2012 through end of 2013 (or in some cases later). Why? If you later find evidence of robo-signing and backdating post January 2013, this helps establish the foreclosure mill attorneys and LPS directly violated the CJ by moving ahead with a foreclosure using documents they knew violated its terms. With your list of cases, names, etc., you’re ready for Step #3.

https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase/#/vw/Search

Search Results

Attorney Search
Attorney Search
First:
Middle:
Last:
Sounds-like:
Business:
Attorney#:  18029-29
DOB:
Court:
Limit To: Civil
File Date:
Status:
  • List
  • Hide List Details Show List Details
  • Table

1 to 20 of 2449

by File Date, Descending

1 2 3 4 5

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v. Glen David Johnson, Glen David Johnson, Any Unknown Occupants et al

49D07-1709-MF-034571

Court

Marion Superior Court, Civil Division 7

Case Type

MF – Mortgage Foreclosure

Filed

09/11/2017

Status

09/11/2017, Pending

Charges

Parties

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Johnson, Occupants, Flanagan DDS, IMC Credit Services, LLC, MSW Capital LLC, Unifund CCR Partners Assignee of Palisades Ac…

Attorneys

Tekulve, Kemper, Flatt, Lawrence, Matheis

STEP #2- Locate the Land Record of Interest and Assignments.

Once you have this information, it is a simple matter to locate any recorded assignments in the county recorder’s office. Luckily, this is also available online & automated for your convenience in most states……and cheaply at that!! Using the State of Indiana as an example again, they use a commercial service called Doxpop (FYI, Doxpop handles MI too). Through these services, ANYONE can search for recorded land title records (See below). Average cost to search for, pull up, and print an assignment from home or office? $1-3 per assignment, depending on if you buy a bulk search package or just do single search. You are going to be scanning for any assignment performed just prior to, or during, a foreclosure action. In some cases a corrective assignment may exist, and if so the signature should be that of the actual person authorized to sign for a bank….good to have for later.

https://www.doxpop.com/prod/in/recorder/

 

Wells County Recorded Documents are now available through Doxpop! Details here.

Welcome to Doxpop Recorded Documents

NEW! Looking for full-size preview images of documents? Try our new Unlimited Viewing service, available in participating counties. Watch a demo to learn more.

Doxpop provides access to over 16,804,357 recorded documents from 42 counties in the Doxpop Network. Our information is updated every ten minutes and is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We are working every day to bring new counties to our Recorded Document Service.

Learn about our advanced searching options, enhanced results, document details, and document images.

You can use our recorded document search features to find documents by name, details about the document such as the date, and information about the property to which the document refers. These documents include documents deeds, mortgages, and liens. (See a more complete list of document types.) By subscribing to any Doxpop search plan you can access these features, view all details about a document, and purchase, view, and print pages directly from our website.

STEP #3- Time to Start Comparing Sig’s, Date(s), & Notary Cards Against Your Claimed Notary.

Time to start playing “Which signature(s) don’t match?” (both Attorney-in-Fact and Notary), and “Which recording dates don’t make sense?”. You will be comparing signatures of known LPS robo-signers, whose names are easily found on the web… Google “robo-signers & LPS” as a search and you will find a trove of websites listing names. In the alternative, you will find many of them listed in Lynn Szymoniak’s original qui tam lawsuit, also available on the web in PDF.

So what are you looking for?

-Signatures by “Attorneys-in-Fact” on assignments used in a foreclosure case should match one another if made by one person. They shouldn’t be unrecognizable scribble marks in one case, legible in another, non-matching in multiple instances, etc., …common-sense stuff.

-Look at the signatures of the “Notary” on the assignment. Ditto with the above- BUT FURTHER– If they are a registered notary, does their signature match the signature card on file at the registered State agency? (Available by going down in person or requesting such from that county by mail usually).

-If the notary dated the assignment on “XX-XX-XXXX” date, then the assignment would have been sent directly to the county recorder’s office to be recorded afterwards, usually 30 days to protect priority of lien. If there is an unexplained lapse in time from notary signing to recording.. 9 months..years..Why??

Question(s) for attorney’s in a FC case if they performed discovery-

a.) Did the foreclosure mill attorney ever disclose that the documents used and material parties involved in your case included LPS, or the use of the Desktop software platform?

b.) The CJ directly affected the FC mill attorneys because of LPS conduct of interfering in the relationship between FC mill attorneys & their “real” clients (banks, servicers). LPS was found to have virtually taken over the foreclosure process in retaining and directing attorneys as to what to do from 2008-2013. Query- was the attorney effectively able to relay any requests for discovery/production of documents, arbitrate loan modification meetings (required in many states), etc., with the “real”/ supposed note holder, or did LPS interfere with these activities so pervasively as to render them a nullity?

b.) Did the foreclosure mill attorney disclose to you the fact a Consent Judgment had been issued and the documents in your case might be covered by it? Did they point out a toll free number was available for you to contact and request information/lodge complaints?

Remember- it was just such evidence of forgery and backdating, attorney/client interference, etc., that landed Lynn Szymoniak $18M when she filed her qui tam lawsuit…..her suit ultimately leading to the 2013 $125M Multistate Consent Judgment with LPS. What could a good class action attorney do with mass evidence LPS & FC mill attorney’s NEVER remediated robo-signing as required or disclosed material evidence/parties in discovery?….. Love to find out!

The Terms of the 2013 Consent Judgment in Relevant Part

Definitions, section 2.2: “Covered Conduct” shall mean LPS’ practices related to mortgage default servicing, including document creation, preparation, execution, recordation, and notarization practices as they relate to Mortgage Loan Documents as well as LPS’ relationships with attorneys representing the servicers and other third parties through the Effective Date of this Judgment.

Release, section 2.7: “Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver or release of any private rights, causes of action, or remedies of any person against the Defendants with respect to the Covered Conduct.”  (See above!)

** Important- The Below Was Required of LPS under the CJ

“LPS will undertake a review of documents executed during the period of Jan. 1, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2010 to determine what documents, if any, need to be re-executed or corrected. If LPS is authorized to make the corrections, it will do so and will make periodic reports to the AG’s Office of the status of its review and/or modification of documents.” See, http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-and-updates/press-releases/2013/2013-01-31-lps-settlement.html

Per section 3.2 of the Consent Judgment, the 48 State AG’s offices are responsible for monitoring LPS compliance with the consent judgment through January 31, 2018. LPS is required to be in compliance with not only the terms of the Consent Judgment, but other mortgage servicing agreements and judgments in force, such as the widely touted National Mortgage Settlement, and is in compliance with the servicing standards of those settlements and other applicable state or federal laws.

Through January 31, 2018, LPS will allow the 48 state AG’s access to non-privileged documents without need for a subpoena or other compulsory process.

Section 6.1 allows the 48 State AG’s the right to reopen investigations into LPS for noncompliance with the CJ.

Section 7.1 allows for the State AG’s to take action for other violations of law, and take any actions necessary to protect the health and safety of the public.

What’s in it for you?

A search of 100 assignments looking for evidence that foreclosures were completed in violation of the CJ using robo-signed or backdated documents may cost as little as $100-$200. Cost to benefit ratio wise, if you are a large class action law firm, and if you have just a 10% hit ratio of questionable documents after searching 500 documents, that’s $500-$1000 spent to get 50 potential clients. Not bad when you look at what happened with David Stern’s firm, and look at the millions of dollars collected it in class actions.

The State AG’s are in a bit of a quandry as noted above, because if mass evidence is unearthed showing a failure to remediate and correct before foreclosing on innocent homeowner in direct violation of the CJ, they will be forced to take action. This would further open up the possibility that mass actions against large foreclosure mills will be settled quickly, unless such firms want to risk being faced with the fate of the late David Stern firm. Not bad for a minimal investment, and a little legwork.

So in closing, and to reiterate, developing a large database of signatures by name, FC mill involved, and date(s) in critical to be able to demonstrate that what the AG’s were supposed to insure happened, unfortunately, did not. The proof required is no different than it was for Lynn Szymoniak back in 2011, and just as basic and generally cheap to find….The only question is whether enough defrauded homeowners, their attorneys, or a class action firm cares to dig…..

[1] *The contents of this paper are not meant as legal advice, but merely a tool to be used by those who may wish to research foreclosure cases, and potentially seek legal advice from a licensed attorney.

Hurry! Contact your Attorney General about the LPS Consent Judgement NOW!!

Review from The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall: The LPS Consent Judgement and the Power of FOIA Requests broadcast on August 24, 2017.

Note: This is not legal advice but for educational purposes only.  Hire an attorney.

On Thursday’s West Coast Foreclosure show, Eric Mains, a former FDIC team leader, and investigator Bill Paatalo joined California attorney Charles Marshall on his West Coast Foreclosure Show that is broadcast twice monthly on behalf of Neil Garfield.   Eric Mains originally introduced the FOIA LPS concept during the August 3, 2017 broadcast here.

Mains urged listeners to immediately contact their state AG offices in order to obtain information about the LPS/Black Knight consent judgement and to demand answers why LPS is not in compliance with the judgement.  The information you discover may allow you to file suit on a prior foreclosure, or provide an opportunity to obtain information that will help you in current litigation.

The government estimates that 80% of all foreclosures processed by LPS between 2008 and 2010 had defects and that LPS interfered with the attorney-client (servicer) relationship in order to foreclose quickly and illegally.  The servicers and their attorneys are aware of the judgement and cannot claim that they didn’t know that robosigning was occurring- it is spelled out in the consent judgement.  What does this mean to the homeowner who has been illegally foreclosed upon with fraudulent documents manufactured by LPS?

If you are impacted by an attorney or servicer (or both) that utilized the LPS’s services, including its software system, you should file an FOIA request with your state’s attorney general.   You can contact your state AG’s office by phone, mail or email.  The cost of an FOIA is typically around five-dollars.

In your letter, you should request specific information to include:

  1. Has your office been receiving quarterly compliance reports as required in the consent judgement?
  2. How many people in the state were impacted by LPS’s illegal practices to include fabricated notes and assignments, forged documents or unreliable documents created for the purpose of foreclosing?
  3. What percentage of the funds the state received from the consent judgement have been used to help citizens of the state? Please provide a distribution report of the allocation of these funds.
  4. Request copies of all quarterly reports and correspondence.
  5. How did the individual servicers comply with the consent judgement? What were their duties to comply?
  6. If you accepted money from the settlement, why was no follow-up done on the consent judgement to confirm that servicers and their attorneys were in compliance?
  7. Why are these fabricated documents still polluting the public records of this state?
  8. Will future homebuyers be vulnerable if they discover their title is clouded by a prior fraudulent note, assignment, endorsement or allonge that was not remediated?

An example of the initial letter Eric Mains sent to the Indiana Attorney General’s office can be found here: FOIA Request AG’s Office.  Please edit the document and insert information relevant to your state and your needs.  The DEADLINE to submit FOIAs regarding the consent judgement is January 31, 2018- so time is of the essence!

LPS/Black Knight was ordered to remediate forgeries and assignments and to notify people affected by the robosigning of documents.  There is no indication this has been done.  Although Linda Green was the most famous robosigner at LPS, and her signature was used on millions of documents, LPS employed hundreds of robosigners who were forging signatures on fabricated documents. It is likely your loan documents may have been created by LPS.  Attorney Charles Marshall recommends that everyone read the Lynn Symoniak lawsuit against LPS to understand exactly how LPS operated between 2008 and 2013.

According to Marshall, attorneys who, “blatantly went in front of a judge with forged documents that should have been remediated and proceeded with the foreclosure anyways” are guilty of fraudulent behavior and recommends that homeowners should discuss this matter with an attorney even if they no longer have their home.

LPS/BlackKnight retained the attorney network used by the loan servicers.  The attorneys had certain rights and responsibilities and most likely knew soon after working with the LPS network that they were using fabricated and forged documents, and even after the consent judgement continued using documents to foreclose that had not been remediated per the consent judgement, and should have been.

FOIA requests provide a unique opportunity to access documents that have already been identified as problematic by federal regulatory agencies.  Not only that, the LPS consent judgement was signed by all 50 state attorney generals.  Homeowners should unite and demand to know why the remediations were not carried through, if attorneys continued to use fraudulent documents to foreclose, how the money received was distributed, and why the lenders failed to file quarterly reports regarding their compliance with the judgement on a quarterly basis.

 

There is a potential Pandora’s Box to be opened since 80% of all foreclosures between 2008 and 2010 (and perhaps longer) utilized fabricated LPS documents that were never remediated.  There were literally hundreds of thousands of wrongful foreclosures completed with fraudulent documents that pollute the county records.

 

LPS retained attorneys for its network from 2008 until 2013 when they were forced to stop the practice.  There is a good chance that the law firm who processed your foreclosure lawsuit used LPS’s illegal foreclosure services.  The consent judgement states that LPS was too involved in the outcome of attorneys in their network, and this resulted in obstruction.  You may have a private cause of action including fraud on the court if LPS “assisted” with a signature or your foreclosure involved an unauthorized signer.

 

Most Attorney Generals took the money and ran. This is a public policy nightmare that has not been resolved.   LPS paid the financial penalties to the state AG offices, but it appears it  made no effort to remediate the fabricated documents,  file quarterly reports, and perhaps may not have altered their operating policies as required by the judgement.  Only by demanding information via FOIA requests will light be shed on LPS’s overall compliance.

 

Investigator Bill Paatalo, who is an expert on foreclosure matters, sheds some light on how LPS BlackKnight operated.  LPS planned regional territories throughout the United States.  They then went around the country targeting law firms that would be a good fit for their proprietary foreclosure platform.  LPS would receive requests from loan servicers who wanted a foreclosure attorney referral.  LPS played matchmaker between servicer and and LPS network attorney.

 

One of LPS’s primary metrics was grading their attorney networks on how fast they could foreclose.  Firms that were top performing foreclosure mills received acknowledgement of their performance in the LPS newsletters (see an example here: LPS Newsletter October 2007)- and may have even received performance incentives in cash, trips, etc.….

If you were harmed by a servicer or its attorney, it is recommended that you immediately start demanding information about the LPS consent judgment.  There are 50 state attorney generals who should be bombarded with FOIA requests while the window is still open.  Homeowners should then share notes and make efforts to hold their state AG offices accountable.

There are approximately 2 million fraudulent documents in the public record that don’t appear to have been remediated by LPS.  Although LPS was to issue corrective assignments- there is no proof this was done.  YOU have until JANUARY 31, 2018 to get your FOIA requests rolling.  Time is of the essence!  Call the media, your state representatives and anyone you can think of to demand that your state AG comply with the consent judgement.  If you suspect you lost your home to fraudulent LPS docs or that the servicer’s attorney used fraudulent documents in litigation- you may have a private cause of action.  In most states you have at least 3 years to sue for Fraud once you discover the fraud.

CONTACT YOUR AG TODAY AND PLEASE SHARE YOUR FINDINGS WITH OTHER HOMEOWNERS, STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND FEDERAL AGENCIES- AND DEMAND THAT LPS/BLACKKNIGHT REMEDIATE, REPORT and demonstrate COMPLIANCE.

Again- here is a simple FOIA letter you can edit and send to your state Attorney General (thank you to Eric Mains for providing this template): FOIA Request AG’s Office.

For additional information please see these blog articles:

https://livinglies.me/tag/lps-consent-judgement/

 

The Mains Event: Demand that Attorney Generals Nationwide comply with LPS/Black Knight Consent Judgement

 

Please listen to the West Coast Foreclosure Show.  Attorney Charles Marshall interviews former FDIC team leader Eric Mains about his foreclosure battle and FOIA strategy.

By K.K. MacKinstry

Anyone who knows former FDIC Team Leader Eric Mains knows he is one tenacious ex-banker.  In eight years of litigation, every court he has approached for relief has stonewalled his efforts to discover who owns his mortgage loan.  Mains is still in his home despite Chase’s most recent Motion to Dismiss that was granted by the United States District Court based on Rooker-Feldman doctrine that shouldn’t have applied due to the fact neither the parties or subject matter of his federal complaint was covered in his State foreclosure action.

It is astonishing that Mains has not prevailed in his lawsuit against CitiBank and Chase.  In his lawsuits, he has variously provided evidence of the following:

– His Note was “endorsed” in blank and undated with stamp of one Cynthia Riley, a former WAMU employee laid off from her job at WAMU before his note was endorsed, and whose FL deposition in 2013 revealed she never worked at the SC facility his loan documents were sent to, never personally endorsed any notes herself, and her stamps were not located at the SC facility.

-Whistleblower Lynn Syzmoniak’s qui tam lawsuit revealed that one Jodi Sobotta (alleged “attorney in fact” for Chase who signed another of his Note assignments) was in fact a LPS employee in MN who alleged in the qui tam suit to have been involved in unauthorized robosigning and forgery at that facility. Christine Sauerer, notary on the assignment, filed an official notary card with MN which contains her signature, but it does not match her alleged signature on his assignment. Even more damningly, she supposedly notarized the assignment over 1 year before it was recorded in the county recorder’s office. This is an amazing feat as the assignment, ANY loan assignment, would have been sent to the local recorder’s office for recordation directly after execution as a normal course of business to ensure timely recording and priority- as any competent attorney could attest. This is direct evidence the assignment had been back dated as well as forged.

-While the above is incredible enough, it doesn’t end there. The above assignment was one of the assignments that was the subject of a $125 million 2013 multi-state consent judgment with LPS. LPS and its agents, which would have included the attorneys it contracted and retained to instigate the very foreclosures its forged assignments were used in, was required by the CJ to have reached out to consumers affected by their forgeries and remediated their forged assignments executed from 2008-2010, of which Mains was one. Mains foreclosure judgment occurred months after the signing of the CJ, and the foreclosure mill law firm in that case, Nelson & Frankenberger, never disclosed LPS as a material party in discovery, and never disclosed to the court the forgery activity it was aware of.  To this day, they have still proceeded to try multiple times to move forward with sheriffs sales on Mains property using the same forged documents, in violation of the CJ, and while the Indiana AG’s office remains mute.

Mains has appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States his 2017 federal appellate court ruling that their jurisdiction to hear his complaint was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  Meanwhile, Mains has continued to seek information in his case, notably through a Freedom of Information Act request, in which he demanded that the Indiana Attorney General’s office provide information regarding the 2013 consent judgement with LPS/Black Knight, and their stated compliance with its terms, which is required to be documented in quarterly reports to the AG’s of all 50 states who were signatories to the settlement.

He requested copies of all the information relevant to the consent judgement, and he specifically requested copies of the all compliance reports the AG’s office held and was to have received from LPS/Black Knight. Mains wanted to know what LPS/Black Knight was doing to comply with the consent judgement to stop its stipulated to unauthorized signing of loan documents, the use of those documents, and most basically what their compliance activities consisted of. This is just common sense, as any Indiana consumer, homeowner, legislator, or attorney would expect to be apprised of the what, where, when, and how of LPS/Black Knight’s compliance with the CJ…. especially after paying the IN AG’s office $1.6 million to settle it violations!

After Mains sent his FOIA to the AG’s office he received a pathetically anemic response.  The AG ignored most of his request and were only willing to disclose 19 pages of documents. The 7 page CJ itself, and 12 supposed cover letters to the compliance reports and the original complaint.  That is it!!!!  Mains has indicated his suspicion that the compliance reports either don’t exist, or they fail to address the requirements of the consent judgements.

The IN AG has generally claimed that everything in relation to the settlement and information related to it is attorney work product or is somehow privileged/confidential.  This is patently ridiculous and violates the Indiana Public Records Act.  The various state AG’s offices are required to follow up on the consent judgement until January of 2018.  Mains wants to know what the state AG’s have done to protect consumers and ensure the compliance with the terms of the 2013 CJ, especially after taking millions of dollars of LPS money for that privilege. He encourages consumers and the media to do the same in each of their respective states given the danger that state AG’s are still knowingly and negligently allowing these fraudulent documents to be used in foreclosures in their states despite the 2013 CJ specifically prohibiting this conduct.

Look for Part II on Monday regarding how you can benefit from your own FOIAs, what you can do to help others, and why it matters.

%d bloggers like this: