Ken McLeod Files Complaints Against Notaries: 3 Licenses Revoked so far

So far he is three for three and he has no plans to stop filing complaints against notaries who signed false, fabricated affidavits. Ken McLeod (Arizona) is about the best investigator for economic crimes that I have ever come across. I won’t publish his number because the last time I did that he was swamped with calls and couldn’t do his work. If you can get to him, hire him. He has helped my law firm in a variety of ways sometimes tracking down witnesses within minutes and even telling us where they were standing at that moment. And he is devoted to bringing down this false system of foreclosures based upon false documents, false debts, and false testimony.

“The robo-signing notaries need to be stripped of their professional licenses.  I fully intend to file a complaint against every single notary who ever signed a false affidavit in Arizona.  It may take me years, but, this is how it’s done.  One at a time until they are all gone.

“Notice the Garcia revocation.  The notary presented after the fact falsified logs to try to cover his ass.  His other problems were accepting expired passports as proof of idea.  He even acknowledged the demand by a ‘detective’ but made a (wrong) legal decision he didn’t have to comply.

“Revocation of these commissions will have to be disclosed by these notaries any time they need a bond or apply for a government job.

The subtext for this is that if the notaries were committing crimes or violations of the rules and regulations governing their licenses as notaries, then two things are true: (1)  if a false notarization was affixed by a notary in order to record a document in public records or to authenticate an affidavit as testimony, then the document or affidavit needs to be expunged from the record or coupled with a notation that the affidavit or document was falsely notarized, and  (2) if the document was falsely notarized and is therefore not effective for the purpose for which it was improperly recorded, then any action based upon that recordation is void or voidable.

The one thing that I need to remind readers is that a false notary does not completely invalidate a document. It may invalidate the recording and it may imply that the entire document was false. But it doesn’t prove the entire document was false. For example, if you in fact signed a mortgage and a note and the mortgage was required to have two witnesses and a notary, you have a contract regardless of whether or not it was recorded.  The failure to provide the proper notarization does not nullify the instrument. When the notarization was not fraudulent, and affidavit attached to the instrument will suffice to correct the problem.

Luz Anaya Notary revocation letter from AZ SOS 09232013

Letter from AZ SOS revocation of notary commission Felix Garcia

Gloria Cramer AZ SOS Revocation Letterdated 1-20-2014

Fake Notaries: The Weak Link of Each State

If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services.
The selection of an attorney is an important decision  and should only be made after you have interviewed licensed attorneys familiar with investment banking, securities, property law, consumer law, mortgages, foreclosures, and collection procedures. This site is dedicated to providing those services directly or indirectly through attorneys seeking guidance or assistance in representing consumers and homeowners. We are available to any lawyer seeking assistance anywhere in the country, U.S. possessions and territories. Neil Garfield is a licensed member of the Florida Bar and is qualified to appear as an expert witness or litigator in in several states including the district of Columbia. The information on this blog is general information and should NEVER be considered to be advice on one specific case. Consultation with a licensed attorney is required in this highly complex field.

Editor’s Note: All across the country we are discovering that robo-signing and forgery of notarizations have enabled the pretender lenders to assure the court that they own the debt, note and mortgage or deed of trust. Complaints to the state agencies regulating notaries have resulted in a net loss to borrowers. In Arizona, several notaries were suspended or had their licenses revoked only to have them reinstated a short time later. Lending your notary stamp or stealing a notary stamp without the consent of the notary are both subject to administrative and criminal prosecution.

The reason why the notarizations are going nowhere is, I think, purely political. But there is a misconception about finding a fake notarization without finding that the signature that was notarized was also without authorization or was also forged.

The failure to get a proper notarization (like where the signatory signed in Florida and the notary was in Texas), does NOT invalidate the document itself. In most states where I have read the law it only effects the ability to record the document. So if you know about the document and it wasn’t properly notarized so it couldn’t be recorded, you can still be held to have notice of it and it may well be binding on your client even if it was forged. without more, the attack on the notary seems like a technicality to get out of a legitimate debt.

It is at best an add-on to other claims in which you pray the court will enter an order that removes the nullifies the recording of the offending document from the public records. That won’t get you very far since you obviously have notice of the document’s existence. So you need to attack the document itself and even there, Judges are very reluctant to enter orders granting relief where the borrower has essentially admitted the debt, note, mortgage and the default. How would you like it if you loaned money to someone for real and then were prevented from collection because of some minor technicality? It’s a windfall for the borrower.

This is why I encourage people to start with the money trail instead of the documentary trail. The documentary trail tells a story ABOUT a transaction which is presumed to be true especially if your client’s signature is on it. But the money trail reveals what SHOULD be on the documentary trail and it is by reference to transactions that were real, where money exchanged hands, that you can say that the documents upon which the other side places reliance are wrong.

Tactically the pretenders lenders are relying on the documentary trail. Don’t go there. It’s a trap. Go for the real transactions in which money is supposed to have changed hands. Then you can ask in discovery two alternative lines of questioning: explain why the documentary trail does not reflect the actual money trial and where are the receipts and disbursements (cancelled checks and wire transfer receipts) to support your documentary trail?

The last items that closes the book on them is to show that there was no privity or authorization for them to take the consideration from an independent third party transaction and apply it to their documents.

I can’t take my neighbor’s auto loan and say that proves he owes me money. I have to actually loan him the money and if his documents say that he borrowed money from a finance company, then THEY have to show the same thing I do — that they really loaned the money or really bought the loan with cash. If neither of us can prove we paid anything then the fact that he got money as a coincidence with our paperwork is not going to help either the finance company or me. It must be presumed that the money came from someone else, resulting in voiding the purported transactions and allowing for whoever actually parted with money to come forward and stake his claim.

So fake notarizations are indeed a bad thing and that should be cause for concern in the property records of each county where title is supposed to be recorded. But wasting your time on that attack is not likely to produce much in the way of results in the form of real relief for your client.

State and Federal Agencies Should Brace for Demands for Administrative Hearings


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


Editor’s Comment: We had an interesting exchange in a civil, almost charming meeting with the Arizona Secretary of State last night at Darrell Blomberg’s Tuesday night meeting. He has the  AZ AG coming in a couple of weeks.

One thing that came out is that the oath of the notary is missing in many cases and there were some people who thought this might be the magic bullet that would bring down the entire foreclosure process. I don’t know how this got started but the responses from the Secretary and his manager of business affairs were mostly correct — although they point to serious deficiencies in the system and training of the people.

The oath and the bond are usually on the same page. That it is not recorded anywhere is flimsy at best and even if correct would be a source of annoyance to a judge rather than convincing him that the mortgage origination was defective and the foreclosure wrongful.Proving the notary to have been incorrectly affixed might accomplish a right to have the mortgage or deed of trust removed from the title records — but it does NOT invalidate the document itself. There is no magic bullet.

I again say: there is no magic bullet, and there is no paper defect that will discharge a debt. Debts are discharged by payment or waiver of payment (and waived could be involuntary, like in bankruptcy). By concentrating upon the possibility of a defect in the process of record-keeping on the oath of office of a judge or notary, you are essentially admitting the debt, the default and the right to collect and even foreclose, although your intent is otherwise.

The attestation by the notary has nothing to do with the validity of the contents of the document. It serves only to say that a person appeared before the notary and fulfilled the statutory requirements by identifying themselves. The notary is merely attesting to the fact that this is what happened. Someone appeared, gave a drivers license etc., and signed in front of the notary. That is the fullest extent of the attestation of the notary and the power of the notary.

In Arizona, any attestation by the notary that includes corroboration that the person whose signature is being notarized is in fact that person or has a particular relationship with a particular company is void to the extent that the attestation of the notary includes assurance of the signor’s official position or representative powers.

California has a similar provision but allows notaries — if they actually know — to attest to the official capacity of the signor. But California law has an important caveat. Any attestation as to the powers, rights and obligations of the signor cannot be used and is of no effect if it is being used outside the state. So if you are in Arizona and the notary was in California and included an attestation that the signor was vice president of MERS, the part about the signor being a VP of MERS counts for nothing.

The secretary stepped in immediately when his manager tried to say that any decision by the office of the secretary of state is final and cannot be reviewed. However, as he pointed out, the finding of an administrative agency is presumptively true unless you can prove otherwise. That is why the OCC decrees etc. should be viewed as valuable to homeowners because there have already been admissions and findings that the foreclosures were wrongful, and in some studies (San Francisco). Those findings after investigations are also entitled to a presumption of validity and throws the burden of proof onto the the pretender lender IF you show that the bad practices cited by the agencies show up in your particular case.

It is disturbing that (a) a state official second only to the secretary of state himself actually believed that she had supreme authority that was never subject to review. And (b) although the secretary affirmed his believe that his office was a record keeper and not an enforcement arm of the executive branch, I think that is a contradiction in terms. The purpose of the executive branch of government is to enforce the law. If a filing is required with the Secretary of State providing information about the activities of a limited partnership along with the fees payable to the State of Arizona, it is a mistake, in my opinion, to believe that such an agency lacks the right to prosecute those who fail to register, do business in the state and don’t pay their fees.

After decades of practice in administrative law all over the country, I believe I have discovered a mistaken impression that is often found amongst state departments, both as to their powers and their obligations to enforce those powers. I think a lawsuit in mandamus against the office of Secretary of State requiring them to use the Administrative Procedures Act and participate in hearings conducted by administrative hearings judges who are objective and unbiased, may well be necessary unless the Secretary rethinks his position and does so on his own.

This might be particularly important to the State of Arizona and other states since the REMIC pools appear to be either general or limited partnerships and not Trusts as they are described in the PSA and prospectus. This ought to be at least tested.

But whether the restrictive power of the secretary of state extends only to limited partnerships and not corporations and other business entities ( division that is peculiar at best) the major point is still the same. A foreign entity or person holding money in their hands, solicited applicants for loans and then closed transactions for those loans within the state of Arizona and with respect to an interest or potential interest in real property located strictly within the state of Arizona, violated state law and must suffer the consequences.

If they want to say that these leads to an unfair or inequitable result, they must allege and prove that they will lose money by applying the law and that means proving that they funded the loan, bought it or otherwise advanced real money where money exchanged hands. At this point everyone who knows the logistics here knows that there is not one party, group or person that can prove that case, which is why the rejection of modifications is so ridiculous and born of pure arrogance.

The real lender or creditor is now admitted to be an out of state group or entity of some kind that never registered in the state, never paid the fees, and never gave any required information about the group or entity. Perhaps the Secretary of state should be more intrigued when he realizes that hundreds of thousands of such transactions occurred in the State of Arizona over the last 12 years and they continue to be conducting business activity and legal activity in the state all without the required registration. The exemptions from registration do not apply.

Under normal rules of engagement, the party failing to properly register is subject to fees, fines and penalties for doing business without registration and may neither bring any legal claim or defend against one in the absence of the proper registration. So whether it is the office of the Secretary of State or some other department that somehow does not fall under the authority of the secretary of state (a peculiar circumstance at best) the State is (a) missing out on hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from out-of-state carpet baggers and (b) missing its chance to stop the foreclosures and even return the wrongfully foreclosed homes to their rightful owners.

So my question to the Secretary of State is this: As the putative lieutenant governor of the State who might be seeking higher office (the governor’s mansion), which would you rather do — run with the backing of back s  tabbing bankers who have already shown their willingness and desire to lie, forge documents and otherwise cheat the state’s citizens out of the right to possession of their own homes AFTER payment has been received in full — or would you rather ride the crest of anti-bank sentiment that can be found lurking in almost every voter regardless of the status of the ir mortgage or living arrangements? My bet is that the politician who seeks higher office or to maintain incumbency, would best be served by leading a populist revolt against the major out of state banks and a movement toward local in-state banks that had nothing to do with the mortgage mess created by false claims of securitization.

My second piece of advice is that the head of any agency having anything to do with regulation of business entities , banking and lending had best brush off their old copy of the Administrative Procedure Act because in my view there is right to bring a complaint against the agency that cannot be denied. And without having procedures and facilities for administrative hearings, complainants cannot fulfill the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies. That allegation alone in state or federal court could bring a mountain of constitutional issues crashing upon the shoulders of agency heads who thought they were immune from some issues.



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



EDITOR’S NOTE: My experience in business and law over the last 44 years has repeatedly taught me and reminded me that it is the small stuff that gets you every time. Skipping steps and negligence is a fact of life and human nature. In this case the banks made it an art form.

The answer usually is right in front of your face. If the substitution of trustee can be attacked successfully the foreclosure falls on its face. Judges may not like the whole “authority” and “Securitization” issue because frankly it takes them too long to understand it and they still assume the banks wouldn’t lie directly to the judge’s face, an assumption that is just plain wrong.

But if you show that the express and very specific requirement of statute were not met in the execution of the substitution of trustee, then the Judge cannot ignore it. It takes some digging so either hire someone or do the work yourself which is why I am publishing the work as it goes along.

Attorneys and pro se litigants take note: ATTACK THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE using all grounds available but by all means lead with the violation of  the technical requirements of statute.

You can argue, correctly in each state, that those are not just technical. Because the clerks’ offices and the public are going to rely on these documents in the recording offices and in the marketplace it is essential for everyone to have confidence in the system — that is the reason for notaries.

The Banks would have you believe that a notary is to provide the appearance of authenticity. Legislators and Judges will tell you that the reason for notaries is to assure that the document is actually authentic. And showing a pattern of conduct in which the notaries, the signatures and the documents are not reliable will show a system risk to the marketplace that can only be addressed through RICO.


here is an excerpt from California Notary Law Handbook.  We all know that ARS 33-804(D)  requires  ” Notice of substitution of trustee shall contain a description of the basis for the successor trustee’s qualification pursuant to section 33-803, subsection A.  A notice of substitution of trustee shall be sufficient if acknowledged by all beneficiaries under the trust deed OR THEIR AGENTS AS AUTHORIZED IN WRITING and if prepared in substantially the following form”

Ms. Pamela Campbell ACKNOWLEDGED on the Substitution of Trustee as Assistant Secretary of MERS  (agent).  She better have something in writing evidencing she was an authorized AGENT OF MERS, at the time she signed this document,  and the notary MS. RHONDA RORIE better have something her journal acknowledging she witnessed evidence of such authorization.

Here is the excerpt from California Notary Law Handbook regarding acknowledgment on a document:

The notary public sequential journal must contain a statement that the identity of a person making the acknowledgment or taking the oath or affirmation was based on satisfactory evidence. If identity was established based on the oath of a credible witness personally known to the notary public, then the journal must contain the signature of the credible witness or the type of identifying document used to establish the witness’ identity, the governmental agency issuing the document, the serial or identifying number of the document, and the date of issue or expiration of the document. If the identity of the person making the acknowledgment or taking the oath or affirmation was established by the oaths or affirmations of two credible witnesses whose identities are proven to the notary public upon the presentation of satisfactory evidence, then the journal must contain the signatures of the credible witnesses and the type of identifying documents, the identifying numbers of the documents and the dates of issuance or expiration of the documents presented by the witnesses to establish their identities.

The certificate of acknowledgment must be filled completely out at the time the notary public’s signature and seal are affixed. The certificate of acknowledgment is executed under penalty of perjury. (Civil Code section 1189(a)(1))

The completion of a certificate of acknowledgment that contains statements that the notary public knows to be false not only may cause the notary public to be liable for civil penalties and administrative action, but is also a criminal offense. The notary public who willfully states as true any material fact known to be false is subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000. (Civil Code section 1189(a)(2))

A notary public may complete a certificate of acknowledgment required in another state or jurisdiction of the United States on documents to be filed in that other state or jurisdiction…, provided the form does not require the notary public to determine or certify that the signer holds a particular representative capacity or to make other determinations and certifications not allowed by California law. Any certificate of acknowledgment taken within this state shall be in the following form:

here is ARS 33-804 regarding substitution of trustee by beneficiary…

D. A notice of substitution of trustee shall contain a description of the basis for the successor trustee’s qualification pursuant to section 33-803, subsection A. A notice of substitution of trustee shall be sufficient if acknowledged by all beneficiaries under the trust deed or their agents as authorized in writing and if prepared in substantially the following form:

On the NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE, notary RHONDA RORIE certified UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that Pam Campbell personally appeared before her and “proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the ENTITY upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.  I CERTIFY under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

Under California Notary Law the notary has to produce upon written request a copy of the journal entry from her journal to a member of the public WITHIN 15 days after written request.

I think you should send a letter to RHONDA RORIE, who is no LONGER  a notary, yet still works for Cal Western and request a written copy of her journal entry for the acknowledgment on your NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE.

Also, according the California Law, when the notary’s certification expires they are required to SURRENDER THEIR JOURNAL to the California County Recording Clerk.  Per Cyndee at the Clerk’s office, Ms. Rorie never turned her journal into them.  Another claim you can state in your complaint to the Cali SOS.

Finally, if the Clerk’s office doesn’t have her journal, surely she must have it, and she has to comply with your written request within 15 days.

Sally R.Burke



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

EDITOR’S NOTE: Here is a good place to start — the devil is in the details. You will find that the more you probe the more people and bad documents emerge. Persistence pays. Here is a letter that one homeowner just sent to the notary. The thing I like about going after the notary is that they are low-hanging fruit for homeowners.

First of all there is that SURETY bond which varies from state to state but frequently amounts to $15,000 more or less. That makes the inquiry worthwhile if you discover anything material, which probably is the case.

Second, it forms the basis for a complaint to the licensing board for the notary where you already have one violation established and the other alleged: that they appear to have notarized the signature of someone they never met or they allowed someone else to pose as a notary and impersonate the actual notary while the signatory on the fabricated document was impersonating yet another person.


Fourth, the more holes you punch into the foundation of a document, the less likely it will be admitted into evidence.

I like it. It has teeth. John Stuart is a great resource on Notary issues.

August 22, 2011

Via Certified Mail #7009 0820 0001 9260 0787

Rhonda Rorie

C/O Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation

525 East Main Street

El Cajon CA 92020

RE:  Notary Journal Entry Request

Dear Ms. Rorie,

Your notary commission expired on May 16, 2010, therefore, pursuant to California Government Code Section 8209, Within 30 days from the date the notary public commission is no longer valid, the notary public must deliver all notarial journals, records and papers to the county clerk’s office where the oath is on file.  If the notary public willfully fails or refuses to do so, the notary public is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall per personally liable for damages to any person injured by that action or inaction. 

According to the San Diego County Clerk’s Office, you have not delivered the required documents to their office and are in violation of the above referenced Government Code.

Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code Section 8206c, I am hereby requesting through an official written request for a photo static copy of a transaction in your notary public journal.  The requested transaction is as follows:

Notice of Substitution of Trustee

Executed by Pamela E. Campbell, as Assistant Secretary of MERS


Acknowledged on March 23, 2009

Finally, pursuant to California Government Code Section 8206c, you are required to respond within 15 business days after receipt of this written request.

You may mail the requested information to my attention;



Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.





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

The boys are playing rough now, but US Bank, failing to take its queues from Deutsch is plunging ahead with CalWestern by its side, using forged, fabircated, faked documents that wouldn’t be valid even if they were properly executed. The securitizers tricked and stole from investors, tricked and stole from the borrowers and now are taking the only asset (home) of value away from both the borrowers and the investors.

Tiffany and Bosco in Arizona as well as at least two dozen other law firms (foreclosure mills), banks, “substitute trustees” (working for their parent company (a bank), and the witnesses, fake officers and notaries are under active investigation by a number of law enforcement agencies. As I have said in other interviews, we are only in the 4th inning of a nine inning game and for some it is no game.

While it is too early to state the results of the investigations, I have been involved in such events before and I can tell you that the low hanging fruit always catches the worst fate. Forgery is low hanging fruit. From what I have seen and heard and from what has been reported to me under protection of anonymity, some people are going to jail. It looks to me like it will be notaries and the fake officers who signed the fake documents.

Whether it will go up line to management of the real culprits — Wells Fargo, US Bank, Chase, Citi, CalWestern, Bank of America, Recontrust, —- remains to be seen. But one thing I know for sure is that lawyers are sharpening up their pens to take a stab at slander of title issues and large damage awards, for which there is plenty of precedent.

Stay tuned. You will see more and more suspensions of notaries announced in many states and then the discipline of lawyers will start to take hold. Then the AG office in each state will pick the lowest of the low hanging fruit and prosecute criminally. People will lose their liberty as well as their jobs and families.

And at some point, the people who are going to be hit with subpoenas and then prosecution will need to ask themselves “what was my price and was it worth it?”  Count on it.



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



PRO SE LITIGANT BECOMES EXPERT IN NOTARY ISSUES: JOHN STUART and a band of people he trained had a lot to do with this case reported below. John zoned in on notary issues as what he perceived to be the best place to hit the pretender lenders. The notaries are all licensed and bonded, they are liable for damages they create, and their employers probably are also liable. He may be right. It’s like mail fraud — like the line in the movie “The Firm” — it’s not sexy but it sure has teeth.

In a case with potentially far reaching implications the Secretary of State in Arizona investigated and suspended a Notary employed by the large foreclosure mill in Phoenix, Az. Tiffany and Bosco has been the subject of numerous investigations of forgery, fabrication of documents for litigation, robo-signing, and invalid (fraudulent) notarization.

But the Secretary was careful to point out that while there was a finding of improper conduct warranting a 90 day suspension, the determination as to the validity of any document notarized was for a judicial tribunal to determine. For those documents that require notarization to be valid, the document under Arizona law would be invalidated completely — but only after being properly alleged and brought to the attention of a court of competent jurisdiction.

For those documents requiring notary in order to be recorded, the document would be subject to being expunged from the title record, but the document itself could be found to be “valid” insofar as it is being used for purposes outside the recording statute.

At LIVINGLIES, we know that dozens of these investigations are currently pending all over the country. This decision is likely to bring hundreds if not thousands of similar complaints. The notary seal and signature in this case had been used on thousands of documents involving foreclosure and challenges to lenders claiming to be the creditor of the homeowner. The presence of an established invalid notary combined with a long-standing pattern of conduct brings to mind many causes of action to re-open or contest foreclosure cases and to contest competing claims from multiple entities on the same obligation.

Of particular note is that the signatures that were improperly and falsely notarized include the named partner of the firm, Michael Bosco, whose name appears on many thousands of documents purporting to substitute trustees, assign mortgages and ratify actions taken by pretender lenders.

The false notarization also give at least partial corroboration of many reports that Bosco himself had not actually signed the documents and that therefore the documents were probably void or voidable. Thus the decision regarding the notary also casts in doubt the signature that was being notarized.

If the signature was not properly affixed AND the signature was not properly notarized AND the signature was unauthorized, then it is difficult to imagine any scenario under which the document would be considered anything but void. A void substitution of trustee would mean that ALL actions taken subsequent to the invalid substitution were similarly void. That would include but not be limited to Notice of Default, Notice of Sale, Foreclosure Suit, Collection efforts, Motion to Lift Stay, foreclosure auction, sale or deed.

Because of the new laws allowing electronic signatures there is no reason for these improprieties unless the parties knew that the documents were false representations to the Court and to the general public via the title registry. Thus the argument that these were isolated instances caused by volume simply does not stand up under even the slightest scrutiny. Even reluctant people in law enforcement are likely to sit up and take notice of this. There seems to be no description of this behavior except criminal forgery.

The perpetrators are those law firms and document preparation services that engage in these activities and their clients who are in most cases large banks with more than adequate resources to know what was going on and more probably, ordered the work to be done with full knowledge of the illegal nature of this conduct.

MICHIGAN: Kama Sutra Of Notary Fraud Discovered


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

Kama Sutra Of Notary Fraud Discovered At Multi-State Foreclosure Mill With Ties To MI SOS

Back in April and May, I posted a series of articles about how robo-signing seems to be out of control at Orlans Associates, a multi-state foreclosure mill located in Troy, Michigan and how the signature of one of their attorneys, Marshall Isaacs has more variations than the Kama Sutra.  It’s pretty obvious that unless Marshall Isaacs suffers from some type of Multiple Personality Disorder, the signatures on the majority of these documents are not his.

I must of struck a nerve with Marshall Isaacs because he made bogus accusations to the Farmington Hills Police that I was committing a felony by blogging about him and his unethical behavior which of course the Oakland County Prosecutor refused to pursue because they deemed it frivolous and unwarranted.

It now appears Marshall Isaacs isn’t the only one in the Orlans organization attempting to play signature Kama Sutra. Five notaries employed at eTitle, a title company owned by Orlans Associates owner, Linda Orlans and run by her daughter Alison, either have multiple and distinct signatures on the documents they notarized for Marshall Isaacs or their signatures don’t match their Notary applications on file with the state of Michigan.

It also appears two of the notaries, Annette Matthews and Susan Solwold missed their calling as a wrist contortionists for Cirque Du Soliel.  Matthews has five different distinct signatures that do not match the signature of her notary application on file with the state of Michigan. Susan Solwold has three different signatures with only one that matches her application on file with the state of Michigan.

Notary Matthews

Notary Solwold

Whoever signed Renee Caramagno’s signature on one document filed with Wayne County in August of 2010 didn’t even try to make it look like Caramagno’s signature.

Notary Caramagno

The signatures of two notaries, Andrew Collins and Lindsay Fendrich are all consistent on the public records that eTitle or Orlans filed throughout the state of Michigan.  However, their signatures do not match their notary applications.  The address on Fendrich’s application is that of Orlans’ competitor, Postevio and Associates.

Notary Collins

Notary Fendrich

Notary Misc

All of this clearly violates the Michigan Notary Public Act (P.A. 238 of 2003):

55.287 Signature of notary public; statements; stamp, seal, or electronic process; effect of illegible statement.
Sec. 27. (1) A notary public shall place his or her signature on every record upon which he or she performs a notarial act. The notary public shall sign his or her name exactly as his or her name appears on his or her application for commission as a notary public.

Of course, this is assuming the person signing as the notary is actually the notary named on the affidavit or assignment.  If these signatures were signed by someone else, it’called fraud.   Either way, this now calls into question the legitimacy of the tens of thousands of mortgage assignments, affidavits and other documents filed by entities controlled by Linda Orlans in five states where the documents were notarized by Michigan notaries employed by Orlans or eTitle.

The Michigan Notary Public Act also offers stiff penalties to notaries and their employers who violate this act namely prosecution and/or civil liabilities to damaged parties especially if the notary was acting under the orders of their employers.

The alleged robo-signing of Marshall Isaacs’ signature and questionable notary signatures on the same documents creates a big problem for Linda Orlans and Marshall Isaacs because they could go to prison.  Yes, the hard core prison where if you know what is good for you, you won’t drop the soap kind of prison.  They could also be held liable for malpractice by their clients.

There is also no reason to suggest BAC or Fannie Mae, two of Orlans’ biggest clients, would come to their aid especially in a case where evidence of improprieties, alleged attorney misconduct  and fraud are stacking up against them on thousands of mortgages everyday.  In the Lucas case, BAC Home Loan Servicing showed no hesitation about throwing Orlans under the bus. In that case, BAC provided an affidavit showing Countrywide Home Loans sold Lucas’ mortgage to Fannie Mae in 2005.  This is after Marshall Isaacs and Orlans filed both a Mortgage Assignment on July 2, 2009 from Countrywide to BAC and a Purchaser’s Affidavit stating BAC sold her mortgage to Fannie Mae in March 2010 with the Benzie County Register of Deeds.

The discovery of multiple fraudulent signatures by employees by a foreclosure mill that handles nearly 40% of the foreclosures in Michigan creates a nightmare scenario for the courts and the counties in Michigan because judges and the counties are now forced to untangle the mess created by the foreclosure mills.  This is a crisis that has the potential to not only rival the chaos of Florida but could in all likelihood surpass it.  Unlike Florida that is a judicial foreclosure state where foreclosures are donein the open, Michigan is a non-judicial where foreclosures get buried until one day they boil up from the ground like the toxic waste that bubbled up from the ground at Love Canal thirty years ago.

Notary fraud in Michigan is supposed to be investigated by the Secretary of State’s office. Unfortunately, any investigation done by Michigan’s new Republican Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson may be considered tainted due to her political ties to both Linda and Alison Orlans. Linda Orlans and her daughter Alison gave Ruth Johnson’s Secretary of State campaign $7200 last year. The Orlanses also gave quite generously to the Michigan Republican Party.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few weeks.

Similar Posts:



PRESIDENT OBAMA has headed for his desk a bill that would ratify the illegal practices revealed for the past three years on this blog and for the past three weeks and mainstream media. He might just as well issue Robo signed presidential pardons for the thousands of people involved in defrauding homeowners, investors and the entire judicial system. Send him a letter and tell him not to sign it.

Under the guise of simply reflecting changes in technology, the bill would force state and federal courts to recognize and accept the notarization from another state. This would be true even if the notary signed in blank. It would be true even if the witnesses were not present despite the recitation to the contrary signed by the notary. It would be true even if the main person signing the alleged document was not the person named as having signed the alleged document. It would be true even if the main person signing the alleged document was not present or identified by the notary. In other words under this new bill passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, both essentially bought and paid for by the financial services industry, all of the illegal, improper and criminal acts performed by the “lenders” (mainstream media insists on using this term even though it is not true) would be made legal. That sounds like a pardon to me, how about you?

If Pres. Obama signs this bill it will become law. At that point, more than half of the meritorious defenses of borrowers (homeowners) or petitioners in bankruptcy courts will go down the drain. The fact that this bill even got introduced without the mainstream media taking note is not really surprising considering the fact that mainstream media has failed to grasp the true  scope of this fraud which began with the first sale of a fake mortgage bond to an investor. A fake financial services product was marketed to investors who believed they were lenders and to homeowners who believed they were borrowers, both of whom were mere pawns in the Wall Street game. In fact they supplied the only two ingredients that Wall Street wanted —money from the lenders and a signature from the homeowners. The nature of the document was immaterial. Now that the foreclosures are obviously fake, lawmakers responsive to the demands of the financial services industry have quietly passed a bill in both houses of Congress that would allow the fraud to be ratified and the perpetrators to escape any accountability whatsoever.

If Pres. Obama signs this bill he will be condemning the victims of this fraud to bear the full cost of the losses. If Pres. Obama signs this bill he will be awarding the perpetrators of this fraud all of their winnings. In case anybody hasn’t been looking, another development which has been ignored by our mainstream media is that countries around the world are looking for an alternative reserve currency to replace the once almighty US dollar. The reason they are looking is because they no longer have confidence in a system that produced a Wall Street scheme which in essence depreciated the value and viability of currencies and economies all over the world.

If Pres. Obama signs this bill he will be giving a signal to the world that the United States will be more vigilant, more sophisticated and much more involved in enforcement of laws, rules and regulations already existing in the marketplace and upon which all investors, lenders, homeowners, borrowers and foreign governments had placed reasonable reliance and suffered to their detriment. The loss of our status as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency will have profound consequences on our nation, our citizens, our businesses, and the prospects for generations of Americans yet unborn.

CALIF ATTY GENERAL BROWN Goes After Bait and Switch Refi Fraudsters

Submitted by Abby:


News Release
June 09, 2010
For Immediate Release
Contact: (510) 622-4500
Contact: Christine Gasparac or Evan Westrup, (510) 622-4500
Print Version

Three More Suspects Nabbed in Million-Dollar Bait-and-Switch Home Refinance Scam

LOS ANGELES – In a continuing probe into a defunct Southern California mortgage brokerage, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced the arrests of president and co-owner Sean McConville and two associates who used “deceptive promises and forged documents” to steal almost $1 million from homeowners falsely guaranteed attractive home loan refinancing packages.

“These criminals employed a classic bait-and-switch in their refinance scheme,” Brown said. “With deceptive promises and forged documents, they maliciously cheated homeowners who trusted them and just wanted a fair deal.”

Brown’s office initiated its investigation in October 2008 in response to more than 70 complaints against the defendants and their mortgage brokerage business, ALG Capital, Inc. The brokerage operated out of Calabasas from early 2006 until late 2007 and then moved to Mission Hills until it shut its doors in 2008.

Brown’s investigation found that f! rom April 2007 to October 2008, the owners and their associates lured dozens of borrowers into refinancing home loans by falsely promising low interest rates, minimal broker fees and other attractive terms. The brokerage then negotiated different terms with lenders.

When homeowners were presented with closing documents, they bore the terms promised, but which the lenders never approved. After homeowners signed the closing documents, key pages were removed and replaced with pages bearing the terms that the lender had actually agreed to. The homeowners’ signatures were then forged on the replacement pages, and ALG forwarded the forged documents to the escrow company.

Homeowners only discovered they had been defrauded when they received the final loan documents with the true terms and their signatures forged on closing cost disclosures, Truth-in-Lending disclosures, loan applications and other documents.

Additionally, ALG collected al! most $1 million in undisclosed fees, charging homeowners up to! $57,000 in broker fees. In total, dozens of homeowners were locked into almost $30 million in loans with terms they did not agree to.

As a result of this scheme, many homeowners were forced to sell their homes, come out of retirement, or tap retirement savings. Others paid significant prepayment penalties, including over $21,000 in one case. Borrowers also rarely received the large cash-outs they were promised as part of the refinance.

Sean McConville, 30, of Austin, Texas, president and co-owner of the brokerage, was arrested early yesterday morning at his residence. He is being held at the Travis County Jail in Texas pending extradition. He was previously convicted of robbery in November 1997.

Matthew Bourgo, 27, of Thousand Oaks, who posed as a licensed notary for the brokerage, was arrested yesterday afternoon at his residence. He is being held in Ventura County Jail and will be transferred to Los Angeles County.
Joseph Nguyen, 37, of Woodland Hills, a former loan officer for the brokerage, was also arrested yesterday afternoon at his business, where he worked as a chiropractor. He is being held by authorities in Los Angeles County.

The suspects are each being held on $29.5 million bail.

In September 2009, Brown’s office arrested three others involved in the bait-and-switch scam, including Michael McConville, 32, of Simi Valley, Sean’s brother and co-owner of the brokerage, Alan Ruiz, 29, of Huntington Beach, a former loan officer and Garrett Holdridge, 24, of Palmdale, who was convicted of seven felonies in March for his involvement in the scam.

Investigators located victims in dozens of California cities, including: Auburn, Altadena, Arroyo Grande, Azusa, Bakersfield, Berkeley, Burbank, Calabasas, Castro Valley, Chino, Compton, Corona, Fairfield, Fontana, Fremont, Fresno, Garden Grove, Glendale, Hemet, Highland, Huntington Beach, La Habra! , La Mesa, La Mirada, La Quinta, Lancaster, Livermore , Los Angeles, Lo! ng Beach, Manteca, Martinez, Monterey, Murrieta, Nice, Northridge, Oakland, Ontario, Palmdale, Pasadena, Perris, Petaluma, Pomona, Quartz Hill, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Reedley, Rialto, Sacramento, San Clemente, San Diego, San Jose, Santa Rosa, Sierra Madre, Spring Valley, Stanton, Temecula, Whittier, and Winnetka.

The complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, includes the following charges: 38 counts of grand theft, 19 counts of forgery, three counts of elder abuse, and one count of conspiracy to commit grand theft.

Brown also filed suit against the McConville brothers in May 2009 for running a property tax reassessment scam which targeted Californians looking to lower their property taxes. The brothers billed tens of thousands of homeowners throughout California nearly $200 each for property tax reassessment services that were almost never performed and are available free of charge from local tax assessors.
# # #

You may view the full account of this posting, including possible attachments, in the News & Alerts section of our website at:

Maria Leonor Gerholdt’s notary commission expired on 5/26/09 and Mary Jo McGowans’ expired on 7/3/07

You will need to check the date of the signing by both of these ladies. You see Maria Leonor Gerholdt’s notary commission expired on 5/26/09 and Mary Jo McGowans’ expired on 7/3/07. Here’s their respective info from FL

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.