Foreclosure Bid Rigging at Its Worst: Tiffany and Bosco Reportedly Worst Offender

Challenging the Foreclosure Auction Process

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.

see also http://livinglies.me/2013/04/04/banks-could-owe-trillions-on-fake-rigged-credit-bids/

Editor’s Analysis: The piece below is a report from our best investigator doing some work in Arizona. If you want to hire him, just contact us and we will put you in touch with him. The emphasis is added by me.

The report speaks for itself, but there clearly is something wrong with the operation of a system that allows for bidding without proof of loss, without paying the $10,000 required as earnest money and without any transparency.

The auctioneer, selected by the substituted trustee who was substituted usually by a fabricated document claiming false authority and forged by someone who may never have existed, is clearly the paid underling of the banks that ordered the foreclosure with perks offered at the end of the auction process for those who want the house in question.

Despite numerous law-breaking allegations and even proof of violations of the notary laws and recording laws, Tiffany and Bosco continue to practice without any impediment. You can thank the DOJ and AG Holder along with the Obama administration for establishing a climate where crime and moral hazard run rampant.

More importantly, while the bids and value of the notes are manipulated to be in conformance with what is reported to Wall Street investors (as pointed out by Charles Koppa), they still have no jumped the hurdle of having a non-creditor bid at the auction and are essentially hoping that the passage time will overcome any claim that they should have paid cash. It is for this and other reasons that we believe that both the substitute trustee and auctioneer, individually and as representative of the company that sent them to the auction have exposure to liability and if the right fact pattern emerges from all this, they should be sued and prosecuted.

Fundamentally the strings are being pulled by Wall Street banks who are so far successfully avoiding trillions of dollars in liabilities for paying cash on bids made on their behalf but for which there was no consideration in the form of the debt or the cash required by statute.

In my opinion those banks are extremely vulnerable to this challenge and the piercing of the corporate veils and ladders and layering will be relatively easy. There is gold in these hills for both evicted homeowners and lawyers who represent them. The pot can be measured in the trillions of dollars.

—————————————————

Hi Neil,
I have digitally recorded, at the request of a client, FIVE Tiffany & Bosco trustee sales from beginning to end.  My declarations regarding these trustee sales are now part of the record in a BK Adversary Proceeding.

I can state categorically the creditor is never at the auction.

THIS is how it goes at T&B [Tiffany and Bosco].  T&B has an auction list on their web site.  You can print it out on their web site and take it to the auction.

The auctioneer enters the room, sits down, and proceeds to read at LIGHT SPEED the list of properties scheduled for that auction.  All he calls is the T&B internal auction number and the street address.  If a bidder is interested, he yells PULL.  The auctioneer proceeds with the list with a variable number of trustee sales having had a PULL yelled.  The auctioneer then leaves the room and the bidders talk amongst themselves.

The auctioneer then returns with a stack of files, that match the sales that had a yell of PULL.  The other homes on the list are never brought up again.  I have checked the recorders web site and every one of the homes which never got passed the PULL stage had a trustee deed which T&B stated that an auction occurred and the property was sold for cash or, protanto, via a credit bid (which never happened, I have it on tape).

Now, regarding the sales prefaced with PULL.  The auctioneer then starts reading a long trustee disclaimer at rapid speech.  He then calls a property, starts that T&B as trustee for the lender, opens the bid with XXXXXX amount, whatever is listed on the form.  Anyone who wants to bid can not do so but has to have first handed the auctioneer a $ 10,000.00 check.  The auction continues until the last bid is received.  I have checked these properties and the Trustee Deed does match the final amount bid.

HOWEVER, I do not recall, ever, an auction where the sale amount was MORE than the declared amount of the original note (that number is in the sales list).  And I believe I know why.  The Arizona excess funds statute says there are excess funds, only, when the sale amount is HIGHER than the declared value of the original note on the Notice of Trustee Sale.  Therefore, whatever made up amount is on the Trustee Notice controls whether or not there are excess funds.

So, to avoid having excess funds, all a lender has to be is gerrymander the note about, enter whatever credit bid they want, and certainly low enough to encourage a sale, and voila, not a dime back to homeowners, even if they have received payment on the note from credit default swaps, etc.

Finally, the creditor is never there at the sale.  At least in the case of T&B, the creditor has their bid PLACED by the AUCTIONEER when a file is PULLED, or, the credit bid is never even mentioned for properties that are not PULLED!

As an aside, during some auctions, when nearly everyone has left, a couple of bidders would linger behind and when alone with only the auctioneer and ME looking like I am packing to go, the bidders ask for a LATE PULL.  Of course my recorder is still running.  The auctioneer goes and gets the late PULL property files.  He calls an auction and in these case, there is only one bidder who offers ONE DOLLAR above the credit amount bid by T&B on behalf of the lender.  You can draw a conclusion from these collusive late events that is probably entirely accurate.  AND, I have them on tape.

IF you would like a copy of the videos to see for yourself, just ask.

 

FLORIDA AG LEARNS HER LESSON: GO AFTER THE BANKS AND ATTORNEYS OR LOSE OFFICE

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: Like many other  AG’s around the country, Bondi in Florida came to the realization that the Bank’s money is not nearly as valuable as actual votes from voters. So after sinking an investigation into the banks and law firms representing the banks, after “losing” a case and deciding not to appeal, she suddenly woke up and decided that an appeal is a good idea. She’s right. I just hope she means it and actually tries to win. The banks have sucker punched the system from the beginning through their manipulation of politicians they own lock, stock and barrel.
WHY SHE IS RIGHT AND THE 4TH DCA WAS WRONG: Before condemning the 4th DCA, we should note that what I am about to say here was not clearly defined before the court and their decision might have been different if they considered these facts.
Ordinarily the appellate court would have been right — lawyers cannot be held accountable for the acts of their clients no matter how despicable the act and no matter what damage is caused. If it were otherwise then all anyone had to do was to accuse someone of a heinous crime and they couldn’t get a lawyer. That was the old system in France and other places where the mere accusation was enough to put someone in prison for the rest of their life. Check out the novel by Dumas on the escapee from the fictional Chateau D’If for a lesson in criminal procedure in the old days.
This is different because the law firm was not acting as a law firm. It was the agent of evil, funded, controlled and staffed and equipped by the Banks. Stern’s job, like Baum in New York, Tiffany and Bosco in Phoenix et al was very clearly defined: they were to do nothing. And for doing nothing they were rewarded with tens of millions of dollars, even hundreds of millions of dollars — as long as they stayed out of the way. These people and their law firms were never hired by the Banks — they were bought, or at least rented.
The investigation and prosecution of these law firms is required because without it, the realities of the foreclosure crisis will never be known — specifically that the entire securitization scam was followed by a foreclosure scam which in turn is being followed by a re-sale scam — all  in violation of civil and criminal laws of each state.
Virtually none of the homeowners were rightfully foreclosed. In all such cases the homeowners still own their homes and are capable of reclaiming them. They just don’t know it. And an actual investigation will reveal that very fact. Fringe conspiracy thinking you say? Look back to my prior posts. From 2007 to 2009 I stated and predicted things that put me on the far edge of credibility. Now they are all accepted as true.
Stern’s license was rented by non-lawyers. Violation number 1. The Banks arranged to practice law at the Banks direction using the bank’s system of distribution of cases and the Bank’s script as to what to do, say, plead and escape having to prove anything. That is practicing law without a license. Violation number 2.
In order to cover-up the fact that securitization never happened, that the bank’s were never at risk of loss on any mortgage, that the Banks were not taking any losses and therefore were never entitled to receive one penny of bailout, Stern’s firm was used as a fabrication factory (violation number 3) for documents that were back-dated (violation number 4), forged (violation number 5) and notarized without complying with legal requirements for the signatory or the witnesses (violation number 6).
Stern was out on his yacht. His argument is that while he knows it was wrong, someone else would have done it so he thought why should someone else get all that money for doing nothing? He will further argue that since we wasn’t there he could hardly be charged with crimes committed in his absence. We’ll see about that.
Under direction of the Banks lawyers were sent to court with lies of the Bank and they failed to exercise the slightest bit of due diligence to determine whether there was an arguable basis for the facts they proffered. Violation number 7. They were just following orders. Violation number 8. Orders received from non-lawyers. Violation number 9.
If Banks can get away with hiding their criminal acts behind the cloak of a law firm they bought or rented, then so can anyone. And THAT is the problem with the 4th DCA opinion that the lawyers were not engaged in commerce. The Court had it reversed.
The law firm was not involved in the practice of law. Just as the closings were cloaked as mortgage loans when they were in actuality vehicles for the issuance of fraudulent securities, the use of law firms in court was a cloak for the fact that none of the elements of a valid mortgage, much less a mortgage foreclosure were present. The Banks used lawyers to deliver the false message and in many cases used non-lawyers who pretended they were lawyers when they got on the phone with homeowners or homeowners’ attorneys.
Just as they “borrowed” the law license of hundreds of lawyers across the country, they borrowed the loss of the investors in those bogus mortgage bonds and claimed it as their own — thus bidding in property with a credit bid instead of cash. It would be bad enough if they bid low, but in cash as they might have done if they had any notion of conforming to the requirements of law.
No, they wanted it for nothing and they successfully implanted the message that any borrower who defended against this criminal acts was asking for a house for nothing when in most cases all they wanted was a modification or settlement that would have saved the nation from economic crisis that is still growing and heading for another collapse bigger than the last and most recent one.
In short, they stole the homes quite literally. They could not do this without absolute power and control over what appeared to be a law firm but in actuality was a clerical company whose law license was incidental to the main enterprise, to wit: fraud on the courts, the investors and the borrowers. BIG VIOLATION NUMBER 10 WORTH TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
Yes all this sounds far-fetched but I think Reynaldo Reyes of Deutsch said it best when his guard was down — “it’s all very counter-intuitive.” Translation: It’s all a lie and we are living with it.

Bondi to appeal court ruling that shields attorneys from foreclosure fraud investigations

Plagued by accusations that she hasn’t done enough to combat foreclosure fraud, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office announced today that she will fight a court decision that prohibits her from going after attorneys. In April, the state’s 4th District Court of Appeals ruled that Bondi does not have the authority to investigate a law firm for alleged fraud under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act because attorneys’ work on behalf of lenders did not constitute trade or commerce. The attorney general chose not to appeal.
Two weeks ago, that same court issued a similar opinion in a second case, this time involving the now-defunct Law Offices of David Stern, P.A. Bondi filed a motion today that will allow her to appeal that decision to the state Supreme Court. In the months between the two rulings, Bondi faced a heap of criticism concerning her office’s approach to foreclosure fraud. She was skewered in July for forcing the resignations of two attorneys leading foreclosure fraud investigations.
At the height of the controversy, Bondi agreed to appoint an independent inspector general to look into the matter and two Democratic legislators asked the federal government to open an inquiry. A few weeks later, assistant attorney general Andrew Spark released a long, critical essay accusing the office of failing to aggressively pursue foreclosure and consumer protection cases, then he quit the next day. Bondi attributed much of the criticism to politics and disgruntled ex-employees, and said her office has increased the number of staff assigned to investigating foreclosure-related cases compared to former Attorney General Bill McCollum.
Her office said today that there are six pending investigations into law firms for potential misconduct in foreclosure cases. State Sen. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, has been one of Bondi’s most vocal critics this year. But she welcomed the news that the attorney general is taking new steps to go after attorneys. “I think she’s seen the light,” Sobel said. “It’s about time.” To read Bondi’s motion, click here.Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/12/bondi-takes-step-toward-supreme-court-appeal-of-foreclosure-ruling.html#storylink=cpy

AZ NOTARY GRUNTMEIR SUSPENDED IN TIFFANY AND BOSCO CASES

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

SEE ARIZONA NOTARY GRUNTMEIER SUSPENDED IN TIFFANY AND BOSCO CASES

SEE www.notarycomplaint.com

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.

Death by Foreclosure: BofA Seeks Eviction of Dead man Killed by Swat Team

Charles Koppa (Poppa Kappa) has done some investigative reporting on this case and we find numerous discrepancies between the police and media version of the event from actual facts. The case was typical until it ended in the homeowner’s untimely death in what police reported was a gun battle. Current reports indicate that the property is “investor hold.”

Kurt Aho was a 64 year old man with cancer. His illness made him walk awkwardly but he was completely lucid according to his daughter. Police swat team members shot him dead outside his home apparently under the mistaken belief that he was drunk (by observing his uneven gait when he walked) and that this was a case of Suicide by Cop.

Aho was in modification negotiations with Bank of America, who took over Countrywide loan servicing in the merger of those companies. His daughter reports that he thought the modification was done and that the matter was settled. But that didn’t stop a paneled truck from driving up with two occupants claiming they owned the house as a result of a foreclosure sale that day which Aho had been told was canceled due to the modification. Koppa reports that when he recently called the servicing agent they reported that the property was “on beneficiary hold.”

The title record is unclear, but it seems that the men who said they own the property were told they were “given” the property in exchange for fees worth $105,000. The fair market value of the home was $220,000 even at distressed prices.

According to Aho’s daughter he challenged the men on their right to be on his property, asking them for proof of the sale. They admitted they had no such proof since the “paperwork” had not been completed. He ordered them off the property and they refused to leave. He called his daughter to report what was going on and then grabbed his weapon and told the men if they didn’t get off his property he would shoot the tires on their van. They apparently remained, and he fulfilled his promise — he shot the tires on the van.

At this time, without a police report, we are unsure who called the police. Six squad cars including a SWAT team showed up and Aho and his house were under siege. He was calm, sitting on his air conditioning compressor when a rubber bullet hit him, obviously fired by police. He fired back with neighbors saying he obviously was aiming at the top of the police van. Police returned fire and he was dead.

Now Tiffany and Bosco, the law firm that handles the largest number of foreclosures in the area, is attempting to evict Kurt Aho, even though he is dead. His daughter has moved into the house and is attempting to fend off the attempt but needs help. From what we have seen the loan was securitized and the entire foreclosure procedure was improper even if there had been no negotiations on modification.

So to Recap, we have an improper foreclosure based upon the usual array of fabricated assignments in a securitized loan where the real creditors (investors) were neither identified nor even notified. Aho’s daughter wishes to pursue a wrongful death claim against BofA, Tiffany and Bosco, and law enforcement.

Man killed after shooting at police, neighbors ask why

Reported by: Mitch Truswell
Email: mtruswell@abc15.com
Reported by: Katie Fisher
Last Update: 10/01/2009 5:46 am

PHOENIX – The day after the shooting of a 64-year-old man, neighbors are asking if it had to happen.

Kurt Aho was shot and killed Tuesday night near 31st Avenue and Bell Road.

He had been living in his home for nearly 30 years, but the home had recently fallen into foreclosure and was sold at a public auction on Tuesday.

When the new owners arrived at the property, they told 64-year-old Aho they were the new owners, and asked if he needed help moving out.

Police say Aho became distraught about losing his home and began to open fire, firing four rounds at the two men’s cars. The two men, a 49-year-old and a 42-year-old, then called police.

Officers arrived at the scene, near Bell Road and 35th Avenue, around 4:30 p.m. and said they saw Aho standing in the cul de sac with a gun in his hand.

Police tried talking to Aho for over an hour and reportedly asked him to put the weapon down as he walked in and out of the house before approaching the police department’s “Bearcat”, a specialty vehicle for officer protection, in a threatening manner.

Police said Aho began shooting at officers’ vehicles, so police shot at the man using rubber bullets.

According to officials, the rubber bullets were ineffective, and Aho raised his handgun and began firing at the vehicle and officers. That is when police reportedly shot and killed him.

Aho was pronounced dead at the scene.

Neighbors told ABC 15 that Aho had been trying to work with the mortgage company to keep his house.

Denise Montesquiou says, “He knew he was in trouble and he was trying to work it out. I don’t have a bad word to say about Kurt, right or wrong.”

Another neighbor, Yair Lavi, heard that Aho was dealing with cancer, for the second time.

Lavi says there was no reason to kill Aho.

“They had a sharpshooter on top of this house, on top of that house, and three of them behind a tree. Just shoot him in the hand and he’s no longer a threat.”

Police say the investigation is continuing.

%d bloggers like this: