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



Editorial Comment: Hat tip to Weidner: The bottom line is that the pretender lender was prevented from introducing evidence of “default” and was further prevented from introducing evidence establishing the pretender’s right to foreclose.

The reason was a series of objections in which the shell game became apparent to the Judge and the Judge refused to play. In the end proffers of counsel for the pretenders are no substitute for the admission of evidence. Facts are different from evidence. Facts may exist, but unless they are accepted into evidence, the court may not consider it. So this Judge entered an order of involuntary dismissal (directed verdict, as the term is sometimes used, usually in a jury trial) and the homeowner won the case.

This is a precise example of why I say that there are no cases in which the facts in dispute are heard all the way through to a verdict. Once it gets to the point where the pretender can no longer fake their way around the judge, the truth is left lying on the floor — that the pretender has no idea whether there is a default, has no idea of the balance due under the mortgage, does not represent any real creditor and seeks to foreclose in its own name merely as the “holder” without ever disclosing any principal (because in most cases there is no principal).

When I say there is no principal I mean one of two things. Either the principal creditor has already received a a settlement and therefore has been been fully satisfied or the principal wants no part of any litigation in which it could be named as a counter-defendant for predatory or deceptive lending practices. Either way, the real creditor is never in the room.

It is at this point that cases go into the mode of what Matt Weidner correctly coined the term “cash register justice.” When it look like they have run out of options they dismiss the case and then hit the investor with a bill that is, like in a case recently reported, 140% of the actual loss. Where does the other 40% come from? Well of course it comes from any place the servicer can get it which is out of the payments received from borrowers whose notes specifically state that their payments should only be booked as payments to reduce their debt, and not for any other purpose.

And need we add that the request for modification would have left the investor with approximately 50% of the loan intact — which means the investor took a bath for 90% while the servicer got paid in full, the banks were always paid in full because they only used investor money to fund mortgages, and of course the banks also got to keep the bailout money, insurance money, and proceeds of credit default swaps and cross collateralization.

With the banks owning the service companies and the trustees and other “foreclosure specialist” companies, the banks get all the money coming in PLUS the house, leaving the investor with net losses far in excess of their initial investment.

Somehow Eric Holder, our Attorney General has arrived at the conclusion that this might not be illegal. Ask the investor how legal this is. Ask this homeowner who now has a clear shot at clear title through a quiet title action, with no mortgage, no note and no obligation.

As an add-on to what this very good lawyer did at “trial” I would say that the lawyer should have conducted a voir dire examination of the witness proffered by the pretender. The witness admitted only 18 months experience with PHH and no experience or knowledge as to the actual trail of payments. He further admitted that he had no direct knowledge as to how or why payments were posted in this case and implied that he had no knowledge as to whether the accounting was complete, which we all know means that the payments the actual unidentified creditor received was never shown nor intended to be shown in a court of law. The best the witness could pretend to know were the business procedures AFTER declaration of default with no knowledge of what happened before that or outside of the relationship between the borrower and the servicer.

The lawyer made his point but almost missed it when he showed that the paper presented did not have the name of PHH anywhere on it and instead had a name that was neither in the pleading nor the exhibits: a mistake often made by lawyers (but not by this one) was that once you get the pleadings and exhibits from the would-be forecloser and the chance to amend has expired, they have no right to introduce evidence contrary to their own allegations and exhibits. This lawyer correctly held the pretender to stay within the four  corners of the complaint and the exhibits attached.

A Foreclosure Trial Transcript, Evidentiary Objections Made and SUSTAINED, Judgment for Defendant!

February 23rd, 2012 | Author:


I want to share with the class a transcript of a foreclosure trial where defense counsel rattles off the evidentiary objections, many of which were properly sustained by the judge.

Servicers have a very real problem proving their cases over proper and clear evidence objections….they just cannot link up their evidence from one servicer to another without real effort…and in some cases they will not be able to do it.

So this is a roadmap that shows how to do it correctly….bone up folks, work hard.

Fight like every single case represents the very fate and future of the entire American judicial system.

because every case does


WEIDNER: Stern Revelations Affect Hundreds of Thousands of Homeowners


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

EDITOR’S COMMENT: It is of course important that there was and remains criminal misconduct across the country in the processing of fraudulent foreclosures on behalf of entities who are misrepresenting themselves as creditors, submitting credit bids at auction without any authority, and demanding amounts “due” that do not account for all payments received, or the actual balance due, if any, on the actual creditor’s books.

But that is the point. Our attention is diverted to the presumed paper chase caused by the volume of foreclosures and misguided attempts to push them through faster. What is lost in all this is that these were not misguided attempts. They were all strategic implementation of a cover-up.

By diverting our attention to the paperwork, we are skipping over the question of why the paperwork had to be faked. Tens of millions of mortgages were processed and only a fraction of those were foreclosed. If they were able to process what went into the pipe, why can’t they process a much lesser volume coming out?

The answer is that they could have provided the valid paperwork if there was any valid documentation. That they didn’t and chose instead to fake it shows that the original obligation, note and mortgage are subject to inquiry. The originating “lender” was in most cases not the creditor. Neither was the mortgagee or beneficiary. Instead an undisclosed creditor was the source of funds and the obligation arising from the loan inured to the benefit of the party loaning the money.

The problem for the Banks is that if the focus shifts to the investors who purchased the bogus mortgage bonds, then the accounting shifts with that and then the s–t really hits the fan. The balance claimed as due in nearly all foreclosures is intentionally misstated, omitting any receipt other than the payment by borrower when they were receiving payments and processing payments to the creditor reducing the amount owed owed to the creditor under the original loan.

The high probability is that most loans are undocumented in that the advance of the money by the investor is nowhere to be found in the closing documents with the borrower. The money trail shows  clearly that the investors at this point are holding a mix of money from pools that were paid off, reduced balances from payments received from the servicer and other parties, and closed pools that were dissolved with payment or reconstituted into other pools.

Even this would be easy to provide in Court if the Banks didn’t have a reason to stonewall it. Besides the reason that they want another multiple payment of the same loan for which they have been paid many times, they do not want an accounting for the investor creditors to surface. If that happens, the investor creditors will not only find that payments have been received that were not stated in distribution reports and accounting to investors; they would also see very clearly that a giant chunk of what they thought went into funding mortgages actually went into the pockets of the intermediaries without any disclosure to the investor or the borrower. Thus the amount  owed to the investor creditors was far in excess of what the borrowers owe.

The amount taken from investor funds as a tier 2 yield spread premium and booked as trading profits exceeds the amount of defaulted loans. Thus the investment banks are stuck in the model depicted in the movie “The Producers” in which they sold 10,000% of a show guaranteed to fail. Nobody asks for an accounting for a failed show.

Here the investment banks sold the same loan repeatedly using different names and identifying data, which is bad enough. But in addition, they used the yield spread difference between the usual loan with triple A rated borrowers and all other borrowers to come up with “trading profits.”

These trading profits were extracted by way of a sale of the loans to the pool in which a profit emerged because in order to cover the expected interest income expected by the investors they loaned money at twice the anticipated rate, which reduced the amount they needed to lend. Thus a $200,000 loan could be sold as many as 40 times using exotic instruments that masked the “sale” and the money received from the investor might have been as much as $400,000 to fund the $200,000 loan.

So the revelations of  dirty dealing at the David Stern law office are a mere distraction from the real truth: that not only were the foreclosures faulty for lack of proper documentation, they were unnecessary because the loan had been been paid down far more more than was reported to the court and the investor to whom it was owed had abandoned the claim in favor of going after the investment banker that sold the bogus mortgage bond in the first place.

CONCLUSION: Weidner’s question can be answered like this: All the foreclosures must be reversed and reviewed with the burden on the forecloser to prove that the accounting was right and that the proper parties were included in the foreclosure.

January 4th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.


Just today a massive lawsuit was filed in Broward County that has extraordinarily significant national implications. Now, first things, first. Allegations in lawsuits are not facts…not until a finder of fact confirms that the allegations alleged are true. But having said that, many of the base factual statements in this lawsuit regarding the underlying transaction wherein a lawyer in Florida sold the essential parts of an operation whose purpose was to throw Floridians out into the street are facts that are already part of many filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. For more about those statements, read what I wrote more than a year ago about it here.

So I read the prospectus a long, long time ago and realized this was bad, bad news. I screamed loud and hard about it. http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2010/06/shocking-mind-numbing-information-about-foreclosure-mill-david-j-stern/
But no one listened. I read the prospectus over and over and it just blew my mind….I recognized that this was not going to end well for my profession or for the court system that I took an oath to defend and protect.

Now, I could care less about investors….my interest was then and is now, the protection of Floridians who were victims of this operation and importantly, I was terribly concerned about the long-term implications for this state’s court system and the dramatically negative impact this transaction was going to have on the profession of law. The public already held lawyers in low regard and this entire operation was set up to give my profession a much bigger black eye than it already had.

I screamed and argued in my cases, and to the credit of a great many good judges…most of them here in the Tampa Bay area, they caught on real quickly….they listened…and my clients were protected. But too many other people would not listen. Who was I after all….just some street fighting consumer lawyer that had developed a passion for sticking up for the little guy. And since then, “our” court system has been choked by the chaos I warned about so long ago.

But enough about then and what should have been. Read carefully the allegations that are being made from the insiders in the transaction where a lawyer essentially sold a law office to a group of investors. But before you do, remember:

1) This lawyer had been the target of a major class action lawsuit filed in Federal Court in 1999.

2) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are taxpayer dependent organizations.

3) Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac were aware of the problems with David J. Stern.

4) Fannie/Freddie are misleading the public about how much their malfeasance will cost.

5) Every man, woman and child in the entire USA will pay dearly for Fannie and Freddie’s malfeasance.

So this is all very much every one of our business….after all, we’re all going to be paying for it for our entire lifetimes. And this is not just a Florida problem….every single taxpayer in America will be paying for this so you’re bought into this problem. So the questions we all need to be asking as taxpayers, as voters, as the people who are picking up the tab for all of this are….who knew about all of these allegations and how long did they know about them?

And now for the allegations, taken directly from the complaint:

The instant action arises from fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions made by Defendants, Stern, DSI, PTA andDS Law (the “Seller Defendants”) to induce DJSP to purchase the non-legal mortgage foreclosure processing and support serviceoperations of DS Law

After the real estate market crashed in 2008, the Seller Defendants’ law business boomed with DS Law’s mortgageforeclosure caseload rising from 15,000 in 2006 to 70,400 in 2009. In 2009, DS Law handled approximately 20% of all repossessionsin the State of Florida. The Seller Defendants’ largest clients included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Citibank, Bank of America, GoldmanSachs, GMAC and Wells Fargo. Indeed, the Seller Defendants’ clients included all of the top 10, and 17 of the top 20, mortgageservicers in the U.S

The associated Target Business also enjoyed exponential growth as a result of the real estate market crash, and, in2009, the Target Business reportedly brought in a purported $260 million in revenues. However, as more fully explained below, theSeller Defendants fraudulently and artificially inflated the revenues of the Target Business and concealed material information regardingthe unlawful foreclosure practices of DS Law to induce DJSP and DAL into purchasing the Target Business

The Seller Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiffs DAL and DJSP into entering into the Transaction by fraudulentlyand artificially inflating the Target Business’ actual revenues, by intentionally failing to disclose that the Target Business and DS Lawwere not, in fact, operating in accordance with all applicable laws, and by concealing that DS Law was in jeopardy of losing its largestclients due to DS Law’s unlawful conduct. Indeed, before entering into the Transaction, the Seller Defendants knew that DS Law and theTarget Business had been systematically falsifying and/or back-dating pertinent legal documents, submitting such documents to thecourts, routinely misplacing and losing original key documents, filing foreclosures with inaccurate and/or incomplete documents,prosecuting foreclosure cases without obtaining proper service of process, and were in jeopardy of losing the Seller Defendants’ largestforeclosure clients due to such conduct.

By cutting corners in the foreclosure process without following the rule of law, the Defendants artificially reduced theexpenses of the Target Business which falsely inflated the profitability of the Target Business.

To summarize, the Seller Defendants failed to disclose to DJSP and DAL that DS Law and the Target Business weresystematically operating in an unlawful manner. In addition, the Seller Defendants failed to disclose to DJSP and DAL that the TargetBusiness’ reported revenues were not accurate, inflated, and improperly calculated and that the expenses of the business were alsodistorted due to the systematic practices designed to “shorten” the legal process. The Seller Defendants falsely led DAL and DJSP tobelieve that they were acquiring a long-term profitable business that operated in accordance with all applicable laws to induce DAL andDJSP to enter into the Transaction.

The Seller Defendants’ fraudulent and illegal foreclosure practices prior to the Transaction, and the subsequent demiseof the Seller Defendants’ law practice, have now been well documented and reported upon in the local and national media.
Prior to the Transaction, the Seller Defendants were at all times well aware that DS Law and the Target Business were intentionally perpetuating a fraud on the courts by, inter alia, systematically filing forged documents, forging signatures on suchdocuments, fraudulently backdating documents, improperly notarizing and witnessing documents, fabricating documents, signingaffidavits without reviewing or verifying the information contained therein, prosecuting foreclosure cases without obtaining properservice of process, and filing foreclosures with inaccurate and/or incomplete documents.
Indeed, the Seller Defendants directed employees of DS Law and the Target Business to purposefully overlook glaringinaccuracies in foreclosure pleadings and to essentially rubber stamp computer generated documents without reviewing or verifying theaccuracy of the documents.

New attorneys at DS Law were not only encouraged, but were even ordered to sign legal filings andpleadings without reading them. As a result, false and inaccurate documents were routinely executed and filed with the courts in aneffort to hasten foreclosure proceedings and illegally obtain final judgments of foreclosure for the Seller Defendants’ clients.
The Seller Defendants even incentivized these unscrupulous and unlawful practices by giving their employees bonusesand extravagant gifts for churning out the highest number of foreclosure cases in the least amount of time. The Seller Defendantsencouraged contests between DS Law attorneys to see who could jam a foreclosure case through the courts the fastest.
Prior to the Transaction, the Seller Defendants also knowingly and systematically inflated their process of servicecosts to the Court. Specifically, Seller Defendants engineered a fraudulent scheme whereby they directed their process servicing work toa process servicing company called ProVest. The Seller Defendants caused each file to generate four or five separate fees for service of process regardless of whether service of process on multiple defendants was necessary or appropriate and regardless of whether serviceof process for multiple defendants could be achieved at the same address.
In exchange for receiving these inflated service of process fees, ProVest, in turn, routinely referred back to PTAservicing requests for “skip tracing” to locate defendants for whom ProVest purportedly did not have accurate street address informationto effect service of process. ProVest “hired” and paid fees to PTA for “skip tracing” services despite the fact that ProVest had theability and resources to perform “skip tracing” itself and routinely did so itself.
The Seller Defendants’ arrangement with ProVest amounted to a kickback scheme. DS Law padded and inflated itsprocess servicing costs which were billed to its clients and added to the court costs assessed to foreclosure defendants. In exchange forfeeding this work to ProVest, PTA earned manufactured “skip tracing” fees which inflated PTA’s revenues and profits and whichrepresented another way in which the Seller Defendants artificially inflated the revenues of the Target Business prior to the Transaction.
In short, prior to the Transaction, the Seller Defendants and the Target Business routinely and systematically engagedin illegal and unfair and deceptive business practices. The Seller Defendants were well aware that such conduct severely threatened theviability of its valuable continuing relationships with their primary revenue generating clients, such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, andCitibank, which, in turn, threatened the continued viability and existence of DJSP.
None of these illegal business practices were known to DJSP or disclosed by Seller Defendants to DJSP prior to theTransaction.

In fact, the Seller Defendants purposefully concealed such deceptive and systematic practices, and made numerousfalse representations regarding the revenues and propriety of the Target Business’ operations with the specific intent to fraudulentlyinduce DJSP into entering into the Transaction.

The Seller Defendants’ unlawful and negligent business practices spawned investigations by the Florida AttorneyGeneral’s Office, which, in August of 2010, announced its investigation of DS Law regarding its handling of foreclosure paperwork andcourt filings. Soon thereafter, DS Law’s largest clients, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Citibank, began pulling their cases from DS Law,resulting in DJSP’s rapid decline.

Moreover, in early March, 2011, DS Law announced that it was ceasing the practice of law with respect to all pendingforeclosure matters in the State of Florida effective March 31, 2011.

DS Law’s demise has directly and necessarily resulted in the destruction of DJSP’s business. It has forced DJSP tolayoff hundreds of employees and has caused its revenues to plummet.

Stern was fully aware of and failed to correct the illegal, unethical, and unfair practices that were a systemic part of DS Law.
Despite his professional obligations as an attorney and member of The Florida Bar, Stern knew that the SellerDefendants engaged in a systematic practice of fraudulently, negligently and unethically prosecuting its clients’ foreclosure cases, andStern failed to implement any preventative or corrective measures to “reasonably ensure” that such conduct no longer took place beforeor after the Transaction.

Stern failed to conduct DS Law’s practice in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida and the regulations of The Florida Bar and failed to ensure that DS Law sufficiently supervised DJS LLC’s performance of its non-legal foreclosure related services.

As such, Stern was professionally reckless and negligent in discharging his duties both as an attorney and as an officerof DAL, DJS LLC and DJSP






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

“My head almost exploded clear off my body last week when I heard a foreclosure mill exclaim to a judge when questioned about how she was going to get a complaint verified: “But we don’t represent the Plaintiff, we represent the servicer!” (Editor’s Note: That is an admission that they filed a lawsuit on behalf of someone they do not represent. They are not the attorney for the Plaintiff but they filed the suit anyway!)

EDITOR’S NOTE: Weidner has it right here and this is a very ripe area of vulnerability for Banks and the lawyers who represent them. The article below gives you a couple if ideas about that.

As I have repeatedly said on these pages, the first words out of the mouth of the lawyer seeking to foreclose is probably a lie: “Good Morning, your honor my name is John Smith and I represent the holder of this loan, Aurora Loan Servicing.” After stating his name, the rest was at best a misstatement from lack of knowledge and probably just a lie.

The foreclosure mills send out lawyers who have no idea whether they represent the bank or any other party who is seeking to foreclose. And when he states that he  represents the holder,, he only knows that he was told to say that, not that it is true or even if the party whom he alleges to represent would agree. This entire game is made up of plausible deniability and “excusable neglect” so that when caught in the lies, each one can say we didn’t realize our information was bad. But they do know their information is bad and that is their vulnerability.

I would counsel attorneys to file a motion for proof of authority to represent as soon as the first pleading is filed — the compliant in judicial states and the motion to dismiss in the non-judicial states. And I would suggest you press the point by testing their proof through discovery. Most of the time they will cave and revamp their strategy. I actually know of a few cases where the filing of that motion alone was enough for the foreclosing parties to simply vanish.

Second, I again repeat that you should raise an immediate objection, based in part on your challenge to their authority to represent. When the statement is made that “we represent the Plaintiff” or “we represent the holder” or “we represent the creditor” that is a statement of fact, which the lawyers want to be tacitly admitted into the narrative of the case. Your objection should be along the lines of no foundation, that counsel is testifying, that if he is testifying you want to conduct a voir dire examination to determine if he has any personal knowledge for making that assertion, and if so, where he got his information.

Even if he say “I represent U.S. Bank” the same objections would apply after he makes his first argument of “fact” rather than law. It is the same as the “default.” How does he know that a default has occurred.  What contact has he had with the creditor? Who is the creditor. How do we know the creditor has not been satisfied and that the note and mortgage are therefore satisfied? We know that the servicers and others are trying to sneak in under the umbrella of the note and mortgage when their claim, for themselves, has nothing to do with the note or mortgage.

BE ALERT! And don’t assume anything. Challenge everything.

Fraudclosure Mill- Just Who Is Your Client Anyway?
Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.


A question that must be asked in every foreclosure case is just who hired the Plaintiff mill that is prosecuting the case…and who is paying that mill?

There has been a battle raging for years now between consumer attorney warriors who have been working to crack the secret relationship between their attorneys and the fake plaintiff that is named in the foreclosure lawsuit.

We’re especially cracking this relationship when judges start asking real questions or start putting the plaintiff actually comply with the Supreme Court’s rules.

My head almost exploded clear off my body last week when I heard a foreclosure mill exclaim to a judge when questioned about how she was going to get a complaint verified:

“But we don’t represent the Plaintiff, we represent the servicer!”

This is exactly the case and this is precisely the problem. Well, here’s where things get even more interesting. The referrals don’t come from the servicer, they come from a computer….and that’s a problem….or at least it should be if state bars and judges really started digging into this. It’s one of the backstories that’s running behind the Nevada Attorney General v. LPS Lawsuit, first addressed by my friend, Nick Wooten and a dude named Bubba Grimsley, see this article in HousingWire:

The alleged splitting of attorney fees between foreclosure law firms and third-party mortgage servicing providers is the subject of another lawsuit, bringing the number of cases filed on this issue to five within the past seven months, said Nick Wooten, an Alabama-based plaintiff’s attorney involved in all of the cases.

By mid-May, Wooten said he expects to file 10 to 12 additional cases, making similar allegations about what he claims are illegal, split-attorney fee arrangements between mortgage servicing outsourcers and law firms. The cases are concentrated in the Northern District of Mississippi, the Southern District of Alabama and the Northern District of Florida-Pensacola division.


And what did the banksters do when confronted by these allegations? Why they attacked the attorney that dared to challenge them? From another article in HousingWire:

An Alabama circuit court judge denied a motion Wednesday from Lender Processing Services (LPS: 14.30 -17.53%) for sanctions against attorney Nick Wooten and also declined to seal a transcript and default services agreement at the heart of Wooten’s cases.

LPS alleged in April http://www.housingwire.com/2011/04/26/lps-fires-back-with-motion-seeking-sanctions-against-alabama-attorney that Wooten, who is suing LPS in several cases on behalf of homeowners, used confidential information from a bankruptcy case he was handling between Larry David Wood and Karen Wilborn Wood against Option One Mortgage, and filed multiple lawsuits against LPS in other states using that information.





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

The indictment alleges that both defendants directed the fraudulent notarization and filing of documents which were used to initiate foreclosure on local homeowners. The State alleges that these documents, referred to as Notices of Default, or “NODs”, were prepared locally. The State alleges that the defendants directed employees under their supervision, to forge their names on foreclosure documents, then notarize the signatures they just forged, thereby fraudulently attesting that the defendants actually signed the documents, which was untrue and in violation of State law. The defendants then allegedly directed the employees under their supervision to file the fraudulent documents with the Clark County Recorder’s office, to be used to start foreclosures on homes throughout the County.  The indictment alleges that these crimes were done in secret in order to avoid detection.  The fraudulent NODs were allegedly forged locally to allow them to be filed at the Clark County Recorder’s office on the same day they were prepared.

EDITOR’S COMMENT: Weidner has it right. It might seem like this is just two people, but we all know that these practices are a mirror of what has been done throughout the country — thus causing havoc in the lives of homeowners, violating the HAMP regulations and agreements, and corrupting the title chain on perhaps tens of millions of homes.

Fraudulent notarization: Remember that just because the notarization was improper doesn’t mean the document might not be otherwise valid and subject to a corrective instrument signed by the right people in the right way with the right notarization. BUT, that said, it is worthy of note because the notarizations were used to create the appearance of valid documents that were fabricated, forged and signed without the correct chain of authority. And the reason this practice is so widespread is that the Banks are scamming the market using the reluctance of investors to get into the foreclosure game as an excuse to “fill the void” and thus grab homes that were neither financed by them nor purchased by them.

False filing of documents: this is low hanging fruit for prosecutors across the country and no doubt will result in people “flipping” on their employers as prosecutors climb the ladder to the real decision-makers. Everyone was waiting for some attorney general to start the ball rolling. Well, this is it. I think Arizona might the the one to follow.


November 17th, 2011 | Author:

This really is extraordinary. An Attorney General brings a HUGE indictment against two individuals…but here’s why it is so earth-shattering…..read carefully the crimes that are alleged….then understand that these same acts were probably performed all across this country hundreds of thousands of times.

The conundrum created by an announcement such as this is once it’s done once by one Attorney General, what are all the other Attorney’s General and enforcement agencies to do?  Shall they just ignore what their counterpart is alleging? Are they able to just sit on the sidelines and ignore the serious allegations of systemic violations knowing full well that it was/is happening in their states as well?

And what about states like North Carolina and Massachusetts where elected public officials like Jeff Thigpen and John O’Brien have been screaming bloody hell for years, demanding that something be done?

The implications here are mind-blowing…read the indictment carefully and just extrapolate out, all across the country……

Felony Indictment Against Robo-Signers

from Brevardtimes.com

The Office of the Nevada Attorney General announced yesterday that the Clark County grand jury has returned a 606 count indictment against two title officers, Gary Trafford and Gerri Sheppard, who directed and supervised a robo-signing scheme which resulted in the filing of tens of thousands of fraudulent documents with the Clark County Recorder’s Office between 2005 and 2008.

According to the indictment, defendant Gary Trafford, a California resident, is charged with 102 counts of offering false instruments for recording (category C felony); false certification on certain instruments (category D felony); and notarization of the signature of a person not in the presence of a notary public (a gross misdemeanor). The indictment charges defendant Gerri Sheppard, also a California resident, with 100 counts of offering false instruments for recording (category C felony); false certification on certain instruments (category D felony); and notarization of the signature of a person not in the presence of a notary public (a gross misdemeanor).
”The grand jury found probable cause that there was a robo-signing scheme which resulted in the filing of tens of thousands of fraudulent documents with the Clark County Recorder’s Office between 2005 and 2008,”said Chief Deputy Attorney General John Kelleher.
The indictment alleges that both defendants directed the fraudulent notarization and filing of documents which were used to initiate foreclosure on local homeowners. The State alleges that these documents, referred to as Notices of Default, or “NODs”, were prepared locally. The State alleges that the defendants directed employees under their supervision, to forge their names on foreclosure documents, then notarize the signatures they just forged, thereby fraudulently attesting that the defendants actually signed the documents, which was untrue and in violation of State law. The defendants then allegedly directed the employees under their supervision to file the fraudulent documents with the Clark County Recorder’s office, to be used to start foreclosures on homes throughout the County.  The indictment alleges that these crimes were done in secret in order to avoid detection.  The fraudulent NODs were allegedly forged locally to allow them to be filed at the Clark County Recorder’s office on the same day they were prepared.
District Court Judge Jennifer Togliatti has set bail in the amount of $500,000 for Sheppard and $500,000 for Trafford. The case has been assigned to Department 5 District Court Judge Carolyn Ellsworth who will preside over the case.

Anyone who has information regarding this case is asked to contact the Attorney General’s Office at 702-486-3777 in Las Vegas or 775-684-1180 in Carson City.


Apr 16, 2011
Bill Posey (R-FL) will host a foreclosure and short sale forum with the Melbourne Association of Realtors on 1450 Sarno Rd. in Melbourne, Florida on April 28, 2011 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. despite his pro-bank legislative
Sep 21, 2011
After bailouts, quantitative easing, and no jail sentences for foreclosure fraud, several different groups have taken to Wall Street to protest what many believe is a lack of democracy in current U.S. politics. The financial crisis
Apr 21, 2011

Each property has since gone into foreclosure. This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, Bureau of Financial Investigations.

Mar 19, 2011
neighborhoods with abandoned homes with 4-foot-tall dandelions, sitting-water mosquito factories, or rat colonies as the new tenants, the city is powerless to do anything to correct blighted homes facing foreclosure.


Rally in Tally and Other News

It looks bad for the Florida Banker’s Association (FBA) effort to convert Florida into a non-judicial foreclosure state. Wrong time in the wrong place under the wrong circumstances. Attorney Weidner was seen on TV giving instructions to homeowners to have them lobby legislators who were not too keen on the idea anyway, but you can never be sure when you have a strong bank lobby. Once there was a Community Bankers Association in Florida, but it was gobbled up by FBA. FBA is dominated by the major banks and does little to foster the interests of consumers or small banks who serve consumers.

Don’t expert FBA to give up. It is a time honored practice to be persistent and tack on unrelated legislation to an otherwise acceptable bill. State legislators in all 50 states have precious little time to actually read all proposed legislation and they often vote off of summaries prepared by legislative aides or third parties. (That is how the Boston Strangler was cited for his efforts at population control by the Texas legislature about 20 years ago). So expect them to attempt to strangle their victims by surprise. Maintain vigilance.

In the meantime, here’s a call for some help for attorney Weidner and frankly for everyone else. It’s all about the fix in the auction of foreclosed homes and who is getting the benefit of a wrongful foreclosure with control of the title being directed by a non-creditor:


From Matt Weidner Esq at http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com

I’ve been hearing chatter and rumors about parties affiliated with the foreclosure mills buying properties after they have completed the foreclosure and now apparently reporters have been hearing such chatter as well.

If anyone has details on such transactions from anywhere in the state, please email that information to me at weidnerlaw@yahoo.com. Some of you good researchers out there, this could be bombshell material. If you’ve got the time, I would be looking at all sales in a given area, then backtrack that sale to see if the last record was a certificate of title. I would suspect that properties would first be going into LLCs or land trusts so multiple deeds going into these would catch my attention.

We uncovered a mountain of questionable information last time I asked for Assignments, and federal investigations across the country are currently underway into the assignment practices, most notably into the practices of Lender Processing Services, LLC… but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The feds move slowly, but unlike other crimes, these paper crimes leave a long, recorded trail.

So get out there are poke around…let me know what you find

%d bloggers like this: