You are here: Home / Archives for Notary Stamp
Nov
08

BOMBSHELL- Video Deposition of National Title Clearing’s Bryan Bly

By | Foreclosure Fraud, Weidner

Leave a Comment

Another Bombshell Deposition from the Foreclosure Warriors at The Forrest Law Firm.  Today’s deposition features the infamous Bryan Bly who we’ve all learned in recent months has been responsible for executing tens of thousands of documents that have been submitted in foreclosure cases across this country.  Listen carefully to the whole video. It’s well worth your time and effort.

The deposition begins with Bryan Bly telling us that his title is “Signing IC”- which I will take can be interpreted as  (Signing Everything I See).  Here are the Bryan Bly depositions…we all (and I mean press, attorneys, judges, advocates, all Americans) owe a debt of gratitude to the Forrest Law Firm for getting this information out there.  Please visit their website and support the work they are doing.

In this war, information is our most effective weapon.  The banks, the institutions and law firms are not going to like these depositions being made public, but we need to all cherish and respect that in this country we all have an absolute right to view and supervise what is happening in every single courtroom and case.  We can all no longer sit back passively and watch what is happening in our courtrooms…we all need to actively participate in what is occurring in these cases because it dramatically impacts us all.

6:45 HOLY SMOKES DID HE JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, “DO YOU KNOW WHAT AN ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE IS?” WITH… I DON’T KNOW?

7:00 Executes 5,000 documents per day, more than 50,000 total. Do you take steps to verify the information? No, sign and stamp the notary stamp.

9:22 His signature is inserted into documents sent  for recording and he has no idea what those documents are and he never reviews those documents.  That entire process takes place outside his presence and knowledge.

Tweet this!Tweet this! Share and Enjoy: Print Digg del.icio.us Facebook Google Bookmarks email FriendFeed Identi.ca LinkedIn Live MySpace PDF Ping.fm RSS StumbleUpon Technorati Tumblr Yahoo! Buzz Posterous Twitter Yahoo! Bookmarks

Scridb filter
Jul
31

Electronic Recording and Delivery act (ERDS)

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

Thank you Martha Nali:
THIS IS IMPORTANT. Anyone with more information on this, please send it in or post it in the comments. Whether this act would have any effect on old transactions, is doubtful, but I would have to see the whole thing and get some comments before I made up my mind. I’m also not sure that MERS is doing anything with documents. As far as I know they never touch a document or a dime. They are just a database “service” in which the pretender lenders pretend to keep track of the loans. The database is really just a cover for using MERS as a straw-man.

Forget about the notary rules. Forget about the signatures-
The Electronic Recording and Delivery act (ERDS) has now allowed the MERS computer (That’s what it is) to “notarize” events- such as assignments- That never happened.
READ THE LAW- THEN LOOK UP YOUR COUNTY CODES.
The counties are passing laws that allow this to happen as long as the “Notary stamp” is on file.
It completely obliterates what we have came to believe the act of notarization means.
The notaries do not even know this, and it is being slowly fed into the systems, and you can find only a few completely in digital format, but they are doing it. No actual notary event is happening.

False witness–Did God know about this coming?

This does not mean you cannot declare a document forged as to the notary, if it was done “Old School”, (with a human) and lacks truth for whatever reason-you did not sign, papers switched etc.. ( my case)

FURTHER, all the “Robo-signatures”, as Neil likes to call them.
Forget all you ever knew about trying to authenticate the names….

MERS is a computer using software that employs highly advanced logarithmic calculations, to distort a false signature each time it is applied. (FONT) The names you see signed, –yes there might be a human behind the name sometimes, but the chances are it’s an “Identity” created to sign the documents.

Mr. Lin, in China who is the head linguistic software developer in the world, (Microsoft) pioneered this software that has allowed MERS to impersonate humans, I allege. (it was not his intent, he just works on the design)

The MERS computer applies a distortion that is unique and varied each time to the “Font” that has been established for each identity—so as to trick the human eye into thinking they are seeing a true human signature, that is varied and slightly different of course each time it is signed.
All the signatures DO NOT MEET ERDS code.

All this talk about the signatures is failing to realize what has finally happened. MERS can impersonate humans, and can foreclose on 10,000 homes a day without any human interaction. It does not need a human, unless it is challenged

and then her clarification and interesting history

As clarification, when I say notarize “events” that never happened, as in assignments… Neil has blazed that path already, in documenting that the “assignments” did not happen, or do not happen until the computer is challenged.

( I am quoting Neil verbatim in my own pleadings, and owe him a debt for this work on here)

What I am specifically saying, is the ERDS language is allowing counties such as Los Angeles, to pass county codes, which allow 100% digital notarizations. IF THE STAMP IS ON FILE WITH WHOEVER IS DOING IT–Think Title Company.

So the actual event that I am talking about NOT happening is a face-2-face meeting of the notary, and the signer, and the computer is in fact acting as both in effect, as it generates the documents, with signatures of both the notary and the signer.

I have found some 100% digital notaries’ in the recorder’s office that are pure text-no pretend wet ink signatures even.

The system they have designed to rob us blind with is fully in place, and will be implemented slowly, so as not to cause uproar. I almost cannot believe this is happening, as its sounds too ala-Kaczynski, but the law has already been written that allows this. ERDS.
And for all you outside of California…There is a saying, So goes California…

A man’s word is now just a font.

Martha Raysik,
11th generation descendent of William Bradford.
Passenger on the Mayflower, and
Governor of Plymouth Colony.

Filed under: foreclosure
Apr
20

TILA Statute of Limitations — No Limit

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources, Truth in Lending

Leave a Comment

Editor’s Note: Judges are quick to jump on the TILA Statute of Limitations by imposing the one year rule for rescission and damages. But there is more to it than that.

First the statute does NOT cut off at one year except for items that are apparent on the face of the closing documentation; so for MOST claims arising under securitization where almost every real detail of the transaction was hidden and intentionally withheld, the one year rule does not apply.

Second, the statute of limitations does not BEGIN to run until the date that the violation is revealed. In most cases this will be when the homeowner knows or should have known that the loan was securitized. Since the pretender lenders are so strong on the point that securitization does not affect enforcement, the best point in time for the statute to run is when a forensic analyst or expert tells the homeowner that TILA violations exist.

And THEN, in those cases where the information was hidden, the statute of limitations is three years from the date the information was revealed.

So when you go after undisclosed fees, profits and other compensation of any kind, you are not cut off by one year because — by definition they were not disclosed. The only way the other side can get out of that is by admitting the existence of the fee, and then showing that it WAS disclosed — presumably through yet another fabricated document, signed by a non-existent person with non existent authroity with non- existent witnesses and notarized by someone three thousand miles away (whose notary stamp and forged signature was applied to hundreds of pages of blank documents for later use). [Brad Keiser was the one who discovered this tactic by doing what most forensic analysts don't do --- actually reading every piece of paper sent by the pretender lender and every piece of paper provided by the homeowner. Case law shows that where the notary was improperly applied --- and there are many ways for it to be improperly applied, the notary is void. If the statute requires recording the document in the public records, then the document so notarized shall be considered as NOT being in the public records and is ordered expunged from those records].

This comment from Rob elaborates:

Regarding the TILA Statute of Limitations:

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
When a violation of TILA occurs, the one-year limitations period applicable to actions for statutory and actual damages begins to run. U.S.C. § 1641(e).
A TILA violation may occur at the consummation of the transaction between a creditor and its consumer if the transaction is made without the required disclosures.
A creditor may also violate TILA by engaging in fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive practices that conceal the TILA violation occurring at the time of closing. Often consumers do not discover any violation until after they have paid excessive charges imposed by their creditors. Consumers who later learn of the creditor’s TILA violations can allege an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. When the consumer has an extended right to rescind or
pursue other statutory remedies because a violation occurs, the statute of limitations for all the damages the consumers seek extends to three years from the date the violation is revealed.
McIntosh v. Irwin Union Bank & Trust Co., 215 F.R.D. 26, 30 (D. Mass. 2003).


Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, workshop Tagged: 215 F.R.D. 26, 30 (D. Mass. 2003)., brad keiser, damages, enforcement, expert, forensic analyst, McIntosh v. Irwin Union Bank & Trust Co., notary was improperly applied, one year, pretender lenders, Public records, rescission, securitization, statute of limitiations, three years, TILA, truth in lending, U.S.C. § 1641(e), violation is revealed