News, Research & Insights for American Homeowners, Patriots & Constitutional Conservatives
Third front for unions in 2012?
Indiana became the 23rd state to pass right-to-work laws that end the practice of closed shops and forced dues payments. Mitch Daniels’ signature also makes Indiana the first Rust Belt state, long the locus of union political power, to adopt such laws. As one might imagine, that decision didn’t come without a protest from the [...]
And folks aren't happy about it.
President Barack Obama is still in Hawaii on vacation, but, yesterday, he managed to sign the $662-billion National Defense Authorization Act — a bill that has generated a fair share of controversy in the Capitol city. Even as he signed the bill, Obama added to the drama; he included a statement with his signature to [...]
Point for the personally responsible.
Score one for freedom. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood yesterday checked the zeal of the National Transportation Safety Board, which last week called for a nationwide ban on hands-free cell phone devices for drivers. LaHood, who has made distracted driving his signature safety issue, said the focus should be on texting and hand-held cell calls, not [...]
Meet our homeowner… Ira Neighbors. This time around, he’s a university professor with a PhD in Social Work…. So, I suppose that’s technically Dr. Ira Neighbors.
He was on his second trial modification, the last time his trial modification wasn’t converted to a permanent modification for some unknown reason, but Bank of America is here to help homeowners and they were nice enough to let him reapply… and so he did.
This time, however, he decided to retain a lawyer to help ensure that his trial modification would become a permanent one. And wouldn’t you know it, the lawyer succeeded and Bank of America issued the documents for the professor’s permanent modification. So, yay!
Unfortunately, Professor Neighbors happened to be in Louisiana at the time lecturing at a university, but once again Bank of America was gracious enough to forward the documents to his address in Louisiana for his signature. It had taken two years and two trial modifications for him to arrive at this monumental moment, and now he had ten days to sign and return the documents, along with certified funds in the amount requested. Well, Bank of America doesn’t like to be kept waiting, and why should they?
A few days later, however, the documents arrived with instructions stating that his signature had to be notarized by a California notary. So, the professor immediately called the “Hope Line” at Bank of America to ask whether he should fly back to sign the documents, but the bank said, given the circumstances, with him being in Louisiana and all, not to worry about notarizing his signature, but to simply send the signed documents by the date shown with the certified funds enclosed.
And so he did… on time and as agreed. He wasn’t going to take any chances this second time out, and we can all imagine how relieved he was that the whole ordeal was finally over.
Imagine his surprise when the next letter he received explained that his package had been deemed incomplete… his permanent loan modification was now denied and Bank of America would be accelerating the foreclosure of his home.
His lawyer contacted Bank of America immediately requesting that the professor’s case be appealed given the circumstances. Bank of America, being the reasonable and caring financial institution that they so clearly are, reviewed the case and said okay… as long as he would have his signature on the documents notarized by a California notary they would honor the permanent loan modification after all.
Yes, the last time he called, they had told him not to worry about the California notarization, but so what… if that’s what they wanted then that’s what Dr. Neighbors would deliver.
(It’s worth remembering that at this point, Bank of America already had Ira’s certified funds. He had included a cashier’s check with his documents when sending in the set with his un-notarized signature, as Bank of America said was fine.)
So, without any hesitation our intrepid professor jumps on a plane and flies home to California to have his signature notarized by a California notary. Apparently, the notaries in Louisiana are seriously sub-standard and perceived to be unable to notarize someone’s signature. This must be a terrible burden on the people of that state, and someone should look into it, in my humble opinion.
Okay… so with his signature on the permanent modification documents now legally notarized by a California notary, he sent everything to Bank of America without delay. Whew… it was finally over… wasn’t it?
Within a week Bank of America sent him another letter notifying him that they were… wait for it… denying his appeal, and no permanent modification would be issued.
Bank of America was saying that although the first set of signed documents and the certified funds had arrived on time, the second set of California notarized signed documents had arrived six days after the original deadline, and now Fannie Mae was supposedly refusing to reinstate the professor’s permanent loan modification. Don’t you hate it when that happens?
(Fannie Mae, by the way, has received a little more than $120 billion from American taxpayers to-date and the government estimates that number will be $220 billion by 2014. So… good to know, I suppose.)
However, Bank of America did say in their letter that the professor was welcome to reapply once again for a loan modification… because Bank of America is here to help homeowners, remember?
The professor’s lawyer tells me that he was told by a Bank of America manager, that the bank has recently laid off a good portion of the loss mitigation and customer service staff, as they are changing over to the single point of contact system required by the OCC’s consent orders that were issued last April. And apparently, loan modifications have recently ground to a halt at Bank of America as a result of the change. (Another lawyer told me a similar story yesterday as well.)
I can’t help but wonder, however, why it’s not too much effort to foreclose on a home, evict a family, probably end up taking it back as an REO, bring it up to HUD standards and then maintain it perhaps for years while it sits vacant…
But… it’s far too much effort to approve a permanent loan modification that has already been approved by the bank… because the second set of documents arrived six days late… even though it was the bank that said to send in the first set without the signature being notarized, and considering that the homeowner ended up flying across the country to have his signature notarized by a California notary… and even though the certified funds HAD ARRIVED with the first set of documents.
Oh, never mind… even I can’t figure out what I’m trying to say anymore. If this mess ever does end, what would you like to bet that writing about it has caused brain damage and I spend the remainder of my years eating Jello on my rice, drinking from a sippy cup, and babbling incoherently about how the bank lost my documents?
And by the way, I called around town to ask others with experience modifying loans and everyone told me that most loan modification documents don’t require a notarized signature, California or otherwise… which does make a great deal of sense, by the way, if you think about it. I mean, where would fraud enter the picture?
Under what circumstances would someone sign someone else’s loan modification documents? It’s not like it’s a new loan. And the bank just received the guy’s tax returns, paycheck stubs, and everything else they could ask for… what’s the problem?
You would think that even Bank of America would tire of playing this game by now.
And what the heck is wrong with the notaries in Louisiana anyway? Can’t they ask someone for their driver’s license and then notarize their signature? What can a notary do, if he or she can’t do that?
MEMO TO BANK OF AMERICA… Why do you do these things to me? I was just sitting here minding my own business, perfectly content to write about Chase or Wells or anything else for that matter… but no, you can’t even make it a month without doing something totally unreasonable and frankly insane. It’s not like I want to keep picking on you… I don’t. What’s the deal, Mr. Moynihan? Are you trying to maintain your position as the poster child for “reputational risk?”
I also want to mention that all this trashing of Bank of America is very upsetting to Mr. Moynihan. In case you haven’t already seen it, check this out from Bloomberg last week:
Oct. 26 (Bloomberg) — Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Officer Brian T. Moynihan said he’s “incensed” by public criticism of his company and is pushing back by reminding local leaders of its contributions to their economies.
I, like you, get a little incensed when you think about how much good all of you do, whether it’s volunteer hours, charitable giving we do, serving clients and customers well,” Moynihan said during the Oct. 18 gathering. To the bank’s critics, he said, “You ought to think a little about that before you start yelling at us.
But, Brian… it’s not just me… also from the Bloombgerg article:
Bank of America ranked lowest in a 24-bank survey of small business customer satisfaction from J.D. Power and Associates this month. Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. also were in the bottom five. Earlier this year, Bank of America was named the country’s second-worst company by Consumerist.com after BP Plc, the firm blamed for the worst U.S. offshore oil spill.
Okay, DOERS… are you listening to this? Could we please explain to Mr. Moynihan that we would all very much appreciate it if he could just make a quick call and save this nice professor’s home before Thanksgiving?
Please? It’s the end of the guy’s second year and that should be enough screwing around, don’t you think? The professor’s name is Ira Neighbors of Southern California, and of course below is the contact information for BofA’s CEO, Brian Moynihan… but maybe you’ve got him on speed dial by now.
He’s counting on us, you know. Let’s not let him down, okay? You guys are getting famous for this sort of thing.
Mandelman out.
Matthew Task, Executive Relations, Office of the CEO (At BofA)
Phone: 813-805-4873
Still a key campaign issue.
Far from becoming more popular as it begins to be implemented, Obama’s signature legislative achievement draws ever lower levels of approval and support as more and more Americans “find out what’s in it.” According to a tracking poll by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, just 34 percent of Americans view the law favorably — the [...]
"You are the only folks keeping the barbarians at the gate."
Jimmy Hoffa’s canine remarks about Tea Party SOBs rightly received plenty of media attention — especially after Jake Tapper’s signature drilling of Jay Carney. What is less widely known is that Gaffe-Master-in-Chief and Alleged-Tea-Party-Terrorists-Toastmaster Joe Biden also made a newsworthy remark in his keynote address at organized labor’s traditional Labor Day picnic at Cincinnati’s Coney Island [...]
Decisions.
“The video ends with her signature mama grizzly giving a roar and a message: ‘Thank you Iowa! See you again September 3rd.’ Palin heads back to the first caucus state that day to headline a tea party rally. “Although there has been speculation that Palin may make her announcement that day, sources close to Palin [...]
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!
Share and Enjoy:
3:18- Do you know what “good and valuable consideration means? I don’t usually read the docs when I sign. I just look for my name and sign.
Is your signature put electronically into a doc? Don’t know. Has you name been scanned and put into the system? Yes. Do you know what it is used for? I don’t ask.
Like I say I never read those I just go ahead and sign them.
I just see my name and I sign.
The last and frankly the best deposition from the Foreclosure Warriors at The Forrest Law Firm these guys have blown the lid off the whole document mill process and you really owe it to your self to listen to all these depositions in their entirety.
The big question we all need to be asking after watching all these deposition is,
“If all these Plaintiffs and lenders and mortgage companies really did own all these mortgages prior to when they started this Foreclosure Holocaust, why then do we have all these robo signer activities?”
Tweet this!
Share and Enjoy:
Scridb filter
The Associated Press
By MIKE SCHNEIDER and TAMARA LUSH Associated Press Writers
“An office manager at a Florida law firm under investigation for fabricating foreclosure documents would sign her name to 1,000 files a day without reviewing them and would allow paralegals to sign her name for her when she got tired, her former secretary said in a deposition released Monday.
Cheryl Salmons, office manager for the foreclosure department at the law offices of David Stern, would sign 500 files in the morning and another 500 files in the afternoon without reviewing them and with no witnesses, said former assistant Kelly Scott in a deposition released by the Florida attorney general’s office.
The files were laid out on a conference room table for Salmons to sign, the former secretary said.
“She doesn’t review them. She just looks,” Scott said. “The paper is going to be in the top folder so it’s visible to her, and she knows exactly where she has to put her signature.”
Paralegals would then collect the files and swap them with each other, signing them as witnesses even though they had already been notarized and executed, Scott said.
Salmons allowed some paralegals to sign her name for her, said the former assistant, who worked at the firm for a year in 2008.
The deposition took place two weeks ago as part of the attorney general’s investigation into the law firm.
Another deposition released Monday was of Mary Cordova, who worked at G&Z Process for two months. Stern’s law firm used G&Z as a process server for foreclosures.
Cordova said when she was hired, she was told that she needed to process at least 22 cases per eight-hour shift.
“It was almost like we didn’t have time to really look at what we were doing,” she said during her deposition. “It’s like this is the particular information, input that, turn that page, here’s this piece of information, type that in. It’s more about speed than accuracy per se. Although a supervisor would look at the papers to see if they’re pretty accurate.”
Tweet this!
Share and Enjoy:
So I’ve been commenting for quite some time with problems with signatures. Have a look at the signature that appears on the document below for insight into what I’m talking about:
Tweet this!
Share and Enjoy:
The Florida Rules of Civil Procedures require that all pleadings filed in a case be signed by a licensed Florida attorney. I have started to examine files and am becoming increasingly suspicious that this important rule is not being followed by the foreclosure mills.
I am therefore starting to examine all my pleadings closely and I encourage each of you to do the same. Ultimately I would like to build a database of these signatures to compare, so for those of you out there that are spending time looking at court filings, please start examining the signatures and making a cut and past document similar to the one I attach below.
My first example of gross irregularities in the signature of an attorney who makes filings in a court case comes from Ohio. The document was prepared by a reader of this blog and it comes from an Ohio foreclosure mill attorney. Please look at the sheet. There really is no commentary necessary regarding whether these were signed by the same person….
Given what we know about the foreclosure mills and their operations (particularly the offshore components of their practice) I cannot imagine that they are following this rule. (I mean the violate every other rule)
Tweet this!
Share and Enjoy:
EDITOR’S NOTE: Here is a very good example of assuming nothing and challenging everything. The pretender lenders are depending upon you and the judge to rely upon initial impressions. These documents look fine from 6 feet away or if you just skim them. But when you start looking at everything you begin to see things in the same way that you solve a puzzle. When you first look at a puzzle you might not know where to begin. But as you examine it clues are revealed.
You can easily see from Laura’s comments below how these documents fall apart upon close scrutinization. For example, six different signatures from the same alleged VP on 20 different documents. Our recent comments directed toward the question of whether these people actually exist becomes increasingly important as we examine these documents. Make sure you look and make sure your Atty. looks closely for these kinds of discrepancies. I would venture to say that in virtually all cases you’ll find the discrepancies.
You must remember that this is not just a matter of finding the discrepancies but demonstrating them to a judge along with an argument based in law that the discrepancies are important enough to stop the pretender lender from going forward with any foreclosure.
FROM LAURA
Just a quick follow-up…
- Went to Clerk and Recorder’s office, and reviewed every assignment ever filed by Creative Mortgage Funding (initial lender). The signature of the then-vice president of Creative Mortgage Funding is DIFFERENT on most of these – in fact, I see a total of six distinctly different signatures on the 20 assignments that just went to Ohio Savings Bank/Amtrust. Some of them are assigned to MERS, and I suspect the signature of the VP on these is one of the robot-signers out there. The former VP now works as a VP of Sales for a different mortgage company.
- There are only two notaries on all of these assignments. One of whom I know worked for Creative Mortgage Funding (how could she not see that it wasn’t her boss’s signature on some of these assignments?) and is still a registered notary in the State of Colorado (lives just a few blocks from me). The other notary was the owner of the company that prepared the loan documents (Loan Docs, Inc.) and is no longer a registered Notary in Colorado, appears that she now lives in Nebraska and may have a liquor license. Both companies show in the Secretary of State’s office as administratively disbanded in 2006 and 2007 for failure to file annual report and pay annual fees.
As advised by Abby and others, I will be filing a complaint with the Notary division of the Secretary of State’s office before the week is out on both notaries, although I suspect they will only act on the complaint regarding the notary who is still registered.
- Received notice in the mail today, August 2nd, only one day after they became supposed servicer of record, from the alleged new servicer, Residential Credit Solutions, notifying me that they are the new loan servicer. Sent QWR out today, too 
- Supposedly the NEW “owner” of my note is “Amtrust 2010 NP-SFR” – this is a LLC consisting of a “consortium” of Residential Credit Solutions (a debt collector in Fort Worth, Texas), CarVal of Minnetonka, Minn. (a private portfolio manager of undervalued and credit-intensive assets), and RBS Financial Products Inc. of Stamford, Ct, (a commercial real estate lender that purchases, sells and finances commercial and residential mortgage loans and other financial assets.) Oh, let’s not forget the FDIC, which has a 60% stake in this new LLC. Of course, none of this tells me who “owned” my loan prior to the failure of Amtrust Bank.
- Met with the Investigator on Duty of the Economic Crimes Division of our local District Attorney’s office today, and showed him all the notary fraud/misconduct I found, including 40 other (yes, 40!) assignments that were never signed and/or notarized or both from BAC Home Loan Servicing (Bank of America) – thought maybe if I showed him one of the “big guys” he’d be more interested, than in going after some “little guys” who aren’t even in business technically anymore. Well, he was very polite, spent about 40 minutes with me, asked some good pertinent questions (“but what is the harm TO YOU…”), but ultimately, told me they don’t have the resources to pursue such stuff as this… implied that there really isn’t any “true” harm since people are going to pay their mortgages to someone or are going to lose their houses regardless of who signed what… then actually told me I shouldn’t waste my time and energy worrying about “other people” and “chasing shadows”… in other words, go away little girl. Obviously, he doesn’t know me very well.
Ok, this wasn’t that “quick” of an update… but felt like sharing
FALSE DOCUMENTS, FALSE IDENTITIES
I have been receiving a great deal of confidential information from sources that appear to be reliable. These people wish to maintain their privacy and have offered their information on condition of anonymity. This is a report concerning some of that information.
We have received information from several homeowners that when they went to the recording office and obtained copies of the documents on their loan closing they discovered that the note and mortgage (deed of trust) were dated before the loan closing. In some cases people are alleging an actual forgery and assert that they have handwriting experts to back them up. This alone is interesting. They don’t dispute the loan closing and they don’t dispute that they signed a note and mortgage. What they dispute is that the documents recorded are not the documents they signed.
A little more disturbing is the fact that several homeowners with specific knowledge are reporting forged and fabricated documents wherein the signature is actually computer-generated. Unlike previous reports on this blog which relate to the signatures of the various people supposedly representing the pretender lenders, these reports relate to the signatures of the homeowner.
Apparently there is technology that produces a false “true and correct copy” of any signature. According to the reports I am receiving, this technology is currently in widespread use by pretender lenders. The reasons for the use of forged signatures through computers may relate back to the original studies from three years ago where it was found that at least 40% of the notes were destroyed or lost. Somehow that issue has diminished over the last three years, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t still true. (Another reason to follow our rule here “assume nothing, question everything.”)
There is a growing body of evidence that the pretender lenders and their attorneys are involved in a common practice of creating documents and forging the signatures. The witnesses produced afterwards are carefully coached on what to say. One specific case was pointed out by a reader in which the “witness” testified that they “would sign” and not that they “did sign.”
Additionally, I have a report that alleges that virtually all the names on foreclosure documents are false identities. In fact, this source alleges that several names in the mortgage electronic registration system are people who do not exist. The source was referring to the top management. I would also wonder whether the people who signed on behalf of MERS were false identities––in other words people who did not exist.
I have often said on these pages that MERS does not touch any of the documents or the money. I would maintain that that continues to be true, but there is an allegation from someone who has access to detailed information regarding the technology platforms in use that the actual fabrication of documents is managed by a common entity and electronically created off of a common technology platform. This has minimized but not eliminated cases in which the same homeowner and the same property is subject to multiple foreclosures from multiple sources.
The forgery of signatures through electronic devices is only a temporary stopgap until ERDS comes into widespread use, at which time a “digital signature,” will be all that is required. The problem here is that lawmakers have no idea what is involved in digital signatures and the many opportunities for moral hazard. Or, the other possibility is that they don’t care.
In any event it is worth repeating that the MERS technology platform is only a technology platform and does not involve people interacting with people. It involves people all over the country logging on to the MERS system and interacting with a computer. This interaction consists of both (A.) changing data at will and (B.) producing self-serving documents which purport to give any person designated in the computer session the right to sign on behalf of MERS or even other entities.
It is undoubtedly difficult to believe that the major financial institutions of this country are involved in the continuing fraud to literally steal the homes and property of tens of millions of our citizens. Yet that is the substance of the continuing flow of reports which I am receiving. What is particularly disturbing is that in no case have I seen any information that would contradict these reports in or out of court. Instead, it seems to be the common pattern of defense to finesse the issues of actual proof which would ordinarily be required in any foreclosure, particularly in a foreclosure that is disputed.
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.
|
Interesting comment submitted by Laura. We have been saying on these pages that virtually all documents are fabricated, and then submitted in support of an attempt by a pretender lender to pursue a foreclosure sale.Nothing proves the point better than a document that is notarized without any signature. The further investigation by this homeowner indicating the possibility that the notary was actually signing the documents lends further support to the only reasonable conclusion that is possible to reach. Once you have eliminated all probable explanations and you have narrowed the choices down to one, that explanation, no matter how improbable, is the truth.
We have seen many documents with the notarization in apparently proper form. In virtually all cases something was wrong. In some cases the notarization showed up on a blank document. In other cases the expiration date on the notarization seal proved that the document was neither signed nor notarized at the time it was alleged to have occurred. In still other cases the notarization was in one state of the union while the person signing (or allegedly signing) the document was in another state of the union. And of course there are the cases where the notary states that the person signing is known by them to be an officer of a particular entity or corporation (like MERS) when in fact there is no way the notary could possess that knowledge. And don’t forget the nearly universal practice of using unauthorized people to sign documents on behalf of companies or entities that either don’t exist or don’t know these people are signing documents in their name.
The moral of the story is don’t trust anything about any document. A so-called original document is probably a fabrication. There are numerous reports which we have received showing that under the magnification of a $20 microscope the dots showed that the document was in fact printed and that the signature was printed along with the document. So when they come into court saying they have the original document don’t be so quick to accept that. Any good color printer can produce what appears to be an original document.
As an expert witness on the stand I have been asked to admit that I was holding an original document. I looked closely at the signature. I looked at the back of the page on which the signature appeared. There were no indentations despite the fact that nearly all pens in use today use some sort of ball point technology, which at some point in the signature would cause indentations on the paper that would be visible on the back of the page. I saw no such indentations and said so. In fact I said that this document looks like a fabrication recently printed and was in all probability not the original. The opposing attorney was not happy. But that is the way it is–I call it the way I see it.
I love this: ” SHOW ME THE TRUST DOCUMENT, SHOW ME THE NOTE, SHOW ME THE ASSIGNMENT, SHOW ME THE INDORSEMENT, SHOW ME THE ACCOUNTING, SHOW ME THE CREDITOR ETC.” It’s my mantra as I research my loan
I am not in foreclosure (yet but likely eventually will be). This is in Colorado.
In 2002, refinanced with Creative Mortgage Funding (now defunct local lender), at closing, servicing assigned and/or loan sold to Ohio Savings Bank, which in 2007 became Amtrust, and in December was closed by the FDIC. FDIC recently “sold” (at 37% of face value) the servicing rights to Residential Credit Solutions, effective August 1st (and FDIC kept a 60% stake in the “consortium of three companies” that “purchased” these loans that will be serviced by Residential Credit)
Looking through copies of my closing documents, found “Assignment of Deed of Trust or Mortgage Deed” – it is NOTARIZED BUT NOT SIGNED.
Didn’t think you could notarize something that isn’t signed!?
Pulled copy of the assignment from Clerk & Recorder’s office. The Deed of Trust and that first Assignment are both recorded, same day, 18 days after closing. The assignment is IDENTICAL to the copy I have, except it is signed. Signature looks an awful lot like the notary’s actually… but it’s signed.
I’m looking at this piece of paper and thinking it is proof of something… proof of improper notarizing… reading Colorado statutes, I think it may be enough to get this first assignment invalidated. Am I thinking this correctly?
There are other oddities and discrepancies, but this one hits me in the gut as The Big One, the one I need to focus on. Suggestions?
FYI: Nothing recorded changing the name on the assignment from Ohio Savings Bank to Amtrust. No other documents of any type recorded on my loan. It’s NOT a MERS loan. It’s not Fannie or Freddie either, I do know it’s “owned by a group of investors” – the FDIC told me that but would not tell me WHO that group of investors is. Will be sending out QWR once Residential Credit Solutions is the (purported) servicer after August 1st.
Okay bankers… I wanted to go to bed, really I did. And I was about to, really I was. You brought this one to yourselves, but then again, I’ve come to understand that you just can’t help it, can you?
Are you ready for this?
A bill in New York that says that whenever a mortgage on residential property allows lenders to recover attorney’s fees in a foreclosure proceeding, the mortgage must also allow the borrower the same right if a foreclosure is unsuccessful. Got that? If the bank is allowed to get attorney’s fees in a foreclosure proceeding, then homeowners must also be able to get their attorney’s fees paid if they win the day.
There’s a phrase to describe that sort of legislative proposal… what is it… oh, that’s right… ONLY FAIR.
So, guess who’s totally against it? And I mean like lobbying against it, big time. It’s an easy one, right? I know, I don’t know why I bother asking… consider it rhetorical.
The Bankers Association… the bankers themselves… and the best part is why they’re against it. They say that it’s “unnecessary and would create uncertainty in the foreclosure process”.
Unnecessary? For whom? I think you’re unnecessary, you banker-piece-of-crap. And as to creating the “uncertainty in the foreclosure process,” I can only say… oh, shut up.
What kind of people are bankers? Am I the only person who wants to beat a banker with a stick… publicly? Or attend the public stoning of one. I’m actually starting to have fantasies that, if nothing else, I get to share a room with one at the nursing home one day, so I can unplug him… or maybe just put a pillow over his face and count to 11,502.
The bill, A1239/S2614, which was proposed by Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman, D-Queens, has already passed both houses of the Legislature, but has not yet been forwarded to Governor Paterson for signature, so the banking lobbyists are doing whatever they can to look like asshats and oppose it. The sponsors call it the Access to Justice in Lending Act.
See, this is what I mean when I say these people are not normal, there’s something defective about them. If you’re the parent of a banker, please write to me and tell me what you did to create a person that would oppose something like this. Didn’t you teach them to play fair when they were young? You dropped them on their heads a bunch of times, didn’t you? Shot heroin for breakfast during all three trimesters? Tell me, and I’ll start being nice to them, I swear.
The association’s objections were prepared by Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, which lobbies in Albany for the industry association… and how did I know there’d be a “Dicker” in there? Lucky guess.
The bill is important at a time like this, because it would clearly encourage more lawyers to represent homeowners in foreclosure actions “because attorneys can be confident, if successful, that they will be paid for their work.” And, as more than one person has pointed out, with foreclosures going nowhere but up, attorneys specializing in foreclosure work are needed more than ever before. A whole lot more, actually.
The Bankers Association, however, makes the inane argument that the most common defenses by borrowers in foreclosure actions involve TILA (Truth in Lending Act), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and that because both already provide for payment of attorney’s fees to the winners, there’s no reason to pass a bill that does the same thing when TILA or Fair Debt are not in play. Don’t try to understand that argument or your likely to accidentally bite your tongue off.
But that’s not all… additionally the Bankers Association actually said that the bill raises constitutional questions. Oh right, it must be the little known Anti-Fairness Clause that no one ever talks about.
Apparently, Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states: “No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” The bankers are actually arguing that the bill would create such an impairment, and I’m just not going to respond to that stupid assertion without being able to swear.
Sorry, since I’m not going to say what I want to say… what would be appropriate here… I’m not enjoying this anymore, so I’m going to bed.
Oh, wait a minute… French… I can swear in French, right? Oh, hell yes I can…
Hey bankers… Casse-toi!
33-809. Request for copies of notice of sale; mailing by trustee; disclosure of information regarding trustee sale
A. A person desiring a copy of a notice of sale under a trust deed, at any time subsequent to the recording of the trust deed and prior to the recording of a notice of sale pursuant thereto, shall record in the office of the county recorder in any county in which part of the trust property is situated a duly acknowledged request for a copy of any such notice of sale. The request shall set forth the name and address of the person or persons requesting a copy of such notice and shall identify the trust deed by setting forth the county, docket or book and page of the recording data thereof and by stating the names of the original parties to such deed, the date the deed was recorded and the legal description of the entire trust property and shall be in substantially the following form:
Request for Notice
Request is hereby made that a copy of any notice of sale under the trust deed recorded in docket or book ___________ at page ________, records of ______________ county, Arizona, _____________________________, _______________________________,
(legal description of trust property)
Executed by ________________________ as trustor, in which ______________ is named as beneficiary and __________________ as trustee, be mailed to _________________ at ___________________.
Dated this _______________ day of _______________, _____.
___________________
Signature
(Acknowledgement)
B. Not later than thirty days after recording the notice of sale, the trustee shall mail by certified or registered mail, with postage prepaid, a copy of the notice of sale that reflects the recording date together with any notice required to be given by subsection C of this section, addressed as follows:
1. To each person whose name and address are set forth in a request for notice, which has been recorded prior to the recording of the notice of sale, directed to the address designated in such request.
2. To each person who, at the time of recording of the notice of sale, appears on the records of the county recorder in the county in which any part of the trust property is situated to have an interest in any of the trust property. The copy of the notice sent pursuant to this paragraph shall be addressed to the person whose interest appears of record at the address set forth in the document. If no address for the person is set forth in the document, the copy of the notice may be addressed in care of the person to whom the recorded document evidencing such interest was directed to be mailed at the time of its recording or to any other address of the person known or ascertained by the trustee. If the interest that appears on the records of the county recorder is a deed of trust, a copy of the notice only needs to be mailed to the beneficiary under the deed of trust. If any person having an interest of record or the trustor, or any person who has recorded a request for notice, desires to change the address to which notice shall be mailed, the change shall be accomplished by a request as provided under this section.
3. For single family residential properties only, to the property address, except that the copy mailed pursuant to this paragraph may be mailed by first class mail.
C. The trustee, within five business days after the recordation of a notice of sale, shall mail by certified or registered mail, with postage prepaid, a copy of the notice of sale to each of the persons who were parties to the trust deed except the trustee. The copy of the notice mailed to the parties need not show the recording date of the notice. The notice sent pursuant to this subsection shall be addressed to the mailing address specified in the trust deed. In addition, notice to each party shall contain a statement that a breach or nonperformance of the trust deed or the contract or contracts secured by the trust deed, or both, has occurred, and setting forth the nature of such breach or nonperformance and of the beneficiary’s election to sell or cause to be sold the trust property under the trust deed and the additional notice shall be signed by the beneficiary or the beneficiary’s agent. A copy of the additional notice shall also be sent with the notice provided for in subsection B, paragraph 2 of this section to all persons whose interest in the trust property is subordinate in priority to that of the deed of trust along with a written statement that the interest may be subject to being terminated by the trustee’s sale. The written statement may be contained in the statement of breach or nonperformance.
D. No request for a copy of a notice recorded pursuant to this section, nor any statement or allegation in any request, nor any record of request, shall affect the title to the trust property or be deemed notice to any person that a person requesting a copy of notice of sale has or claims any interest in, or claim upon, the trust property.
E. At any time that the trust deed is subject to reinstatement pursuant to section 33-813, but not sooner than thirty days after recordation of the notice of trustee’s sale, the trustee shall upon receipt of a written request, provide, if actually known to the trustee, the following information relating to the trustee’s sale and the trust property:
1. The unpaid principal balance of the note or other obligation which is secured by the deed of trust.
2. The name and address of record of the owner of the trust property as of the date of recordation of the notice of trustee’s sale.
3. A list of the liens and encumbrances upon the trust property as of the date of recordation of the notice of trustee’s sale, excluding those matters set forth in section 33-438, subsection A.
If the trustee elects to charge a fee for providing the information requested, the fee shall not exceed five per cent of the amount the trustee may charge pursuant to section 33-813, subsection B, paragraph 4, except that the trustee shall not charge a fee that is more than one hundred dollars or be required to accept a fee that is less than thirty dollars but may accept a lesser fee at the trustee’s discretion. The trustee, or any other person furnishing information pursuant to this subsection to the trustee, shall not be subject to liability for any error or omission in providing the information requested, except for the wilful and intentional failure to provide information in the trustee’s actual possession.
F. Beginning at 9:00 a.m. and continuing until 5:00 p.m. mountain standard time on the last business day preceding the day of sale and beginning at 9:00 a.m. mountain standard time and continuing until the time of sale on the day of the sale, the trustee shall make available the actual bid or a good faith estimate of the credit bid the beneficiary is entitled to make at the sale. If the actual bid or good faith estimate is not available during the prescribed time period, the trustee shall postpone the sale until the trustee is able to comply with this subsection.
G. In providing information pursuant to subsections E and F of this section, the trustee, without obligation or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the information, may respond to oral requests, respond orally or in writing or provide additional information not required by such subsections. With respect to property that is the subject of a trustee’s sale, the beneficiary of such deed of trust or the holder of any prior lien may, but shall not be required to, provide information concerning such deed of trust or any prior lien that is not required by subsection E or F of this section and may charge a reasonable fee for providing the information. The providing of such information by any beneficiary or holder of a prior lien shall be without obligation or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the information.
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).
This Washington Post headline yesterday is all you need to know about how corrupt the process has become to pass ObamaCare by any means necessary this week: “House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it.”
Huh? You read that correctly. Because Speaker Pelosi cannot find enough votes to pass the deeply unpopular ObamaCare bill in a constitutional way, she is hoping you and other Americans won’t notice, or won’t care, whether she passes ObamaCare in an unconstitutional and blatantly corrupt way.
Her latest plan is called the “Slaughter Rule”, which would allow the House to vote on a different bill and “deem” the Senate’s ObamaCare bill as being “passed” at the same time as the other bill is passed, without having an actual up and down vote on the ObamaCare bill.
Said Pelosi in an interview: “It’s more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know….but I like it, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”
Pelosi may like “deeming” laws passed, but passing laws without voting on them is blatantly unconstitutional. As former federal judge Michael McConnell wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “It may be clever, but it is not constitutional. To become law…the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.”
Speaker Pelosi and President Obama are counting on you, your friends, and your family not to notice or care that they are doing this. That’s why together, we must get the truth out and tell everyone that we know about what they are trying to do.
This is just one more example of the bribery and corruption that has been used to try and pass ObamaCare, like the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. If they are willing to corrupt our constitutional system right before our eyes to pass Obamacare, why should we have any confidence that they won’t corrupt your healthcare when nobody is paying attention?
While this call to action is from Attorney Weidner, I would suggest that in addition to sending questionable or bogus assignments to Weidner, you also email them to ngarfield@msn.com, or fax them to 772-594-6244. If you are concerned about anonymity, just create an email on one of the free services (gmail, hotmail etc.) and before scanning or faxing (1) use a black marker to redact any identifying information about yourself (2) make a copy of the redacted version to make sure the lettering underneath does not show through and then (3) fax or email it.
In Florida
CALL TO ACTION- GET ME BOGUS ASSIGNMENTS AND AFFIDAVITS
March 13th, 2010
For months now, one of the most sophisticated and aggressive group of Foreclosure Defense attorneys in the state have been collecting evidence of questionable assignments and affidavits of amounts due and owing and affidavits of attorney’s fees. Due to the sensitive nature of this, I’m not disclosing the names of the attorneys, but they are reading this post and if they want to identify themselves they can reply to this post.
Quite simply, as they’ve reviewed hundreds or thousands of affidavits and assignments, and compared the dates and signatures on the documents, they do not appear to be legitimate.
In some cases an affiant has allegedly signed dozens of documents in several states all on the same day. In other cases, the signers are allegedly signing documents on days when they have other evidence that the signers could not or should not have been signing on the days the documents are allegedly signed. In almost all the cases, when you compare the alleged signature of the signer with documents which bear the signer’s real signature (like on a mortgage for their own home), the signature on the affidavits and other documents are completely different.
This conduct seriously undermines the judicial system and is totally unacceptable when any party does it….but we have good reason to believe that attorneys affiliated in various ways with the foreclosure mills are actively participating in creating false affidavits and documents. In at least one case, the foreclosure mills “withdrew” affidavits signed by attorneys that were submitted to courts when they were challenged as being fraudulent. When they were sought for deposition, the court granted a protective order preventing the false attorney signers from being deposed….apparently when you commit a fraud on the court and you’re caught, you can withdraw the fraud and you get a free pass.
CALL TO ACTION- GET THE DOCUMENTS!
This cannot be allowed to continue. We all need to work together to collect affidavits and assignments, then post them in one centralized locations so that all who are involved in this fight can compare signatures and dates on these signatures. Depositions are scheduled for several of the false signers and the more examples of affidavits and assignments we have the better. Pro se folks, activists and attorneys, please take some time and email or fax all the affidavits and assignments you can to me. My email is weidnerlaw@yahoo.com, my fax is 727/213-6235. If affidavits are posted elsewhere, please send me links I will post the links.
We are particularly interested in affidavits of attorney time at this stage because depositions of attorneys who purportedly signed these affidavits are currently set. The foreclosure mills are fighting like hell to not have these depositions taken.
What are they afraid of? All the signer has to say is, “Yes, I signed that affidavit.” Problem is outside evidence suggests that the affidavit signer could not have actually signed the affidavit and in many cases, the signatures are wildly different. Nailing the mills on this will have major implications. I’m willing to bet that in many cases, the mills don’t bother to have affidavits of attorney’s time properly prepared, witnessed and notarized. I’m willing to bet they just gloss over these “minor” details and have created some perfunctory process where affidavits are just blown through and signed by any old person…and not the person’s name who is on the signature line….that’s fraud.
If we all do our job and work together here, we will have a database of publicly accessible affidavits that can be compared, used in depositions and shared with the courts…..please help, email or fax affidavits and assignments to 727/213-6235 weidnerlaw@yahoo.com
Foreclosure News