Tag Archives: Bank of America NA

UPL, FELONY PERJURY: THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF DOCUMENT MANUFACTURING!

OP-ED — The author of this post is a consultant to attorneys on chain of title issues and the system of things. This is not legal advice but rather an exploration down a path that few even think to travel. 

“I was just doing my job.”  

What kind of response do you think you’d get from a robosigner in a deposition when asked how they prepared or executed a recorded assignment?

Part of what I have not discussed in my series on GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST is what might inadvertently happen when documents are manufactured by third-party or servicer document mills with the intended purpose of causing them to be recorded in the land records to give standing to a plaintiff in an upcoming (or current) foreclosure case.  For all intents and purposes, the documents were recorded to give some sort of legal force and effect, right?   After all, foreclosure mill lawyers and trustees (in non-judicial settings) rely on these assignments to go on about the business of stealing (uh, er, foreclosing on) peoples’ homes, right?

If I were go back into time (April 3, 2011) and trace the interviews conducted by Scott Pelley on the 60 Minutes segment, The Next Housing Shock, you would see a prime example of how a document mill operates.  These third-party document manufacturers exist all over the U.S. largely in part to excessive demands on the marketplace to produce still-missing documentation, designed to “fit” a specific situation to achieve a desired result.  The actual result was that Lorraine M. Brown (who has since served her time and is out of prison) was convicted for heading up a document mill that operated outside of the “arms-length” purview of the mortgage servicers, as Pelley explained on the broadcast.

Then there were two Florida attorneys working for the Attorney General’s office in Tallahassee: June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards.  Both were basically forced out of their jobs after releasing a detailed report on document manufacturing misbehaviors:

florida ag report_unfair deceptive and unconscionable acts in foreclosure cases

In March of 2012, the mortgage loan servicers and the 49 states Attorneys General came to an agreement NOT to continue the process of document manufacturing unless the documents actually contain legitimate information and are not misrepresentative in nature.  No sooner did the ink dry on that agreement, the servicers and the third-party mills working with servicers were back at it again.

From 2012 until as late as 2016, Bank of America cranked out tens of thousands of documents a year using contract workers in its Simi Valley, California manufacturing plant.  According to one worker there, when he complained to his supervisors that he didn’t feel right about what he was signing, he was told, “You’re lucky you have a job, now get back to work!”   His supervisor was undoubtedly NOT an attorney but rather, an actual employee of Bank of America.

Unauthorized Practice of Law, Explained (in pertinent part)

State Bars from across the country have gone after suspects who violated their statutes by practicing law without a license to do so.  Here’s a couple of examples of those statutes:

TEXAS

As you can see from the following language below, UPL is not just holding yourself out to be a lawyer or doing things only a lawyer could do without being licensed.  This statute applies to a whole range of concerns, which are then determined on an individual basis (I highlighted the pertinent parts):

SUBCHAPTER G. UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

Sec. 81.101. DEFINITION. (a) In this chapter the “practice of law” means the preparation of a pleading or other document incident to an action or special proceeding or the management of the action or proceeding on behalf of a client before a judge in court as well as a service rendered out of court, including the giving of advice or the rendering of any service requiring the use of legal skill or knowledge, such as preparing a will, contract, or other instrument, the legal effect of which under the facts and conclusions involved must be carefully determined.

(b) The definition in this section is not exclusive and does not deprive the judicial branch of the power and authority under both this chapter and the adjudicated cases to determine whether other services and acts not enumerated may constitute the practice of law.

——-

Could an assignment be that “other document incident to an action or special proceeding”, such as a foreclosure wherein that document is given legal force and effect by the court in the taking of someone’s home?  Texas also has statutes that cover the recording of false documents:

Tex. Pen.Code, Title 7, Ch. 32, § 32.46(a)(1) makes it a felony to cause a forged or fraudulent document to be filed or recorded.

1. Common Law Fraud: To sustain a cause of action for actual fraud, the plaintiffs must prove (1) the defendant made a material representation that was false; (2) the defendant knew the representation was false or made it recklessly as a positive assertion without any knowledge of its truth; (3) the defendant intended to induce plaintiffs to act on the representation; and (4) plaintiffs actually and justifiably relied on the representation and thereby suffered damages. See Ernst & Young, L.L.P. v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 51 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2001); 2. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 12.002 allows for recovery of up to $10,000 per fraudulent document; 3. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.003 provides for a 2-year challenge to recorded documents.

——-

Sadly, the two-year challenge to phony documents was probably put there by some self-serving legislators who were bought off by the banks, who knew that at some point, the suspect document might be discovered; however, it appears to run in conflict with the felony penal code’s mandates.  So which carries more weight? The penal code or the civil code?   If the penal code was enforced, the sheriff’s enforcing the laws couldn’t say, “Oh, it’s a civil matter. Take it up with the judge.”, as he’s kicking you to the curb.  A felony action runs longer than Texas’s civil code statute.

FLORIDA

Sadly, Florida Statutes only cover holding one’s self out as an attorney when one is not, but several case studies have presented us (below), with some interesting overviews about real property law:

” … the Court has held that it constitutes the unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer to prepare a warranty deed, quitclaim deed, land trusts, leases and mortgage agreements. The Florida Bar v. Irizarry, 268 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1972); The Florida Bar v. Hughes, 697 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1997); The Florida Bar v. Lister, 662 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1995); The Florida Bar v. Valdes, 464 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1985).”

UPL in Florida is a third-degree felony.  Florida appears very non-committal in its commentaries on what broadly constitutes UPL; however, as seen below from the General UPL Definitions, document manufacturing without a supervising attorney appears to be a real “gray area” (that needs some attention):

10-2. DEFINITIONS RULE 10-2.1 GENERALLY

Whenever used in these rules the following words or terms have the following meaning unless the use of the word or term clearly indicates a different meaning:

(a) Unlicensed Practice of Law. The unlicensed practice of law means the practice of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.

(b) Paralegal or Legal Assistant. A paralegal or legal assistant is a person qualified by education, training, or work experience, who works under the supervision of a member of The Florida Bar, an out-of-state lawyer engaged in the authorized practice of law in Florida or a foreign lawyer engaged in the authorized practice of law in Florida and who performs specifically delegated substantive legal work for which the supervising lawyer is responsible. A nonlawyer or a group of nonlawyers may not offer legal services directly to the public by employing a lawyer to provide the lawyer supervision required under this rule. It constitutes the unlicensed practice of law for a person who does not meet the definition of paralegal or legal assistant to use the title paralegal, legal assistant, or other similar term in offering to provide or in providing services directly to the public.

——-

Florida also has a felony perjury statute with teeth in it, as it has a civil component attached:

817.535 Unlawful filing of false documents or records against real or personal property.

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “File” means to present an instrument for recording in an official record or to cause an instrument to be presented for recording in an official record.
(b) “Filer” means the person who presents an instrument for recording in an official record or causes an instrument to be presented for recording in an official record.
(c) “Instrument” means any judgment, mortgage, assignment, pledge, lien, financing statement, encumbrance, deed, lease, bill of sale, agreement, mortgage, notice of claim of lien, notice of levy, promissory note, mortgage note, release, partial release or satisfaction of any of the foregoing, or any other document that relates to or attempts to restrict the ownership, transfer, or encumbrance of or claim against real or personal property, or any interest in real or personal property.
(d) “Official record” means the series of instruments, regardless of how they are maintained, which a clerk of the circuit court, or any person or entity designated by general law, special law, or county charter, is required or authorized by law to record. The term also includes a series of instruments pertaining to the Uniform Commercial Code filed with the Secretary of State or with any entity under contract with the Secretary of State to maintain Uniform Commercial Code records and a database of judgment liens maintained by the Secretary of State.

(e) “Public officer or employee” means, but is not limited to:

1. A person elected or appointed to a local, state, or federal office, including any person serving on an advisory body, board, commission, committee, council, or authority.
2. An employee of a state, county, municipal, political subdivision, school district, educational institution, or special district agency or entity, including judges, attorneys, law enforcement officers, deputy clerks of court, and marshals.
3. A state or federal executive, legislative, or judicial officer, employee, or volunteer authorized to perform actions or services for any state or federal executive, legislative, or judicial office, or agency.
4. A person who acts as a general or special magistrate, auditor, arbitrator, umpire, referee, hearing officer, or consultant to any state or local governmental entity.
5. A person who is a candidate for public office or judicial position.
(2)(a) A person who files or directs a filer to file, with the intent to defraud or harass another, any instrument containing a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation that purports to affect an owner’s interest in the property described in the instrument commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) A person who violates paragraph (a) a second or subsequent time commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) If a person is convicted of violating subsection (2) and the owner of the property subject to the false instrument is a public officer or employee, the offense shall be reclassified as follows:

(a) In the case of a felony of the third degree, to a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) In the case of a felony of the second degree, to a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4)(a) If a person is convicted of violating subsection (2) and the person committed the offense while incarcerated in a jail or correctional institution or while participating in a pretrial diversion program under any form of pretrial release or bond, on probation or parole, or under any postrelease supervision, the offense shall be reclassified as follows:

1. In the case of a felony of the third degree, to a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
2. In the case of a felony of the second degree, to a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) If a person’s offense has been reclassified pursuant to this subsection, the sentencing court shall issue a written finding that the offense occurred while incarcerated in a jail or correctional institution and direct that a copy of the written finding and judgment of conviction be forwarded to the appropriate state institution or county facility for consideration of disciplinary action and forfeiture of all gain-time or any early release credits accumulated up to the date of the violation.

(5) If the person is convicted of violating subsection (2) and the owner of the property covered by the false instrument incurs financial loss as a result of the instrument being recorded in the official record, including costs and attorney fees incurred in correcting, sealing, or removing the false instrument from the official record as described herein, the offense shall be reclassified as follows:

(a) In the case of a felony of the third degree, to a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) In the case of a felony of the second degree, to a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) A person who fraudulently records a claim of lien in the official records pursuant to part I of chapter 713 is subject to the fraud provisions of s. 713.31 and not this section.
(7) If a person is convicted of violating this section, the sentencing court shall issue an order declaring the instrument forming the basis of the conviction null and void and may enjoin the person from filing any instrument in an official record absent prior review and approval for filing by a circuit or county court judge. The sentencing court may also order the instrument forming the basis of the conviction sealed from the official record and removed from any applicable electronic database used for recording instruments in the official record.
(8)(a) Any person adversely affected by an instrument filed in the official record which contains a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation has a civil cause of action under this section without regard to whether criminal charges are pursued under subsection (2). A notice of lis pendens in accord with s. 48.23 shall be filed which specifically describes the instrument under challenge and the real or personal property affected by the instrument.

(b) Upon a finding that the instrument contains a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation such that the instrument does not establish a legitimate property or lien interest in favor of another person:

1. The court shall determine whether the entire instrument or certain parts thereof are null and void ab initio. If the court finds the instrument void in its entirety, it may order the instrument sealed from the official record and removed from any electronic database used for indexing or locating instruments in the official record. The court may also, permanently or for a period of time, enjoin the defendant who filed the instrument or who directed the filer to file the instrument from filing or directing a person to file an instrument in the official records without prior review and approval for filing by a circuit or county court judge, provided that as to third parties who may have given value for an interest described or granted by any instrument filed in violation of the injunction, the instrument shall be deemed validly filed and provides constructive notice, notwithstanding any failure to comply with the terms of the injunction.
2. Upon a finding of intent to defraud or harass, the court or jury shall award actual damages and punitive damages, subject to the criteria in s. 768.72, to the person adversely affected by the instrument. The court may also levy a civil penalty of $2,500 for each instrument determined to be in violation of subsection (2).
3. The court may grant such other relief or remedy that the court determines is just and proper within its sound judicial discretion.
(c) The prevailing party in such a suit is entitled to recover costs and reasonable attorney fees.
(d) The custodian of any official record shall, upon payment of appropriate fees, provide a certified copy of the sealed instrument to the party seeking relief under this section for use in subsequent court proceedings; in addressing or correcting adverse effects upon the person’s credit or property rights, or reporting the matter for investigation and prosecution; or in response to a subpoena seeking the instrument for criminal investigative or prosecution purposes.
(e) Upon request, the custodian of any official record shall, upon payment of appropriate fees, provide a certified copy of the sealed instrument to any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency.
(f) If feasible, the custodian of the official record where the instrument is recorded shall record any court order finding that the instrument is null and void in its entirety or in certain parts thereof.
(g) An instrument removed from an electronic database used for recording instruments in the public record pursuant to this section shall be maintained in a manner in which the instrument can be reduced to paper form.
(9) A government agency may provide legal representation to a public officer or employee if the instrument at issue appears to have been filed to defraud or harass the public officer or employee in his or her official capacity. If the public officer or employee is the prevailing party, the award of reasonable attorney fees shall be paid to the government agency that provided the legal representation.
(10) This section does not apply to the procedures for sealing or expunging criminal history records as provided in chapter 943.
History.s. 1, ch. 2013-228.

——-

The foregoing is some pretty substantive stuff, eh?   Now let’s examine a couple of the key items that got Florida foreclosure mill attorney (su casa, mi casa) David J. Stern disbarred:

In Count One of the Complaint that got him disbarred, at Paragraph 6:

During all times material, respondent elevated several staff to managerial/supervisory positions in the Stern law firm, including, but not limited to, attorneys Beverly McComas and Miriam Mendieta, and nonlawyer, Cheryl Samons, who was the office manager of the foreclosure department and/or manager of operations.

Cheryl Samons’ signature (as you may have been aware) showed up on thousands of documents as an Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., many times utilizing a notary (Terry Rice) whose commission was not valid at the time of acknowledgment.  These documents were then recorded in land records all over Florida and used to foreclose on unsuspecting homeowners.

Paragraphs 9 , 14 and 16 (of the Bar Complaint further stated:

(9) In their supervisory capacity, Mendieta, McComas, and Samons were accountable and answerable only to David J. Stern as the managing attorney and sole shareholder of the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A.

(14) Ultimately, the firm’s supervisory echelon employees such as Mensieta, McComas, and Samons, due to their extensive supervisory and managerial duties and responsibilities were given annual salaries that ranged from $200,000 to $600,000.

(16) David J. Stern’s lack of supervisory oversight, together with that of the supervisory echelon, contributed to many allegations of misconduct, including many judicial referrals to the Bar, on the part of the Stern law firm and its associates, which included, but were not limited to: (B) Improperly executed and/or improperly notarized documents, including, but not limited to, assignments of mortgage, and affidavits of reasonable attorneys’ fees …”

So if David J. Stern was not directly supervising the activities of Cheryl Samons, she could pretty much do whatever she wanted, including drafting documents that contained false and misrepresentative information (under Florida Criminal Code § 817.535).

Don’t you think that these third-party document mills operate in much the same way?   Without attorney supervision?   Exactly how much did Cheryl Samons get paid?

What is so different from what David J. Stern got disbarred for … and Lorraine M. Brown went to prison for … that these robosigners and their respective notaries can’t be held to the same criminal standards?  All of the depositions I’ve read of Stern Law Firm employees say nothing about how much anyone got paid and none of them appear to inquire as to the accuracy of the information contained on the document, with the exception of authority vested in the signer by MERS.

CALIFORNIA

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE – BPC

DIVISION 3. PROFESSIONS AND VOCATIONS GENERALLY [5000 – 9998.11]

( Heading of Division 3 added by Stats. 1939, Ch. 30. )

CHAPTER 4. Attorneys [6000 – 6243]

( Chapter 4 added by Stats. 1939, Ch. 34. )

ARTICLE 7. Unlawful Practice of Law [6125 – 6133]

( Article 7 added by Stats. 1939, Ch. 34. )

6125.

No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active licensee of the State Bar.

(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 659, Sec. 89. (AB 3249) Effective January 1, 2019.)

6126.

(a) Any person advertising or holding himself or herself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an active licensee of the State Bar, or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in this state at the time of doing so, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the person shall be confined in a county jail for not less than 90 days, except in an unusual case where the interests of justice would be served by imposition of a lesser sentence or a fine. If the court imposes only a fine or a sentence of less than 90 days for a second or subsequent conviction under this subdivision, the court shall state the reasons for its sentencing choice on the record.

(b) Any person who has been involuntarily enrolled as an inactive licensee of the State Bar, or whose license has been suspended, or has been disbarred, or has resigned from the State Bar with charges pending, and thereafter practices or attempts to practice law, advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing or otherwise entitled to practice law, is guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code or in a county jail for a period not to exceed six months. However, any person who has been involuntarily enrolled as an inactive licensee of the State Bar pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 6007 and who knowingly thereafter practices or attempts to practice law, or advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing or otherwise entitled to practice law, is guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code or in a county jail for a period not to exceed six months.

(c) The willful failure of a licensee of the State Bar, or one who has resigned or been disbarred, to comply with an order of the Supreme Court to comply with Rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court, constitutes a crime punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code or in a county jail for a period not to exceed six months.

(d) The penalties provided in this section are cumulative to each other and to any other remedies or penalties provided by law.

(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 659, Sec. 90. (AB 3249) Effective January 1, 2019.)

6126.3.

(a) In addition to any criminal penalties pursuant to Section 6126 or to any contempt proceedings pursuant to Section 6127, the courts of the state shall have the jurisdiction provided in this section when a person advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing or entitled to practice law, or otherwise practices law, without being an active licensee of the State Bar or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in this state at the time of doing so.

(b) The State Bar, or the superior court on its own motion, may make application to the superior court for the county where the person described in subdivision (a) maintains or more recently has maintained his or her principal office for the practice of law or where he or she resides, for assumption by the court of jurisdiction over the practice to the extent provided in this section. In any proceeding under this section, the State Bar shall be permitted to intervene and to assume primary responsibility for conducting the action.

(c) An application made pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be verified, and shall state facts showing all of the following:

(1) Probable cause to believe that the facts set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 6126 have occurred.

(2) The interest of the applicant.

(3) Probable cause to believe that the interests of a client or of an interested person or entity will be prejudiced if the proceeding is not maintained.

——-

As you can see from California’s statutes, there really isn’t much in the way of disciplinary punishment for those actually “doing the deed”, other than felony perjury under the Penal Code:

PENAL CODE – PEN

PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 – 680]

  ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )

TITLE 7. OF CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE [92 – 186.34]

  ( Title 7 enacted 1872. )

CHAPTER 4. Forging, Stealing, Mutilating, and Falsifying Judicial and Public Records and Documents [112 – 117]

  ( Chapter 4 enacted 1872. )

115.  

(a) Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office within this state, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered, or recorded under any law of this state or of the United States, is guilty of a felony.

(b) Each instrument which is procured or offered to be filed, registered, or recorded in violation of subdivision (a) shall constitute a separate violation of this section.

(c) Except in unusual cases where the interests of justice would best be served if probation is granted, probation shall not be granted to, nor shall the execution or imposition of sentence be suspended for, any of the following persons:

(1) Any person with a prior conviction under this section who is again convicted of a violation of this section in a separate proceeding.

(2) Any person who is convicted of more than one violation of this section in a single proceeding, with intent to defraud another, and where the violations resulted in a cumulative financial loss exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).

(d) For purposes of prosecution under this section, each act of procurement or of offering a false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded shall be considered a separately punishable offense.

(e) (1) After a person is convicted of a violation of this section, or a plea is entered whereby a charge alleging a violation of this section is dismissed and waiver is obtained pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, upon written motion of the prosecuting agency, the court, after a hearing described in subdivision (f), shall issue a written order that the false or forged instrument be adjudged void ab initio if the court determines that an order is appropriate under applicable law. The order shall state whether the instrument is false or forged, or both false and forged, and describe the nature of the falsity or forgery. A copy of the instrument shall be attached to the order at the time it is issued by the court and a certified copy of the order shall be filed, registered, or recorded at the appropriate public office by the prosecuting agency.

(2) (A) If the order pertains to a false or forged instrument that has been recorded with a county recorder, an order made pursuant to this section shall be recorded in the county where the affected real property is located. The order shall also reference the county recorder’s document recording number of any notice of pendency of action recorded pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f).

(B)  As to any order, notice of pendency of action, or withdrawal of notice of pendency of action recorded pursuant to this section, recording fees shall be waived pursuant to Section 27383 of the Government Code.

(f) A prosecuting agency shall use the following procedures in filing a motion under subdivision (e):

(1) Within 10 calendar days of filing a criminal complaint or indictment alleging a violation of this section, the prosecuting agency shall provide written notice by certified mail to all parties who have an interest in the property affected by the false or forged instrument, or in the instrument itself, including those described in paragraph (5).

(2) (A) Within 10 calendar days of filing a criminal complaint or indictment alleging a violation of this section, the prosecuting agency shall record a notice of pendency of action in the county in which the affected real property is located.

(B) Within 10 calendar days of the case being adjudicated or dismissed without obtaining an order pursuant to subdivision (e), the prosecuting agency shall record a withdrawal of the notice of pendency of action in the county where the affected real property is located.

(3) The written notice and notice of pendency of action described in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall inform the interested parties that a criminal action has commenced that may result in adjudications against the false or forged instrument or the property affected by the false or forged instrument, and shall notify the interested parties of their right to be heard if a motion is brought under subdivision (e) to void the false or forged instrument. The notice shall state the street address, if available, and the legal description of the affected real property.

(4) Failure of the prosecuting agency to provide written notice or record a pendency of action as required under paragraphs (1) and (2) within 10 calendar days shall not prevent the prosecuting agency from later making a motion under subdivision (e), but the court shall take the failure to provide notice or record a pendency of action as required under paragraphs (1) and (2) as reason to provide any interested parties additional time to respond to the motion. Failure of the prosecuting agency to so notify interested parties under this subdivision or record a pendency of action as required under paragraphs (1) and (2) within 10 calendar days shall create a presumption that a finding as described in paragraph (9) is necessary to protect the property rights of the interested party or parties.

(5) If the instrument sought to be declared void involves real property, “interested parties” include, but are not limited to, all parties who have recorded with the county recorder in the county where the affected property is located any of the following: a deed, lien, mortgage, deed of trust, security interest, lease, or other instrument declaring an interest in, or requesting notice relating to, the property affected by the false or forged instrument as of the date of the filing of the criminal complaint or indictment.

(6) Any party not required to be noticed under paragraph (1) or (5) who nonetheless notifies the prosecuting agency in writing of the party’s desire to be notified if a motion is brought under subdivision (e) to void the false or forged instrument shall be treated as an interested party as defined in paragraph (1) or (5).

(7) The court shall set a hearing for the motion brought by the prosecuting agency under subdivision (e) no earlier than 90 calendar days from the date the motion is made. The prosecuting agency shall provide a copy by certified mail of the written motion and a notice of hearing to all interested parties described in paragraphs (1), (5), or (6), and all other persons who obtain an interest in the property prior to recordation of notice of pendency of action no later than 90 days before the hearing date set by the court. The notice shall state the street address, if available, and the legal description of the affected real property.

(8) At a hearing on a motion brought by the prosecuting agency under subdivision (e), the defendant, prosecuting agency, and interested parties described in paragraphs (1), (5), or (6), shall have a right to be heard and present information to the court. No party shall be denied a right to present information due to a lack of notice by the prosecuting agency or failure to contact the prosecuting agency or the court prior to the hearing.

(9) (A) At a hearing on a motion brought by a prosecuting agency under subdivision (e), if the court determines that the interests of justice or the need to protect the property rights of any person or party so requires, including, but not limited to, a finding that the matter may be more appropriately determined in a civil proceeding, the court may decline to make a determination under subdivision (e).

(B) If, prior to the hearing on the motion, any person or party files a quiet title action that seeks a judicial determination of the validity of the same false or forged instrument that is the subject of the motion, or the status of an interested party as a bona fide purchaser of, or bona fide holder of an encumbrance on, the property affected by the false or forged instrument, the court may consider that as an additional but not dispositive factor in making its determination under subdivision (e); provided, however, that a final judgment previously entered in that quiet title action shall be followed to the extent otherwise required by law.

(g) As used in this section, “prosecuting agency” means a city attorney, a district attorney, the Attorney General, or other state or local agency actively prosecuting a case under this section.

(h) An order made pursuant to subdivision (e) shall be considered a judgment, and subject to appeal in accordance with, paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(Amended by Stats. 2014, Ch. 455, Sec. 1. (AB 1698) Effective January 1, 2015.)

——-

LAW FIRM PARTICIPATION

When it comes to the actual document recording, you may see the law firm involved in the preparation or handling of the document.  Here are some examples:

As opposed to other law firms who are doing the foreclosing that rely on third-party document mills, title companies and servicer document mills to manufacture standing to keep documents beyond arms-length for the purposes of plausible deniability in the preparation of these suspect documents:

NDEX West LLC is another name for National Default Exchange, which foreclosure mill Barrett Daffin (a North Dallas foreclosure mill with offices on the West Coast) is involved in. At one time, then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris was investigating NDEX West.  It is uncertain whether that investigation has been concluded. NDEX West may or may not even be aware that it was or is currently being investigated (unless someone reads this blog and tells them about it).  I was made aware of the investigation through my corporate attorney, who was contacted by Kamala Harris’s office.

When the law firm participates, one must determine (generally through bona fide discovery … and not just your own personal opinion) whether the law firm actually “supervised” the execution and/or preparation of the document; how much interaction the law firm had with the document’s execution and/or creation; and whether or not the law firm reviewed any alterations to the document (common in third-party document mills), wherein you see a lot of surrogate signing, notary fraud and other suspect issues that have to be vetted, NOT TO MENTION the actual information being false and in violation of statutes like the foregoing California Penal Code and the Florida Criminal Code § 817.535.

It further makes one wonder HOW people can create, execute and cause to be recorded millions of documents (which are separate acts of perjury committed under the statutes) and not get burned by UPL issues because they created documents with the purported effect of representing something of a legal nature in the land records without the review and/or supervision of a licensed attorney.  This is something that the legislatures of all 50 states certainly need to take a closer look at because illicit document manufacturing has not stopped, despite what the servicers say!

Then you’d obviously ask yourself … if Cheryl Samons was allowed to do what she did and her acts constituted suspect felony behavior, why isn’t she in jail too?  Not only did her suspect assignment show up in the Harpster case in Pasco County, Florida, years later one of those same suspect assignments showed up in a Hillsborough County, Florida case! strominger assn_stern

The Strominger case was eventually dismissed.

THE SYSTEM OF THINGS HASN’T BEEN PLAYED OUT YET

In Nevada, two title officers with LPS were taken to task on a 606-count indictment, only to have all of those charges thrown out due to prosecutorial misconduct.

David J.Stern may have been disbarred; however, he still is out of the business with a puttload of money from his ill-gotten gains as the reputed “King of the Foreclosure World”. He had the supervisory capacity to oversee his non-lawyer staff (as mandated by bar rules), yet he apparently chose to ignore them.  If document mills don’t have “supervisory attorneys”, what would the unintended consequences of document manufacturing by companies like Indecomm Global Services, Security Connections and Nationwide Title Clearing be?

The reason Samons and others like her are NOT in jail is because we do not go far enough into “the system of things” to make that happen.  We are simply happy to NOT be foreclosed on and that’s good enough for us right now.   Why spend the extra money?

Maybe at a point in time in the near future … we’ll get there.  But for now, until someone rises to the occasion within a legal proceeding, we’re not there yet.  Keep in mind that it is my suggestion to ALWAYS depose a notary first and make sure to have a copy of the office floor plan.  Most of the leasing agents have access to them, as required under a lease, to illustrate “finish out” details.

Below is an example of one signing room floor plan (allegedly MERS’s address in Ocala, Florida, which really belonged to EDS):

The foregoing illustration was actually used in the promotion of the agent, who referred to this location as ideal for a “document manufacturing plant”.  Where in the hell did he get that idea from?   I generally look at these floor plans to determine the location of where the notaries are located, versus the persons executing the documents.  One of Bank of America’s so-called “employees” chose to admit in an interview that none of his signatures were ever witnessed by notaries when he worked in that document manufacturing plant for over three years.  His documents were collected from him and taken to the notary section to be acknowledged, which contradicts what the notarial execution language says, “under Penalty of Perjury under the laws of the State of California.”   Am I making sense here?  I recently received a copy of an assignment of mortgage signed by this admitted robosiger/contract worker for Bank of America, which goes to show you that the “damage” created by the recording of these documents (to that property’s chain of title, etc.) is on-going, despite what the banks and their servicers may think.

CIVIL CONSPIRACY IN RELATION TO DOCUMENT MANUFACTURING

How many robosigners and notaries does it take to form a civil conspiracy?   One of each.   If a law firm was giving any “direction” or “supervision” to the matter of executing and recording these documents, don’t you think they’ve become part of that “conspiracy”?   We’ll leave that question for a solid answer when someone manages to get proper discovery in a future case.  If you manage this, please let me know!  We’d all like to know.

In most U.S. states, civil conspiracy is not actionable in of itself (as a cause of action); however, according to existing case law, civil conspiracy can be used to prove the intent in an underlying tort (misrepresentation).  This is where we get back into document content and not whether someone had permission from MERS.  In my book, a corporate resolution that the Grantor cannot or refuses to prove had teeth in it (which MERS constantly refuses to prove) in order for someone to sign on its behalf poses an interesting challenge.  Does MERS actually become part of the civil conspiracy because of some alleged authority granted by it?  MERS can’t stay hidden in the woodwork forever.  At some point, the courts (I predict) will determine some sort of liability connected with a criminal proceeding.

Again, the system of things has to come full circle for this to occur.

 

3 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

UPDATE: BRUCE JACOBS IS FIGHTING BANK OF AMERICA!

UPDATE FROM MIAMI —

Miami-Dade Judge Bronwyn Miller has rejected attorney Bruce Jacobs’ demands that Bank of America be sanctioned for withholding and destroying records … 1.8-billion of them!  There was no specific reason given for the Judge’s decision.  Bank of America (of course) argues that Jacobs’ claims were baseless.

Jacobs had accused the bank of purging the records while under a court-ordered subpoena (in another foreclosure case) to hide evidence of alleged fraud because the original records may have been altered.  Bank of America responded by stating that the records were copied by an outside firm and returned to the bank and that it was the “outside firm’s copies that were purged”.  Bank of America’s attorney stated that Jacobs’ claims were not relevant to this matter because they were based on claims from another case raised in bankruptcy court.  (See the article below for clarification!)

 

See the following link:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/11/bank-of-america-fights-court-battle-over-purge-of-nearly-2-billion-bank-records.html

NOTE:  Bruce has asked me to repost this!

OP-ED — It is not surprising that the individual documents involved in the particular case are not a part of the scrutiny involved here.  Anyone reading any “manufactured” Bank of America document could understand that in (for a time) in Simi Valley, California, tens of thousands of so-called fraudulent assignments of both mortgages and deeds of trust were created under the direction of Bank of America in order to create standing so it could foreclose on affected homeowners.  Many of these documents contained “CoreLogic” on them.  We know from a certain interview with a former contract worker at Simi Valley (in the document manufacturing plant there) that he was signing documents as a Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and he didn’t even know who MERS was.  Documents were always referenced back to CoreLogic in Chapin, South Carolina.  Remember the LPS debacle?

Title companies and document processing plants that go out of their way to create documents (or be involved in the creation of them) are NOT your friend!

Many of these documents claim that Bank of America, NA ended up with (as an assignee, or transferred to another party as an assignor) an assignment of mortgage or deed of trust as the result of a merger involving “BAC Home Loans Servicing LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP”, which we have researched thoroughly and found to be false, as Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. was not directly subsumed into Bank of America, N.A.   Oops!  We forgot Red Oak Capital and another merger entity.  The point being … if the other side is going to claim that it acquired something by merger … don’t you think it’s necessary to make them prove it?   We take too much of this for granted and don’t recognize when something is that obvious that we “forget” to challenge it. Every state in the U.S. has a civil component for attacking fraudulent documents.  Why is no one using them to their fullest extent?

Of the documents we now find worthy of discovery: (a.) all assignments in the chain of title; (b.) limited powers of attorney recorded for the benefit of the assignee (Grantee); and (c.) agency and/or merger agreements.  The Grantee (or Assignee) of an agency relationship cannot prove that relationship.  It must be legally proven by the Grantor (or Assignor) of the relationship!  For example … how can a Borrower “agree” that an agency relationship between Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. exists on a mortgage or deed of trust when the Borrower has no proof or personal knowledge of such?

This is why homeowners should regard anything involving “MERS” as suspect and (as we suggest) … walk away from the closing table!  It’s bad enough that over 80-million homes have issues involving their chains of title because of MERS and yet people keep going to the closing table and signing these documents without reading them because they just want the damned keys to the house, whether it financially and psychologically affects them in the future!

This is why we see increased bankruptcy filings, suicides and murder-suicides related to foreclosure cases all over America!  There are portfolio lenders (like fsnb.com) out there … why aren’t we using them instead?   And now another round of subprime mortgages has hit the national marketplace and people who got into trouble in Round One are the first ones standing in line for Round Two.  When will we learn that those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it?

In my next post, I’m going to present a 5th U.S. Circuit case where a REMIC won because of a homeowner’s failure to properly attack his case!  This case involves not one but TWO Assignments of Deed of Trust that were not only servicer “manufactured” but recorded in “reverse”, which would appear to have negated the effectiveness of BOTH of them!  You be the judge!

4 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

HAWAII SUPREMES TELL U.S. SUPREMES TO PISS OFF … AND OTHER STUFF!

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — The author of this post does not posit legal advice here.  It’s is food for thought for your own educational value! 

Honolulu … Gary Victor Dubin has done it again!   This time, it’s a rehash of the Reyes-Toledo case “perfected”!

Bank of America, NA v Reyes-Toledo et al, Hi Sup Ct No SCWC-15-0000005 (Oct 9, 2018)

I know it’s a week old case, but it’s worth the commentary because of something the Hawaii Supreme Court basically told the U.S. Supreme Court (who basically came up with their own “plausibility” pleadings scenario when they ruled in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.  It basically gave attorneys that represent the banks the opportunity to get 12(b)(6) dismissals of foreclosure cases simply by removing them to federal court and citing the two foregoing cases, which basically … in layman’s terms … requires a pleading to contain facts that are totally “fact”, enough to substantially prove their case.  That also meant (in Hawaii) that their “Notice” pleadings weren’t sufficient.  In the foregoing ruling, the Hawaii Supremes said otherwise!   That is significant for homeowners living in Aloha because the judicial foreclosures commenced there (because Hawaii is a mortgage state) get to review cases that have minimal allegations instead of having to write a non-fictional “book” every time an attorney had to answer or file a complaint to shut down the other side’s foreclosure attack.

In the foregoing instance, the Hawaii Supremes told the Hawaii Appellate Court and the Circuit Court, “You BOTH got it wrong!”

First, understand that the entire merger scenario presented by Bank of America, N.A. is false.  It did NOT happen that way.  Every time Countrywide Home Loans is mentioned (in any form), Bank of America conveniently neglected to mention Red Oak Capital or any other entity involved in the actual acquisition of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.  That in of itself is false and misrepresentative and Bank of America had to have relied on an Assignment of Mortgage that was “manufactured” to create standing in order to bring its claim in the first place!  Therefore, B of A’s attorneys should be brought up on charges to the Hawaii Bar and either get heavily sanctioned for wasting the Court’s time or face disbarment for committing repeated ethical violations!  Yes, Hawaii does have “Misconduct” as a section in its Rules of Professional Conduct that mirror the ABA’s own set of rules.

Page 3 of this 44-page Ruling clearly cites how the Appellate Court applied the “plausibility” standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court, when in fact, Hawaii has its own set of pleading standards!  Page 4 at Paragraph 2 REJECTS the plausibility standard.  If this doesn’t send a clear message to all of the Circuit Court justices in Hawaii, nothing will.  In fact, this Ruling should be shoved up every one of their asses until they “get it”!  Otherwise, the system of things could see to it that each county in the State of Hawaii “pays dearly” out of its own coffers and each circuit judge is removed from the bench.  This is why we have Appellate Courts (because Circuit Judges do not always, in fact almost always, DON’T DO THE RIGHT THING!) and in this case, the Appellates applied the wrong standard as well.

As to where MERS is concerned … I don’t believe that any Court in the land has been tasked with having MERS and its representatives answer to HOW an agency relationship was established and HOW MERS had any right to transfer a mortgage loan, given the fact that on its own website (owned now by ICE), MERS declares that it has no interest in loans and doesn’t take any monthly payments.  Only one judge in Florida (that I am aware of) did the RIGHT THING in knocking out a servicer’s phony document from the land records because MERS never gave any rights to HSBC Bank USA N.A.!  How then can MERS transfer interests it doesn’t have?  It’s the phony document scam again.  It always has been.  And the banks’ attorneys keep relying on these phony documents to foreclose and no one does the right thing to expose the document for what it is and hold the attorneys liable.

You see, great discovery is like an enema.  It’s supposed to help flush out the shit!   Can I be any more succinct than that?

The problem is, MERS hardly answers any of the discovery propounded against it.  And now that MERS is owned lock, stock and server by the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, how much of a conflict of interest is there in our court systems now?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?  MERS and its counsel seemingly don’t believe they have to answer any of the discovery served upon it.  If it does, it’s with an objection.  Homeowners would rather waste thousands of dollars plying discovery on MERS rather than go after the notary and the executor(s) of the phony document that contains the false representations the bank’s attorneys keep relying on!   It’s no wonder they’re losing!  Sadly, in one particular case I’m personally aware of, an attorney was paid $6,000 (by his client) to take the depositions of a notary and a robosigner that clearly lied on the assignment … and he took the money and spent it and did nothing.  In fact, the attorney didn’t even plead the phony document was phony!  When you have homeowner’s attorneys that can’t or won’t do their jobs properly, you wonder how homeowners are getting wins at all!

Such was the case in Alabama.  The attached case made its way to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Jackson v Bank of America NA, 11th App Cir No 16-16685 (Aug 3, 2018)

Needless to say, the attorney for the homeowners in this case is in real trouble!  To my personal knowledge, this is not the first case he’s had that has been mishandled or improperly filed.  (Let’s see what the 11th Circuit does!)

The foregoing represents a sheer waste of homeowner money and resources.  The foregoing represents a delay game gone wrong.  The foregoing represents clear attorney misconduct.  The foregoing represents an opportunity for a federal appellate court to really mete out a severe punishment hefty enough to put the attorney out of business for good without even having to bring him on on State Bar ethical violations!

The irony of the fact that both cases involve Bank of America NA … and they ended up with different results.

The system of things worked superbly in one instance … and clearly failed in the other.  Ah, the “learning curve” we all must face.  At least the Hawaii Supreme Court appears to have its stuff straight!

For those dealing in Bank of America merger issues, it’s all going to be about the assignments and all of the false and misleading statements contained within them!  Chase isn’t much better with its self-dealing assignments.  Sadly, title companies and the U.S. government are all “in bed” with them.  This is what happens when we move away from the truth and the liars are allowed to get away with it.  They get arrogant and believe they can keep doing the same thing over and over again.

History Repeats Itself … get ready for another round of subprime mortgage lending … a New York attorney just sent me the linked article.  Read it and weep.

SUBPRIME MORTGAGE LOANS BACK ON MARKET … 

Listen to Dave Krieger on City Spotlight – Special Edition on WKDW-FM, 97.5 FM, every Friday night at 6:00 p.m. Eastern.  This week, Dave will be discussing the attached article with co-host, R. J. Malloy (retired attorney and former Clerk to a U.S. District Court judge), along with Jacob Gil regarding Florida’s Amendment 2 campaign.  If attorneys and judges are listening to Dave’s show, you should too!  In fact, over 7,000 listeners dial us up every week on kdwradio.com from all over the globe!  Knowledge is power!

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

SIX YEARS LATER … AND THEY’RE STILL ROBOSIGNING!

OP-ED — 

In March of 2012, all of the major servicers and the 49 States Attorneys General (except Oklahoma) inked an agreement wherein the servicers would stop the then-common practice of “robosigning” documents.  Six years later and it’s still going on.  I thought it best to clarify a few things before discussing where we are today.

Robosigning was a term referenced often by the late Kings County, New York Judge Arthur Schack, wherein he described the act of affixing signatures to documents in such a manner that: (a.) the signatures were illegible; (b.) the signatures could have been affixed by anyone [also known as surrogate signing]; (c.) contained information that was grossly distorted or misrepresentative [in HSBC v Taher_Schack, he noted that the address of the REMIC was at the same address as that of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC in Palm Beach County, Florida], and now Ocwen Financial is acquiring PHH Mortgage, which was notorious for carrying on the same process that prompted the AG settlement.

Typical aspects (I call them “markers”) of robosigning include: (a.) scribbled signatures; (b.) varied signatures of the same name; and (c.) signatures different from the indicated name typed underneath the signature line.

Surrogate Signing came to light in the wake of the discovery of Linda Green, whose name was so easy to sign that everyone at DOCX was doing it: THE NEXT HOUSING SHOCK

As you may know, the President of DOCX ended up in Club Fed.  This conviction (of Lorraine M. Brown) was the only significant “slap on the hand” for bad behavior (of a document mill officer) that resulted in the loss of millions of homes in foreclosure actions through fraudulently-manufactured-then-publicly-recorded documents.

Typical markers of surrogate signing can be found on documents generated prior to 2012, that are commonly (and still) relied upon to tie together a chain of title for the purposes of “stealing” a borrower’s home.  Just because the borrower signed a note and mortgage doesn’t give the banking cartel the right to be sloppy about the way they followed their own procedures involving securitization (or the lack thereof).

Notary Fraud can occur in a multitude of ways.  Each state has specific regulations governing the commission of notaries public.  One doing any kind of research however, will need to pay attention to the regulations of certain states, which have (for all intents and purposes) watered down the obligations and governing regulations of notaries.  Some states do not require a notary bond.  Some states do not require notaries keep a journal of every notarial acknowledgment they perform.  Some states don’t even require that the notary physically witness the signature of the person executing the document.  What those in state government do not understand is that they are complicit in the very behaviors they put Lorraine Brown in prison for because local prosecutors do nothing to stop any of the foregoing behaviors for fear of putting their own political asses in a sling.

Some states (like California) require the notary to sign under penalty of perjury.  Perjury is a criminal matter, which can result in jail time.  Local prosecutors could easily make short work of handling a notary fraud case, simply by investigating the notary … it only takes one conviction to send a message … but they don’t.

As a “marker”, notary fraud could be the result of: (a.) acknowledging a signature that wasn’t affixed by the party claiming to have executed the document; (b.) acknowledging an execution when the party affixing their signature wasn’t present at signing; (c.) acknowledging an execution of a document as a party to a group of signers who routinely manufacture assignments of mortgage or deed of trust (similar to what went on in Simi Valley, California between 2012 and 2016 at Bank of America, N.A.’s robomill); (d.) participating as a notary in any document manufacturing scheme wherein the information placed within the document is false and misrepresentative and was placed there intentionally (civil conspiracy) wherein the notary was directed to participate as part of the signing process with the knowledge that what the notary was doing was illegitimate; and (e.) pre-acknowledging documents and affixing a seal with no signatures placed upon the document.

Self-Assignment is a common marker of the major banking institutions who can’t find paperwork, so they have their own employees (whether the major bank is servicing the loan or not) make stuff up out of thin air.  An example of this follows (with my analysis).  This is also included in the scheme of document manufacturing.

All of the foregoing “markers” are part of a scheme called “Document Manufacturing”

I talk about this extensively in the book Clouded Titles, which has undergone several updates between its original publication in December 2010 and its final “Mayday Edition” on May 1, 2016 because of newly-discovered information pertinent to investigations by this author through Chain of Title Assessments (COTAs) this author has conducted.

Document Manufacturing is the process by which multiple parties are retained by a mortgage loan servicer to act in a capacity of a bank official, using Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (on many an occasion) to further “dilute” the chain of title by obfuscating the path of ownership from the originating lender (many of which were bankrupt and out of business at the time the document was executed) to the current “alleged” owner of the mortgage loan.  Most of this process takes place within ninety (90) days AFTER a borrower allegedly stops making their mortgage loan payments.  Customarily, most of this scheme takes place within the walls of the mortgage loan servicer’s own document manufacturing plant or at a contractor-based, third-party document mill.

The scheme may involve witnesses also attesting to the signature of the alleged “officer” signing the assignment. Many times, these witnesses are notaries (who should know better).  Many times, these witnesses simply sit around the signing table, shuffling documents from person to person, all affixing their signatures to a pre-determined spot on the document.  All of these documents are then bundled up and taken to a different part of the building and placed on the desk of a notary who will then acknowledge the documents and affix the notary seal to each one, claiming the signers “personally appeared” before them, when in fact, THAT did not happen!

The scheme is designed to place everyone in the manufacturing chain at better than “arms length” away from the servicer, as a means to reduce liability.  This would bring this author to an obvious conclusion that it would be more difficult to seek out and depose those who participated in the scheme because of costs and time involved, making it virtually impossible to defend one’s property from theft by document fraud.

AND HERE IT IS … 2018 … AND …

… we still have not gotten past being dishonest about providing solid proof of effective transfer of the promissory note in conjunction with an assignment of a mortgage or deed of trust.

As the result of the OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION, we learned that having local law enforcement investigate matters of this nature was way over their heads (let alone their pay grades).  They are either in denial or superbly arrogant about having to investigate what they said were “victimless crimes”.  The investigation involved the examination of documents in the land records from June 1, 2012 (after the AG settlement was reached) and June 1, 2014 (a 2-year span).   Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. was used as a research guide, because it led the examination team directly to all of the securitized RMBS documents, which contained continued patterns of everything I’ve described in this article.

As a means of education (because I can’t give legal advice) … let’s examine a couple of recently-filed documents:

In Osceola County, Florida, where we previously conducted an examination of their land records, paid for with Osceola County taxpayer dollars, I happened to find this recently-manufactured self assignment:

In the foregoing instance, I analyze the following suspect issues for your evaluation: 

(1.) This assignment of mortgage was done by JPMorgan Chase Bank’s own employees in their document manufacturing plant in Monroe, Louisiana on January 10, 2018.

(2.) The document could have been executed to Chase by Standard Pacific Mortgage, Inc., without the use of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Standard Pacific Mortgage, Inc. is still in business in Irvine, California. Why then did Chase employees, in a civil conspiracy with Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. in Florida, have to then create this document?  Why didn’t the originating Lender create and execute the document?

(3.) If you’ll notice, “Judy G. Jackson”s printed name appears to have been inserted into the document by the party creating AND executing it.  The notary did not even fill in the space provided.

(4.) In this instance, the notary claims that Judy G. Jackson was “personally known, who did say that he/she/they” (the notary is too lazy to delineate for gender and plurality to make the document appear more legitimate). Nowhere in the document does it say that Louisiana Notary Amy Gott, who has a lifetime commission, actually “personally witnessed” Jackson’s signature.

(5.) There is no proof of authority anywhere on the document, indicating that Jackson had the authority to execute the instrument, which was signed on January 10, 2018.

(6.) The document misrepresents the mailing address for the lender as that of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s post office box in Flint, Michigan.

(7.) Notice that the Assignment of Mortgage ONLY “conveys” the Mortgage (and NOT the Note)?

(8.) The document was further obfuscated by the return address (after recording) as that of Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. (“NTC”) in Palm Harbor, Florida (one of the companies targeted as a third-party document mill in the Osceola County Forensic Examination).  Why send it to NTC in the first place, unless NTC had something to do with its manufacture?

(9.) Notice the 1999 corporate seal for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.?  The employees at JPMorgan Chase Bank misrepresented their authority using “MERS” to obfuscate the chain of title.  NTC obviously has a document manufacturing, archive contract with Chase, which could be further played out through discovery.

(10.) You will notice from doing your own research that the use of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to obfuscate the chain of title with a “place card-type” position of the “nominee” (agent), has been used for so long that our very own United States Government and County Clerks and Recorders (who are blind, or reprobate, or both) simply choose to let this lie proliferate.

EXAMPLE #2: 

In the foregoing instance, I analyze the following suspect issues for your evaluation: 

(1.) This assignment of mortgage was done by a third-party document mill in their document manufacturing plant in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on February 21, 2018.

(2.) The originating Lender (IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., now out of business) obviously used Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to transfer its loans within the MERS® System via the use of a third-party mill, who couldn’t even be bothered to put the 1999 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. corporate seal on the document.

(3.) If you’ll notice, the party signing the document is using a non-designated “official title” for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.?   Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. only allows signers to use the titles of “Assistant Secretary” or “Vice President” (not as shown).

(4.) The pre-printed document contains the name of the signer in the notarial execution in all capital letters, which means it was inserted into the document using computer software.  The signer couldn’t even sign her own name in full.

(5.) Geez … every other Florida assignment I’ve seen had two (2) witness signatures contained within the document.  I guess these third-party doc mills don’t care if they follow Florida law or not, right?

(4.) Knowing how third-party document manufacturing plants behave, I would debate the use of the words “personally appeared”, given what we know about signing plant floor plans.

(5.) There is no proof of authority anywhere on the document, indicating that Salicce (the signer) had the authority to execute the instrument in that capacity, let alone have personal knowledge of its contents (robosigning).

(6.) The document doesn’t even list the mailing address for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., even though it claims to have an interest in the Assignment (as the “Assignor”) … pretty blatant huh?

(7.) Notice that the Assignment of Mortgage ONLY “conveys” the Mortgage (and NOT the Note)?

(8.) Notice that since IndyMac was out of business, a third-party document mill had to use Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to obfuscate the chain of title to convey the mortgage (ONLY) into the REMIC directly, which by the way, had a cut-off date of June 1, 2005 and a Closing Date of June 15, 2005, in violation of the governing regulations for that REMIC, which can be found here: http://www.secinfo.com/dqTm6.z1en.htm.

(9.) Also notice that the name of the REMIC is incorrectly listed.  According to SEC records, the official name of the REMIC is the Indymac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, Series Inabs 2005-B.  As far as I can see, there are are least three (3) distinct misrepresentations under Florida Criminal Code § 817.535 in the forgoing document.

(10.) Do we have possible notary fraud here?   Do you not see in the notarial execution where the notary claims to have acknowledged that Salicce (an employee of Visionet Systems Inc.) was an “Assistant Vice President” of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. when in fact, there is no such designation?  And from the scribbled signature of the notary, is it possible she executed this document without the signer being present and does this often enough to get writer’s cramp signing scribbled signatures a lot?  It might merit requesting her notary application from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to see if that signature (on her application) matches the signature on this document.  Also notice the acknowledgment says nothing about “personally appeared” either.

By the way, the bold-faced type you see in the foregoing assignment is part of the boiler-plate software template used by document mills to create these suspect documents.

THIS BEHAVIOR ALSO COVERS “RELEASES OF MORTGAGES” AND “DEEDS OF RECONVEYANCE”

If you think that the foregoing behavior only applies to assignments, you should look at Releases of liens as well. Of particular note is the issue of potential unauthorized practice of law, which is a felony in Florida and most other states, for executing and recording documents known to contain false information (perjury) without attorney supervision.

I have successfully participated in removing (by expungement) a bogus Release of Mortgage out of the land records in Hillsborough County, Florida and the existing “alleged pretender lender” has absolutely no idea it now has a competing lien ahead of its foreclosure attempts.  This is why foreclosure law firm attorneys are so imbecilic when it comes to “getting their story straight” when they try to foreclose on a mortgage without FIRST checking the chain of title for competing liens … which brings me to my next point:

Any lawyer for the banks that comes into court and regurgitates these misrepresentations is likely to have committed not only felony perjury and potential multiple ethics violations … but any subsequent law firm will not be able to continue their tirade on the property once the initial violations have been exposed.

Perhaps it is now time to go after the foreclosure mill lawyers instead of just their clients!

My final parting shot goes against the state district and circuit attorneys who refuse to criminally prosecute these people.  Don’t yell at me!  You elected them!  You and I can both probably think to ourselves what worthless POS these people are if they aren’t going to do what’s right.

If you don’t know your rights … you don’t have any!

Dave Krieger is the author of the book Clouded Titles and has a weekly radio show on WKDW-FM in North Port, Florida covering consumer issues. He serves as a paralegal and chain of title consultant to attorneys as well as performs chain of title assessments for consumers as well as  forensic examinations and audits of county land records, despite the fact he is a disenfranchised citizen of whatever you want to call this economically messed up country you live in.

Coming soon … How to deal with the next financial collapse in America! 

2 Comments

Filed under OP-ED