Tag Archives: forensic examination


The author of this post is not giving legal advice, just reporting what’s out there.  You should consult a competent foreclosure defense attorney regarding such matters, as the contents in this post appear to reflect the court’s intolerance for homeowners who file bankruptcy to stop a foreclosure. 

OP-ED — 

Folks who are in trouble with their mortgages in Florida really need to strategize before taking the plunge into the abyss known as the Florida legal system, where state judges clearly have “agendas”, the Florida Legislature has “agendas” and the federal courts have “agendas” … all aimed at taking of property when you can’t make the payments on it.  It’s not often that the author of this post steers away from chain of title issues, but there appears to be widespread ignorance (or in the alternative, intolerance) on the part of the Sunshine State’s legal system, which makes things “not so shiny” anymore, given the recent spate of legislation and court actions.


All one needs to do is examine court dockets to see how fast, over time, that Florida circuit judges have blindly assumed that the financial institutions coming before them actually own the promissory note they’re trying to enforce.  It would seem that judges simply rely on the blatant attack on the property owner as just because otherwise, why would this particular bank show up in court?   Because they can!  And they do!  And judges give them so much leeway that Florida homeowners are stymied for options.  This is why the State of Florida has so many zombie homes (despite what the politicians, economists and the media would have you believe) and shadow inventory that sits empty because of title issues.  In very few cases I’ve examined have I seen evidence within a transcript that allowed for a forensic examination of the note, to make sure it’s “original”, like the bank’s attorney says it is.  To show you that the inequity between state court systems is similar in nature, I’m consulting a case in New Jersey where the bank’s law firm sent a “cover lawyer” into court with what appeared to be a “faxed copy” of the note, claiming it to be the “original”.  I think most judges, even in light of the foreclosure defense attorney’s objections, could tell the difference, but nope … this judge said that the word of the law firm and the faxed copy of what it self-authenticated is good enough!  Can you believe that shit?

Another part of the equation is the existence of foreclosure defense lawyers who have seen fit to turn the foreclosure debacle into a cash cow by using delay tactics to keep property owners in their homes, despite the probable outcome that only about 1 in 25 cases brought into court makes it past the 810-day mark in a Florida foreclosure cycle.  Knowing that the odds are never “in their favor” (attributing the quotation to The Hunger Games), frustrated mortgagors then contemplate using bankruptcy court to dodge the “sale bullet”. However, things in Florida are about to change.


Effective July 1, 2017, Florida homeowners who run to the bankruptcy court and get their promissory note discharged are going to find themselves without other options to fight the foreclosure.  See House Bill 471 here if you don’t believe me: fl-hb-471  It’s only two pages long and I’m sure you can read (if you’re reading this)!

Simply put, any documentation that is filed in Bankruptcy Court which would indicate surrender of the property (commonly seen in Chapter 7 cases) makes it legally okay for the bank’s attorney to submit that document that was filed in the Bankruptcy Court under penalty of perjury to a Florida circuit judge to get a Final Judgment of Foreclosure.  I see this as a definite negative if you’re trying to fight a foreclosure.  But then again, most homeowners are like electricity.  They want to take the path of least resistance; and declaring bankruptcy is certainly a hell of a lot cheaper than fighting a foreclosure through Florida’s appellate system.

It appears that folks don’t understand the difference between an in rem and an in personam action.  Enforcement of a security instrument, which in Florida’s case is a mortgage, can only happen when the party claiming to have an interest in the property can prove ownership.  An attack on the property through the recorded security instrument is an in rem action (like quiet title actions).  This is why I wrote the book The Quiet Title War Manual (with the professional help of California attorney Al West).  The book explains the difference between the note and the mortgage.  Folks who don’t get it should get this book and read it, because when Al West and I taught quiet title workshops, we hammered these basic principles into the heads of the attendees.  In personam actions are actions involving debt, which in this case is the promissory note, NOT the mortgage!   How convenient it is that the Florida legislature has come up with this House Bill in the wake of the recent court conflicts within the federal system!


Let’s look at the case of In re Hookerin-re-hooker   Once you get past the first three paragraphs, you’ll understand why the Florida legislature did what it did to help the banks fight continuous counterattacks in state court.  Again, how convenient, to avoid further confusion in the courts.  Let’s just legislate this away, shall we?

Now we come to the slam dunk that affects the way the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Florida), has ruled that Chapter 7 debtors who file a bankruptcy action and put forth a statement of intention to surrender the real property cannot later contest a foreclosure in the state court. in-re-failla   If you read the first paragraph of this PUBLISHED OPINION, and then read the background on the case, it appears that the homeowners wanted to “have their cake and eat it too”.  The Failla case simply states: “Debtors who surrender property must get out of the creditor’s way.”   The Florida Legislature (I believe) made sure that a bill was passed that shut off the trough at the source of the feed (so to speak).

No more hogs at the trough.  There have been so many different points of view, it’s understandable that the Florida legislature would pass a bill that state courts could point a finger at and say, “SEE?”   So for those of you thinking that running into bankruptcy court (in any state for that matter) and declaring your intent to surrender the property (God forbid, why would you do that?) under penalty of perjury is so confusing to some when their state court cases get shut down.


It has also become relatively apparent that any homeowner that has placed themselves in the foregoing position and continue to litigate their foreclosure in the state courts of Florida are likely to get sanctioned!   Vexatious litigants are likely to wind up in jail on contempt charges!  I say this because of what happened to foreclosure defense attorney Stuart Golant, 70,  in the Palm Beach County courtroom of Senior Judge Howard Harrison for simply making a motion!

Florida homeowners have had the deck stacked against them by the courts and the legislature in favor of the banks when it comes to promissory note enforcement.  Once a mortgage has been recorded in the land records where the subject property is situated, all it takes is a missed payment and the door to “foreclosure hell” opens to swallow the homeowners whole.   I can’t help but wonder what kind of counseling homeowners have received, given the phone calls and emails I get regarding strategizing an in personam case against them.


In a judicial foreclosure state like Florida, a lender comes to court and waves the promissory note around and claims it has the right to enforce the terms of the note!  It should be required to prove that the note is genuine, forensically.  Have the actual paper tested.  Have the ink tested.  Check for pixelation by blowing the note up on a computer screen to examine evidence the note was photoshopped.  Object to the note being entered as the original.  I believe a majority of securitized notes are copies of what was downloaded into the MERS® System and later shredded, as I’ve covered in previous posts.

Once the lender gets the note in front of the court and gets it admitted into evidence and gets the court to agree that U.C.C. Article 3 (Negotiable Instruments) exists and that the alleged lender has the right to enforce the note, THEN the Lender gets to enforce the Security Instrument, the in rem part of the equation.  The security instrument (Mortgage) is then “ripe for the picking”.  Believe it or not, most homeowners think that the lender is foreclosing on the mortgage.  That couldn’t be further from the truth!  The Lender is foreclosing on the Note.  Proving it has the right to enforce the Note means the Lender gets the right to enforce the Security Instrument, not until!

Bankruptcy Courts are designed to handle in personam scenarios.  In personam relates to debt.  Promissory notes are evidence of debt!   Recorded mortgages are evidence of security interests, not debt!   If you’re going to use the bankruptcy court to alleviate your personal obligation to the note, and liquidate it in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, be prepared to move out of your home!

Thinking twice about running into Chapter 7 bankruptcy court to stop the sale?   The “system” is ready for you!   (Hint: This is why we have Chapters 11 and 13!)  No matter, if you live in any state where you think the “deck is stacked” against you, plan your “end game” BEFORE you go into default, not after!

And this is why I don’t talk about in personam issues much.  Homeowners really should get a financial education before they sit down at the closing table.

Tune into kdwradio.com every Friday night at 6:00 p.m. EST for my radio show, City Spotlight: Special Edition!   Order any of the author’s books by visiting Clouded Titles!

For those of you waiting for the new FDCPA book, it’s almost ready!   Pre-order your copy today!  (FDCPA actions are for dealing with debt collectors!)


Filed under Financial Education, Op-Ed Piece


(Op-Ed, Financial Education) — The poster of this blog is not an attorney and the information portrayed here is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Kudos to Washington State attorney Scott Stafne for posting this where I could obtain a copy of it in my travails in research!

The title of this post reflects what I’m about to share with you, which you should read at least twice over before making any assessments in your case.

Most folks do not realize that when the proverbial “ca-ca hits the fan” that these types of countermeasures may be necessary to defeat the “other side’s” claim to note ownership.  In an attempt to show that the title documents (the assignments in the land records) do not match the chain of custody of the note, one may have to go a step further in evaluating the legitimacy of the note. It is implied here that once the loans were electronically uploaded into the MERS® System, they were shredded because they were trading on the secondary markets electronically and their original versions weren’t needed anymore.

Anyone reading this post should understand the following:

(1) It is safe to assume that prior to closing your loan, your loan could have been sold as many as NINE TIMES (or more in some cases)!  This means that your originating lender, who many times is just a corresponding lender (5% of their own money into the “game”) was paid off BEFORE the closing actually occurred, which would appear to indicate that the document (the mortgage or deed of trust) on its face is false because it does not state that the lender was paid in full prior to closing.  It only shows where your loan originated.

(2) It is also safe to assume that some investor funded your loan and you don’t have any idea who that investor might be because everything is hidden from you!  Regardless of that fact, the issue remains that the banks will falsely assert that you have no right to determine WHO was involved on the “other end” of the financing spectrum, even though there is convincing research that shows the borrower is actually a party to the securitization process because without their monthly payments, the securitization chain would break (massive defaults in any given tranche within the REMIC after 90 days), the REMIC’s sponsor (who already made side bets that your loan would fail) would cash in on the credit default swaps it placed, plus the default and title insurance policies it took out, which would appear to indicate it was paid in full, and then some, for your loan, yet did not apply any of the proceeds to it, but rather went to the strip club and indulged in some blow, booze and hookers, including all those “friends of Angelo”!

(3)  The reason lenders use the “MERS® System” is because they intended on securitizing your loan and the actual process started when you submitted your Form 1003 loan application! The title documents in your “chain of title” will reflect something totally different than what actually happened on Wall Street (the secondary markets).  Many attorneys and researchers I work with surmise that it was at this point (when the MERS® System was utilized), that parties whom you did not authorize to have your personal identifying information were involved in an apparent massive conspiracy to commit identity theft against you by farming your information out to “the system”, where every subscriber has access to your information, whether you gave permission or not for them to have it!

(4) The banking cartels play by numbers and they know that very few of those getting subprime loans have the resources to wage a legal battle in the court system! This is one of the reasons why they “got out ahead of it” when it came to setting case law involving shutting down the “back end defenses” to securitization, which are now the subject of much litigation in the “sand states”, especially Florida and California.  Anyone reading the Glaski or Saldivar cases can certainly understand where this poster is going with this. These are standing cases!  California homeowners have been getting repeatedly screwed over with non-judicial foreclosures committed by servicers and alleged substitute trustees who (if legally bound to do so) could NOT prove they have any real interest (financial or otherwise) in your property.

(5) Forensic countermeasures may be more relevant if Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac claim to own your loan! Many forensic analysts have told me that once Fannie or Freddie (who I believe were involved in the setting up of the MERS® System to hide their own misdeeds) have your loan, utilizing these types of strategies may be the only means of “shutting down” their claim of note ownership!  In of itself, undated indorsements have also become a major part of the appellants arguments in homeowner-won foreclosure cases, as the other side can’t prove “effective date of transfer” of the note.

It is for this reason that I found that the following document may be necessary to consider when planning your litigation strategy: FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF NOTE

Keep in mind that 85% of all property owners who found themselves facing foreclosure packed up and moved, leaving their home vacant.  This violates their mortgage or deed of trust, based on the fact that they warranted they would live in the property.  It also warrants the issuance of an IRS Form 1099-A, which represents abandonment, as much as this poster still regards the illegality of that in of itself!

The remaining 15% of those property owners who did stand up to the banks dwindled the more they were challenged.  Ten (10%) per cent more of them gave up due to running out of funds and/0r the fundamental fortitude to defend their property once the proceedings either started or were challenged in the courts (including non-judicial proceedings that went judicial when the property owners filed suit to stop the foreclosure).  The remaining five (5%) per cent of all homeowners either have been beat down or are still fighting a war that has placed them in a condition of financial suppression, all by design.

These forensic countermeasures cost money.  This poster has other avenues of approach regarding research into the loan itself, even though he specializes in chain of title and quiet title research.

This is one of the reasons that this poster is working on a new book, which he believes to be fundamentally necessary in educating homeowners on how litigation strategies have shifted towards FDCPA-type filings as a means to build a “war chest” to fight the banks.  This book is taking more time than thought because of the voluminous content of case law but is anticipated to be out before year’s end.  There is more to the entire securitization scheme once “fraud on the court” issues become present!

In the meantime, it becomes necessary to plan your litigation strategy if you intend on staying in your home with the intent to “fight the monster” because the judges across America are convinced that their retirement accounts will be jeopardized if they rule in your favor, which I believe is far from the truth.  The foregoing “forensic countermeasure” is just one avenue you may wish to consider.

If I didn’t care about you and your situation, I wouldn’t be posting these types of articles! 

And the truth shall set you free … God’s speed!


Filed under Chain of Title Education, Financial Education, Op-Ed Piece


It is a fact that DK Consultants LLC did conduct a Forensic Examination of the official real property records of Osceola County, Florida, which was an extension of the type of the audit examination conducted in the official real property records of Williamson County, Texas.  


There is no disputing the fact that a team of examiners (familiar with court cases and chain of title assessments) went into the computer databases of each Clerk after submitting a proposal of the detailed work to be conducted.

Similar types of examinations have taken place in Guilford County, North Carolina; Southern Essex County, Massachusetts; and more recently in King County, Washington (on behalf of the City of Seattle).  Some sort of “action” resulted in each case (excepting Seattle’s audit), wherein publicly-elected officials either filed suit or went after the perpetrators in civil fashion.  In Osceola County, Florida, however, the first ever criminal application of a forensic examination allegedly took place.


I say “allegedly” because the Florida 9th Circuit’s State Attorney (Jeff Ashton) refused to investigate the 736+ page report and instead turned it over to the Osceola County Sheriff to investigate.  I still understand, from veiled threats from the Sheriff’s office, that I am still a target.  I cannot understand why.  I was contacted by the Clerk.  I did not solicit the Clerk.  I entered into a contract.  I delivered on what I promised.  The results were not what law enforcement obviously wanted to investigate.   That simple.

The report took 5-1/2 months to complete.  Several of the team’s examiners actually participated in the additional research, giving of their own time and energies to ferret out the issues presented in the report.

How did they know HOW to do this?  By preparing chain of title assessments (COTAs)!

This is one of the reasons I go around the country teaching the basics of chain of title.  I personally have conducted over 100 of these examinations (not including the county real property records examinations themselves) involving homeowners’ chains of title.  It does not take great effort to rise to the occasion, just the knowledge gleaned from past experience.

The only way to get “experience” is to train for it.   When you’ve done a few COTAs, you can begin to see the given similarities and legal theories come to light.  This makes you a viable candidate for consideration when it comes to auditing and conducting forensic examinations of the real property records themselves (for the county clerks, registers of deeds and recorders).  Yes, you get paid for the work (it’s not handsome, but it is for public service and for the good of mankind) … and your work goes down in history!

The only aspects of these types of audits that hasn’t been explored as of yet is the criminal aspects of the findings.  Trying to find a district attorney to prosecute them is half the battle, if you can keep them from investigating YOU!   Yes, that is a slippery slope in this business, but remember, it’s what you believe in, right?

If you do not know how to conduct a COTA, you simply lack the expertise to audit county land records and get paid by the county as a public service.  This brings me to my next point … Chain of Title Assessment Workshops.  There is one being held in Fort Myers, Florida on October 2-4, 2015.  Check the Clouded Titles Website for details.

I am putting this information out there because more people will eventually be called upon as county officials (and clerks and recorders) call on them to audit their real property records for criminal issues.

If this wasn’t important, why do you think the State and Federal Governments all made deals with the banks to keep the major players out of prison?  Because there is evidence of wrongdoing!   The “undoing” of document manufacturing is criminal exposure … and I can assure you, when push comes to shove, there’s plenty of exposure to go around.

If you have visited the website, you also know that we are preparing an online version of the COTA Workshop; however, this is NOT a two-way street insofar as Q&A, the online version just covers the basics.  It’s great to educate property owners, but the Workshop itself is 3 days of intensive, hands-on discussion, including attorneys and guest speakers. Ask anyone who has been to this workshop and some will tell you the flash drive alone is worth the price of admission.

There will probably be another Quiet Title Workshop however, and Al West and I have tweaked it down to a 2-day presentation (Saturday and Sunday), so it won’t mess up your workweek.

In closing, I have yet to have my chance to testify before a grand jury.  Maybe you will have that opportunity in your lifetime, for all the right reasons.  Knowledge is power and this is your opportunity to be an informed American Citizen.

Just because there are stumbling blocks does not mean they cannot be overcome.  The pendulum is swinging back in favor of homeowners, provided their cases are properly plead and argued.  The COTA Workshop gets to the heart of the chain of title.  This is where it all started, way back when.   Be of part of history and get educated!  Make plans to attend now and visit the website to register!





Filed under Breaking News, Chain of Title Education, Financial Education, Quiet Title Education


For those of you in the know … here’s another “heads up”!  FYI:

I will be on the Alex Jones Nightly News next week.    Check http://www.infowars.com  for show information!

I will be discussing the latest information in the battle to save homeowners from bank and recording fraud!  Highlighting this event will be the latest issues surrounding the Osceola County, Florida Real Property Records Forensic Examination.  Nightly News Host Lee Ann MacAdoo and I will be going over the attempts to smear Armando Ramirez, the Osceola County, Florida Circuit Clerk of Courts, myself and the report.  You won’t want to miss this, as I’m going to be leveling some serious charges on this program!   My attorney network is backing me 100%.  To them, what happened here means I’m “over the target”!   Tune in and watch me “push the buttons”!   What I did in my past pales in comparison to the frauds the banks have plied on homeowners all across the country and what is happening now regarding the on-going criminal investigation in Osceola County, Florida!

Those of you that have the ability to do Chain of Title Assessments for homeowners need to get prepared.  To that end, I will be doing a series of tapings throughout the rest of this year to put COTA training on the Clouded Titles website!  So, you can sit in the comfort of your home and take the COTA Workshop at your very own computer without having to travel long distances to take the classes (unless you want to).  As always, these workshops are for educational purposes only and do not constitute the rendering of legal advice!

Attorney Robert M. Janes and I are also taping some UCC and Foreclosure Defense segments for airing on the Clouded Titles website as well!  You’ll want to take advantage of these educational interviews and learn all you can about applications of the Uniform Commercial Code as this might apply to your specific case!

The Quiet Title Workshops will still be “on location” and Quiet Title Superlawyer Al West and I have figured out how to get them down to a 2-day event to help you save time and money getting the education you need to draft and litigate quiet title actions!  Another workshop is planned for this fall.

Stay tuned for more exciting information!




Filed under Breaking News, Chain of Title Education


The author of this post is a consultant to attorneys and county clerks and has himself participated in (along with a team of skilled auditors and examiners) BOTH processes described here.  The opinions posted are that of the author and do not constitute the rendering of legal advice. 

I am getting a lot of feedback these days from homeowners who are viewing my handiwork and wanting the same types of processes to be conducted in their respective counties.  With that in mind, I thought I’d take the time to explain the differences between the two (if I’ve hadn’t done so earlier), for clarification purposes.


In this process, a certain time frame is determined as the subject of the audit. Generally, I like to look two years before and after a given target date.  Some county clerks have asked me to submit a bid based on a much smaller time frame, which I feel is inadequate because the level of “activity” within a set small period of time will not produce quantifiable results.  The City of Seattle put out for bids a 6-month time frame, from January 1 – June 1 of 2013, to determine whether foreclosures involving MERS are valid given the Bain decision.  In deed of trust states (non-judicial), where foreclosure is effectuated by publication and sale, there is no valid way to legally determine what the City of Seattle was asking for without involving a legal component, which would indicate to this author that the city fathers weren’t really serious about digging into the real facts at issue, like:

1. Since the “MERS Rider” was approved for use (as of April, 2014) in closings, how many deeds of trust executed after that date are tainted with the Rider in question?

This statistical data would have been useful to determine HOW and as to specific count, HOW MANY homeowners succumbed to contractually obligating themselves in allowing MERS into their chains of title, whether MERS was only a beneficiary of record or not. To my understanding, this was not incorporated into the “audit”, which Marie McDonnell of McDonnell Property Analytics was awarded the contract for.

2. The Bain decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Washington in August of 2012.  Logistically, this isn’t something that MERS just goes out (like the SuperBowl merchandising firms do) and makes up memorabilia (in this case paperwork representing a legal counter-strategy) that will immediately be put out for public consumption following a “win for our side”.  How then, with only a 6-month statistical review, can anyone determine WHAT counterpunch was used, or whether the servicers (who really employ the robosigners who are doing their dirty work) even care whether or not the assignments of deed of trust are valid?

If you’re looking for robosigning, you’ll find evidence of it everywhere.  In every county’s land records in America.  It doesn’t matter whether the county takes a 6 day or 6 month or 6 year period (assumedly after 2003, forward), you’re going to find evidence of that and document manufacturing.  In deed of trust states, you’re limited as to WHAT data you can procure.  In King County, Washington, you can only see who the originating lender was on the deed of trust because the King County Recorder (Auditor) has purposefully blocked online access to viewing deeds of trust.  However, you can see the assignments and releases every day of the year if you want to.  Without examining the full details, how can you come to any valid conclusions, given that there are different “form” documents of deeds of trusts and mortgages?

3. King County, Washington’s “recorder”/”auditor” is nothing but a MERS Ministerial Minion.  Like many county recorders and registers of deeds (with the exception of a notable few), they choose to simply receive, stamp and file documents (electronically in virtually all instances) and return the original filings to the senders of the documents.  Each time one of these documents is filed and returned, it is my humble opinion that a violation of 18 USC 1341 (mail fraud) or 18 USC 1343 (wire fraud) occurs).  Does the Justice Department do anything about it?

One would have to actually give a shit (meaning the county recorder) about the condition of the real property records in order to complain.  When a complaint is actually filed, it’s a 50-50 shot that something of any substance will be accomplished.  Generally, the results have produced revenue for the state coffers in the form of fines levied by the State in question and thus a settlement is negotiated to allegedly STOP the behavior.  Yet it continues like nothing ever happened.  The homeowners continue to suffer because NONE of what the State takes in in fines and restitution goes to them.  Thus, it would be unnerving to think for one minute that the States’ Attorneys General actually give a crap about the constituents they were elected to serve, even if the foreclosure mess only affected a small percentage of their populous.  With the “Banker’s Attorney General” (Holder) in power, complaining to the DOJ appears to be nothing but a waste of time.

4. Because homeowners were screaming loud and hard in the City of Seattle, the city fathers chose to simply look into a limited scope of reality rather that just the bigger picture. How can this be?

I would believe that if the city fathers were going to only spend a “novel sum” ($20,000 is what they originally put as a limit on the bid process), they will get “novel results”.  If one of those results requires a legal component, then any “auditor” reviewing the records and giving an opinion as to what they mean had better damned well be a bar-licensed attorney in the State of Washington, lest they approach that shady gray area known as “unauthorized practice of law”.  The city fathers chose to limit the “audit” to City of Seattle proper land records only, which in reality means nothing but “appeasing the local peasants”, given the nature of the relevant nature of the questions posited in the bid proposal.  I cannot believe these people were serious about achieving anything but satisfying the hordes of chronic complainers so they can posture themselves for “November”.  I can’t take this attempt at ascertaining anything seriously, since it doesn’t appear the city fathers were serious about ascertaining “real results”.  In other words, deed of trust states, where non-judicial processes are effectuated, produce limited results.

5. The common precursor for foreclosure in non-judicial states is the filing of an Assignment of Deed of Trust (typically by MERS minions who are employees of some servicer) followed by an Appointment of Substitute Trustee.  What can one really tell from the two key documents?

Without being able to view the real promissory note (because they’ve all virtually been shredded in favor of electronic recording) and not a note that has been computer-manipulated from image files, one can only ascertain patterns of robosigning, document manufacturing, potential false swearing by notaries public and perjury in the land records.  This will continue unless the perpetrators are given stiff fines and jail sentences.

Nothing can be done about the results of an audit if the electorate won’t listen … except to replace them all in November.  If one reads the Williamson County Real Property Records Audit, one can see what I mean about conclusory issues.  Read the AUDIT by clicking HERE:


At least I have a legal opinion attached to the audit by a truly dedicated professional.  I can’t say much for any report that asks to determine whether the “foreclosure was valid or not” without a legal opinion, yet this is one of the questions posited by the city fathers.  How can one tell without seeing ALL of the documents.  Nothing can be fully determined unless there is a valid court case filing to go along with it, wherein the lender (or claimant to both the note and deed of trust) is forced to produce ALL the documents, which in virtually all deed of trust states, they don’t have to.   I can’t help it if the banks opted for the new “electronic age” and screwed up their own paperwork and shredded their notes after they created image files out of them.  THEY chose this process, not me.  I can only assess the aftermath of the wake of the 2008 financial crash and come to valid assumptions that the banking cartels intended, albeit inexcusably so, to distort the real property records using these processes to “bat cleanup” (as it were).


This process takes the “audit” to a whole new level.  These types of examinations generally occur in judicial states, or mortgage states, where in order to foreclose, the lender must hold the note and mortgage with the right to enforce them.  To do this, a law suit must be filed against the homeowner.  This means a civil filing, under penalty of perjury (which carries with it criminal implications if found to be true), where the Plaintiff (bank, servicer, wannabe bank or servicer) files an action seeking to enforce collection on the note by claiming it has the right to also enforce the security instrument (the mortgage) which is the collateral for the property.

When one cracks open these voluminous scenarios, one can then see what’s really going on because one will have real property records AND court records to compare with what was recorded, to see where the real discrepancies are.  It is in this instance that the audit and the forensic examination part ways.  To consider them identical or to commingle their titles is pure folly and demonstrates the lack of education by those who publicly misconstrue their intent.

Here’s what a Forensic Examination will tell you:

1. Who the claimant parties are and what proof they have submitted that they have the right to enforce the note.

2. The key documents discussed in the audit portion of this post and how they interrelate to what is filed in the court records.

3. Whether service of process was effectuated properly (if that is a component of the examination).

4. Whether there were any telltale signs of document manufacturing or untimely presentation of documents during the pendency of the case.

5. Whether perjury (or the subornation thereof) was suspect involving the law firm bringing the action.

6. Whether any suspect documents were involved in the taking of the real property by a party who may not have been entitled to it.

7. Whether there is any suspect evidence of mail or wire fraud or even criminal RICO issues.

8. Whether or not the original complaint matches what was later filed that we all refer to as “TA-DA!” moments, where the lender NOW claims they “found” the original note (which generally means they had to wait until their document manufacturing teams could recreate one out of thin air for the attorney for the bank to run into court with).

9. The extent to how distorted the chain of title is.  (Remember, the homeowners did not have to perfect their lien interests, the claimants in the chain of title and chain of custody of the note have to!)

10. Whether there is any relevant statistical or logistical behavior patterns can be identified (i.e., like the rope-a-dope used in substituting law firms when suspect documents are filed in a court case, with the intent to divert the court’s attention elsewhere and not on the suspect documents) as relevant to their subsequent outcomes.

Oh, and here is where I’m supposed to attach the Forensic Examination of the Real Property and Court Records for Osceola County, Florida, right?

Nope, sorry.  I have not been authorized to release the report because it is under investigation by law enforcement and I cannot jeopardize its outcome.

However, one only has to look at the foregoing TEN items I’ve just listed to get a hint of SOME of what we’ve identified as issues of probable cause (filing of fraudulent documents, perjury, subornation of perjury, notary fraud, RICO, document manufacturing, mail fraud, wire fraud, unjust enrichment, robo-signing, robo-notarization, falsification of affidavits, alteration of sworn declarations, etc.).

Then one can tell the difference between an audit and a forensic examination.


Filed under Financial Education