Tag Archives: Williamson County Real Property Records Audit

GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST – PART 7

(OP-ED, first posted: September 18, 2018) —

The writer of this post is a paralegal and consultant to attorneys on matters involving chain of title, foreclosures and document manufacturing.  The opinions expressed herein are that of the writer’s only and do not constitute legal or financial advice.  Any use of the theories or ideas suggested in this post is entirely at your discretion and will probably result in disaster without the proper legal help.

This is one of those sections which describes HOW “the system of things” is supposed to work.  We all know that it doesn’t always work the way it’s supposed to.  As a matter of fact, we know that in most instances, especially involving the prosecution of foreclosures, it hardly works the way it’s supposed to, especially if judges have “an agenda” or are “incentivized” to act in the best interests of the banks.  We simply can’t have the banks collapse now, can we?  It is this kind of fallacy that has screwed up our entire chains of title, as well as our legal system, with bad legislation and bad case law.

What I focus on in this segment is past cases that reflect the way things are supposed to work versus when they don’t.

“UNCLEAN HANDS” VERSUS “FRAUD ON THE COURT”

This is a slippery slope for not only foreclose mill attorneys but also the courts that hear their complaints.  The Appellate Courts of course can only rule on matters of error in the cases presented to them.  They cannot hear the entire case re-litigated again; in fact, they won’t stand for it.  Appellate Courts in Florida for example, especially the 3rd and 4th District Courts of Appeal, are famous for issuing “PCAs”, which basically means they are declining to hear the case and that the lower courts ruling stands as adjudicated.  This is one of the reasons why I bring this subject matter up now, which is due to the inept behavior of some judges in the lower courts to “clear their dockets” in the interest of justice, when in fact, many of these judges are “seniors”, already drawing a pension, that have nothing to lose by kicking you to the curb.  This is a serious false assumption on their part (the senior judges).  I don’t care whether these judges are drawing a pension or not … they are not protected by sovereign immunity (and neither is the county that they are acting as an employee of, within the course and scope of ruling on foreclosure cases), when they step “outside of the box” and appear as an accessory to something more sinister.  Sovereign immunity does not necessarily go away if an error is made.  However, if the court gets notice of statutory and ethical violations and does nothing to stop it, sovereign immunity goes away and liability for some sort of “wrong” kicks in.  Yet, no one is addressing this part of “the system of things” when in fact, it should rightfully be addressed and properly dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.

For the purposes of arguendo here, I focus on the state courts as well as the bankruptcy courts, because this is not something that can really apply to the extent that one would think in the federal court system because the federal judges are appointed for life.  One attorney in Hawaii, Gary Victor Dubin, has likened being in federal court to committing suicide.  I find no solace in federal court, given the dismal number of foreclosure cases successfully defended while bankrupting the debtors (borrowers of mortgage loans) who all came into the federal system seeking to “delay the inevitable”.  Only an egregious act by the bank would warrant sanctions and there is no singular case that I can reflect on in a U.S. District Court wherein the judge superbly did “the right thing” the first time, without having to be reprimanded for his abusive rulings by the Appellate Court.  Besides, federal courts do not like pro se litigants, as we discussed earlier.  So why are you thinking federal court?   While the FDCPA and FCRA take up a lot of the consumer-oriented litigation, it is safe to assume that these are mostly initiated in class-action form.

STATE COURT ACTIONS

JPMorgan Chase Bank NA v Pocopanni et al, 4th Jud Cir Ct No 16-2008CA-3989

In the foregoing case, the Hon. Jean Johnson did the right thing by calling the bank attorney’s behavior what it was … fraud on the court by Chase and Shapiro & Fishman.

US Bank NA v Harpster, Pasco Co Cir Ct No 51-2007-CA-6684 (Mar 25, 2010)

US Bank’s lawyers could not stand up to the scrutiny of an Affidavit submitted by the bonding company for Terry Rice, the employee who was notarizing documents within the David J. Stern law firm without having a valid commission by the Floria Secretary of State.  The documents he notarized would come back to haunt him years later in another case in Pinellas County, Florida.

M&T Bank v Lisa D. Smith, St. Johns County, FL No CA09-0418

This case was submitted by Attorney Lynn Szymoniak in her review of dozens of cases where fraud on the court was met by Circuit Judge J. Michael Traynor’s Order of an evidentiary hearing with overtones of sanctions for not one, but three separate violations of behavior by the then-Marshall C. Watson law firm.  The outcome is shown below:

M & T Bank v Smith_Order (Jun 10, 2010)

This is significant because Judge Traynor quoted Rule 4-3.3(a)(1) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar … “a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”  (Dismissed with prejudice!)

OneWest Bank FSB v Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429, Sup Ct Kings County (Oct 21, 2010)

The late judge Arthur Schack had seen enough banking malarkey to last him a lifetime, calling out robosigner Erica A. Johnson-Seck and demanding an affidavit under oath of her employment history for the past three years and why a conflict of interest doesn’t exit in this case involving being a signer for MERS, a VP of IndyMac Bank and a VP of OneWest Bank, all in one felled swoop, warning the bank’s counsel that: “… the new standard Court affirmation form states that “[t]he wrongful filing and prosecution of foreclosure proceedings which are discovered to suffer from these defects may be cause for disciplinary and other sanctions upon participating counsel.”

BANKRUPTCY COURT ACTIONS

Sadly, homeowners are put between a rock and a hard place when it comes to phony assignments.  Rather than believe the state court would entertain motions for fraud, which most homeowner litigants come running into court screaming, they think that filing bankruptcy will stop their foreclosure.  One thing is for certain, whether the homeowner wins or not, bankruptcy court judges especially do NOT like to be lied to or have facts that are fraudulent or misleading proffered into evidence, as you shall see below in three different cases.

In re Taylor_US Bkpt Ct E.D. Penn No 07-15385-DWS (Apr 15, 2009)

This Pennsylvania bankruptcy case revealed that Fidelity (LPS) had (at that time) 39 of the 50 major banking institutions’ business in formulating documents for bringing foreclosures against homeowners (and just when you thought title companies only handled closings).  Further, the Udren Law Firm got whacked for sanctions under Rule 9011 for attempting to “hide behind” LPS’s NewTrak computer system in processing HSBC’s proof of claim.  While this is a rather lengthy opinion, the conclusion is clear!

In Re Tarantola, US Bkpt Ct D. Ariz No 4-09-bk-09703 (Jul 29, 2010)

If anything can be more blatant, Judge Eileen Hollowell is not one to f**k with.  In one of several Memorandum Decisions, this case really “takes the cake” in the “movant filed its motion without evidentiary support of its claims, attempted to create such evidentiary support after the fact, and only disclosed its “real” evidence on the day of the final evidentiary hearing.” (Relief from stay DENIED!)  My understanding is that the court was packed with attorneys who got to witness Deutsche Bank’s counsel literally attempt to backpedal when cornered.  The judge had the goods on them (and their lawyers)!   I’m surprised that “the system of things” didn’t go further than it did and take them out of practice permanently.  Sadly, McCarthy-Holthus (or some form of them) still exists; however, Brice, Vander Linden * Wernick, PC dissolved right after they became aware of their repeated “mentions” for illicit behavior in the Williamson County Real Property Records Audit in January of 2013.  None of these attorneys were ever brought up on charges before their respective state bars and their E & O insurance policies still apparently exist.  In my book, Judge Hollowell was being too kind.

In re Wilson_Show Cause Order, US Bkpt Ct E.D. La. No 11862 (Apr 4, 2012)

IN RE WILSON_LOUISIANA BK13_MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Again, in the foregoing case, Fidelity and the Boles Law Firm got waylaid by Judge Elizabeth Magner, who tagged Wells Fargo Bank with a $1.3-million sanction (because the loss of money is the only thing that seems to get a bank’s attention).  This case also illustrates how the major title companies are no friend of the homeowner.  Title companies have to answer to state authorities (State Insurance Commissioners) too!  Do you see where “the system of things” is going with this?

I realize I’m giving you a lot of reading to do in the foregoing scenarios … but I’m trying to illustrate how “the system of things” is supposed to work when the bank, through its attorneys, rely on phony documents that are manufactured to create standing to steal a home.

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE SCARED OF THE JUDGE!  BOO!  (… and the attorney shits his shorts!) 

I wrote in the 40-page piece (in which the expert witness attorney concurred) that foreclosure defense attorneys face a real dilemma.  Like many foreclosure mill attorneys, they all have student loan debt into the tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of dollars.  They got a 4-year degree in addition to 3+ years of law school, had to study and then sit for the state bar exam and face moral turpitude scrutiny in order to get a license to practice law from the state (what the state giveth, the state can taketh away)!

It’s no wonder they’re all scared.  They don’t want to face sanctions.  They want to be a friend to everybody, including the other side’s lawyers that are trying to steal their clients’ homes.  No attorney has the set of cajones to stand up to these shysters unless they have a snoot-full of evidence that can conclusively prove that the other side has come to court with unclean hands.  Which brings me to the HSBC v. Buset case:

HSBC Bank USA NA v Buset_Final Order Granting Mtn for Involuntary Dismis…

HSBC Bank USA NA et al v Buset et al, 3D16-1383 (Feb 7, 2018)

Sadly, Florida’s 3rd DCA reversed Judge Butchko’s ruling, to which Buset’s attorney, Bruce Jacobs told me, “This is war!”  (in other words, “this ain’t over yet”).

Part of the problem might be that the expert witness in this case was NOT an attorney with the capability of reporting the fraudulent and misrepresentative assignments to the Florida Bar.  Attacking an appellate court is virtually unheard of … that is, until we find out who cuts their paychecks and who bonds them.  Every judge is supposed to be bonded, even the senior “fossils” brought out of mothballs that have no problem throwing homeowners out of their homes because they can, without retribution (or so they think).  If the judge commits an illegal act, not only can he be removed from the bench, the county he serves as a judicial officer in can be held liable in certain cases!

We are not asking the homeowner’s attorney to stand up and be counted (challenging the other side’s credibility, screaming “fraud on the court”, etc.).  We let the expert witness attorney do that.  The bank’s lawyer has every opportunity to recant his testimony in both his pleadings and in his oral statements.  If he refuses to do so, then he can pay the price.  We just want the homeowner’s attorney to get the expert witness attorney on the stand and ask him a series of questions.  In other words, we just want the attorney for the homeowner to do his job!

In previous posts of this nature, we talked about the insurance factor.  The direct frauds promulgated by these law firms could have resulted in attacks against their E & O policies, but didn’t.  Any judge who didn’t do the right thing in running a proper tribunal could have faced a judicial review board and lost his bond because it would have been “attacked” and challenged as well.  If a law firm doesn’t get payment for legal fees when its lawyers face the music before their respective bar disciplinary panels, then they have to come up with that money out of their own pockets, which while not being a benefit to the homeowner, it is a bitter detriment to the lawyer, who now has to think about how he’s going to pay off that big student loan debt he’s got in addition to $10-$20K in legal fees incurred as the result of his disciplinary proceeding!

The judge who can’t “do the right thing” represents the county government’s judicial process and has the privilege of sovereign immunity, UNLESS he condones felony behavior in his court.  Then his sovereign immunity can not only be at risk, the county’s general treasury may be raided to pay for the damage he caused!  How’s THAT for justice!

But wait, there’s more … stay tuned!

 

 

9 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST – PART 4

(OP-ED, first posted: September 4, 2018) —

The writer of this post is a paralegal and consultant to attorneys on matters involving chain of title, foreclosures and document manufacturing.  The opinions expressed herein are that of the writer’s only and do not constitute legal or financial advice.  Any use of the theories or ideas suggested in this post is entirely at your discretion and will probably result in disaster without the proper legal help.  By the end of this “series” of posts, you should understand what RISK is! 

WHY INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE “RISK AVERSE”

Like most of us who take the time to analyze the “odds” (remember the Hunger Games … “may the odds be ever in your favor”?), insurance companies make money betting on sure things.  They don’t like paying out claims.  They won’t insure individuals who may have a propensity to do “crazy shit” (like skydive, bungee jump, etc.) that might result in a serious accident or death.  They won’t insure companies that have a higher risk than normal for being sued (for committing fraud, etc.).  They also make exceptions to items within “the system of things” concerning real property, which is where this part of the evisceration of “the system of things” takes place.

SCHEDULE “B”

If you’ve ever looked at a “Schedule B” in an Homeowner’s Indemnity Policy, you will see that things that aren’t recorded in the public records as part of a chain of title are exempt from coverage. Heck, if you’ve looked at a number of the exceptions on that portion of the policy, virtually everything that you could imagine, from encroachments against a registered legal description, riparian right or legal description changes due to accretion or avulsion, virtually every obvious thing that could be insured, isn’t.  Then what is the policy worth spending extra money on?   Because the insurance companies are willing to bet you won’t ever file a claim on anything having to do with title.  That’s a sure moneymaker to them.  Anything that has alleged “coverage” on it (or so you thought) is probably exempt thanks to “Schedule B”.  Get your title policy out and look at Schedule B and you can easily spot what I’m talking about here.  This is how insurance companies make most of their money.  They exempt issues and activities that could result in them having to pay out claims.  The insurance companies really didn’t understand the “risks” that were played on them in the securitization game either, which is why they filed lawsuits against many of the REMICs’ sponsor-sellers when they realized the “game was rigged” in favor of the banks. They were paying out too many claims on the seller’s title policies because the chain of title was all screwed up.  As history has shown us, the sponsor-sellers of these REMIC trusts made off (Madoff) like bandits!

“BEAN COUNTERS”

This is why actuarial tables are developed by the “bean counters”.  Based on past performances of certain professions or activities, insurance companies know whether or not a certain profession is susceptible to risk; thus, the insurer having to pay out a claim to an injured party at some point.  The insurance companies have had years of experience in paying (or not paying) out claims to know which professions and activities present the most risk; thus, they become “risk averse”, meaning, they run away from risk.  It’s like the little guy who has a chance to walk away from a fist fight with a big guy twice his size.  Not every scenario presents us with a David versus Goliath option … and that’s the battle homeowners have been fighting.

AGENCY, NEXUS AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY

Now we come to the part in the “story” where you are dealing with a foreclosure.  Since I started doing research into “clouded titles” and discovered that part of the equation included the recording of certain documents, which make up a property owner’s chain of title, many of these documents appeared to have presented a certain “risk” of being challenged as to their validity.  I don’t have to spend time (here) wasting the effort to explain the 2008 financial collapse and the resulting “cause and effect” of what was finally unveiled to Main Street … securitization … and the sloppy paperwork (or the lack thereof) that eventually crept its way into every county’s land records throughout the entire United States.  Anyone that understands “robosigning” or “document manufacturing” or has read Clouded Titles knows what I’m talking about here.

As was revealed in both the Williamson County Real Property Records Audit and Osceola County Forensic Examination that my firm conducted, despite the fact that the mortgage loan servicers all agreed NOT to produce phony documents and record them in the land records in an attempt to “create standing” to foreclose, they’re still doing it anyway to this very day!

Each one of the parties involved in any Assignment or Mortgage or Deed of Trust had to establish a contractual relationship with one another.  By signing agreements to provide certain provisions for each assignment, a “nexus” (or connection) was created that could tie all of the participating individuals or entities together.  Each individual working within a company acts as an “agent” (or representative, whether an employee or independent contractor) of the principal.  Agency is thus established by the party granting the status (the “grantor” of anything) within “the system of things” … NOT the Grantee (the agent).  The agent however, in tandem with other agents from other nexuses created by outside party contracts, can be held liable for misrepresentation on a document and so can the principals themselves.  If you sign an insurance policy and claim that you do not engage in activities that are “risk averse” and you go out and commit suicide (for example) within a 2-year period, the insurance company will not pay because they learned quickly (ab initio) that people who find themselves destitute (such as in the crash of 1929), take out a life insurance policy with whatever money they have left and then kill themselves (by jumping out a window) believing that their heirs will get money from the insurer, quickly got the attention of the insurance companies, who quickly developed a 2-year waiver of indemnity for killing yourself and conveniently called it a “suicide clause”.

When two or more actors are involved in the creation and execution of a document, each party becomes suspect (NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY) as to taking part in what could be alleged to be a civil conspiracy.  I think many attorneys doing foreclosure defense have missed that part of the equation because they don’t bother to depose EVERY AVAILABLE PARTY that is represented within any given document being used as evidence against their clients.  Why?  Because depositions start at somewhere around $3,000 apiece and most homeowners don’t want to spend that kind of money.  The “other side” will bring their attorney into the mix, who will object to virtually every question asked that is posited to prove that a contractual relationship existed somewhere, with the intention of thwarting anything discoverable that can be used to defeat the foreclosure or to seek damages.  I also believe that many (not all) foreclosure defense attorneys are inherently lazy and would rather do the business model of “the taking of people’s money” [not necessarily at this firm (below), for which I find their name symbolic] and eventually watching them lose their homes anyway:

Not every state actually has a “cause of action” for civil conspiracy; however, every state has a cause of action for …

NEGLIGENCE

… and this is where “the system of things” starts to get interesting.  When the same group or groups of individuals misbehave and participate in document manufacturing scams that deprive homeowners of their rights, they draw unwanted attention to themselves.  Take Bryan Bly, Crystal Moore and Dhurata Doko for instance.  They have all been deposed (more than once as I understand it from watching their deposition videos) and were asked questions about their “risky behaviors” in creating assignments of mortgage and deeds of trust.  At the time these three were deposed, they were all employed by Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. of Palm Harbor, Florida.  By virtue of the name used, one should be able to assimilate what they mean by “title clearing”.   In fact, this company boasts (online) that it has been involved in the recording of over 16,000,000 documents since its inception.  It’s kind of like the McDonald’s of document mills (over 16-million served).  In my book, that’s not something to brag about just to get clients. In fact, one of Core Logic’s attorneys (in a webinar I was privy to) declared that companies making up documents to “clear title” or “assign or transfer” mortgage loans or notes had better be careful in what they create and attest to for fear of retribution under the laws covering the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL), which is a felony in every state that has such a statute covering this “risky behavior”.   Thus, one who KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the behavior they’ve engaged in constituted a felony, could be deemed negligent.  This also goes for attorneys working for the banks that are “suspect” for participating in the “process” (after recording, return to the ABC Law Firm). The law firm’s apparent involvement in creating (or directing the creation of) an assignment in order to foreclose becomes a party to the civil conspiracy.

Every attorney is bound by a state bar association’s Rules of Professional Conduct, each of which is drafted (in whole or in part) according to the national substantive rules promulgated by the American Bar Association.  There’s a section on “Misconduct”, which can be used to punish attorneys who come into court and commit certain misdeeds, like relying on or making false and misrepresentative statements (in the court record or in open court).  These attorneys are held to a higher standard, where they KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that what they were attesting to in writing or orally in open court, could be held against them personally and they could be held liable for their negligent behavior.

ENTITY REPRESENTATION

In “cutting to the chase”, banks and mortgage loan servicers (and title companies or document manufacturing companies who are working with them in creating documents to “clear title” or “create standing”) HAVE TO have a law firm representing them in court; otherwise, they can’t appear.  If we use “the system of things” to “hold the attorney and his law firm’s “feet to the fire”, they would naturally be discouraged from appearing in court to represent their “entity”, which may have used false and misrepresentative statements in a document contained in their foreclosure arsenal.  In other words, you wonder why law firms are “substituted out” right in the middle of a case?  Look at the case and seek out what the firm being substituted out might have done that created a liability for itself that it is trying to distance itself from.  The firms appear to be working in tandem to thwart any appearance of misbehavior that could be exposed for which they could, individually or as a firm, be held liable.  Which is why law firms have E & O insurance (errors and omissions).

It’s all about the insurance … and what’s not covered … that they’re worried about!   More details about insurance and bonding and the court’s responsibilities to NOT indulge felony behavior and the potential resulting liabilities for their actions coming soon to this blog post  … stay tuned!

1 Comment

Filed under I'm not posting any more stuff on here!, OP-ED, Securitization Issues

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