March, 2011 | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Archive | March, 2011

BLOOMBERG | JPMorgan Borrowed at Least $5.9 Billion From Fed Discount Window

BLOOMBERG | JPMorgan Borrowed at Least $5.9 Billion From Fed Discount Window

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), the second- largest U.S. bank by assets, borrowed at least $5.9 billion from the Federal Reserve’s discount window over six months during the height of the financial crisis.

JPMorgan had previously disclosed it borrowed $500 million on Aug. 22, 2007, as similar loans were made to Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and Wachovia Corp. “to display the effectiveness of the facility,” according to a joint statement at the time. JPMorgan accessed the program at least four more times through April 2008, according to documents released today under a Freedom of Information Act request by Bloomberg News and Fox News.

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

BLOOMBERG | Goldman Sachs Borrowed From Fed Window Five Times [ZIP DOCS]

BLOOMBERG | Goldman Sachs Borrowed From Fed Window Five Times [ZIP DOCS]

[ZIP FILES BELOW]

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) tapped the Federal Reserve’s discount window at least five times since September 2008, according to central bank data that contradict an executive’s testimony last year.

Goldman Sachs Bank USA, a unit of the company, took overnight loans from the Federal Reserve on Sept. 23, Oct. 1, and Oct. 23 in 2008 as well as on Sept. 9, 2009, and Jan. 11, 2010, according to the data released today. The largest loan was $50 million on Sept. 23 and the smallest was $1 million on the most recent two occasions.

Courtesy of AmpedStatus

http://cdn.gotraffic.net/downloads/30110331_fed_release_documents.zip

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

SHAPIRO & BURSON Under Investigation For Fraudulent Signatures, FREDDIE MAC Drops Them

SHAPIRO & BURSON Under Investigation For Fraudulent Signatures, FREDDIE MAC Drops Them

From the Baltimore Sun [link]

Freddie Mac has instructed its mortgage servicers to stop referring foreclosure cases to Shapiro & Burson, the Virginia law firm accused of improper handling of more than 1,000 deeds for Maryland homes in foreclosure, the mortgage giant reported this week.

Prosecutors in Prince George’s County began investigating the firm in March after a paralegal formerly employed there filed a complaint alleging that deeds and foreclosure paperwork contained fraudulent signatures.

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

JAMIE DIMON: Let The Big Dumb Banks Fail

JAMIE DIMON: Let The Big Dumb Banks Fail

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

JPMorgan’s Dimon: No mortgage writedowns

JPMorgan’s Dimon: No mortgage writedowns

From CNNMONEY [link]

“Principal writedown for people who could pay their mortgages? Yeah, that’s off the table,” JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) CEO Jamie Dimon said when asked about the idea after an appearance before a U.S. Chamber of Commerce forum in Washington.

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

COMING- 60 MINUTES SUNDAY, APRIL 3, 2011  Foreclosures -

COMING- 60 MINUTES SUNDAY, APRIL 3, 2011 Foreclosures -

Coming this Sunday, April 3, 2011 DOCx, LPS, Lynn Szymoniak (Fraud Digest), Chris P.  who signed over 4,000 documents a day!

As more and more Americans face mortgage foreclosure, banks’ crucial ownership documents for the properties are often unclear and are sometimes even fraudulent – a condition that’s causing lawsuits and hampering an already weak housing market. Scott Pelley reports. Robert Anderson and Daniel Ruetenik are the producers.

[Source: 60 MINUTES]

[CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO LINK]



© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD2 Comments

From Matt Weidner to Lisa Epstein – Nationwide Title Clearing (NTC) May Find Themselves Like The Law Offices Of David J. Stern…A Company To Stay Away From!

From Matt Weidner to Lisa Epstein – Nationwide Title Clearing (NTC) May Find Themselves Like The Law Offices Of David J. Stern…A Company To Stay Away From!

via: Discovery Tactics Anthony Martinez

MY MESSAGE TO COMPANIES LIKE NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING & OTHERS

When people, government officials or corporations come into the people’s cross-hairs and a decision is made that we will no longer allow, YOU ARE DONE!  I will let history remind you that the proof of that statement is in the pudding.  To all the powers that be:

If you are emotional and acting on emotion DON’T!  Whoever is advising you to suppress freedom of speech as a means to strengthen your position has you ill advised…FIRE THEM!  Do not confuse what you do to turn a profit with being morally correct and sound.  This foreclosure crisis has been a direct attack against the American people on American soil for monetary gain.  American’s (as you can see) are starting to stand up and say “We will no longer allow!”  If you’ve learned anything from what has transpired with the Law Office of David J. Stern, it should be that when YOU get enough negative publicity in the American Press, no one will want to do business or associate themselves with YOU.  For NTC, your efforts are misplaced.  Attacking those who are advocates of the PEOPLE like Matt Weidner and Lisa Epstein makes you look bad.  The robo-signer negative publicity has had its impact but you were better off cleaning up that mess by re-assigning people and assuring the AMERICAN PEOPLE that you will take steps and measures to ensure NO robo-signing exist.  It would be better to agree with the people and show a positive support for the people rather than giving them the finger and hiring attorney’s to attack their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to voice their opinion.  Truth be told, the American people don’t care about NTC or Stern or any other company.  They care about their family and friends and do business with those who will further their needs.  Your moves will only cause greater NEGATIVE PUBLICITY toward you which in turn, will cause YOUR CLIENTS to worry about their reputations and business if they associate and do business with YOU!  You don’t believe me?  Watch and learn how this Litigation Consultant gave you free insight that either saved or destroyed your business.

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

BLOOMBERG | AIG’s $15.7 Billion Bid for Maiden Lane Mortgage Bonds Rejected by NY Fed

BLOOMBERG | AIG’s $15.7 Billion Bid for Maiden Lane Mortgage Bonds Rejected by NY Fed

The New York Fed will instead sell the assets individually and in blocks, the regulator said yesterday in a statement posted on its website. BlackRock Inc. (BLK), the New York Fed’s investment manager, will issue the first bid list next week, according to the statement.

“We had anticipated we would have the opportunity to buy these assets at a fair price by January 2011 and earn a return on them for the benefit of the U.S. taxpayer,” Mark Herr, a spokesman for New York-based AIG, said in an e-mailed statement. “Now, we must make up for lost time and lost earnings.”


© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

COMPLAINT | Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against Bank of America Corporation

COMPLAINT | Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against Bank of America Corporation

ANCHORAGE POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated
,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BRIAN
T. MOYNIHAN, CHARLES H. NOSKI,
KENNETH D. LEWIS, and JOSEPH L. PRICE

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS

Scribd

[Source: http://www.glancylaw.com/]

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Fraudclosure Settlement Has a Long Way To Go, Time IS of The Essence For You

Fraudclosure Settlement Has a Long Way To Go, Time IS of The Essence For You

Read the excerpts below carefully… You’ll be screwed if you plan to wait on any reasonable settlement, just like “HAMP” left you waiting for your mod. Don’t expect miracles!

PERIOD. DONE.

From The New York Times

“We have a long way to go,” Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who is leading the effort from the states’ side, said after the afternoon session broke up.

[...]

Lengthy negotiations work to the banks’ advantage, critics say.

“The banks’ strategy is to run the clock,” a Georgetown University law professor, Adam Levitin, said. “The chances of a settlement that meaningfully reforms mortgage servicing and makes the banks pay an appropriate price for illegal conduct are rapidly slipping away.”

This was taken From Zack Carter’s Article on Huffington Post:

“I am incensed that the FBI has not filed one criminal case,” Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) said, referring to the lack of prosecutions against major banking executives. “And I’m very worried that the game that’s being played here is to run out the statute of limitations.”

#

Oh and AG’s make sure the banks get barred from Deficiency Judgments in your settlement!

#

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

GA SUPREME COURT Rejects Bank’s Definition of “Duly Filed, Recorded, and Indexed” U.S. Bank v. GORDON

GA SUPREME COURT Rejects Bank’s Definition of “Duly Filed, Recorded, and Indexed” U.S. Bank v. GORDON

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
v.
GORDON.

S10Q1564.
Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: March 25, 2011.

NAHMIAS, Justice.

The United States District Court for the North District of Georgia has certified a question to this Court regarding the 1995 Amendment to OCGA § 441-4-33. See Ga. L. 1995, p. 1076, § 1. The question is whether the 1995 Amendment

means that, in the absence of fraud, a security deed that is actually filed and recorded, and accurately indexed, on the appropriate county land records provides constructive notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers, where the security deed contains the grantor’s signature but lacks both an official and unofficial attestation (i.e., lacks attestation by a notary public and also an unofficial witness).

For the reasons that follow, we answer the certified question in the negative.

1. In October 2005, Bertha Hagler refinanced her residence through the predecessor-in-interest to U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank) and granted the predecessor a first and a second security deed to her residence. The security deeds were recorded with the Clerk of the Fulton County Superior Court in November 2005, but the first security deed was not attested or acknowledged by an official or unofficial witness. According to the district court’s certification order:

Gordon, the Chapter 7 Trustee in Hagler’s bankruptcy case, sought to avoid or set aside the valid, but unattested, first security deed to the residence through the “strong-arm” power of Section 544 (a) (3) of the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 544 (a) (3). Gordon argued that under the proper interpretation of § 44-14-33 of the Georgia Code, a security deed that is not attested by an official and unofficial witness cannot provide constructive notice to a subsequent purchaser even if it is recorded. U.S. Bank argued, in opposition, that a 1995 amendment to § 44-14-33 changed the law to enable an unattested security deed to provide constructive notice. Gordon argued in response that the 1995 amendment served only to recognize constructive notice from a security deed with a “latently” defective attestation, meaning an irregular attestation that appears regular on its face; a deed with a “patently” defective attestation, meaning an attestation that is obviously defective on its face, would not provide constructive notice.

The bankruptcy court ruled in Gordon’s favor, concluding that, under the 1995 Amendment, a security deed with a facially defective attestation would not provide constructive notice, while a security deed with a facially proper but latently defective attestation would provide constructive notice. See Gordon v. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. (In re Hagler), 429 BR 42, 47-53 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2009). Concluding that the issue involved an unclear question of Georgia law and that no Georgia court had addressed the issue after the 1995 Amendment, the district court certified the question to this Court. We conclude that the bankruptcy court properly resolved the issue.

2. OCGA § 44-14-61 provides that “[i]n order to admit deeds to secure debt . . . to record, they shall be attested or proved in the manner prescribed by law for mortgages.” OCGA § 44-14-33 provides the law for attesting mortgages:

In order to admit a mortgage to record, it must be attested by or acknowledged before an officer as prescribed for the attestation or acknowledgment of deeds of bargain and sale; and, in the case of real property, a mortgage must also be attested or acknowledged by one additional witness. In the absence of fraud, if a mortgage is duly filed, recorded, and indexed on the appropriate county land records, such recordation shall be deemed constructive notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers.

The second sentence of this Code section was added by the 1995 Amendment.

3. We first address Gordon’s contention that the 1995 Amendment does not apply at all to security deeds. He contends that only the first sentence of § 44-14-33, which expressly deals with attestation, is applicable to security deeds through § 44-14-61 and that, because the 1995 Amendment addresses constructive notice, it does not apply to security deeds. We disagree. The General Assembly chose to enact the 1995 Amendment not as a freestanding Code provision but as an addition to a Code provision clearly referenced by § 44-14-61. Moreover, “[t]he objects of a mortgage and security deed . . . under the provisions of the Code are identical — security for a debt. While recognizing the technical difference between a mortgage and security deed hereinbefore pointed out, this court has treated deeds to secure debts . . . as equitable mortgages.” Merchants & Mechanics’ Bank v. Beard, 162 Ga. 446, 449 (134 SE 107)Fair v. State, 288 Ga. 244, 252 (702 SE2d 420) (2010), so the placement of the amendment makes complete sense. Indeed, no reason has been suggested why the General Assembly would want the same type of recording to provide constructive notice for mortgages but not for security deeds. Accordingly, we conclude that the 1995 Amendment is applicable to security deeds. (1926). The General Assembly is presumed to have been aware of the existing state of the law when it enacted the 1995 Amendment, see

4. Turning back to the certified question, we note that the “recordation” that is deemed to provide constructive notice to subsequent purchasers clearly refers back to “duly filed, recorded, and indexed” deeds. U.S. Bank argues that a “dulyin fact filed, recorded, and indexed, even if unattested by an officer or a witness. We disagree. filed, recorded, and indexed” deed is simply one that is

Particular words of statutes are not interpreted in isolation; instead, courts must construe a statute to give “`”sensible and intelligent effect” to all of its provisions,’” Footstar, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 281 Ga. 448, 450 (637 SE2d 692)State v. Bowen, 274 Ga. 1, 3 (547 SE2d 286) (2001). In particular, “statutes `in pari materia,’ i.e., statutes relating to the same subject matter, must be construed together.” Willis v. City of Atlanta, 285 Ga. 775, 776 (684 SE2d 271) (2009). (2006) (citation omitted), and “must consider the statute in relation to other statutes of which it is part.”

Construing the 1995 Amendment in harmony with other recording statutes and longstanding case law, we must reject U.S. Bank’s definition of “duly filed, recorded, and indexed.” Its definition ignores the first sentence of § 44-14-33, which provides that to admit a security deed to record, the deed must be attested by or acknowledged before an officer, such as a notary public, and, in the case of real property, by a second witness. See OCGA § 44-2-15 (listing the “officers” who are authorized to attest a mortgage or deed). Other statutes governing deeds and mortgages similarly preclude recording and constructive notice if certain requirements are not satisfied. See OCGA § 44-2-14 (“Before any deed to realty or personalty or any mortgage, bond for title, or other recordable instrument executed in this state may be recorded, it must be attested or acknowledged as provided by law.”); OCGA § 44-14-61 (“In order to admit deeds to secure debt or bills of sale to record, they shall be attested or proved in the manner prescribed by law for mortgages”). Indeed, U.S. Banks’ construction of the 1995 Amendment contradicts OCGA § 44-14-39, which provides that “[a] mortgage which is recorded . . . without due attestation . . . shall not be held to be notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers.”

Thus, the first sentence of § 44-14-33 and the statutory recording scheme indicate that the word “duly” in the second sentence of § 44-14-33 should be understood to mean that a security deed is “duly filed, recorded, and indexed” only if the clerk responsible for recording determines, from the face of the document, that it is in the proper form for recording, meaning that it is attested or acknowledged by a proper officer and (in the case of real property) an additional witness. This construction of the 1995 Amendment is also consistent with this Court’s longstanding case law, which holds that a security deed which appears on its face to be properly attested should be admitted to record, see Thomas v. Hudson, 190 Ga. 622, 626 (10 SE2d 396) (1940); Glover v. Cox, 137 Ga. 684, 691-694 (73 SE 1068) (1912), but that a deed that shows on its face that it was “not properly attested or acknowledged, as required by statute, is ineligible for recording.” Higdon v. Gates, 238 Ga. 105, 107 (231 SE2d 345) (1976).

We note that at the time the 1995 Amendment was considered and enacted, the appellate courts of this State had “never squarely considered” whether a security deed with a facially valid attestation could provide constructive notice where the attestation contained a latent defect, like the officer or witness not observing the grantor signing the deed. Leeds Bldg. Prods. v. Sears Mortg. Corp., 267 Ga. 300, 301 (477 SE2d 565) (1996). The timing of the amendment suggests that the General Assembly was attempting to fill this gap in our law as the Leeds litigation worked its way through the trial court and the Court of Appeals before our decision in 1996. See Gordon, 429 BR at 50. We ultimately decided in Leeds that, “in the absence of fraud, a deed which, on its face, complies with all statutory requirements is entitled to be recorded, and once accepted and filed with the clerk of court for record, provides constructive notice to the world of its existence.” 267 Ga. at 302. We noted that Higdon remained good law, because in that case the deed was facially invalid, did “not entitle [the deed] to record,” and “did not constitute constructive notice to subsequent purchasers.” Leeds, 267 Ga. at 302. Because we reached the same result as under the 1995 Amendment, we did not have to consider whether the amendment should be applied retroactively to that case. See id. at 300 n.1.

Our interpretation of the 1995 Amendment also is supported by commentators that have considered the issue. See Frank S. Alexander, Georgia Real Estate Finance and Foreclosure Law, § 8-10, p. 138 (4th ed. 2004) (stating that “[a] security deed that is defective as to attestation, but without facial defects, provides constructive notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers”); Daniel F. Hinkel, 2 Pindar’s Georgia Real Estate Law and Procedure, § 20-18 (6th ed. 2011) (without mentioning deeds with facial defects, explaining that the 1995 Amendment to § 44-14-33 and Leeds “provide that in the absence of fraud a deed or mortgage, which on its face does not reveal any defect in the acknowledgment of the instrument and complies with all statutory requirements, is entitled to be recorded, and once accepted and filed with the clerk of the superior court for record, provides constructive notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers”); T. Daniel Brannan & William J. Sheppard, Real Estate, 49 Mercer L. Rev. 257, 263 (Fall 1997) (without mentioning deeds with facial defects, stating that the 1995 Amendment to § 44-14-33 resolves “the issue that was before the court in [Leeds]“). As noted by the bankruptcy court, if Hinkel and the law review authors thought that the 1995 Amendment altered longstanding law with regard to deeds containing facial defects as to attestation, they surely would have said so. See Gordon, 429 BR at 52-53.

Finally, it should be recognized that U.S. Bank’s interpretation of the 1995 Amendment to § 44-14-33 “would relieve lenders of any obligation to present properly attested security deeds” and “would tell clerks that the directive to admit only attested deeds is merely a suggestion, not a duty,” and this would risk an increase in fraud because deeds no longer would require an attestation by a public officer who is sworn to verify certain information on the deeds before they are recorded and deemed to put all subsequent purchasers on notice. Gordon, 429 BR at 51-52. Moreover, while “it costs nothing and requires no special expertise or effort for a closing attorney, or a lender, or a title insurance company to examine the signature page of a deed for missing signatures before it is filed,” U.S. Bank’s construction would “shift to the subsequent bona fide purchaser and everyone else the burden of determining [possibly decades after the fact] the genuineness of the grantor’s signature and therefore the cost of investigating and perhaps litigating whether or not an unattested deed was in fact signed by the grantor.” Id. at 52.

For these reasons, we answer the certified question in the negative.

Certified question answered. All the Justices concur.

Scribd

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

PBPOST | Surrogate signers” signed countless foreclosure documents – with someone else’ name

PBPOST | Surrogate signers” signed countless foreclosure documents – with someone else’ name

From the Palm Beach Post Christine Stapleton [link]

At Lender Processing Services workers who signed tens of thousands of sworn foreclosure affidavits with someone else’ name were called “surrogate signers”, according to Cheryl Denise Thomas, a former LPS worker who admitted to notarizing as many as 1,000 sworn affidavits daily – often without witnessing the signature.

Thomas said despite “raised eyebrows”  her supervisors never used the word “forge” and repeatedly told workers the practice of signing someone else’ name on a sworn affidavit was legal. Thomas detailed the company’s foreclosure document processing practices during a deposition in an Orange county foreclosure case on March 23.

Scribd

[image credit: I-Robot]

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Florida Fair Foreclosure Act, HB 1191 would waive rights of some delinquent home owners

Florida Fair Foreclosure Act, HB 1191 would waive rights of some delinquent home owners

From DBR’s Paola Iuspa-Abbott [link]

The law would create an “alternative foreclosure procedure” that lenders could impose on owners of non-homesteaded properties with values far below their mortgages or properties the lender deems to be abandoned.

Under the proposed procedure, delinquent owners would waive their rights to defend the foreclosure, allowing the lender to more quickly obtain a summary judgement to auction the property.

The owners would have 30 days from the date of the foreclosure filing to opt-out of the streamlined procedure. If they do object, the owner would have the right to fight the lender.

Scribd

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Testimony of Joshua Rosner before the Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Servicer and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs

Testimony of Joshua Rosner before the Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Servicer and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs

Testimony of Joshua Rosner before the Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Servicer
and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs.

“Has Dodd-Frank Ended Too Big to Fail?” –
2154 Rayburn House Office Building

March 30, 2011

Almost three years have passed since the United States financial system shook, began to seize up, and threatened to bring the global economy crashing down. The seismic event followed a long period of neglect in bank supervision led by lobbyist-influenced legislators, “a chicken in every pot” administrations, and neutered bank examiners.

[...]

Scribd

[Image: Bloomberg]

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Deposition Transcript of DOCx, LPS CHERYL DENISE THOMAS

Deposition Transcript of DOCx, LPS CHERYL DENISE THOMAS

via: NakedCapitalism

Excerpts:

Beginning Pg. 33

that’s when they — well, upon us leaving
anyway, they took up our notary stamps and
everything and destroyed them. But I was
relieved of my duties once moved to
Gwinnett County.

Q. Who — who — I’m sorry, did I miss
that? Who destroyed those documents?

A. I can’t say exactly who destroyed
them. All I know is that Jeffrey
the supervisor in the signing room at that
times, he picked up everyone’s stamp, the
notaries’ stamps.

Q. He took your stamps?

A. He took our stamps. And — and
they were destroying them.

Q. How were they destroying them?

A. I don’t know how. He just said
they were picking up all the stamps, all
of the notary stamps. And they were going
to destroy them, because the company was
closing. And they were only suppose to be
used for that company.

Continue below…

Scribd

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

ATTORNEY GENERAL LORI SWANSON CHARGES ONE OF NATION’S LARGEST “DEBT BUYERS” WITH DEFRAUDING MINNESOTA COURTS AND CITIZENS BY FILING “ROBO-SIGNED” AFFIDAVITS

ATTORNEY GENERAL LORI SWANSON CHARGES ONE OF NATION’S LARGEST “DEBT BUYERS” WITH DEFRAUDING MINNESOTA COURTS AND CITIZENS BY FILING “ROBO-SIGNED” AFFIDAVITS

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson today in a legal filing accused one of the nation’s largest “debt buyers” of defrauding Minnesota courts and citizens by filing false and deceptive “robo-signed” affidavits—generated at its offices in St. Cloud, Minnesota—to collect on old consumer debts that it purchased from credit card companies and others for about three cents on the dollar.

The debt buyer—Midland Funding, LLC and its administrative arm, Midland Credit Management, Inc. (collectively Midland)—has purchased $54.7 billion in old consumer debt from credit card companies and other companies. In 2009, it filed 245,000 lawsuits against individual citizens nationwide, and it has filed over 15,000 lawsuits against citizens in Minnesota courts since 2008. Midland pays for its debt acquisitions with hundreds of millions in financing from some of the nation’s largest banks, including several that sell old debt to it.

“The company put its thumb on the scale of justice to unfairly tilt the collection process in its favor,” said Attorney General Swanson.

The Attorney General said that debt buyers cast a wide net to find people who may owe old bills and often pursue the wrong person altogether or pursue people who paid the bills long ago. In some cases, debt buyers pursue people solely because they have the same or similar name or address as the real debtor. The Attorney General said that Midland has created false and unreliable mass-produced, “robo-signed” affidavits as supposed “proof” of consumer debts in lawsuits against individual citizens in order to obtain judgments against or extract payments from mostly unrepresented citizens, some of whom had no knowledge of any alleged debt.

Source: http://www.ag.state.mn.us/Consumer/PressRelease/110328DebtBuyers.asp

© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE







Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
RR Compliance Consulting Inc was established to provide training and support services to the Loss Mitigation Consulting Community.  There is a huge void in the market for this training since those who are truly practicing in the field have neither the time nor interest in providing this training.
Jamie Ranney, www.NantucketLaw.pro
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives