Highlights of the Official Complaint | The Florida Bar vs David James Stern - Details Massive Foreclosure Fraud - MERS

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Highlights of the Official Complaint | The Florida Bar vs David James Stern – Details Massive Foreclosure Fraud – MERS

Highlights of the Official Complaint | The Florida Bar vs David James Stern – Details Massive Foreclosure Fraud – MERS

We’ve come a verrrry looong way from this video I posted on youtube wayyy back on 2/27/2010. Now read the complaint highlights below.

 

COUNT II
[The Florida Bar File Nos. 2011-50,154(17I); 2011-50,216(17I); and 2011-50,511(17I)]

23. During all times material, Cheryl Samons was the office manager for the foreclosure department and/or manager of operations of the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., among other things.

24. During all times material, Cheryl Samons occupied a desk and/or office in close proximity to respondent’s office.

25. Respondent, David J. Stern, was regularly present in the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A.

26. In the hierarchy of the staff of the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., Cheryl Samons answered directly to respondent.

27. Cheryl Samons and respondent communicated openly during regular working hours.

28. During all times material, Cheryl Samons, as Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (c/k/a MERS), or in some other official capacity, did execute thousands of documents, including assignments of mortgage, which were filed in courts throughout the state of Florida in foreclosure cases or recorded in the public record.

29. Associate attorneys in the Stern firm utilized those assignments through filings in courts throughout the state of Florida in the firm’s endeavor to foreclose these properties on behalf of the firm’s lender clients.

30. On a given day, Cheryl Samons executed approximately 500 documents which were either filed in courts throughout the state of Florida or recorded in the public record.

31. Each assignment indicated that it was prepared by David J. Stern, Esq.

32. Numerous assignments were not executed by Cheryl Samons on the date reflected on the document.

33. The false representation of the execution of the assignment is evidenced by the date of the expiration of the notary commission. (Attached hereto and incorporated herein as The Florida Bar Composite Exhibit A are copies of some of the assignments of mortgage.)

34. A review of the first document in The Florida Bar Composite Exhibit P reflects, as an example, that Cheryl Samons executed an assignment of mortgage regarding Lots 9 and 10, Block 4461, Unit 63, Cape Coral, Lee County, Florida on May 25, 2007. Said document reflects it was notarized by another individual, Michelle Camacho, whose notary commission expires on March 24, 2012. A notary term is four years. As such, Michelle Camacho possessed that stamp from March 25, 2008 to March 24, 2012, making it impossible to have notarized the document on May 25, 2007, nearly a year before.

35. Although the documents Cheryl Samons executed, which were filed in courts throughout the state of Florida or filed in the public record, indicated that they were signed in the presence of a notary, in truth and in fact many of the documents were not executed in the presence of a notary.

36. Although the documents Cheryl Samons executed, which were filed in courts throughout the state of Florida or filed in the public record, indicated that they were executed in the presence of a notary, in truth and in fact many of the documents were not necessarily notarized by the reflected notary as the notaries in the office routinely exchanged their notary stamps to accomplish mass notarizing.

37. Many of the documents purported to be executed by Cheryl Samons were in truth and in fact executed by others mimicking Cheryl Samons’ signature, at Cheryl Samons’ instructions and directive. Those documents did not indicate for the reader that Cheryl Samons was not the signatory. Those documents were filed in courts throughout the state of Florida or filed in the public record.

38. Although the documents Cheryl Samons executed, which were filed in the courts throughout the state of Florida or filed in the public record, included witnesses’ signatures which indicated that they witnessed Cheryl Samons as the signatory, many witnesses did not actually observe Cheryl Samons sign the document.

39. The documents heretofore mentioned were stacked side by side on long conference room tables on each of the four floors of the space occupied by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. 40. On a daily basis during the material times, Cheryl Samons would approach each conference room table, generally twice a day, morning and midafternoon, and execute each document.

41. Respondent knew or should have known that the aforementioned improprieties and irregularities committed by his office manager and other staff occurred on a regular basis.

42. Cheryl Samons was rewarded for her loyalty and malfeasance.

43. The rewards to Cheryl Samons included payment of many of Cheryl Samons’ household bills and the purchase and/or lease of new automobiles.

44. Wherefore, by reason of the foregoing, respondent has violated the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: 3-4.2 [Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by the rules governing The Florida Bar is a cause for discipline.]; 3-4.3 [The standards of professional conduct to be observed by members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration herein of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline shall not be deemed to be all-inclusive nor shall the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance thereof. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to
honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney’s relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline.]; 4-5.3(b) [With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer or an authorized business entity as defined elsewhere in these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: (1) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; (2) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (3) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if: (A) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (B) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.]; 4-5.3(c) [Although paralegals or legal assistants may perform the duties delegated to them by the lawyer without the presence or active involvement of the lawyer, the lawyer shall review and be responsible for the work product of the paralegals or legal assistants.]; 4-8.4(a) [A lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.]; 4-8.4(c) [A lawyer shall not (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation ….]; and 4-8.4(d) [A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic.].

COUNT III

[The Florida Bar File No. 2011-50,695(17I)]

45. On or about July 29, 2008, an assignment of mortgage prepared by David J. Stern, Esq. was filed in the public records in Citrus County, Florida on behalf of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (c/k/a MERS) concerning property described as a portion of Section 35, Township 20 South, Range 20 East,
Citrus County, Florida. (Attached hereto and incorporated herein as The Florida Bar Exhibit B is a copy of the assignment of mortgage.)

46. The assignment was executed by Cheryl Samons, as Assistant Secretary, on behalf of MERS. 47. Cheryl Samons, as previously referenced and during all times material, was the office manager for the foreclosure department and/or manager of operations of the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A.

48. The assignment contained a false representation as to the date it was executed since the witnessing notary’s term could not have been in existence on September 18, 2007, the date Cheryl Samons executed the assignment.

49. The notary’s term of four years ran from March 25, 2008 until March 24, 2012. The purported date of the execution of the assignment was on September 7, 2007.

50. On or about September 8, 2009, a corrected assignment of mortgage prepared by David J. Stern, Esq. was filed in the public records in Citrus County, Florida on behalf of MERS, as to the same property referenced above. (Attached hereto and incorporated here as The Florida Bar Exhibit C is a copy of the corrected assignment of mortgage.)

51. The “corrected” assignment did not appear to contain any false representations. 52. The corrected assignment was respondent’s attempt to conceal and correct the prior fraudulent assignment filed in the Citrus County public records on July 29, 2008. 53. The respondent knew or should have known that the aforementioned improprieties and irregularities committed by his office manager and others occurred.

[…]

[ipaper docId=136740903 access_key=key-223q3quzxf52igfd71sv height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8684 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

One Response to “Highlights of the Official Complaint | The Florida Bar vs David James Stern – Details Massive Foreclosure Fraud – MERS”

  1. no names, please, we're in litigation says:

    Well, okay, we’re moving in the right direction, albeit slowly. Stern is a big target; what about everyone else?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives