Once again from Florida’s BEST PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR BILL WARNER!

Mr. Warner really deserves an enormous amount of credit for all his hard work in his investigative work!

Thank you!!

See the entire article link below…

Foreclosures Bring Wealth, Rebukes For Florida Lawyer David J. Stern Who Was Going To Name His 130 Foot Boat ‘Su Casa es Mi Casa,’ Your House Is My House, Exclusive See His Photo.

Thursday, July 22, 2010.

FROM THE ST. PETE TIMES…Sunday, July 18, 2010.  You could call him the foreclosure king of Florida. As lawyer for several major banks, David J. Stern handles 20 percent of all foreclosure cases in the nation’s fourth most populous state. It is from Stern’s law firm that well over 100,000 Floridians, including many in the Tampa Bay area, have received the dreaded notice to pay up or face losing their homes.The foreclosure business has been good to Stern, who lives in a $15 million Fort Lauderdale mansion and (STERN) reaped $58.5 million by selling his back-office operations to a new public company (DJSP enterprises) in which he is a major shareholder. But as his case load has grown, so have the controversies.  This spring, a Pasco County judge threw out a foreclosure case against a Wesley Chapel man after ruling that Stern’s firm had submitted a clearly fraudulent document.

In South Florida, a foreclosure defense lawyer discovered more than 20 mortgage documents submitted by Stern’s firm that bore notary seals that did not exist at the time the documents supposedly were notarized. The Florida Bar reprimanded Stern in 2002 for overcharging and misleading clients, and is now considering a complaint questioning whether he should be allowed to farm out so much of his firm’s business to nonlawyers. Stern declined to be interviewed for this story.  By 1999, Stern’s firm represented banks in foreclosure actions against more than 10,000 home­owners, according to records in a class action lawsuit filed in federal court in Tallahassee. The suit alleged that the firm overcharged homeowners for title searches, postage and other expenses, then submitted “false and fraudulent” invoices to support the charges. The case was closed in 2000 with Stern agreeing to pay a total of $2.1 million to homeowners.  He next drew scrutiny from the Florida Bar over complaints that his firm had misled its own clients as well as borrowers. more from the St Pete Times… The St Pete Times article is somewhat incorrect, they state that  ”Stern himself is something of an enigma. Other than references to his law firm and a sketchy biography, there is almost nothing on the Internet about him (David J. Stern).  No photos are available“.

Oh really, well I have been a private investigator in the State of Florida for 15 years and here is the short list of investigative reports that I have posted online about David J. Stern, above is one of his exclusive photos that the St Pete Times could not obtain;

Continue reading this incredible article….

Bill Warner Private Detective Blog

RELATED ARTICLE:

EXPOSED | “Foreclosure Mill” David J. Sterns’ (DJSP) OTHER MEGA ESTATE

CINCINNATI, Jul 21, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed by the Cincinnati law firms of Strauss & Troy and Statman Harris & Eyrich on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of DJSP Enterprises, Inc. (“DJSP” or the “Company”) /quotes/comstock/15*!djsp/quotes/nls/djsp (DJSP5.12, -0.21, -3.94%) between March 16, 2010 and May 27, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and who suffered damages as a result. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, DJSP and certain of its officers and/or directors (the “Defendants”) violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose adverse facts known to them regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result the stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On March 16, 2010, DJSP informed the investing community that “…there is no stopping this inflow of continued defaults that we anticipate to go for another two or three years….foreclosure volumes through 2012 are expected to increase dramatically.” Then on May 27, 2010, DJSP shocked the market when it lowered its guidance for adjusted net income by $15 to $17 million and for adjusted EBIDTA by $18 to $22 million. On this news, the Company’s shares fell nearly 29%, opening on May 28, 2010 at $6.33 per share.

DJSP indicated that the lowered guidance was a result of (i) the foreclosure system conversion of one of its largest bank clients which resulted in a reduction in the referral of foreclosure files; and (ii) a temporary slowdown in foreclosures due to governmental intervention programs.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all individuals and entities who purchased DJSP common stock during the Class Period. If you purchased common stock between March 16, 2010 and May 27, 2010, you may, no later than October 20, 2010, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of the class members. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that you meet certain legal requirements.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact Richard S. Wayne, Esq., or Thomas P. Glass, Esq., Strauss & Troy, 150 East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, 800-669-9341 or by e-mail at rswayne@strausstroy.com or tpglass@strausstroy.com; or Melinda Nenning, Esq., Statman, Harris & Eyrich, 3700 Carew Tower, 441 Vine Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, (513) 345-8181 Ext. 3095, or by e-mail at mnenning@statmanharris.com.

The law firms of Strauss & Troy and Statman Harris & Eyrich are Cincinnati, Ohio law firms that have successfully represented shareholders in national securities class actions. For more information, visit Strauss & Troy’s website at http://www.strausstroy.com or Statman Harris & Eyrich’s website at http://www.statmanharris.com.

This news release was distributed by GlobeNewswire, www.globenewswire.com

SOURCE: Strauss & Troy; Statman, Harris & Eyrich

CONTACT:  Strauss & Troy
Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
rswayne@strausstroy.com
Thomas P. Glass, Esq.
tpglass@strausstroy.com
800-669-9341
Statman, Harris & Eyrich
Melinda Nenning, Esq.
(513) 345-8181 Ext. 3095
mnenning@statmanharris.com

(C) Copyright 2010 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.

By Lani Rosales on July 15, 2010 | AgentGenius.com

Here at AG, we’ve written about how Bank of America has foreclosed on homes by continuing the foreclosure process even after the home was successfully sold to a new buyer who didn’t even have a loan through Bank of America and we’ve covered how they have foreclosed on addresses they never even had a loan on despite dispute and direct correspondence.

AG columnist, Russell Shaw has remained our most vocal advocate for homeowners and agents having to battle Bank of America. His “Bank of America retard division for short sales” article that outlines the unfair, irrational and possibly illegal behavior of Bank of America remains one of the most read articles here at AG on most days, almost a year after it was originally published.

In steps the Texans

We’ve awaited the day that someone stood up to the documented abuses in a fashion that would impact Bank of America’s bottom line, and today, a group of homeowners are no longer taking it lying down. In true Texas fashion, a class action complaint was just filed and a jury trial has been demanded. Today,
the Texas Housing Justice League joins the 15 homeowners in the suit against Bank of America and its subsidiary BAC Home Loans Servicing.

Interestingly, the claim is using RESPA (Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act) as grounds for the complaint. The other eight claims are as listed below:

• Count Two: Breach of Contract – Loan Modification Agreement
• Count Three: Breach of Contract – Forbearance Agreement
• Count Four: Breach of Contract-Promissory Note and Deed of Trust
• Count Five: Violation of the Texas Property Code
• Count Six: Breach of Oral Contract-HAMP Trial Modification
• Count Seven: Unreasonable Collection Efforts
• Count Eight: Intentional Misrepresentation
• Count Nine: Texas Debt Collection Act

About the plaintiffs:

According to the Texas Housing Justice League, “Plaintiffs are and represent people who purchased their first homes between 1994 and 2006, usually with loan assistance from the Federal Housing Administration and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Their loans were all serviced by Defendant BAC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Bank of America, N.A.”

They continue, by noting that “The lawsuit complains not of poor customer service by BAC, but of a systematic home loan servicing scheme that includes hours of telephone runaround, misleading and inconsistent information, lost correspondence, verbal abuse, and extensive delay, all of which have documented costs not only in terms of money, but in health. The facts in this case reveal the harsh reality that underlies the loan servicer’s press statements about loan modifications and forbearance agreements following collapse of the U.S. housing market.”

A suitable summary of the suit:

Denver Realtor, Kristal Kraft says, “In the interest of time, I will now use only the keywords describing the gripes against Bank of America as accused by the Texas Homeowners.

‘Scheme, misleading, inconsistent, lost correspondence, verbal abuse, extensive delay, money, health, harsh, shuffled, no resolution, dysfunctional, barrage of misinformation, misdirection, deliberate inactivity, abuse, harassment, yo-yo. blocked at every turn, labyrinth of transfers, hundreds of hours on the telephone, transferred, never speak to same person again, contradictions, complaints meet with resistance, no supervisors available, unaccountable departments, asked to sign same documents three, four or even five times, negotiators who would not return telephone calls, not isolated incidents, pattern and practice by Bank of America.’”

What will happen next?

One of the Plaintiff’s lawyers, Robert Doggett said on ForeclosureBuzz.com, “It would be hard to imagine that Bank of America and BAC will fight the facts of the case; the question will likely be whether they can get away with it. The servicer will likely claim that poor “customer service” is something that must be accepted like a slow waiter or a bad movie. The difference is of course that homeowners are not merely customers that should expect to be mistreated and lied to — homeowners have a contract with the holder of their home loan and these servicers are the agents for the holder — and moreover, servicing a home loan is not in the realm of someone forgetting your fries or being tricked into seeing Gigli.”

For the full claim, click here.

Scribd

Other defendants in the case, aside from Countrywide, several of its former top executives, and Bank of America, include 16 underwriters of more than $350 billion in Countrywide securities, among them J.P. Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Bear Stearns, UBS, Morgan Stanley, Edward Jones, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse.

July 15, 2010, 8:00 a.m.

False and Misleading Offering Documents Detailed in Class Action Lawsuit Against Countrywide Financial

Cohen Milstein Files Amended Consolidated Complaint in Case Involving $350 Billion of Mortgage-Backed Securities

WASHINGTON, July 15, 2010 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint this week in its landmark litigation against Countrywide Financial Corporation and other underwriter defendants who were prominently involved in the failure of mortgage-backed securities over the last several years.

Countrywide, since acquired by Bank of America, was one of the largest and most controversial institutions involved in mortgage-backed securities. Other defendants in the case, aside from Countrywide, several of its former top executives, and Bank of America, include 16 underwriters of more than $350 billion in Countrywide securities, among them J.P. Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Bear Stearns, UBS, Morgan Stanley, Edward Jones, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse.

Cohen Milstein is Lead Counsel for the Class and Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff, the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, as well as the Oregon Public Employees’ Retirement System and Orange County Employees’ Retirement System. The General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church is also named as a plaintiff in the litigation.

“Amidst all this high finance, it’s too easy to lose sight of the fact that pension funds invested heavily in these mortgage-backed securities and so retirees are the real victims here,” commented Steve Toll, Managing Partner at Cohen Milstein and co-chair of its Securities Fraud/Investor Protection practice group.

In the amended complaint, the Plaintiffs further buttress their allegation that the defendants published false and misleading offering documents, including registration statements, prospectuses, and prospectus supplements. Specifically, these documents misrepresented or failed to disclose that underwriting guidelines for the mortgages backing the securities had been systematically disregarded.

According to the lawsuit, from 2005 through 2007 Countrywide was the nation’s largest residential mortgage lender, originating in excess of $850 billion in home loans throughout the United States in 2005 and 2006 alone. Countrywide’s ability to originate residential mortgages on such a massive scale was facilitated, in large part, by its ability to rapidly package or securitize those loans and then, through the activities of the underwriter defendants, sell them to investors as purportedly investment grade mortgage-backed securities.

In order to generate a steady flow of mortgage loans to sustain this mass production of mortgage-backed securities, Countrywide routinely issued loans to borrowers who otherwise would never have qualified for them – and indeed, did not qualify for the loans they received — through, for example, “low doc” and “no doc” loan programs, often with adjustable interest rates that had been designed for borrowers with higher incomes and better credit.

Upon pooling these mortgages and issuing them as MBS certificates, over 92% received the very highest, investment-grade ratings from rating agencies; ultimately, however, 87% were downgraded to junk. Tellingly, one year after the date of the certificate offerings, delinquency and default rates on the underlying mortgages had increased 2,525% from issuance. In explaining such an unprecedented collapse in ratings on these certificates in 2008 and 2009, the rating agencies noted that they were forced to change their models because of previously undisclosed and systematic “aggressive underwriting” practices used to originate the mortgage loan collateral. Along with the exponential increases in delinquency and default rates of the underlying mortgages and the collapse of the certificates’ ratings, the value of the certificates plummeted.

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the Defendants’ actions violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, legislation, still on the books, originally enacted in response to similar abuses that led to the Great Depression.

The Countrywide case is pending before Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Cohen Milstein has been named lead or co-lead counsel by courts in eight of the most significant mortgage-backed securities cases currently being litigated, including Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual as well as Countrywide.

Docket No. 2:10-CV-00302

SOURCE Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Copyright (C) 2010 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

Gath Around!

Kenneth Eric Trent, Esq.

I am a Fort Lauderdale attorney. I get it! I am organizing a class action suit on behalf of Floridians who have lost their homes to foreclosure. I am looking for class members. To potentially qualify, one must have lost one’s home to foreclosure within the last three years; the plaintiff must have been represented by the Law Office of David J. Stern; and your mortgage must have included the standard MERS language.

Email me if you want to know more! foreclosuredestroyer@yahoo.com.

MR. Trent is currently working on his site www.foreclosuredestroyer.com

A class action lawsuit is currently being prepared and we are in need of parties in California who are interested in pursuing these devils who have done so much to destroy everything this country stands for and is.

We are looking for the following:

• The property is located in California
• Have a Pay Option ARM which names MERS as nominee (highly likely in the event of an Option Arm);
• Lender was Countrywide/BofA or broker associated with CW;
• Issued Jumbo/100% financing
• They are facing an increase via reset or recasting which will consume over 70% of the income which the same as when lender sold them the loan some time in 2010, 2011 or 2012;
• They are committed to fighting the Bad guys;
• They have their Note, HELOC Agreement, MERS disclosure

If you fit this description,  please contact this website at info@chinkinthearmor.net

Source: chinkinthearmor