beth cerni | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "beth cerni"




4 Q. So all of the client files, all of your
5 clients have a file in that system, and you maintain
6 records relating to that client in these files?
7 A. No. Specific clients are in specific
8 systems. So you update only those clients that are in
9 that particular system.
10 Q. Okay. What system would MERS be in?
11 A. MERS isn’t in the system.
12 Q. They’re not? What about GMAC Mortgage, LLC?
13 A. They’re NewTrack.
14 Q. What other systems do you use for the — for
15 the clients, for your clients?
16 A. It depends upon the client.
17 Q. Can you give me some examples of the systems?
18 A. Um, we have Lendstar, we have Vendorscape,
19 those are the two that I have used.
20 Q. And you’ve also used NewTrack?
21 A. Yes, ma’am.
22 Q. What type of information do you keep in the
23 systems?
24 A. We have to update when hearings are
25 scheduled, when service is complete for the clients.

1 Q. Do you also keep in those systems,
2 information as to when the lawsuit is filed, when
3 assignments are executed, when affidavits are
4 executed?
5 A. When complaints are filed, yes.
6 Q. But not when assignments are executed or
7 affidavits are executed?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Is that information kept in another software
10 program?
11 A. Not to my knowledge.


1 A. It’s a form. It’s the same form for every
2 assignment.

3 Q. So you do not read them?
4 A. They’re checked by an attorney before I sign.
5 Q. So you rely on the attorney?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Also, in this document it indicates
8 that “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,
9 residing or located at care of GMAC Mortgage, LLC,”
10 what does that mean?

11 A. The address of the servicer.
12 Q. So Mortgage Electronic Registration System is
13 the servicer?

14 A. Mortgage Electronic Registrations is who
15 the — the mortgage apparently was sitting in the name
16 of for this file at the time.

17 Q. And GMAC is the servicer?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. What does that phrase residing or located at
20 care of mean?
21 A. That’s an address.
22 Q. So MERS is physically located at GMAC
23 Mortgage, LLC?

24 A. I don’t know.
25 Q. Don’t know. Do you have access to any of the

1 title work, or any other information before you
2 execute the assignments of mortgage?
3 A. It’s in the file that’s been reviewed by the
4 attorney.
5 Q. So you don’t review them yourself?
6 A. No. It’s been reviewed by the attorney.
7 Q. Are you — what provides you the
8 authorization to sign?
9 You notice on the assignment, that you’re
10 executing it as Assistant Secretary of Mortgage
11 Electronic Registration System; is that correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. So before I asked you if you were employed by
14 any other corporations, you indicated that you were
15 not. What does it mean when you hold the position of
16 Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic
17 Registration Systems, Inc.?
18 A. We have power of attorney.
19 Q. And what does that mean?
20 A. That we had authorization to sign on behalf
21 of.
22 Q. And did you obtain that power of attorney?
23 A. No, I did not.
24 Q. Did you — do you know anything about the
25 negotiations leading up to the execution of that power

1 of attorney?
2 A. No.


23 Q. If you’ll take a look at the first document
24 that I handed to you, the Lis Pendens and complaint.
25 If you look, there’s a document attached to that as

1 Exhibit A. And who is listed as the lender on that
2 document?
3 A. It says MERS.
4 Q. And does it, a little bit further down, also
5 say Taylor, Bean, and Whitaker Mortgage Corporation,
6 “lender —
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. — is organized and existing under the laws
9 of?”
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. Do you have any documents — did you have any
12 documents in your file relating to Taylor, Bean and
13 Whitaker Mortgage Corporation at the time you executed
14 the assignment?
15 A. I don’t know.
16 Q. Would you have looked at the original
17 mortgage prior to executing the assignment?
18 (Brief telephonic interruption.)
19 THE WITNESS: No. Again, they were reviewed
20 by an attorney.

Continue to the depo below…

[ipaper docId=41044236 access_key=key-1s17qv7pitz1rmk5i19t height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

The Most Reviled Law Firm in Florida and the “Unowned Mortgage Loans” Scheme By LYNN SZYMONIAK, ESQ.

The Most Reviled Law Firm in Florida and the “Unowned Mortgage Loans” Scheme By LYNN SZYMONIAK, ESQ.


Chain-of-title is not just an issue for the buyers and sellers of particular homes and title insurance companies. Some entity – and most likely several entities – are claiming these mortgages and loans
as assets when regulators and investors are determining solvency and compliance, but disavowing these same “assets” when acknowledgement of ownership would result in responsibilities ranging from payment of taxes to lawn mowing.

Stern employees often sign as if a bankrupt or out-of-business company or a failed bank owned the mortgage and loan up until foreclosure is imminent. In county recorders’ offices across the state, the Stern-created records show that the trusts acquired mortgages and loans on dates when no such acquisitions ever took place. The trusts claim ownership solely to prove that they have the right to foreclose. The date selected is arbitrary – chosen by Stern or LPS or the mortgage servicing company. In reality, residential mortgage-backed trusts did not rush to acquire billions of dollars in sub-prime non-performing loans in 2008 and 2009 as these assignments falsely state.

[ipaper docId=35193493 access_key=key-15cd46kpp21si9phgbhx height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

Posted in chain in title, CONTROL FRAUD, djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, fraud digest, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., lawsuit, LPS, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, Notary, notary fraud, note, racketeering, RICO, robo signers, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

What can be done about the backlog of foreclosure cases in Palm Beach County (and other Florida counties)? By Lynn Szymoniak ESQ.

What can be done about the backlog of foreclosure cases in Palm Beach County (and other Florida counties)? By Lynn Szymoniak ESQ.


1. Dismiss all cases filed after February 11, 2010, that do not include a verification in accordance with the Florida Supreme Court revised  rules of Civil Procedure.   The big foreclosure firms, particularly the Law Offices of David Stern, are choosing to ignore the rule requiring verifications.  All parties should be required to follow the rules.

2. Dismiss all of the cases where the plaintiff is a bank “as Trustee” but the name of the trust is not disclosed.  Failure to identify the actual trust is one of the newest strategies of the foreclosure mills.  The trust, not the trustee, is the real party in interest.

3. Dismiss all of the cases where the complaint is not signed by the attorney whose name appears on the pleading.  The big foreclosure firms in thousands of cases have someone other than the attorney on the pleading sign “for” the attorney who drafted the pleading.  This is done so that both attorneys can deny responsibility.

4. Dismiss all of the cases that include these boilerplate allegations by the bank or trust: “We own the note. We had possession of the note. We lost the note.”  These allegations appear in over 20,000 cases.  By now it is apparent this is a ruse – no one actually lost 20,000 mortgages and notes. Frauds upon the courts should not be tolerated.

5. Dismiss all of the cases that include a Mortgage Assignment that was signed by an employee of the foreclosure mill law firm signing as a MERS officer.  This would include thousands of cases where Cheryl Samons and Beth Cerni, administrative employees for David Stern, signed as a representative of the GRANTOR when the firm was actually working for the GRANTEE.  This would also include cases where Patricia Arango and Caryn Graham, two associates working for The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, signed as MERS officers.  This would also include all cases where Christopher Bossman, an administrative employee in the Daniel Consuegra fiirm, signed as a MERS officer.  This would also include all cases where officers of Florida Default Law Group signed as MERS officers. In all of these cases, no disclosure was made to the Court or to the homeowner/defendants that the Assignments were prepared by law firm employees with no knowledge of the truth of the matters asserted therein.

6. Dismiss all of the cases where a Mortgage Assignment was signed by Jeffrey Stephan of GMAC (notarized in Montgomery County, PA).  Stephan has already admitted in sworn testimony that a notary was NOT present when he signed mortgage assignments, even though the Assignments contained a contrary statement.

7. Dismiss all of the cases where the documents were prepared by employees of Lender Processing Services since this company has already admitted in its Annual Statement with the SEC that investigations, internal and otherwise, revealed problems with the documents that were so significant that the company implemented a “remediation” program (and in January, 2010, laid off most of its employees in Alpharetta, GA. Until this company discloses which documents were determined to be defective, and what corrective actions were taken, no documents from LPS submitted to establish ownership and standing (notarized in Fulton County, GA; Duval County, FL and Dakota County, MN) should be relied upon by the Courts.

8. Dismiss all cases where a Mortgage Assignment has been made by American Brokers Conduit, American Home Mortgage Acceptance or American Home Mortgage Company, or nominees or mortgage servicing companies working for these American Home companies, after August 6, 2007, the day these companies filed for bankruptcy.  The bankruptcy court did not authorizing these actions.

If Palm Beach County judges looked critically at the documents submitted by the foreclosure mills,  they would reach the same conclusion as judges in other Florida Circuits – that the documents submitted by the foreclosure mills are worthless and the attorneys submitting these documents deserve strict sanctions.


© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, DOCX, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, fraud digest, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ, marshall watson, MERS, mortgage electronic registration system, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, note, robo signer, robo signers, stop foreclosure fraudComments (0)

Advertise your business on


Please Support Me!

All Of These Are Troll Comments