citimortgage | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA - Part 3

Tag Archive | "citimortgage"

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Entirety of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Entirety of Plaintiff’s Complaint


Via: Kenneth Eric Trent, Attorney at Law Fort Lauderdale, FL

This is the follow up to the latest Depositions posted on SFF taken from The Law Offices of David J. Sterns’ employees Cheryl Samons and Shannon Smith.

[ipaper docId=34550572 access_key=key-2cbgnrr6653palfl8a4w height=600 width=600 /]

RELATED STORIES:

Full Deposition of David J. Stern’s Notary | Para Legal Shannon Smith

STERN’S CHERYL SAMONS| SHANNON SMITH Assignment Of Mortgage| NOTARY FRAUD!

Take Two: *New* Full Deposition of Law Office of David J. Stern’s Cheryl Samons

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



Posted in aurora loan servicing, citimortgage, conflict of interest, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, dismissed, djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Notary, notary fraud, robo signers, settlement, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Take Two: *New* Full Deposition of Law Office of David J. Stern’s Cheryl Samons

Take Two: *New* Full Deposition of Law Office of David J. Stern’s Cheryl Samons


Via Kenneth Eric Trent Attorney at Law Fort Lauderdale Florida

Q       If you could go back to Exhibit 2, the assignment of mortgage. We are on the first sentence of the first paragragh.

You see where it says, “for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar” on second line of paragragh?

A       Yes. I do.

Q        Did you pay a that dollar, or did you receive that dollar?

A        I did not have anything to do with any money exchanging hands on these assignments.

Q        Okay. So when you executed this assignment, did you take any steps to determine whether or not this one dollar had actually changed hands?

A       No.

[ipaper docId=34339177 access_key=key-2jsbpno615kqp3qjo9wl height=600 width=600 /]

RELATED STORIES:

Full Deposition of David J. Stern’s Notary | Para Legal Shannon Smith

STERN’S CHERYL SAMONS| SHANNON SMITH Assignment Of Mortgage| NOTARY FRAUD!

Image credit: The Office

Posted in citimortgage, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, trade secretsComments (1)

DAVID J. STERN’S CHERYL SAMONS| SHANNON SMITH Assignment Of Mortgage| NOTARY FRAUD!

DAVID J. STERN’S CHERYL SAMONS| SHANNON SMITH Assignment Of Mortgage| NOTARY FRAUD!


Hat Tip to Attorney Kenneth Eric Trent in Fort Lauderdale for sending this my way.

Below we have two Assignment of Mortgages created by David J. Stern Esq.

Take a look at the notary’s signature and compare it to Ms. Cheryl Samons…also make sure to see the printed names of Shannon Smith.

Here we have another version of Shannon Smith’s signature. Not the same as above.

RELATED STORIES:

Full Deposition of David J. Stern’s Notary | Para Legal Shannon Smith

Take Two: *New* Full Deposition of Law Office of David J. Stern’s Cheryl Samons

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



Posted in citimortgage, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, deutsche bank, djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., MERS, morgan stanley, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Notary, notary fraud, robo signers, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, trade secrets, wells fargoComments (6)

COUNTIES TAKE NOTICE | MERS claims savings over $2 Billion in Recording fees!

COUNTIES TAKE NOTICE | MERS claims savings over $2 Billion in Recording fees!


I don’t know about you but this is an awful lot of dollars. Meanwhile they are cutting budgets in some places such as California and just last week in Chicago!

I’m still puzzled how no conflict of interest exist when MERS is named a defendant with the borrower in a foreclosure suit??

Well here is your answer COUNTIES!!!

Copyright © 2010 Post-Newsweek Media, Inc./FairfaxTimes.com

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



Posted in MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.Comments (0)

Conflict of Interest, Fraud on the Court, Motion to DQ Counsel

Conflict of Interest, Fraud on the Court, Motion to DQ Counsel


This is quite a fight! Listen this is exactly what is happening across the country. When and Who is going to pick up this mess when it all finally comes to reality?

In my Florida Bar Complaint I raised this same issue against my MILL and they saw nothing wrong??…Again, we are on our own to bring them down!

Via: StopaLawFirm

STUNNING ADMISSIONS:

(1)  Citimortgage admits its own employees signed an assignment of mortgage, conveying a mortgage to itself.

(2)  Foreclosure Mill Shapiro & Fishman, LLP admits its standard practice is to prepare these assignments for their own clients (not the original mortgagee) to execute and record in the public record.

(3)  Shapiro never runs conflict checks prior to filing new lawsuits, leaving it up to their other clients (who may or may not be named as Defendants) to assert a conflict after the case has been filed.

These admissions were made in the course of a 3.5 hour, evidentiary hearing on a Motion to Disqualify Counsel brought by Mark Stopa on June 18, 2010 before Judge Foster in Tampa.

I’ve attached the Transcript, DQ Motion, and the Exhibits introduced into evidence, but they’re not going to make sense without some background. (Bear with me, this is fascinating stuff.  To illustrate, even as he denied the motion (incorrectly, in my opinion), Judge Foster openly acknowledged the need for a written opinion from the Florida Supreme Court, comparing the issue to Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) and Miranda  v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)).

Facts (as set forth in DQ Motion,Transcript, and Exhibits):  Shapiro & Fishman represents Citimortgage, Inc. in a foreclosure lawsuit against JPMorgan, MERS, and the homeowners.  The Complaint does not specify how Citimortgage acquired standing to foreclose.  The public records reflect an Assignment of Mortgage, prepared by Shapiro, purporting to assign the mortgage from MERS, as Nominee for First Security Mortgage Services, to Citimortgage.  The assignment was executed the same day Citimortgage filed suit.  Citimortgage’s own employee testified that Nate Blackstun and Jamie Hardcastle, the individuals who signed this assignment (purporting to transfer the mortgage from MERS to Citimortgage) are actually employees of Citimortgage.  Quoting the testimony of a Citimortgage employee:

Q:  Who is Jamie Hardcastle?
A:  She works at Citimortgage in the — well, I’m not quite sure which department she works in.
Q:  Do you know her?
A:  Yes.
Q:  Do you work with her?
A:  No, she works in my building.
Q:  She’s an employee of Citimortgage, Inc.?
A:  Yes.
Q:  How about Nate Blackstun?  Do you know him?
A:  Yes.
Q:  Who is he?
A:  He’s vice president of Citimortgage.
Q:  Does he work in your building as well?
A:  Yes.  …
Q:  Do you know whether Mr. Blackstun obtained the consent of MERS prior to signing an assignment of mortgage in this case?
A:  He’s an authorized signer for MERS.
Q:  Even though he’s also the Vice President of Citimortgage?
A:  Yes.
Q:  You see any sort of problem with that?
A:  No.
Q:  How do you allege that Citimortgage became the owner and holder of this note in this case?
A:  It was assigned to Citimortgage –
Q:  From whom?
A:  from MERS.
Q:  From whom?
A:  MERS.
Q:  On behalf of whom?
A:  I’m not sure.

In fact, Shapiro and Fishman’s office manager admitted that Shapiro’s standard practice is to prepare an Assignment of Mortgage, provide it to its own client to sign (on behalf of the original mortgage holder, typically MERS), have its client execute the assignment, and cause the assignment to be recorded.

Q:  Do you dispute that Jamie Hardcastle is an employee of Citimortgage, Inc.?
A:  Do I dispute that?  No.
Q:  Do you dispute that Nate Blackstun is an employee of Citimortgage, Inc.?
A:  No.
Q:  Yet they are the individuals who signed an assignment of mortgage on October 13, 2009, purporting to convey a mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for First Security Mortgage Services to Citimortgage?
A:  With authority from MERS to execute the document, yes they did. …
Q:  So all you basically do when you get a new client for a foreclosure case, you cause an assignment of mortgage to be prepared, send it to your client for signature, and knowing that your clients have it own employees signing it and then sending it back to you, true?
A:  Yes.  However, that assignment is not part of the foreclosure action itself.  It’s a chain of title document which is not part of the foreclosure.
Q:  You’ve never seen these assignments of mortgage be attached to a complaint?
A:  Sure.

Shapiro represents JPMorgan and MERS in other, pending cases, including at least one case where MERS is adverse to Citimortgage.  Yet Shapiro continues to represent Citimortgage in this case, adverse to JPMorgan and MERS.  (If you don’t think there is anything wrong with that, call The Florida Bar and tell them you represent ABC Corp. against XYZ Corp. and ask The Bar if it’s ok for you to represent XYZ Corp. against ABC Corp. – see what they say.  See if the Bar gives its blessing, even if both entities waive the conflict.)  Shapiro did not perform a “conflict check” prior to representing Citimortgage in this case and, in fact, does not perform conflict checks when taking on new files.  Instead, Shapiro’s standard practice is to file the suit for whichever bank it is representing in that case and presume there is no conflict unless a different bank asserts such a conflict.

The issues:  (a) Whether Shapiro & Fishman have a conflict of interest under 4-1.7, R.Reg.Fla.Bar, precluding it from acting as counsel for Citimortgage, when it is simultaneously representing JPMorgan and MERS (in other, pending cases and, arguably, the instant case); and (b) whether Citimortgage has used Shapiro’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud, without agreeing to disclose and rectify the crime or fraud, in violation of 4-1.16, R.Reg.Fla.Bar.

The law:  Rule 4-1.7(a) precludes a law firm from representing a client if the representation is (1) directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a substantial risk that the lawyer’s representation will be “materially limited” by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third person, or a personal interest of the lawyer.  The only way around this prohibition is compliance with 4-1.7(b), which requires, among other things, that each client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing or clearly stated on the record at a hearing.  See Lincoln Associates & Constr., Inc. v. Wentworth Constr. Co., Inc., 26 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).  Additionally, Rule 4-1.16 precludes a lawyer from representing a client who has used the lawyer’s services to commit a crime or fraud unless the client agrees to disclose and rectify the crime or fraud.

Analysis:  In the face of the Motion to Disqualify Counsel, Shapiro presented a waiver of conflict, signed by an employee of Citimortgage, dated just one day before the hearing (the first time Shapiro discussed the issue of conflict with Citimortgage).  However, Shapiro presented no such waiver from MERS or JPMorgan, and no witness from MERS or JPMorgan testified or otherwise consented to waive the conflict.  In my opinion, the absence of consent from MERS and JPMorgan required Shapiro’s disqualification.  See Rule 4-1.7 and Wentworth.

Throughout the hearing, Judge Foster repeatedly ruled that he “did not see the conflict” and that Citimortgage was “not adverse” to MERS and JPMorgan.  Respectfully, when these entities are on opposite sides of a lawsuit, the adversity is presumed.  They are adverse by definition, one being the Plaintiff and the other the Defendant.   Although Shapiro contends, when these entities are named as Defendants, that it’s merely to ”clear title,” that does not change the adversarial nature of the relationship.  For instance, suppose MERS or JPMorgan or First Security later realized it was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage (or, at minimum, that it had a bona fide claim in that regard) – the judgment in this case would bar such a claim under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.  Similarly, suppose a ”junior” lien holder had a bona fide argument that its lien was superior.  Isn’t Shapiro throwing one client under the bus (the defendant) for the sake of another (the plaintiff) without checking if its own client, the defendant, takes the position that it owns and holds the note and mortgage?  Shapiro says the defendant was defaulted, so it isn’t contesting the plaintiff’s position and there is hence no conflict, but isn’t it the lawyer’s job to inquire about the conflict, before filing suit, and not merely to leave it up to the client to figure it out? Isn’t it Shapiro’s responsibility, under The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, before filing suit against its own client, to make sure that the client it is suing consents to the relief being requested?  How do we know the client isn’t relying on the law firm (as clients reasonably do)?  I can see the logic now – “Shapiro is filing suit against us for a different bank.  Shapiro represents us.  Shapiro must be right – we must not have an ownership interest in this Note and Mortgage.”  We’ve already established that Shapiro isn’t checking – Shapiro admitted as much at this hearing – so if the bank isn’t checking, either, then who is?

Suppose this were any other setting, not a foreclosure case, and you represent ABC Corp. against XYZ Corp.  Would you ever file suit for XYZ Corp. against ABC Corp., in a different suit, without asking ABC Corp. if it consented?  Without asking ABC Corp. if it agreed with XYZ Corp’s position in that case?  I highly doubt it.  So why it is okay for Shapiro to do that in these cases, over and over again?  Merely because they are foreclosure cases?

And what about all of the cases where Shapiro’s “other” client may claim ownership of the Note and Mortgage (e.g. because it is the record owner or prior record owner) but is not named as a defendant in the suit?  Why does Shapiro name these entities as Defendants in some cases but not in others?  If they need to “clear title” in some cases, why not in others?  Is Shapiro intentionally not naming its own client as a defendant to make it easier for its other client, the plaintiff, to win the foreclosure case, while leaving the door open for its other client (not named as a defendant) to file suit on the same Note and Mortgage? After all, if the bank isn’t named as a defendant, the foreclosure judgment is not binding on it, and nothing stops that bank from filing a different lawsuit for foreclosure.

Meanwhile, in the face of an assignment of mortgage that appears fraudulent (unless you think self-dealing or dual agency is okay), Shapiro asserts Citimortgage’s standing is based on transfer of the note, not the assignment of mortgage.  Of course, Shapiro did not take this position until after the Motion to Disqualify Counsel was filed, which raises the question – why is Shapiro so willing to concede one ground for standing in this case when it asserts that basis for standing in other, similar cases?  We all know there are many cases in which Shapiro has used an assignment of mortgage as a basis for standing; in fact,often the assignment is attached to the Complaint.  Why, then, would it be giving up this argument in this case?  In my opinion, the answer is clear – Shapiro wants to take the spotlight off of itself and its own conduct, even if it means giving up an argument for a client.  “Let’s argue the assignment is irrelevant for purposes of standing, that way our conduct vis a vis the assignment becomes irrelevant, too.”  Maybe standing is, in any given case, based on transfer of the Note.  Respectfully, though, wouldn’t a conflict-free attorney want to argue every possible basis for standing, including the assignment, and not forego an argument for standing because it highlighted that attorney’s own conduct?  In other words, isn’t Shapiro’s representation of Citimortgage “materially limited” by its own self-interest?  See Rule 4-1.7(a)(2).  Notably, upon inquiry from Mr. Stopa, the Citimortgage employee made it clear Shapiro never advised her that it was giving up one basis for standing in the case.  Respectfully, how can a waiver be “informed’ when Citimortgage does not understand the ramifications of its waiver in the pending case?

Unfortunately, Judge Foster did not seem to get (for lack of a better term) this latter argument, as he sustained an objection that Shapiro’s reliance on an assignment in other cases was irrelevant.  (That’s one purpose of a blog like this – to make judges think about these issues and understand them.  To wit, by no means am I trying to criticize Judge Foster here – I respect and appreciate that he gave me the opportunity to flesh out this evidence.  I just think the issues merit consideration from all of us.)  But Shapiro’s reliance on the assignments in other cases – and refusal to do so in this case – is precisely the point.  If Shapiro is relying on assignments in other cases, but not in this case, merely to take the spotlight off of itself so as to defeat a motion to disqualify, it’s representation is materially limited by its own self-interest, in violation of 4-1.7.  Remember, the rule requires “informed” consent, and if Citimortgage is consenting to the representation without understanding that Shapiro is waiving an argument that a conflict-free attorney would assert, the consent is not “informed.”   Also, how many hundreds or thousands of times has Shapiro relied on these assignments in other foreclosure cases (in which I, or another defense attorney, am not involved)?

Meanwhile, Judge Foster seemed to accept that a fraud was not being committed upon the Court (given how Shapiro distanced itself from the assignment of mortgage), but Rule 4-1.16 doesn’t require that the fraud be committed in that case.  The Rule requires that a lawyer withdraw from representation if “the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud, unless the client agrees to disclose and rectify the crime or fraud.”  Here, isn’t an assignment of mortgage, filed in the public records, purporting to convey an assignment from MERS to Citimortgage, but which is actually signed by employees of Citimortgage, a fraud?  As I’ve presented this argument, judges seem to be taking the position that it’s OK for an employee of Citimortgage to execute an assignment from MERS to itself as long as MERS consents, but how is that not self-dealing?  And why is it ok?  I know I’m not the only person who thinks it’s wrong.  See HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Vazquez, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 51814 (N.Y. 2009); Bank of New York v. Mulligan, 2008 N.Y. Slip. Op 31501 (N.Y. 2008) (“The Court is concerned that Mr. Harless might be engaged in a subterfuge, wearing various corporate hats.  Before granting an application for an order of reference, the Court requires an affidavit from Mr. Harless describing his employment history for the past three years.”); Bank of New York v. Orosco, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 33818 (N.Y. 2007); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Castellanos, 2008 N.Y. Slip. Op. 50033 (N.Y. 2008) (“Did Mr. Rivas somehow change employers on July 21, 2006 or is he concurrently a Vice President of both assignor Argent Mortgage Company, LLC and assignee Deutsche Bank?  If he is a Vice President of both the assignor and the assignee, this would create a conflict of interest and render the July 21, 2006 assignment void. … The court is concerned that there may be fraud on the part of Deutsche Bank, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, and/or MTGLQ Investors, L.P., or at least malfeasance.”).

In comments made as the hearing began (which are unfortunately not in the transcript), Judge Foster made it clear that he didn’t want to require disqualification and upset the entire banking industry.  In a way, that’s exactly what this motion is doing – arguing that the manner in which these assignments have been completed (and, in essence, the entire MERS system) is a fraud.  Respectfully, though, why should the fact that the fraud is pervasive – and would upset the way banks litigate foreclosure cases – make this problem less worthy of attention?  Shouldn’t the fact that these assignments are being prepared fraudulently in virtually every case make judges more likely to fix the problem, not less?

Shapiro argued extensively that my clients lack standing to argue this issue.  However, the Comment to 4-1.7 provides: “Where the conflict is such as clearly to call into question the fair or efficient administration of justice, opposing counsel may properly raise the question.”  This is where we need to educate judges about the widespread ramifications of “pushing through” foreclosure cases.  For instance, in these cases where the wrong Plaintiff is suing, what will happen when the actual owner of the Note and Mortgage emerges, after the foreclosure is granted?  What will happen to the homeowner, who has already been foreclosed upon by the wrong bank (but faces another lawsuit by the correct one)?  What will happen to the then-owner of the property, who purchased the property either at the courthouse auction or from such a purchaser?  What about the title company that issued title insurance based on that sale?  Particularly in lawsuits where the Note is lost, or where the original mortgage holder went into bankruptcy (and subsequent transfers or assignments were unauthorized as a matter of law) we must safeguard against these problems.  That’s why addressing these conflict issues is so important – it forces banks and their lawyers to take a hard look at the interests of all parties involved before a foreclosure case gets “pushed through.”

Many Florida cases on the issue of disqualification talk about the appearance of impropriety and the public’s perception of our conduct as lawyers.  See Wentworth, Campbell v. American Pioneer Savings Bank, 565 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Andrews v. Allstate Ins. Co., 366 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).   For the life of me, I can’t see how anyone can dispute the unseemliness of these events.  Perhaps that’s why at least one judge has questioned the conflict of interest in these situations.  See HSBC Bank USA, N.C. v. Vazquez, 2009 N.Y. Slip. Op 51814 (N.Y. 2009) (“Even if Plaintiff HSBC is able to cure the assignment defect, plaintiff’s counsel then has to adderess the conflict of interest that exists with his representation of both the assignor of the instant mortgage, MERS as Nominee for HSCB Mortgage, and the assignee of the instant mortgage, HSBC.”).  I urge more attorneys and judges in our great state to give careful consideration to these issues.

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



Posted in citimortgage, conflict of interest, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, shapiro & fishman paComments (3)

QUI TAM: MERS et al sued for FRAUD, Billions in Penalties

QUI TAM: MERS et al sued for FRAUD, Billions in Penalties


I am definitely confident on this one going far!

Mortgage registration firm sued for fraud, billions in penalties in Nevada, California

By Frank X. Mullen Jr. • June 25, 2010 RGJ.com

A Reno law firm has filed two lawsuits alleging fraud against a nationwide mortgage registration firm, and if those legal actions prevail, the firm and dozens of mortgage lenders could be liable to Nevada’s counties for billions of dollars in compensation and penalties.

Law partners Robert R. Hager and Treva J. Hearne, with Reno attorney Mark Mausert, have filed a case in Nevada and one in California against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, which operates an electronic registry of mortgage loans in the United States. MERS serves as the mortgagee of record for lenders, investors and loan servicers in county land records, but doesn’t own any mortgages.

By using the firm’s names on deeds and other paperwork, the lenders are able to avoid county recording fees, according to the firm. MERS has no financial interest in the loans, but is listed as actual owner or surrogate for the owner on millions of deeds of trust, even as individual mortgages are repeatedly traded and packaged inside of mortgage pools.

The lawsuits argue that listing the firm as the owner of mortgages in which it has no interest in order to avoid filing fees and taxes that are legally required constitutes fraud.

“We look forward to holding these financial institutions and foreclosure mills responsible for their actions that have deprived the states and counties of much-needed revenue,” said Hager.

Karmela Lejarde, communications manager, for the Reston, Va.-based firm, noted that the attorneys general of two states declined to take on the cases as false claims suits pressed by the government, instead leaving the plaintiffs to pursue the civil suits in the court systems.

“The lawsuits are completely without merit,” Lejarde said. “…The suits were filed by the same lawyers who have brought countless lawsuits against MERS, and every single one of them has failed. The most recent (fraud case) actions are just the latest in a line of baseless claims.”

Christopher Peterson, a law professor and associate dean of the University of Utah Law School, has written articles and lectured about MERS’s activities. He said the firm being listed as proxy owner of more than half the nation’s mortgages is contrary to 200 years of American legal precedent.

Continue here…

[ipaper docId=33678143 access_key=key-2e2hbv3rz6ob70ofx5fq height=600 width=600 /]

Part II

http://www.scribd.com/full/33679187?access_key=key-795n4c7e7xreprv28yr

[ipaper docId=33679187 access_key=key-795n4c7e7xreprv28yr height=600 width=600 /]

Part III

http://www.scribd.com/full/33679319?access_key=key-16v5sbgda4zf6ka6eox5

[ipaper docId=33679319 access_key=key-16v5sbgda4zf6ka6eox5 height=600 width=600 /]

RELATED STORY:

MERS Good Information Foreclosure Subprime Mortgage Lending and MERS, VP MERS, AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

Posted in bank of america, Christopher Peterson, citimortgage, CONTROL FRAUD, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, jpmorgan chase, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., QUI TAM, wells fargoComments (4)

‘One Size Fits All Doesn’t Work’ MERS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Dalton V. CitiMortgage Reno, Nevada

‘One Size Fits All Doesn’t Work’ MERS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Dalton V. CitiMortgage Reno, Nevada


This is a case where Plaintiff’s counsel aggressively sought to have all foreclosures stopped due to no standing. He states Thats why the MERS system tried to be a nationwide system. “One Size Fits All Doesn’t Work”!

[ipaper docId=32239392 access_key=key-12qtvlfzvjvmbajyve1p height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in concealment, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, scam, securitization, trade secretsComments (0)

CitiMortgage: Foreclosing Homes while working "LIAR" Loan Modifications!

CitiMortgage: Foreclosing Homes while working "LIAR" Loan Modifications!


[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IZTdBO7EA]

Posted in citimortgage, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, mortgage modificationComments (0)

MERS KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid… "SCAM"

MERS KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid… "SCAM"


If self nominating officers signing on

behalf of MERS, et al~ wasn’t good

enough…

The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C., February 24, 2010:  Although only bankers are aware of it, there is a second wave of economic disaster starting to build up that will make the earlier one pale into insignificance. Let us start out with MERS, shall we?

MERS = Mortgage Electronic Registration Inc.holds approximately 60 million American mortgages and is a Delaware corporation whose sole shareholder is Mers Corp. MersCorp and its specified members have agreed to include the MERS corporate name on any mortgage that was executed in conjunction with any mortgage loan made by any member of MersCorp. Thus in place of the original lender being named as the mortgagee on the mortgage that is supposed to secure their loan, MERS is named as the “nominee” for the lender who actually loaned the money to the borrower. In other words MERS is really nothing more than a name that is used on the mortgage instrument in place of the actual lender. MERS’ primary function, therefore, is to act as a document custodian. MERS was created solely to simplify the process of transferring mortgages by avoiding the need to re-record liens – and pay county recorder filing fees – each time a loan is assigned. Instead, servicers record loans only once and MERS’ electronic system monitors transfers and facilitates the trading of notes. It has very conservatively estimated that as of February, 2010, over half of all new residential mortgage loans in the United States are registered with MERS and recorded in county recording offices in MERS’ name

MersCorp was created in the early 1990’s by the former C.E.O.’s of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Indy Mac, Countrywide, Stewart Title Insurance and the American Land Title Association. The executives of these companies lined their pockets with billions of dollars of unearned bonuses and free stock by creating so-called mortgage backed securities using bogus mortgage loans to unqualified borrowers thereby creating a huge false demand for residential homes and thereby falsely inflating the value of those homes. MERS marketing claims that its “paperless systems fit within the legal framework of the laws of all fifty states” are now being vetted by courts and legal commentators throughout the country.

The MERS paperless system is the type of crooked rip-off scheme that is has been seen for generations past in the crooked financial world. In this present case, MERS was created in the boardrooms of the most powerful and controlling members of the American financial institutions. This gigantic scheme completely ignored long standing law of commerce relating to mortgage lending and did so for its own personal gain. That the inevitable collapse of the crooked mortgage swindles would lead to terrible national repercussions was a matter of little or no interest to the upper levels of America’s banking and financial world because the only interest of these entities was to grab the money of suckers, keep it in the form of ficticious bonuses, real estate and very large accounts in foreign banks. The effect of this system has led to catastrophic meltdown on both the American and global economy.

MERS, as has clearly been proven in many civil cases, does not hold any promissory notes of any kind. A party must have possession of a promissory note in order to have standing to enforce and/or otherwise collect a debt that is owed to another party. Given this clear-cut legal definition,  MERS does not have legal standing to enforce or collect on the over 60 million mortgages it controls and no member of MERS has any standing in an American civil court.

MERS has been taken to civil courts across the country and charged with a lack of standing in reposession issues. When the mortgage debacle initially, and inevitably, began, MERS always routinely brought actions against defaulting mortgage holders purporting to represent the owners of the defaulted mortgages but once the courts discovered that MERS was only a front organization that did not hold any deed nor was aware of who or what agencies might hold a deed, they have routinely been denied in their attempts to force foreclosure.  In the past, persons alleging they were officials of MERS in foreclosure motions, purported to be the holders of the mortgage, when, in fact, they not only were not the holder of the mortgage but, under a court order, could not produce the identity of the actual holder. These so-called MERS officers have usually been just employees of entities who are servicing the loan for the actual lender. MERS, it is now widely acknowledged by the courts, has no legal right to foreclose or otherwise collect debt which are evidenced by promissory notes held by someone else.

The American media routinely identifies MERS as a mortgage lender, creditor, and mortgage company, when in point of fact MERS has never loaned so much as a dollar to anyone, is not a creditor and is not a mortgage company. MERS is merely a name that is printed on mortgages, purporting to give MERS some sort of legal status, in the matter of a loan made by a completely different and almost always,a totally unknown entity.

The infamous collapse of the American housing bubble originated, in the main, with one Angelo Mozilo, CEO of the later failed Countrywide Mortgage.

Mozilo started working in his father’s butcher shop, in the Bronx, when he was ten years old. He graduated from Fordham in 1960, and that year he met David Loeb. In 1968, Mozilo and Loeb created a new mortgage company, Countrywide, together. Mozilo believed the company should make special efforts to lower the barrier for minorities and others who had been excluded from homeownership. Loeb died in 2003

In 1996, Countrywide created a new subsidiary for subprime loans.

  • Countrywide Financial’s former management
  • Angelo R. Mozilo, cofounder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer
  • David S. Loeb, cofounder, President and Chairman from 1969 to 2000
  • David Sambol, president, chief operating officer, director
  • Eric P. Sieracki, chief financial officer, executive managing director
  • Jack Schakett, executive managing director, chief operating officer
  • Kevin Bartlett, executive managing director, chief investment officer
  • Andrew Gissinger, executive managing director, chief production officer, Countrywide Home Loans[14]
  • Sandor E. Samuels, executive managing director, chief legal officer and assistant secretary
  • Ranjit Kripalani, executive managing director and president, Capital Markets
  • Laura K. Milleman, senior managing director, chief accounting officer
  • Marshall Gates, senior managing director, chief administrative officer
  • Timothy H. Wennes, senior managing director, president and chief operating officer, Countrywide Bank FSB
  • Anne D. McCallion, senior managing director, chief of financial operations and planning
  • Steve Bailey, senior managing director of loan administration, Countrywide Home Loans

The standard Countrywide procedure was to openly solicit persons who either had no credit or could not obtain it, and, by the use of false credit reports drawn up in their offices, arrange mortgages. The new home owners were barely able to meet the minimum interest only payments and when, as always happens, the mortgage payments are increased to far, far more than could be paid, defaults and repossessions were inevitable. Countrywide sold these mortgages to lower-tier banks which in turn, put them together in packages and sold them to the large American banks. These so-called “bundled mortgages” were quickly sold these major banking houses to many foreign investors with the comments that when the payments increased, so also would the income from the original mortgage. In 1996, Countrywide created a new subsidiary for subprime loans.

At one point in time, Countrywide Financial Corporation was regarded with awe in the business world. In 2003, Fortune observed that Countrywide was expected to write $400 billion in home loans and earn $1.9 billion. Countrywide’s chairman and C.E.O., Angelo Mozilo, did rather well himself. In 2003, he received nearly $33 million in compensation. By that same year, Wall Street had become addicted to home loans, which bankers used to create immensely lucrative mortgage-backed securities and, later, collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.s—and Countrywide was their biggest supplier. Under Mozilo’s leadership, Countrywide’s growth had been astonishing.

He was aiming to achieve a market share—thirty to forty per cent—that was far greater than anyone in the financial-services industry had ever attained. For several years, Countrywide continued to thrive. Then, inevitably, in 2007, subprime defaults began to rocket upwards , forcing the top American bankers to abandoned the mortgage-backed securities they had previously prized. It was obvious to them that the fraudulent mortgages engendered by Countrywide had been highly suceessful as a marketing program but it was obvious to eveyone concerned, at all levels, that the mortgages based entirely on false and misleading credit information were bound to eventually default. In August of 2007, the top American bankers cut off.   Countrywide’s short-term funding, which seriously hindered its ability to operate, and in just a few months following this abandonment,  Mozilo was forced to choose between bankruptcy or selling out to the best bidder.

In January, 2008, Bank of America announced that it would buy the company for a fraction of what Countrywide was worth at its peak. Mozilo was subsequently named a defendant in more than a hundred civil lawsuits and a target of a criminal investigation.  On June 4th, 2007 the S.E.C., in a civil suit, charged Mozilo, David Sambol, and Eric Sieracki with securities fraud; Mozilo was also charged with insider trading. The complaint formalized a public indictment of Mozilo as an icon of corporate malfeasance and greed.

In essence, not only bad credit risks were used to create and sell mortgages on American homes that were essentially worthless. By grouping all of these together and selling them abroad, the banks all made huge profits. When the kissing had to stop, there were two major groups holding the financial bag. The first were the investors and the second were, not those with weak credit, but those who had excellent credit and who were able, and willing to pay off their mortgages.

Unfortunately,  just as no one knows who owns the title to any home in order to foreclose, when the legitimate mortgage holder finally pays off his mortgage, or tries to sell his house, a clear title to said house or property cannot ever be found so, in essence, the innocent mortgage payer can never own or sell his house. This is a terrible economic time bomb quietly ticking away under the feet of the Bank of America and if, and when, it explodes, another bank is but a fond memory.

Readers wishing to find out if their title is secure should write to www.ChinkintheArmor.net, leave a comment on any article and ask for contact information for legal advice.

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a3019.htm

Full Deposition of the Infamous Erica Johnson Seck RE: Indymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff, Vs. Israel a. Machado – 50 2008 CA 037322xxxx Mb

SOON TO BE FAMOUS ROGER STOTTS & DENNIS KIRKPATRICK VP’s, MERS, ATTORNEY in FACT, ONEWEST, INDYMAC, Deutsche BANK et al~~

BOGUS ASSIGNMENTS 3…Forgery, Counterfeit, Fraud …Oh MY!

Posted in chase, concealment, conspiracy, corruption, dennis kirkpatrick, erica johnson seck, fraud digest, geithner, george soros, indymac, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., lehman brothers, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, michael dell, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, mozillo, note, onewest, roger stotts, scam, sewer service, steven mnuchin, Uncategorized, wachoiva, washington mutual, wells fargoComments (1)

New "Foreclosure Mill" Service Tactic?

New "Foreclosure Mill" Service Tactic?


Whenever I get any mail from anyone I make it a point to save the envelope! Since all outgoing mail postage stamps are “created” by Pitney Bowes machines in-house (foreclosing law firms)…dates can simply be omitted, NO DATE and might have gone “Lost in the Mail” or take a long…long…long…long…time to arrive to you. Oh NO! WE JUST GOT FORECLOSED without any warning!
I know when this is coming because I check my file but those of you who don’t …Take a look at what I mean before you end up in the streets. I am not certain what Pitney Bowes guidelines are but this might be wrong for anyone to do.

CHECK THE DATES

Check out this story on “sewer service

Not only are they post dating the assignments but the material inside the envelopes might be dated months before you get it …thanks to this new tactic!

Posted in erica johnson seck, fraud digest, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, MERS, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, roger stotts, scam, sewer serviceComments (0)

Abandoned foreclosures a mounting crisis in Manatee County (with video)…SO KEEP US IN THESE HOMES!!!

Abandoned foreclosures a mounting crisis in Manatee County (with video)…SO KEEP US IN THESE HOMES!!!


THIS ARTICLE WAS PLANNED!!

Another “BOGUS” scenario of todays reality. Watch this video and listen with disgust how they describe how one tries… yes tries to survive in todays world! Heartless souls you are to make this ridiculous video. They speak of people living in tents, make use of abandoned homes etc…Obviously Senator Mike Bennett needs to stop by this blog to witness what really is happening to the “proud happy family” who once did live there to begin with!


QUIT TREATING US LIKE GARBAGE!

How about making good use of these homes and put homeless people in there! It’s obvious the mighty $$$$ are behind this scam, They fraudulantly sell these homes for half after they foreclose…So why not just cut the priciple in HALF??? Yup Something sure is not RIGHT.

IT SURE DIDN’T STOP YOU FROM

TRESPASSING EITHER!

By ROBERT NAPPER – rnapper@bradenton.com Buzz up!
MANATEE — A mounting crisis created by the record number of foreclosures in Manatee County has hit Jeannette Traylor right where she lives: An abandoned foreclosed home has brought blight, crime and fear into her neighborhood.

For Traylor, it is becoming harder and harder each day to remember what the home used to be: a quaint three-bedroom, two-bath house nestled in a Northwest Bradenton neighborhood filled with similar homes and families living the quiet life. But the home at 5504 Fourth Ave. NW now stands out.

And not in a good way.
Contiue Reading HERE…

Smell something funny? sniff sniff OINK OINK…go HERE

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, dennis kirkpatrick, erica johnson seck, fraud digest, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, MERS, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, scamComments (0)

SOON TO BE FAMOUS ROGER STOTTS & DENNIS KIRKPATRICK VP's, MERS, ATTORNEY in FACT, ONEWEST, INDYMAC, Deutsche BANK et al~~

SOON TO BE FAMOUS ROGER STOTTS & DENNIS KIRKPATRICK VP's, MERS, ATTORNEY in FACT, ONEWEST, INDYMAC, Deutsche BANK et al~~


Lets connect this Pyramid: Erica Johnson-Seck, Roger Stotts, Dennis Kirkpatrick. The Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A. seem to have the same players by “virtue” hereof?

“WALLSTREET is our AMERICAN TERRORTIST”

What these people have done is no different than the 9/11 acts, they did not use planes

they used our homes to destroy us financially! They are killing us s..l..o…w..l..y!

This time the government is rewarding their behavior!

WE WILL NEVER FORGET 9/11

But…I thought he is an Attorney in Fact for IndyMac above? But Now VP for MERS?

COMPARE HIS SIGNATURES

I EVEN HAVE THEM SIGNING onbehalf of the FDIC!

They are in my stash will post when I find em’.

All three together as Attorney In Fact for OnesWest

Below is a sale that happened in DC all in 1 single day! I am still trying to understand it all.

HHHmmm more investigating….

So there you have it..I can show plenty more but it will take many years truthfully to put all the documents they signed all in one room!

See Erica’s Master Pieces here…

Full Deposition of the Infamous Erica Johnson Seck RE: Indymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff, Vs. Israel a. Machado – 50 2008 CA 037322xxxx Mb

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



Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, dennis kirkpatrick, erica johnson seck, fraud digest, indymac, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, MERS, michael dell, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, onewest, roger stotts, scamComments (6)

Full Deposition of the Infamous Erica Johnson Seck RE: Indymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff, Vs. Israel a. Machado – 50 2008 CA 037322xxxx Mb

Full Deposition of the Infamous Erica Johnson Seck RE: Indymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff, Vs. Israel a. Machado – 50 2008 CA 037322xxxx Mb


This is a Must Read where ICE Legal from Palm Beach rips into Ms. Seck…

Picture says it all!

Here, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel misled the Court about the real party in interest in the case; and 2) engaged in extensive discovery abuse to obstruct revelation of the
known falsities in the complaint – a “flagrant abuse of the judicial process” worthy of severe sanctions. See Martin v. Automobili Lamborghini Exclusive, Inc., 307 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2002). Dismissal for fraud is appropriate where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.” Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Yep you gone done it again…This time you messed with the WRONG assignments…MINE!!!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoSPTjd_PXM]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD6XUboT1JM]

DEPOSITION OF ERICA JOHNSON-SECK by DinSFLA on Scribd

Here is her peers doing the same…

SOON TO BE FAMOUS ROGER STOTTS & DENNIS KIRKPATRICK VP’s, MERS, ATTORNEY in FACT, ONEWEST, INDYMAC, Deutsche BANK et al~~

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



Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, fraud digest, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, MERS, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, scamComments (3)

DJSP Enterprises, Inc. Reports Revenue of $189.8 Million and Adjusted Net Income for Nine Months Ending September 30, 2009 of $32.4 million. (UPDATE it's alot more)

DJSP Enterprises, Inc. Reports Revenue of $189.8 Million and Adjusted Net Income for Nine Months Ending September 30, 2009 of $32.4 million. (UPDATE it's alot more)


UPDATE HERE


Quarterly Revenues Increase 44% and YTD Revenues Increase 29% Year over Year

Law Offices Of David J. Stern ESQ, P.A….

PLANTATION, Fla., Feb. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — DJSP Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq: DJSP, DJSPW, DJSPU), one of the largest providers of processing services for the mortgage and real estate industries in the United States, today announced financial results for the three and nine month periods ending September 30, 2009 for its recently acquired processing operations. The operating results discussed in this press release reflect the separate operations of the acquired business for the periods presented on an adjusted basis, each of which occurred prior to the closing of the Business Combination with Chardan 2008 China Acquisition Corp on January 15, 2010.

Processing Operations Third Quarter Financial Highlights

Revenue for the quarter increased 44% to $73.0 million from $50.6 million in last year’s comparable period. For nine months, revenue increased 29% year over year to $189.8 million.
Adjusted Net income was $10.4 million in the third quarter. For the nine month period, adjusted net income was $32.4 million or $1.65* per share.
Adjusted EBITDA for the third quarter was $16.4 million, and for the nine months was $50.7 million.

*Calculated using treasury stock method assuming a common share price of $8.14; Assumes 19.62 million shares outstanding; Assumes adjusted net income for nine months ended September 30, 2009 of $32.4 million.

Subsequent to Quarter End

Chardan 2008 China Acquisition Corp. closed its business combination with DAL Group, LLC on January 15, 2010 and changed its name to DJSP Enterprises, Inc. and its NASDAQ symbols to DJSP, DJSPU and DJSPW.

Continue reading HERE (NOTE: MSN took this article down off it’s site) HMMMMMMMM I smell FISH! go to the others below!

Move over GOLDMAN SACHS…WE have a New Player to this Housing “Betting” Crisis…NASDAQ Presenting the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. (“DJS”)

NASDAQ, DJSP Enterprises Major Shareholders David J. Stern (Law office Foreclosure Mill) and Kerry S. Propper Subject of Department of Justice Investigation And SBA Law Suit.

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



Posted in chase, geithner, george soros, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., lehman brothers, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, MERS, michael dell, mozillo, steven mnuchin, Uncategorized, wells fargoComments (2)

Wolf in Sheeps Clothing…First SHOW us CitiMortgage you OWN OUR NOTE!!!

Wolf in Sheeps Clothing…First SHOW us CitiMortgage you OWN OUR NOTE!!!


Thanks But No Thanks CITIMORTGAGE!

…Are we being SCAMMED once again? New “Deed In Lieu” Program Gets Homeowners Six Months Mortgage Free And $1,000…

SHOW ME THE NOTE FIRST!

Citi recently agreed to give qualified borrowers six months in their homes before it takes them over. It will offer these homeowners $1,000 or more in relocation assistance, provided the property is in good condition. Previously, the bank had no formal process for serving borrowers who failed to qualify for Citi’s other foreclosure-avoidance programs like loan modification.

continue reading here

Posted in chase, concealment, conspiracy, corruption, fraud digest, geithner, george soros, lehman brothers, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ, MERS, michael dell, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, mozillo, scam, steven mnuchin, Uncategorized, wells fargoComments (0)

Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives

Please Support Me!

All Of These Are Troll Comments