Democracy NOW! News – Calls are growing for a nationwide moratorium on home foreclosures following the recent revelations that major lenders may have committed fraud while forcing thousands of people out of their homes. On Thursday the White House announced President Obama will not sign a bill approved by Congress that could have made it easier for banks to foreclose. We discuss the latest in the foreclosure crisis with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. This week Ohio filed a lawsuit accusing the lender Ally Financial and its GMAC Mortgage division of fraud in approving scores of foreclosures. Published with written permission from democracynow.org.

http://www.democracynow.org Provided to you under Democracy NOW! creative commons license. Copyright democracynow.org, an independent non-profit user funded news media, recognized and broadcast world wide.

Continue reading…HUFFINGTON POST

.

RESTON, Va. – (Business Wire) Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) Chief Executive Officer R.K. Arnold today issued the following statement regarding the organization and clarifying certain aspects of its operations:

“MERS is one important component of the complex infrastructure of America’s housing finance system. Billions of dollars of mortgage money flow through the financial system every year. It takes many, often-unseen mechanical processes to properly get those funds into the hands of qualified homebuyers.

Technology designed to reduce paperwork has a very positive effect on families and communities. They may not see it, but these things save money and time, creating reliability and stability in the system. That’s important to keep the mortgage funds flowing to the consumers who need it.

With millions of Americans facing foreclosure, every element of the housing finance system is under tremendous strain. What we’re seeing now is that the foreclosure process itself was not designed to withstand the extraordinary volume of foreclosures that the mortgage industry and local governments must now handle.

MERS helps the mortgage finance process work better. The MERS process of tracking mortgages and holding title provides clarity, transparency and efficiency to the housing finance system. We are committed to continually ensuring that everyone who has responsibilities in the mortgage and foreclosure process follows local and state laws, as well as our own training and rules.”

Facts about MERS

(NOTE TO EDITORS: The following is attributed to MERS Communications Manager Karmela Lejarde)

FACT: Courts have ruled in favor of MERS in many lawsuits, upholding MERS legal interest as the mortgagee and the right to foreclose.

This legal right springs from two important facts:

1) MERS holds legal title to a mortgage as an agent for the owner of the loan
2) MERS can become the holder of the promissory note when the owner of the loan chooses to make MERS the holder of the note with the right to enforce if the mortgage loan goes into default.

MERS does not authorize anyone to represent it in a foreclosure unless both the mortgage and the note are in MERS possession. In some cases where courts have found against MERS, those cases have hinged on other procedural defects or improper presentation of MERS’s legal interests and rights. Citations can be found at the end of this document.*

FACT: MERS does not create a defect in the mortgage or deed of trust

Claims that MERS disrupts or creates a defect in the mortgage or deed of trust are not supported by fact or legal precedents. This is often used as a tactic by lawyers to delay or prevent the foreclosure. The mortgage lien is granted to MERS by the borrower and the seller and that is what makes MERS the mortgagee. The role of mortgagee is legal and binding and confers to MERS certain legal rights and responsibilities.

FACT: The trail of ownership does not change because of MERS

MERS does not remove, omit, or otherwise fail to report land ownership information from public records. Parties are put on notice that MERS is the mortgagee and notifications by third parties can be sent to MERS. Mortgages and deeds of trust still get recorded in the land records.

The MERS System tracks the changes in servicing rights and beneficial ownership. No legal interests are transferred on the MERS System, including servicing and ownership. In fact, MERS is the only publicly available comprehensive source for note ownership.

While this information is tracked through the MERS System, the paperwork still exists to prove actual legal transfers still occurred. No mortgage ownership documents have disappeared because loans were registered on the MERS System. These documents exist now as they have before MERS was created. The only pieces of paper that have been eliminated are assignments between servicing companies because such assignments become unnecessary when MERS holds the mortgage lien for the owner of the note.

FACT: MERS did not cause mortgage securitization

MERS was created as a means to keep better track of the mortgage servicing and beneficial rights as loans were getting bought and sold at a high rate during the late 1990s.

At the height of the housing market, low interest rates prompted some homeowners to refinance once, twice, even three times in the space of months. Banks were originating loans at more than double their usual rate. Assignments – the document that names the holder of the legal title to the lien – primarily between servicing companies, were piling up in county land record offices, awaiting recording. Many times the loans were getting refinanced before the assignments could get recorded on the old loan. The delay prevented lien releases from getting recorded in a timely manner, leaving clouds on title.

MERS was created to provide clarity, transparency and efficiency by tracking the changes in servicing rights and beneficial ownership interests. It was not created to enable faster securitization. MERS is the only publicly available source of comprehensive information for the servicing and ownership of the more than 64 million loans registered on the system. The Mortgage Identification Number (MIN), created by MERS, is similar in function to a motor vehicle VIN, which keeps track of these loans. Without MERS the current mortgage crisis would be even worse.

FACT: Lenders cannot “hide” behind MERS

MERS is the only comprehensive, publicly available source of the servicing and ownership of more than 64 million loans in the United States. If a homeowner needs to identify the servicer or investor of their loan, and it is registered in MERS, they can be helped through the MERS website or via toll-free number at 888-679-6377.

FACT: MERS fully complies with recording statutes

The purpose of recording laws is to show that a lien exists, which protects the mortgagee and any bona fide purchasers. When MERS is the mortgagee, the mortgage or deed of trust is recorded, and all recording fees are paid.

*NOTABLE LEGAL VICTORIES:

a. IN RE Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) Litigation, a multi-district litigation case in federal court in Arizona who issued a favorable opinion, stating that “The MERS System is not fraudulent, and MERS has not committed any fraud.”

b. IN RE Tucker (9/20/2010) where a Missouri bankruptcy judge found that the language of the deed of trust clearly authorizes MERS to act on behalf of the lender in serving as the legal title holder.

c. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Bellistri, 2010 WL 2720802 (E.D. Mo. 2010), where the court held that Bellistri’s failure to provide notice to MERS violated MERS’ constitutional due process rights.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
Karmela Lejarde, 703-772-7156

Copyright © 2010 Business Wire. All rights reserved.

RELATED LINKS:

MERS 101

.

NO. THERE’S NO LIFE AT MERS

.

MUST READ |E-Discovery…Electronic Registration Systems WORST NIGHTMARE!

.

ALTER EGO DOCTRINE: ‘Pierce the Corporate Veil’

R.K. ARNOLD Pres. & CEO Of MERS (Photo Credit) Daniel Rosenbaum for The New York Times

By Dakin Campbell and Prashant Gopal – Oct 8, 2010 5:43 PM ET

Attorneys general in about 40 states may announce a joint investigation into foreclosures at the largest banks and mortgage firms, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

State attorneys general led by Iowa’s Tom Miller are in talks that may lead to the announcement of a coordinated probe as soon as Oct. 12, said the person, who declined to be identified because a final agreement hasn’t been reached. The number of states may change because several are still deciding whether to join the investigation, the person said. New Mexico Attorney General Gary King said today in a statement that his state will join a multi-state effort.

Lawyers representing the banks are expecting a more widespread investigation, according to Patrick McManemin, a partner at Patton Boggs LLP, a Washington-based law firm that represents banks, loan servicers and financial institutions. Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. lender, today extended a freeze on foreclosures to all 50 states.

“We are aware of or involved in a large number of investigations that lead us to believe there are in the neighborhood of 40 state attorneys general who have initiated investigations or expressed an interest,” McManemin said in a telephone interview.

Continue reading …BLOOMBERG

.

Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 8, 2010; 2:16 PM

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called on major lenders to halt foreclosures across the country Friday following Bank of America‘s announcement that it will suspend all such proceedings until a review of possible paperwork problems is completed.

Reid, who had sent a letter to major banks asking them to suspend foreclosures in Nevada, extended his concern to include all 50 states.

“I thank Bank of America for doing the right thing by suspending actions on foreclosures while this investigation runs its course,” he said. “I urge other major mortgage servicers to consider expanding the area where they have halted foreclosures to all 50 states as well.”

Reid is the latest Democratic leader to join a growing chorus of lawmakers and state attorneys general who have called for greater scrutiny of the foreclosure process and a nationwide moratorium. Homeowner advocates say that lenders have used dubious paperwork to expedite the eviction of homeowners who are behind on their payments.

Pressure on the banks continues to grow on Capitol Hill, where Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said Friday that the banking committee he chairs will hold hearings Nov. 16 to investigate the foreclosure paperwork morass.

CONTINUE READING…WASHINGTON POST

Bank of America Corp., the nation’s largest bank, said Friday it would stop sales of foreclosed homes in all 50 states as it reviews potential flaws in foreclosure documents.

A week earlier, the company had said it would only stop such sales in the 23 states where foreclosures must be approved by a judge.

The move comes amid evidence that mortgage company employees or their lawyers signed documents in foreclosure cases without verifying the information in them.

“We will stop foreclosure sales until our assessment has been satisfactorily completed,” company spokesman Dan Frahm said in a statement. “Our ongoing assessment shows the basis for our past foreclosure decisions is accurate.”

Concern is growing that mortgage lenders have been evicting homeowners using flawed court papers. State and federal officials have been ramping up pressure on the mortgage industry over worries about potential legal violations.

On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urged five large mortgage lenders to suspend foreclosures in Nevada until they have set up systems to make sure homeowners aren’t “improperly directed into foreclosure proceedings.” Nevada is not among the states where banks had suspended foreclosures.

Also Friday, PNC Financial Services Group Inc. said it is halting most foreclosures and evictions in 23 states for a month so it can review whether documents it submitted to courts complied with state laws. An official at the Pittsburgh-based bank confirmed the decision on Friday, which was reported earlier by the New York Times. The official requested anonymity because the decision hasn’t been publicly announced.

Continue reading…ASSOCIATED PRESS

Fired worker says home foreclosure firm forged documents

By SHANNON BEHNKEN | The Tampa Tribune

Published: October 7, 2010

TAMPA – First, the Florida Attorney General’s Office launched an investigation into four of the state’s largest foreclosure firms, alleging made-up paperwork and forged signatures.

Then, some of the nation’s largest lenders halted home foreclosures after discovering employees had signed hundreds of thousands of documents without reading them.

Now, in a foreclosure industry bloated by the lingering effects of the housing crisis, a former employee in one of the firms under investigation describes in detail a secret system designed for speed at any cost.

Attorneys and staff members forged signatures and changed dates, casually passed around notary stamps, and notarized stacks of blank documents to be filled in later, said the employee, Tammie Lou Kapusta, in an interview with attorney general’s staff.

At the Law Offices of David J. Stern in Broward County, where Kapusta worked, long “signing tables” were set up across eight floors and employees would process 250 documents per floor each day, she said during the interview.

Continue reading…TAMPA TRIBUNE

.

RELATED:

EXPLOSIVE DEPOSTION!!!! BUSTED!! DAVID J. STERN “MILL” KNEW THIS ALL ALONG…THIS FORECLOSURE FRAUD!!!

.

False Statements

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY
LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Action Date: October 7, 2010
Location: Palm Beach County, FL

WHY WELLS FARGO MUST BE ORDERED TO STOP ITS FORECLOSURES. While other banks have acknowledged some problems and halted some foreclosures, Wells Fargo has issued self-serving statements and forged ahead.

Why should Wells Fargo be ordered to stop its foreclosures? First, Wells Fargo’s foreclosure mill, America’s Servicing Company, and its robo-signers John Herman Kennerty, China Brown, Heather Carrico, Natasha Clark and others signed thousands of documents each month with no knowledge of the truth of the matters set forth for the courts in those documents. The sheer volume of the documents signed by Kennerty should be enough to convince any court that Kennerty had no knowledge of the facts.

A court in Brooklyn found a case where Kennerty’s signature was notarized, but actually did not appear on the document. The notary was mindlessly signing a stack of documents.

Which law firms are submitting the Affidavits in Florida for Wells Fargo? Florida Default Law Group and the Law Offices of David Stern, two of the law firms under investigation by the Florida Attorney General. Second, Wells Fargo used Docx in Alpharetta, Georgia to produce mortgage assignments used in thousands of Wells Fargo foreclosures. Many different employees signed the name “Linda Green” on these documents. (For three examples of mortgage assignments used by Wells Fargo, click on the “Pleadings” section of this website – no sign-on is necessary.)

Despite the statements of Lender Processing Services to the contrary, Docx “Linda Green” Affidavits – with many versions of the Linda Green signature – continued to appear in Wells Fargo cases well into 2009. Examples are also in the Pleadings Section. The Perry Affidavit was signed July 10, 2008, but notarized January 15, 2009. The Carrerra Affidavit was signed in January 2008, but notarized in January, 2009. On these few examples, Linda Green is identified as the Vice President of Wells Fargo bank, the Vice President of Sand Canyon Mortgage and the Vice President of American Home Mortgage Servicing. Most are notarized by the same notary, Brittany Snow, who says she has personal knowledge that Linda Green is Vice President of these many entities.

In the first quarter of 2010, Wells Fargo filed 1,117 foreclosure actions in Palm Beach County. In the second quarter, Wells Fargo filed 920 foreclosures in Palm Beach County. In the third quarter, Wells Fargo filed 847 foreclosures. In the vast majority of these foreclosures, Wells Fargo is acting as a trustee for a mortgage-backed securitized trust that cannot even prove that it acquired the mortgages without relying on the Linda Green and John Kennerty documents.

This is not the time to stonewall. THE FDIC AND OCC, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY AND THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING NEED TO STOP THE WELLS FARGO FORECLOSURES.

Hat Tip to a subscriber on this!

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
Minute Entry
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hearing Information:

Date / Time / Room:
Case Number: 4:08-BK-15510-EWH Chapter: 13
Debtor: JULIA V. VASQUEZ
Hearing Information:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 07, 2010 11:30 AM COURTROOM 430

Bankruptcy Judge: EILEEN W. HOLLOWELL
Reporter / ECR: ALICIA JOHNS
Courtroom Clerk: TERESA MATTINGLY

Matter:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED PURSUANT TO FED. R. BANKR. P. 9011, 3001, LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULES 4001 (e) AND 9011-1 AND 11 U.S.C. SEC. 105 FOR CONDUCT RELATED TO A PROOF OF CLAIM FILED 11/28/08 AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY FILED ON 1/6/09. (reset from 9/2/10) R / M #: 90 / 0

Appearances:

BEVERLY B. PARKER, ATTORNEY FOR JULIA V. VASQUEZ, Appearing in Phoenix
ERIC J MCNEILUS, ATTORNEY FOR JULIA V. VASQUEZ
LEONARD MCDONALD, ATTORNEY FOR TIFFANY & BOSCO, Appearing in Phoenix
DAVID GOSS FROM SAXON MORTGAGE, ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT OF BANKRUPTCY DEPARTMENT, Present in courtroom in Phoenix

Proceedings:

Mr. McDonald filed a pre-hearing statement yesterday and provides a copy to Ms. Parker.

The court expresses its concerns and explains why the order was issued.

Mr. McDonald walks the court through what he has learned about the matter. Admittedly the proof of claim nor stay relief motion were plead to say that they were done in the name of Saxon Mortgage Servicer as servicer for the beneficial interest of Deutsche.

Court asks Mr. McDonald if his office knew who held the deed of trust.

Mr. McDonald responds that the electronic referral was asked to be done in the name of Saxon. They were not prosecuting a non-judicial trustee sale. They noticed up the trustee sale in the name of Deutsche. If you look at the note and deed of trust they are in the name of Saxon Mortgage.

Court points out that the proof of claim was never withdrawn. No one had the courtesy to inform the debtor that Deutsche Bank should have been served.

Mr. McDonald responds that he did not represent Saxon in the adversary. When they received push back they did not go forward with a trustee sale or prosecute the motion for relief from stay.

Mr. David Goss is sworn and examined by the court. Ms. Parker cross-examines the witness and Mr. McDonald objects.

The witness is excused.

COURT PLACES ITS FINDINGS ON THE RECORD. SAXON TO PAY MS. VASQUEZ’S LAWYERS $5000.00 WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM TODAY OR A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED.

[ipaper docId=38952020 access_key=key-1zk1c61wyp2ygx4m5djd height=600 width=600 /]

Be sure to catch the Full Depo of Renee Hertzler below after AP Alan Zibel’s article

Bank of America delays foreclosures in 23 states

FORMER EMPLOYEE WHISTLE BLOWER!!!

.

Via: 4ClosureFraud

.

HEY JUDGE COX, THIS IS WHAT YOUR MOTION TO QUASH IS PROTECTING!

~

MY GOD!

~

WHERE ARE THE F***ING FEDERAL AGENTS!!!

~

“I personally did not do it because I refused to do it.”

“I wasn’t going to falsify a military document.”

“I was told that that’s fine, somebody else on your team will do it.”

~

This just in and it is unbelievable!

We are neck deep in issues today so I do not have time to go through and highlight everything, and there is a lot, but here are some snips…

TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY

THIS SHOULD BE THE BOMBSHELL THAT STOPS IT ALL IN FLORIDA

MORE TO FOLLOW ON THIS

1                             STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2                             DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

3                             AG # L10-3-1145

4

5   IN RE:

6   INVESTIGATION OF LAW OFFICES
OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A.
7

8   ____________________________/

9

10

11

12               DEPOSITION OF TAMMIE LOU KAPUSTA

13

14

15

16                    12:11 p.m. – 1:58 p.m.
September 22, 2010
17                Office of the Attorney General
110 Southeast 6th Street, 10th Floor
18                Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 – – –
3 Deposition taken before Kalandra Smith, Court
4 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
5 Florida at Large, in the above cause.
6 – – –
7 THERE UPON:
8 TAMMIE LOU KAPUSTA
9 having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined
10 and testified as follows:

1 Q Let’s go to the assignments of mortgage. They
2 were prepared in-house?
3 A Yeah.
4 Q You’re smiling. You want to tell me about
5 them?
6 A Assignments were done sometimes after the
7 final judgement was entered.
8 Q Do you know why that is?
9 A Because that’s what we were directed to do

19 Q Can you tell me the execution of the
20 assignments, how it worked?
21 A Assignments were prepared again from the
22 casesum. All of our stuff comes from the casesum. They
23 would be stamped and signed by a notary or not. Per
24 floor we had a designated spot to place them and Cheryl
25 would come once a day and sign them.
22
1 Q Sign them as what?
2 A As –
3 Q For the bank?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Or for MERS or whoever it was for?
6 A Correct.
7 Q Would these notaries be there watching her as
8 she signed?
9 A No.
10 Q She would just sit there and sign stacks of
11 them?
12 A Correct. As far as notaries go in the firm I
13 don’t think any notary actually used their own notary
14 stamp. The team used them.
15 Q There were just stamps around?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And you actually saw that?
18 A I was part of that.
19 Q You did it? Are you a notary?
20 A No, I’m not.
21 Q Did you sign as a witness?
22 A I did not. I signed as a witness on one
23 document and after that I decided that I didn’t want to
24 put my name as a witness anymore.
25 Q Tell me about the stamps. You stamped them?
23
1 A Yeah, I had stamps. Each team had a notary on
2 them or notaries that I was aware of. Whether they were
3 or weren’t wasn’t –
4 Q You had stamps?
5 A Correct. We would stamp them and they would
6 get signed.
7 Q Stamp them in blanks?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Who would sign them?
10 A Other people on the team that could sign the
11 signature of the person or just a check on there or
12 whatever.
13 Q Was that common practice?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Was that standard practice?
16 A Pretty much.
17 Q What about the witnesses?
18 A Those would be signed by juniors who were –
19 Q Standing there?
20 A Here, sign this. It has to go to Cheryl, sign
21 it. Then it would go and sit at the desk where Cheryl
22 would sign everything.
23 Q Out of view of the notary and out of view of
24 the witnesses?
25 A Correct.
24
1 Q Do you know who implemented this procedure?
2 A Cheryl.
3 Q Cheryl did?
4 A Um-hum.
5 Q Did anybody else sign with the firm for the
6 banks?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Who was that?
9 A There were people that were responsible for
10 signing Cheryl’s name. Cheryl, Tammie Sweat, and Beth
11 Cerni. Those were the only three people that could sign
12 Cheryl’s name. If you ever look at assignments you’ll
13 see that they are not all the same.
14 MS. EDWARDS: What are the names again?
15 Cheryl, Tammie?
16 THE WITNESS: Tammie Sweat and Beth Cerni.
17 MS. EDWARDS: Could you spell that.
18 MS. CLARKSON: C-E-R-N-I.
19 BY MS. CLARKSON:
20 Q Did they practice Cheryl’s signature?
21 A I would assume so.
22 Q Did you ever see them?
23 A Not practicing but I’ve seen them sign it.
24 Q Did you see somebody sign Cheryl’s name?
25 A Yes.
25
1 Q That wasn’t Cheryl?
2 A Yes. All the time.
3 Q Did Cheryl know about this?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Was it at her direction?
6 A Yes.

16 Q Did anyone quit as far as you know due to the
17 practices?
18 A I’m sure but they wouldn’t come right out and
19 say I quit because of the practices. I know that people
20 had left because they were uncomfortable with the things
21 that they were being asked to do, as most of us were.
22 When it got really sticky there were a lot of us that
23 weren’t here.
24 Q What does really sticky mean?
25 A They wanted us to start changing the documents
33
1 and stuff and doing stuff that we weren’t supposed to be
2 doing as far as service.
3 Q What documents did they want you to change?
4 A Manpower documents. A lot of judges started
5 requiring, because of the Jane and John Doe issues,
6 required that you have a military search for all the
7 defendants. If you named a Jane and John Doe as an NKA
8 you had to pull a military search on them. Unless you
9 have somebody’s social security number technically you
10 can’t pull a military search supposedly.
11 The program that we used for the program that
12 we used, you could put in the main defendant’s social
13 security and John or Jane Doe’s name and it would give
14 us a military search saying that they were in the
15 military.
16 Q You would get their social security number
17 because the bank documents contained it?
18 A Correct. The lenders, the referrals had the
19 socials.
20 Q Did you put the social in on everybody to find
21 out their address for service?
22 A Not everybody. I personally did not do it
23 because I refused to do it. I wasn’t going to falsify a
24 military document. I was told that that’s fine,
25 somebody else on your team will do it.
1 Q What do you mean falsify a military document?
2 A Well, I’m using the main defendant’s social
3 security number on somebody else’s name, not his name.
4 John Doe and the main defendant was James, I was taking
5 James’ social security number and putting John Doe’s
6 name in there. I wasn’t but that’s what the practice
7 was. The judges started saying we’re not going to
8 consider service completed until –
9 Q There’s a miliary search?
10 A Correct.
11 Q So why wouldn’t they use the right social
12 security number for the right person?
13 A Because you don’t have a social for an NKA or
14 unknown tenant. They wouldn’t enter a final judgement
15 unless the military doc was there.
16 Q So you just used anybody’s?
17 A Correct.

9 A So what we had to do from that point, again
10 the affidavits were still split in two pages, at that
11 point we were supposed to be sending them back to the
12 banks to be signed now. The problem being that a lot of
13 times we wouldn’t get them back or executed in time for
14 the hearings. So we had what they called signature
15 pages that Tammie Sweat or someone else would have in
16 their possession. If we couldn’t get it back from the
17 bank executed in time we would just take a signature
18 page and put it on the affidavit.
19 Q What was on the signature page?
20 A The signature and notary from the bank.
21 Q Were these documents photocopied or were they
22 original documents?
23 A Some were photocopied.
24 Q How would you get that many from a bank
25 original? The bank supplied them to you.
42
1 A Well, what would happen would be like if I had
2 file A and that one didn’t go to hearing because there
3 was something wrong with it and file B was going to
4 hearing but it was the same bank, I would take the
5 signature page from A and give it to B.
6 Q Oh give it to another file?
7 A And just re-execute this file.
8 Q Okay. That was common practice?
9 A Yes, after Cheryl couldn’t sign.
10 Q Did Cheryl know?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Cheryl knew about all the practices because
13 she is the one who ran the office?
14 A She was the one who implemented them.
15 Q Were there any other activities or practices
16 over at David Stern’s firm that made you feel
17 uncomfortable or that you were unwilling to do?
18 A I don’t know how to answer that question.
19 It’s a loaded one.
20 Q Take your time.
21 A Yeah. Some of the things that were done there
22 just were not on the up and up.
23 Q Explain to me in as much detail as you can
24 what those things were.
25 A I don’t even know where to start with it.

Now that’s some BULLSHIT!

~

MUCH MORE IN THE DEPO BELOW…

~

Full-Deposition-of-Tammie-Lou-Kapusta-Law-Office-of-David-J-Stern

[ipaper docId=38901226 access_key=key-1qyc5k5u2jgdkg86i66p height=600 width=600 /]

Image credit: PI Bill Warner

Ohio’s Cordray Interview About Lawsuit Against Ally

by Brett Horn | 10-06-10 | 9:09AM | E-mail Note

Lender Processing Services LPS held a conference call Wednesday to discuss its involvement in the mortgage foreclosure controversy and recent allegations against the company. Through its mortgage default services segment, which constitutes about half of the company’s revenue, LPS is deeply involved in processing mortgage foreclosures. Recently, with mortgage foreclosures heating up, there has been controversy surrounding lenders’ foreclosure procedures, which has led a few major mortgage lenders to halt foreclosures until they can verify that they are following the letter of the law. The main source of contention surrounds a practice called robo-signing. Whereas judicial foreclosure requires each foreclosure to be reviewed and vetted by someone knowledgeable about the case, lenders may have had employees signing foreclosures en masse without review. LPS had previously issued a press release stating that it is not involved in this practice, and it reiterated the point on the call. At this point, we see no reason to believe this is not correct, and we don’t see this as a major issue for the company.

The company also discussed two recent lawsuits filed against it, which allege that LPS illegally splits fees with foreclosure lawyers.

[…]

…Continue reading…MORNING STAR

.

Related:

LPS 101

__________________________

Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS) Revolving Door To Washington D.C.

JPMorgan, Bank of America Face `Hydra’ of State Foreclosure Investigations

By Margaret Cronin Fisk – Oct 6, 2010 12:01 AM ET

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Ally Financial Inc., defending allegations of fraudulent home foreclosures from customers and Congress, may face the most financial peril from investigations by state attorneys general.

Authorities in at least seven states are probing whether lenders used false documents and signatures to justify hundreds of thousands of foreclosures, and the number of these inquiries will grow, according to state officials and legal experts.

“You’re going to see a tremendous amount of activity with all the AGs in the U.S.,” Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray said in an interview. “We have a high degree of skepticism that the corners that were cut are truly legal.”

JPMorgan, Bank of America and Ally have curtailed foreclosures or evictions in 23 states where courts have jurisdiction over home seizures.

While homeowners in those states and elsewhere must usually show damages to win a lawsuit, “attorneys general can just sue over deceptive sales practices and get penalties,” said Christopher Peterson, a University of Utah law professor who specializes in commercial and contract law.

In Ohio, penalties include fines up to $25,000 per violation, with each false affidavit or document considered a violation, according to state law enforcement officials. In Iowa, fines rise to a maximum of $40,000 for each violation.

Foreclosure Freeze

This penalty would apply to “every instance of an affidavit that was filed improperly or every time facts were attested to that weren’t true,” said Cordray. His counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has called for a freeze on foreclosures and said the submissions are a “possible fraud on the court.”

Officials in Ohio and Connecticut, along with Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Iowa and Illinois, said they are investigating mortgage foreclosure practices.

Continue reading …BLOOMBERG

.

California Democratic Congressional Delegation Urges Bank Investigations

 [ipaper docId=38782438 access_key=key-1krlshwit8iqdv96ypqi height=600 width=600 /]

Highlights:

• State Official Moon Lights as a Robo Signer in Florida
• Reminder to help your neighbor when in need
• Children are confused

Please read this case and the words this Judge uses ….It appears that Steven J. Baum P.C. has been up to this for quite some time.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR PUBLICATION

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

In re: :

Chapter 13

EILEEN FAGAN, :
Case No. 04 B 23460 (ASH)
Debtor. :
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x
A P P E A R A N C E S :
LAW OFFICE OF SHMUEL KLEIN, P.C.
Attorneys for Debtor
By: Shmuel Klein, Esq.
268 Route 59
Spring Valley, NY 10977

STEVEN J. BAUM, P.C.
Attorneys for Secured Creditor
By: Dennis Jose, Esq.
220 Northpointe Parkway, Suite G
Amherst, NY 14228

ADLAI S. HARDIN, JR.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

DECISION GRANTING SANCTIONS FOR MOTION TO LIFT STAY BASED ON FALSE CERTIFICATION

In In re Gorshstein, 285 B.R. 118 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002) I granted sanctions against secured creditors in three separate cases where the secured creditors moved to vacate the automatic stay on the basis of false certifications of post-petition defaults. The Gorshstein decision was “provoked by an apparently increasing number of motions in this Court to vacate the automatic stay filed by secured creditors often based on attorney affidavits certifying material post-petition defaults where, in fact, there were no material defaults by the debtors.” 285 B.R. at 120.

The Secured Creditor’s motion to lift the stay in this case is, in the vernacular, a “poster child” for the type of abuse condemned in the Gorshstein decision. It is one of several such motions to come before me in recent months. This decision granting substantial sanctions in favor of the debtor and her attorney is published to reiterate and reinforce my strongly-held view that debtors must not be subjected to the risk of foreclosure and loss of their homes on the basis of false certifications of post-petition defaults.

Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction over this contested matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a) and 157(a) and the standing order of reference in this District dated July 10, 1984 (Acting Chief Judge Ward).

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

The Facts

By Notice of Motion and Application both dated June 1, 2007 Deutsche Bank Trust Company of America’s f/k/a Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee c/o Homecomings Financial, LLC (the “Secured Creditor”) moved to terminate the automatic stay with respect to the debtor’s residential real property in Stony Point, New York (the “Property”). The Secured Creditor holds by assignment a note dated October 9, 2001 in the amount of $284,750.00 secured by a mortgage on the Property. The Application recited that as of May 30, 2007 there was an unpaid principal balance on the loan of $278,043.61 with interest thereon in the amount of $20,553.51 plus late charges in the amount of $946.28, aggregating $299,543.40.

The debtor filed her petition under Chapter 13 on September 21, 2004. Thus, the debtor’s first post-petition mortgage payment was due for October 2004. Paragraph 3 of the Application states as follows:

As of the 30th day of May, 2007, the Debtor has failed to make 4 post-petition payments in the amount of $4,020.03 which represents the payments due the 1st day of February, 2007 through May, 2007 and has not cured said default.

As amplified below, this statement was false.

Annexed to the Application was an affidavit sworn to by John Cody, an Assistant Vice President of Homecomings Financial Network, sworn to April 3, 2006 in which Mr. Cody swore in paragraph 5:

As of the 31st day of March, 2006, the Debtor has failed to make 2 post-petition payments in the amount of $3,709.17 which represents the payments due the 1st day of February, 2006 through March, 2006 and has not cured said default.

The Cody affidavit was submitted in support of a motion filed by the Secured Creditor in 2006 and was erroneously annexed to the instant motion. The quoted statement from the Cody affidavit was false when made in 2006. Belatedly recognizing that the Cody affidavit applied to the Secured Creditor’s baseless 2006 motion to lift the stay, on June 8, 2007 counsel for the Secured Creditor filed an affidavit sworn to by Dory Goebel, a Bankruptcy Representative of Homecomings Financial, LLC, sworn to June 1, 2007.

In paragraph 5 of his affidavit, Mr. Goebel swore as follows:

As of the 30th day of May, 2007, the Debtor has failed to make 4 post-petition payments in the amount of $4,020.03 which represents the payments due the 1st day of February, 2007 through May, 2007 and has not cured said default.

Mr. Goebel’s sworn statement quoted above was false.

The instant motion was noticed for presentment on June 14 with a hearing date of June 20, 2007 if objections were timely served and filed. On June 6 counsel for the debtor filed the debtor’s affirmation in opposition noting that since the filing of her case she had made all post-petition payments required under the mortgage, and all such payments were cashed by the Secured Creditor.

Copies of the debtor’s payment checks were attached to the opposing affirmation. The debtor sought punitive sanctions for the “frivolous motion,” the Secured Creditor’s second such motion. The Secured
Creditor’s attorney responded with a “Reply Affirtmation [sic] in Support of Secured Creditor’s Motion
to Terminate the Automatic Stay” dated June 13, 2007 (the “Reply Affirmation”). The Reply Affirmation
noted that the initial Application incorrectly annexed the 2006 Cody affidavit and substituted the June 1, 2007 Goebel affidavit quoted above as Exhibit B. The Reply Affirmation also annexed as Exhibit C a document entitled “Post Petition Payment History for: Eileen Fagan BK Case No. 04-23460” with a notation at the bottom “ledger prepared on 06/13/07.” This “Post Petition Payment History” is one of several such documents submitted by the Secured Creditor, all of which are of central importance on this contested matter because, as explained below, they all demonstrate that the debtor was substantially current at all times post-petition. Despite Exhibit C, the Reply Affirmation concludes “that as of the Date of the Motion, the Debtor was due for the Months of February 2007 through May 2007 and the Month of June 2007 had become due.” As amplified below, Exhibit C demonstrates that this statement was false.

The debtor responded by submitting a July 10, 2007 “Sur-Reply Affirmation in Opposition and Request for Attorney Fees” signed by Linda Fagan, the debtor’s mother. The Sur-Reply Affirmation stated in relevant part as follows:

3. My daughter had a nervous breakdown aggravated by this bank about two years ago. Since then, I made each of the monthly mortgage payments to Homecomings which is the servicer for Deutsche Bank Trust Company and they have CASHED thy [sic] payments.

4. The latest submission is an outright lie, deceptive and deliberately out of order. . . .

5. Homecomings said they did not get the March 2007 payment and I immediately went to Western Union and sent them payment — which they accepted –- the day I found out about it.

6. Homecomings deliberately holds the mortgage payment checks for several weeks and then cashes them to create late fees and penalties. They also hold the checks for months, and then put two or three checks all in at once to create a bounce check situation.

7. I sent the May 2007 mortgage on or about May 14, 2007. When the check did not clear, I immediately called Homecomings when our May bank statement was received and inquired if they received the check. After being on hold for 45 minutes, they acknowledged that they received the check, but the account servicing agent did not know why it was not cashed. I called again two weeks later and they now said they never got the check. I called my attorney and he advised me to stop the check and then overnight another check on June 13, 2007. Even though they received it by OVERNIGHT courier on June 14, 2007, it was not cashed until June 27, 2007. See Exhibit “A”.

8. Incredulously [sic], they then tried to cash the May 2007 “lost check” which I stopped (they first said they received and then said they never received) and then sent me notice to me [sic] in July that the check was “returned unpaid”. See Exhibit “B”.

7. [sic] I AM CURRENT. I have not missed a payment and am paying more than I have to. . . .

It is significant that no affidavit contesting Linda Fagan’s statements was submitted by the Secured Creditor.

A hearing on the motion was held on July 17, 2007 attended by the attorneys for both sides. At the hearing the Secured Creditor submitted a revised but undated “Post Petition Payment 1 Paragraph 6 of the Supplemental Reply Affirmation states:

6. This Law Firm regrettably concedes that during the preparation of the Motion for Relief from Stay and the Bank Affidavit, it erroneously represented that the Debtor was due for the months of February through May of 2007 when in fact the Debtor was due for the months of April through May of 2007. (Emphasis in original)

History for: Eileen Fagan,” which I received in evidence as Court Exhibit 1. After hearing oral argument of counsel, I adjourned the hearing to August 22 in order to give the Secured Creditor an opportunity to make a further submission demonstrating, if it could, that the debtor was in arrears post-petition, which did not appear likely in view of the original “Post Petition Payment History” prepared on 06/13/07 and the amended “Post Petition Payment History” marked Court Exhibit 1. After oral argument at the August 22 hearing, I scheduled a final hearing for September 18.

The Secured Creditor’s attorney then submitted a “Supplimental [sic] Reply Affirtmation [sic] in Support of Secured Creditor’s Motion to Terminate the Automatic Stay” dated August 31, 2007 (“Supplemental Reply Affirmation”). The Supplemental Reply Affirmation annexes as Exhibit C a copy of the “Post Petition Payment History” which was marked as Court Exhibit 1 at the July 17 hearing. It also annexes as Exhibit B yet another “Post Petition Payment History” (undated) with numbers slightly different from the numbers contained on Exhibit C (Court Exhibit 1). The Supplemental Reply Affirmation acknowledged error in the original motion,1 but concluded that “when the Motion for Relief was filed on June 1, 2007, the Debtor was delinquent with her post-petition mortgage obligations and due for the months of April 2007 through May 2007.” Once again, as amplified below, all three versions of the Secured Creditor’s Post Petition Payment History demonstrate that the debtor has never been materially delinquent in her post-petition mortgage obligations.

Paragraph 15 of the Supplemental Reply Affirmation states that “As per the most recent information received from the Secured Creditor, the Debtor has paid monies subsequent to the filing of the Motion that would bring her post-petition current.” The Affirmation notes further that the debtor has commenced a 16-count adversary proceeding complaint against the Secured Creditor which raises, inter alia, certain of the allegations of bad faith asserted by the debtor against the Secured Creditor in opposing the motion to lift the stay. Consequently, in the “Wherefore” clause “Secured Creditor respectfully requests a finding that its Motion for Relief dated June 1, 2007 was filed in good faith and said Motion be marked withdrawn with the parties to litigate the issued [sic] raised by the Debtor in her opposition in detail within the confines of the now pending Adversary Proceeding.”

At the September 18 third and final hearing on this motion to lift stay, I asked the Secured Creditor’s attorney to explain and confirm the significance of the several Post Petition Payment History computer printouts submitted by Secured Creditor in purported support of the motion. To that we now turn.

The Debtor’s Post-Petition Payment History For purposes of this analysis, I shall focus on the Post Petition Payment History which was submitted by the Secured Creditor at the July 17 hearing and marked as Court Exhibit 1, a copy of which was submitted as Exhibit C to the Secured Creditor’s Supplemental Reply Affirmation.

Since the debtor’s Chapter 13 case was filed on September 21, 2004, the first postpetition mortgage payment was due October 1, 2004, with a two-week grace period.

The following reproduces the Court Exhibit 1 version of the debtor’s Post Petition Payment History in material part:

2 The “Date” column apparently lists the dates when the Secured Creditor cashed and/or credited the debtor’s payments, not the dates when the payments were delivered to or received by the Secured Creditor. See paragraph 6 of the Linda Fagan affirmation, quoted above.

<SNIP>

Conclusion

Motions to lift the stay may be routine and inconsequential to secured creditors and their counsel. But to a debtor and his or her family, such a motion and the consequent loss of the family home may be devastating. Most creditors and counsel are conscientious. But some are callous by design or inadvertence, as exemplified by this motion and two others presented to the Court the same week. The danger here is that a debtor who does not have an attorney or the resources of intellect or spirit to defend against a baseless motion may lose his/her home despite being current on post-petition mortgage and plan payments.

I know of no way to protect against such an eventuality if no material consequence attaches to the filing of motions based upon false certifications of fact. Secured creditors and their counsel who know that filing a false motion to lift the stay will result in material sanctions if caught will undoubtedly be motivated to a higher standard of care.

Dated: White Plains, NY

September 24, 2007

/s/Adlai S. Hardin, Jr.

U.S.B.J.

[ipaper docId=38768934 access_key=key-i1u0ddloqptuqiwhuuu height=600 width=600 /]

Congratulations… Tywanna Thomas makes Good Morning America. Tywanna Thomas is/was an employee of Lender Processing Services/ DOCX and these documents were executed in DOCX’s office in Alpharetta, GA.

You may see her many signatures and employers below. “It’s not just her”

“If your going to take my house away from me you better be able to prove you own my house and you have the right to take the house away” -GERRY WILLIS

______

Link to the source: ABCNEWS.com
.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/YourMoney/video/banks-freeze-faulty-foreclosures-11792395

______

Please send me any Corporate Resolutions or Signing Agreements you may have. These were provided mainly to Vendors/ Foreclosure Mills. Not easy to get but also not impossible.

Please use Email a Tip above this page.

I really want the Signatures of Both Sharon M. Hostkamp & William C. Hultman

What does the Corporate Resolution look like?

CORPORATE RESOLUTION

Be it Resolved that the attached list of candidates are employees of (Insert Name of MERS Member), a Member of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), and are hereby appointed as assistant secretaries and vice presidents of MERS, and, as such, are authorized to:

(1) Release the lien of any mortgage loan registered on the MERS® System that is shown to be registered to the Member;

(2) Assign the lien of any mortgage loan naming MERS as the mortgagee when the Member is also the current promissory note-holder, or if the mortgage loan is registered on the MERS® System, is shown to be registered to the Member;

(3) Execute any and all documents necessary to foreclose upon the property securing any mortgage loan registered on the MERS® System that is shown to be registered to the Member, including but not limited to (a) substitution of trustee on Deeds of Trust, (b) Trustee’s Deeds upon sale on behalf of MERS, (c) Affidavits of Non-military Status, (d) Affidavits of Judgment, (e) Affidavits of Debt, (f) quitclaim deeds, (g) Affidavits
regarding lost promissory notes, and (h) endorsements of promissory notes to VA or HUD on behalf of MERS as a required part of the claims process;

(4) Take any and all actions and execute all documents necessary to protect the interest of the Member, the beneficial owner of such mortgage loan, or MERS in any bankruptcy proceeding regarding a loan registered on the MERS® System that is shown to be registered to the Member, including but not limited to: (a) executing Proofs of Claim and Affidavits of Movant under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 501-502, Bankruptcy Rule 3001-3003, and applicable local bankruptcy rules, (b) entering a Notice of Appearance, (c) vote for a trustee of the estate of the debtor, (d) vote for a committee of creditors, (e) attend the meeting of creditors of the debtor, or any adjournment thereof, and vote on behalf of the Member, the beneficial owner of such mortgage loan, or MERS, on any question that may be lawfully submitted before creditors in such a meeting, (f) complete, execute, and return a ballot accepting or rejecting a plan, and (g) execute reaffirmation agreements;

(5) Take any and all actions and execute all documents necessary to refinance, subordinate, amend or modify any mortgage loan registered on the MERS® System that is shown to be registered to the Member.

(6) Endorse checks made payable to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to the Member that are received by the Member for payment on any mortgage loan registered on the MERS® System that is shown to be registered to the Member;

(7) Take any such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to fulfill the Member’s servicing obligations to the beneficial owner of such mortgage loan (including mortgage loans that are removed from the MERS® System as a result of the transfer thereof to a non-member of MERS).

I, William C. Hultman, being the Corporate Secretary of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of said corporation effective as of the day of , which is in full force and effect on this date and does not conflict with the Certificate of Incorporation or By-Laws of said corporation.

____________________________________
William C. Hultman, Secretary

Excellent resource on MERS below from the law department:

[ipaper docId=38684960 access_key=key-20yk59rxvs8krda8j6gv height=600 width=600 /]

KABOOM!!

I have a feeling this is not the last…

[ipaper docId=38651062 access_key=key-1anw5d5ompkqlyhakwlv height=600 width=600 /]

Gretchen Morgenson is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. Gretchen is one of the first journalist who began reporting on the mortgage crisis and understands exactly what is happening all around us. We thank Gretchen for all her hard work and we are proud to say she is aware of StopForeclosureFraud.com 🙂

From Pacific Street Films: pacfilm

Gretchen Morgenson, Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times writer, interviewed for Pacific Street’s upcoming feature doc on the financial crisis. Begun in 2007, this film (yet untitled) has strayed in many directions; covered much ground, and, when completed, will offer a very different perspective on the personalities and companies that have played the principal leads in the longest-running soap opera in this country’s financial history. A Ken Burns documentary it is not…

Image credit: ?