Stern along with the rest of the mills should all lose their license.

They should also be forced to forfeit all the money they received.

Palm Beach Post-

Robosigning king David J. Stern visited “massive injury” on Florida’s foreclosure system and should be stripped of his license to practice law, a judge said Monday.

Stern was accused of running a foreclosure mill that used flawed and fraudulent documents to push mortgage defaults through Florida courts during the Great Recession. The Florida Bar asked Stern to give up his license.

[PALM BEACH POST]

So what does he do? He files a Motion to Testify /Intervene. Be sure to read the pdf below. Appears funny business is going on…since we do not have any trust left in the system. THE FLORIDA BAR vs DAVID JAMES STERN – NOTICE OF FINAL HEARING – 9/30/2013- 10/11/2013

Hi Ken,

I have been reviewing my proof and witnesses and have been working on streamlining the process. At this point, I have determined that I will not be presenting you as a witness since the allegations contained in your complaint can be established through another witness that will be testifying about items that only she can attest to. I do not want to duplicate and prolong. I am sure you can understand….

[ipaper docId=172280054 access_key=key-22uwo5mxn3yo95gdtykq height=600 width=600 /]

Via: Foreclosure Destroyer

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
(Before a Referee)

THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,

v.

DAVID JAMES STERN,
Respondent.

Supreme Court Case
No. SC13-643

The Florida Bar File No.
2010-51,725(17I); 2011-50,154(17I); 2011-50,213(17I); 2011-50,216(17I); 2011-50,511(17I); 2011-50,695(17I); 2011-50,850(17I); 2011-50,949(17I); 2011-51,192(17I); 2011-51,322(17I); 2011-51,329(17I); 2011-51,369(17I); 2011-51,433(17I); 2011-51,497(17I); 2011-51,696(17I); 2011-51,868(17I); 2012-50,144 (17I).

NOTICE OF FINAL HEARING
TO:
David James Stern, Esq.
c/o Jeffrey Allen Tew, Esq.
Tew Cardenas, L.L.P.
1441 Brickell Avenue, Floor 15
Miami, FL 33131-3429

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-referenced matter is hereby set for final hearing before:

Referee: Honorable Nancy Perez
On: September 30, 2013 through October 11, 2013
At: 9:00 a.m.
At: Broward County Courthouse
201 S.E. 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
September 30 – October 4, 2013: Courtroom 336
October 7 – October 11, 2013: Courtroom 540

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COUNT III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

Via Dawn M. Rapoport, Esq

4-8.4(c) [A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation ….]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,

v.

DAVID JAMES STERN, Respondent.

COMPLAINT OF THE FLORIDA BAR

The Florida Bar, complainant, files this Complaint against David James Stern, respondent (also referred to as David J. Stern), pursuant to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and alleges:

1. Respondent is, and at all times mentioned in the Complaint was, a member of The Florida Bar, admitted on November 27, 1991 and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida.

2. Respondent’s law office was located in Broward County, Florida, at all times material.

3. The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee “I” found probable cause to file this Complaint pursuant to Rule 3-7.4, of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and this Complaint has been approved by the presiding member of that committee.

4. During all times material, respondent was the managing attorney and sole shareholder of the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. (also referred to as the Stern law firm or Stern firm).

[…]

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

From earlier this year – A grievance committee finding is similar to a grand jury finding, said Ken Marvin, director of lawyer regulation for the Florida Bar.

The next step is for the Bar to file a formal complaint with the Florida Supreme Court, which typically assigns the case to a circuit court chief judge, who then assigns it to a circuit judge who will act as a referee in the case. Marvin said the Supreme Court likes to see a case resolved within six months, but that with 17 findings against Stern, his case could take longer.

Palm Beach Post-

The Florida Bar filed a formal complaint Wednesday against Florida foreclosure baron David J. Stern, whose massive law firm collapsed in 2011 amid allegations that it mishandled the cases of the nation’s largest mortgage holders by filing forged and fraudulent court documents.

[PALM BEACH POST]

 District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

.

THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A.,

and

DAVID J. STERN

Appellant

v.

RORY HEWITT

Appellee

No. 4D11-3524

[January 9, 2013]

PER CURIAM

Jeffrey Tew and James Malphurs of Tew Cardenas LLP, Miami, for appellants.

Philip M. Burlington and Nichole J. Segal of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, Louis M. Silber of Silber & Davis, LLC, West Palm Beach, and Kirk Friedland, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

We affirm the class certification order in this case on the authority of Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. v. Banner, 50 So.3d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), which we find to be indistinguishable from this case in all relevant respects. We reject appellants’ argument that the class representative’s claim was atypical because he did not pay any of the reinstatement charges. Id. at 1222 (declining to distinguish between those class members who paid reinstatement charges and those who did not).

We note, however, that our jurisdiction in this non-final appeal is limited to review of the propriety of the class certification. The trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion for partial summary judgment on appellee’s claim for a violation of FDUTPA is not before us at this point. See Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Crowley, 911 So.2d 881, 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“The School Board’s argument . . . actually addresses the issue of whether the class representatives’ complaint stated a cause of action. This issue is not properly before us, and we express no opinion on it. Our jurisdiction in this nonfinal appeal is limited to the review of the propriety of the order of class certification.”).

We therefore cannot express an opinion on whether appellee’s complaint stated a cause of action for a FDUTPA claim. However, we note our decision in State, Office of Attorney General v. Shapiro & Fishman, LLP, 59 So.3d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), in which we upheld a trial court order quashing a subpoena seeking production of documents related to a law firm’s representation of lending institutions in foreclosure cases, and ruled that “the alleged conduct of the law firm … d[id] not fall within the rubric of `trade or commerce’ as required for civil investigative subpoenas under FDUTPA.” Id. at 356. Further, any future determination on whether the FDUTPA claim is viable would not affect the trial court’s determination as to class certification of the FCCPA claim. We thus hold that the class certification order here was not an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

HW-

The now defunct Law Offices of David J. Stern recently entered into a settlement agreement with Freddie Mac, ending a two-year legal battle between the foreclosure firm and the government-sponsored enterprise over outstanding fees.

Freddie Mac first took issue with the Stern firm in late 2010 when they and major mortgage servicers quickly dumped the firm in the midst of an attorney’s general investigation into foreclosure practices at several Florida default services firms and a scandal over the robo-signing of foreclosure affidavits.

The settlement leaves somewhat of a dark cloud over the GSEs since they and major servicing shops have taken the opportunity to quietly settle with the Stern firm, making it unclear whether Fannie and Freddie – and servicing shops – actually paid out money to settle litigation with a law firm that became synonymous with the default servicing scandals that plagued the state a few years ago.

[HOUSING WIRE]

image: Bill Warner P.I.

“I was greatly relieved to hear that the Florida Bar is doing its job,” said Fort Lauderdale attorney Kenneth Trent, who filed a complaint against Stern in August 2010, and was recently told that probable cause was found to move forward. “They still teach you in law school about ethics and these guys made a mockery of it.”

Palm Beach Post-

The Florida Bar is seeking disciplinary action against Florida foreclosure baron David J. Stern, whose massive law firm collapsed in 2011 amid allegations that it mishandled the cases of the nation’s largest mortgage holders by filing forged and fraudulent court documents.

Grievance committees found probable cause to pursue punishment in 17 cases stemming from formal complaints made by homeowners, defense attorneys, judges and a bank representative.

It’s the first attempt by the Bar to hold Stern accountable for actions that occurred at his so-called “foreclosure mill,” which grew quickly following the real estate crash to more than 1,500 employees and more than 140,00 cases statewide. Ten probable cause findings were approved Jan. 25 with seven more following on Friday.

Stern’s company closed in March 2011 after losing most of its clients, including federal mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as concerns about robo-signing hit lenders and law firms nationwide.

[PALM BEACH POST]

image: P.I. Bill Warner

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
January Term 2013

THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A., and DAVID J. STERN,
Appellants,

v.

RORY HEWITT,
Appellee.

No. 4D11-3524

[January 9, 2013]

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the class certification order in this case on the authority of
Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. v. Banner, 50 So. 3d 1221 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2010), which we find to be indistinguishable from this case in all
relevant respects. We reject appellants’ argument that the class
representative’s claim was atypical because he did not pay any of the
reinstatement charges. Id. at 1222 (declining to distinguish between
those class members who paid reinstatement charges and those who did
not).

We note, however, that our jurisdiction in this non-final appeal is
limited to review of the propriety of the class certification. The trial
court’s denial of appellants’ motion for partial summary judgment on
appellee’s claim for a violation of FDUTPA is not before us at this point.
See Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Crowley, 911 So. 2d 881, 882 (Fla. 2d DCA
2005) (“The School Board’s argument . . . actually addresses the issue of
whether the class representatives’ complaint stated a cause of action.
This issue is not properly before us, and we express no opinion on it.
Our jurisdiction in this nonfinal appeal is limited to the review of the
propriety of the order of class certification.”).

We therefore cannot express a n opinion o n whether appellee’s
complaint stated a cause of action for a FDUTPA claim. However, we
note our decision in State, Office of Attorney General v. Shapiro &
Fishman, LLP, 59 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), in which we upheld a
trial court order quashing a subpoena seeking production of documents
related to a law firm’s representation of lending institutions in
foreclosure cases, and ruled that “the alleged conduct of the law
firm…d[id] not fall within the rubric of ‘trade or commerce’ as required
for civil investigative subpoenas under FDUTPA.” Id. at 356. Further,
any future determination on whether the FDUTPA claim is viable would
not affect the trial court’s determination as to class certification of the
FCCPA claim. We thus hold that the class certification order here was
not an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Lucy Chernow Brown, Judge; L.T.
Case No. 502009CA036046XXXXMB.

Jeffrey Tew and James Malphurs of Tew Cardenas LLP, Miami, for
appellants.

Philip M. Burlington and Nichole J. Segal of Burlington &
Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, Louis M. Silber of Silber & Davis,
LLC, West Palm Beach, and Kirk Friedland, West Palm Beach, for
appellee.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing

Who was one of Marco Rubio’s former employers? Miami law firm Tew Cardenas from 1998 to 2000.

And guess who’s David J. Stern’s long time attorney?Jeffrey Tew. Incredible..right? Yeah that’s what I said…small world!

Some of you might also recall but once upon a time say about 2010, Mr. Rubio just like you, was sitting right where many Floridians find themselves in foreclosure and like most, there was a gap in the chain but lucky for him, he managed to have DEUTSCHE BANK drop his case. I still can’t find out exactly how DB came to have standing to foreclose since there was no connection?

Anywho.

Now, we’re hearing that Romney who has profited from mortgage lenders foreclosing on floridan’s is considering Mr. Rubio as a running mate.

What are the chances Romney could have made a buck off Mr. Rubio had his foreclosure been completed? Seeing no one really knows what they own there is a very good possibility. Right?

Don’t stop there. Michigan’s Foreclosure Firm Trott & Trott PC’s Managing partner David Trott is a member of Romney’s Michigan finance committee and a donor.

Almost done, I promise. An attorney for Lender Processing, Martin Fiorentino, who lobbied on behalf of the company, is actively involved in both state and national politics. Fiorentino is a well-known political fundraising bundler, and has raised at least $102,9000 for presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. The Fiorentino Group has been paid at least $180,000 by Lender Processing Services since 2009.

It’s a very small world.

This is just coming in and I’ll follow up with any developing news.

Here’s a recap meanwhile:

Former employees of Plantation attorney David J. Stern agreed to a preliminary $502,000 settlement after he fired them without giving the required 60-day notice as business at his foreclosure law firm began to dry up.

U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. found the settlement “sufficiently fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests” of the former workers, according to a preliminary order. There will be a June 8 final hearing.

Workers in the class-action settlement now have until May 3 to opt out of the settlement, while papers in support of it should be filed by May 29.

Via: floridaforeclosurefraud

Despite earlier reports that The Law Offices of David J. Stern has shut its doors forever, the firm still appears to be functioning.

1441 Brickell Avenue

15th Floor

Miami, Fl 33131

See Below:

 [ipaper docId=95243014 access_key=key-1fcq488vl73niu51wemh height=600 width=600 /]

Sun-Sentinel-

Former employees of Plantation attorney David J. Stern agreed to a preliminary $502,000 settlement after he fired them without giving the required 60-day notice as business at his foreclosure law firm began to dry up.

U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. found the settlement “sufficiently fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests” of the former workers, according to a preliminary order. There will be a June 8 final hearing.

Workers in the class-action settlement now have until May 3 to opt out of the settlement, while papers in support of it should be filed by May 29.

[SUN-SENTINEL]

Oh my, look what we have here…big mistake because I don’t think this is going very far….his franchises that is.

Bill Warner Private Investigator-

My source in Fort Lauderdale tells me that attorney David J. Stern has rolled over his $Millions in foreclosure home profits and the cash he got up front from the DJSP Entreprises Inc. FKA Chardan 2008 China Acquisition Corp deal into at least 150 Five Guys Burger and Fries Franchise’s, will that be fries with your meal sir?

It appears that David J. Stern is buying ”Five Guys Burger and Fries Franchise’s” in bulk, Stern is trying to acquire 500 Burger Joints NATIONWIDE…

[BILL WARNER]

image: Bill Warner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN,
P.A .,
Plaintiff,

v

BANK OF AM ERICA CORP., BANK OF
AMERICA N.A., and BAC HOM E LOAN S
SERVICING, L.P.,
Defendants.

[ipaper docId=78823930 access_key=key-7443ydz0bgvlv87mivf height=600 width=600 /]

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

Mortgage Fraud

Law Offices of David J. Stern
ProVest
PTA

Action Date: January 4, 2012
Location: FT. Lauderdale, FL

In the lawsuit filed by DJSP Enterprises against David J. Stern and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, there are also allegations involving ProVest, the process server used by Stern and most of the other major foreclosure mills hired by Lender Processing Services in over 20 states.

The allegations regarding ProVest are found in paragraphs 36-38:

36. Prior to the Transaction, the Seller Defendants also knowingly and systematically inflated their process of service costs to the Court. Specifically, Seller Defendants engineered a fraudulent scheme whereby they directed their process servicing work to a process servicing company called ProVest. The Seller Defendants caused each file to generate four or five separate fees for service of process regardless of whether service of process on multiple defendants was necessary or appropriate and regardless of whether service of process for multiple defendants could be achieved at the same address.

37. In exchange for receiving these inflated service of process fees, ProVest, in turn, routinely referred back to PTA servicing requests for “skip tracing” to locate defendants for whom ProVest purportedly did not have accurate street address information to effect service of process. ProVest “hired” and paid fees to PTA for “skip tracing” services despite the fact that ProVest had the ability and resources to perform “skip tracing” itself and routinely did so itself.

38. The Seller Defendants’ arrangement with ProVest amounted to a kickback scheme. DS Law padded and inflated its process servicing costs which were billed to its clients and added to the court costs assessed to foreclosure defendants. In exchange for feeding this work to ProVest, PTA earned manufactured “skip tracing” fees which inflated PTA’s revenues and profits and which represented another way in which the Seller Defendants artificially inflated the revenues of the Target Business prior to the Transaction.

Mortgage Fraud

DJSP Enterprises
Law Offices of David J. Stern

Action Date: January 4, 2012
Location: FT. Lauderdale, FL

DJSP Enterprises, the publicly-traded company that was supposed to make millions for investors from the foreclosure services it provided to The Law Offices of David Stern (“the Stern Firm”), sued David J. Stern and the Law Offices of David Stern.

Stern Law mortgage foreclosure caseload rose from 15,000 in 2006 to 70,400 in 2009.

In 2009, Stern Law handled 20% of all foreclosures in Florida.

Stern Law’s clients included all 10 of the top 10, and 17 of the top 20 mortgage servicers in the U.S. including Fannie, Freddie, Citibank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, GMAC and Wells Fargo.

The non-legal, back room servicers related to foreclosures included REO services: property inspection, valuation, eviction, broker assignment – these were performed by DJSP Enterprises – the sole client was Stern Law.

Here are Paragraphs 29 -35:

29. The Seller Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiffs DAL and DJSP into entering into the Transaction by fraudulently and artificially inflating the Target Business’ actual revenues, by intentionally failing to disclose that the Target Business and DS Law were not, in fact, operating in accordance with all applicable laws, and by concealing that DS Law was in jeopardy of losing its largest clients due to DS Law’s unlawful conduct. Indeed, before entering into the Transaction, the Seller Defendants knew that DS Law and the Target Business had been systematically falsifying and/or back-dating pertinent legal documents, submitting such documents to the courts, routinely misplacing and losing original key documents, filing foreclosures with inaccurate and/or incomplete documents, prosecuting foreclosure cases without obtaining proper service of process, and were in jeopardy of losing the Seller Defendants’ largest foreclosure clients due to such conduct.

30. By cutting corners in the foreclosure process without following the rule of law, the Defendants artificially reduced the expenses of the Target Business which falsely inflated the profitability of the Target Business.

31. To summarize, the Seller Defendants failed to disclose to DJSP and DAL that DS Law and the Target Business were systematically operating in an unlawful manner. In addition, the Seller Defendants failed to disclose to DJSP and DAL that the Target Business’ reported revenues were not accurate, inflated, and improperly calculated and that the expenses of the business were also distorted due to the systematic practices designed to “shorten” the legal process. The Seller Defendants falsely led DAL and DJSP to believe that they were acquiring a long-term profitable business that operated in accordance with all applicable laws to induce DAL and DJSP to enter into the Transaction.

33. Prior to the Transaction, the Seller Defendants were at all times well aware that DS Law and the Target Business were intentionally perpetuating a fraud on the courts by, inter alia, systematically filing forged documents, forging signatures on such documents, fraudulently backdating documents, improperly notarizing and witnessing documents, fabricating documents, signing affidavits without reviewing or verifying the information contained therein, prosecuting foreclosure cases without obtaining proper service of process, and filing foreclosures with inaccurate and/or incomplete documents.

34. Indeed, the Seller Defendants directed employees of DS Law and the Target Business to purposefully overlook glaring inaccuracies in foreclosure pleadings and to essentially rubber stamp computer generated documents without reviewing or verifying the accuracy of the documents. New attorneys at DS Law were not only encouraged, but were even ordered to sign legal filings and pleadings without reading them. As a result, false and inaccurate documents were routinely executed and filed with the courts in an effort to hasten foreclosure proceedings and illegally obtain final judgments of foreclosure for the Seller Defendants’ clients.

35. The Seller Defendants even incentivized these unscrupulous and unlawful practices by giving their employees bonuses and extravagant gifts for churning out the highest number of foreclosure cases in the least amount of time. The Seller Defendants encouraged contests between DS Law attorneys to see who could jam a foreclosure case through the courts the fastest.

H/T FloridaForeclosureFraudWebBlog

EXCERPTS:

Q Define “cradle to grave” in the context you
said it — meant it when you said it.

A When I speak of cradle to grave, that would be
that we provide services that may become necessary on a
default of loan on behalf of the client, so it generally
come in as a foreclosure. If the foreclosure is
interrupted by a bankruptcy, we will handle that
bankruptcy. Once the bankruptcy has been concluded and
we’re free — sorry — from the automatic stay, we would
then continue on with the foreclosure. Once the
foreclosure is complete and title invest in the
servicer, we would then handle any evictions where
necessary. Once the eviction is complete and it becomes
a real estate-owned property, we would then open the
title work and handle the closing on behalf of the
grantor, the bank as the seller, to the grantee.

Q And those systems that were used by the Law
Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., you developed?

A I — the day one, I developed them; day two,
they continued to be expanded and improved upon by
people that were smarter than I was in those particular
areas.

Q Okay. But would you agree with me certainly
until 2006, you were the captain of the ship with regard
to your office and how it ran and the systems that were
to be used?

A I would agree that I was the captain of the
ship. I would strongly disagree that processes were put
in — that were put in were put in by me. The
development, better practices, things like that, Miriam,
Sam, Beverly, when she joined, and Cheryl, did a lot of
that. So, there was — in 2000 — even in 2000, there
were procedures and policies put in place that they were
comfortable in doing and realized that I would have no
objection. If I had to deal with every granular change
that results from Fannie or Freddie guidelines or a
local rule or a judge making some sort of requirement,
that by definition would be an impossibility. Hence,
development expanding processes and procedures very
quickly fell on Miriam, Beverly and — and — and
Cheryl. I was there for the day-to-day probably up
until 2006. He had my nose and things, but it didn’t
take long to realize that. Sometimes you can’t be the
rainmaker and be involved in procedure because very
quickly, I did not know or have knowledge as to the
capabilities of the staff that was in place.

Q Did you ever object to any of the policies or
procedures that were put in place by others beside
yourself.

A I don’t I don’t recall. Apparently, not
very long or hard or I’ll stay with them in there.

[ipaper docId=76269312 access_key=key-3ow5ih0w1jc7uvgohvw height=600 width=600 /]

UPDATE:  Foreclosure Review Services (FRS) was neither proposed nor reviewed by either OCC or Federal Reserve

Rumor was Miriam may be working for Florida Default Law Group aka NetDirtector, ReoClosings.com?

And remember what Prof. Levitin was saying, watch out for Robo-Signing 2.0!

Lets not forget about a famous deposition from a former Stern paralegal where she mentions Miriam knew about the documents and was a controlling attorney for the firm!

I wonder who owns FRS?

Foreclosure industry veterans offer foreclosure review services in response to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s “Independent Foreclosure Review” program.

Miami, FL (PRWEB) November 21, 2011

Foreclosure Review Services (FRS) provides contract attorneys who diligently review cases to determine whether a homeowner may have suffered financial injury as a result of errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in the foreclosure process.

FRS’s Director of Operations and Training, Miriam Mendieta, Esq.,is a nationally recognized industry expert with over 15 years of hands-on experience. Miriam served as the managing attorney for one of the largest creditor’s rights firms in the country where she was responsible for the oversight of all the aspects of foreclosure and bankruptcy related services.

FRS’s team of contract attorneys are extensively trained to properly review and analyze each case. FRS will review each foreclosure case to determine if the homeowner suffered financial injury as a result of errors made during the foreclosure process.

The reviews are part of a series of compliance actions initiated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

FRS has facilities in Dallas and South Florida and also provides consultants onsite.

FRS: Foreclosure Review Services
1395 Brickell Ave., Ste. 800
Miami, FL 33131
888-603-5559
info(at)frserv(dot)com
EXPERTS IN DEFAULT SERVICES * EXPERTS IN DOCUMENT REVIEW

###

Just breaking from Daily Business Review…

The Bar alleged in a complaint that Stern willfully ignored a request in February by the 5th DCA to produce documents in a lawsuit between SunTrust Bank and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. Stern had been listed as counsel for SunTrust.

Funny thing because FHFA and other have found this firm to be the highlight of their investigations.

[All posts related to Law Offices of David J. Stern]

RENAE MOWAT e t al.,

V.

DJSP ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,

[ipaper docId=66453888 access_key=key-hlmxg11b6bxnm2daebs height=600 width=600 /]