MY MESSAGE TO COMPANIES LIKE NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING & OTHERS
When people, government officials or corporations come into the people’s cross-hairs and a decision is made that we will no longer allow, YOU ARE DONE! I will let history remind you that the proof of that statement is in the pudding. To all the powers that be:
If you are emotional and acting on emotion DON’T! Whoever is advising you to suppress freedom of speech as a means to strengthen your position has you ill advised…FIRE THEM! Do not confuse what you do to turn a profit with being morally correct and sound. This foreclosure crisis has been a direct attack against the American people on American soil for monetary gain. American’s (as you can see) are starting to stand up and say “We will no longer allow!” If you’ve learned anything from what has transpired with the Law Office of David J. Stern, it should be that when YOU get enough negative publicity in the American Press, no one will want to do business or associate themselves with YOU. For NTC, your efforts are misplaced. Attacking those who are advocates of the PEOPLE like Matt Weidner and Lisa Epstein makes you look bad. The robo-signer negative publicity has had its impact but you were better off cleaning up that mess by re-assigning people and assuring the AMERICAN PEOPLE that you will take steps and measures to ensure NO robo-signing exist. It would be better to agree with the people and show a positive support for the people rather than giving them the finger and hiring attorney’s to attack their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to voice their opinion. Truth be told, the American people don’t care about NTC or Stern or any other company. They care about their family and friends and do business with those who will further their needs. Your moves will only cause greater NEGATIVE PUBLICITY toward you which in turn, will cause YOUR CLIENTS to worry about their reputations and business if they associate and do business with YOU! You don’t believe me? Watch and learn how this Litigation Consultant gave you free insight that either saved or destroyed your business.
That seems to be the approach that notorious robo-signing firm Nationwide Title Clearing has taken in responding to some of its critics.
If you are unfamiliar with their name, you might recall earlier this Fall when depositions of several Nationwide robo-signers employees went viral on YouTube (We mentioned these here and here).
This, amongst other perceived sleights has upset Nationwide Title, who has sued a St. Petersburg foreclosure defense lawyer, Matthew Weidner, for alleged libel and slander.
This is likely to be a terrible, terrible idea.
For those of you who are not attorneys, I need to point out a few things out about Libel and Slander laws in the United States. These are Constitutional issues, as the First Amendment protects speech, opinion, arguments, viewpoints, etc. In these cases, (capital “T”) Truth is an absolute defense. So if any defendant can demonstrate that the damaging statements were indeed, accurate, they win.
This case turns on the bizarre claim that the term robo-signer so libels the plaintiffs that they are entitled to damages. Given that Truth is a defense, the defendant will prevail if they can demonstrate Nationwide’s approach was robotic. Not literally machines doing the work, but any showing of assembly line manufacturing, for profit, of a streamlined document production that failed to review the documents, evaluate them, analyze the contents should qualify.
Here’s where things get very very interesting: In civil litigation, the discovery process provides lots of opportunities for a defendant to gather information related to the accusations to prove they are true. This is a very broad standard, and it means nearly anything relevant is fair game. Depositions of senior executives, the firm’s accounting and records, balance sheets, low level employees are all legitimate aspects of pre-trial discovery.
Why any private firm would subject themselves to this degree of scrutiny is quite baffling to me.
According to a Certification filed by NTC’s counsel, on November 17, 2010, the trial court contacted via e-mail and requested that a one-hour hearing be set on Friday, November 19th, to hear the pending motions. App. Tab 10. NTC’s counsel learned that Mr. Forrest was traveling outside of the country and would not return until the following Monday, November 22nd. Id. As NTC’s counsel explained: …
Before you go down to read the “recent” affidavits to correct/invalidate a previous MIN from WAF to Bank of America.
You have to first read the following…
Every loan is assigned a unique Mortgage Identification Number (MIN) that follows the loan from registration to payoff. The MIN appears on the mortgage or deed of trust.
Process loans, not paperwork ,SVP William C. Hultman
In the mortgage sphere, the MERS Mortgage Identification Number (MIN) has been in use since 1997 and has been assigned to over 65 million loans. The MIN is a combination of a unique loan identifier for the originating lender plus the loan’s internal file number. It is available for residential, multifamily and commercial loans. It can attach to a mortgage as early as the application for a loan. The MIN is then used to track a loan throughout its life cycle, from application through monthly servicing activities until final loan payoff. It is used also used within the loss mitigation and Real Estate Owned (REO) processes. The MIN is well integrated within all facets of the real estate finance industry.
The adoption of a new, different, and/or conflicting numbering system would result in greater confusion, unnecessary system development costs, longer lead times for compliance and decreased transparency by making it more difficult for industry participants to track assets across multiple data and reporting systems. The real estate finance industry would be required to add the new asset number to all of its applications, databases, and file transfers between applications. In certain situations, a new asset number may have unintended consequences in the primary residential mortgage market. If a lender has to decide at the time of application whether to employ the MIN or some other loan numbering system based on the lender’s estimation that the borrower may not qualify for a conforming loan (loans meeting the criteria of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) or governmental mortgage (loans meeting the criteria of FHA, VA, or the Rural Housing Service), then the Proposal could unintentionally steer applicants to particular loan types. Alternatively, if a lender starts down one path and then needs to re-key an application, the chances for error increase.
The MIN is the only universally accepted identifier for loans in the mortgage industry across the entire lifecycle of the loan. The major participants in the residential mortgage industry utilize the MIN. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae all utilize the MIN. MISMO encourages the SEC to adopt the MERS Mortgage Identification Number (MIN) as the primary loan identifier for real estate finance ABS.
MISMO response to SEC adopting MERS, Steve Gozdan Board of Directors 7/2010
Take notes:
These are 35 individual affidavits to correct invalid MERS MIN’S
Crystal Moore is in fact an employee of Nationwide Title Clearing and NOT MERS
Look at the parties involved.
What was the reason for this?
Way too many of these recorded for me to go through but these are 35 samples!
R.K. Arnold
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
Action Date: November 18, 2010
Location: WASHINGTON, DC
As the many problems (frauds) are exposed regarding documents used by mortgage-backed trusts in foreclosures, some revelations stand out. Literally millions of foreclosures by mortgage-backed trusts hinge on a Mortgage Assignment signed by an officer of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) showing that the mortgage in question was transferred to the trust by MERS. The “MERS officer” who signs the Mortgage Assignment is actually most often an employee of a mortgage servicing company that is paid by the trust.
MERS itself has only 50 employees and they are not involved in signing mortgage assignments to trusts. These servicing company employees sign as officers of MERS “as nominee for” a particular mortgage company or bank. They are not employees of the mortgage companies or employees of the original named lender, but their titles on the Mortgage Assignment belie this and typically read: “Linda Green, Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Brokers Conduit.”
MERS president R.K. Arnold testified in Senate testimony earlier this week that there are over 20,000 MERS “certifying officers.” To become a MERS certifying officer, a mortgage servicing company employee need only complete an online form and pay $25.00. Because of the concealment of the actual employer on the Mortgage Assignments, it is easy enough for Courts, and homeowners, to believe that they are examining a document prepared by the lender that sold the mortgage to the trust, when, in fact, the signer was a servicing company clerk paid by the trust itself.
The representative of the GRANTOR is, in truth, a paid employee of the GRANTEE. In hundreds of thousands of cases, the authority is, therefore, misrepresented. It is now also coming to light that in tens of thousands of cases, the individuals signing these forms did not even sign their own names. The documents were made to look official because other mortgage servicing company employees signed as witnesses and then all four “signatures” were notarized by yet another mortgage servicing company employee. The titles were false, the signatures were forged, the “witnessing” was a lie, as was the notarization. Despite all of these false statements, the BIGGEST LIE on these documents is that the trust acquired the mortgage on the date stated plainly on the Mortgage Assignment. In truth, no such transfers ever took place as represented by these MERS certifying officers (or their stand-in forgers). The date chosen almost always corresponds not to an actual transfer, but to the date roughly corresponding to the time the loan went into default. The Mortgage Assignment was prepared only to provide “proof” that the trust owned the mortgage. Until courts require Trusts to come forward with actual proof that they acquired the mortgages in question, specifying whom they paid and how much they paid for each such trust-owned mortgage, the actual owner of these mortgages will never be known.
In response to the exposure of the widespread fraud in the securitization process, the American Bankers Association issued a statement essentially saying that Mortgage Assignments were unnecessary. Investors and regulators were told, however, that the trusts owned the mortgages and notes in each pool of mortgages and that valid Assignments of Mortgages had been obtained. Where the proof of ownership put forth by the trusts is a sworn statement by a MERS “certifying officer” who had no knowledge whatsoever of the transactions involved and did not even review documents related to the transactions, such proof of ownership should be deemed worthless by the Courts. Other litigants are not allowed to manufacture their own evidence and offer it as proof at trial – there should be no exception for mortgage-backed trusts.
In particular, where the “MERS Certifying Officer” is actually an employee of the law firm hired to handle the foreclosure, such documents should be stricken and sanctioned. “MERS Certifying Officers” should be the next group required to testify before Congress. Here are the statistics for one Florida county, Palm Beach County, regarding the number of Mortgage Assignments filed by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems: January, 2009: 1,164; February, 2009: February, 2009: 1,230; March, 2009: March, 2009: 1,113. An examination of just one day’s (March 31, 2009) filed Mortgage Assignments reveals that the signers of these Assignments are the very same mortgage servicing company employees who signed the “no-actual knowledge” Affidavits that triggered the national scrutiny: Jeffrey Stephan from Ally, Erica Johnson-Seck from IndyMac, Crystal Moore from Nationwide Title Clearing, Liquenda Allotey from Lender Processing Services, Denise Bailey from Litton Loan Services, Noriko Colston, Krystal Hall, and other well-known professional signers from the mortgage servicing industry. The most frequent signers from that particular day were two lawyers, associates in the law firm representing the trusts, who signed as Assistant Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.
Action Date: November 8, 2010
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
The video-taped depositions of employees of Nationwide Title Clearing in Palm Harbor, Florida, were made available on the website Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
The deposition of Bryan Bly is particularly startling and straightforward. Bryan Bly signed documents and witnessed or notarized other documents. Bly testified that he did not witness the signatures he notarized. Bly signed in batches of 200. Bly signed approximately 5,000 mortgage assignments each day. Bly also signed as an officer of many lenders. Bly signed as an officer of over 20 banks and mortgage companies. His supervisors told him there were corporate resolutions authorizing him to sign using these titles. Bly had no knowledge of the information on the documents. Bly did not know what was meant by a mortgage assignment or an attorney-in-fact although he signed mortgage assignments as an officer of Citi Financial as attorney-in-fact for Argent Mortgage. He did not verify any information other than to make sure co-employees had signed their names so there were no blank lines on the documents. He has done this work for approximately 10 years.
One of the titles not discussed in the deposition, but used on tens of thousands of mortgage assignments signed by Bly was Attorney-In-Fact, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for IndyMac Federal Bank FSB, successor to IndyMac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. Bly continued to sign as Attorney-In-Fact for the FDIC as recently as June 25, 2010. A copy of an assignment signed by Bly as Attorney-In-Fact for the FDIC is available in the “Pleadings” section of Fraud Digest.
9 Q Okay. So in this particular instance,
10 CitiMortgage was NTC’s client?
11 A Uh-huh.
12 Q And they contacted you to prepare an Assignment
13 of Mortgage; is that correct?
14 A They contacted us to prepare a group of
15 Assignments. It wasn’t just one.
16 Q How many is — let me start all over with that
17 one.
18 In this instance, how many did they ask you — or
19 did they send over at one time?
20 A I don’t have that number.
21 Q Would it be — and I’m not asking you to guess,
22 but if you do have a ballpark, would it have been dozens or
23 hundreds?
24 A Hundreds to thousands but I don’t know in this
25 particular case how many.
1 Q So — I’m sorry.
2 A I was going to say we’ve done over a hundred
3 thousand Assignments so. . .
4 Q So anywhere from a hundred — from hundreds to a
5 hundred thousand, they would send a request?
6 A They send them in groupings.
7 Q And when you say “they send them in groupings,”
8 that’s requests for Assignments of Mortgages —
9 A Yes.
10 Q — in groupings? Okay.
11 Right underneath the portion we just read,
12 there’s a — a CMI L number.
<SNIP>
7 Q And then we have “CitiMortgage as successor in
8 interest by merger to CitiFinancial Mortgage Company, Inc.,”
9 whose address is 1000 Technology Drive in O’Fallon,
10 Missouri —
11 A Uh-huh.
12 Q — assigning a mortgage together with a note to
13 Bayview Loan Services; is that correct?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Is this typically how Assignments of — or
16 transfer of notes occur through Assignment of Mortgage?
17 MS. PARSONS: Objection. You still have to
18 answer.
19 THE WITNESS: I still have to answer?
20 MS. PARSONS: If you know the answer.
21 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I’m sorry. Sorry.
22 MS. PARSONS: I just do it for the record, just
23 so you know.
24 THE WITNESS: Okay. Got it.
25 A To answer your question, on this particular case,
1 I don’t know what occurred on it because I was not part of
2 the — the sale or of the agreement between Bayview and
3 Citi. We were hired specifically to do Assignments.
4 Normally, this is an action recording at the
5 county to indicate a sale has taken place or a transfer of
6 loans has taken place from one entity to another.
7 Q (By Ms. Drysdale) So I’m not sure that — that
8 answered the question that I was asking.
9 This document is apparently assigning a note?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Is that correct?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And is it your understanding that that’s
14 generally how notes are transferred through Assignments?
15 A I’m trying to figure out how to answer this
16 question. It is my understanding that notes are transferred
17 through a sale agreement between mortgage entities. They
18 record Assignments to put on the record who the current
19 beneficiary is for that note and loan, that mortgage.
20 The — the Assignment itself is not the, to my
21 understanding, the actual sale of the loan. Does that make
22 sense?
23 Q Yes, ma’am.
24 A Okay. So that’s why I’m saying this is to
25 indicate that that event occurred and to record it at the
1 county recorder’s office as having occurred.
2 Q And you said that you were not part of these or
3 privy to the details of the sale from CitiMortgage to
4 Bayview; is that correct?
5 A Correct.
6 Q That you were just asked to prepare a document?
7 A Prepare Assignments, yes.
8 Q Okay. Further down, still on the left hand side,
9 we see the signature of Bryan Bly as vice president?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And is Bryan Bly someone who you supervise?
12 A Directly, no.
13 Q But he is an employee of Nationwide Title
14 Clearing?
15 A Correct.
16 Q Who is his supervisor?
17 A Elsa McKinnon.
18 Q Could you spell that, please?
19 A E-L-S-A M-C-K-I-N-N-O-N.
20 Q When you and I spoke earlier, you indicated
21 that — that you might be a better person to provide
22 information about this Assignment than Mr. Bly; do you
23 recall that?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And — and why did you think that you rather than
1 his supervisor could be explain what —
2 A Because the questions that you were asking in
3 your affidavit did not just have to do with him signing the
4 direct document. You — the questions pertained also to our
5 overall procedure and our connection with CitiMortgage,
6 which are questions that he can’t answer.
7 Q So then let’s talk a little about what Mr. Bly —
8 what he actually does in executing an Assignment of
9 Mortgage. Can you go through that process with me?
10 A Yeah. He is what we refer to as a signer. He is
11 somebody at Nationwide who is designated to execute
12 documents.
13 Q So just can you give me a general idea of what
14 his — his day-to-day activities would be?
15 A He signs and notarizes documents.
16 Q So when he comes in in the morning, he sat — he
17 sits at his desk, and that’s pretty much all he does all
18 day? 19 A Yes.
20 Q Is sign and notarize documents?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Assignments of Mortgage?
23 A Assignments of Mortgage, Lien Releases.
24 Q Does he actually research any of the information
25 contained in the Assignment of Mortgage?
1 A No.
2 Q No?
3 A No.
4 Q About how many documents, including Assignments
5 of Mortgage, would he sign in the average day?
6 A A couple thousand.
7 Q And — and this — is he permanently employed?
8 Well, let me ask that question in a different way.
9 Is his — his employer — his present employer
10 and business address is Nationwide Title at 2100 Alt. 19
11 North; is that correct?
12 A Yeah. He’s presently a full-time employee with
13 Nationwide Title Clearing.
14 Q Okay. In the assign — the Corey Assignment of
15 Mortgage, he lists his address as 10000 [sic] Technology
16 Drive, O’Fallon, Missouri.
17 Why is that particular address used?
18 A That has to do with the question on how Bryan Bly
19 can sign as a vice president as well.
20 Q Okay.
21 A So the answer to that question has to do with a
22 corporate resolution.
23 Q Do you have that document with you?
24 A Yes.
25 Q May I take a look at that?
<SNIP>
8 Q Do you have a copy of the indemnity agreement?
9 A No. I did not bring that with me.
10 Q But that’s something that is in possession of
11 Nationwide?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And so when Mr. Bly is executing the couple
14 thousand of Assignments a day, that is the extent of his —
15 that’s the extent of his duties as vice president?
16 A Uh-huh — yes, sorry, or assistant secretary. It
17 just depends on what’s required at the county. He could be
18 listed as either or.
19 Q So does Nationwide have a chart of all the
20 counties in Florida to know whether or not Mr. Bly is
21 supposed to be a vice president or assistant secretary?
22 A We have a list of all the counties in the entire
23 United States that tells us that.
24 Q So Mr. Bly executes Assignments of Mortgage to be
25 recorded all over the United States?
1 A And Lien Releases.
2 Q And Lien Releases.
3 Does he hold that position as vice president for
4 any other companies other than CitiMortgage?
5 A Yes.
6 Q What other companies?
7 A There are many, and I don’t know if I can just
8 release all of the names of them.
9 Q Okay.
10 A But for all of our clients where we sign, he is
11 listed as one of the signers.
12 Q Previously you said that the consent of the
13 executive committee was the reason for the — the address
14 being listed as a 1000 Technology Drive.
15 Could you expound upon that?
16 A Yeah. He’s acting as the capacity as the vice
17 president for that company, and that is the address of that
18 company.
19 Q So he’s not physically located in Missouri? He
20 just —
21 A No. He’s physically located in Florida.
22 Q He just lists that as his address for purposes of
23 this Assignment of Mortgage?
24 A Correct.
25 Q And who is Christopher Jones?
1 A Christopher Jones is an employee of Nationwide
2 Title Clearing.
3 Q And what are his day-to-day duties?
4 A He also works in the processing area. One of the
5 duties he has is he is one of our signers and one of our
6 notaries.
7 Q Does Mr. Bly also work in the processing
8 department?
9 A That’s the department, yeah.
10 Q Is Mr. Bly also a notary?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Down at the bottom of the Corey Assignment it
13 says that the document was prepared by Jessica Fretwell?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Do you know Ms. Fretwell?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And is she also an employee of Nationwide?
18 A Yes, she is.
19 Q And what is her job description?
20 A She works in our quality control division.
21 Q What are her day-to-day responsibilities?
22 A How to do with the establishment of the forms and
23 the county requirements.
24 Q When you say “the establishment of the forms,”
25 what do you mean by that?
<SNIP>
15 Q Okay. So Mr. Bly didn’t actually sign the Corey
16 Assignment; is that correct?
17 A Well, he didn’t physically sign it, but he —
18 that meets with the standards for electronic document
19 recording.
20 Q Okay. Are you referring to a specific state or
21 federal law?
22 A This — no. Specific counties across the nation
23 have started setting it up, so part of like going more green
24 and not having as much paperwork that you can electronically
25 record documents. They have different settings anywhere
1 from just feeding them information to feeding them like a
2 PDF or TIF version of the document that gets recorded, that
3 they record in their imaging bank, stamped electronically,
4 and then send back to us as having been recorded once it’s
5 verified on their side. That document was one of those.
6 Q Yes, ma’am. I understand how it was recorded
7 electronically. I’m just trying to — to determine whether
8 or not Mr. Bly actually signed a physical document or if
9 a — his signature was created by Planat Press.
10 A The signature was included by Planat Press
11 because that document was never printed out.
12 Q So did Mr. Bly review the document before it was
13 sent for electronic recording?
14 A No.
15 Q So — and I’m now — I continue to refer to the
16 Corey Assignment.
17 Mr. Bly never saw the Corey Assignment prior to
18 it being recorded; is that correct?
19 A Correct.
<SNIP>
Q What about Crystal Moore? She — is she also a
7 signer?
8 A She is also a signer and a notary.
9 Q And a notary.
10 And her practices are the same as you’ve
11 described with Mr. Bly as far as how she — what her daily
12 duties are in executing documents?
13 A Yes.
14 Can I ask why you’re asking about Crystal Moore
15 because her name’s not on any of the documentation regarding
16 this.
17 Q I just saw her name on the Consent of the
18 Executive Committee we marked as 3.
19 A Uh-huh.
20 Q So are all of the names on Exhibit 3, the Joint
21 Consent, are they all signers?
22 A You mean is their job duty?
23 Q Yes, ma’am.
Now if this isn’t another means to a massive mandatory recall for any of this robo-signer’s documents, then our judicial systems are playing with an enormous fire getting ready to ignite even more angry individuals who has his documents sworn into court!
“Over the past few years, Bly has signed countless mortgage assignments as either a notary public or “vice president” of various lenders.
In reality, Bly works for Nationwide Title Clearing, a Palm Harbor company. And he was recently reprimanded by state regulators after acknowledging in a sworn statement that Nationwide Title had him notarizing so many documents that he scribbled his initial instead of signing his full name as required by law.
Such a pace, critics say, shows that Bly and other so-called “robo signers” can’t possibly be sure that what they’re signing is accurate.”
Just by these statements alone why aren’t any of these assignments or any documents executed by Mr. Bly being pulled out from court shelves?
It’s quite simple and you don’t need to be an Einstein.
If there is a product that is shown to cause human any harm there is a mandatory recall. So where is this recall on these products? Where on earth is the government to put a stop to all this assembly line?
Does it have to take a Chinese toymaker with toxic paint, a drywall that deteriorates the guts of a home and possibly lead to possible health issues or how about a Japanese car manufacturer that makes faulty brakes? Again, where is the authority looking into these claims? And why are they NOT pulling these defective items out of our records in the court houses? Exactly who is being notified that these documents can cause harm to you or that if you were a victim of such irresponsibility to come forward?
My point is these documents are making one extremely ill, homeless and even in some cases suicidal. If this isn’t harm than what is?
This is just wrong in every possible way! Fraud is Fraud.
Action Date: September 14, 2010
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
On September 14, 2010, Florida Default Law Group filed “Notices” in foreclosure actions that the firm was withdrawing Affidavits it had previously filed. The Affidavits were signed by Jeffrey Stephan of GMAC Mortgage/Homecomings Financial in Montgomery County, PA. Stephan had previously admitted in depositions that he signed thousands of such affidavits each month with no knowledge of the contents and in many cases without even bothering to read the Affidavits. In the Notices, Florida Default claimed that “the undersigned law firm was not aware” that the Stephans Affidavits were improper and had a good faith belief in the Stephans Affidavits. Stephans signed so many Affidavits, however, on behalf of so many different securitized trusts, that his lack of actual knowledge should have been obvious. Many other mortgage servicing companies and foreclosure firms have filed thousands of other worthless, unfounded Affidavits. Perhaps the Law Offices of Marshall Watson will notify courts that Lost Note Affidavits signed by Linda Green, Tywanna Thomas and Korell Harp are also improper; perhaps The Law Offices of David Stern will notify Courts that their own office manager, Cheryl Samons, had no knowledge and did not even read the Affidavits she signed. The dark days of the foreclosure “robo-signers” seem to finally be coming to an end in Florida. Will the same judges who accepted thousands of these worthless Affidavits now believe the allegations that the foreclosure law firms acted in good faith when they presented these documents to Courts? An example of the Notice filed by Florida Default is available in the “Pleadings” section of this site. Highlights from the deposition of Jeffrey Stephan are available in the “Articles” section. Scott Anderson, Bryan Bly, Margaret Dalton, Erica Johnson-Seck, Crystal Moore and the other professional signers may finally be held accountable for their sworn false statements.
Now if this isn’t another means to a massive mandatory recall for any of this robo-signer’s documents, then our judicial systems are playing with an enormous fire getting ready to ignite even more angry individuals who has his documents sworn into court!
“Over the past few years, Bly has signed countless mortgage assignments as either a notary public or “vice president” of various lenders.
In reality, Bly works for Nationwide Title Clearing, a Palm Harbor company. And he was recently reprimanded by state regulators after acknowledging in a sworn statement that Nationwide Title had him notarizing so many documents that he scribbled his initial instead of signing his full name as required by law.
Such a pace, critics say, shows that Bly and other so-called “robo signers” can’t possibly be sure that what they’re signing is accurate.”
Just by these statements alone why aren’t any of these assignments or any documents executed by Mr. Bly being pulled out from court shelves?
It’s quite simple and you don’t need to be an Einstein.
If there is a product that is shown to cause human any harm there is a mandatory recall. So where is this recall on these products? Where on earth is the government to put a stop to all this assembly line?
Does it have to take a Chinese toymaker with toxic paint, a drywall that deteriorates the guts of a home and possibly lead to possible health issues or how about a Japanese car manufacturer that makes faulty brakes? Again, where is the authority looking into these claims? And why are they NOT pulling these defective items out of our records in the court houses? Exactly who is being notified that these documents can cause harm to you or that if you were a victim of such irresponsibility to come forward?
My point is these documents are making one extremely ill, homeless and even in some cases suicidal. If this isn’t harm than what is?
This is just wrong in every possible way! Fraud is Fraud.
Recent Comments