Coming this Sunday, April 3, 2011 DOCx, LPS, Lynn Szymoniak (Fraud Digest), Chris P.  who signed over 4,000 documents a day!

As more and more Americans face mortgage foreclosure, banks’ crucial ownership documents for the properties are often unclear and are sometimes even fraudulent – a condition that’s causing lawsuits and hampering an already weak housing market. Scott Pelley reports. Robert Anderson and Daniel Ruetenik are the producers.

[Source: 60 MINUTES]

[CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO LINK]

From the Palm Beach Post Christine Stapleton [link]

At Lender Processing Services workers who signed tens of thousands of sworn foreclosure affidavits with someone else’ name were called “surrogate signers”, according to Cheryl Denise Thomas, a former LPS worker who admitted to notarizing as many as 1,000 sworn affidavits daily – often without witnessing the signature.

Thomas said despite “raised eyebrows”  her supervisors never used the word “forge” and repeatedly told workers the practice of signing someone else’ name on a sworn affidavit was legal. Thomas detailed the company’s foreclosure document processing practices during a deposition in an Orange county foreclosure case on March 23.

[ipaper docId=51885547 access_key=key-2omhtmjy5z5l5nazqt36 height=600 width=600 /]

[image credit: I-Robot]

via: NakedCapitalism

Excerpts:

Beginning Pg. 33

that’s when they — well, upon us leaving
anyway, they took up our notary stamps and
everything and destroyed them. But I was
relieved of my duties once moved to
Gwinnett County.

Q. Who — who — I’m sorry, did I miss
that? Who destroyed those documents?

A. I can’t say exactly who destroyed
them. All I know is that Jeffrey
the supervisor in the signing room at that
times, he picked up everyone’s stamp, the
notaries’ stamps.

Q. He took your stamps?

A. He took our stamps. And — and
they were destroying them.

Q. How were they destroying them?

A. I don’t know how. He just said
they were picking up all the stamps, all
of the notary stamps. And they were going
to destroy them, because the company was
closing. And they were only suppose to be
used for that company.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=51885547 access_key=key-2omhtmjy5z5l5nazqt36 height=600 width=600 /]

Affidavit Included

Excerpt: Pg 168

Q. To the best of your knowledge, did Chase ever own Ms. Nuer’s loan?

A. No.

Q.  To the best of your knowledge, was Ms. Nuer’s loan ever transferred out of this trust?

A. No.

Q.  Does the trust continue to own Ms. Nuer’s loan today?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it possible that this loan, Ms. Nuer’s loan, somehow transferred to the trust by Chase in November 2008?

A. No.

[…]

Mortgage Fraud

Freddie Mac
Marshall C. Watson Law Firm

Action Date: March 12, 2011
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL

The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) announced on March 11, 2011, that it is taking its foreclosure cases away from the Marshall C. Watson Law Firm. The Watson firm, based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, was one of the firms most often used by Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and mortgage-backed trusts to foreclose in Florida. The Watson Firm came under the scrutiny of the Economic Crimes Division of the Florida Attorney General for improper loan documentation and foreclosure practices.

In over ten thousand Florida foreclosure cases, the Watson firm used mortgage assignments signed by the firm’s own employees to prove that their clients owned the mortgages. In most of these cases, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and mortgage-backed trusts were claiming to own the mortgages. Fannie, Freddie and the trusts lost or never obtained the mortgage assignments needed to prove ownership.

In these cases, two associate lawyers in the Watson firm, Patricia Arango and Caryn Graham, signed the Assignments to the trusts so that the foreclosures could proceed. When Arango and Graham signed these mortgage assignments, they did not disclose that they were lawyers in the Watson Firm. Instead, Arango and Graham signed as officers of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

In the last three years, Arango and Graham signed as officers of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for the following lenders on over 10,000 documents used in Florida foreclosures:

• Aegis Wholesale Corporation;
• America Imperial Mortgage Business, Inc.;
• American Bancorp Mortgage Corp.;
• American Home Mortgage;
• America’s Wholesale Lender;
• BNC Mortgage, Inc.;
• Century 21 Mortgage;
• Countrywide Bank, FSB;
• Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.;
• CTX Mortgage Company, LLC;
• Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services;
• Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC;
• E-Loan, Inc.;
• First Choice Funding Group;
• First Magnus Financial Corporation;
• Flagstar Bank, FSB;
• Greenpoint Mortgage Funding;
• Guaranteed Mortgage Bankers;
• HomeAmerica Mortgage Corp.;
• Interstate Home Loan Center, Inc.;
• Ivanhoe Financial, Inc.;
• KB Home Mortgage Company;
• MFC Mortgage Inc. of FL;
• Quicken Loans, Inc.;
• Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.; and
• Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC.

On the majority of these documents, the date of the alleged transaction is falsely stated. The documents were so poorly prepared that in many cases, the new owner is shown to have acquired the mortgage months and even years AFTER the foreclosure cases were filed by those new mortgage owners.

The Watson Firm was also the law firm that most frequently used mortgage assignments prepared by Docx, LLC. The assignments from Docx, LLC include thousands of documents with forged signatures of Linda Green, Tywanna Thomas and Korell Harp, as well as dozens of documents where the lenders were identified as “Bogus Assignee” and “A Bad Bene.” These Docx-prepared assignments also falsely stated the dates of the alleged transfers, and even the authority of the signers to sign on behalf of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Despite the well-documented problems with foreclosure cases brought by the Watson Firm, Fannie Mae has not removed the firm from its list of approved law firms. Fannie Mae removed Florida firm Ben-Ezra & Katz in February, 2011, and required the firm to transfer over 15,000 files. Fannie also removed The Law Offices of David J. Stern in Plantation, Florida. That firm announced that it would stop doing all foreclosure work as of March 31, 2011.

No criminal charges have been filed in any case involving forged or fraudulent loan documents used by banks and mortgage lenders to foreclose.

While courts have been critical of such documents and have added requirements to civil procedure rules so that law firms can be sanctioned for using such documents, no sanction has ever included any criminal charges.

Be prepared to blown away with April Charney and Linda Tirelli!

THEY DO NOT BACK DOWN!

Be sure to go down to the “related depos” down below…

[Read Complaint Below]

PRESS RELEASES

Saxena White P.A. Files Securities Fraud Class Action Against Lender Processing Services, Inc.

Boca Raton, January 12, 2011

Boca Raton, FL, January 12, 2011:  In recent months, various government investigations and media reports on mortgage service companies have exposed an industry that increasingly relied on deceptive and fraudulent business practices, including the use of so-called “robo-signers” that falsified mortgage ownership documents.  Lender Processing Services, Inc. (“LPS” or the “Company”), a mortgage servicer based in Jacksonville, Florida, is one of the companies facing government scrutiny.

In connection with the Florida Attorney General’s investigation into the Company, former Florida AG Bill McCollum has indicated that LPS and other similar companies have produced “numerous documents in foreclosure cases that appear to be fabricated.”  As a result of the rampant use of these and other unscrupulous business practices, investors have suffered millions of dollars in losses.

Saxena White P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit for an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all investors who purchased LPS securities during the period between July 29, 2009 and October 4, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) that the Company had engaged in improper and deceptive business practices; (ii) that a subsidiary of LPS, Docx, had been falsifying mortgage documents through the use of “robo-signers”; (iii) that the Company had engaged in improper fee sharing arrangements with foreclosure law firms, including the use of undisclosed contractual arrangements for impermissible legal fee splitting, which are camouflaged as various types of fees; and (iv) that as a result of the Company’s deceptive business practices, LPS reported materially false and misleading financial results.

On October 4, 2010, after continued media reports and various government investigations calling into question LPS’s default-related services that it provides to mortgage lenders, the market price of LPS stock fell $2.72, or 8.6% per share, to close at $28.76 per share. The price of LPS stock fell another $1.45, or 5.04%, on October 5, 2010, to close at $27.31 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action at www.saxenawhite.com.  If you purchased LPS stock between July 29, 2009 and October 4, 2010, you may contact Joe White or Greg Stone at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests:

Joseph E. White, III                       Greg Stone
jwhite@saxenawhite.com                gstone@saxenawhite.com

Saxena White P.A.
2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 394-3399
Fax: (561) 394-3382
www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased LPS shares during the Class Period and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than January 24, 2011.  You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton, Boston and Montana, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals.  Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States.

Continue to complaint below…

[ipaper docId=46766055 access_key=key-22a2tb1bsjcggfh2scys height=600 width=600 /]

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Economic Crimes Division

UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE AND UNCONSCIONABLE ACTS IN FORECLOSURE CASES

By: June M. Clarkson, Theresa B. Edwards
and Rene D. Harrod

Continue below to the excellent presentation…

46278738 Florida Attorney General Fraudclosure Report Unfair Deceptive and Unconscionable Acts in Foreclosu… by DinSFLA on Scribd

EXCERPT:

Q. So this doesn’t necessarily mean
3 that someone physically picked up the file
4 from LPS; correct?
5 A. My understanding is that this is
6 a note that automates when the attorney
7 has confirmed receipt through new image.
8 Whether that’s manual or not, I couldn’t
9 say based on the notes. And then new
10 image stamps into the LPS Desktop
11 confirming that NIE ID number 0966 and on
12 was pulled in, those documents were
13 received by the attorney.
14 Q. Does LPS have any employees at
15 the Steven J. Baum law firm?
16 A. Not that I’m aware of.

<SNIP>

Q. This is from the Steven J. Baum
law firm; correct?
3 A. It appears to be.
4 Q. Would you have any reason to
5 doubt that?
6 A. No.
7 Q. And could you tell me what this
8 entry represents.
9 A. To the best of my understanding,
10 they have user has completed a POA
11 requisite data form, exactly what it says.
12 I guess I couldn’t give you a full answer.
13 I don’t manage this process, but it
14 appears they are requesting something.
15 Q. So just start me off, POA
16 underscore requisite, what does that stand
17 for?
18 A. I could guess.
19 Q. Is that a category or a type of
20 document?
21 A. Again, I could guess.
22 Q. I don’t want you to guess, but
23 can you make an educated guess?
24 A. Power of attorney.
25 Q. Who at LPS would have a better
understanding of this process? You said
3 it’s not really you.
4 A. I don’t know.
5 Q. Let’s go to entry two hundred
6 fifty-one dated 11/4/08. User has updated
7 the system for the following. Power of
8 attorney requested, completed on 11/4/08.
9 Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you tell me what that entry
12 is.
13 A. I could give you an educated
14 guess.
15 Q. Go ahead.
16 A. My educated guess would be the
17 attorney has requested a power of
18 attorney.
19 Q. From whom?
20 A. From that note, I couldn’t say
21 for certain. But below the secondary
22 note, it seems to indicate JP Morgan to
23 Scott Walter.
24 Q. Who is asking for that? It’s
25 kind of written in the passive.
Who’s actually asking for the
3 power of attorney?
4 A. Appears to me from the notes
5 that Steven J. Baum’s office is making
6 this request.

<SNIP>

A. It appears to be Steven J. Baum
3 noting the file, memorializing that they
4 have prepared an assignment, they have
5 uploaded it into the LPS Desktop to be
6 reviewed and executed, and that it isn’t
7 back yet.
8 Q. What does it mean assignment was
9 received not signed, who’s receiving that?
10 A. I wouldn’t know.
11 Q. Well, do you read this as the
12 assignment is not signed?
13 A. I read it as an assignment is
14 not signed or, let me better state what I
15 meant to say, is that a signed assignment
16 hasn’t been received by Steven J. Baum.
17 Which assignment though I couldn’t tell
18 from this note.
19 Q. Would this assignment be signed
20 by LPS; is that what this is saying?
21 A. It appears that the attorney is
22 stating that. However, I can’t tell you
23 whether LPS would have signed this
24 document or not without seeing the
25 document that the note’s referencing.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=45568369 access_key=key-v8mlj41f5vyvfb7zbn6 height=600 width=600 /]

DALLAS–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Goldfarb Branham LLP is investigating whether certain officers and directors of Lender Processing Services, Inc. (NYSE: LPS) violated state and federal securities laws due to statements the company made about its home foreclosure procedures. Concerned LPS shareholders are urged to contact securities attorney Hamilton Lindley at 877-583-2855 or hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com about their rights and remedies.

“According to a class action complaint, LPS failed to disclose that its DocX subsidiary used ‘robo signers’ to falsify documents and that LPS engaged in improper fee shifting with foreclosure attorneys to hide these deceptive practices,” said securities lawyer Hamilton Lindley. “After a company press release commented on these allegations, LPS stock price plummeted 13 percent.”

Goldfarb Branham LLP lawyers have significant experience representing shareholders and whistleblowers in securities lawsuits nationwide. The firm may be retained without financial obligation or cost to its clients. Lender Processing Services investors who purchased stock before or between July 29, 2009 and October 4, 2010, and continue to hold their shares, should contact the firm at hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com or 877-583-2855 to learn about their rights.

Goldfarb Branham LLPHamilton Lindley, 214-583-2233877-583-2855 Toll Free214-583-2234 Facsimile hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com

Source: Goldfarb Branham LLP

This class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of LPS securities between July 29, 2009 and October 4, 2010 (the “Class Period”).

The following Firms have made announcements on:

12/9

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith.

12/10

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company and certain of its executive officers violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company’s business, operations and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of LPS securities.

JACKSONVILLE, Florida — Lender Processing Services is riding the waves of foreclosures sweeping the United States, but in late October its CEO, Jeff Carbiener, found himself needing to reassure investors in the $2.8 billion company.

Although profits were rolling in, LPS’s stock had taken a hit in the wake of revelations that mortgage companies across the country had filed fraudulent documents in foreclosures cases. Earlier in the year, the company, which handles more than half of the nation’s foreclosures, had disclosed that it was under federal criminal investigation and admitted that employees at a small subsidiary had falsely signed foreclosure documents.

Still, Carbiener told the Wall Street analysts in an October 29 conference call that LPS’s legal concerns were overblown, and the stock has jumped 13 percent since its close the day before the call.

But a Reuters investigation shows that LPS’s legal woes are more serious than he let on. Public records reveal that the company’s LPS Default Solutions unit produced documents of dubious authenticity in far larger quantities than it has disclosed, and over a much longer timespan.

Questionable signing and notarization practices weren’t limited to its subsidiary, called DocX, but occurred in at least one of LPS’s own offices, mortgage assignments filed in county recorders’ offices show. And rather than halt such practices after the federal investigation got underway, the company shifted the signing to firms with which it has close business ties. LPS provided personnel to work in the new signing operations, according to information from an LPS spokeswoman and court records including an October 21 ruling by a judge in Brooklyn, New York. Records in county recorders’ offices, and in the judge’s opinion, show that “robosigning” and preparation of apparently false documents went on at these sites on a large scale.

In one instance, it helped set up a massive signing operation at the nearby office of a major client, a spokeswoman for the client, American Home Mortgage Servicing, confirmed. LPS-hired notaries who worked there said in interviews that troves of documents were improperly handled. They said that about 200 affidavits per day were robosigned during the two months the two notaries remained there.

A spokeswoman for LPS confirmed to Reuters that it had helped other firms establish operations that performed the same function. LPS spokeswoman Michelle Kersch didn’t specify which firms. But beginning early in 2010, county recorders’ records show, signing shifted also to law firms under contract with LPS.

Interviews with key players and court records also show that pending investigations and lawsuits pose a bigger threat to the company than Carbiener let on.

The criminal investigation in Jacksonville by federal prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is intensifying. The same goes for a separate inquiry by the Florida attorney general’s office. Individuals with direct knowledge of the federal inquiry said that prosecutors have impaneled a grand jury, begun calling witnesses and subpoenaed records from LPS.

The company confirmed to Reuters that it has hired Paul McNulty, former deputy U.S. attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, to represent it in the investigation. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s office declined to comment on the probe.

The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency’s office, which is responsible for supervising national banks, also announced in November that it had teamed up with the Federal Reserve to conduct an on-site examination of LPS.

Exhibit from the Harris Case SFF published in 3/2010:

Excerpts from complaint:

1. This case involves the undisclosed kickback/sharing of bankruptcy creditor attorney fees to a non-law firm corporate entity.

2. Mortgage servicers routinely appear in this Court seeking relief from the automatic stay or in opposition to proposed chapter 13 plans. The Mortgage servicers appear through counsel who announce their appearance on behalf of those mortgage servicers.

3. But, unbeknownst to this Court, those counsel often answer not to the mortgage
servicers on whose behalf they appear, rather these counsel answer to an undisclosed
middleman such as the Defendants.

4. Defendants provide what is known in the mortgage-servicing industry as default
servicing. Loans which are subject to default servicing include loans which may be
subject to foreclosure and loans which are in bankruptcy.

5. Some of the services which are provided by default servicers such as the Defendants
include: 1) executing documents on behalf of the original servicer; 2) ordering and
providing broker price opinions; 3) track and provide fees for payoffs and
refinancings, and; 4) provide centralized billing to vendors.

6. An additional function of default servicing is the identification and retention of legal
services which may be necessary for any particular mortgage in default, e.g. noticing
and posting a property for foreclosure or seeking relief from the automatic stay in a
bankruptcy proceeding.

7. In managing the performance of the legal services for their mortgage servicing
clients, Defendants require law firms to execute a “Network Agreement,” which
details the agreement for services between the Defendants and the particular law firm.

8. The claims covered in this Complaint relate to the illegal fixing of fees in the
bankruptcy context and the requirement that law firms that execute the “Network
Agreement” to kickback a contractual prearranged fixed portion of their attorney fees
to the Defendant.

[ipaper docId=44787181 access_key=key-1dhqqv0jeski96cvyvsf height=600 width=600 /]

City of St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System

v

Lender Processing Services, Inc., Jeffrey S. Carbiener, Lee A. Kennedy, and Francis K. Chan

The complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Lender Processing Services, Inc. and certain of its officers and/or directors. The class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of LPS securities between July 29, 2009 and October 4, 2010 (the “Class Period”) by Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP.

LPS CLASS

[ipaper docId=43794502 access_key=key-1wej89yk64l79dcp7srt height=600 width=600 /]

“Our company’s process for preparing foreclosure affidavits was flawed”

“There were affidavits signed outside the immediate physical presence of a notary and without direct personal knowledge of the information in the affidavit”

“These flaws are entirely unacceptable to me”

[ipaper docId=43009585 access_key=key-15r3zmuzvsk1rrbsdz6k height=600 width=600 /]

Just a few weeks ago Wells Fargo made an announcement that there were no problems at all blah blah blah…and now they have passed the baton to Lender Processing Services…

Wells Fargo has found fraud errors… sigh.

LPS: no defects in related foreclosures, no fee-splitting

Via: NAKED CAPITALISM

As much as state attorneys general could be an effective force in acting for consumers and investors against banks, the fact that an attorney general has saddled up does not necessarily mean the effort is serious. At a minimum, it might just be a gambit to garner some good PR without seriously inconveniencing the perps; at worse, the action might be a pure Trojan horse.

Consider the curious conduct of one Bill McCollum, the lame duck attorney general of Florida. It appears that McCollum has been going after the foot soldiers in the foreclosure chicanery business (although some of them, like David Stern, head of the biggest foreclosure mill in the state, have earned a tidy fortune). His recent actions have targeted firms offering dubious foreclosure advice, and more recently, the foreclosure mills as well as a firm that may be best known for its real estate related document fabrication activities, Lender Processing Services, through its DocX subsidiary.

Now starting with these actors isn’t a bad thing at all; in fact, prosecutors often target low level criminals with the hope of getting them to turn evidence on the kingpins. And there is good reason to think McCollum has no interest in asking tough questions that will inconvenience bigger fry.

McCollum Is falling in with the banking industry party line. He appears to regard not disrupting the foreclosure process, a top priority of the financiers, as a worthy goal. Gee, isn’t preserving the rule of law and making sure no one is abused or defrauded the sort of thing his office is tasked to defend, not the functioning of markets or the bottom lines of banks? From the Wall Street Journal (hat tip reader f247):

“They’re training a lot of new people, and apparently now they are comfortable with the legality of their foreclosure process,” Mr. McCollum said in an interview. “The primary purpose of these meetings is talking about not having this stuff held back. It’s very important for us to not have a backlog of foreclosures. We already have a backlog. We don’t want it to get worse.”…

Mr. McCollum, Florida’s attorney general, said most errors in the foreclosure process have been “procedural,” adding that his top priority is to resolve the mess in a way that allows foreclosures to resume quickly….

The talks also centered on how to quickly get the foreclosure process moving again, according to the Florida attorney general’s office. Mr. McCollum described the meeting as more cooperative than combative.

Let’s look at the timeline:

Task force probing whether banks broke federal laws during home seizures

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 19, 2010; 3:10 PM

Federal law enforcement officials are investigating possible criminal violations in connection with the national foreclosure crisis, examining whether financial firms broke federal laws when they filed fraudulent court documents to seize people’s homes, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Obama administration’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force is in the early stages of an investigation into whether banks and other companies that submitted flawed paperwork in state foreclosure proceedings may also have misled federal housing agencies, which now own or insure a majority of home loans, according to these sources.

The task force, which includes investigators from the Justice Department, Department of Housing and Urban Development and other agencies, is also looking into whether the submission of flawed paperwork during the foreclosure process violated mail or wire fraud laws. Financial fraud cases often involve these statutes.

Continue reading …WASHINGTON POST

.

Today the Florida Attorney General issued Subpoenas Duces Tecum’s to both Lender Processing Services Inc. and to a subsidiary DOCX. This involves employees past or present, the four foreclosure firms currently being investigated.

Both Assistant AG’s “McCollum’s Angels” June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards are doing an outstanding job!

.

.

[click image for ]

AG_Subpoena_DT-to-Docx_

AG_Subpoena_LPS

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

______________________________________
ECONOMIC CRIMES
INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

“You,” “Your” or “DOC X” as used herein means DOCX, L.L.c. and any ofthe respondents, their agents and employees or any “affiliate” of the aforementioned entities, as that term is herein defined. Your agents include but are not limited to your officers, directors, attorneys, accountants, CPA’s, advertising consultants, or advertising account representatives. Any document in the possession ofyou, your affiliates, your agents or your employees is deemed to be within your possession or control. You have the affirmative duty to contact your agents, affiliates and employees and to obtain documentation from them, if such documentation is responsive to this subpoena.

B. Unless otherwise indicated, documents to be produced pursuant to this subpoena should include all original documents prepared, sent, dated, received, in effect, or which otherwise came into existence at any time. If your “original” is a photocopy, then the photocopy would be and should be produced as the original.

C. This subpoena duces tecum calls for the production of all responsive documents in your possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location ofsaid documents.

D. “And” and “or” are used as terms of inclusion, not exclusion.

E. The documents to be produced pursuant to each request should be segregated and specifically identified to indicate clearly the particular numbered request to which they are responsIve.

F. In the event that you seek to withhold any document on the basis that is properly entitled to some privilege or limitation, please provide the following information:

1. A list identifying each document for which you believe a limitation exists;

2. The name of each author, writer, sender or initiator of such document or thing, if any;

3. The name of each recipient, addressee or party for whom such document or thing was intended, ifany;

4. The date of such document, if any, or an estimate thereof so indicated if no date appears on the document;

5. The general subject matter as described in such document, or, if no such description appears, then such other description sufficient to identify said document; and

6. The claimed grounds for withholding the document, including, but not limited to, the nature of any claimed privilege and grounds in support thereof.

G. For each request, or part thereof, which is not fully responded to pursuant to a privilege, the nature of the privilege and grounds in support thereof should be fully stated.

H. If you possess, control or have custody of no documents responsive to any of the numbered requests set forth below, state this fact in your response to said request.

1. For purposes of responding to this subpoena, the term “document” shall mean all writings or stored data or information ofany kind, in any form, including the originals and all nonidentical copies, whether different from the originals by reason of any notation(s) made on such copies or otherwise, including, without limitation: correspondence, notes, letters, telegrams, minutes, certificates, diplomas, contracts, franchise agreements and other agreements, brochures, pamphlets, forms, scripts, reports, studies, statistics, inter-office and intra-office communications, training materials, analyses, memoranda, statements, summaries, graphs, charts, tests, plans, arrangements, tabulations, bulletins, newsletters, advertisements, computer printouts, teletype, telefax, microfilm, e-mail, electronically stored data, price books and lists, invoices, receipts, inventories, regularly kept summaries or compilations of business records, notations of any type of conversations, meetings, telephone or other communications, audio and videotapes; electronic, mechanical or electrical records or representations of any kind (including without limitation tapes, cassettes, discs, magnetic tapes, hard drives and recordings to include each document translated, if necessary, through detection devices into reasonably usable form).

1. For purposes of responding to this subpoena, the term “affiliate” shall mean: a corporation, partnership, business trust, joint venture or other artificial entity which effectively controls, or is effectively controlled by you, or which is related to you as a parent or subsidiary or sibling entity. “Affiliate” shall also mean any entity in which there is a mutual identity of any officer or director. “Effectively controls” shall mean having the status of owner, investor (if 5% or more of voting stock), partner, member, officer, director, shareholder, manager, settlor, trustee, beneficiary or ultimate equitable owner as defined in Section 607.0505(11)(e), Florida Statutes.

K. The term “Florida affiliates” shall mean those of your affiliates which do business in Florida or which are licensed to do business in Florida.

L. If production of documents or other items required by this subpoena would be, in whole or in part, unduly burdensome, or if the response to an individual request for production may be aided by clarification of the request, contact the Assistant Attorney General who issued this subpoena to discuss possible amendments or modifications of the subpoena, within five (5) days of receipt ofsame.

M. Documents maintained in electronic form must be produced in their native electronic form with all metadata intact. Data must be produced in the data format in which it is typically used and maintained. Moreover, to the extent that a responsive Document has been electronically scanned (for any purpose), that Document must be produced in an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) format and an opportunity provided to review the original Document. In addition, documents that have been electronically scanned must be in black and white and should be produced in a Group IV TIFF Format (TIF image format), with a Summation format load file (dii extension). DII Coded data should be received in a (Comma-Separated Values) CSV format with a pipe (I) used for multivalue fields. Images should be single page TIFFs, meaning one TIFF file for each page of the Document, not one .tifffor each Document. Ifthere is no text for a text file, the following should be inserted in that text file: “Page Intentionally Left Blank.”

Moreover, this Subpoena requires all objective coding for the production, to the extent it exists. For electronic mail systems using Microsoft Outlook or LotusNotes, provide all responsive emails and, if applicable, email attachments and any related Documents, in their native file format (i.e., .pst for Outlook personal folder, .nsf for LotusNotes). For all other email systems, provide all responsive emails and, if applicable, email attachments and any related Documents in OCR and TIFF formats as described above.

P. The relevant time period for the present request shall be from January 1, 2006 to present unless otherwise specifically stated. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to produce at said time and place all documents, as defined above, relating to the following subjects:

1. Copies ofall “Network Agreements” between DOCX and any law firm with offices located in the State of Florida.

2. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Linda Green to sign documents in the following capacities:

a. Vice President of Loan Documentation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. successor by merger to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; ;

b. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.;

c. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing as successor-in-interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;

d. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for American Brokers Conduit;

e. Vice President & Asst. Secretary, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as servicer for Ameriquest Mortgage Corporation;

f. Vice President, Option One Mortgage Corporation;

g. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for HLB Mortgage;

h. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.;

1. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for Family Lending Services, Inc.;

J. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as Successor -ininterest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;

k. Vice President, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC by Citi Residential Lending, Inc., attorney-in-fact;

1. . Vice President, Sand Canyon Corporation f/kJal Option One Mortgage Corporation;

m. Vice President, Amtrust Funsing (sic) Services, Inc., by American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as Attorney-in -fact;

n. Vice President, Seattle Mortgage Company.

3. Copies of every document signed in any capacity by Linda Green.

4. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Korell Harp to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

5. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Jessica Ohde to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

6. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Pat Kingston to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

7. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Christina Huang to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

8. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Tywanna Thomas to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

9. All policy and procedure manuals and/or training materials regarding the methods and timing that DOCX uses, including without limitation relating to the drafting and/or execution of foreclosure and mortgage related documents, including but not limited to Assignments of Mortgage, Satisfactions ofMortgage and Affidavits ofany and all kind.

10. A list ofall employees, dates ofhire and termination, and their duties, including whether or not they provide any notary services for DOCX.

11. All documents in your possession regarding any contracts with Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. and The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., including contracts regarding payments to or from any of those entities.

12. Documents relating to the relationship between DOCX and NewTrac and/or NewInvoice, including but not limited to, documents relating to the types ofdocuments that are or can be generated or are requested to be generated.

13. Any price lists published in any manner to prospective customers, whether by printed or electronic means.

14. All communications between DOCX and Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. or The Law Offices ofMarshall C. Watson, P.A. relating to procedures, policies, instructions or performance ofthe creation, backdating, modification, amendment, or other alteration ofany real property-related transactional document or records, including assignments, satisfactions ofmortgage, affidavits, notes, allonges, or other documents filed in any court.

15. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. or The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P .A.

16. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and any title company, recording service, process server, or any other entity that provides payments to DOCX in connection with any services rendered in connection with any residential foreclosure.

17. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and any title company, recording service, process server, or any other entity to whom DOCX provides payment(s) in connection with any services rendered in connection with any residential foreclosure.

WITNESS the FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 13th day of October, 2010.

June M. Clarkson
Assistant Attorney General
Florida Bar Number: 785709
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 110 S.E. 6th Street, 10th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: 954-712-4600
Facsimile: 954-712-4658

Theresa B. Edwards
Assistant Attorney General
Florida Bar Number: 252794

NOTE: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing a special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact George Rudd, Assistant Attorney General at (954) 712-4600 no later than seven days prior to the proceedings. Ifhearing impaired, contact the Florida Relay Service 1-800-955-8771 (TDD); or 1-800-955-8770 (Voice), for assistance.

AUTHORITY

Florida Statute 501.206

501.206 Investigative powers of enforcing authority.(

1) If, by his own inquiry or as a result ofcomplaints, the enforcing authority has reason to believe that a person has engaged in, or is engaging in, an act or practice that violates this part, he may administer oaths and affinnations, subpoena witnesses or matter, and collect evidence. Within 5 days excluding weekends and legal holidays, after the service ofa subpoena or at any time before the return date specified therein, whichever is longer, the party served may file in the circuit court in the county in which he resides or in which he transacts business and serve upon the enforcing authority a petition for an order modifying or setting aside the subpoena. The petitioner may raise any objection or privilege which would be available under this chapter or upon service of such subpoena in a civil action. The subpoena shall infonn the party served of his rights under this subsection.

(2) If matter that the enforcing authority seeks to obtain by subpoena is located outside the state, the person subpoenaed may make it available to the enforcing authority or his representative to examine the matter at the place where it is located. The enforcing authority may designate representatives, including officials ofthe state in which the matter is located, to inspect the matter on his behalf, and he may respond to similar requests from officials ofother states.

(3) Upon failure ofa person without lawful excuse to obey a subpoena and upon reasonable notice to all persons affected, the enforcing authority may apply to the circuit court for an order compelling compliance.

(4) The enforcing authority may request that the individual who refuses to comply with a subpoena on the ground that testimony or matter may incriminate him be ordered by the court to provide the testimony or matter. Except in a prosecution for perjury, an individual who complies with a court order to provide testimony or matter after asserting a privilege against selfincrimination to which he is entitled by law shall not have the testimony or matter so provided, or evidence derived there from, received against him in any criminal investigation proceeding.

(5) Any person upon whom a subpoena is served pursuant to this section shall comply with the tenns thereof unless otherwise provided by order of the court. Any person who fails to appear with the intent to avoid, evade, or prevent compliance in whole or in part with any investigation under this part or who removes, destroys, or by any other means falsifies any documentary material in the possession, custody, or control of any person subject to any such subpoena, or knowingly conceals any relevant infonnation with the intent to avoid, evade, or prevent compliance shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.

Affidavit of Service Attached

RELATED LINK:

LPS 101

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.

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.

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

______