THE BANK OF NEW YORK, etc.,
Plaintiff, :

vs.

JAMES M. UNGER, et al.,
Defendants

Deposition of Shellie Hill Vol. I by DinSFLA

Courtesy of Legal Services of New Jersey

EXCERPT:

17 Q. Okay. And how is LPS paid? Are they paid by
18 the attorney? Are they paid by the servicer who’s
19 asked the attorney to perform that service?
20 A. It depends on the service. For many
21 services, they are — the model that we operate under
22 is a vendor supportive model, “vendor” meaning the
23 attorney office would pay for that service. There are
24 some support services that the servicer pays for
25 directly.
Page 22
1 Q. So in your scenario that you just gave me a
2 few minutes ago, a law firm drafts a document, and it’s
3 sent on to LPS to see whether or not it’s appropriate
4 for LPS to sign the document. The law firm then pays
5 LPS for that service? That’s considered a support
6 service?
7 A. That’s — that’s part of the — Yeah.
8 Correct. That would be one of the support services it
9 would provide, and part of what the fee they would pay
10 would include that activity.
11 Q. Okay. And are there also payments made for
12 using the software and the platform?
13 A. There are payments made. That’s part of the
14 technology agreement. There is a technology fee
15 assessed for each, we call it a referral, but it,
16 essentially, would be a legal action of some sort or an
17 action. It’s not always a legal action. But for every
18 referral type there is a fee, and that fee ranges
19 between $5 and $75, depending on the activity to be
20 performed and the technology in play or processes in
21 play to track it.
22 Q. Okay. So, for example, is LPS paid when a
23 servicer makes a referral to a law firm within the
24 network to do — perform some service?
25 A. Yes. LPS is paid upon referral.

Read full depo below…

[ipaper docId=46216278 access_key=key-1kf683dpl4myzfj8pcdt height=600 width=600 /]

Alden Berner, Legal Process Specialist Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. Signed verifications of complaints.

Courtesy of IceLegal.com

Excerpts:

8 Q. Did you do anything to attempt to
9 verify whether or not the original note and mortgage
10 were actually in the custody of the trustee by the
11 time the closing date for the trust occurred?
12 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
13 THE WITNESS: No.
14 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
15 Q. Do you even get involved in that at
16 all?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Have you seen any documents that
19 establish what the relationship is between HSBC Bank
20 and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage?
21 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
22 THE WITNESS: No.
23 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
24 Q. Do you know how it is that Wells Fargo
25 Home Mortgage came to be selected to do the
1 verification for HSBC Bank in this particular case,
2 the case?
3 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
4 THE WITNESS: No.
5 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
6 Q. Do you know if there is some document
7 that designates you to be the person to verify on
8 behalf of HSBC Bank.
9 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
10 THE WITNESS: Me personally?
11 MR. FLANAGAN: Yes, sir.
12 THE WITNESS: No.
13 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
14 Q. How about for Wells Fargo Bank, NA, is
15 there any document that you’re aware of that
16 designates you to have the authority to sign these
17 verifications on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, NA?
18 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
19 THE WITNESS: No, but I don’t need to,
20 because I’m an employee of Wells Fargo Home
21 Mortgage, which is owned by Wells Fargo Bank, N A.
22 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
23 Q. Are they a subsidiary, as far as you
24 know?
25 A. Yes.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=45818189 access_key=key-27d0mo8r5osojg9fqc85 height=600 width=600 /]

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 /]

EXCERPT:

Q. Okay. Do you know how many — on behalf of
2 how many entities you are authorized to sign documents?
3 A. I don’t have the exact number in my head.
4 Q. Can you give me your best estimate?
5 A. More than 20.
6 Q. Okay. And how often on a daily basis do you
7 execute documents?
8 A. Once a day.
9 Q. And how many do you typically sign a day?
10 A. Less than three.
11 Q. Okay. And can you describe to me the process
12 by which you receive these documents for signature?
13 A. Sure. I am delivered, via an LPS employee
14 courier, a document, and I’m advised that it is to be
15 executed. The group that receives the document request
16 from the agent reviews the document per our protocols
17 and procedures. That document is then determined that
18 LPS can execute the document.
19 Based on the various signing authorities, it
20 will be determined that I will be the one authorized to
21 sign it. It will be delivered to me. I will review
22 the document. I will ensure that I do have signing
23 authority for the document. I will verify that the
24 document is what it says it is. Then while they’re
25 watching me, I will execute the document. It is put
back — it is put into a manila envelope, and it is
2 taken away from me.
3 Q. And when you were signing the document in
4 front of this messenger, is that person the notary?
5 A. I’m unaware if they are the notary or not,
6 but they are within the same department.
7 Q. Okay. Do you ever sign a notary log?
8 A. I don’t recall ever signing one.
9 Q. Do you ever keep track of the documents that
10 you sign?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And I meant personally.

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=45566864 access_key=key-1t3yu7ta47qo2pv8odux height=600 width=600 /]

EXCERPT:

Q. But, for example, looking at this assignment,
document, isn’t the signer, Bethany Hood, attesting to
the fact that MERS wants to assign the Deed of Trust to Indymac Federal Bank?

MR. SPOONMORE: That’s a
mischaracterization, I object. Bethany Hood isn’t
representing; MERS is representing. That’s a gross
misinterpretation of the document.
MS. HUELSMAN: No. Ms. Hood is signing on
behalf of MERS; therefore, she is making an affirmation
on behalf of MERS.
MR. SPOONMORE: MERS is making the
affirmation.
MS. HUELSMAN: She’s making it on their
behalf.
MR. SPOONMORE: Yeah, as MERS is the one
making the affirmation.

Q. So could you please answer the question,
Mr. Allen?
A. MERS is making the reaffirmation.
Q. Mr. Allen, you’re not allowed to parrot
your attorney’s response. Please-

MR. SPOONEMOORE: He’s-
MS. HUELSMAN: –answer–
MR. SPOONMORE: –answered your–
MS. HUELSMAN: –the question.
Are you coaching him, Mr. Spoonmore?
MR. SPOONMORE: No. I’m saying the
premise of your question-
MS. HUELSMAN: well-
MR. SPOONEMOORE: –is–
MS. HUELSMAN: –a speaking–
MR. SPOONEMOORE:–misleading–
MS. HUELSMAN:  –objection is providing
your client with an answer –your client with an
answer to a question, and that’s improper.
MR. SPOONEMOORE: Well, and a misleading
legal premise to your question is clearly
objectionable, because this client is not an attorney.
When you represent Mr. Hood is representing, that is
a gross legal mischarachterization of this document. I’m
allowed to correct that.
MS. HUELSMAN: Well, I disagree. When
people sign documents in their capacity as alleged
officers of the company, they are, in fact, making a
representation.
If MERS can figure out how, as a corporation,
which doesn’t exist except on paper, it can can sign
documents itself, then, in fact, it can say it’s
doing so without the assistance of a person.
MR. SPOONEMOORE: Legally it is MERS making the representation. People are authorized to sign on behalf of MERS. That doesn’t make them making the representation; it makes MERS making the representation.

Q. Okay. So when did MERS tell Ms. Hood that
this is what it wanted to do?
A. I would think within the –when granting the
signing authority.
Q. No. When did MERS specifically say to
Bethany Hood, We want to assign our interest in the
Deed of Trust referenced herein to IndyMac Federal
Bank? When did that occur?

MR. SPOONEMOORE: Counsel knows very well
that MERS can operate through counsel, which is their
agent. Again, you’re asking misleading questions of
this witness, and you know it. You know that MERS’s
counsel made this request, and that an agent of MERS.
MS. HUELSMAN: Well, then, you can explain
to Regional Trustee why they they violated their duty to-
to the Deed of trust doc by acting on behalf and as an
agent for somebody when they’re suppose to be acting
as a neutral in conjunction with a foreclosure sale.
Is that your representation, Counsel?
MR. SPOONEMOORE: That’s not us. You can
go after who ever you want, but as far as what we’re
doing, you’re way off base here.

Q. When did MERS give instruction to Bethany
Hood to assign this Deed of Trust? Whether it came
through Regional Trustee or Santa Clause, I don’t care.
When did MERS give this instruction to Ms. Hood?

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=45566348 access_key=key-8tg8q7bgg0l1way58dj height=600 width=600 /]

The latest bombshell follows with a brilliant 325 Pg. Deposition of LPS/ Fidelity’s Bill Newland.

Feel free to upload docs using email a tip link located above the site.

EXCERPTS:

2   Q    Sure.  Are there any attorneys who are not
3   members of the Fidelity — or the LPS attorney network
4   who can access your Process Management system?
5        A    Not that I’m aware of.
6        Q    And is it a fact that the only attorneys who
7   are using Process Management are attorneys who have
8   signed a referral agreement with LPS?
9        A    That would be correct.
10        Q    So, while your clients are free to choose
11   whomever as a foreclosing attorney, if they are an MSP
12   user and they are an LPS — they have an LPS agreement
13   with you for Default Solutions, the only attorneys
14   available on LPS system are attorneys who have signed
15   a contract with LPS?
16        A    That have signed a contract with LPS, yes.

<SNIP>

3        Q    So I just want to be sure.  What you’re
4   testifying to is that there is no compensation ever
5   paid by the servicer to LPS Default Solutions for all
6   this work that it does on behalf of the servicer with
7   respect to the foreclosure?
8        A    No.
9        Q    There is compensation or there is not
10   compensation?
11        A    No, there’s no compensation.
12        Q    Is it your testimony then that the only fees
13   which LPS Default Solutions collects with respect to
14   the foreclosure of any given loan is the
15   administrative support fee charged to the network
16   attorneys?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    And the division of LPS Default Solutions
19   which we are here about today and which you are
20   testifying as a 30(b)(6) representative, the only
21   source of income it derives for its work with respect
22   to foreclosure is the administrative support fee?
23        A    That’s my understanding.

Continue below to the transcript…

[ipaper docId=45556213 access_key=key-rvgb96qx4uuxvufi2md height=600 width=600 /]

The Big Picture

By Barry Ritholtz – December 11th, 2010, 8:08AM

Sometimes, the best defense is a good offense.

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.

Links will return pending ACLU’s victory…

NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING VIDEO DEPOSITIONS

VIDEO DEPOSITION OF NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING BRYAN BLY

SFF EXCLUSIVE: VIDEO DEPOSITION OF NATIONWIDE TITLE CRYSTAL MOORE

VIDEO DEPOSITION OF NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING DHURATA DOKO

And FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING ERICA LANCE BRYAN BLY

Continue below to ACLU’s reply below…

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 19^th, 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 22^nd. Id. As NTC’s counsel explained: …

[ipaper docId=45040126 access_key=key-12ouatg25xpw8qk1ja9k height=600 width=600 /]

EXCERPTS:

Q So the original —
5 A — and I’ve been to her office.
6 Q — the original was located in your office?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Where’s your office located?
9 A Simi Valley, California.
10 Q And has the original of this allonge remained in your
11 office until you appeared here today?
12 A We had sent it on to — to our attorneys. They were in
13 possession of it.
14 Q And again, who do you believe is the holder of the note
15 and mortgage here?
16 A Well, Countrywide — Bank of America — whatever we’re
17 calling ourselves these days, we are Bank of America now — we
18 originated this loan. It was originated via a broker and it’s
19 really always been a Countrywide loan. The investor is Bank
20 of New York. We are the servicer of the loan.
21 Q Now, when you say it’s really a Countrywide loan, wasn’t
22 it sold? Wasn’t this loan securitized and ultimately sold —
23 sold to this trust?
24 A Right, it would have been securitized and sold. They are
25 the investors of the loan. But we are the ones that would

<SNIP>

9 A Who is in possession of the note? We have the note in our
10 origination file.
11 Q So — so Bank of New York as trustee does not hold the
12 note, is that correct, or is not in possession of the note?
13 A The original note to my knowledge is in the origination
14 file.
15 Q Where is the — do you have it here today?
16 A No, I don’t have it with me here today.
17 Q So you don’t have the note?
18 A It’s in our office.
19 Q So it’s in your office, it’s not with this trust that owns
20 the — that’s supposedly holds the — or is the owner of this
21 note, is that correct?
22 A That’s correct.
23 Q And your testimony is that this allonge was never
24 submitted to — it was never in the possession of Bank of New
25 York as trustee for the certificate holder, is that correct?

<SNIP>

9 Q And this allonge, it’s a stand-alone document, correct?
10 It’s not attached to anything, is that correct?
11 A I’m not sure I’m understanding your question.
12 Q Was there anything — when you brought the original that’s
13 in front of you, did you remove it? Was it stapled to
14 something else?
15 A No, it wouldn’t have necessarily been stapled to something
16 else. There would have probably been other documents showing
17 the — you know, we would have shown her the note. We would
18 have reviewed all of that before.

Continue Below…

EXCERPT:

THE COURT: All right. I have the supplemental and
12 second supplemental submissions of Countrywide and the reply.
13 Mr. Kaplan, I look to you first. I am, frankly, appalled at
14 the confusion and lack of credibility of Countrywide’s
15 response to the issue of the note — the possession of the
16 note.
17 We started out with Ms. DeMartini’s testimony that
18 the note never leaves the servicer. She says that she saw a
19 Federal Express receipt whereby the actual note, the physical,
20 original note was transferred to the Foreclosure Department
21 internally in the same building, but that the note had not yet
22 been located. That’s where we stood at that point.
23 Then we had a submission, the supplemental
24 submission saying the original note has been found and can be
25 available for inspection. It doesn’t say where it was found,

1 who had possession or the like, but it was found and is
2 available for inspection.
3 And then without any explanation, there is a lost
4 note affidavit presented dated February of 2007 indicating
5 that the note cannot be found. No explanation provided. What
6 do I do with that, Mr. Kaplan?

<SNIP>

THE COURT: It’s amazing how sloppy this
2 presentation was, and I’m very disappointed about that.
3 Anyway — all right. Well, thank you, Mr. Kaplan. Do you
4 want to present testimony? Does it matter, you know, because
5 there is no testimony regarding possession by Bank of New York
6 as Trustee, correct?
7 MR. KAPLAN: That’s correct, Your Honor. I’m not
8 disputing that. That’s what Ms. DeMartini testified to, that
9 the note — she had no record of this note leaving and going
10 across country, across wherever, to Bank of New York.
11 THE COURT: And you do understand as well that the
12 Pooling and Servicing Agreement requires that transfer, that
13 physical transfer of the note in accordance with — and
14 endorsement — in accordance with UCC requirements?
15 MR. KAPLAN: I understand that, Your Honor. I’ll
16 simply say for the sake of edification, but this is — and I
17 was told it was all e-filed — this is apparently the index to
18 this Master Servicing Agreement showing all the loans and it
19 does reference the Kemp loan. It’s a double-side document,
20 includes all the loans.
21 And I can say that, although Your Honor is right and
22 the UCC and the Master Servicing Agreement apparently requires
23 that, procedure seems to indicate that they don’t physically
24 move documents from place to place because of the fear of loss
25 and the trouble involved and the people handling them. They

basically execute the necessary documents and retain them as
2 long as servicing’s retained. The documents only leave when
3 servicing is released.
4 THE COURT: They take their chances.
5 MR. KAPLAN: I understand, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Understood. Thank you.
7 Counsel, the proof of claim was filed — let’s see
8 — it was filed by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., servicer for
9 Bank of New York — now, that’s wrong. We understand that.
10 Can the — can these problems be corrected post-petition? In
11 other words, we know that claims can be transferred post12
petition.
13 What about if the note, the original note now that
14 has seemingly appeared, is now transferred to the Bank of New
15 York as Trustee and amended, it wouldn’t have to — well, it
16 would be amended to reflect that Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
17 is not the right party, but Countrywide Home Loans, Master
18 Servicing or servicing whatever that name is, as servicer for
19 Bank of New York, Trustee, is filing this proof of claim,
20 what’s wrong with that?

FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF KEMP v. COUNTRYWIDE

[ipaper docId=43766376 access_key=key-ihmrb27iwescbiprqux height=600 width=600 /]

Excerpt:

How to report? One of the things we strongly recommend is that you look at the MISMO standards, the Mortgage Industry Standards Maintenance Organization, for definitions, for format, and I think this might address issues, for example, with HUD reported credit score. That if you like at the MISMO, we don’t simply look at one field for credit score. There’s a field for a number. There’s also then a field of whether it’s a vantage score, whether it comes from FICO, what vendor reported the score. So that there are a number of variables then that are really behind it, and if you simply then pick up all of these variables associated with the credit score the way we do, you can then use the information internal to then generate whatever percentile or whatever calculation you would like to do, but that that would not be put back on the lender to reenter data, to rekey it, but instead use what’s already out there in the industry. Also it would provide for easier changes later on, if any additions are needed.

What about a universal mortgage identifier? That has been brought up. We would strongly recommend that you look at the mortgage identification number that’s been put out by the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, MERS. It allows us to track mortgages throughout the system from application all the way to sale of servicing, sales of the secondary market and I think for these purposes it would allow us to really sort of track some of the under coverage that we do see in the HMDA data. We did some analysis and found that by throwing out all the correspondent loans, we are eliminating a number of loans that had no counterpart in the retail broker data.

What to make public? Well, we really think that’s your decision. In a sense that there are a number of data elements here that we would very much not want to make public as companies because of the limitations we face, but that certainly that’s an issue that the bureau and the Fed will have to face going forward is the tradeoff between risks of identity theft associated with some of these elements and that, but that’s really your decision to make rather than the industry, and to some degree, we would benefit, I think, in terms of what would explain what’s going on in the industry with a greater data release.

Finally on multifamily, we did an analysis and we think that HMDA already covers about 95 percent of the multifamily loans that are made. In contrast, though, it covers only about 60 percent or so of the dollar amount of the loans. So that if you look then at the average loan amount that’s in HMDA, it’s about $1.7 million for a multifamily loan. If you look at the average loan size of what’s missing, it’s about $19 million. So we don’t know how much effort really should be put into trying to capture this remaining 5 percent of really high dollar loans that are done for just an entirely different set of investors out there. So I think you really ought to look at what do you really want to do with the multifamily data? Do you really want to expand it or is there a questionable usefulness of what’s already there? Thank you.

[ipaper docId=42211905 access_key=key-2llkeixrro0fj9v82nv6 height=600 width=600 /]

Mortgage Fraud

Bryan Bly
Nationwide Title Clearing

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.

Excerpts:

Q Do you know if Deutsche Bank is owed any
money?

A Yes.

Q How do you know that?

A By what the document says.

Q I know that, but you signed the document
saying that you had done some things. Are you saying
you know it to be true simply because it was presented
to you?

A No.

Q Well, how do you know that Deutsche Bank
National Bank, as trustee is owed a thing?

A Because of the process in the place with the
department that generate the foreclosure figures for
us, and I rely on their integrity and their accuracy.

Q Do you know if Deutsche Bank owned the notes as
of the day this was notarized February, 27, 2007?

A Yes.

Q How do you know that?

A By the transaction of the sale of the loan to
them.

Q By who?

A By investor operations.

Q Who is investor operations?

A They are the department that processed the
reporting to the investors.

[ipaper docId=41550504 access_key=key-2crvm8l5p6is55j5cyo8 height=600 width=600 /]

Excerpts:

4 Q. So all of the client files, all of your
5 clients have a file in that system, and you maintain
6 records relating to that client in these files?
7 A. No. Specific clients are in specific
8 systems. So you update only those clients that are in
9 that particular system.
10 Q. Okay. What system would MERS be in?
11 A. MERS isn’t in the system.
12 Q. They’re not? What about GMAC Mortgage, LLC?
13 A. They’re NewTrack.
14 Q. What other systems do you use for the — for
15 the clients, for your clients?
16 A. It depends upon the client.
17 Q. Can you give me some examples of the systems?
18 A. Um, we have Lendstar, we have Vendorscape,
19 those are the two that I have used.
20 Q. And you’ve also used NewTrack?
21 A. Yes, ma’am.
22 Q. What type of information do you keep in the
23 systems?
24 A. We have to update when hearings are
25 scheduled, when service is complete for the clients.

1 Q. Do you also keep in those systems,
2 information as to when the lawsuit is filed, when
3 assignments are executed, when affidavits are
4 executed?
5 A. When complaints are filed, yes.
6 Q. But not when assignments are executed or
7 affidavits are executed?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Is that information kept in another software
10 program?
11 A. Not to my knowledge.

<SNIP>

1 A. It’s a form. It’s the same form for every
2 assignment.
3 Q. So you do not read them?
4 A. They’re checked by an attorney before I sign.
5 Q. So you rely on the attorney?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Also, in this document it indicates
8 that “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,
9 residing or located at care of GMAC Mortgage, LLC,”
10 what does that mean?
11 A. The address of the servicer.
12 Q. So Mortgage Electronic Registration System is
13 the servicer?
14 A. Mortgage Electronic Registrations is who
15 the — the mortgage apparently was sitting in the name
16 of for this file at the time.
17 Q. And GMAC is the servicer?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. What does that phrase residing or located at
20 care of mean?
21 A. That’s an address.
22 Q. So MERS is physically located at GMAC
23 Mortgage, LLC?
24 A. I don’t know.
25 Q. Don’t know. Do you have access to any of the

1 title work, or any other information before you
2 execute the assignments of mortgage?
3 A. It’s in the file that’s been reviewed by the
4 attorney.
5 Q. So you don’t review them yourself?
6 A. No. It’s been reviewed by the attorney.
7 Q. Are you — what provides you the
8 authorization to sign?
9 You notice on the assignment, that you’re
10 executing it as Assistant Secretary of Mortgage
11 Electronic Registration System; is that correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. So before I asked you if you were employed by
14 any other corporations, you indicated that you were
15 not. What does it mean when you hold the position of
16 Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic
17 Registration Systems, Inc.?
18 A. We have power of attorney.
19 Q. And what does that mean?
20 A. That we had authorization to sign on behalf
21 of.
22 Q. And did you obtain that power of attorney?
23 A. No, I did not.
24 Q. Did you — do you know anything about the
25 negotiations leading up to the execution of that power

1 of attorney?
2 A. No.

<SNIP>

23 Q. If you’ll take a look at the first document
24 that I handed to you, the Lis Pendens and complaint.
25 If you look, there’s a document attached to that as

1 Exhibit A. And who is listed as the lender on that
2 document?
3 A. It says MERS.
4 Q. And does it, a little bit further down, also
5 say Taylor, Bean, and Whitaker Mortgage Corporation,
6 “lender —
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. — is organized and existing under the laws
9 of?”
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. Do you have any documents — did you have any
12 documents in your file relating to Taylor, Bean and
13 Whitaker Mortgage Corporation at the time you executed
14 the assignment?
15 A. I don’t know.
16 Q. Would you have looked at the original
17 mortgage prior to executing the assignment?
18 (Brief telephonic interruption.)
19 THE WITNESS: No. Again, they were reviewed
20 by an attorney.

Continue to the depo below…

[ipaper docId=41044236 access_key=key-1s17qv7pitz1rmk5i19t height=600 width=600 /]

Excerpts:

Q. Okay. And did it actually grant you
14 authority to sign as vice president anywhere in there?
15 A. The listing capacity on that assignment was
16 — is a clerical error. It needed to state “attorney in
17 fact.” This document grants the power as attorney in
18 fact.
19 Q. Okay. So —
20 A. But it does grant the authority to execute
21 the assignment of mortgage.
22 Q. Okay. So you are not vice president of
23 Wells Fargo Bank N.A.?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Okay. During your employment at Florida

1 Default Law Group, were there other companies that you
2 would execute assignments of mortgages on behalf of?
3 A. Yes. I believe there were others.
4 Q. And would you execute those assignments of
5 mortgages as attorney in fact or vice president?
6 A. I believe it varied. I do believe there were
7 other corporate resolutions that it did vary, the
8 capacity in which I signed.
9 Q. Okay. Do you recall specifically any of the
10 other entities that you would execute assignments of
11 mortgages on behalf of?
12 A. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
13 known as MERS.
14 Q. MERS?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And what was your capacity as — what was
17 your signing authority on behalf of MERS?
18 A. I believe it was as vice president and
19 assistant secretary. I’m not positive, but I believe it
20 was as vice president.
21 Q. All right. Are you currently — this grants
22 you authority to act as attorney in fact for Wells Fargo
23 Bank until December 31st, 2010.
24 Do you still then execute documents as
25 attorney in fact for Wells Fargo Bank?

1 A. No, I don’t.
2 Q. Okay. And when did you stop doing that?
3 A. It would have been when I left Florida
4 Default in October of 2008.
5 Q. Okay. So was the sole basis of your actions
6 to sign documents as attorney in fact for Wells Fargo
7 Bank out of your employment for Florida Default Law
8 Group?
9 MS. HILL: Object to form.
10 MR. GANO: Objection to the form.
11 A. I’m sorry. Can you rephrase it?
12 Q. Outside of working as an attorney for Florida
13 Default Law Group, did you execute assignments of
14 mortgages for Wells Fargo Bank pursuant to this for any
15 other types of actions not related to Florida Default
16 Law Group?
17 A. No.
18 MS. HILL: When you say “this,” you pointed.
19 For record, you are referring to?
20 MR. IMMEL: This Limited Power of Attorney.
21 MR. GANO: Exhibit A.
22 MR. IMMEL: Exhibit A.
23 Q. And have you ever been to Wells Fargo Bank’s
24 headquarters or any of their offices?
25 A. No. I don’t believe I have.

1 Q. Okay. Are you aware — did you have to apply
2 for the limited power of attorney status with Wells
3 Fargo?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Are you aware of how you were chosen as a
6 limited — to be appointed the limited power of
7 attorney?
8 A. No, I don’t.
9 Q. Okay. Did Wells Fargo Bank provide you any
10 formal training or, I guess, any sort of detailed job
11 responsibilities, or was just this limited power of
12 attorney provided to you?
13 MR. GANO: I’m going to object as far as that
14 going into any specific instructions regarding
15 particular files that she was working while at
16 Florida Default on behalf of the Plaintiff.
17 Q. Without divulging privileged information, if
18 you would limit the answer to that.
19 A. Instruction from Wells Fargo, no.
20 Q. Okay. Did you receive any compensation from
21 Wells Fargo Bank for your duties as an attorney in fact,
22 limited power of attorney?
23 MR. SMITH: You’re asking about her
24 personally?
25 MR. IMMEL: Yes, her personally.

1 A. No.
2 Q. No. Okay. Did you ever attend any board
3 meetings or executive meetings for Wells Fargo Bank?
4 A. No.
5 Q. For that matter, with regard to your signing
6 authority on behalf of MERS, was there any difference
7 between how you carried out your authority with being
8 able to sign documents on behalf of MERS versus Wells
9 Fargo Bank?
10 MS. HILL: I’m going to object to the form.
11 A. I’m sorry. Rephrase, please.
12 Q. Okay. In executing an assignment of mortgage
13 on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank pursuant to the Limited
14 Power of Attorney, when you would do that, did that
15 differ in any way from when you would execute them and
16 an assignment of mortgage on behalf of MERS?
17 A. No.
18 MS. HILL: Object to the form.
19 Q. Okay. Are you still — do you still have
20 signing authority on behalf of MERS?
21 A. I don’t know.
22 Q. You don’t know?
23 A. No, sir.
24 Q. Okay. Did MERS pay you for executing
25 assignments of mortgages?

1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. Approximately, how many assignments of
3 mortgages would you execute on behalf of Wells Fargo
4 Bank?
5 A. I have no —
6 MS. HILL: Object to the form.
7 A. I don’t know.
8 Q. Okay. Going back to Exhibit A, it says that
9 Mark Wooton, Vice President of Loan Documentation,
10 granted this Limited Power of Attorney.
11 Did you ever meet Mark Wooton?
12 MS. HILL: I’m going to object to the form
13 only to the extent that Mark Wooton signed the
14 Limited Power of Attorney, I don’t know if signing
15 it is the same thing as granting it or if there is
16 a distinction. But to that extent, I’m objecting
17 to the question.
18 Q. Mark Wooton signed the Limited Power of
19 Attorney. Did you ever meet Mark Wooton?
20 A. Not that I recall.
21 Q. Okay. Are you aware of whether he was
22 authorized to sign this Limited Power of Attorney?
23 A. No. I don’t know.
24 Q. Okay. Did you report to anyone directly at
25 Wells Fargo Bank?

1 A. No.
2 Q. Did you receive directions to execute an
3 assignment of mortgage directly from Wells Fargo Bank?
4 MR. GANO: I’m going to object base upon
5 attorney-client privilege, any specific
6 instruction she obtained regarding this case or
7 any other cases.
8 Q. Without divulging privileged information.
9 A. We did have a procedure that under certain
10 circumstances, yes, we were directed to prepare the
11 assignments.
12 Q. Okay. Could you, I guess, describe the
13 procedure for when you would be directed, without
14 divulging attorney-client privileges?
15 A. Yes. When our client referred in the
16 mortgage referral.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. It could be the owner or it could be the
19 servicer. In this particular case with Wells Fargo,
20 they sent in the referral. They indicated that they
21 were the servicer for the new owner, which I believe was
22 HSBC, and indicated that HSBC was the proper owner and
23 holder of the note.
24 In that event of record, Wells was the last
25 of-record owner and holder of the note; therefore, we

1 were to effectuate the assignment of mortgage prepared
2 and executed on behalf of Wells Fargo.
3 Q. Okay. What type of documents would you rely
4 upon to determine that aside from just the referral
5 stating that HSBC Bank was, I guess, the owner of the
6 note; what other documents would you rely upon to
7 ascertain that?
8 A. That HSBC was the owner?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. We relied on our client’s referral indicating
11 that they had sold it to HSBC.
12 Q. Okay. Was there any other information that
13 you can recall?
14 A. Not that I recall.
15 Q. Okay. So going back to the referral, the
16 determination to execute an assignment of mortgage then
17 would be sent to you by Wells Fargo in a case like this
18 — in this case?
19 MR. GANO: Object to the form.
20 A. I’m sorry. I don’t quite understand that
21 question.
22 Q. Okay. Wells Fargo directed you to execute
23 the assignment of mortgage in this case?
24 MR. GANO: Again, I’m going to object based
25 upon any specific information given as

1 attorney-client privilege.
2 Q. Without divulging attorney-client privilege.
3 A. Under the procedure we had, yes.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Okay. And how would the referral — how was
7 the referral sent?
8 A. I’m not positive. It varied. I believe it
9 was electronic.
10 Q. Okay. And in situations where the — would
11 you ever rely upon the note to determine who to execute
12 an assignment of mortgage to?
13 A. Rely upon the note?
14 Q. The note, the promissory note.
15 A. A copy or the original?
16 Q. Copy, original, any fashion, the promissory
17 note?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. So whether or not the note was lost at
20 the time of the referral would not impact your execution
21 of the assignment of mortgage?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. How would you receive a promissory
24 note then from the plaintiff or whoever referred the
25 case to you?

1 A. Typically, they would mail the original
2 documents to our office.
3 Q. Do you recall if it would be mailed by any
4 sort of certified mail or return receipt; would you sign
5 for anything?
6 A. I don’t know. It didn’t come to me directly.
7 Q. And in cases such as this where Wells Fargo
8 would send the referral to you and state that they were
9 the servicer, what type of information would you review
10 to ascertain that they were, in fact, the servicer?
11 MR. GANO: Object to the form, and object to
12 any specific information, again, on this
13 particular referral.
14 Q. Without divulging privileged information.
15 A. We just relied on them indicating that they
16 were the servicer —
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. — who the plaintiff was to be.

See Deposition/Transcript below

[ipaper docId=40930400 access_key=key-14tbucc5ecqz7e01ho05 height=600 width=600 /]

[…]

And my duties at
21 that point was a consultant for certain investors that
22 we — that we acquired their pools of loans.
23 And I was that go-to person for that investor,
24 and it was Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs at the time.
25 And we acquired — we didn’t acquire, but I acquired

1 Ohio [phonetic] Savings as one of my relationships that
2 I had; and they — I was the go-to person for any of
3 their reporting, any questions they may have had on one
4 of their loans in their pools that we were servicing.
5 So I was that go-to person in client relations, and that
6 position —
7 Q. Can you define what being a go-to person
8 entailed?
9 A. Basically if there — again, if there was
10 questions on a particular loan in the pool, if there was
11 an acquisition or they were selling a certain pool of
12 loans, you know, they’d send me up the numbers reports.
13 Q. Okay. For example, you say questions regarding a
14 particular loan in a certain pool. What would be an
15 example of a type of question that you might get?
16 A. I may get a phone call from the investor, I’ve
17 got this particular loan that perhaps is in foreclosure,
18 REO, I need some details of what’s going on, where that
19 loan is at in the process of foreclosure, or perhaps it
20 was an REO. And then my job was to go to those
21 different areas, those different departments and get the
22 details for the client.

<SNIP>

4 Q. You have, okay. So it’s your testimony that
5 you’ve never seen this one, though?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Okay. But you did review all of the documents
8 that were produced in connection with this case?
9 A. This is the history that I reviewed.
10 Q. Okay. Not the question. The question was did
11 you review all of the documents that Wells Fargo
12 produced in connection with this case?
13 A. I did.
14 Q. Okay. Did you review all the documents —
15 MR. ALFIERI: Objection, form.
16 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) Did you review all of the
17 documents that I produced on behalf of the Guevaras in
18 connection with this case?
19 A. I have.
20 Q. Okay. And so it’s your testimony that you have
21 never seen that document before?
22 A. I do not recall looking at this particular
23 account activity statement.
24 Q. Okay. Do you know how Wells Fargo determines
25 when and whether to charge a late fee?

1 A. I do.
2 Q. Okay. How do they do it?
3 A. Okay. After the — after the 15-day grace period
4 — and this is typical. Some notes can vary, but it’s
5 typical that the payment is due on the 1st of the month;
6 and after 15 days a late fee is assessed on the 16th of
7 the month. And typically that’s 5 percent of what their
8 payment is.
9 Q. Is it assessed every time?
10 A. Every — each time the payment is late, yes, a
11 late fee is assessed if it’s not received by the due
12 date or the grace period that’s been granted.
13 Q. Are there any exceptions that would be made?
14 A. Not that I’m aware of.
15 Q. Okay. Are you aware of any changes to Wells
16 Fargo’s accounting practices following April of 2007?
17 MR. ALFIERI: Objection, form.
18 A. I am not.
19 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) Okay. And specifically with
20 regard to how Wells Fargo books receipts and pays late
21 fees from those receipts, have you ever heard of any
22 changes being made?
23 A. I have not.
24 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with Freddie Mac
25 Servicing Guidelines?

1 A. If it pertains to what I do on a daily basis,
2 yes.
3 Q. Okay. And what does that include?
4 A. General servicing of the loan. I do — I have
5 some knowledge of how the custodial files are held.
6 Q. How are the custodial files held?
7 A. It’s designated by Freddie Mac who the custodian
8 would be.
9 Q. I’m sorry, what is designated?
10 A. Who the custodial facility would be, who the
11 custodian would be.
12 Q. Where would that designation be, or how does
13 that designation — I mean, does it appear on a computer
14 screen? Is it in a file?
15 A. It — in general I’m just — no, it would not
16 be — it would not be — are you asking in relation to
17 this loan or just in general?
18 Q. I want to know what your knowledge is —
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. — regarding the custodial procedures pertaining
21 to Freddie Mac and their guidelines.
22 MR. ALFIERI: Okay. Ask — wait for the
23 question.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 MR. ALFIERI: Mr. Bartholow will ask you a

1 question. Answer the question.
2 A. Okay. Could you re-ask the question, please?
3 Thank you.
4 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) Okay. You stated a moment
5 ago that you were familiar with the custodian — custody
6 guidelines for Freddie Mac, correct?
7 A. Yes, correct.
8 Q. Okay. What are the custody guidelines for
9 Freddie Mac? What is your knowledge of them anyway?
10 MR. ALFIERI: Ask a specific question to my
11 witness, please.
12 MR. BARTHOLOW: That is as specific as I can
13 get.
14 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) Please answer the question if
15 you can.
16 MR. ALFIERI: Objection, form.
17 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) You can answer if you know,
18 if you’re able. If you’re unable, that’s fine. We
19 can — I can pull out some Freddie guidelines and we can
20 talk about them specifically.
21 A. Okay. Let’s move forward.
22 (Exhibit No. 10 was marked.)
23 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) The document I am handing you
24 is a custodian certification schedule summary form
25 1034S. Have you seen this form before?

Just read this it’s very good…

.

[ipaper docId=39916077 access_key=key-zforz3r3fux3xpgcx9f height=600 width=600 /]

Make sure to catch the exhibits in the deposition towards the very end.

Will do excerpts when I have a chance.

[ipaper docId=39632683 access_key=key-g4rsv1f15iz3h6fw9pf height=600 width=600 /]

EXCERPTS:
5 I do know we have to bill the clients in advance. It
6 wouldn’t be after the fact. From what I recall it would
7 be at least four people that were being served. That’s
8 the person being served, their unknown spouse, Mary Jane
9 and John Doe. So it’s forty-five dollars times four.
10 That’s the amount that we would do before they got
11 served or not, regardless if John Doe was served or the
12 unknown spouse was served.
13 Q It would still be a hundred and eighty
14 dollars?
15 A Right. That’s what I remember.
16 Q What did you think about that?
17 A I thought that was a little unfair. I felt
18 like I wanted to question why. I kind of got the
19 impression from my trainers that we don’t ask questions,
20 we just do what we are told. There was really no
21 handbook during my training as to which clients are
22 billed. I would sit with each training and — I’m
23 trying to remember. It’s been a year.
24 Q That’s okay.
25 A We didn’t have a manual so I was trying to

1 understand why they bill clients differently. I never
2 really got an explanation. I just typed really fast and
3 that’s why I was hired.
4 Q Were you ever aware that Stern had an
5 ownership interest in G&Z?
6 A No.
7 Q Besides process serving did G&Z offer any
8 other services? Were there skip tracers in there?
9 A There were skip tracers, yes.
10 Q Were there investigators?
11 A Private investigators.
12 Q Did David Stern utilize them as well to the
13 best of your knowledge?
14 A Yes. They had an office right next to the
15 input department of about three or four individuals that
16 were skip tracers. I think they had one private
17 investigator. He was an older man. I don’t recall his
18 name.
19 Q How did you become aware that Stern was using
20 them as well?
21 A Because when I was introduced during my
22 interview and after I got hired they said this is our
23 skip trace department and these are private
24 investigator/skip tracers. That’s how I was introduced,
25 by title.

<SNIP>

9 Q So how come you were there only for two
10 months?
11 A I was there only two months because I had to
12 sign a paper that said — I wish I had that paper. They
13 gave out a paper to all employees saying if you don’t
14 sign this paper you’re pretty much considered fired.
15 Don’t even bother coming back to work if you don’t sign
16 it.
17 Q Was it a confidentiality agreement?
18 A Something like that, yeah.
19 Q What was in it that made you not want to sign
20 it?
21 A I wish I had a copy of it.
22 Q I wish you did too.
23 A It’s in my email somewhere. I didn’t have
24 internet at work the past couple of days.
25 Q You have a copy of it?

1 A I have a copy somewhere in my email, yeah.
2 Q Would you send it to me?
3 A Yes, I can send it.

13 Q Okay. That makes sense. So you basically
14 only worked with the night people and didn’t have that
15 much contact with the day people?
16 A I didn’t have that much contact other than
17 when I was training and in that thirty minute gap when
18 everyone is pretty much wrapping it up.
19 Q Did you ever hear anything or did you ever
20 notice anything that was to you made you feel
21 uncomfortable about doing work over there, specifically
22 with Stern’s office besides the four names on every
23 complaint?
24 A Well, not with Stern but the way G&Z was
25 handling. For instance, before I got hired I looked at

1 G&Z’s website and the part where they said they use
2 private investigators and skip tracers, it said that we
3 have fully licensed private investigators. There was
4 one guy Michael Gold and I mentioned him in that letter,
5 that was a skip tracer but he wasn’t licensed. He was
6 still going to school. The only licensed private
7 investigator that I recall was Ira and Michelle.
8 He was talking to a lady that I think only
9 spoke Spanish. There was a language barrier. He was
10 kind of bullying her. His tone of voice was well we
11 need to serve these papers. He was acting as if he was
12 a private investigator. He’s even announced himself as
13 a private investigator. He’s right next to me in the
14 other office and I just felt a little uncomfortable that
15 he’s claiming to be that and he’s not. He was asking
16 for her address and saying we have to do this and saying
17 we’ll serve it at your place of work if we need to. He
18 was really —
19 Q Bullying her?
20 A Bullying her into getting information. I just
21 kind of felt bad for the lady that he was talking to.
22 Q Nothing else about Stern?
23 A No. It was more about G&Z.
24 MS. CLARKSON: This is a two-page memo. It
25 looks like it was sent to Duane. Enter that as

1 Exhibit B. There was a letter dated September 9,
2 2009 that we’ll enter as exhibit C.
3 BY MR. BRIESMEISTER:
4 Q Mary, are those copies that we can keep?
5 A You can keep those. Actually, I have copies
6 on my little hard drive.
7 Q Mary, you indicated you were there
8 approximately two months at G&Z. Can you tell us why
9 you left, under what circumstances did you leave?
10 A Because I did not agree to sign that paper
11 that everyone had to sign.
12 Q That’s the only reason?
13 A That was it.
14 Q Did somebody come to you and say you must sign
15 it or else you have to leave?
16 A It was a group meeting. It was said that
17 everyone has to sign it. Don’t even bother working here
18 if you don’t. They told everyone that they had to sign.
19 Q Did others leave?
20 A No.
21 Q At that point in time?
22 A No.
23 Q You were the only one?
24 A I was the only one to my knowledge. I think
25 the environment from the impression I got at G&Z was

[ipaper docId=39605403 access_key=key-28tnns3a1fjg1hyp76jg height=600 width=600 /]

RELATED LINK:

Lender Processing Services LPS and ProVest: Resemblance is uncanny

Side note…DJSP recently signed what may be the largest lease in Orlando this year. They plan to open a 12,870-square-foot in Highwoods Properties’ Landmark Center Two, near Lake Eola.

8 Q. And what was said about Cheryl’s bills being paid for
9 the Law Offices of David Stern?
10 A. That he’s always done it. David Stern has always
11 paid for Cheryl’s expenses.
12 Q. Personal expenses?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you know if he — Well was there rumor — Was
15 there talk, rather, that he paid — that he bought her car?
16 A. No, that’s confirmed. He did buy her a car. I
17 acknowledge that.
18 Q. He did buy her a car?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What kind of car did he buy her?
21 A. It was a BMW SUV.

<SNIP>

Q. Anything that —
4 A. Is it like personal or business or —
5 Q. Personal? Business? Anything at all?
6 A. Personal? The only thing that I was aware of that
7 took place there were the perks that certain employees received
8 from David Stern. If they were either dating him or they were
9 good friends with him, that they would basically do certain
10 things for him for certain files, in the sense of like David
11 Vargas. He would have certain perks from David Stern, like a
12 house, a car, cell phone paid all by David Stern.
13 And that’s all I know.
14 Q. Okay. So do you know of any other perks besides what
15 you said that Cheryl Salmons got? A car you said, for sure.
16 And her personal bills paid.
17 A. Yes. And cell phone.
18 Q. And probably her mortgage?
19 A. Yes. And vacations and gifts, jewelry.
20 Q. Who else would received gifts and jewelry or cars or
21 homes?
22 A. His girlfriend and David Vargas.
23 Q. Who’s his girlfriend?
24 A. At the time it was Christina Dell’Aguila

<SNIP>

8 Q. You have friends that still work at the office?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Doing what?
11 A. Foreclosure paralegals, docket return clerks.
12 Q. And what are they telling you?
13 A. That they’re very scared. That’s it.
14 Q. That your friends are scared?
15 A. Yeah, that my friends are scared.
16 Q. Did they say anything about what’s going on with
17 Stern or Cheryl Salmons or anybody else?
18 A. The only concern was that they were moving files out
19 of the office into a different office and that Eighteen Inch
20 Freight, I think, was picking them up. Something like that.
21 Trailer freight, something like that.
22 Q. Do you know where —
23 MS. CLARKSON: Eighteen wheeler?
24 THE WITNESS: Yeah, eighteen wheeler.
25 BY MS. EDWARDS:

1 Q. Do you know where they were moving them?
2 A. Supposedly they were being moved to Orlando’s office.
3 Q. And do you know why they would do that?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Do you know how long ago this was going on?
6 A. I think a month and a half ago.
7 Q. What kind of office is Orlando?
8 A. David Stern has another law office in Orlando,
9 Florida.
10 Q. What office is that?
11 A. I don’t know.
12 Q. And was it connected with the office here in Broward
13 County?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And do you know which — what the office is there or
16 what the location is?
17 A. No, I just know it’s another law office for David
18 Stern that he’s opened for foreclosures in Orlando.
19 Q. And did he just open it a month and a half ago?
20 A. No. He opened it, I think it was either sometime at
21 the beginning of this year or the end of last year. I can’t
22 remember.
23 Q. 2010?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. Or December 2009?

[ipaper docId=39604910 access_key=key-12u7vh26rf7970c9xnte height=600 width=600 /]

October 14, 2010

Robert S. Mueller III
Director Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20535

Robert O’Neill
US Attorney
Central District of Florida
400 North Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, FL 33602

Dear US Attorney Robert O’Neill and Director Mueller,

When it comes to foreclosures, there is mounting evidence of a state of rampant lawlessness in Central Florida. There are increasing signs that big banks routinely evade laws meant to protect homeowners, in many well-documented cases of ‘foreclosure fraud’. Despite the demonstrated existence, for instance, of ‘robosigners’ signing affidavits attesting to documents that they have never seen, the parties engaging in such misconduct are not being brought to justice. Big banks are mischaracterizing this as mere “technical problems,” and apologizing only where there is clear and very public evidence of harm.

It is not enough for big banks only to apologize for fraud, perjury, and even breaking and entering – when they are caught. It is time for handcuffs. Fraud does not become legal just because a big bank does it.

On September 20, 2010, after my office found evidence of systemic foreclosure fraud perpetrated by big banks and foreclosure mills, I called for a halt to illegal foreclosures.

Since then, big banks such as Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, GMAC, PNC and others have suspended foreclosures or foreclosure sales. These banks are still claiming that the massive fraud they have perpetrated amounts to nothing more than a series of technical mistakes. This is absurd. This is deliberate, systemic fraud, and it is a crime.

To give but two of the many available examples, attached is a deposition from an ex-employee of one of the largest ‘foreclosure mills’ in the state, the Law Offices of David Stern. In it, this employee testifies under oath that it was routine for that office to falsify documents regarding military records, in order to move foreclosure cases along more quickly.

The local media has reported on the case of Nancy Jacobini; a contractor for JP Morgan Chase broke into her home after the bank mistakenly foreclosed on it. JP Morgan Chase ‘apologized’ for terrifying her. But we do not have an apology-based legal system; we have a system of laws. I am writing to ask you to enforce them.

The organized and systematic manufacturing of falsified documents to deprive people of their homes is not only a threat to the integrity of the legal system. It also aggravates and extends the weakness in the housing market. Who is going to feel comfortable buying a home if a big bank can simply take it, whether or not that bank has a right to it? Given the securitization of mortgage-backed securities, this misconduct is a threat to our securities markets as well. But fundamentally, this is a question of protecting basic property rights – if you don’t own it, then you shouldn’t try to take it. Without clear property rights, and a legal system that insists on clear proof of those rights before transferring ownership by force, the economy will fall apart.

If perpetrators of perjured affidavits and other systematic criminal activity can get off simply with civil liability — or even less, an insincere bureaucratic apology — the freedom that Americans enjoy will erode quickly in the face of lawless seizures of property. I appreciate your work on the joint Middle District of Florida’s Mortgage Fraud Initiative, and respectfully request that the efforts of your offices turn towards reining in this rampant criminality.

Regards,
Alan Grayson
Member of Congress

Lawyers Peter Ticktin, left, and Josh Bleil, of The Ticktin Law Group, are shown with depositions from 150 robosigners, alleging that the court documents reveal an industry-wide banking scheme to defraud homeowners, in Deerfield Beach, Fla. Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2010. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

Robo-signers: Mortgage experience not necessary

Banks hired hair stylists, teens to process foreclosure documents, workers’ testimony shows

Michelle Conlin, AP Real Estate Writer, On Tuesday October 12, 2010, 9:21 pm EDT

NEW YORK (AP) — In an effort to rush through thousands of home foreclosures since 2007, financial institutions and their mortgage servicing departments hired hair stylists, Walmart floor workers and people who had worked on assembly lines and installed them in “foreclosure expert” jobs with no formal training, a Florida lawyer says.

In depositions released Tuesday, many of those workers testified that they barely knew what a mortgage was. Some couldn’t define the word “affidavit.” Others didn’t know what a complaint was, or even what was meant by personal property. Most troubling, several said they knew they were lying when they signed the foreclosure affidavits and that they agreed with the defense lawyers’ accusations about document fraud.

“The mortgage servicers hired people who would never question authority,” said Peter Ticktin, a Deerfield Beach, Fla., lawyer who is defending 3,000 homeowners in foreclosure cases. As part of his work, Ticktin gathered 150 depositions from bank employees who say they signed foreclosure affidavits without reviewing the documents or ever laying eyes on them — earning them the name “robo-signers.”

The deposed employees worked for the mortgage service divisions of banks such as Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, as well as for mortgage servicers like Litton Loan Servicing, a division of Goldman Sachs.

Ticktin said he would make the testimony available to state and federal agencies that are investigating financial institutions for allegations of possible mortgage fraud. This comes on the eve of an expected announcement Wednesday from 40 state attorneys general that they will launch a collective probe into the mortgage industry.

“This was an industrywide scheme designed to defraud homeowners,” Ticktin said.

The depositions paint a surreal picture of foreclosure experts who didn’t understand even the most elementary aspects of the mortgage or foreclosure process — even though they were entrusted as the records custodians of homeowners’ loans. In one deposition taken in Houston, a foreclosure supervisor with Litton Loan couldn’t define basic terms like promissory note, mortgagee, lien, receiver, jurisdiction, circuit court, plaintiff’s assignor or defendant. She testified that she didn’t know why a spouse might claim interest in a property, what the required conditions were for a bank to foreclose or who the holder of the mortgage note was. “I don’t know the ins and outs of the loan, I just sign documents,” she said at one point.

Until now, only a handful of depositions from robo-signers have come to light. But the sheer volume of the new depositions will make it more difficult for financial institutions to argue that robo-signing was an aberrant practice in a handful of rogue back offices.

Continue Reading…YAHOO

.