Livinglies.wordpress.com| by Neil Garfield
By allowing the foreclosures to go forward the Judges became the author of the only document that was a valid legal instrument — a court order, the rendition of which raised the almost conclusive presumption that everything that preceded the order had been credible, legal and valid and that the documents were authentic and properly executed.
We are all familiar with robo-signing. It is the practice of using a person’s name and signature on multiple documents when in fact the person did not sign the document. Or, in some cases an actual person signing thousands of documents per week without knowing anything about them.
In that sense it is a forgery as well as an apparent fabrication. I might have been the first person to identify the illegality of fabricating and forging documents for the purpose of foreclosure. The investors of course had no idea that the collateral they had been promised was actually subject to a worldwide scheme to bring as many defective, and sometimes fictitious loans, to foreclosure. And the investors obviously had no idea that the foreclosures were being pursued illegally in addition to being against the interest of the investors to preserve capital.
In 2008 I had started assisting lawyers and homeowners under the initial belief that the loans were valid and the trusts were also valid and owned the debts of the homeowners. Hundreds of QWRs and DVLs went out to servicers and banks. One thing became obvious. If the case was not in litigation, there was no response, and more particularly no documents.
But if the case was headed for foreclosure, the receipt of a QWR or DVL prompted the servicer or the party named as the foreclosing party to return many documents.
The documents were facially valid until we dug deeper and found that many notary stamps came from people with expired notaries and that the notarization appeared to take place thousands of miles from where the purported execution of an assignment or other document was apparently executed. We saw far too many “signatures” that consisted of a squiggle than one would ordinarily find.
So the difference could not be more stark. On the one hand we had homeowners who were “current” (according to the note) seeking modification and wanting to engage in modification discussions. Their requests for information were met with stony silence and no documents. On the other hand we had people who had received notice of default, notice of sale or a summons in a foreclosure lawsuit. Their requests produced many documents showing a “chain” of ownership.
My conclusions was that the documents didn’t exist for homeowners who were “current.” But there were many documents for homeowners who were not only not “current” but already headed into foreclosure. My final conclusion was that the documents were created for foreclosure and not from any chain of records.
I didn’t have the foresight to name this scheme but later someone coined the name “robo-signing.”
On the heals of my published finding I discovered two other people who had made findings similar to my own. Katherine AnnPorter, then at the University of Iowa had already published a research paper in which she had sampled thousands of foreclosure cases. She found, based upon her research and interviews, that at a minimum 40% of all notes were intentionally destroyed or lost. I then called several people on Wall Street that I knew they confirmed that virtually all notes had been destroyed and that only duplicates or fabrication were being used.
Shortly after that I discovered Judge Shack in New York who apparently was doing what judges were obligated to do — make sure on their own that the paperwork for a foreclosure was in order. He found that the paperwork was not in order and pointed to two major things, to wit: (1) the existence of multiple major competing financial institutions being tenants at the same address and (2) that the party whose signature was proffered on the apparently facially valid documents was asserting employment at all of the competing financial institutions. He ordered the banks to provide him with the employment histories of the persons whose authority he found lacking in credibility. Judge Boyco in Ohio and a few other judges in state courts or bankruptcy courts had essentially concluded the same thing — the foreclosures were riddled with fatal defects.
Shortly after that various studies conducted by government agencies or third party vendors for the agencies all came to the same conclusion — that a very high percentage — possibly as high as 95% — of the foreclosures were being conducted in the name of entities, institutions and banks who had no relationship with the alleged loan that as subject to foreclosure. Such studies were conducted in San Francisco CA, Baltimore MD, Orlando FL and several other states and counties.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands of settlements occurred between the banks and counties, states and the Federal government in which fines and penalties in excess of $100 billion were levied. Those settlements only resulted in the payment of a few hundreds dollars to homeowners who had been wrongfully foreclosed but did not reverse the obviously void foreclosure sales and void foreclosure judgments.
The myth of the “free house” drove the judges who were hearing foreclosure cases to crush the defense of homeowners who rightfully said that they had not been given proper disclosures at the fictional loan closing and that they were still being mislead by the banks as to the true owner of the debt.
What Judges are only now dimly perceiving is that allowing such foreclosures to proceed drove the economy and the wealth of investors into the ground. By allowing the foreclosures to go forward the Judges became the author of the only document that was a valid legal instrument — a court order, the rendition of which raised the almost conclusive presumption that everything that preceded the order had been credible, legal and valid and that the documents were authentic and properly executed.
Some of these fabrications are now easy for forensic analysts to identify. Some are more subtle. Thus for example:
- Compare the OR Book and page numbers for what is presented as a single document. You may find that they are inconsistent. So for example, the Limited Power of Attorney (LPOA) that has been in vogue to get around other sustainable objections is attached or presented separately from the assignment or other document upon which the named foreclosing party is relying for proof that they are entitled to pursue collection and foreclosure. When you compare the exhibits and the documents you may find vastly different recording information. This indicates that the document or the exhibit was taken from some other document or exhibit and reproduced as an attachment in the current case.
- Compare the dates of recording. If the exhibit was recorded a month before the LPOA was recorded as “Exhibit A” then it is only logical to assume that the exhibit was created and recorded (and thus used) in some other context is now being used in the hope that nobody notices what the bank is doing. Several instances of such documents including mortgage loan schedules can be eviscerated by showing inconsistent dates of recording or no foundation at all as to when a document was created and by whom and for what purpose. Note that filing a self serving document with the SEC does not constitute “recording” nor is there any attestation that the document is valid or complete. Most PSAs are incomplete, especially as it relates to the MLS (Mortgage Loan Schedule). Many PSAs are unsigned.
- One person signing one document on behalf of multiple competing entities goes beyond robo-signing. The credibility of the signature and thus the document itself is called into question under such circumstances. Hence the party who proffers such a document must not have the benefit of a presumption that might ordinarily apply. They must prove the actual transactions in which they acquired the debt. See the rules of evidence in your state.