Florida Example – Verification of Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint

Well out of all of the major foreclosure mills here in Florida, this firm is the only one that I have seen obeying the Florida Supreme Court’s Order.

Unfortunately, I am not impressed.

Take a look at the document.

It has a Mendy Mundey from Ohio as an Authorized Officer.

What it fails to state is an Authorized Officer of what, for who?

Does she work for the Plaintiff, a law firm, or some back office document production company? We just dont know…

Does this person even know the implications of her actions in where we now know that the “facts” are NOT “true and correct” in these complaints?

Well, I guess this just means more depositions to see who these characters really are…

Remember, question everything…


Verification of Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint
[scribd id=30141586 key=key-2igcgmcts7298uh89eah mode=list]

10 Responses to “Florida Example – Verification of Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint”
  1. angel says:

    I would love to see the other documents for Ms Mundy. I know that the law office that she did this paper work for has just fired a crap ton of notaries because of fraud. It’s made the papers, etc. and they are reviewing action against the lawyer too.

  2. Why not attack the beast right to its heart. No bank lends its own money, or that of its investors’. It merely converts your signed note to a Cashier’s Check, which is guaranteed by the Fed. Reserve, which has no Federal Connection, except that it’s guarantees are backed by the US Treasury, which is backed by the taxing power of the Treasury, via the IRS etc, supported by the GDP of the USA, who then issues Fed.Reserve Notes as printed on the $bills (“Federal Reserve Note”). For using and converting your assets, you pay these honest banksters for 30 years every month. Of course when the bankster sells the note and mortgage to different entities (bifurcation), it keeps the money, often several times the value of the face value of the debt instruments. It then lends out 98% (as the actual rsserve reqor even 100% of that money on new mortgages

  3. bpw says:

    I have an affidavit in support of msj in which the plaintiff is National City Bank and Affiant is Mendy Mundey an authorized signator on behalf of Plaintiff. She signed as “authorized officer”….

  4. DK says:

    I note this Verification was notarized. Is this required when the “Under penalty of perjury,,,” language is used. Opposing counsel on one of my cases argues that quoting the language in the Rule, and signing is sufficient to comply.
    I think the Supreme Court gave a choice, to (1) swear to the facts (“oath”), (2) solemnly declare – if you don’t swear (“affirmation”), or (3) the language “under penalty of perjury”. The first two would be notarized to be effective. But did the SC intend that with the ‘under penalty of perjury’ language.
    I am facing this argument in my cases where bank’s reps are using the statement and signing, without notarization. Any comments or direction to what the SC intended.

  5. Doug Y. says:

    GEEEEE… That wouldn’t be Florida Default Law Group now would it? I just got one of those where the signatory is the vice president of a bank in another state, and also is the authorized rep. to modify with a FDLG address and contact info… How curious!

    • Robin says:

      How do I find out information about the person who signed my verification and if they are an authorized rep to modify with the FDLG?

      Any help in knowing what questions to ask would be appreciated.

  6. Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty - Foe of Tyranny says:

    Mario, one cannot enforce a copy.

    There is a connection to PNC Bank made, but this is done in the notorial jurat, and not in the averment of the affiant. That seems extremely questionable to me. Also the form of the affidavit seems to be lacking. This isn’t any form of affidavit I’ve used. I am more familiar with the following:

    “I, John Smith, am a resident Bad Sex, Illinois, am over the age of 21, and am competent to make the following averments:”

    I note that Mendy has “read the forgoing,” yet fails to identify what the “forgoing” refers to. She may have had no idea whatsoever to what she was attesting, or what liabilities she opened herself to.

  7. Michael says:

    The Notary stated that this Mendy is “known” to them. How factual is that?

  8. MARIO KENNY says:

    notice how it said that a photocopy is as good as an original, a debt note can also be treated in this way i would suppose

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *