Two Original “WET INK” Notes Discovered in Same Foreclosure Case – Beth Cottrell JPMorgan Chase Team – 18,000 Documents a Month!

Two Original “WET INK” Notes Discovered in Same Foreclosure Case – Beth Cottrell JPMorgan Chase Team – 18,000 Documents a Month!

This type of thing is not an isolated incident. When have verified reports of “wet ink” notes that have been printed off of a high quality printer to produce to the courts to foreclose.

In the example below, it looks like two different attorneys from the Florida Default Law Group did not realize the other filed a “copy” before they did.

Not only were there two notes filed as certified originals in the case, they were slightly different as you will see below.

As GMAC would say, just a “technical” issue…

Ice Legal deposed Ms Cottrell on these issues and this is what she had to say in her deposition…

You can check out the full deposition here…

LINK- Full Deposition of Beth Cottrell Chase Home Finance – Robo-Signer Extraordinaire

Chase Home Finance, LLC,
Plaintiff,

vs.

Judith Koren, et al.,
Defendants

Q.         So can you describe what kinds of  documents you sign?
A.         I sign affidavits, deeds, assignments.
Q.         And what else?
A.         Allonges, lost note affidavits, lost mortgage affidavits.
Q.         And can you tell me in a given week how many affidavits you might sign?
A.         Can I tell you — I can tell you as a group, as a whole.
Q.         Sure.
A.         Amongst all the management we sign about 18,000 a month.
Q.         And that would include affidavits and assignments and the other documents you listed?
A.         Everything.
Q.         And how many folks are on what you call the management?
A.         Let’s see, eight.

Q.         When did you first become aware that there were different notes in this case?
A.         This morning.
Q.         So when you signed the affidavit and said “Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the note and mortgage,” you didn’t know which of these two notes you were referring to.
A.         No.
Q.         And why did you take a look this morning?
A.         At the notes?
Q.         Yeah.

A.         Just my practice before going to a deposition.
Q.         Forgive me if I’ve asked you, any knowledge as to why there are two different notes in the case?
A.         No.
Q.         And you don’t know who would have more information?
A.         No.

Q.         Do you know any consideration — and by consideration I mean money — or any other payment of any sort, whether money or any kind, that J.P. Morgan paid to Choice Mortgage Bank in return for this endorsement?
A.         No.
Q.         Do you know who would have more knowledge of that?
A.         I’m sorry.
Q.         Do you know who would have more knowledge of that?
A.         No.
Q.         Going back to the affidavit of the amounts due and owing, please.  In paragraph 2 you state that you had personal knowledge of the matters contained in the books, records, and documents kept by Chase. What books, records, and documents were you referring to there?
A.         History on the loan.
Q.         And what sort of history?
A.         Payment and where the amounts came from.
Q.         And tell me what documents you looked at concerning the payment history.
A.         That’s a system called MSP, and it’s a history screen that gives me a breakdown.
Q.         And you personally looked at that prior to signing this affidavit?
A.         No.
Q.         Did you look at anything else besides –well, I should say did you look at any books records, and/or documents before you signed this affidavit?
A.         No.

Q.         So if you didn’t review any books, records, and documents or computerized records, how  is it that you had personal knowledge of all the matters contained therein?
A.         Well, I have personal knowledge that my staff has personal knowledge.  That is our process.

There is much more in the deposition that is damning but in this post that is all I will be focusing on because it speaks to the examples below.

So, just a technical issue?

You decide…

Two “Original” Fabricated Notes?

In my last Foreclosure Fraud of the Week we talked about Poor Photo Shop skills.

http://4closurefraud.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/poor-photoshop1.jpg

This week we will expand on that topic.

Hold onto your hats. This one could possibly be a game changer.

Below are TWO “Original” Wet Ink Notes submitted in the same OPEN case by the notorious Florida Default Law Group.

One submitted by Ms. Ashleigh Politano Esq and the other by Tamara M. Walters Esq.

I am very grateful for this find since it corroborates some theories I have had.

I personally believe, that in most cases, the “Original” notes are purely high quality COPIES. The reason I say this is because almost EVERY questionable “Original” note I examine, the blue “wet ink” signature is always the same odd colored blue. You know, the blue that comes off a printer or copy machine. I have yet to find that same elusive blue colored pen in any stationary store.

I think that the Foreclosure Mills and the Default Processing firms have electronic copies of the notes and just print them out however they need them, or they just replace the last page with a fabricated one that is endorsed to the plaintiff.

Not only that, the last page of the note, in many cases, is a different quality paper then the first few pages.

Now I know these are some conspiracy theorist type allegations, so bear with me and see for yourselves below.

Most judges do not want to hear those theories, so lets take it a step further to possibly opening their eyes.

Remember that these are both “Original” Notes filed in the same case, both with “wet ink” signatures, by the Florida Default Law Group, so they should be identical, right?

I took the liberty on taking screen shots of the “Notes” where I thought there might be frauds perpetrated on the court.

Examine the full Certified Copies below to compare…

I labeled them;

NOTE ONE (Submitted by Ashleigh Politano Esq)

and

NOTE TWO (Submitted by Tamara M. Walters Esq)

I highly doubt that the TRUE note holder had both of these as originals on hand.

There is more to come…

Enjoy!

4closureFraud
1-561-880-LIES

Click on Images to Enlarge

Notices of Filing Original “Notes”

1st Page of Notes
Payments

1st Page of Notes
VOID

Last Page of Notes
Documentary Tax

Last Page of Notes
Borrowers Signature

Last Page of Notes
Endorsement to Plaintiff by Plaintiff

Last Page of Notes
Original Endorsement to VOID

NOTE ONE
(Submitted by Ashleigh Politano)
Defendant has retained counsel

NOTE TWO
(Submitted by Tamara M. Walters)
Defendant has retained counsel

This motion was filed and is set for hearing on October 19th 2010 in Palm Beach County Florida…

The bank “lawyered up” and hired well-respected firm Gray Robinson to represent them.

Come one, come all to view the outcome of this historic case…

Only time will tell…

So, without further ado, excerpts from the motion…

CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JUDITH KOREN

Defendant.

CASE NO.
50 2008 CA 016857XXXX MB

MOTION FOR SANCTION OF
DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

Introduction
4closureFraud dot org

In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, CHASE submitted an Affidavit of Amounts Due and Owing. This key part of CHASE’s case sought to lay the evidentiary foundation for the amounts allegedly to CHASE from the KORENS. The affidavit was signed by Beth Cottrell(“COTTRELL”), an “Assistant Secretary” of CHASE. The KORENS deposed COTTRELL to examine the veracity of the affidavit. Upon deposition, COTTRELL’s answers regarding the preparation and submission of the affidavit brought to light troubling practices, and, in some instances, outright fraud and deceit. The KORENS move to dismiss this case with prejudice as a sanction to CHASES’s for submitting this fraudulent affidavit to the Court.

COTTRELL Made Innumerable False Statements on The Affidavit

Q. Well, just I’ll ask you in regards to the entire affidavit. This was an introductory paragraph I believe referring to the entire affidavit. It stated you deposed on personal knowledge. As to everything in the affidavit, did you have personal knowledge?

A. My own personal knowledge, no.

Affidavit: “There is no genuine issue as to any material fact.”

Q. And did you do anything to verify that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact in this case?

A. No.

Affidavit: “Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the note and mortgage.”

Q. Also in paragraph 1 you stated “That plaintiff is entitled to enforce the note and mortgage.” Again, did you have personal knowledge of that?

A. No knowledge.

The Filing and Submission of Such a Fraudulent Affidavit is Grounds for Dismissal With Prejudice

Filing and submitting to the Court such a blatantly fraudulent affidavit is grounds for the sanction of dismissal with prejudice. Trial courts have “the right and obligation to deter fraudulent claims from proceeding in court.” Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre Mgmt., Inc., 697 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Defendants submit that all of the applicable standards for dismissing a case for fraud have been met in this case. First, this would be “a most blatant showing of fraud.” Plaintiff’s affidavit refers to the affiant having personal knowledge four times. Yet COTTRELL admitted, without reservation, that she did not have personal knowledge of the matters in the affidavit.

Second, clear and convincing evidence abounds that the substance and submission of the affidavit were fraudulent. COTTRELL’s own words from her deposition prove without any doubt that she testified to things in the affidavit which simply were not true.

Third, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s law firm have undoubtedly set in motion this process of trying to influence the finder of fact. This is not the first time that fraudulent affidavits filed by Florida Default Law Group, P.L. have been brought to this Court’s attention.

Furthermore, the Court cannot assume that this is an isolated incident whereby Plaintiff accidentally failed to live up to its own words in an affidavit. Rather, COTTRELL testified that her office signs over 18,000 documents a week between 8 people. COTTRELL further testified that “My review [of documents] is more or less signing the document unless it’s questionable.” Accordingly, the Court can be assured that the subject affidavit is not the only document filed by Plaintiff or its counsel that is without any verification or truth behind the facts asserted.

Finally, the fraudulent affidavit goes directly to damages and the amount purportedly owed by Defendants. As such, dismissal is a proper sanction. Therefore, the fraudulent affidavit in this case meets all the relevant tests that Florida courts have applied to determine if dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate remedy.
4closureFraud dot org
WHEREFORE, Defendants ask the Court to dismiss this action with prejudice as a sanction for submitting a blatantly fraudulent affidavit. Defendants ask for any additional sanctions the Court deems appropriate, including but not limited to, attorneys’ fees and costs for having to uncover Plaintiff’s conduct.

Be sure to check out the full motion below…

And remember, this hearing is scheduled for October 19th 2010 in Palm Beach County Florida…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

Beth Cottrell, Chase Home Finance
MOTION FOR SANCTION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

For more Fraudulent Activity see the Links Below

Another WSJ Smackdown! Florida Judges Bash Banks in Foreclosure Cases

OVERRULED!!! Florida Judge Reverses His own Summary Judgment Order!

WSJ Strikes Again – Judge Finds “Fraud” in Foreclosure Mess

NY Post – Florida Judge Reverses own Summary Judgement after GMAC Lawyer Could Only Manage a Ralph Kramden-like hamina-hamina-hamina

Mortgage Assignment Fraud – David Sterns Office Commits Fraud on The Court – Case Dismissed WITH Prejudice

Wells Fargo Motion for Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale for the Premises is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE Complaint is Dismissed

Foreclosure Mill Attorney for Marshall Watson or Foreclosure Defense Attorney for Homeowners?

SHOCKING REVELATION! J.P. Morgan Chase / LPS Produced a Fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage!

Verification of Mortgage Foreclosure Complaints

Comments
7 Responses to “Two Original “WET INK” Notes Discovered in Same Foreclosure Case – Beth Cottrell JPMorgan Chase Team – 18,000 Documents a Month!”
  1. James Murphy says:

    Awesome site. I have a trial coming up and the plaintiff claims to have the original note but there is no listing an assignment from bank of america to Federal Home loan mortgage (Freddie mac).Even if they come up with the note and endorsement i think i have them because it was not recorded in palm Beach county. Do You agree? Is it possible to ask to review the note for authenticity?

  2. James M says:

    Followup – what about all the accessory people who went into making the fraud. The second note is notarized by Margret J Ellis. If the signature is a fraud, so is the notarization, and the after the fact back dated notary stamp.

    It is not just the law firm that should be sanctioned, but other people who notarized or faked the notary to the documents should go to jail, as should each and every person who swore an affidavit in support of which ever case is fraudulent. AND THEN every case in which a judgement was rendered, supported by document they notarized or swore an affidavit should be vacated.

    We have go after the people who make the fake and fraudulent documents. Take out one, and hundreds of cases all fail.

  3. yvonne says:

    Question…at closing…are all the documents supposed to be notiarized by the same person? I dont recall signing a note and the copy sent to me ( by an employee like the oen in the deposition I imagine and should not have been sent) is showing some major descrepancies such as being notarized by a differnt notary, the mortgage broker who later said said she was the lender…but signed by some president and a hand written circle for a seal…mmmm

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. [...] Two Original “WET INK” Notes Discovered in Same Foreclosure Case – Beth Cottrell JPMorgan Chas… [...]



Leave a Reply