And So It Begins… Nationwide Title Clearing Sues Foreclosure Fraud Defense Attorney Matt Weidner

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you,
then you win.”

Mahatma Gandhi


Well well well

We have been wondering when this day would come.

For the longest time, we were all ignored by everyone we tried to call out or warn.

Once they did start listening, they ridiculed us and treated our allegations and findings as irrelevant, then technicalities (felonies)…

Now that they all starting realize that the gig is up and their games are coming to an end, and have nowhere else to turn, they want to fight us.

Next stage? Only time will tell…

First from the St Petersburg Times…

St. Petersburg Times

Nationwide Title goes on attack against vocal critics

By Susan Taylor Martin, Times Senior Correspondent
In Print: Friday, December 10, 2010

Nationwide Title Clearing, a Palm Harbor company at the center of the nation’s robo-signing controversy, is going on the offensive against its critics.

On Wednesday, the company sued a St. Petersburg foreclosure defense lawyer, Matthew Weidner, for alleged libel and slander.

And it recently obtained an injunction, ordering Sarasota lawyer Christopher Forrest to remove videotaped depositions he had posted of three Nationwide Title employees describing an assembly-line process of signing mortgage-related documents.

Citi, Nationwide Title, Bly, Moore, Doko, Castro Emergency Motion For Temp Injunction

Affidavits of Bryan Bly, Crystal Moore and Dhurata Doko

Order Granting Temp Injunction to Citi, Nationwide Title, Bly, Moore, Doko, Castro

The ACLU of Florida said Thursday that it has filed an emergency appeal of the injunction, which it called a “gag order” and a restraint of free speech.

ACLU – Foreclosure “Robo-signers” Under Scrutiny | Foreclosure Fraud Fighters Under Attack

Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on December 11, 2010 ·

ACLU Appeals Gag Order on Homeowner’s Attorney FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 9, 2010 CONTACT: (786) 363-2737 or SARASOTA, Fla. – The ACLU of Florida, on behalf of attorney Christopher Forrest and The Forrest Law Firm, today asked Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal to reverse an injunction directing Forrest and the Forrest Law Firm … Read more

ACLU Robo-Signer Appeal – Forrest v Deutsch Bank

The legal action marks another chapter in a storm over the validity of documents used to foreclose on millions of American homes. Earlier this fall, Bank of America and other lenders temporarily halted foreclosure proceedings because of evidence that many documents contained errors and fraudulent statements.

One of the most outspoken critics of the foreclosure process is Weidner, who writes a widely read blog in which he has criticized not only banks, but judges, lawyers and companies like Nationwide Title that process mortgage-related documents.

Nationwide Title does not prepare foreclosure papers. However, lenders have authorized several of its employees to sign for them on assignments of mortgage, which transfer ownership of a loan from one party to another and are key in determining who has the legal right to foreclose.

In a suit filed in Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court, the company says Weidner has “deliberately and maliciously” used the term robo-signers “to vilify NTC for signing documents … when (Weidner) knew that it is entirely legally and appropriate to do so.”

The “gist” of statements on Weidner’s blog, the suit says, is that Nationwide Title is an “unethical company” that manufactures false evidence used to foreclose. The statements have permanently damaged the company’s reputation and subjected it to “public hatred, scorn and ridicule,” according to the suit, which seeks damages in excess of $15,000.

Weidner declined to comment.

Nationwide Title Clearing vs. Matthew D. Weidner Complaint for Libel

You can check out the rest of the report here…

Susan Taylor Martin can be contacted at

Next up, Naked Capitalism

New Tactic to Silence Foreclosure Abuse Critics: Sue Them

Some excerpts from the post…

I suppose the latest efforts taken by the members of the foreclosure industry to silence and neuter critics represent a perverse form of progress. If you go by the Ghandi timeline, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win,” opponents of bad foreclosure practices seem to have done enough damage as to now be worth fighting.

But what is telling are the desperate-looking but nevertheless potentially effective measures being deployed to hamstring the opposition. The vanguard of this effort are foreclosure defense attorneys, many of whom are solo or small firm operators, with not hugely lucrative practices or doing pro bono work (you don’t make a lot of money defending people who have no money).

Suing someone like that, even with a suit that seems spurious, throws a wrench in their operation. It takes time to deal with litigation, and often money, plus the stress is also a considerable distraction. And of course, the hope is no doubt that this sort of risk will also deter other lawyers and critics.

The first example is a lawsuit filed by National Title against Matthew Weidner, a Florida attorney who blogs about foreclosure fraud. The suit charges him with slander and libel.

As most readers no doubt know, in the US, slander and libel are false and malicious statements that damage the reputation of the subject. Thus the most effective defense in a slander or libel case is to establish that the remarks made were accurate (note that remarks that are narrowly accurate but misleading can be deemed to be slanderous).

Note that this effort comes as part of a broader battle in Florida over the transparency of court proceedings. Some Florida judges had taken to barring members of the public from watching foreclosure court proceedings, contrary to Florida law, which led the ACLU, some First Amendment groups, and several media outlets to write to the Florida chief justice and one of its circuit court judges. The chief justice, Charles Canaday, responded quickly and ordered judges to open their hearings to the public.

The remarkable part of the lawsuit is the claim that Weidner aimed to “to vilify NTC for signing documents … when (Weidner) knew that it is entirely legally and appropriate to do so.” As reader ella pointed out:

An affidavit is a legal document which can substitute for live witness testimony in court. All testimony in court is governed by the rules of evidence or by statute. All testimony requires that the witness swears to tell the truth, is competent and has personal knowledge of the facts they are testifying about. An affidavit is no different, in most if not all jurisdiction, the affiant swears to tell the truth by being placed under oath by the notary, the affiant states in the affidavit that they were sworn, are competent and that they have personal knowledge of the facts in the affidavit. The notary attests to the oath of the affiant and that the affiant is who they claim to be.

Note that the overwhelming majority of documents signed by these NTC employees were assignments, which arguably are not affidavits. However, any operation of this sort is likely to have signed affidavits of corrective assignments, and I have copies of lost note affidavits, one by Crystal Moore, the other by Bryan Bly. So the propriety of this operation may not be as open and shut as NTC suggests.

The problem is Weidner probably does not have the time or energy to pursue this matter, but by suing him, National Title has opened itself to discovery on the matter of legality of its robo signing operation. If I were in his position, I’d have a field day and start deposing senior executives, particularly on the details of the resolutions that gave the document execution teams the authority to sign and the rigor of the processes by which particular documents got to the robo signers, as well as the matter of employees signing affidavits, which by their nature are attestations of personal knowledge, when they clearly had none.

You can check out Yves’ post in full here…

Now, from The Market Ticker…

Foreclosure Firms Shooting At The Truth

It’s amazing what depths someone will go to to defend apparent lawlessness:

Nationwide Title Clearing, a Palm Harbor company at the center of the nation’s robo-signing controversy, is going on the offensive against its critics.

On Wednesday, the company sued a St. Petersburg foreclosure defense lawyer, Matthew Weidner, for alleged libel and slander.

It’s not libel (or slander) if the allegations are true.

But wait…. isn’t the moniker “Robo-Signer” exactly that? That one is signing something attesting to the veracity of a document and knowledge of it’s contents when they haven’t read it?

That’s the “popular” definition of robosigning – the one that I and others use. NTC may have a different one in mind, but somehow, I doubt that will carry much water.

What’s even more interesting, however, is the tactic involved here – attempting to sue and obtain injunctions to remove a video taped deposition that would destroy the premise of your suit. Remember, this isn’t a new technique – Fannie tried to do it with a deposition of another alleged robosigner in the northeast and failed.

Judge Denies Protective Order of Removal of Jeffrey Stephan’s Deposition from “Internet Blog”

What I find especially humorous, however, is that under the rules of civil procedure NTC just opened themselves up to a god-awful amount of discovery in the underlying issue.

When it comes to libel and slander (different only in the “where” – libel is written, slander is spoken) the truth is an absolute defense. If Weidner can prove that in fact the process was essentially an “assembly line” and that the signatures attesting to knowledge and veracity were affixed without actual knowledge and veracity then he wins, because his allegations, even though damaging, are truthful.

By filing this suit basically everything related to NTC’s conduct in the underlying matter, including their balance sheets, billing records, whether they’re paid “per piece” on production as opposed to veracity and more – all are on the table as legitimate items for discovery.

These rules are very broad for a reason – you’re permitted almost carte-blanche discovery in a civil suit as regards anything that might be related to the underlying issue being litigated. In this case since the entire issue at the bar is one of the motive of the firms involved to have employees who are “limited vice-presidents” and “limited signing agents” of dozens of banks and is inherently intertwined with the practice of law in the state courts there is going to be very little related to the firm’s conduct and practice in the area of foreclosures that will be ruled off-limits during discovery.

The firm just handed a very angry, well-connected firm endowed with both a fat wallet and media connectivity near-complete access to their corporate activities and records.

I’m stunned that NTC would do this, frankly. I can only assume they are acting as a cornered animal as opposed to someone who has rationally thought through the logical conclusion that will come from this action, as if there’s anything that’s not squeaky-clean the posting of depositions on Youtube is only the beginning of what’s going to be put out on the public clothesline for everyone to have a look-see, and this latter and upcoming “dump” of all their possibly-dirty laundry is by their own hand!

As for the injunction, that’s an outrage. Court proceedings are public for a reason. Depositions are part of a public process that takes place in a public courtroom. Demanding that a court essentially force removal from the public eye statements by the firm’s employees that appear to facially demolish the claims made in the suit is an outrage. First Amendment? Where? The right to public court process so that the public has access to view the evidence produced in court proceedings? Where?

These are not mere formalities or afterthoughts, they are first-level Constitutional protections that the citizens have for the explicit purpose of preventing violations of one’s rights – or the law – being concealed.

Never mind that putting before a court a document you attest factual knowledge of but you haven’t read is Perjury, and that is a felony in Florida. To the extent that these documents were filed each and every one of them is a separate count; I note that in Florida withdrawal to prevent prosecution is only permitted until the perjury is either discovered or is likely to be discovered. That is, if you withdraw a document you know is going to be exposed as bogus it’s too late – you only get a “pass” if you pull it before the events that will lead to it being so-exposed come to light.

That ship sailed before banks started yanking affidavits en-masse.

When will the District and State’s Attorneys start doing their damn jobs?

View this entry with comments

And lastly, from The Big Picture…

When Robosigners Attack!

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.

My advice to Weidner is to immediately file a counter-suit for harassment and abuse of legal process before the morons who run Nationwide come to their senses and withdraw their nuisance suit. The counter-suit preserves the litigation claim, and allows the defendant to continue the action.

You can check out the rest of this post here…

Let’s review some background information on Nationwide Title and Bryan Bly while we are on the subject…

From early 2009…

Tampa Bay companies help lenders transfer home loans, foreclose

By Susan Taylor Martin, Times Senior Correspondent
In Print: Sunday, May 3, 2009

Some excerpts from the report…

Despite the turmoil in the lending industry, Bryan Bly seems to have no trouble finding a job.

On Aug. 3, 2007, Bly signed a document as vice president of Option One Mortgage.

On Feb. 13, 2009, Bly signed a document as vice president of Deutsche Bank.

And on Feb. 18, 2009, Bly initialed dozens of documents — this time as vice president of Citi Residential Lending.

In fact, Bly never worked for any of those. His real employer is Nationwide Title Clearing, a Pinellas County company that helps lenders clean up problems that can complicate efforts to foreclose.

Bly, who lives in a Clearwater trailer park, is one of several Nationwide employees authorized by lenders to sign as “vice president” in assigning loans from one company to another. Assignments are key in determining who actually owns the loan, an issue that has become all-important as banks foreclose on millions of loans that were bundled into securities and sold to investors.

Critics, though, say that Bryan Bly and “vice presidents” like him at similar companies are part of an assembly-line process designed to resolve a big problem: In the rush to “flip” loans as fast as possible in order to make more money, the new loan holders often failed to get the proper paperwork showing they owned the loan and had the right to foreclose.

“They’re trying to doctor up these assignments in order to create an ownership trail that didn’t exist in the first place.”

“Papering over a hole doesn’t make the hole disappear,” Hoyer said. “Using this device to present an air of legitimacy is an affront to the judicial system and a stain on society.”

Full report can be read here…

I wonder why Nationwide did not sue for the above remarks in 2009?

I also wonder why NTC forgot to mention that Bly was reassigned to a job that doesn’t involve notarizing documents due to a “formal reprimand” for notary misconduct by the Governors office.

When ‘Bryan J. Bly’ became ‘NB,’ did he know what he was signing?

By Susan Taylor Martin, Times Senior Correspondent
In Print: Sunday, June 20, 2010

Last year, when MoreEquity Inc. transferred his loan to another company, Smart noticed that the mortgage assignment was signed by Crystal Moore as vice president of MoreEquity and notarized by Bly. However, Bly signed with only a B and not as “Bryan J. Bly,” the signature approved by the state.

Florida law says: “Once commissioned, the notary must sign precisely as commissioned by the state of Florida, in the exact name appearing on your notarial commission certificate.”

Smart complained to Gov. Charlie Crist’s office, which regulates notaries. Asked to respond to the complaint, Bly submitted a sworn statement that gave a glimpse into the workings of Nationwide Title Clearing.

“Depending on the needs of NTC’s customers, there were sometimes thousands of such documents to be notarized in a single day,” Bly’s statement said. “On those days, I would typically be notarizing documents for many hours.”

Bly said he noticed that other NTC employees whose names appeared on documents as vice presidents or witnesses were signing “only with their initials and sometimes squiggles that barely approximated initials.”

“Over time,” Bly continued, “the notarial signature I affixed to those documents became progressively shorter and shorter until at last I was merely signing B. I was not, at the time, aware that this could be characterized as a violation of state law.”

Bly’s statement said that on May 5, 2009 — two days after the Times story ran — Nationwide Title was told by its legal counsel that Florida law prohibits notaries from signing with anything but their commissioned signature. Bly said he tried to change his signature to the shorter B. Bly, but couldn’t until his notary commission expires in 2011.

As a result, he said, he was reassigned to a job that doesn’t involve notarizing documents.

This year, the governor’s office notified Bly that it had put a “formal reprimand” in his file that would be reviewed “if other complaints are filed against you for notary misconduct.”

As the foreclosure rate soars, more and more judges are questioning documents put before them. According to the transcript of a recent hearing, Pinellas Circuit Judge Anthony Rondolino noted that the same individual alleged the same set of facts on affidavits filed in two different foreclosure cases. The only change was that the individual claimed to be a director of one company on one affidavit and director of another company on the second affidavit.

“That really increased my interest in this subject matter,” Rondolino said, “because … I don’t have any confidence that any of the documents the court’s receiving on these mass foreclosures are valid.”

GMAC v Visicaro – Judge Rondolino – I really honestly don’t have any confidence that any of the documents the Courts are receiving on these mass foreclosures are valid…

Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on September 21, 2010 ·

Some excerpts from the beginning of the transcript… Be sure to read it in its entirety. It is an absolute must read… Gmac Mortgage LLC v Debbie Visicaro, et al. April 7, 2010 THE COURT: Okay, we are here today in GMAC v Visicaro. This is a motion for rehearing the previously drafted motion for … Read more

Gmac Mortgage LLC v Debbie Visicaro, Et Al Case No 07013084CI

You can check out the rest of this one here…

Bly’s Signature on Assignment

Bly’s Signature on Notary Application

On video, alleged ‘robo-signers’ describe assembly line work

By Susan Taylor Martin, Times Senior Correspondent
In Print: Friday, November 12, 2010

Nationwide Title ads appear when some-one searches for Bryan Bly on Google. He said in his deposition that he signed an average of 5,000 documents a day.

Over the past several years, Bryan Bly, Crystal Moore and Dhurata Doko have signed thousands of mortgage assignments as vice presidents of Citi Residential and other major lenders.

Yet when asked in a recent deposition what a mortgage assignment is, Bly replied: “I’m really not sure.”

Moore, meanwhile, defined a promissory note as something “that says the interest rate and stuff like that on it.” And Doko, a native of Albania who speaks shaky English, expressed befuddlement at the whole idea of loaning someone money to buy a house.

“We don’t do mortgages in my country,” she said.

All three employees described an assembly-line process in which they signed huge stacks of documents at a time and attached “routing” forms that showed who should get the paperwork next. Moore said some documents she signed were notarized by a notary public who was in another part of the room and couldn’t see her. State law requires the notary to be in the presence of the person signing.

“I don’t see how that’s legal,” Forrest said of documents notarized out of view. “You’ve got potentially 100,000 assignments of mortgage out there that are legally questionable, casting a cloud on the title of all these properties.”

Since the St. Petersburg Times in 2009 became the first to report on the mass signings by Bly and Moore, they have become two of the country’s best-known robo-signers. So many people search for them on Google that Nationwide Title now has ads that appear at the top of the screen whenever anyone types in their names.

“Does Bryan Bly know what he is signing?” the ad asks. It answers, “yes,” and says there have not been any legal judgments against him, the company or other employees for improper signing.

The video depos can still be found on youtube just by searching their names…

I suggest downloading them, for personal use of course, before they are completely removed.

So, before we go, here are some final thoughts from the Huffington post on these matters…

The Most Shocking Statements From Alleged Foreclosure ‘Robo-Signers’

In more than two hours of video footage recently uploaded to YouTube, three alleged “robo signers” describe how they approved thousands of mortgage documents a day without reading them.

Robo-signing is the latest ugly turn in the ongoing mortgage mess. Banks and loan servicers appear to have illegally processed countless documents in the rush to foreclose. The scandal has spawned a host a host of lawsuits, including a Federal racketeering lawsuit brought against Bank of America and a wave of investigations by 50 state attorneys general.

The three employees of Nationwide Title Clearing — notary Crystal Moore, “signer in charge” Bryan Bly and witness Dhurata Doko — gave depositions to lawyer Christopher Forrest, reports the St. Petersburg Times. Their testimony presents a detailed and often shocking portrait of the assembly-line like process for approving documents.

The employees admit they didn’t read the thousands of documents they signed daily, and they betray ignorance of key aspects of the mortgage industry. In some cases, according to the testimony, their signatures were affixed to documents without their knowledge.

One employee admits he doesn’t know how many companies he had signed for as a vice president. Another suggests she doesn’t know anything at all about the mortgage industry. And the third says she didn’t know exactly what she was authorized to do on behalf of her employer — her job was, simply, to “sign the documents.”

1. ‘Just Sign The Documents’

“Do you know specifically what you’re authorized to do for MERS?”
“Just sign the documents.”
“Do you know specifically what you’re authorized to do for City Residential Lending?”
“Just sign the documents.”


“Why did you sign this document indicating that your address was in California if that in fact was not your address?”
“Because my name was on the document.”
“So it was presented to you to sign and you signed it.”

2. A Vice President At More Than 20 Companies

“In addition to notarizing assignments of mortgage, do you ever sign assignments as a vice president of a company?”
“For which companies have you signed as vice president?”
“I couldn’t list all.”
“Could you give me some examples?”
“Chase Morgan. Wells Fargo. I’m on pretty much every corporate resolution.”
“Would it be accurate to say that there are maybe an excess of 20 companies or banks that you sign as vice president?”
“That would be fair to say.”

3. “Just Look For My Name, And Then Sign”

“Do you have any understanding as to what that term means, ‘for good and valuable consideration’?”
“I don’t usually read the docs when I sign.”
“So it’s not part of your job to review the document. Your job is just to sign it.”
“Just look for my name, and then sign.”

4. No Experience Necessary

“What did you study [in the one year of college]?”
“Nothin’. It was just the basic.”
“General courses?”
“Do you have any other additional training or education in banking or finance?”
“Real estate?”

5. Signing 5,000 Documents Per Day At Less Than A Minute Each

“Can you tell me on any given day how many assignments or other documents you sign?”
“Are you looking for a ballpark average?”
“Ballpark. I certainly don’t expect you to remember exactly.”
“I’d say 5,000.”
“Would that be an average day for you?”
“That would be average.”
“Would it be fair to say that during your tenure at NTC you’ve probably signed an excess of 50 or 60 thousand documents?”
“Could be higher than that?”
“With signing so many on any given day, can you estimate for me the amount of time you spend on any given document?”
“Less than a minute.”
“When you’re presented with a document to sign or notarize, do you take any steps to verify any of the information contained in the document?”
“Not in the body.”
“When you say ‘not in the body’ are there any other steps that you take?”
“I’m just looking to make sure it’s been fully signed.”
“Would it be accurate to say that you are presented with a stack of documents to sign, and your practice is to look at the document, see if it’s been signed, affix your signature to it and then move on to the next document?”

6. A Disturbing Lack Of Experience

“When you say ‘financial’ are you referring to matters relating to banking?”
“No. We don’t do mortgages in my country. … I don’t have any idea about mortgages when I started here.”

7. A Strange Definition Of A Mortgage

“Did you take any steps to verify any of the information contained in this assignment before you signed it?”
“Do you ever take any steps to verify any of the information in the documents you sign at NTC?”


“What is your understanding of what exactly is a mortgage?”
“When somebody goes to buy a house, they take a loan. And then the mortgage is their paying the banks bank.”
“Can you tell me what your understanding is of the term ‘promissory note’?”
“That’s just the note. Like it says the interest rate and stuff like that on it.”

8. Management May Have Electronically Signed Documents For One Employee

“Do you play any role in the creation of the documents to which your signature is electronically affixed?”
“No role.”
“Do you have any idea what documents or how many documents your signature has been electronically affixed to?”
“Do you ever review those electronic documents after your signature has been affixed?”
“So would it be accurate to say that entire process takes place outside of your presence and knowledge?”
“That would be fair.”


“You play no role in the determination as to whether or not you should be signing the document physically, or whether your electronic signature should be inserted?”
“Who makes that decision?”
“That would be someone in management.”
“So someone else in management is making a decision as to whether or not to use your signature to affix it electronically to a document?”
“And you have no role in that process?”

9. Signing More Than 50,000 Documents

“Have you signed assignments or other documents as vice president of any other companies?”
“What companies have you signed as vice president?”
“I don’t know.”
“You can’t recall any?”
“Mm-mm [No].”
“Can you estimate for me the number of different companies that you’ve signed assignments as vice president?”
“I don’t know.”
“Can you estimate for me how many assignments or other documents in total during your tenure at NTC you signed as an officer or a vice president of a company?”
“I don’t know.”
“Is it more than 10?”
“More than 500?”
“More than 5,000?”
“More than 20,000?”
“More than 50,000?”
“And out of those 50,000, the only company that you can recall signing as a vice president or an officer is City Residential Lending?”

Oh, and one more thing…

How amazing is this? Have you all seen the movie Office Space?

Do you remember one of the best cultural icons of America, Milton Waddams?

Look at this picture of Bryan Bly and Milton Waddams side by side…

The resemblance is AMAZING!

Same haircut, same glasses, same mustache, same look! They are even wearing the same gray short sleeved shirt!

HA! And I thought Robo-Lisa was the funniest thing I ever saw…

Anyway, I am sure this is far from over so stay tuned…


18 Responses to “And So It Begins… Nationwide Title Clearing Sues Foreclosure Fraud Defense Attorney Matt Weidner”
  1. I have strong evidence of fraud,deceipt , deceptive practices in connection with NTC title clearing inc. This company along with Chase intended to injure the wife of a War Decorated Veteran, whom just a few weeks of his death Chase closed on of the credit lines and declined payments from the widow while accepting payments for the first lien. The widow meet with Chase officials were was confirmed the same the account have been closed , no payments can be accepted and continue to pay the first line of credit. Few weeks later Chase communicated the same via letter to the widow.

    Few months later Chase files a foreclosure lawsuit claiming the “false” allegations that payments were due .

    The assignment of mortgage was forged. The documents claims to have been prepared by Erica Lance. The widow contacted the State of Florida on October 2015 and on September 13, 2015 , the State responded by stating be aware of forensic scam reports. However on September 25, 2015 , the State of Florida enter into an assurance with NTC title Clearing . The widow was alarmed because the assurance mentions the same violations the widow had reported to the State Capital.

    Conveniently , the assurance reflects that NTC has remediated all false related documents between 2007-2012. The widow forged assignment date of fabrication is 2013, the state of Florida new that before writing the report yet that date was left out . We also have assignments of mortgage created by Erica Lance during the end of 2013 that are completely forged and undisputed . Who is protecting Erica Lance ?????

  2. Frank Ninos says:

    What do you expect from a Scientologist owned company. They treat their employees like garbage as well those that have a bit of common sense and speak up get fired and threatened. There is also a pending class action lawsuit by former employees. What gets me is that they rigged the voting for the area top places to work by giving the surveys to their own people… out of 300+ employees only 80 were completed. They promise a raise after 90 days… there are cases that it takes 1 year almost to get that raise.

  3. cheryl says:

    I say we stand together and march at BOA’s headquarters. All for one and one for all. Let’s camp out until they convict them all!

  4. J Glenn Lowe says:

    I wish someone would sue me for slander. I could use the career boost. I have spoken out publicly about CEO Brian Moynihan of BofA for lying publicly about his company’s “legal” foreclosure methods that are putting children in the streets. A wrote a song just for him called Die Banker Die. A Tribute to Wall Street Banksters and Fraudgate. –

    Please sue me for libel and slander Mr Moynihan. Please Please!

    J Glenn Lowe

  5. Elaine S says:

    ATTENTION RE the Deutchebank filing vs Peter Y. Morlon et al,. Please notice It appears that there are some invalid submissions of evidence included to support the claims, because unless this notary has an established set of initials as her legal signature/ that is – rights to use only her initials established with the State of Florida, the notary is invalid on all four robo-signer affidavits! As it is a very new renewed or new notary license, I suggest getting the State of Florida document where Elsa Mckinnon establishes the official name she is to sign as a notary. I . Isn’t the evidence attached to inadmissible affidavits also inadmissible? If the notary isn’t valid, isn’t the document not recognized by the court? $10 to the State of Florida buys Elsa McKinnons new official notary signature. Have fun with that.
    See Florida Statutes 117.01 Duties of a Notary (4) (g) and 117.107 Prohibited Acts (1)

    On the Matt Weidner libel filing. Please note that the CITI Residential Lending Inc. document porporting to give the list of people authority to sign for them, the Document is dated at the top, BUT none of the signatures have a date of when they signed the document! Who’s to say when they actually signed, versus a printout from a computer for when the doc was first written. Without the dates on each of the signatures, is that a binding authorization, or is it missing an essential element of a contract? Would a court assume the date on top governs all signatures? What is custom re this?

  6. J A says:

    Matt is a righteous warrior in this fight against the darkness and pure evil that is trying to destroy the fabric of so many people’s lives. Matt, may God surround you with His mightiest angels and a powerful shield of protection against the enemy.

    As it says in Isaiah 54:17, “No weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me,” declares the LORD.

    We are standing strong with you, Matt!

  7. Alina says:

    I read the complaint against Mr. Weidner and reviewed the attachments. First, Sangiv Das was not listed as a director until the 2010 UBR filed by Citi Residential. This raises serious questions about the authenticity of the so-called Resolution attached to the complaint.

    Additionally, Citi Residential has been reported as defunct since 2008 when a portion went to CitiMortgage and another portion to AHMSI. Again, this calls into question the veracity and authenticity of its so-called “resolution.”

    I hope Mr. Weidner inundates Citi Resiential with discovery.

  8. pparke500 says:

    Absolute truth is a defense. He hasn’t said anything that isn’t true. Matt will win and the Injunction will be lifted.

  9. Mike says:

    Beware the Robo-Signer-tologists!!!

    The rumors that NTC is a Scientologist front group appear to have some merit. I cross-referenced some of the NTC executives’ names, and they are on quite few lists as being influential Scientologists. And Clearwater, FL, apparently, is where these folks like to hang out.

    These people have a history of “not playing nice.” We need to be very protective of our Matt Weidner–these folks are creepy/scary. Check it out–there is an entire Wikipedia page devoted to “Scientology and the Legal System.” The article quotes Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard, as saying the following:

    “The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly. —L. Ron Hubbard, The Scientologist, a Manual on the Dissemination of Material, 1955”

    ( )

    Here is a timeline of Scientology’s presence in Clearwater, FL. Check out what they apparently did to a former mayor of Clearwater:

    The GOOD thing, is that these associations might gain Matt’s case some additional scrutiny. Scientologists have had a lot of influence, but, lately, it seems they have been taking on some enemies with a lot more influence. And this would certainly not be the first time that Scientologists had been investigated for being a criminal enterprise.

    Hey–how cool would it be if Matt Weidner brought down fraudulent foreclosure AND Scientology all in one fell swoop? A two-fer!

    Yay Matt!

    • leapfrog says:

      It would be very cool! I’m with you, scientology is creepy to say the least. I tried to read Dianetics with an open mind (I’m an avid reader and no subjects are taboo), but I soon wearied. The idea that people would believe some of the rot contained was ludicrous.

  10. ny says:

    All bloggers unite and bring this asshole company down. F**** all of them…

  11. Maria says:

    I tried to post my comments to “Tampa-Bay”: lot’s of work – verifications, codifications and so on; and when I finished with all these stuff, it says, “NEW COMMENTS ARE CURRENTLY DISABLED”. So, they collect full information (I deleted mine!) about us and …what? They put half of country to preason? I want to say: TAKE OFF YOUR DIRTY HANDS FROM MATT WEIDNER!!! HE DID NOT DAMAGE YOUR REPUTATION – YOU ARE DAMAGING YOUR OWN REPUTATION, IF ANY. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DAMAGE SOMETHING, WHICH WAS NEVER EXISTED!!! FIRST YOU (BANKS, CORPORATIONS….) MUST EARN REPUTATION AND ONLY THEN CLAIM IT WAS DAMAGED.

  12. John R. says:

    And oh yea, you know that law where an attorney can get away with calling you names? Well that only works IN COURT… not in pleadings. Dum De Dum Dum…..

    Matt’a been doin such a great job I think it’s time he made some easy money… don’t you?

    Matt, ask for what you need, ya never know, you might just get what you ask for… we’re a giving crowd you know.

  13. John R. says:

    So, if the Plaintiff has stated as fact that Weidner libeled and slandered them, NOT alleged that he did, but stated AS FACT that he DID libel and slander them… and Weidner proves he did not…. aren’t they then guilty of “identity theft” which carries a Federal fine of $1,000 a day? Along with defamation of character, libel and slander themselves? I mean after all, they did publish it in public records. And found guilty or not Weidner will never be able to get a Federal high Security rating with even the hint of this on his own personal recored which, in the remainder of his working years could cost him lots in possible lost cases he otherwise COULD have gotten to defend.

    What’s good for the geese?

  14. MARIO KENNY says:

    Sure, after they have plundered and pillaged all the homeowners to make some pittance, and then the homeowners got them back, then, they are going crying to mama, we beat up the bullies and we will continue to beat them up until they go away, one by one.

Leave a Reply