“Fraud” in Foreclosures, Revisited: Photoshop Fail + False Statements = Case Dismissed

fraudclosure

“Fraud” in Foreclosures, Revisited – Nationstar vs Rita Lawhorn: Another Trial Win by The Law Offices of Evan M. Rosen

Cross-posted from The Law Offices of Evan M. Rosen

In early 2013, the Florida Supreme Court in Pino, told us that fraud, in a lawsuit, is defined by a person or entity actually getting away with deceiving the court. Flat-out lying or attempts to deceive is not “fraud.” The Court even went out of its way to avoid stating whether or not monetary sanctions would even be warranted in Pino, because that issue was not before it.

Before reaching the Supremes, the 4th DCA addressed the case. Justice Polen, adopting the written opinion of Justice Gary M. Farmer, wrote that:

“Decision-making in our courts depends on genuine, reliable evidence. The system cannot tolerate even an attempted use of fraudulent documents and false evidence in our courts. The judicial branch long ago recognized its responsibility to deal with, and punish, the attempted use of false and fraudulent evidence. When such an attempt has been colorably raised by a party, courts must be most vigilant to address the issue and pursue it to a resolution.”

Unfortunately, neither the majority of the 4th DCA nor the Supremes agreed with this position and the use of fraudulent documents and false evidence in foreclosure cases is alive and well!

 

Nationstar v. Rita Lawhorn

While investigating the court file in this matter, we quickly and easily discovered evidence of fraud – a very poorly Photoshopped note was attached to the amended complaint.

Copy of Note Attached to Amended Complaint Filed on 05/22/2011

We knew it was Photoshopped for a few reasons. One, the original note, filed on May 29, 2009, almost two full years before the Amended Complaint, contained two indorsements, not one. Here’s a copy of the indorsements on the original.

note orig

Copy of Original Note Filed on 05/29/2009

Here’s the indorsement from the later filed amend complaint.

amended note

As once can plainly see, the copy of the note attached to the Amended Complaint filed on May 2, 2011 shed, from the previously filed original note, the Judy Faber indorsement from Residential Funding to Deutsche Bank Trust Company as trustee in its entirety. On the one remaining indorsement that exists on both the original and the “copies,” the words “Residential Funding Company LLC” are removed, leaving behind, on the “copy” only an apparent indorsement in blank from the original lender.

In addition to the indorsement issues, pages one and five, of both the original note and the copy attached to the Amended Complaint, bear unique markings. Page one has the word “cancel,” as well as “05-18-09” and “PA” written on the top right corner. On the original, this is all written in apparent “wet ink.” This can be easily explained. The original note first surfaces when it was surrendered to the Court on May 18, 2009, at the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The judge at that time was the Honorable Peter Adrian. In Miami-Dade, when original notes are surrendered, they are marked cancelled by the judge.

 

Original Note

orig cancel

 

Amended Complaint Note

Amended cancel

 

Also, the front of page five of the original note and the copy attached to the Amended Complaint, bear a visible, inverse image of the Judy Faber/Residential Funding to Deustche Bank Trust Company as trustee indorsement. Apparently the ink of that indorsement, which is stamped on the back of page five, bled through the page, on to its front.

 

stamp ink

 

So while the front of page five of both the original note and the copy attached to the amended complaint show the “bleed through” of the Judy Faber indorsement, on the back of that page, on the version attached to the Amended Complaint, that indorsement is gone.

Clearly, the copy of the note attached to the Amended Complaint was doctored. The Plaintiff in this action was originally Deutsche Bank Trust Company as trustee. The original note apparently supported the ability of that Plaintiff to enforce the note. Via an amended complaint, filed by Elizabeth Wellborn, P.A., the predecessor to the Plaintiff’s current counsel, the Plaintiff became Aurora. This was all after the original note had already been surrendered to the court. A note indorsed in blank, which is what the “copy” of note attached to the Amended Complaint indicates, would apparently support Aurora’s ability to enforce that note.

As soon as the Plaintiff sought to introduce the note at trial, we jumped in:

MR. ROSEN: Judge, I have to object to this note coming into evidence. The plaintiff has sought to amend its complaint and had an order amending its complaint. The note attached to the amended complaint is different materially than what is here as the original note.

THE COURT: What is material?

MR. ROSEN: There’s an additional endorsement that is not on the note that’s attached to the amended complaint. This is the original complaint as was submitted to the Court for summary judgment. If there is a specific endorsement to Deutsche Bank as trustee not naming a trust. The note attached to the amended complaint, interestingly enough, has copies of every single page. It even has those notes, and, I believe, that’s the judge’s signature or initials that they were accepted into evidence at summary judgment. If you keep flipping the page, every page is identical, even the evidence of what I will call the endorsement to Deutsche Bank is noticeable on the amended complaint copy of the note, but, yet, if you look at that page, there’s the back of the Judy Faber endorsement that you can see right through here on this page, but yet on the amended complaint, when you flip to the next page, that’s the endorsement in blank. This was filed after this original was filed. Furthermore, the exhibits that we received today in response to trial order, we requested exhibits. We followed up with e-mails. The copy of the original note, which was listed, that’s how it was listed on the exhibit list, excuse me, on the copies of the exhibits that were provided, provided this note, and the parties are bound by their pleadings.

THE COURT: I’m very disturbed by this. What’s the explanation?

MR. DROSKY: I don’t have an explanation at this point, your Honor. We’re going to get into that with the witness. We’re just trying to seek to introduce it to the witness right now. The test is prejudice, so I don’t understand that there would be any prejudice to defendant. If there’s prejudice to anybody in this case, it would be to me in trying to prove my case.

MR. ROSEN: Just, this has nothing to do with prejudice. This is what’s been deemed as a judicial admission by Erhart, parties are bound by their pleadings. That’s the note that’s coming in. Furthermore, I appreciate why you’re disturbed about this…

Despite Defendant’s counsel making Plaintiff’s counsel aware, prior to trial, of the uncontrovertibly, verifiable chronological facts of this situation, Plaintiff’s counsel struggled to acknowledge or comprehend the magnitude or truth of the situation. When this issue was presented at trial, rather than quickly and overtly admitting the factually obvious and the possible implications of this situation, the following exchange occurred:

MR. DROSKY: It’s a nice theory, Judge, but there’s nothing to support this. This appears to be a second action, and what happens in a lot of cases when you have the case is that the original note is sent back and then it is endorsed by the owner because Deutsche Bank is the owner of this note. They’re not the servicer.

MR. ROSEN: Judge, if the owner wanted to endorse it, then they should have done that, and that’s the way it’s properly done, not removing endorsements after the fact to support a cause of action, if that was done or not. I don’t want to make allegations here, but something certainly seems wrong.

THE COURT: How can that endorsement have disappeared?

MR. DROSKY: No, nothing disappeared, your Honor.

THE COURT: Isn’t that the amended complaint has something without this?

MR. ROSEN: Is missing; correct.

MR. DROSKY: The amended complaint, this endorsement is the same, your Honor, except now it’s specific, the blank endorsement is now a specific endorsement to residential and a second endorsement was added from residential to Deutsche as the owner.

MR. ROSEN: But what’s most disturbing about the amended complaint is the prior page of the note. The prior page that shows Judy Faber’s endorsement is there on their copy of this last page, so they copied — someone copied pages one through four or five, and then the endorsement which is supposed to be on the back suddenly got substituted for something else.

THE COURT: Do you see what we’re talking about?

MR. DROSKY: No, I do, Judge.

MR. ROSEN: I printed out an overhead clear projector sheet to help.

MR. DROSKY: This endorsement, this is going to be really tough for the court reporter. I apologize. This endorsement here, your Honor, is the exact same one here.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DROSKY: Now, on the original note, the blank now has the residential line there.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DROSKY: The second endorsement was added from residential to Deutsche, which is the owner.

MR. ROSEN: Which this was filed before that.

MR. DROSKY: So there’s nothing —

THE COURT: Yes, but my problem is that this was filed in 2008. Yes?

MR. ROSEN: 2009, actually. It was a lost note count subsequently filed to support summary judgment.

THE COURT: So in 2008/2009; right?

MR. DROSKY: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: This was filed — when was the amended complaint filed?

MR. ROSEN: 2010, if I’m not mistaken, Judge. Motion to amend was…

THE COURT: That’s why I asked you.

MR. ROSEN: 2011, April 2011.

THE COURT: So two years later. How is it Mr. Drosky, and the reason I asked you why did this disappear is that this disappeared.

MR. DROSKY: Nothing disappeared, Judge. I mean, when it was amended, somebody obviously took the copy of the note from the original complaint and attached it to the amended complaint.

MR. ROSEN: There’s no note attached to the original complaint. Todd, sorry to cut you off. It’s just not true.

MR. DROSKY: There was one in the court file. I saw it.

MR. ROSEN: On the original complaint there was no note. It was with Stern, and they attached a sheet of paper that says what the —

THE COURT: Can you find it in here?

MR. ROSEN: Sure.

THE COURT: Listen, this is going to take more than the time I have today. Listen, if something gets filed, it’s got two stamps on it.

MR. DROSKY: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay. Two years later, one of the stamps in the amended complaint that’s allegedly a true copy has one of those stamps that is disappeared. Don’t you see the problem?

MR. DROSKY: I see it as the reverse, your Honor. The reverse situation happened. The note had one endorsement, and then the second one was added. He’s trying to say that you went from two to one; I’m saying we’re going from one to two.

THE COURT: That’s what he’s — what Mr. Rosen, not he, Mr. Rosen is telling me is that originally there were two stamps on the back of that note, and all of a sudden the amended complaint sheds one of those stamps.

MR. DROSKY: No.

MR. ROSEN: That’s correct. That’s absolutely correct, Judge. What was filed in the Court in 2009 has two endorsements as an original. The prior plaintiff’s counsel files an amended complaint with one of them missing, but yet again, evidence of it there on the page in front of it, a bleed through, if you will; then I get a copy of an original note today as an exhibit, or last night, yesterday sometime, despite the fact we asked for exhibits well in advance, et cetera, get it yesterday, and the — it’s the exact same copy that has just the one endorsement stating that’s an original note, which I know that’s not an original note. That’s a misstatement to me. That’s a misstatement to the Court. I can show you that filing as well as from this counsel, from this counsel’s firm, as well as what we see from Wellborn’s firm. The amended — the complaint from Stern was — as far as I know, had no note, and what it had was a sheet of paper. It has just a mortgage, has a sheet of paper to say what the note terms were. It was a lost-note count. So that the first time a note shows up at summary judgment with two stamps on it supporting a right for some other person to foreclose.

THE COURT: In 2009?

MR. ROSEN: 2009; correct. Then there’s an amended complaint filed with a different note or different endorsements, although pages one through five are identical, has the Judge’s initials, has the date.

THE COURT: I don’t care about the first five pages. My problem is with the back, page five.

MR. DROSKY: Somebody obviously used the incorrect copy of the note to attach to the amended complaint.

THE COURT: But you’re bound by what you file.

MR. DROSKY: The original is in the court file, your Honor. The original cures whatever defects may have been in the previous filings.

MR. ROSEN: Judge, no way —

THE COURT: The original is in the court file?

MR. DROSKY: Yes, it is.

MR. ROSEN: Prior to the amended complaint. The amended complaint is — their exhibits control our attachments for purpose thereof under the rules.

THE COURT: I’m going to set you for a couple hours. I don’t have time to do this. I really am concerned about this.

_________

Further, Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-3.3(a) states, in pertinent part:

A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

Where false evidence has already been offered, the Comment to Rule 4-3.3 provides the following guidance:

“If perjured testimony or false evidence has been offered, the advocate’s proper course ordinarily is to remonstrate with the client confidentially if circumstances permit. In any case, the advocate should ensure disclosure is made to the court. It is for the court then to determine what should be done…”

The Florida Bar has opined:

“As the rule indicates, if an attorney knows that any material false representations have been made on the record by a client to any court or tribunal, then the attorney must follow the instructions in the Comment to Rule 4-3.3 and ask the client to correct these false statements on the record. … If the Client refuses to give consent to theattorney to disclose, then the attorney must make these disclosures him/herself, preferably in an in camera proceeding if possible. Disclosure should be made to the presiding judge … and guidance should be requested from the court.”

Florida Bar Staff Opinion 29977 (January 7, 2011).

As defined in the Preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct, “‘[k]nowingly,’ ‘known,’ or ‘knows’ denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances.” Preamble to the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. Further, “[l]egal argument based on a knowingly false representation of law constitutes dishonesty toward the tribunal.” Comment to Rule 4-3.3.

Also, Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-3.4 states,

A lawyer shall not:
(a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is relevant to a pending or a reasonably foreseeable proceeding; nor counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

(b) fabricate evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness, except a lawyer may pay a witness reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending or testifying at proceedings; a reasonable, noncontingent fee for professional services of an expert witness; and reasonable compensation to reimburse a witness for the loss of compensation incurred by reason of preparing for, attending, or testifying at proceedings;

_________

At the continuation of the trial on April 28, 2013, Judge Cueto was visibly upset, even more so than he previously was when this was originally presented to the Court. Just as he was beginning to sternly address the Plaintiff’s lawyer and their bank representative, Sean Chibnik, expressing how serious of an issue this was and how the evidence presented to him was undoubtedly false and doctored, the Plaintiff’s counsel cut him off and voluntarily dismissed their case. I have always found Judge Cueto to be an incredibly even tempered and consistent jurist. He has a job to do and he does it well. It seemed to me that he would have liked to push this issue further, holding an evidentiary hearing to investigate Elizabeth Wellborn’s office but to what end? Won’t it be too easy for Wellborn to dismiss this as the work of some rogue underling in their giant mill of an operation? Moreover, thanks to Pino, who knows if this is even sanctionable conduct anymore!?!

While our client got a dismissal, it was a sad day for those of us who still believe, “[t]he system cannot tolerate even an attempted use of fraudulent documents and false evidence in our courts.”

~

If you are in Florida and are looking for help with debt, foreclosure, real estate or want more information about bankruptcy law, call (855) 55-ROSEN or fill out the online form for a FREE CONSULTATION. Let the lawyers and staff at the Law Offices of Evan M. Rosen serve you!

~

Copy of the full trial transcript and our Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Objection to the Note’s Admissibility into Evidence below.

~

4closureFraud.org

~

Memorandum of Law

Trial Transcript

Comments
23 Responses to ““Fraud” in Foreclosures, Revisited: Photoshop Fail + False Statements = Case Dismissed”
  1. Ingrid says:

    In the 1930’s the Gestapo seized my great grandfather’s home in Berlin as they were Jews…it was all “legal”…in 2015 we have privatized the Gestapo…the Banks and Mortgage Servicers…who seize private homes and no matter what they do, how they do it…Conservative Judges say its all “legal”…we have arrived into private sector Fascism and all the congress is concerned about is H.Clinton’s emails and denying medical insurance to 10 million who have it for the first time.

  2. Ingrid says:

    Many states have a “stand your ground” law…I would love to see it used when Nationstar sends their hired goons to break into a house and change the locks. It might even make CNN if they have time during the made up crisis about HC’s emails.

  3. Bobbi Swann says:

    Not that you will necessarily tell the truth, but are you the same Terance Healty, a partner with Reed-Smith in Wash. DC? The same TeranceHealy that worked for the SEC and DOJ? Of course the picture attached to your post name does not match the Terance Healy I mention bu the post is very much liken to an attorney speaking. If so, I applaud you for the bravery in this post to expose the truth and as such take a huge risk in your career. Now, I go to do more research on Rule 1.6

  4. I was curious if you were aware of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6?

    Rule 1.6 made it illegal to prosecute injustice in the United States. A ‘law’ in every state enacted by the state Supreme Court results in an unconstitutional loss of rights and privileges of a litigant victim when an act of injustice occurs in a courtroom. (In Civil, Criminal or Family Courts)

    The ‘law’ makes it illegal for any prosecutor, district attorney or attorney general to prosecute the crime – because it
    – would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
    – would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or
    – would expose individual liability.

    The victim is left with no recourse, or escape. They are bullied and harassed by the courts until one of three possible outcomes results. Loss of EVERYTHING in their life, prison, or suicide.

    There is nothing any judge can do to address the injustice. This is not judges protecting their own. It is a violation of Rule 1.6 if the judge even tries to address the injustice. Their judicial integrity is sacrificed. This angers the judge who then seems to take it out further on the victim.

    When the act which caused the injustice is known and exposed (even in court) the damage to the victim worsens. The injustice grows each time the victim appears in court because no lawyer or judge may acknowledge or address the injustice or resolve the matter.

    The overall result is abuse of power under color of law. In criminal courts the prosecutor’s aggressive misconduct is ignored. All ‘lawful’, but unconstitutional – as they are mandated to never reveal it or they are quickly disciplined and discredited. It cannot be dealt with until the litigant has his constitutional rights restored. But the victim would have to figure out how they lost their rights – and there is NO ONE TO HELP. (They made helping the victim of injustice illegal. No lawyer may participate. If they try, they are disciplined.)

    The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Plaintiffs have lawfully petitioned the court and served the challenge on every US Attorney General to address a constitutional calamity which has ‘LAWFULLY BUT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY’ persisted in the United State for decades.

    Each state lost the ability to address the injustice of their own courts, and mandated that no lawyer, attorney general or district attorney invite the federal government to investigate.

    Each time the Federal Government has acted to address injustice and corruption of any state court, that state’s Supreme Court has modified Rule 1.6 to close the loophole. This leaves a trail which exposes the corruption caused by this ‘law’ which perverts the entire justice system.

    Kids for Cash is one huge example in Pennsylvania. No one could stop it until a judge violated Rule 1.6 and reported it. Judge Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench for doing the right thing.

    A massive example is the foreclosure crisis nationwide, where a fraud upon the court – a forged and false mortgage note or deed – resulted in the actual fraud being ‘lawfully’ ignored by the court while people everywhere lost their homes. It wasn’t necessarily the banks that caused the crisis. It was the lawyers who committed the initial fraud upon the court which could not be addressed.

    The victims of injustice lost their home because of a deliberate injustice and the mandate by Rule 1.6 that no one reveal it.

    Rule 1.6 made it illegal for a lawyer to fix this crisis. It took two pro se defendants to find the needle in haystack of injustice… all deliberately and intentionally caused by the author of the ‘law’ … The American Bar Association.

    The same unconstitutional law, same number, same name, in every state.

    Read more at http://www.work2bdone.com/live 544341845_1380969403

    JUSTICE IS COMING.

    The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
    Eastern District of Pennsylvania # 13-4614 (2-13-cv-04614-TON)
    Third Circuit Court of Appeals # 13-4591

    Rule 1.6 refers to the Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION unlawfully enacted into ‘law’ by each state Supreme Court. Unlawfully enacted because it results in the denial of rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution.
    JUSTICE IS COMING.

    • concerned21 says:

      I do not care about the laws because these corrupt Banks & Unethical Judges have ignored their oaths & the Rules of Law. I am gonna EXPOSE of the corruption & FRAUD that cause us to illegally lose our house of 25 years that was PAID IN FULL. Thanks to the internet I have learned all about the Corrupt & UNETHICAL JUDGE. This has consumed my life and I will die trying to get JUSTICE! I will then start a Non-Profit and help others avoid what happened to us.

      • Mike Drouin says:

        I with you Concerned Here is our new case number 218-2014-CV-00517 Rockingham County Superior Court NH .Round two is starting and we have a hearing scheduled for the 28 TH of May at 1 PM . We are asking for a jury trial to present the truth before the American people ! This Bank Tyranny needs to stop !!
        Also we are forming a collective response to the abuse / crimes that have been committed against other home owners here in the State of NH . We are forming an LLC under the name NH HOWLS-Home Owners With Legal Support , which has 30 home owners and counting coming together to protest the Travesty of Justice happening here in the State of NH .
        Its time we hold our State Officials , DOJ ,Federal Judges accountable to do the right thing by homeowners that are being stripped of their equity and homes by these bastard Banksters . Hopefully you will be hearing from us soon as we will hopefully picket the State House , DOJ , and Federal Court House here in the State for their lack of protection against this corruption . I suggest you do the same in your State as we will bring the truth of what’s happening to all of us
        Hopefully Foreclosure Fraud will have our backs in this effort also . Talk with you soon , Mike D

  5. Applepeach says:

    Greetings,

    I pray that someone out there will read this. My mortgage company Nationstar is coming against me with a civil suit. Asking the courts to grant them as first priority lean and the right to Foreclose on my home. Nationstar is not showing as the lien holder on the property in the county records, and does not hold a security deed to the property. I entered into a modification with Nationstar in December 2013. I had to make three payments, the last Febuary payment was late due to the inclement weather we had in Georgia. However the payment was made even for March. On March 17,2014 I received a summons via Sheriff from Nationstar. Stating the claims I previously mentioned. How can they do this being I entered into a modification with them? Can someone please help. I’ve been in my home for 10 years and a single mom of two daughter. My email ghicks718@gmail.com

    • Bobbi Swann says:

      Applepeach – how could you enter into a loan modification with Nationstar if they were not the lien holder of record? A servicer cannot modify a mortgage; only the owner of the note and mortgage can do that. Was it a HAMP modification? What state are you in as the laws for foreclosure are different from state to state? If you’re in a state where you have been ‘served’ a lis pendens you need to file your answer with the courts within 20 days of signing for the service. That’s absolutely step #1 for a judicial state and it sounds like maybe you are in a non-judicial state which means they can foreclose without any court order. I am in Florida, which is a judicial state, so I am not familiar with the process in a non-judicial state but there are many posters on this site who are and will be more than willing to help you. Give us some details and there are plenty who can respond. But, never, never give up!

      • david f. says:

        in WASHINGTON STATE THEY CANT JUST FORECLOSE ANYMORE AFTER BAINS CASE IN WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT ARGUED BY MY FORMER ATTORNEY MELISSA HUELSMANN . . THEY HAVE TO IF THE HOMEOWNER DEMANDS IT HAS TO GO TO MEDIATION FIRST AND THEN THE HOMEOWNER CAN COUNTER SUE AND THE BANK HAS TO GO TRIAL.

        IN CHASE CASE THEY ARE DOING ALLEGEDLY MODS ON BEHALF O THE INVESTORS BUT IT SEEMS AFTER EUGENE VILLAREAL LINK TO TH EOCC THAT CHASE MAY BE PURCHASING BEAR STEARNS LOANS BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE CASE SINCE CHASE IS BEING SUED AGAIN BY THE INVESTORS OF THE BEAR STEARNS EMC MORTGAGE LOANS FOR MBS FRAUD.
        WHY WOULD THE INVESTORS BE SUING VIA THE NEW YOR AG ERIC SCH NEIDERMAN FOR MBS FRAUD IF CHASE WAS PAYING THEM OFF SO THE YCOULD CLAIM THEY WERE OWNERS OF THE LOAN.

        OR DEBT.

        REGARDS
        dAVID

      • Julie says:

        Hi David F. Can you call me. Julie McHenry 253.397.6670 RE: Chase/Bear Stearns and the comment you left on Foreclosure Fraud. I am in Pierce County with an active foreclosure lawsuit (Judicial this time by MH). Prior, I sued WF in 2010 and NWTS and EMC.

  6. Wayne says:

    Given that this was a 2008 case, isn’t the 5-year Statue of Limitation comes into play, barring a re-filing of this case?

  7. concerned21 says:

    It is so disturbing seeing what these corrupt banks are getting away with in part due to the Unethical Judges! Our home was paid in full & still stolen from us without our knowledge. They ignored the MGL ch 244 sec 14 because they know they were acting in bad faith. We met the Burden of Proof and had a Preponderance of Evidence to prove FRAUD, CIVIL CONSPIRACY, EMBEZZLEMENT, WIRE FRAUD ETC. The Judge that insisted on doing whatever it took to make sure he was going to oversee our case turned out to be the husband of an Attorney who is the head of the legal department for one of the biggest banks guilty of ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES! We paid $35,000 to an attorney who was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I will not stop until our case is EXPOSED and all the guilty parties are JAILED.

    • Mike Drouin says:

      I stand with you concerned ! I’m neck deep in this disgusting behavior that has dragged us through Court for the last 3 years . Round 2 is starting now with the Foreclosing entities in total disregard for filing a fraudulent assignment cited as void by a NH Federal Court Judge , see Drouin V AHMSI case # 1;11-CV-00596-JL US District Court District of NH , May 18 , 2012 order by Judge Laplant , as they sent us a recent notice of foreclosure !?!?

      These bastards have no regard for the Law after purchasing the legislation that has allowed them to commit crimes against American Families . They also paid off the Justice departments of all the States to stand down with that 25 billion dollar settlement ! . The proof is in the non action of the justice departments and every other entity created for our protection while the Crimes are as Blatant as can be !!!!
      They need to be held accountable !!!

      • concerned21 says:

        @Mike Drouin It is so tough because It has taken me these last 4 years to learn the LAW! I could pass the Bar Exam for Real Estate Law. The proof I have is enough to Blow your mind! Good Luck and keep in touch and I will do the same.

      • concerned21 says:

        Mike we are in MA but please keep me updated and if you ever need a great story I have one for you. Good Luck in your pursuit.

      • Mike Drouin says:

        Then you are in close proximity to us I’m trying to get Marie McDonnell and her expertise in securitization audit involved , She is located in Brewster MA . People are realizing that we cannot make any headway by being led into the Courts one at a time and stripped of our equity and our Homes taken from us by criminal means . Time to band together and make the TRUTH known !!! Here is my e-mail , mikenrmi@aol.com Never give up ! talk to you soon

      • concerned21 says:

        I will email you Mike. Keep me in mind because I will help you out in any way I can.

  8. Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty, Foe of Tyranny says:

    Holy crap!!

  9. al says:

    my fraudclosure complaint was filed without any exhibit and a lost note count. then it was removed “magically from court file” , then another “first” complaint was sent to me and my brother with a “certified copy of the original” and another LOST NOTE COUNT , ONE INDORSEMENT was included NOT TO THE PLAINTIFF.
    this same “copy of the lost original” was submitted as SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE .

    in short to this date we have 4 “originals” , well , they were 5 but they never produced the 5th on appeal was only alleged,

    incredibly , judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiff WITHOUT ANY ORIGINAL IN COURT FILE , 3 or 4 days later, AFTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT , mr douglas zham ” magically” “found” ( after two years) the LOST/STOLEN “‘ORIGINAL”. …..astonishingly , this paper had TWO NEW INDORSEMENTS. , (also, marks and other details on the “copy ” attached to the fraudclosure complaint disappeared )

    the indorsements were NOT present in any copy attached to the NEVER AMENDED fraudclosure complaint. nevertheless , OBVIOUSLY, THE JUDGE GRANTED summary judgment without a single evidence or affidavit (all these papers were “magically” removed from court file).
    summary judgment was appealed , but we were betrayed by the unethical attorney we hired (he even failed to attend to one important hearing regarding defenses.)

    appeal was dismissed ( attorney refused to return documents on time )

    then we filed a motion to vacate for fraud , the judge JUST ignored all the evident forged signatures and refused to hear anything about “affidavits” which by the was had attached nothing. not to mention fake notaries false statements….etc etc..

    motion to vacate was denied (of course)….appeal was filed….we fought and presented this and more issues (presented in that motion to vacate) to the appeal court….after about 9 months and several violations more…they affirmed…apparently after all that time they refused to review the case because there was no transcript (when there is so much fraud and violations to due process rights , appeal courts can review the case even if there is no transcript)….

    this case has similar things

    .

  10. Bobbi Swann says:

    Foreclosure Fraud – when was this hearing? Was it re-scheduled? Whatever happened to this case?

    • … At the continuation of the trial on April 28, 2013, Judge Cueto was visibly upset, even more so than he previously was when this was originally presented to the Court. Just as he was beginning to sternly address the Plaintiff’s lawyer and their bank representative, Sean Chibnik, expressing how serious of an issue this was and how the evidence presented to him was undoubtedly false and doctored, the Plaintiff’s counsel cut him off and voluntarily dismissed their case. I have always found Judge Cueto to be an incredibly even tempered and consistent jurist. He has a job to do and he does it well. It seemed to me that he would have liked to push this issue further, holding an evidentiary hearing to investigate Elizabeth Wellborn’s office but to what end? Won’t it be too easy for Wellborn to dismiss this as the work of some rogue underling in their giant mill of an operation? Moreover, thanks to Pino, who knows if this is even sanctionable conduct anymore!?!

      While our client got a dismissal, it was a sad day for those of us who still believe, “[t]he system cannot tolerate even an attempted use of fraudulent documents and false evidence in our courts.”

      • Bobbi Swann says:

        Thank you 4closureFraud. I did some further research and saw the dismissal. Sadly, I agree with you wholeheartedly on HOW it was dismissed. Sometimes pushing the Plaintiff’s attorneys back to the wall ends up with their voluntary dismissal and the chance to come back again. It’s like watching Captain Kangaroo (if anyone out there remembers that show)…..

Leave a Reply

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