Wow. Never expected this to come out of Floriduh…

But first…

It comes at a very interesting time in our state especially with the recent Harvey decision out of the 4th DCA…

Here, because the note at issue is payable to AHMAI, and indorsed in blank, and because Deutsche possessed the original note and filed it with the circuit court, its standing may be established from its status as the note holder, regardless of any recorded assignments. As to Harvey’s argument regarding “questionable signatures,” although Harvey argued this point in her motion for reconsideration, she failed to present any evidence below to support her contention that the signatures were fraudulent. Even if Harvey could prove this, the dispute would be between AHMAI and Deutsche. Importantly, Harvey has never denied that she was in default as to her mortgage payments.

From the footnotes of Harvey…

As to this point, Harvey specifically argued that on April 16, 2009, an assignment of mortgage was executed by Korell Harp, vice president for MERS, as nominee for AHMAI, andTywanna Thomas, assistant secretary for MERS. Harvey stated that on May 6, 2009, an assignment of mortgage in a different and unrelated foreclosure case was executed by Korell Harp; Harp was listed as vice president and assistant secretary for Argent Mortgage Company, LLC. Harvey further stated that in another unrelated foreclosure case, an assignment of mortgage was executed by Cheryl Thomas and Tywanna Thomas; Cheryl Thomas was listed to be vice president of Sand Canyon Corporation and Tywanna Thomas was listed as assistant vice president. Harvey stated that in yet another unrelated foreclosure case, an assignment of mortgage was executed by Korell Harp and Tywanna Thomas. Harvey argued that the signatures of Harp and Tywanna Thomas “appear to be different when compared with the other assignments signed by Ms. Harp and Ms. Thomas,” and “[b]ecause there was a dispute concerning either the facts of the controversy or the inferences to be drawn from those facts, a summary judgment was improper.”

For all who do not know who Thomas and Harp are, they were employees at DOCX along with Linda Green and others that were featured on the 60 Minutes Report on Foreclosure Fraud.

So the ruling above basically states it does not matter if there was fraud upon the court. If you didn’t pay your mortgage, you lose the home. Even if it is the wrong party because the court feels you owe the money to someone so let them figure it out…

Even if Harvey could prove this, the dispute would be between AHMAI and Deutsche.

Full Harvey opinion below…

Now, as for the Florida Bar, they just came out with this…


Lawyers obligated to disclose faulty foreclosure paperwork

Some excerpts from The Florida Bar News

Lawyers representing banks and other mortgage service companies must tell the courts if they know of paperwork problems known felonies in their clients’ foreclosure cases, according to the Bar’s Professional Ethics Committee.

The committee, at its June 24 meeting during the Bar’s Annual Convention, voted 20-6 to uphold a Bar staff opinion which advised a lawyer representing a bank in thousands of foreclosure cases.

According to the attorney, the bank used two employees to prepare and review necessary affidavits needed for the foreclosures. One employee always verified the figures in the necessary affidavits and signed the necessary paperwork in the presence of a notary. The second signer relied on a conscientious assistant to verify the figures before signing that he had personally reviewed the figures. Also, those signatures were sometimes notarized when the signer was not present, as required by law. The second signer’s practices extended back for 20 years.

The lawyer wanted to know if the court had to be informed of those irregularities, felonies, since it was unlikely to change the outcome of any pending case. He also inquired whether it made any difference if the case was pending or closed, the stage of pending cases, or that the second signer had reverified information in the improperly notarized forms.

I can’t believe that the lawyer even had the audacity to even ask those questions. And talk about arrogant, “it was unlikely to change the outcome of any pending case.”

Then they surprisingly go on to say…

A Bar staff opinion held it makes no difference whether the case was open or closed or what stage an open case is at in terms of the lawyer’s duty. The opinion said that under Rule 4-3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), the improperly prepared affidavits constitute false evidence, and the lawyer has a duty to disclose that to the courts.

Other rules must also be considered, the opinion said, including Rule 4-1.2(d) which prohibits assisting a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct, Rule 4-3.4(b) which prohibits a lawyer from fabricating evidence or assisting a witness who offers false testimony, Rule 4-8.4(a) which prohibits violating the Rules of Professional Conduct or assisting another to do so, Rule 4-8.4(c) which bars an attorney from conduct that constitutes dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and Rule 4-8.4(d) which prohibits a lawyer from conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Wow, that is some strong language… It looks like the foreclosure mills are going to have HUGE problems. The courts are going to be flooded once again due to the massive fraud perpetrated by the banks and their minions.

This is worth repeating…

It makes no difference whether the case was open or closed or what stage an open case is… The lawyer has a duty to disclose that to the courts.

But wait, there’s more…

The staff opinion concluded that, “the inquiring attorney first should attempt to have the client correct the improperly verified and notarized affidavits. The inquiring attorney should advise the client that if the client fails to correct the affidavits, then the inquiring attorney will have to withdraw and will have to reveal the truth to the court. If the client refuses to take the required corrective action, the inquiring attorney will have to reveal the fact that there has been an improperly verified and notarized affidavit filed in each of these cases, whether they are pending or already closed. The inquiring attorney also will have to move to withdraw from further representation of the client in pending cases, where the client refuses to correct the affidavits, while making as minimal a disclosure as necessary when doing so.”

I’ll tell you what, this is going to be fun. Once an attorney knows of the fraud, they MUST disclose it. So it may be time for a little writing campaign to let the attorneys know which documents were fraudulent. There are plenty out there to find…

Most affirmed the decision to follow the law…

Some quotes from the members…

“I strongly urge against watering down this opinion,” said committee member Ana Maria Martinez. “I understand the practical problem, but we can’t approve lying for 20 years.

Added committee member Deborah A’Hearn: “Anything other than affirming the opinion, as is, is the functional equivalent of suborning perjury. We shouldn’t make allowances regardless of the practical problems. It is never OK to lie.

But some members disagreed…

“I thought the [staff] opinion assumed a little too much and went a little too far,” said committee member D. Culver “Skip” Smith, who voted against the final motion.

He noted the committee didn’t have any of the affidavits in question, and it was unclear whether anything was wrong with them other than the affidavit that the signer had personal knowledge of the information in the affidavit.

“It seems to me the opinion quickly assumed this qualified as ‘false evidence,’” Smith said. “The rule talks about a lawyer making a false statement of law or fact. This is not what this is. The staff opinion just assumed it should be false evidence, even if the only thing untrue in it was a notarization statement.

Hey Skippy. Looks like “false evidence” to me. Have you read the notarization statement on these AFFIDAVITS?

They mention words like upon oath, deposes on personal knowledge, sworn, and personally appeared.

Also try reading the AFFIDAVIT itself…

Most contain language such as…

No genuine issue as to any material fact, I am familiar with the books of account and have examined all books, records and documents, I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this affidavit, Specifically, I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the sums of money which are due and owing and penalty of perjury…


Oh, and by the way, it isn’t just affidavits that were “robo-signed.” And, it wasn’t just one firm that engaged in these practices. Multiple firms also processed allonges, assignments and satisfactions, along with affidavits, in this manner.

If you all would of only listened to us when we brought this to the bars attention in May of 2010…

Palm Beach County Bar Association Professional Committee – Thank You For Listening!

Posted by 4closureFraud on May 19, 2010

Yesterday, May 18, 2010 Foreclosure Hamlet and 4closureFraud had a wonderful opportunity to have lunch with Palm Beach County Bar Association Professional Committee to discuss some of our concerns over what is happening in our courtrooms statewide. How did we earn such an honor? We simply asked… I am pleased to announce that the members … Read more

It was an interesting meeting where we presented concerns on robo-signing and other issues. We aslo gave them our Professional Committee Meeting Outline to show the fraud. They chose to ignore the facts and now we are even deeper into the rabbit hole of fraudclosure.

We even brought the fraud to the bar at their own annual Florida Bar event last year in Boca.

We did our best to warn you, but you did not listen.

Maybe, just maybe the Florida Supreme Court will sort this all out when they rule on the PINO case… Hopefully they do not legalize the fraud.

Info on the PINO case here…

Florida Supreme Court to Address Foreclosure Fraud | ROMAN PINO vs THE BANK OF NEW YORK

Posted by 4closureFraud on April 11, 2011

This is extremely big news all! First some background… Case involving alleged foreclosure fraud headed to Florida Supreme Court A South Florida homeowner who is fighting a mortgage foreclosure could end up reshaping state law. An appeals court on Wednesday asked the Florida Supreme Court to consider Roman Pino’s case as a matter of “great … Read more

And here…

Enrique Nieves to Argue High-Stakes Foreclosure Case Before Fla. Supreme Court

Posted by 4closureFraud on July 15, 2011

Newcomer to Argue High-Stakes Foreclosure Case Before Fla. Supreme Court As a relative novice in the legal profession, Ice Legal senior associate Enrique Nieves III is prepping for his biggest case and his first appearance before the Florida Supreme Court. At 31, Nieves is assigned to argue a case that may decide the fate of … Read more

All we ever asked was for the banks and their attorneys to FOLLOW THE LAW. No free houses, no windfalls for the homeowner, no debt forgiveness.


Because once we lose that, we lose society as we know it…

And for all you naysayers out there that think that this does not effect you, you are mistaken.

Once the rule of law is gone, there is nothing left…

See you all in the trenches…



Florida Bar Ethics Opinion Jan. 11, 2011 Approved by the Fla. Bar’s Proffessional Ethics Committee June 24, 2011 Fraud and Documents

[scribd id=60269200 key=key-pozb581ylpocibdnc8o mode=list]


[scribd id=58982647 key=key-21hpxbgjsjzdyo6uohh4 mode=list]

Professional Committee Meeting Outline

[scribd id=31618412 key=key-19fqo3nvev2j5k85bj2i mode=list]

Professional Committee Meeting Agenda

[scribd id=31617141 key=key-ra5g9zpwgy8ecioacv8 mode=list]

Supreme Court Notice to Invoke Jurisdiction ROMAN PINO vs the BANK of NEW YORK
[scribd id=52790852 key=key-1wmobcp1w483n19lzjm6 mode=list]

Supreme Court Acknowledgment Roman Pino vs the Bank of New York

[scribd id=52790816 key=key-1maisa9r1ewfjt3nqrch mode=list]

Supreme Court High Profile Order Roman Pino vs the Bank of New York

[scribd id=52790821 key=key-19ll61xrccdzq4tqls0p mode=list]

FL 4th DCA Pino v. The Bank of New York Mellon Opinion

[scribd id=48104119 key=key-5q6gicm1gtwe9nt9i7w mode=list]

FL 4th DCA Pino v. The Bank of New York Mellon Oral Arguments Transcript

[scribd id=48104905 key=key-c4gp9vcf8bisfcj4ucb mode=list]