The email below from Nye Lavalle is in response to the Cease and desist letter in the post Cease and Desist | Michele Fege and Robert Tolomer are NOT Robosigners when Signing on Behalf of FDIC.
Dear Ms Keenan,
As you can see by the above article in the Wisconsin Bar’s monthly publication, the term robo-signing has various connotations and definitions including the one below that I highlight for your attention.
The term robo-signing describes the robotic process of the mass production of false and forged execution of mortgage assignments, satisfactions, affidavits, and other legal documents related to mortgage foreclosures and legal matters being created by persons without knowledge of the facts being attested to. It also includes accusations of notary fraud wherein the notaries notarize the affidavits and signatures of so-called robo-signers before or after the robo-signers actually submit affidavits and sign documents.
The terms robo-signing and predatory mortgage servicing are widely credited to Nye Lavalle, (me) an American sports marketing executive and social scientist turned consumer and investor advocate and activist. In recent years, Lavalle has focused on advocacy and activism for consumer and investor issues, primarily on fraud in mortgage servicing and securitization. He is credited with discovering and documenting foreclosure fraud and robo-signing in the mid to late 1990s.
Ms. Epstein, who is a friend and colleague did not ask me to write this email, I took the initiative after reading your letter on another foreclosure fraud blog. I created the term “corporate dummies” that was used for people simply taking info off a known and erroneous “mortgage servicing system” that is simply and easily programmed with false information. Matt Weidner later called the processes I identified and reported on “robo-signing.”
However, what is meant by the term is simply this, the people spending a few minutes or less to sign an assignment, affidavit, satisfaction or other document by SIMPLY TAKING INFO OFF A COMPUTER SCREEN without knowledge and fact checking of the underlying faces IS SIMPLY A ROBO-SIGNING PRACTICE.
I would love to depo ANY of your alleged robo-signers and see what facts they know. What note’s they inspected? What endorsements were on the note? What endorsements were on the “unattached” allonges? What “pre-notarized” assignments in blank were in the collateral files? What notes were intentionally destroyed? Shall I continue?
You see, we are onto the frauds and abuses of the banking and servicing industry and know that the servicers who purchased only the “servicing rights” to the mortgages, not the NOTE itself, used these notes for their own advantages for pledges for loans and advances when in trouble. I’d be happy to show you examples of “double-pledged” notes to Ohio Bank and Amtrust. Double-pledges, do you get it? Can you spell Taylor-Bean?
I have that in my possession right now. I’d be happy to share it with you, if you’d be kind enough to show us a nth number sample of the alleged robo-signed assignments of the notes Ms. Epstein questions and the collateral files as they existed when your bank received them as well as the general ledgers of your client’s books and the previous bank’s books showing each note as an asset or note receivable on their books.
Owning servicing rights is not the same as owning the note! The mortgage follows the note. Regardless of the financial accounting control frauds the banking industry has engaged in, the simple proof lies in the books and using e-discovery and mortgage accounting experts to examine the financial and accounting records of ANY bank and especially each bank in the chain.
The FDIC can’t even assign your client something that the prior bank sold or assigned to another bank within certain time periods. Masking the frauds with robo-signed assignments made in minutes looking at servicing system computer screens is often simply “garbage-in, garbage-out! It means NOTHING!!!!
The bottom-line fact is that when it comes to ANY bank or servicer today, you can’t take their word, testimony, or ANYTHING they place on paper as true or fact without an examination of all wet-ink documents EVER contained in the “collateral file” AND “EACH” entry on the general ledgers and corresponding schedules of EACH bank’s books to determine if the note is actually owned by such bank.
If your client would like to open up it’s books for an nth number sample (not “selective” sample), I’d be happy to arrange for the due diligence necessary to examine if your contentions are accurate. If you proceed with any litigation against Ms. Epstein, I am sure that these documents will be sought in discovery since my partners and I will be her discovery and e-discovery experts. If I were you, I’d suggest that you conduct this diligence yourself and examine the books for your own sample before you make ANY demands of anyone!
Also, I strongly suggest that you instruct them to preserve all records, files, images, and data, especially the meta-data connected to each loan assumed as well as the subject ones of your complaint. We all support the safety of the FDIC and our government. However, we do not and will not support accounting and lending fraud at the expense of our nation and its citizens.
Please advise if your client wishes to take me up on my offer. If it does and we can ascertain that your client’s assignments reflect what is on the actual books and files, as a friend and colleague, I will STRONGLY suggest and tell Ms. Epstein to retract her comments on the site and also tell her to apologize and give your client glowing praise for doing it right! If you refuse to allow that, then your words and threats are empty ones and would only be more red flags for indicia of fraud. Perhaps, I shall have to get some shares of stock in your client, as I have done in others, and bring the accounting frauds I find in your prosecution of foreclosures to the attention of the audit committee and auditors.
I surely wonder what such results would show?