Fraud Digest Lynn Szymoniak, Esq.

News Update - Mortgage Fraud

• DJSP Enterprises
• Law Offices of David J. Stern

Action Date: January 4, 2012
Location: FT. Lauderdale, FL

DJSP Enterprises, the publicly-traded company that was supposed to make millions for investors from the foreclosure services it provided to The Law Offices of David Stern (”the Stern Firm”), sued David J. Stern and the Law Offices of David Stern.

Stern Law mortgage foreclosure caseload rose from 15,000 in 2006 to 70,400 in 2009.

In 2009, Stern Law handled 20% of all foreclosures in Florida.

Stern Law’s clients included all 10 of the top 10, and 17 of the top 20 mortgage servicers in the U.S. including Fannie, Freddie, Citibank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, GMAC and Wells Fargo.

The non-legal, back room servicers related to foreclosures included REO services: property inspection, valuation, eviction, broker assignment - these were performed by DJSP Enterprises - the sole client was Stern Law.

Here are Paragraphs 29 -35:

29. The Seller Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiffs DAL and DJSP into entering into the Transaction by fraudulently and artificially inflating the Target Business’ actual revenues, by intentionally failing to disclose that the Target Business and DS Law were not, in fact, operating in accordance with all applicable laws, and by concealing that DS Law was in jeopardy of losing its largest clients due to DS Law’s unlawful conduct. Indeed, before entering into the Transaction, the Seller Defendants knew that DS Law and the Target Business had been systematically falsifying and/or back-dating pertinent legal documents, submitting such documents to the courts, routinely misplacing and losing original key documents, filing foreclosures with inaccurate and/or incomplete documents, prosecuting foreclosure cases without obtaining proper service of process, and were in jeopardy of losing the Seller Defendants’ largest foreclosure clients due to such conduct.

30. By cutting corners in the foreclosure process without following the rule of law, the Defendants artificially reduced the expenses of the Target Business which falsely inflated the profitability of the Target Business.

31. To summarize, the Seller Defendants failed to disclose to DJSP and DAL that DS Law and the Target Business were systematically operating in an unlawful manner. In addition, the Seller Defendants failed to disclose to DJSP and DAL that the Target Business’ reported revenues were not accurate, inflated, and improperly calculated and that the expenses of the business were also distorted due to the systematic practices designed to “shorten” the legal process. The Seller Defendants falsely led DAL and DJSP to believe that they were acquiring a long-term profitable business that operated in accordance with all applicable laws to induce DAL and DJSP to enter into the Transaction.

33. Prior to the Transaction, the Seller Defendants were at all times well aware that DS Law and the Target Business were intentionally perpetuating a fraud on the courts by, inter alia, systematically filing forged documents, forging signatures on such documents, fraudulently backdating documents, improperly notarizing and witnessing documents, fabricating documents, signing affidavits without reviewing or verifying the information contained therein, prosecuting foreclosure cases without obtaining proper service of process, and filing foreclosures with inaccurate and/or incomplete documents.

34. Indeed, the Seller Defendants directed employees of DS Law and the Target Business to purposefully overlook glaring inaccuracies in foreclosure pleadings and to essentially rubber stamp computer generated documents without reviewing or verifying the accuracy of the documents. New attorneys at DS Law were not only encouraged, but were even ordered to sign legal filings and pleadings without reading them. As a result, false and inaccurate documents were routinely executed and filed with the courts in an effort to hasten foreclosure proceedings and illegally obtain final judgments of foreclosure for the Seller Defendants’ clients.

35. The Seller Defendants even incentivized these unscrupulous and unlawful practices by giving their employees bonuses and extravagant gifts for churning out the highest number of foreclosure cases in the least amount of time. The Seller Defendants encouraged contests between DS Law attorneys to see who could jam a foreclosure case through the courts the fastest.

News Update - Bank Fraud

• America’s Servicing Company
• Anita Antonelli
• SASCO Trust 2005-RF4
• U.S. Bank, N.A.
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Action Date: January 3, 2012
Location: Delaware, OH

The Closing Date for SASCO Trust 2005-RF4 is August 31, 2005.

All of the mortgages in the SASCO 2005-RF4 Trust were required to have been deposited in that trust by August 31, 2005.

This is particularly significant right now because SASCO 2005-RF4 is the trust that is claiming to own the Bayless Family Mortgage in Delaware, Ohio, and trying to remove the Bayless family from their home this week.

SASCO is trust shorthand for Structured Asset Securities Corporation.

In almost every case, SASCO trusts CANNOT PRODUCE THE MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS required by the trust documents.

In almost every foreclosure case filed by U.S. Bank as Trustee for a SASCO trust, the mortgage assignment is dated several YEARS after the trust was supposed to have acquired the mortgage.

What mortgage document mill consistently supplies these “years late” Assignments? Consistently, that is America’s Servicing Company (ASC) in Ft. Mill, SC, a subsidiary of Wells Fargo Bank.

Who are the signers of these “years late” Assignments? Anita Antonelli, China Brown, Natasha Clark, Nikli Cureton and Herman John Kennerty - the five most prolific robo-signers at ASC -have signed hundreds of these Assignments.

If the trust is a SASCO trust - STRIKE ONE;

If the Assignment is dated years after the trust closing date - STRIKE TWO; and

If the Assignment is signed by Antonelli, Brown, Clark, Cureton or Kennerty and notarized in York County, SC - STRIKE THREE.

Throw the bank out - not the Bayless Family.

As for Anita Antonelli, who signed the Mortgage Assignment in the Bayless case:

Many times Anita Antonelli is the Vice President of Loan Documentation for Wells Fargo Bank.

But then she is also often the Default Documents Manager for Wells Fargo Bank.

At the same time, Antonelli is often an Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

She is also an Assistant Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. acting as a Nominee for American Home Mortgage…

…and acting as a Nominee for Hilton Head Mortgage, LLC…

…and acting as a Nominee for DHI Mortgage Co., Ltd….

…and acting as a Nominee for Myers Park Mortgage, Inc…

…and acting as a Nominee for CTX Mortgage Co., LLC…

…and acting as a Nominee for Market Street Mortgage Corp…

…and acting as a Nominee for Loan City…

…and acting as a Nominee for Mortgage Network, Inc.

With this history, why would anyone trust the validity of a mortgage assignment signed by Anita Antonelli - and particularly, why would anyone rely on such a document when produced by a SASCO trust?

News Update - Bank Fraud

• American Home Mortgage Servicing
• Sand Canyon Corporation
• Kathy Smith
• Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2007-OPT2
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Action Date: January 1, 2012
Location: Maui, HI

On January 2, 2012, Wells Fargo Bank and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“AHMSI”) will attempt to force the Tehiva/Phillips family from their family home on 5305 Hana Highway in Maui, Hawaii. This has been the family home for over 100 years.

Wells Fargo is acting as the Trustee for an RMBS Trust, Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT2. AHMSI is acting as the servicer for the trust.

Wells Fargo and AHMSI have relied on a fraudulent Mortgage Assignment in this foreclosure eviction.

The Assignment is dated June 24, 2010 and was signed by Kathy Smith in Duval County, Florida. Smith purports to be a corporate officer (Assistant Secretary) of Sand Canyon Corporation.

Kathy Smith is not and has never been employed by Sand Canyon Corporation; she is actually employed by AHMSI in its Jacksonville, FL (Duval County) office.

On Hillsborough County, FL, document 2010350478, Kathy Smith swore she was an employee of AHMSI on October 1, 2010.

On Hillsborough County, FL document 20100057228, Kathy Smith swore she was Assistant Secretary of AHMSI on February 8, 2010.

In the Memorandum Decision of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona in the matter of the bankruptcy of Anthony Tarantola, Case No. 4:09-bk-09703-EWH, Kathy Smith is referred to on Page 5, lines 8-9, as the Assistant Secretary of AHMSI.

To aid in foreclosures, Kathy Smith has used all of the following different job titles:

• Assistant Secretary and Vice President, Ameriquest Mortgage Company (February 3, 2010);
• Assistant Secretary and Vice President, Citi Residential, Inc., Attorney-in-Fact for Ameriquest Mortgage Company (April 12, 2010);
• Attorney-in-Fact, Argent Mortgage Corporation (January 13, 2010);
• Assistant Secretary, Citibank, N.A., as Trustee for American Home Mortgage Asset Trust 2006-3 Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-3; (January 13, 2010);
• Assistant Secretary, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Indenture Trustee for American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2006-3, Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2006-3 (January 13, 2010);
• Attorney-in-Fact, New Century Mortgage Corporation (January 19, 2010);
• Assistant Secretary, Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation (April 12, 2010)
• Assistant Secretary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for American Brokers Conduit (February 25, 2010);
• Assistant Secretary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for American Home Mortgage (February 18, 2010);
• Assistant Secretary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance (January 25, 2010);
• Assistant Secretary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Beazer Mortgage Corporation (January 13, 2010);
• Assistant Secretary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for HomeBanc Mortgage Corporation (January 11, 2010); and
• Assistant Secretary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corporation (May 7, 2010).

The President of Sand Canyon Corporation, Dale M. Sugimoto, submitted a sworn Declaration signed on March 18, 2009, stating that Sand Canyon Corporation did not own or service any residential real estate mortgages. Despite this sworn statement of the company president, the Assignment in the Tehiva/Phillips foreclosure has Kathy Smith, purporting to act as an officer of Sand Canyon, to transfer the Tehiva/Phillips mortgage to the Soundview Trust. The Sugimoto Declaration was submitted in bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division, as document 52-3, in the case of Ron Wilson, Case No. 10-51328.

Kathy Smith is also not listed as an officer of Sand Canyon Corporation in the Florida corporate records, nor did Sand Canyon have offices in Florida, where the Assignment was notarized.

The closing date of the Soundview Trust 2007-OPT2 was July 10, 2007. The trust was not authorized to acquire mortgages after this date; and certainly was not authorized to ever acquire any non-performing mortgages.

For all of the reasons set forth above, Wells Fargo and AHMSI should immediately cease their attempts to seize the Tehiva/Phillips home. Wells Fargo should be required to produce Kathy Smith in court in Hawaii and to produce the records of the trust showing that the trust acquired the Tehiva/Phillips mortgage in 2010 as represented by Smith.

News Update - Mortgage Fraud

• Bear Stearns
• Lender Processing Services
• Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems

Action Date: December 11, 2011
Location: Jacksonville, FL

There is substantial evidence that mortgage servicing companies and their lawyers are continuing to file fraudulent mortgage assignments in county recorders offices throughout the country. In April, 2011, the widespread abuses, including massive forgeries, were exposed in a 60 Minutes segment that focused on employees of Docx, a subsidiary of Lender Processing Services, who forged the name “Linda Green” to mortgage assignments used in foreclosures.

Several weeks later, Guilford County, NC County Recorder Jeff Thigpen came forward with a comprehensive study of the “Linda Green” forgeries in his county’s records - finding over 2000 documents signed by Linda Green with 4 - 15 significant signature variations. County Recorder John O’Brien in Massachusetts and Curtis Hertel in Michigan conducted similar comprehensive studies with similar results.

In November, 2011, the Nevada Attorney General’s office filed the first criminal charges against employees of Lender Processing Services for falsifying mortgage documents.

An examination of recent filings by mortgage servicers shows that these companies are exacerbating the problem of fraudulent documents.

Mortgage assignments are now being filed with the following language:

“This Assignment is to supplement and ratify that certain Assignment of Mortgage recorded in Original Records Book 19467 at Page 1710 Original Records Book 19888 at Page 1466 of Hillsborough County, Florida.” (Instrument #2011294512, Hillsborough County, Florida, filed September 12, 2011.)

An examination of the “ratified” Assignment shows that it is one of the Linda Green forged documents. It is very similar to the Linda Green forged signature demonstrated by LPS employee Chris Pendley on the 60 Minutes segment.

Instead of admissions that the documents are forgeries, the mortgage servicers are filing “ratifications.” These ratifications are signed by other employees of mortgage servicing companies, using titles of MERS officers.

The information continues to be false. In the first “Linda Green” Assignment, the mortgage is reported to have been transferred on September 9, 2009. In the “ratified” version, the mortgage is reported to have been transferred on July 13, 2011.

Both Assignments purport to transfer a mortgage made by American Brokers Conduit to a Bear Stearns trust (Bear Stearns ABS, Series 2006-3) that closed in 2006. U.S. Bank is the trustee for this trust. American Home Mortgage Servicing is the servicer. The first assignment was filed on September 16, 2009 - just two weeks before the date on the Lis Pendens (initial foreclosure filing) prepared by the foreclosure mill, Shapiro & Fishman, LLP.

If the 2009 Assignment from MERS to the trust were valid, MERS would have had nothing to transfer in 2011. In Latin, this concept is stated: Nemo dat quod non habet. Translation: one cannot give what one does not have.

The signers on the 2011 Assignment claim to be corporate officers of MERS, though they are not listed as such in the records of the Florida Secretary of State. (The 2011 Assignment was notarized in Duval County, FL.)

These “ratification” filings are a good indication that the Consent Order entered by the FDIC and the OCC on April 13, 2011, are not being adequately monitored.

Why would any trust or mortgage servicer ratify conduct that has been described as criminal conduct by attorneys general?

These filings are a wreck on a wreck.

News Update - Mortgage Fraud

• Bank of America
• Bank of New York Mellon
• Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
• Law Offices of David Stern
• Cheryl Samons

Action Date: December 10, 2011
Location: West Palm Beach, FL

In a very unusual move, the FL Supreme Court rejected the settlement in the PINO case last week and will issue a decision about fraudulent mortgage documents.

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals had certified a procedural foreclosure question to the Supreme Court, stating: “This is a question of great public importance” since “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents.”

At the trial court level, PINO’s attorneys had asked the court to sanction BNY Mellon by denying it the equitable right to foreclose the mortgage at all. The district court observed that if this sanction were available after a voluntary dismissal, “it may dramatically affect the mortgage crisis in this state.”

The Fourth District Court of Appeals decision seemed to recognize that very frequently, bank lawyers used dismissals when homeowners raised a question regarding the legitimacy of the documents filed by the banks.

Advocates for homeowners were encouraged by the Supreme Court’s action denying the settlement as the final resolution.

So who exactly is NOT happy?

Perhaps the preparers and signers of the two mortgage assignments in the PINO case.

One of the Assignments was prepared by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, Esq. This is signed by Stern’s office manager, Cheryl Samons who signs as an Asst. Sect. of MERS.

This is dated September 19, 2008 - though not filed until February 18, 2009.

The Lis Pendens (beginning of the foreclosure in judicial states) was dated October 8, 2008.

This is an assignment of the Mortgage and the Note to:

The Bank of New York Mellon F/K/A The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OC8.

For anyone unfamiliar with Cheryl Samons many acts in the Law Offices of David Stern (a law firm that spent a lot of $$ entertaining officials from FANNIE), the sworn statements from paralegals and notaries from the investigation of then Asst. A.G.s June Clarkson & Theresa Edwards (those overly aggressive FORMER prosecutors) are available for review at StopForeclosureFraud.com.

According to these sworn statements, Samons signed thousands of documents each week, allowed other people to sign her name, did not read what she signed, signed other names, etc. She did these things because her boss, David Stern, was very generous (see the articles by Andy Kroll in Mother Jones for more details on this).

The second assignment was notarized July 14, 2009 and filed July 29, 2009.

It seems they forgot all about the first assignment because once again it is an assignment from MERS to the same trust. This Assignment was also prepared by the Law Offices of David Stern. (If the first assignment was effective, of course, MERS had nothing to convey).

The signer this time was Melissa Viveros in Tarrant County, TX.

While she signs as a MERS officer, Viveros in many other reported cases appears as an officer of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, N/K/A BAC Home Loans Servicing.

So, once again, Bank of America (then the parent of BAC Home Loans Servicing) and Bank of New York Mellon have the most to lose in the short run - and in the long run, investors in CWALT and CWABS trusts.

News Update - Mortgage Fraud

• U.S. Bank
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Action Date: December 1, 2011
Location: Eastern District, CA

On November 16, 2011, United States District Court Judge John A. Mendez denied, in part, a Motion to Dismiss filed by U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo in a mortgage fraud case brought by Billi Vogan and Harold Traupel, Case No. 2:11-CV-02098-JAM-KJN.

Most significantly Judge Mendez recognized that mortgage assignments to trusts made years after the closing date of the trust were suspect. On Page 13, lines 11 - 24, of the Order, Judge Mendez stated:

Plaintiffs also plead that Wells Fargo recorded a fabricated assignment of deed of trust assigning interest in Plaintiffs’ loan to U.S. Bank. Compl., at 14-16. As discussed above, Plaintiffs allege that the recorded assignment was executed well after the closing date of the MBS to which it was allegedly sold, giving rise to a plausible inference that at least some part of the recorded assignment was fabricated. Plaintiffs allege that such conduct, if proven, constitutes a violation of Cal. Penal Code § 532f(a)(4). Compl., at 24. That section prohibits any person from filing a document related to a mortgage loan transaction with the county recorder’s office that is known to be false, with the intent to defraud. Cal. Penal Code § 532f (a)(4).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss this claim.

The court let stand plaintiffs’ TILA claim as well as this claim brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law, §17200.

News Update - Securities and Investments

• Citigroup Global Markets

Action Date: November 28, 2011
Location: New York, NY

On November 28, 2011, United States District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff in Manhattan rejected a $285 million settlement between Citigroup Global Markets and the Securities and Exchange Commission in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Case No. 11 Civ. 7387 (JSR), USDC, Southern District of New York. The SEC filed the lawsuit on October 19, 2011. According to the S.E.C.’s Complaint, after Citigroup realized in 2007 that the market for mortgage backed securities was beginning to weaken, Citigroup created a billion-dollar Fund (known as “Class v Funding IIIU) that allowed it to dump some dubious assets on misinformed investors. This was accomplished by Citigroup’s misrepresenting that the Fund’s assets were attractive investments rigorously selected by an independent investment adviser, whereas in fact, Citigroup had arranged to include in the portfolio a substantial percentage of negative projected assets and had then taken a short position in those very assets it had helped select. (Complaint, paragraphs 1, 2, 58.)

Simultaneously with the filing of its Complaint against Citigroup, the S.E.C. presented to the Court for its signature a proposed Consent Judgment together with a Consent of Defendant Citigroup Global Markets Inc. that recited that Citigroup consented to the entry of the Consent Judgment “[w]ithout admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint.” The Consent Judgment (I) “permanently restrained and enjoined” Citigroup and its agents, employees, etc., from future violations of Sections l7(a) (2) and (3) of the Securities Act, (II) “required Citigroup to disgorge to the S.E.C. Citigroup’s $160 million in profits, plus $30 million in interest thereon, and to pay to the S.E.C. a civil penalty in the amount of $95 million, and (III) required Citigroup to undertake for a period of three years, subject to enforcement by the Court, certain internal measures designed to prevent recurrences of the securities fraud here perpetrated.”

The Court reviewed the proposed Consent Judgment to determine whether it was fair, reasonable, adequate and in the public interest. The SEC argued, however, that while the
Consent Judgment must be fair, reasonable and adequate, “the public interest is not part of [the] applicable standard of judicial review.”

Judge Rakoff disagreed with the SEC’s position, stating: “This is erroneous. A large part of what the S.E.C. requests, in this and most other such consent judgments, is injunctive relief, both broadly, in the request for an injunction forbidding future violations, and more narrowly, in the request that the Court enforce future prophylactic measures (here, for a three-year period). The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear, however, that a court cannot grant the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief without considering the public interest. See, e.g., eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).”

The Court noted also, “As a fall-back, the S.E.C. suggests that, if the public interest must be taken into account, the S.E.C. is the sole determiner of what is in the public interest in regard to Consent Judgments settling S.E.C. cases.” Again, Judge Rakoff disagreed, stating: “it is clear that before a court may employ its injunctive and contempt powers in support of an administrative settlement it is required, even after giving substantial deference to the views of the administrative agency, to be satisfied that it is not being used as a tool to enforce an agreement that is unfair, unreasonable, inadequate, or in contravention of the public interest.

Applying these standards, the Court concluded that the proposed Consent Judgment was neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.

Judge Rakoff explained, “Most fundamentally, this is because it does not provide the Court with a sufficient evidentiary basis to know whether the requested relief is justified under any of these standards. Purely private parties can settle a case without ever agreeing on the facts, for all that is required is that a plaintiff dismiss his complaint. But when a public agency asks a court to become its partner in enforcement by imposing wide-ranging injunctive remedies on a defendant, enforced by the formidable judicial power of contempt, the court, and the public, need some knowledge of what the underlying facts are: for otherwise, the court becomes a mere handmaiden to a settlement privately negotiated on the basis of unknown facts, while the public is deprived of ever knowing the truth in a matter of obvious public importance. Here, the S.E.C.’s long-standing policy - hallowed by history, but not by reason - of allowing defendants to enter into Consent Judgments without admitting or denying the underlying allegations, deprives the Court of even the most minimal assurance that the substantial injunctive relief it is being asked to impose has any basis in There is little real doubt that Citigroup contests the factual allegations of the Complaint.”

In rejecting the settlement, Judge Rakoff summarized the inequities as follows: “In this case, for example, Citigroup was able, without admitting anything, to negotiate a settlement that (a) charges it only with negligence, (b) results in a very modest penalty, (c) imposes the kind of injunctive relief that Citigroup (a recidivist) knew that the S.E.C. had not sought to enforce against any financial institution for at least the last 10 years, see SEC Mem. at 23, and (d) imposes relatively inexpensive prophylactic measures for the next three years. In exchange, Citigroup not only settles what it states was a broad- ranging four-year investigation by the S.E.C. of Citigroup’s mortgage-backed securities offerings, Tr. 27, but also avoids any investors’ relying in any respect on the S.E.C. Consent Judgment in seeking return of their losses. If the allegations of the Complaint are true, this is a very good deal for Citigroup; and, even if they are untrue, it is a mild and modest cost of doing business. It is harder to discern from the limited information before the Court what the S.E.C. is getting from this settlement other than a quick headline.”