MICHELLE-SJOLANDERMichelle Sjolander’s “endorsement” appears on untold number of promissory notes all across this country.   Her “endorsement” is the key element used to take Americans out of their homes, but is it really an endorsement at all?

(another great job by ICE LEGAL)

Q Okay. Have you ever personally executed any
20 endorsements?
21 A My — with my — my personally placed a stamp on a
22 note?
23 Q Yes.
24 A No.
25 Q Have you ever assigned any endorsements personally?

1 A A wet signature on an endorsement?
2 Q You actually physically signed an endorsement.
3 A Are you asking a wet signature on an endorsement on
4 a piece of collateral?
5 Q I’m saying have you ever physically signed an
6 endorsement on an original note?
7 MR. TRINZ: Object to the form.
8 THE WITNESS: My stamp has been placed on collateral on
9 a note.
10 Q BY MS. LUNDERGAN: Okay. That’s not what I asked.
11 A Okay.
12 Q What I’m asking is have you ever physically –
13 A That’s what I was trying to –
14 Q — signed for a note?
15 A My wet signature has never been placed on an
16 original note. That is not common practice.

Did you ever supervise the department that endorsed
1 the collateral?
2 A No.
3 Q Okay. So you don’t have any first-hand knowledge
4 then of the endorsing of the promissory notes, do you?
5 A I have oversight to the — I have collateral
6 oversight in which I do ensure that the processes of the
7 collateral — I walk through and review them.
8 Q Okay. Can you explain to me what that means?
9 A It means I — the department does not directly
10 report to me, but I have insight to the processes and
11 procedures that that department does.
12 Q And where does your knowledge of the process and
13 procedure come from?
14 A Mostly from doing audits.
15 Q Okay. And when you say, “doing audits,” what does
16 that mean?
17 A I conduct a — every six months an audit of the
18 facility.
19 Q Okay. And were you doing audits of the facilities
20 back in 2008?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And are you still doing audits of the facilities
23 today?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And what is it you are looking for when you are
1-888-311-4240
www.uslegalsupport.com
37
1 doing audits of the facilities?
2 A I ensure that the procedures that the GSE’s require
3 are in place.
4 Q And what procedures would those be?
5 A Those will be the procedures on All Regs.
6 Q Okay. And what, specifically, are you looking for
7 when it comes to endorsing a promissory note?
8 A That the endorsement is placed in blank.
9 Q Are you looking for all endorsements to be placed in
10 blank?
11 A The final endorsement is an open endorsement in
12 blank —
13 Q Okay.
14 A — or the — let me rephrase that.
15 That the endorsement chain is correct.
16 Q Okay. And when you are looking to see if the
17 endorsement chain is correct, what are you comparing that to
18 to make sure that it’s correct?
19 A I am looking at the note.
20 Q Are you looking at the original promissory note —
21 A Yes.

MICHELLE SJOLANDER

8 Response Comments

  • Attorney Wendy Alison Nora  April 22, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    I am absolutely amazed by this deposition.
    A few initial thoughts:
    First, is there a resolution of the Board of Directors of the part of Countrywide (when it existed and for which she was allegedly a vice-president) authorizing her to sign on behalf of the corporation? Just because she is called a vice-president does not mean she has signature authority. Without signature authority, she cannot create the signature stamp.
    Second, did she have power of attorney to endorse these notes from all of the many banks, mortgage companies and mortgage brokers who forwarded mortgage notes to Countrywide as custodian, purchaser, depositor, trustee or any other purpose? Clearly not.
    Third, A CORPORATION CANNOT BE AN ATTORNEY IN FACT TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS. IT CANNOT SIGN ANYTHING BECAUSE IT CANNOT HOLD A PEN! A natural person must have signature authority. What she describes is that she had signing authority as a corporate vice-president, gave a power of attorney to the same corporation and authorized anyone to sign on her behalf. The only time she appears to become concerned about the use of her stamp is when it is “worn out” and then she reports that she burned the worn out stamps as some kind of precaution. This is obscene. The control must be exercised over the the use of the stamp! The destruction of the stamp is a small detail.
    Fourth, there is no quality control record as to the dates and authorization for any of the stamped endorsements. The only quality control she exercised was to check the face of the mortgage and look at the MERS Milestone page which she does not know how to read or interpret.
    I am still working on why this process is completely illegal and must be stopped. I was scheduled to settle a case with Bank of America for payments under protest this week which involved a double stamp of LMeder and David A. Spector until I saw this deposition. My worst fears are not only confirmed, they are exceeded. I saw the original note and knew that it was stamped but now I know that the bank cannot prove that it had authority from the original lender to endorse the note nor was the double stamp properly authorized.
    I cannot believe that Ms. Sjolander is a vice president of any corporation, let alone Bank of America. (She calls it Bank of America, LP more than once.) Is she like one of the thousands of MERS “vice-presidents?” What on earth is Bank of America, LP? Is this a robo-stamping subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A.
    See this from Naked Capitalism back in 2010.
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/11/countrywide-offers-not-very-convincing-explanation-of-testimony-on-its-oops-we-still-have-the-note-snafu.html
    All I can say is that no one should settle with Bank of America on its claims of “endorsements” in blank or lost notes. WOW! These documents are completely fictitious! Fraud is not a strong enough word for this practice. Conspiracy to commit forgery is too mild of a penalty for the designers of this process. And all the banks engaged in securitization have been doing the same thing. Is this the practice which Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie detail in “All Regs” to which the witness refers? These documents were transferred by mail and by wire. There are thousands of predicate acts of racketeering described in this one deposition. And it looks like the GSEs may have mandated these practices. (Of course more discovery is required to determine whether or not this is what the GSEs really intended. I think they intended that the notes be endorsed in blank by an officer of the corporation properly authorized to sign for the corporation by a corporate resolution
    and not by a a signature stamp alleged authorized to be used by any person in an imaging room under a power of attorney from the duly authorized corporate officer back to the corporation so that any employee could impress the stamp on any note, no matter what the relationship of the corporation was to the note.
    In the case I was about to settle for payments under protest, another bank’s in-house mortgage company assigned the mortgage to Countrywide Document Custody Services, a Division of Treasury Bank. There is no entity in existence known as Treasury Bank. Countrywide Document Custody Services may well be the vault Ms. Sjolander was describing. That likely means that the notes endorsed in blank were never delivered to the trustee of any trusts or to the GSEs as required by Article 3 of the UCC.

    Reply
  • Raptor  April 23, 2012 at 2:56 am

    So the obvious conclusion is to talk to Laurie Meder. Depose Meder. I wonder who Meder will pass the buck to. Good depo. Of course they don’t transfer the notes. Sjolander kept saying she was a witness to the endorsement–yet also said she never witnessed or placed an endorsement, so how could she be a witness for an endorsement?

    And what’s with this magical power of attorney?

    Reply
  • Leah Dean  May 21, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    This is something I would like to share with this website. I received a letter today from the attorney’s office on behalf of Bank of America. First I want to say, I never talk with Bank of America over the telephone. I only correspond in writing and do everything certified mail return receipt requested. I have been asking them to answer questions about my securitized mortgage CWABS 2007-2 since bank in August 2011. I will tell you that they refuse to answer a lot of questions but are happy to send the promissory note that states I promise to pay America’s Wholesale Lender but yet in the default documents state that MERS is the original mortgagee and the current Mortgagee is Bank of New York fka CWABS 2007-2. Long story short, today I received a letter from Blank & Rome Counselors at Law giving me the low down of my responsibility of a debt that I owe and I knew what I signed when I got it. Of course they send the same documents in the mail again but this time they made a very huge mistake. Promissory note included in the documents. Same documents I received July 2011, August 2011, and October 2011. There is one big difference in the documents I received today. Let me back up just a second and let you know, I have a certified copy of my Pooling and Service Agreement from the SEC and I have all of the documents that Bank of America has been sending me expect for the fact none of the documents were ever shown with blue ink signature, endorsements or assignments. What they did do today is give be the biggest gift ever. They stamped the promissory note with Michelle Sjolander’s rubber stamp. I knew they would put something in writing that they wished they would have never done and they did it. Yes, I have a promissory note in a letter from Blank & Rome on behalf of Bank of America and the promissory note is stamped with Michelle Sjolander Executive Vice President (pay to the order of). Just had to share this news.. In the Qualified Written Request they do not want to admit the loan(s) were securitized nor do they want to answer any questions regarding MERS. They just want me to pay the balance on the home in full.

    Hope this made some people smile. It made me smile.

    Have a blessed day and good luck to all of you who are fighting these criminals.

    Reply
    • Iraj mohmadi  June 4, 2012 at 2:13 pm

      You made my day , god bless you my friend, i have a loan by country wide bank in 2007, they send me 2 promissory note 1 with by Lauri meder stamp one with out, where did you get you securetized
      info and was recon trust your trustee?
      Best Wishes

      Reply
      • Leah Dean  June 24, 2012 at 2:19 am

        To Iraj Mohmadi: If you have received anything from Countrywide Mortgage; Bank of America; Recontrust; stating that MERS or another corporation you have never heard of such as CWALT; CWABS; CWL etc., then go to the security exchange commission website. You can type in like I did SEC and then your account number. If your loan is anywhere in any of these trust Google will find it. I went on Google and typed SEC 155397447 this is my BOA account number. When It did that, up came my loan number under CWABS 2007-2 under the FWP, that is how I found my information. I then requested the SEC to send my certified pooling and service agreement which they did and I now have with me. Bank of America had people show up at my house today with a camera to take pictures of my house. They are still trying to come after me but I am fighting until there is no fight left in me. The Recontrust documents state that my Original Mortgagee is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, and my Current Mortgagee is Bank of New York FKA Asset Backed securities CWABS 2007-2. Please let me know what you find out.

        Good luck to you too.

        Reply
  • J.R.W.  January 23, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    Theories please. In 2008 I filed a lawsuit if efforts to collect monies due me from the sale of a commercial tract of land. The late payment caused me to get behind on my bank notes. The company that owed me the money went to my bank and bought my three mortgage notes (which were not in default or had the balances accelerated). They then filed a foreclosure against my residence but I was able to get the presiding court to issue a restraining order to stop the sheriff’s sale. The next day the corporations sister formed a shell corporation and the notes were assigned to her new phony corporation. She immediately filed a second foreclosure. I was only able to stop it by filing a chapter 13 bankruptcy to stop the sheriff’s sale at the last moment. The shell corporation rescinded the notes back to the original corporation (the defendants in my lawsuit against them) and then they took by offset of monies they owed me the amount they paid for the three notes plus $146,000 in bogus legal fees! It gets even worse…… After taking my money to pay off the three notes by force, I discovered they did not have the original notes. I was able to get a court order to have the “notes” they claimed were the originals taken into the custody of the Court. They were examined by experts and found to be counterfeit copies, not the Originals. In further investigation, I have found that my own bank that previously owned the notes met with the Defendants one month PRIOR to my bank selling them the “notes” and the subject of the meeting was “replacement of the missing notes”. My former bank and the Defendants never informed me that they had operating with counterfeits, nor did they ever make any efforts to restore their rights and have always portrayed the copies to be the Originals. Can anyone help with theories? Where do you think the originals went? Every note in the past that I ever paid off with the bank, was returned to me stamped “Paid in Full”. Thoughts?

    Reply
  • J.R.W.  January 23, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    p.s. All of this happened in a non-judicial foreclosure state. Also, I discovered evidence that the Defendants made a conscious decision to NOT turn over the phony notes and the balance they owed me to the chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee! Thanks.

    Reply
  • WE have another endorsement from this signer in our present case involving BONY Mellon v. our client. The attorneys admitted in a Calif, judicial foreclosure case discovery set meet and confer, that there were NO documents to show the date, time, place, identity or the “stamper” nor any sum shown or proof of assignment or conveyance. There was no allonge. We are preparing a MSJ/MSA for filing on points we have established for which there is no facts to dispute that the note is now floating in limbo. The Deposition of Mellon’s PMK is being set soon. For more, call us at 818.453.3585 and ask for Steve.

    Reply

Leave A Comment

Please enter your name. Please enter an valid email address. Please enter a message.