Matt Weidner – Fighting For The American People

Posts Tagged ‘Erica Seck Johnson’

You really have to give Florida’s Attorney General Bill McCollum and his staff credit for announcing their investigations of the abuses of the foreclosure mills.  Although it is disappointing that many circuit court and retired judges are ignoring these investigations, it is important to note that the press is absolutely on fire about these issues now, and especially important, a member of Congress, Alan Grayson, is now calling for a moratorium on foreclosures in the entire state of Florida.  Please click on the link below for the letter he sent to the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court

Alan GraysonForeclosure_Mill_State_Supreme_Court_Request

Next, please visit his website and show your support by clicking here.

The request of a member of Congress cannot be ignored.  It does not come lightly and we all must give serious consideration to what it means when a member of Congress has stepped out with such a bold and dramatic statement.  We must all give this respected member of Congress great credit for taking such an assertive role in this issue and we must all make sure his letter gets the attention and consideration it deserves.

The serious issues we have all been warning about for so long have finally caught the attention of powerful forces that can make real demands for action.  For all of you that have been beaten down by circuit court and even appellate court judges, (especially Ice Legal), these developments are confirmation that all your good work is not in vain.

The Attorney General investigations will continue to shine the light and expose the serious faults that are now exposed in our courtrooms.  Now that there is attention focused on this issue from a federal and national level, it is not inconceivable that Federal courts or officials might be compelled to step in and address these issues that our elected and senior judges are either ill equipped to address or are just choosing to ignore.  Whatever the case, the demons that have been exposed cannot just be ignored…..

BRING ON THE INDICTMENTS!

During every great crisis in this country, the press has served a critical function of shining a big bright shining light on all the abuses, shortcomings and failings of the other three branches of government.  That’s right, the other three branches of government.  The press has often been called the fourth branch of government and in many ways it is the most important branch of government.  Remember that our forefathers chose the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press as the most important and First Amendment to the Constitution.

The Foreclosure Fiasco and slow speed train wreck that is playing out in our courtrooms will take years to sort out.  The damage already done will be immeasurable.  It will be no satisfaction for those that have been sounding the alarm bells to say that the warnings were given, but there are those that did stand up.  Throughout this crisis the St. Petersburg Times has consistently reported on the complex issues involving foreclosure, the good and the bad, the bad borrowers and the bad lenders, always with the focus on the larger picture and impact of the unfolding story.

Please read today’s St. Petersburg Times story here and importantly, log on and make comments.

The more attention these stories get, the more support our press will put behind covering these important issues.

We’re all struggling to see just how deep the Jeffrey Stephan rabbit hole goes, but one thing is certain…it extends far beyond FDLG and GMAC.  I’m waiting for my Rule 4.33 notices from all the other foreclosure mills that have relied upon those affidavits.

AND TO ALL THOSE JUDGES WHO WILL BE GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THIS FLAWED EVIDENCE TODAY AND NEXT WEEK AND LATER…DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS?

The national press now has this issue in a very big way.  Remember that lawyers like Tom Ice and Chris Immell from Ice Legal have been screaming about this for months but judges, who are supposed to know the law, apply the law and care about the law, have been objecting to the very issue that is now splashed across the pages of national media.  Ice Legal gets a huge amount of credit for this incredible development that will send shock waves through the entire foreclosure community.  And still our judges don’t seem to care…..

washingtonpost

Examples of the Affidavits that are in question….

Stephanaffidavits

A few days ago I asked for examples of questionable affidavits and assignments.    Attorneys and activists are often screaming about notary and filing fraud, but quantifying the fraud and presenting it is very difficult.

Attached here is an amazing powerpoint presentation that asks some important questions about affidavits and assignments that are of record across the country.  Now I was only able to attach abou2 20 pages here, but the presentation is more than 161 pages long.  I will be posting more of the slides later, but I encourage everyone to take a close look at the presentation.  It should provoke some important questions for every party involved in foreclosure in any way.

The most important question I ask is how our courts are continuing to allow such improper filing and recording activities to continue?  Keep in mind that all that is required in the vast majority of cases for a foreclosure to proceed is an assignment of mortgage and an affidavit of amounts due and owing….as you will see from the slides on the presentation, these documents are easily (and often are) created in a questionable manner.

I’ve been yammering on for months now about how Plaintiff’s law firms are engaging in widespread fraud and misrepresentations as they improperly create and submit documents to courts across the state that purport to support their right to take a homeowner’s home.  This widespread problem has only recently become apparent but attorneys and judges are becoming more aware of the epidemic.  One problem is there have been very few depositions of the robo signers who improperly execute the documents that purport to give a faceless lender the right to proceed in a foreclosure case.  A champion and pioneer of foreclosure defense, Thomas Ice from the Ice Law firm in West Palm cared enough to take a deposition….a great effort for him, but the results are so valuable.  This is totally unsolicited advertising, but if you’re in foreclosure anywhere in Florida and you need an attorney….Put ICE on your short list!

I attach here all 138 pages of a deposition that was taken of Cheryl Sammons.  Ms. Sammons may personally be responsible for more Floridians losing their homes than any other single person in this state.  I say this because, according to her deposition, she has been employed by David Stern’s office for more than 14 years.  David Stern’s office has probably processed more foreclosures in the State of Florida during the 14 year period than any other office.  When Sammons’ depo was taken in 2009, she estimated that Stern’s office employed more than 900 people.  Sammons couldn’t come up with any reliable estimate of how many official documents she signed as an employee, but she estimated that she spent an average of two hours a day signing assignments of mortgage, five days a week and sometimes on the weekend.  Apparently, Stern’s office has several floors and Sammons would just walk from floor to floor where she would be confronted with stacks of documents that she would sign…as you read below, she admits to having no knowledge whatsoever of what she’s signing.

Now keep in mind as you read the complete deposition and the excerpts below that every document she signs is one the document that a judge relies upon to take a home from a consumer.  As the homeowner or consumer is thrown out (based on this document) the order also grants a final judgment for hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars to the nameless, untraceable entity that Ms. Sammons alone says is entitled to collect this money.  Amazingly, in her more than 14 years of dedicated service creating documents to take people’s homes, she’s only been deposed on this matter once.

The formatting here is bad, but struggle through it and read the full deposition.  When you need support for arguments that lenders and their attorneys are engaging in widespread fraud, print this depo out, along with that of Erica Seck Johnson and share it with your judge….read and weep….

How much time do you spend examining each
11    document before you sign them?
12            A.    Very little.
13            Q.    Do you read the document?
14            A.    No.

Right, because we’re
8            specifically talking about my understanding on
9            these is what I do as far as assignments for MERS,
10            and that’s a different capacity than an affidavit
11            or something.
12          Now, the assignments are reviewed by an
13            attorney before they come to me.  I do not review
14            them for errors.  I simply sign them.

23            Q.    I understand.  So is it fair to say that if
24    it’s an assignment you don’t read it, correct?

25            A.    I only make sure it’s from MERS and that Ihave signing authority for that client.

Q.    And then you sign it?      A.    Yes, sir.

Q.    Why does MERS appoint you as a vice
8    president or assistant secretary as opposed to some other
9    thing like a manager or an authorized agent?
10            A.    I don’t know.
11            Q.    Why would MERS give you a title at all?  In
12    other words, why not just give you the authority to sign
13    a mortgage from MERS?
14                  MR. BAKALAR:  Objection.  Are you asking
15            her to speculate?
16                  MR. ICE:  Just if she knows.
17                  THE WITNESS:  I don’t know.

Q.    Down in the jurat I think it calls you a
19    vice president of Amro, correct?
20            A.    Yes, it does.
21            Q.    Are you either of those things?
22            A.    No, I’m not.
23            Q.    Do you have any explanation for that
24    document?
25            A.    Well, this document is obviously incorrect

Q.    Do you have any involvement in the process
9    of creating the assignment of mortgage before it gets to
10    the table where you walk in and sign it?
11            A.    No, sir.
12            Q.    So you wouldn’t be able to comment on how
13    information gets into the assignment, like who is the
14    assignee or assignor?

Q.    Following the date of October 20th, 2008,
23    there is another date where it says, “But effective as of
24    the 4th day of September, 2008?”
25            A.    Uh-huh

Q.    Who puts that date in there?
4            A.    That is typed in by the processor.
5            Q.    Who tells the processor or how does the
6    processor decide what date to put in there?
7            A.    We train them to put in that date.
8            Q.    In your training, what do you tell them to
9    do?
10            A.    To put in the date that the file was
11    referred to us for foreclosure.

Q.    You don’t actually swear to anything that’s
10    in this assignment, correct?
11            A.    Correct.
12            Q.    All you’re doing is acknowledging that you
13    are executing this as an officer of MERS?
14            A.    Correct.
15            Q.    You have no personal knowledge that
16    anything happened with respect to the transfer of this
17    mortgage on September 4th, 2008?
18            A.    No, sir.
19            Q.    No, sir meaning you don’t have any personal
20    knowledge?
21            A.    No, sir, I don’t have any personal
22    knowledge.

Q.    So your firm, the firm you work for, is

23    pursuing a case on behalf of Deutsche Bank against MERS
24    while, at the same time, you are signing an assignment as
25    a MERS officer to help Deutsche Bank win the case againstMERS, correct?
2            A.    Yes.
3            Q.    Do you see any conflict there?
4                  MR. BAKALAR:  Objection.
5                  THE WITNESS:  No

Q.    Does David J. Stern, P.A. have any
8    agreement in writing from MERS waiving that conflict?
9            A.    I don’t know.
10

There’s no rhyme or reason for
16    what day anybody signs or notarizes for me.  It’s whoever
17    I find.
18

.    That’s your signature?
4            A.    Yes.
5            Q.    And it’s witnessed by Michelle Camacho
6    again?
7            A.    Yes.
8            Q.    And notarized by Michelle Camacho?
9            A.    Yes.
10            Q.    On December 14th of ’07?
11            A.    Yes.
12            Q.    Again, she or someone handwrote in those
13    dates, correct?
14            A.    Yes.
15            Q.    And once again, that would be before her
16    commission was ever issued?
17                  MR. BAKALAR:  Objection.  Are you asking
18            her to testify when someone’s notary commission
19            was issued?
20                  MR. ICE:  No.  The question is the date
21            that’s on this assignment predates her commission
22            by a little under three months.
23

Q.    Do you see that date?
14            A.    Yes.
15            Q.    So, once again, the date of the assignment
16    is prior to the date of filing, correct?
17            A.    Yes.

Do I have to say the same
3            thing on every single assignment?  I’m just
4            asking.  Because I can tell you I don’t remember.
5            I sign a lot.  You’re going to ask me if I think
6            it was backdated.  I’m going to tell you no.  I’m
7            going to tell you I don’t know what the mistake
8            is.  I don’t know if I want to answer the same
9            question every single time.
10                  MS. EVERTZ:  It seems redundant.  Say how
11            many are there.  Same answer as to all.
12                  THE WITNESS:  Right.  I don’t have an
13            explanation for you other than mistake

:               If you will stipulate that all 21
18            of these are executed with a date that is before
19            the notary’s commission was ever issued –

20                 If you just look at the document itself,
21    you will see that the expiration date is more than four
22    years after the execution date.
23            A.    Okay.
24            Q.    Which means that unless they are capable of
25    time travel, they couldn’t have used that stamp that wasn’t going to be issued until after this document was
2    executed?
3            A.    Okay.
4            Q.    Will you stipulate that that’s the case in
5    all 21 of these assignments?

(With a lot of detail, the attorneys for the witness stipulate that many of the 21 documents were executed before the notary’s commission was executed.)

Q.    Would you say because they are all recorded
on the same day and all notarized and witnessed by the
same two people that it’s likely that they were all
executed on the same day?
A.    It’s a possibility.
Q.    Yet the execution dates vary for a whole
year from February of ’07 all the way to February of ’08?
A.    Yes.
Q.    Do you have any explanation for that?
A.    No, sir, I don’t.

Q.    Now, this problem of notarizing with stamps
that haven’t been issued yet, that’s been brought to your
attention before this deposition, correct?
A.    Correct.

Q.    But as far as the others, you are aware
11    that this issue had come up about assignments executed
12    with stamps that didn’t exist yet?
13            A.    Correct.
14            Q.    Are all of these notaries still notarizing
15    documents here at David J. Stern, P.A?
16            A.    Yes.
17            Q.    Has the firm done anything to discipline
18    any of these notaries?
19            A.    Discipline, no.
20            Q.    Reprimand?
21            A.    I would not use the word reprimand, no.

Q.    Were you aware of an occasion when David
12    Stern was reprimanded by the Florida Bar for professional
13    misconduct regarding potentially misleading affidavits?
14            A.    Yes.
15            Q.    What is your knowledge about that?
16            A.    My knowledge was that there was a case and
17    there was a Florida Bar reprimand.  That’s all I know.