To the few who always jump on my MERS diaries since 2008 to slam me for speculation. Take this!
Read the Deposition taken by the Florida AG at end of diary. CRIMES against soldiers, even.
Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial Inc. units were sued by homeowners in Kentucky for allegedly conspiring with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. to falsely foreclose on loans.
[...] “RICO comes in because the fraud didn’t just happen piecemeal,” Heather Boone McKeever, a Lexington, Kentucky-based lawyer for the homeowners, said in a phone interview today. “This is organized crime by people in suits, but it is still organized crime. They created a very thorough plan."
I hate to gloat, but I was correct. This was a well-choreographed plan resulting in millons of foreclosures. Striking while the iron is hot, as foreclosures are in the news, and politics is being blamed for moratorium. Be informed. The media is misleading.
America has become a crime scene!
NEW INFORMATION:
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION (ALTA Technologies) has funded the development of the Mortgage Electronic Registrations System (MERS) to help mortgage lenders eliminate the need for recording mortgage loan assignments when ownership rights change in secondary market transactions. The MERS System allows settlement agents to quickly determine the correct current servicer of any loan on the system. This enables settlement agents to obtain timely, accurate, and reliable pay-off amounts and terms without the typical "telephone tag" or the costly and time-consuming fax/fax back process. The MERS system has registered more than 22 million loans since it began in 1996, with over 22,000 loans being registered daily!
Copyright © 2004-2010 American Land Title Association®. All rights reserved.
http://www.alta.org/...
OMG. 22 million loans when this was published in 2004 and it's inception in 1996 (I think that is how this can be interpreted), 22,000 loans a day! Gee, what could possibly go wrong? And how did these numbers accelerate during the Housing Boom? It's mind boggling.
In August, 1 in 384 homes in America was in foreclosure. I think that's what CNN reported.
“Defendants have filed foreclosures throughout the state of Kentucky and the United States of America knowing that they were not the ‘owners’ or beneficiaries of the loan they filed foreclosure upon,” the homeowners wrote in their complaint filed Sept. 28 in federal court in Louisville, Kentucky.
MERS had their 1999 Foreclosure Plans in place when they launched their electronic mortgage highway. If you click on the link you will find a very detailed interactive map where you can check on the foreclosure rules for YOUR STATE.
MERS has since simplified their website foreclosure instructions; however, it links to 25 pages of pdf instructions:
FORECLOSURES
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) is a proper party that can lawfully foreclose as the mortgagee and note-holder of a mortgage loan. MERS Membership Rule 8 provides required guidelines that must be followed when MERS is the foreclosing entity. Please click here (links to a 25 page pdf file)to access the Rules of Membership, and reference the Rule 8 requirements.
In mortgage foreclosure cases, the plaintiff has standing as the holder of the note and the mortgage. When MERS forecloses, MERS is the mortgagee and it is the holder of the note because a MERS officer will be in possession of the original note endorsed in blank, which makes MERS a holder of the bearer paper. MERS will not foreclose unless the note is endorsed in blank and held by MERS.
The MERS *Legal Primer (case studies, this is interesting reading. It is the few examples where MERS succeeded; however, it will be interesting to dig in and research the Judges involved, etc. Another diary) provides a sampling of cases that address the standing of MERS to foreclose its mortgages. These cases are not meant to be an exhaustive list involving MERS but are merely to serve as a primer for the legal arguments.
BANKRUPTCY
MERS may file Motions for Relief from Stay and Proofs of Claim related to mortgages that it holds. Each MERS member, through its duly appointed MERS officer(s), is responsible to ensure that pleadings on behalf of MERS in bankruptcy court properly describe MERS. The MERS officer(s) must also ensure that all necessary proof is attached to the pleadings to show MERS has standing at the time the pleading is filed. Please click here to reference MERS requirements.
It is important for home owners in trouble and for lawyers to review the Legal Primer found linked on the MERS website, click foreclosures.
It lists what MERS considers to be it's legal successes for many of the states that have, in essence, refused to allow MERS any standing in courts. It's interesting to compare what the courts are saying and what MERS is saying the courts are saying. In short, insight into the MERS playbook.
Last year, the Kansas Supreme Court found that MERS’s relationship to the lenders is “akin to that of a straw man” and that it didn’t have rights over the mortgage at issue.
“Having a single front man, or nominee, for various financial institutions makes it difficult for mortgagors and other institutions to determine the identity of their lenders and mortgagees,” the Kansas court said.
The case is Foster v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., 10-cv-611, U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky (Louisville).
And there are many, many other supporting cases.
MERS sued for fraud, billions in penalties in Nevada, California
Posted on June 27, 2010 by Foreclosureblues
MERS sued for fraud, billions in penalties in Nevada, California
Today, June 27, 2010, 39 minutes ago | admin
Frank X. Mullens, Jr., RGJ.com
http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com
A Reno law firm has filed two lawsuits alleging fraud against a nationwide mortgage registration firm, and if those legal actions prevail, the firm and dozens of mortgage lenders could be liable to Nevada’s counties for billions of dollars in compensation and penalties.
Law partners Robert R. Hager and Treva J. Hearne, with Reno attorney Mark Mausert, have filed a case in Nevada and one in California against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, which operates an electronic registry of mortgage loans in the United States. MERS serves as the mortgagee of record for lenders, investors and loan servicers in county land records, but doesn’t own any mortgages.
By using the firm’s names on deeds and other paperwork, the lenders are able to avoid county recording fees, according to the firm. MERS has no financial interest in the loans, but is listed as actual owner or surrogate for the owner on millions of deeds of trust, even as individual mortgages are repeatedly traded and packaged inside of mortgage pools.
The lawsuits argue that listing the firm as the owner of mortgages in which it has no inter est in order to avoid filing fees and taxes that are legally required constitutes fraud.
http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.co...
Lawsuit seeks to block some foreclosures
Hennepin County is swept up into an action targeting lenders.
By STEVE BRANDT, Star Tribune
Last update: January 26, 2008 - 7:51 AM
A complaint by some borrowers that they can't learn who owns their mortgages turned into a full-blown effort to halt a substantial share of Hennepin County's foreclosures on Friday.
A Legal Aid lawsuit contends some pending and recent foreclosures don't meet requirements of state law.
The challenge pits statutory requirements that date back to the 19th century against a 21st century database that keeps track of who owns a mortgage or rights to its income.
Although Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek is named as a defendant for his office's role in selling foreclosed property, the real target is a national mortgage registry formed by lenders and known as Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS).
The lawsuit contends the registry hides who really owns a mortgage, creating difficulties for borrowers or their advocates trying to negotiate with lenders
.
http://www.startribune.com/...
I will acknowledge that the following is too big a quote; however, I have an inkling that there cannot be too many records on the internet to help homeowners save their homes. This is included for them and for the purpose of having another internet record to lean against the money and power that has the ability to either bury or rewrite history.
It is taken from the LivingLies Blog, dated September, 2009.
It's a good compilation:
The Supreme Court of Kansas recently referenced a Bankruptcy Court from Massachusetts that said:
“When the role of a servicing agent [MERS] acting on behalf of a mortgagee is thrown into the mix, it is no wonder that it is often difficult for unsophisticated borrowers to be certain of the identity of their lenders and mortgagees.” In re Schwartz, 366 B.R. 265, 266 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007).
Then cited the Supreme Court of New York (Kings County) that said:
“[T]he practices of the various MERS members, including both [the original lender] and [the mortgage purchaser], in obscuring from the public the actual ownership of a mortgage, thereby creating the opportunity for substantial abuses and prejudice to mortgagors . . . , should not be permitted to insulate [the mortgage purchaser] from the consequences of its actions in accepting a mortgage from [the original lender] that was already the subject of litigation in which [the original lender] erroneously represented that it had authority to act as mortgagee.” Johnson, 2008 WL 4182397, at *4, 873 N.Y.S.2d 234 (2008).
When a court references these slams you know that the House of Cards that is MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) is gonna take a hit.
TECHNICAL STUFF: Seems that when a first lienholder was foreclosing it sent notice to the originator of the second lien even though MERS was shown to be mortgagee on the second lien (as nominee of the lender). Of course, the second lien originator had previously transferred its interest to a new lender, and the new lender did not get notice of the foreclosure and was wiped out by the foreclosure by the first lienholder. The question was whether MERS was entitled to notice of the foreclosure. The answer was no. (See another description of the case here.)
The relationship that MERS has to (to holder of a loan) is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer. A mortgagee and a lender have intertwined rights that defy a clear separation of interests, especially when such a purported separation relies on ambiguous contractual language. The law generally understands that a mortgagee is not distinct from a lender: a mortgagee is “[o]ne to whom property is mortgaged: the mortgage creditor, or lender.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 1034 (8th ed. 2004). By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt. K.S.A. 58-2323.
Although MERS asserts that, under some situations, the mortgage document purports to give it the same rights as the lender, the document consistently refers only to rights of the lender, including rights to receive notice of litigation, to collect payments, and to enforce the debt obligation.
The document consistently limits MERS to acting “solely” as the nominee of the lender.
Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834 (Aug 28, 2009), here.
The Kansas Court went on:
What stake in the outcome of an independent action for foreclosure could MERS have?
It did not lend the money to Kesler or to anyone else involved in this case.
Neither Kesler nor anyone else involved in the case was required by statute or contract to pay money to MERS on the mortgage. [citation omitted](“MERS is not an economic ‘beneficiary’ under the Deed of Trust. It is owed and will collect no money from Debtors under the Note, nor will it realize the value of the Property through foreclosure of the Deed of Trust in the event the Note is not paid.”).
If MERS is only the mortgagee, without ownership of the mortgage instrument, it does not have an enforceable right.
Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834 (Aug 28, 2009), here.
Note that the Kansas Supreme Court feels the same way about MERS as the Arkansas Supreme Court in March 2009:
MERS holds no authority to act as an agent and holds no property interest in the mortgaged land. … MERS has no interest to protect. It simply was not a necessary party. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 19(a). MERS’s role in this transaction casts no light on the contractual issues on appeal in this case. See, e.g., Wilmans v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 355 Ark. 668, 144 S.W.3d 245 (2004).
Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. v. Southwest Homes of Ark., 2009 Ark. 152, 7-8 (Ark. 2009)
END OF LIVING LIES QUOTATION
HERE'S WHAT MERS HAD TO SAY ABOUT IT'S SUCCESS IN ARKANSAS:
In Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Stephanie Gabler, et al., (Circuit Court of Garland County # 2004-17-II) the borrowers claimed that MERS does not have standing because MERS is not the owner of the note. However, ownership of the note is not required to have standing. (See the discussion on Florida below). The court held that “MERS has standing to seek relief for its Writ of Assistance and is the proper party to foreclose the mortgage as MERS is the mortgagee of record and holder of the promissory note.”
MERS obtained a foreclosure judgment, held the foreclosure sale, and obtained apost-judgment order for writ of assistance to remove the occupant(s), including the named defendant, Gabler.
Shortly after the writ was obtained in June 2004, the pro se borrowers sought removal to federal court, and the Western District of Arkansas rejected jurisdiction. A subsequent emergency appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals was also denied. The borrowers then filed for bankruptcy, but voluntarily dismissed the bankruptcy action four months later.
The borrowers then went back to state court in the eviction action and filed an objection to the writ of assistance, a request for injunction, and a counterclaim. The borrowers claimed in their objection that they were not properly served in the foreclosure proceedings and that MERS does not have standing because it is not the owner of the note.
The court rejected all of the contentions made by the borrowers and ordered that MERS may execute its writ with the assistance of the county Sheriff.
And here's the concluding paragraph in the Arkansas State Supreme Court ruling for the Gabler case:
MERS holds no authority to act as an agent and holds no property interest in the mortgaged land. It is not a necessary party. In [*11] this dispute over foreclosure on the subject real property under the mortgage and the deed of trust, complete relief may be granted whether or not MERS is a party. MERS has no interest to protect. It simply was not a necessary party. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 19(a). MERS’s role in this transaction casts no light on the contractual issues on appeal in this case. See, e.g., Wilmans v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 355 Ark. 668, 144 S.W.3d 245 (2004).
Finally, we note that Arkansas is a recording state. Notice of transactions in real property is provided by recording. See Ark. Code Ann. § 14-15-404 (Supp. 2007). Southwest is entitled to rely upon what is filed of record. In the present case, MERS was at best the agent of the lender.
The only recorded document provides notice that Pulaski Mortgage is the lender and, therefore, MERS’s principal. MERS asserts Pulaski Mortgage is not its principal. Yet no other lender recorded its interest as an assignee of Pulaski Mortgage.
Permitting an agent such as MERS purports to be to step in and act without a recorded lender directing its action would wreak havoc on notice in this state.
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/...
So Gabler got a Court judgement similar to other states, while Garland was evicted in the same state. It will take a lawyer to help us understand how this can happen and whether or not Garland has any further recourse now that the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled MERS hasn't standing to foreclose.
We can perhaps assume that the Sheriff's men emptied the Garland home. End of the Garland story. Or is it? What will happen if all that MERS has done, especially in non-judicial foreclosure states is deemed to have been illegal. Dare we dream?
MERS is a straw man to the Kansas high court. MERS does not own anything, and therefore does not have an enforceable right. It is not entitled to notice says the court.
While straw man is appropriate, my daughter would suggest MERS is more like Humpty Dumpty that just had yet another great fall. I sure hope all the lender lobbyists and PAC money cannot put Humpty back together again. The MERS ”helpful to borrowers and lenders alike” rhetoric never met up with reality.
LAST POINT:
CONGRESS. Without the compliance of Congress to write and change law (Glass-Steagall for instance) none of this could have happened. Of course, it was mostly a GOP controlled Congress.
So, here's the Congressional History. Can Congress be included in the RICO investigations?
IT WAS A WELL CHOREOGRAPHED, Mafia scale heist.
WE ALL NEED TO BE UP ON THIS INFORMATION TO HELP OTHERS.
HISTORY
KIND OF SNEAKY. Makes it hard to find out who your mortgage servicer truly is!
It gets even weirder. Now foreclosed homes can be purchased by towns and FAITH BASED INITATIVES FOR AN F'N DOLLAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FEBRUARY, 2008 - Once enough homes were up for grabs, Congress passes new laws for FHA that make it possible for towns and faith based initiatives to work together to buy foreclosed homes for only $1.00 and then resell for profit. They even included laws to GIVE, not loan, money for landscaping and home repairs (almost $40,000) per home. Meanwhile, the poor homeowner who lost a home is gone. MERS gives the power to evict the homeowner to the new buyers: cities and faith based initiatives.
http://www.hud.gov/...
Here is the research needed to understand the history and how we are BEING FLEECED.
1980 Change in Federal Reserve Glass Steagal powers including interest rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Institutions_Deregulation_and_Monetary_Control_Act
1982 - The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982
The bill, which deregulated the Savings & Loan Industry, whose full title was "An Act to revitalize the housing industry by strengthening the financial stability of home mortgage lending institutions and ensuring the availability of home mortgage loans," was a Reagan Administration initiative.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
1999 - Conference Report and Text of_Gramm-Leach-Bliley Bill
Repealed of the 1933 Glass Steagal Act and is attributed to
Contributing to today’s housing bubble meltdown.
http://banking.senate.gov/conf/confrpt.htm
1999 - MERS FORMS to use to bundle and sell Mortgages electronically
http://www.mersinc.org/...
1999 – Simultaneously, as if anticipating the foreclosures of the future, MERS publishes "How to Foreclose" instructions for each and every State on line for all to see.
1999 - How to Foreclose Homes Electronically
http://www.mersinc.org/...
As of 2000, Enter: The Rubber Stamp Congress! Yeah Baby, the sun shines in the board rooms and it is time to make a crap load of hey. Congress had already put in place the laws to open the floodgates of Capitalism. Ten years of political foreplay was about to pay off with a huge investment orgasm for Wall Street, et. al. And, thanks to McCain for inventing the Blackberry, everyone could secretly use our new technology to make buying and trading mortgages unabashed and untraceable.
Ah, the Millennium High Jack was to begin.
2003 - How Greenspan’s Federal Reserve helped the Wall Street Fornicators rev up the money-making, hedge-fund driven scheme into a full-blown capitalist orgy. The rate cut, which the Fed approved by an 11-1 vote at the end of a two-day meeting, pushed the funds rate, the interest that banks charge each other on overnight loans, from 1.25 percent to 1 percent, the lowest level since it averaged 0.68 percent in July 1958.
The Fed began cutting rates in January 2001 as it tried to combat an approaching recession that began in March of that year. It kept cutting rates in an effort to insulate the economy from a series of shocks ranging from terrorist attacks to corporate accounting scandals and then early this year consumer and business uncertainty about war in Iraq might do.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20030626/ai_n11401010
2/2008 - Once enough homes were up for grabs, Congress passes new laws for FHA that make it possible for towns and faith based initiatives to work together to buy foreclosed homes for only $1.00 and then resell for profit. They even included laws to GIVE, not loan, money for landscaping and home repairs (almost $40,000) per home. Meanwhile, the poor homeowner who lost a home is gone. MERS gives the power to evict the homeowner to the new buyers: cities and faith based initiatives.
How to buy a foreclosed home for ONE DOLLAR, $1.00
http://www.hud.gov/...
"WE ARE AN OWNERSHIP SOCIETY" George Bush
None this could have run so smoothly if Greenspan hadn’t dropped the interest rates so low and Congress hadn’t made it legal to offer Subprime mortgages to anyone brave or stupid enough to believe the mortgage brokers and banks when they all said, with straight faces "Hey, don't worry, your home value will go up and you can refinance in a couple of years to a fixed rate after you have also improved your credit rating. It's just the way things are done these days. Wages? Let's see, you need $300,000 for a mortgage, so let's write in that you make $90,000 a year. Is that ok with you?"
And the poor guy who wants a home for his family says "Ya, sure, whatever it takes. You guys know what your doing, I just want a home." And later than night he hears President Bush blaring WE ARE AN OWNERSHIP SOCIETY. He sweats himself to sleep worrying his family will be the only family in America without a home of their own.
My dog, Bruzer, could have gotten a mortgage in 2005, but Bruzer knew better.
The Fed was complicit. The States were complicit. The counties were complicit. The cities were complicit. Appraisers were given free hand to raise the cost of a home for years. All were complicit.
And now we, the taxpayer, are being asked to chip in $2,800 for every person in our family?
The last nail on the coffin? Paulsen is draining our Treasury!
In our new world, where physicists are hired to create Wall Street trading models, where lightly collateralized day traders are allowed to buy huge volumes of equity on a promise, and the internet enables loan officers to scoop as many debtors as time allows and then make small commissions on volume when they whisk their debtor bundles directly into Wall Street’s designer hedge funds...
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Who/what is MERS? Who owns MERS? Countrywide? Now Bank of America?
We need to find out soon.
And here'ss the Foreclosure Fraud-in-Chief, whose administration did NOTHING to help American's who where hoodwinked and highjacked:
The Fraudster-in-Chief
And now HUD can sell homes to Faith Based Initiatives for $1.00. Isn't that a transfer of wealth to the CHURCHES?
HUD DOLLAR HOMES
HUD's Dollar Homes initiative helps local governments to foster housing opportunities for low to moderate income families and address specific community needs by offering them the opportunity to purchase qualified HUD-owned homes for $1 each.
Dollar Homes are single-family homes that are acquired by the Federal Housing Administration (which is part of HUD) as a result of foreclosure actions. Single-family properties are made available through the program whenever FHA is unable to sell the homes for six months.
By selling vacant homes for $1 after six months on the market, HUD makes it possible for communities to fix up the homes and put them to good use at a considerable savings. The newly occupied homes can then act as catalysts for neighborhood revitalization, attracting new residents and businesses to an area.
Local governments can partner with local nonprofit homeownership organizations or tap into existing local programs to resell the homes to low- and moderate-income residents of the community.
Nice. A family loses their home, and a town/faith based initiate can scoop it up for $1.00
GIVE THE DAMN HOME TO THE FAMILY THAT LOST IT FOR A FREAKING $1.00 !! as recourse for all the pain and suffering.
LASTLY, HERE THE LINK TO THE DIARY, THAT HAS THE LINKS TO ALL THE DIARIES ABOUT MERS BEGINNING IN SEPTEMBER, 2008.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
1
1 STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2 DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
3 AG # L10-3-1145
4
5 IN RE:
6 INVESTIGATION OF LAW OFFICES
OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A.
7
8 __________________________/
9
10
11
12 DEPOSITION OF TAMMIE LOU KAPUSTA
13
14
15
16 12:11 p.m. - 1:58 p.m.
September 22, 2010
17 Office of the Attorney General
110 Southeast 6th Street, 10th Floor
18 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
19
20
21
22 Reported By:
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
23
Kalandra Smith
24 Notary Public, State of Florida
Apex Reporting Group
25 Phone - 954.467.8204
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2 ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
3 JUNE M. CLARKSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
4 110 Southeast 6th Street, 9th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
5
THERESA B. EDWARDS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
6 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
110 Southeast 6th Street, 9th Floor
7 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
8 MARK R. BRIESMEISTER, FINANCIAL INVESTIGATOR
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
9 110 Southeast 6th Street, 9th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
10
ON BEHALF OF MS. KAPUSTA:
11
DOUG LYONS, ESQUIRE(TELEPHONIC)
12 LYONS & FARRAR
325 North Calhoun Street
13 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
14 MARSHA LYONS, ESQUIRE(TELEPHONIC)
LYONS & FARRAR
15 325 North Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
16
HAROLD REGAN, ESQUIRE (TELEPHONIC)
17 241 John Knox Road, Suite 100
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
18
19 I N D E X
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
20 Name Direct Cross Redirect Recross
21 Ms. Kapusta 3
22
23 E X H I B I T S
24 Item Page
25 Copy of subpoena 3
3
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 - - -
3 Deposition taken before Kalandra Smith, Court
4 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
5 Florida at Large, in the above cause.
6 - - -
7 THEREUPON:
8 TAMMIE LOU KAPUSTA
9 having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined
10 and testified as follows:
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MS. CLARKSON:
13 Q State your name for the record, please.
14 A Tammie Kapusta.
15 Q I'd like you to take a look at this.
16 MS. CLARKSON: I'm handing the witness a copy
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
17 of the subpoena.
18 BY MS. CLARKSON:
19 Q Is that a copy of the subpoena that you
20 received and are you here today due to that?
21 A Yes.
22 MS. CLARKSON: I'd like to mark this as A.
23 BY MS. CLARKSON:
24 Q Have you ever had your statement taken before,
25 deposition or a sworn statement?
4
1 A No.
2 Q You just need to answer the questions verbally
3 so that the court reporter can take them down. If you
4 need to use the restroom or want some water just let me
5 know. If you don't understand a question ask me to
6 repeat it and I'll do the best I can so that you can
7 understand the question. I'm not going to ask you to
8 guess. Just answer it if you know.
9 A Okay.
10 Q What is your employment background for the
11 past two years?
12 A I'm a paralegal.
13 Q Where did you get your education at?
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
14 A David Stern.
15 Q You worked for David Stern; is that correct?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q You no longer work for him?
18 A No.
19 Q When did you start working for him?
20 A '08.
21 Q '08?
22 A May, March of '08.
23 Q Through when?
24 A July of '09.
25 Q What were your job titles at David Stern?
5
1 A I was the senior paralegal.
2 Q What were your duties there at the firm?
3 A I was responsible for my team from initiation
4 to sale.
5 Q What team?
6 A I had Aurora Loan Services, Fannie Mae,
7 Freddie Mac, broken down into alphabetical --
8 Q Aurora, Freddie, and --
9 A TCFM, which is Citibank and any client A
10 through L.
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
11 Q That was a lot of clients.
12 A I had twelve thousand files.
13 Q How many were on your team?
14 A Twelve girls.
15 Q All paralegals?
16 A Juniors is what they were.
17 Q What were your duties?
18 A I was responsible for everything for the file
19 from beginning of initiation to --
20 Q Explain to me what you did with the file.
21 Just walk me through a file from start to finish.
22 A When we would get the files they would be
23 checked in by Cheryl Samons and her crew. Then they
24 would come to us and we would have to file the motion
25 for summary judgement, all the affidavits required to
6
1 file that, any contested issues I handed on the files,
2 all assignments of mortgages, anything pertaining to the
3 file itself to make sure that it was done in the correct
4 manner.
5 Q Were lis pendens filed in the cases?
6 A Yes. Those were filed in a different
7 department.
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
8 Q Who prepared those lis pendens, do you know?
9 A At the time when I was there it was what they
10 called a casesum department. There was a manager for
11 that department also.
12 Q What department?
13 A They call it casesum.
14 Q Casesum?
15 A Yeah. Caseum is where it starts basically.
16 MS. LYONS: I'm sorry. What was that word?
17 THE WITNESS: It's casesum, C-A-S-E-S-U-M.
18 It's their computer system. Basically someone
19 plugs in all the information given to them by the
20 banks or the referral source.
21 MR. REGAN: Can I get that spelling again,
22 please.
23 THE WITNESS: C-A-S-E-S-U-M.
24 MR. REGAN: C as in cat?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7
1 MR. REGAN: C-A-S-E-U-M?
2 THE WITNESS: S-U-M. Casesum.
3 MR. REGAN: Okay. C-A-S-U-M. Okay. Go
4 ahead.
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
5 BY MS. CLARKSON:
6 Q So, somebody in the casesum department would
7 take care of the lis pendens?
8 A Correct. They would take the referral and it
9 would start with all the information, the borrower.
10 Everything is plugged into a system which is in the
11 casesum department, which created all of our documents
12 thereafter.
13 Q Okay. So the documents were created in the
14 Law Officers of David Stern?
15 A Correct.
16 Q Were any documents created outside that came
17 in for your signatures or came in completed?
18 A Like?
19 Q Affidavits from the lenders?
20 A Not usually. We prepared most of the
21 affidavits.
22 Q And then you sent them out for signature?
23 A Some of them. Most of them were signed
24 in-house.
25 Q In-house by whom?
8
1 A Cheryl Samons.
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
2 Q How would she have authority to sign for a
3 lender?
4 A According to what we were aware of she had
5 power of attorney to do that.
6 Q Did you ever see the power of attorney?
7 A No.
8 Q How many companies or lenders did she have
9 power of attorney for that you could guess or know?
10 A A good guess would be approximately fifteen or
11 maybe more.
12 Q So, she signed as attorney in fact or power of
13 attorney?
14 A Correct.
15 Q Was she ever assistant secretary to any of the
16 --
17 A Some of them stated that also. It would
18 depend on I guess the bank that we were dealing with.
19 Q So she would be assistant secretary to some
20 and attorney in fact for the others?
21 A Correct.
22 Q Did you have a supervisor?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Who was that?
25 A Cheryl Samons was my director. I took over
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
9
1 her position at the company when she became COO. We all
2 reported to her.
3 Q Was she a lawyer?
4 A No.
5 Q Was she a paralegal?
6 A I guess that's what you would call her. We
7 were under the impression.
8 Q When you say "we" who is that?
9 A The staff.
10 Q Speaking of the staff how many staff were
11 there?
12 A When I started with the company there was
13 approximately two hundred and twenty-five. When I left
14 the company there was over eleven hundred.
15 Q Is that including attorneys?
16 A It would be a good guess to put them in there,
17 yes. That was just in our building though.
18 Q You had another building?
19 A Well, there was working being done offshore.
20 Q I want to talk about that too. Is that where
21 documents were prepared?
22 A They were preparing the casesums offshore,
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
23 yes.
24 Q Where offshore, do you know?
25 A I believe it was Guam and I don't remember the
10
1 other one.
2 Q Somewhere in the Philippines?
3 A The Philippines is where it was, yes.
4 Q How do you know that documents were being
5 prepared offshore in Guam and the Philippines?
6 A Because we had several conversations about it
7 in the firm.
8 Q Generally?
9 A Yes.
10 Q With Mr. Stern?
11 A With Cheryl Samons.
12 Q Okay. What were you told about these
13 companies that were offshore?
14 A That they were preparing our casesums while we
15 were sleeping.
16 Q Did they prepare anything else?
17 A Not that I'm aware of.
18 Q Did they provide documents?
19 A Not that I'm aware of.
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
20 Q So if they were preparing the casesums what
21 exactly were they doing?
22 A They were inputting the information to create
23 the documents. Casesum takes the referral from the
24 lender and creates a document in David Stern's office
25 with all of the information that the lender provided.
11
1 In other words, like the UPBs.
2 Q UPB?
3 A Unpaid principal balance. The lender's
4 information, last known address, and stuff like that
5 that the bank would have on file for that.
6 Q Instead of having to do it here in his office
7 they would do it in Guam or the Philippines?
8 A Correct. Because our office was not putting
9 out enough work.
10 Q Okay. Do you know what the name of these
11 companies were?
12 A No, I do not.
13 Q Do you know if they were owned by David Stern
14 or just hired by David stern?
15 A I don't know.
16 Q Do you know when approximately the offshore
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
17 casesums were begun?
18 A It would be so hard for me to say correctly
19 without looking back on my life at that time there. It
20 was probably when we moved in the new building, which is
21 the building now located off of Pine Island, the 900.
22 Q 900?
23 A Yeah. Maybe six months after we moved in
24 there.
25 Q When did you move in there?
12
1 A I want to say July or August.
2 Q Of what?
3 A Of '08.
4 Q So towards the end of '08, beginning of '09 is
5 when you started hearing about the Guan and the
6 Philippines companies?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Did you use process servers?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Did you have process servers in-house or were
11 they hired out?
12 A They were hired out.
13 Q Do you know what company you used?
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
14 A G&Z and ProVest.
15 Q GNZ?
16 A G and like the little --
17 Q Ampersand?
18 A Yeah.
19 Q G&Z?
20 A Correct.
21 Q And what else?
22 A ProVest.
23 Q Did you have any ProVest or G&Z employees at
24 the Offices of David Stern?
25 A I believe they were there but since we
13
1 occupied so many floors and there were so many people
2 there there's a lot of things that a lot of us didn't
3 know.
4 Q Right.
5 A It was more or less what was being said. I
6 believe now they occupy an entire floor of David Stern's
7 office.
8 Q ProVest?
9 A Yes.
10 Q It's ProVest?
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
11 A Yes.
12 Q Are they hired by David Stern? Are they paid
13 by David Stern or are they paid by ProVest? I'm trying
14 to find out whose employees they are if you know.
15 A I don't know.
16 Q Are they not using G&Z anymore to the best of
17 your knowledge?
18 A No, I believe they still are.
19 Q So both?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Did you ever hear of any problems with service
22 of process, any complaints?
23 A Those were daily phone calls.
24 Q Could you tell me about them.
25 A People were not served.
14
1 Q How did they know they weren't served?
2 A Well, some of them would go to do
3 modifications on loans or go to take out other things
4 and it would come up that they were in foreclosure and
5 they would end up finding out that way that they was no
6 actual service on them. I had tenants that were served
7 saying that they were the property owners and they
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
8 weren't the property owners. Service was a complete
9 mess.
10 Q At whose direction was service perfected?
11 A Cheryl Samons.
12 Q Did Cheryl Samons to the best of your
13 knowledge tell the process servers just to serve
14 anybody?
15 A I don't know that she told them that but when
16 we would get the phone calls it would be what she would
17 call a business decision on whether the service was
18 completed or not. We were directed to do whatever she
19 said.
20 Q Didn't the process server deliver a return of
21 service?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And would they say that it was served?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And oftentimes they weren't? Is that what
15
1 you're saying?
2 A Correct.
3 Q Did you have times when service was attempted
4 numerous times or on people that did not live at the
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
5 property?
6 A I don't understand.
7 Q One property might have two owners; a husband
8 and a wife.
9 A Correct.
10 Q But then the law firm would send out a
11 subpoena for tenants A,B,C,D,E,F,G and get ten service
12 fees for only two people?
13 A Oh yeah. That was done regularly.
14 Q Was that done intentionally to build up the
15 service fees?
16 A I would assume so. If you're serving the
17 defendant at the property you can't serve Jane and John
18 Doe if you've already served the defendant there,
19 correct?
20 Q If you say so. So they would send out
21 multiple services?
22 A Correct. There was always a Jane and John
23 Doe. Sometimes there would be a spouse, unknown spouse,
24 spouse, unknown spouse. In other words, if it was Mary
25 Jane it would be the unknown spouse of Mary Jane. Then
16
1 if it was James it would be the unknown spouse of James.
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
2 They changed it periodically on how they did it.
3 Q They'd also add tenants?
4 A Correct. There was a fee for everyone.
5 Q Do you know what the fees were?
6 A I believe it was forty-five dollars for
7 service at one attempt. Obviously two attempts was the
8 ninety dollars. Anything out of state was a hundred and
9 eighty dollars. It was out-of-state notices of action.
10 They did skip tracing. They charged an additional I
11 believe that was eighty.
12 Q Did they do the skip tracing?
13 A I can't guarantee that. They said they did
14 it.
15 Q Who was billed the forty-five dollars? Let's
16 just say it was the one service. Who was billed?
17 A It goes back to the borrowers.
18 Q Eventually?
19 A Well, it goes into your Affidavit A's and it's
20 part of your service.
21 Q Right. Okay. Before that. Because the
22 homeowner or the borrower or the defaulted one might not
23 pay so the process server has to get paid. Who pays
24 them?
25 A I would imagine it comes from the banks where
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
17
1 it's being billed to.
2 Q It's being billed to the banks?
3 A Correct.
4 Q It's not being billed to David Stern?
5 A Well, David Stern pays the bills but in return
6 I would imagine he's getting paid by the banks from what
7 we know. I don't know that for sure.
8 Q Do you ever have any reason to believe that if
9 the process server served one forty-five dollar bill
10 that it went into the affidavit as two or three?
11 A I'm not sure I understand.
12 Q If the affidavits that were filled out by Law
13 Offices of David Stern reflected the actual bill that
14 was billed or did they bill the homeowner more?
15 A There was always a fee for the Jane and John
16 Does in the bill. The bills always consisted of the
17 defendant, an unknown spouse of the defendant if there
18 wasn't a spouse, and always a Jane and John Doe.
19 Q So they were always billed for four of five?
20 A Correct.
21 Q So the bill came in to David Stern for four of
22 five?
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
23 A Correct.
24 Q Now, that bill was probably paid by David from
25 the bank's money or whatever?
18
1 A Correct.
2 Q Now, this four of five is going to go on an
3 affidavit of indebtedness?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Was it always just four of five? What I'm
6 trying to ask you is was the bill ever inflated for the
7 homeowner?
8 A I would say it was inflated if they are
9 charging for a Jane and John Doe. Did we change what
10 the actual bill said?
11 Q Yes.
12 A No, we didn't. Not that I'm aware of on my
13 team.
14 Q Okay. About what percentage would you say of
15 the people that were served actually got service?
16 A It became such a nuisance for me that I
17 actually would tell the people that claimed -- they were
18 serving people with the same names and they would call
19 and say I'm not this person. So to protect, you know, I
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
20 basically said you need to send a letter to the firm
21 because it became such a nuisance. Those were most of
22 my calls during a day. Any given day I'd probably have
23 a hundred different calls and most of it was service.
24 Q So fifty percent of the people?
25 A Yeah, that's a good guess.
19
1 Q Let's go to the assignments of mortgage. They
2 were prepared in-house?
3 A Yeah.
4 Q You're smiling. You want to tell me about
5 them?
6 A Assignments were done sometimes after the
7 final judgement was entered.
8 Q Do you know why that is?
9 A Because that's what we were directed to do by
10 Cheryl.
11 Q So the lis pendens is filed and you don't have
12 an assignment in some cases?
13 A Correct.
14 Q When there was an assignment was it usually to
15 the plaintiff or could it have been to someone else
16 other than the plaintiff?
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
17 A Someone else other.
18 Q Other than the plaintiff?
19 A Yeah.
20 Q Other than the plaintiff institution that was
21 actually in the lawsuit and got the final judgement then
22 there would be an assignment to lender somebody else?
23 A Well the lenders switched a lot in David's
24 firm.
25 Q Meaning?
20
1 A Meaning that a lot of the times they were
2 changing. Say Aurora had the file. They transferred it
3 over to TCFM.
4 Q Why would they do that, do you know?
5 A I'm not aware of that, no.
6 Q You're not aware --
7 A I do not know why they did that.
8 Q You're aware of it happening?
9 A Oh yes.
10 Q You're not aware of why?
11 A Right.
12 Q Would the change the plaintiff in the lawsuit
13 or would they just leave it alone?
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
14 A No. A lot of times we never did the
15 substitution of plaintiff. Until almost to the time
16 that I was leaving there is when things started to get
17 ugly for them for the assignments. We were starting to
18 have to do substitutions of plaintiff. If Nation Star
19 had the file and they turned it over to Citibank we were
20 foreclosing in Nation Star and not Citibank and we would
21 need to do a substitution of plaintiff for that.
22 Q Right. Would those be ex parte for the most
23 part?
24 A Yeah.
25 Q They wouldn't dismiss the lawsuit and start
21
1 over?
2 A No.
3 Q They just substituted?
4 A Yeah.
5 Q They made it a practice to give the defendant
6 notice?
7 A I mean we would mail them to the defendant.
8 Q The notice of substitution of party?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Would you file an assignment at that time?
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
11 A Sometimes. Sometimes they were already filed.
12 Sometimes we would have to change it. It depended on
13 the file. It depended on how long it had been with the
14 firm. Those were business decisions that Cheryl made on
15 a regular basis.
16 Q Do you know what her business decisions were
17 based on?
18 A Nope. Nobody questioned that.
19 Q Can you tell me the execution of the
20 assignments, how it worked?
21 A Assignments were prepared again from the
22 casesum. All of our stuff comes from the casesum. They
23 would be stamped and signed by a notary or not. Per
24 floor we had a designated spot to place them and Cheryl
25 would come once a day and sign them.
22
1 Q Sign them as what?
2 A As --
3 Q For the bank?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Or for MERS or whoever it was for?
6 A Correct.
7 Q Would these notaries be there watching her as
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
8 she signed?
9 A No.
10 Q She would just sit there and sign stacks of
11 them?
12 A Correct. As far as notaries go in the firm I
13 don't think any notary actually used their own notary
14 stamp. The team used them.
15 Q There were just stamps around?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And you actually saw that?
18 A I was part of that.
19 Q You did it? Are you a notary?
20 A No, I'm not.
21 Q Did you sign as a witness?
22 A I did not. I signed as a witness on one
23 document and after that I decided that I didn't want to
24 put my name as a witness anymore.
25 Q Tell me about the stamps. You stamped them?
23
1 A Yeah, I had stamps. Each team had a notary on
2 them or notaries that I was aware of. Whether they were
3 or weren't wasn't --
4 Q You had stamps?
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
5 A Correct. We would stamp them and they would
6 get signed.
7 Q Stamp them in blanks?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Who would sign them?
10 A Other people on the team that could sign the
11 signature of the person or just a check on there or
12 whatever.
13 Q Was that common practice?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Was that standard practice?
16 A Pretty much.
17 Q What about the witnesses?
18 A Those would be signed by juniors who were --
19 Q Standing there?
20 A Here, sign this. It has to go to Cheryl, sign
21 it. Then it would go and sit at the desk where Cheryl
22 would sign everything.
23 Q Out of view of the notary and out of view of
24 the witnesses?
25 A Correct.
24
1 Q Do you know who implemented this procedure?
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
2 A Cheryl.
3 Q Cheryl did?
4 A Um-hum.
5 Q Did anybody else sign with the firm for the
6 banks?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Who was that?
9 A There were people that were responsible for
10 signing Cheryl's name. Cheryl, Tammie Sweat, and Beth
11 Cerni. Those were the only three people that could sign
12 Cheryl's name. If you ever look at assignments you'll
13 see that they are not all the same.
14 MS. EDWARDS: What are the names again?
15 Cheryl, Tammie?
16 THE WITNESS: Tammie Sweat and Beth Cerni.
17 MS. EDWARDS: Could you spell that.
18 MS. CLARKSON: C-E-R-N-I.
19 BY MS. CLARKSON:
20 Q Did they practice Cheryl's signature?
21 A I would assume so.
22 Q Did you ever see them?
23 A Not practicing but I've seen them sign it.
24 Q Did you see somebody sign Cheryl's name?
25 A Yes.
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
25
1 Q That wasn't Cheryl?
2 A Yes. All the time.
3 Q Did Cheryl know about this?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Was it at her direction?
6 A Yes.
7 Q What was her position with the firm?
8 A When I started she was David's paralegal and
9 had the team that I had. When we transferred into the
10 new building she became this COO of the company.
11 Q Was that going on when you transferred
12 buildings and when she was the COO?
13 A She was always the COO. She just never had
14 the title.
15 Q But now she has the title?
16 A Correct.
17 Q Did the practice still continue?
18 A Oh yes.
19 Q With the signatures?
20 A Correct.
21 Q So even though she became the COO her job
22 description didn't change?
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
23 A No.
24 Q She continued to pretty much run the office?
25 A Oh yes.
26
1 Q Was David Stern aware of this as far as you
2 know?
3 A Yes.
4 Q How do you know that he was? What makes you
5 think that he was aware of this?
6 A Because Cheryl and David had daily meetings.
7 David knew the practice that was going on. David's
8 office happened to be right outside -- I sat right in
9 front of David's office. I'm well aware of what
10 transpired. Cheryl's office was here. Around the
11 corner was David's office. Everything was in the loop.
12 He was well aware of what was going on. I mean, you
13 could hear the screaming conversations. Nothing was
14 really a secret on the fourth floor because that's where
15 Cheryl is.
16 Q Who was screaming at who?
17 A They were screaming at each other.
18 Q They were screaming at each other?
19 A Yes.
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
20 Q Do you know over what?
21 A Files not moving fast enough. Just stuff like
22 that.
23 Q Business stuff?
24 A Correct.
25 Q Do you know when these assignments were
27
1 executed if Cheryl one, two, or three ever read them?
2 A No, they were never read.
3 Q They were just signed?
4 A Correct.
5 Q How many a day do you think?
6 A Oh goodness. Each floor would probably
7 produce two, two-fifty a day.
8 Q So somewhere between four and five hundred a
9 day easy?
10 A There's eight floors I believe.
11 Q And each floor did two to two-fifty?
12 A Yes. We all had our own spot. There was a
13 table approximately this big.
14 Q So you sat at a conference table?
15 A No, we didn't sit at it. We just piled our
16 files there.
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
17 MS. EDWARDS: For the record, the table is
18 approximately ten feet long by three feet wide.
19 THE WITNESS: Correct.
20 MS. EDWARDS: Would be piled.
21 THE WITNESS: Correct.
22 BY MS. CLARKSON:
23 Q With files ready for assignment signatures and
24 notaries and witnesses?
25 A Correct, yes.
28
1 Q Where would these files go then at that point?
2 A Then we would get an email saying come get
3 your files, they've been signed by Cheryl.
4 Q So this was an assignment signing table?
5 A Correct. Assignments or Affidavit A's that
6 she was signing.
7 Q What's an Affidavit A?
8 A The indebtedness affidavit.
9 Q Okay.
10 A I think that's all Cheryl signed for. I think
11 Beth signed for the rest. There's your Exhibit E's. We
12 had different exhibits. That's how they signed them.
13 When Cheryl was out of the office Tammie would sign them
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
14 or Beth would go sign them.
15 Q Beth would sign but it would say Cheryl
16 Samons?
17 A Correct.
18 Q And Beth would be the signer?
19 A Correct.
20 Q Or Tammie Sweat?
21 A Right. They were located on different floors.
22 The GMAC team was on the fifth floor. Beth Cerni would
23 sign for the entire GMAC. If Cheryl had already gone to
24 the table and signed everything and you needed to sign
25 something to get it out you would go to one of them to
29
1 sign it immediately.
2 Q Then these assignments would go where?
3 A In the file.
4 Q Would they ever be sent to the recorder's
5 office?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And they were recorded?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And when you got them back from the recorder's
10 office would they be filed in court?
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
11 A They were supposed to be. I wasn't in court
12 to know them. We sent them out occasionally to be
13 recorded. It became a more stiffer practice after I
14 guess there was a problem where the notary date didn't
15 match the date of the assignment being initiated. There
16 were basically three dates on there. The dates were all
17 different.
18 Q Right.
19 A So at that point there was a huge meeting in
20 the building by Beverly McComas and Miriam Mendieta who
21 were the controlling attorneys there. Basically we were
22 told if anyone sent out an assignment with the dates not
23 being the same on them that they would be fired
24 immediately.
25 Q Why would the dates on the other ones have
30
1 been three different dates? What would cause that?
2 A Poor practice, not paying attention, not
3 knowing that it was supposed to be that way from the
4 initiation. Basically they didn't train us to do it.
5 You have people just typing in. Their being honest and
6 tying in this date as the date as being assigned but it
7 was executed six months ago. The dates would be
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
8 different for that. The issue became then the notary
9 would sign it tomorrow and date it tomorrow.
10 Q So those attorneys knew this was going on?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Can you give me the names of the attorneys
13 that knew?
14 A Every attorney in the firm.
15 Q What do you mean every attorney in the firm?
16 A Well, Beverly McComas.
17 Q Can you spell that, please.
18 A M-C-C-O-M-A-S, I believe and Miriam Mendieta
19 were the controlling attorneys.
20 Q They were the controlling attorneys?
21 A Correct. They controlled the attorneys and
22 Cheryl controlled the paralegals and anybody else.
23 Q Okay.
24 A So they would inform the attorneys what they
25 wanted. They happened to be at the meeting for the
31
1 assignments. They pulled us in by team since there were
2 so many of us and told us this is what it needs to be.
3 They got in trouble for it and this is what needs to be
4 happening now. Make sure that the date that it was
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
5 supposed to be executed is the same date that you're
6 signing it even though it could have been six months ago
7 and Cheryl is signing it today.
8 Q But make the dates match?
9 A Correct.
10 Q Regardless of the date it is today?
11 A Correct.
12 Q Okay. And that's the same for the notary?
13 A Correct.
14 Q And the date printed on it?
15 A Correct.
16 Q And the date that's actually typed in?
17 A Correct.
18 Q Make sure they're all the same no matter what
19 day it is?
20 A Correct.
21 Q The two lead lawyers, what was their title?
22 Were they senior attorneys?
23 A No. They didn't really have a title. Most
24 people were just afraid of them.
25 Q Why is that?
32
1 A Because they were mean and nasty. They were
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
2 very mean.
3 Q In what way?
4 A They would demean you. They would yell and
5 scream at you.
6 Q Condescending?
7 A Oh yeah. They would make you look like an ass
8 in front of the entire firm.
9 Q What about the other lawyers that they
10 controlled?
11 A They were just there to get by on what they
12 were doing.
13 Q The other lawyers?
14 A Yes. Most of the lawyers had issue with them
15 but it was their job.
16 Q Did anyone quit as far as you know due to the
17 practices?
18 A I'm sure but they wouldn't come right out and
19 say I quit because of the practices. I know that people
20 had left because they were uncomfortable with the things
21 that they were being asked to do, as most of us were.
22 When it got really sticky there were a lot of us that
23 weren't here.
24 Q What does really sticky mean?
25 A They wanted us to start changing the documents
www
.4clo
sure
Frau
d.or
g
33
1 and stuff and doing stuff that we weren't supposed to be
2 doing as far as service.
3 Q What documents did they want you to change?
4 A Manpower documents. A lot of judges started
5 requiring, because of the Jane and John Doe issues,
6 required that you have a military search for all the
7 defendants. If you named a Jane and John Doe as an NKA
8 you had to pull a military search on them. Unless you
9 have somebody's social security number technically you
10 can't pull a military search supposedly.
11 The program that we used for the program that
12 we used, you could put in the main defendant's social
13 security and John or Jane Doe's name and it would give
14 us a military search saying that they were in the
15 military.
16 Q You would get their social security number
17 because the bank documents contained it?
18 A Correct. The lenders, the referrals had the
19 socials.
20 Q Did you put the social in on everybody to find
21 out their address for service?
22 A Not everybody. I personally did n