What Can DocX’s Brown Do for LPS, Besides Forge a Million Documents


Some of my earliest memories having to do with grown-ups lying came from the Watergate hearings.


We only had the one television set downstairs and my father wouldn’t watch anything else for what seemed like several years.  I was about 12 years old at the time, so I didn’t understand everything I was being shown, but I understood one thing for sure… these guys were lying their asses off.


I remember the Saturday Night Massacre too.  Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox had issued a subpoena to President Nixon, asking for copies of taped conversations.  When Nixon refused to comply, I knew he was lying and so did everyone else.  The next day, when Nixon fired Cox, and then Attorney General Elliott Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus both resigned, and it came out that they resigned because they had refused to fire Cox… well, it didn’t take a fully developed adult brain to figure out what was going on… Nixon was lying.


Congress was not happy.  People called it an abuse of presidential power and right after that NBC’s poll showed that 44 percent of Americans were in favor of impeaching the president.  I was too young to really understand the significance of an impeachment, but regardless, I soon started wearing my “Impeach Nixon” button to school every day.  One of my teachers tried to force me to take it off in class, but I had liberal Democrat, college professor parents, so there wasn’t any chance of my First Amendment rights being trampled on at 12.


So, since then, I’ve seen several presidents lie their butts off… Iran-Contra comes to mind… and who will ever forget President Clinton saying that it depended on what the definition of “is” was, or making the case that blow jobs weren’t sex?  There’s no way to make up stuff like that.


Honestly, my biggest surprise was when G.W. Bush said there were WMDs in Iraq… and so we went to war and six months later it came out that there weren’t WMDs.  I was flabbergasted.  I was simply used to my government lying better than that.  Now they decided to tell the truth about things like this?  Since when?


I was expecting a Photoshopped picture of a camel with a nuclear weapon tied to its back to come out in a hurry.  When none appeared, I wasn’t sure what to think.  In some ways, it made me long for the guys who brought us the Gulf of Tonkin.  Apparently, I’m more comfortable with my government lying in order to perpetrate an evil war mongering plan, than I am with one that just bungles things from time to time.



DocX Pleads Guilty… LPS Had No Clue…


Anyway, so now we’ve all heard that a DocX executive, who was apparently the company’s founder, pled guilty last week to federal and state charges related to what the media branded, “robo-signing,” during the fall of 2010.  Prosecutors in the case say that Lorraine Brown and others directed DocX employees to forge and falsify signatures on various documents, which allowed the company to make more money.


According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 2003 and 2009, more than a million fraudulent documents, used to foreclose on and evict distressed borrowers from their homes, were created by DocX and filed in recorders’ offices across the country.  And during that timeframe, DocX’s gross revenues were roughly $60 million.


Now, DocX LLC was acquired by Lender Processing Services, known as LPS, in August of 2005.  And LPS is a public company with shareholders that include the who’s who of the banking and finance world.  JPMorgan Chase, for example, owns just over a million shares, and Goldman Sachs owns just under a million.  (You can check out the list of major shareholders in LPS by clicking HERE.)


They’re a company with north of $2 billion in annual revenue, and as it says on their Website


“Our clients, including a majority of the 50 largest banks in the U.S., trust LPS’ in-depth experience, high-quality technology solutions and robust data and analytics to support their success.

Throughout 50 years of commitment to the financial services community, LPS has built an enviable reputation for unmatched innovation on a solid foundation of trust.

LPS is the nation’s leading provider of mortgage processing services; settlement services; default solutions; mortgage performance data/analytics; and real estate solutions. We are committed to helping clients reduce costs, minimize risk and grow their businesses.”


Well, that certainly describes a very sophisticated organization, wouldn’t you say?  I mean, “unmatched innovation on a solid foundation of trust?”  Not to mention all those data, analytics and real estate solutions.  They’ve got to have some serious industry experience and technical expertise over there.  As a matter of fact, LPS is ranked 11th on the FinTech 100 list, which apparently is an annual ranking of the world’s top technology providers to the financial services industry.


So, okay fine.  Now here’s the sentence that caused me to pause…


“Prosecutors said Brown concealed the practice from clients and DocX’s parent company, Lender Processing Services Inc.”


Excuse me?  More than a MILLION DOCUMENTS were FORGED or falsified over a SIX YEAR period of time, and a woman named Lorraine from Alpharetta, Georgia “concealed the practice” from LPS?  For SIX YEARS, she CONCEALED the fact that over a MILLION documents had been FORGED or FALSIFIED?


Do I have that right?  Is that what I’m to believe?  She hid it from LPS.  For SIX years.  A million documents.    And the whole time, LPS must have just thought she was great at getting the signatures she needed.  They had no idea that some of the signatures might take longer to get than it was taking her to get them.  LPS had no idea anything might be awry.


Damn, this woman has unbelievable skills.  She should be working for the CIA.


According to federal court documents, Brown pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in U.S. District Court in Florida.  The maximum federal sentence is five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain, whatever that means.


Fox News reported the story, but so did everyone else on the Internet.  One of the best might just be Zerohedge, but you can also find the story in great detail on Naked Capitalism and as of today, in the New York Times story by Gretchen Morgenson.


All of them quoted Brown’s attorney, Mark Rosenblum, issued a statement last Tuesday saying…


“Lori didn’t expect to be in this position. But now that she is, she’s facing it with grace and dignity.  Without doubt, this is a difficult day for Lori, but it’s also a good day.  By negotiating a settlement to her situation and entering her guilty plea, Lori has started the process of getting on with the rest of her life.”


What was that?  She didn’t expect to be in this position?  What position did she expect to be in after directing employees to forge and falsify a million documents right under the proverbial nose of LPS, one of the most experienced and technically advanced companies in the world?  Did she think no one would ever notice a million documents being forged?


And here’s what I want to know… what if she hadn’t forged and falsified these million documents?  What would have happened then?  I mean, not every document that came out of DocX was forged or falsified, right?  A million were, but weren’t there some that were done without the need for forgers?  Her plea agreement said she did it to increase her profits, but by how much did she increase them?


I only ask because it occurs to me that because of her no delay volume signing of documents, quite a few other companies were able to make a lot more money a lot faster too.  It wouldn’t have just been her company that benefitted from no delays in foreclosure documents being signed would it?


Max Gardner told me, and everyone else that attended his week long foreclosure boot camp training sessions, that the law firms that are hired to foreclose are paid based on how “efficient” they are at foreclosing, or in other words, how fast they get the job done.  So, it seems to me that the faster documents were signed, the faster David Stern could replace his 160 foot yacht with his new 200 foot yacht.


And don’t almost all of the foreclosure law firms have a very close relationship with LPS?  In fact didn’t attorney Nick Wooten sue LPS for engaging in a fee splitting scheme with these law firms.  Why… yes he did at that.  According to HousingWire in May of 2011…


“Wooten accused LPS of conducting an illegal fee-splitting scheme with default services attorneys who handle foreclosures using LPS’ technology platform.”


And Nick wasn’t the only lawyer to file suit against LPS having to do with this issue.  In February of 2011, Daily Finance reported the following…


“Jonathan and Darlene Thorne accuse the companies, LPS Default Solutions and Prommis Solutions, and their attorneys of having an illegal and fraudulent business model through which non-attorneys secretly practice law and illegally share legal fees. Because many of these fees are for bankruptcy work and are ultimately paid by the debtor, the suit explains, the business model isn’t just illegal — it’s also a fraud on the bankruptcy court system in violation of the bankruptcy code, rules and processes.”


“The suit also adds detail about the time pressure LPS Default Solutions puts on its network attorneys, and how that pressure allegedly feeds document fraud in foreclosure filings, whether in state or bankruptcy court. Given LPS’s dominant market position, those pressures have widespread consequences.”


LPS’s business model has been accused of being flat out illegal… also from Daily Finance…


In a nutshell, two foreclosure middlemen, LPS Default Solutions and Prommis Solutions, gain revenue not from their bank “clients” — their services are free to the banks — but from attorneys in the foreclosure companies’ networks. The suit says the lawyers pay for referrals and all of the legal documents created by the non-lawyers that LPS and Prommis give them. (LPS says the attorneys pay for administrative and technology services.)

The suit says about a third of the attorneys’ fees flow to LPS. Because banks don’t have to pay for LPS’s services, LPS Default Solutions rapidly gained over half the foreclosure servicing market. 


LPS, of course, denies doing anything illegal, but at one point, when Prommis was considering an initial public offering, the company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and detailed the risks associated with its business. One of those risks, wouldn’t you know it, was that the authorities could determine that it was illegally practicing law.


LPS has been described as having a relentless focus on speed and volume.  In the Thorne complaint against LPS it says the following…


Since LPS rewards firms for speed with more money and more work, LPS creates “tremendous pressure for the lawyers involved to go to the golf course and ignore the documents provided by LPS Default and just let the non-lawyer staff at Prommis Solutions file the documents electronically for them until there is a problem… there’s so much financial pressure on the lawyers to perform actions rapidly that it should be clear that there can be no meaningful attorney involvement in the vast majority of these filings.”


The suit says that the preparation and filing of legal documents by non-lawyers constitutes the illegal practice of law and therefore involves illegal fee-splitting, but overall the complaint makes the point that the business model nearly guarantees fraudulent documents will be produced.


The complaint asks the questions: “How do you create paperwork at maximum speed without robo-signing? How do you maintain healthy profit margins unless you employ relatively uneducated people who have no idea what the paperwork they are processing means?”


Right, and yet LPS had no idea that Brown and DocX were forging a million documents?  It actually sounds to me like LPS might just be the world’s leading authority on what it takes to get foreclosure related documents signed…



The Forged Documents Price List… 


DocX was the company with the price list for creating documents that Maxine Waters was waving around during the congressional investigation a couple years back.  And the federal plea agreement alleges that Brown and co-conspirators “systematically trained employees to mimic the signatures of authorized signers and even tested them on their skill.”


But no one in the industry or at LPS had any idea this was going on?  Brown’s plea agreement said…


As foreclosures increased amid the housing crisis, DocX had “too many documents to sign and not enough people with signature authority.”  That led Brown to direct employees to forge the signatures of authorized signers to keep up with the volume.


But no one at LPS even developed an inkling that something like that could be the case?  That maybe the number of foreclosures might mean too many documents to sign and not enough people with signature authority?  I guess that’s possible… I mean they only missed it by A MILLION documents.


This past summer, LPS agreed to pay the State of Missouri $1.5 million and another $500,000 for the cost of the investigation into DocX.  So, that’s $2 million to Missouri… nice.  Did the state take a check, or do you suppose LPS paid in cash?  And get this…


Last Tuesday, LPS’s Michelle Kersch said…


“… the company immediately stopped the practice when it discovered the surrogate signing, terminated Brown and shut down DocX.  LPS is committed to ensuring that all employees operate with integrity and compliance in everything they do on behalf of the company,” spokeswoman Michelle Kersch said.


Uh huh. I’m sure they are… committed, that is.  And as soon as they get caught doing something, they stop doing it immediately.


West Virginia Federal Prison


The Columbia Tribune reported that Missouri’s Attorney General Koster said the sentence sends a signal to the financial services industry that high-level executives who abuse the system must serve time “like regular street criminals.”


Yeah, cause that’s what a regular street criminal would expect to get when busted for forging a million documents over six years in order to make $60 million… two years in what you know will be a minimum security country club type federal prison… and a $250,000 fine.  I don’t know all of the details, but it sounds to me like it was worth it.


In addition to her guilty plea in federal court, Brown will also plead guilty to one felony count of forgery, one felony count of perjury and one misdemeanor count of making a false declaration… and she’ll be sentenced to at least two years and not more than three years in prison for her crimes.


For forging a million documents she’ll plead guilty to one felony count of forgery?  And everyone’s good with that?  One felony count of forgery?  LPS gave the State of Missouri $2 million and the State of Missouri then only charged Brown with one count of forgery?


Oh who cares… it sounds fine to me… why the heck not?  Now spend a million bucks throwing her a damn going away party for all I care.  She’s like the Oliver North of the financial services industry.


“To our knowledge, this is the only senior executive to have been sentenced to prison for his or her role in the mortgage meltdown,” AG Koster said.


And I for one appreciate the tough-on-crime stance this country is taking by putting unknown executives from subsidiary companies behind bars for a couple of years, after they make their millions, and who knows how many hundreds of millions or even billions for their parent companies.


You’ve restored my faith in… well, in organized crime.


Mandelman out.


  1. Peg says

    I like this piece, Marty...I mean I really like it...
    ...can't even contribute to it...
    Yep, she's Ollie North... LOL

    I'm older than you and I too remember all that lying Presidential BS..

    My, how things changed and remained the same...

  2. Gulfresident says

    The sad thing is that robo signing has not stopped. It is so easy to see. One only needs to go look at public records online and type under party name "mortgage electronic" and look only for document type assignments. Then look through the documents for a certain date (pick a recent date). Go to a few big counties and you can see that it is always the same names assigning these documents. In Florida this can be easily done. We are big on Rene Rosalez, Martha Munoz, Mary Ann Hiernan signing for Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon and Deutsche Bank. How can these people assign hundreds of documents in one day? How many documents can one assign properly in one day? I wonder?
    They might have finally switched out Linda Green. I asked my bank about my robo signor, sent an affidavit by the clerk of court in MA. One would think they switched her out. Nope. She is still signing happily away half a year later. They are not even good at cheating.

  3. Peg says

    Thank you for that info!!! YES, I was aware that they still did it.
    Here are some notes made after going through the county records on my own situation - but your info gives me an additional lead to see how pervasive these names maybe!!!
    Do you have any suggestions other that wash state and Idaho were i should look. These guys are from Northwest Trustees services inc /Routh Crabtree & Olsen LLP working for Wells Fargo & Freddie Mac (FHLMC)


    o The Note copy submitted to court has more endorsements than the Note copy I have.

    o The DOT was not signed in front of a notary.
    o My copy of the DOT does not have a notary stamp or signature.
    o The DOT submitted to the Courts twice: RCO BK Relief of Stay and
    o Memorandum for both WF and FHLMC DO have a notary stamp and signature applied to a reduced copy of the DOT.


    o Signed as both the NOTARY on the DOT - and the ENDORSEMENT SIGNATORY on the NOTE.

    The NOTARY for the Assignment of Wells Fargo from Home Federal Bank also acted as the ENDORSEMENT SIGNATORY for Wells Fargo from Home Federal Bank on the NOTE/DOT.

    o RCO Exhibit A, copy of the NOTE, shows “Peg Mixdorf” as the Endorsement Signatory for Home Federal Bank to Wells Fargo N. A.

    o RCO Exhibit A copy of the DOT, “Peg Mixdorf” is the Notary for Home Federal Bank Assignment to Wells Fargo N. A. in conflict of interest, See IC § 51-108. See also IC § 51-119.

    IC § 51-117. CONDITIONS IMPAIRING VALIDITY OF NOTARIAL ACT a) Failure of the notary public to require a person whose acknowledgment is taken to personally appear before him...

    IC § 55-808 PLACE OF RECORD Instruments entitled to be recorded must be recorded by the county recorder of the county in which the real property affected thereby is situated.

    My copy of the DOT in my possession, dated DEC 14 2005 and received some time after closing, is standard original size and quality and was not signed in the presence of a notary and is without notary stamp, date, or signature. See IC § 55-707, IC § 51-109.

    o Material question of fact as to the authenticity regarding endorsement(s) and notarization.

    o Notary conflict of interest

    o Notably absent from NWT-RCO Exhibit A, Copy of the DOT submitted to the courts, is lack of endorsement(s)/assignments to or from FHLMC.

    0 In addition, the DOT/ mortgage assignments do not correspond to the endorsement(s) the Note, which indicates the Note/DOT were separated.

    o NWT-RCO copy of the DOT Exhibit A, is reduced in size and a poor quality copy in which a notary signature, stamp, and notary filled information was apparently added to page 12 of a copy of the DOT between DEC 15 2005 and JAN 10 2006, See IC§ 51-117.

    o Conversely, in stark contrast to size and poor quality of the DOT copy submitted, the notary seal applied to the copy is the exact size as a standard state of Idaho notary stamp.

    o The notary seal is not reduced in size proportion to the DOT copy to which it was applied and is darker and higher quality than the copy of the DOT. See IC § 51-107(c). (...a notary cannot certify a copy of a copy of any kind.)




    BRAD L. WILLIAMS, A Washington Corp. as the Original Recorded Trustee/Co-Obligor under the DOT on behalf of Home Federal Bank pursuant to IC § 45-1504.

    o No recording exists for Revocation in Ada County for Brad L. Williams

    o No recording exists for Revocation for Jeff Stenman as “successor trustee” in the Ada County Records, pursuant to IC § 45-1504.

    o No recording of Substitution of Trustee Assignment exists for a Heather Westfall or Todd Henderson as ‘Successor Trustee” to Jeff Stenman in the Ada County Records, pursuant to IC § 45-1504.

    0 LPOA -Limited power of Attorney
    o In the general Ada County Records (not specifically to my NOTE/DOT file under property address...)
    o DEC 17 2009 LPOA was notarized in the state of IOWA (?- Not Idaho)
    o JAN 5 2010, LPOA was recorded here in IDAHO, No.: 110000733
    o MAY 18 2010, NWT Inc. obtains Forced Placed Default Guarantee Insurance Policy (Before POA to NWT Inc. was notarized or recorded)
    o MAY 27 2010, POA to NWT Inc. was notarized in the state of WASHINGTON.
    o JUNE 1 2010, Appointment of Successor Trustee by NWT Inc. to NWT Inc. was recorded in Ada County, IDAHO. No.: 110050722

    FHLMC: “Northwest Trustee Services, Inc., as the successor trustee, recorded a notice of default and scheduled a trustee's sale for October 15, 2010.” Pg. 1.

    In Memorandum: Affidavits of Jeff Stenman, were served after the hearing, and addressed in Re: Memorandum on DEC 5 2011.

    o On Nov 21 2011, Two “Affidavits of Jeff Stenman”, were entered into the county records by way of “Reply Memorandum”.
    o Neither of the Affidavits of Jeff Stenman, ARE RECORDED IN ADA COUNTY.
    o Both Affidavits of Jeff Stenman, state Stenman is TRUSTEE for NWT Inc. and states that:

    “Attached hereto as EXHIBIT A are true and correct copies of the Notice of Rescheduled Trustee’s sale dated March 31, 2011, together with the copies of the return mail envelopes and return receipts endorsed by responding parties. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT B is true and correct copy of the affidavit of publication of the Notice of Rescheduled Sale published the week of April 15, 22 and 29, 2011. FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAITH NAUGHT”


    1. Jeff Stenman is an employee of RCO/NWT Inc.
    2. Stenman has signed as a principle of several banks and various financial companies: MERS, Wells Fargo, NWT Inc and other entities.
    3. Assigned himself as Attorney in Fact for Wells Fargo,
    4. Then Stenman, as Attorney in Fact, assigned NWT Inc. as Trustee,
    5. In which Stenman recorded his self-assigned Substitution of Trustee Assignment,
    6. Then Stenman assigned himself as Successor Trustee on June 1 2010
    7. Then, as the new Successor Trustee, Stenman recorded NOD, on June 1 2010.
    8. Yet it was Todd Henderson of NWT Inc. that stated he was the Trustee by phone and correspondence. See IC 55-806, IC 55-602, IC § 55-808.


    o “I make this affidavit of my own personal Knowledge and belief...
    o RCO/NWT Inc. is neither a creditor nor a servicer.
    o The person(s) signing the affidavit(s) works for RCO/NWT Inc. has nothing to do with the loan, and cannot allege personal knowledge, which makes the affidavit void.'
    o NWT Inc was hired “to complete foreclosure of the real property...”
    o May 27 2010 -before relief of Stay was filed, stated that I must affirm the debt as a condition of HAMP etc.
    o “Attached hereto as EXHIBIT A are true and correct copies of the Notice of Rescheduled Trustee’s sale dated March 31, 2011,”
    o I never received a copy.
    o “together with the copies of the return mail envelopes and return receipts endorsed by responding parties.”
    o There is NOT a “return receipts endorsed by responding parties.” FROM ME.
    o “Attached hereto as EXHIBIT B is true and correct copy of the affidavit of publication of the Notice of Rescheduled Sale published the week of April 15, 22 and 29, 2011.”
    o This is according to IC 45-1506A for a postpones sale. The sale was not postponed but rescinded which does not fall under notice of IC 45-1506A.
    (Requires a new notice pursuant to IC 45-1506) See IRCP 4(g)(4). Return. (4)
    o There is not a “POSTING OF THE PROPERTY” for either the OCT 15th 2010 sale date or the MAY 16 2012 sale date.
    0 BOTH Affidavits of Jeff Stenman state the same, but only One Affidavit of Jeff Stenman in fact has “copies of the return mail envelopes and return receipts endorsed by responding parties.”
    o The other Affidavit of Jeff Stenman is without the referred to copies.


    The facts of the recording and notarization time line: Documents necessary for the MAY 16 2011 trustee’s sale were notarized in Washington State on MAY 18 2011, then recorded two days later in Idaho on MAY 20 2011, indicating the documents remained in WASHINGTON STATE until after the sale date and then forwarded to IDAHO for recordation in Idaho County records.

    o Which explains why some necessary documents for the Trustee’s Deed of Trust were never notarized or recorded in Idaho.

    o FHLMC’s Appeal Brief states “notice” was given according to IC 45-1506 A and that the bankruptcy stay prevented the Oct 15 2010 Sale Date.

    o However, the bankruptcy stay was lifted uncontested in mid OCT of 2010, then WFHM, FHLMC and RCO-NWT did not schedule a new sale date for over seven months.

    The TRUSTEE’S DEED OF TRUST recorded on May 20 2011 DID NOT have “copies of the return mail envelopes and return receipts endorsed by responding parties.” incorporated within as required by IC 45-1602 et seq. therefore, the Trustee’s Deed of MAY 16 2010 was UNPERFECTED and false affidavits submitted to the court swearing otherwise.

    1. Lack of RECORDING in Idaho with in the time limits of IC statutes
    2. Lack of NOTARIZATION according to the time limits of Idaho IC statutes



    Exhibit A: the Two Affidavits of Jeff Stenman make reference to/ include an “AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE” by a HEATHER WESTFALL Asst. VP of NWT Inc. and also was dated by notary on MAY 18 2011 - in the State of WASHINGTON - two days AFTER the alleged sale of MAY 16th.

    Therefore, the “Affidavit of Compliance” DID NOT EXIST on MAY 16 2011, in the State of Idaho or incorporated within the Trustee’s Deed of MAY 16 2011.

    “That he/she [HEATHER WESTFALL AVP of NWT Inc.] is Assistant Vice President of Northwest Trustee Services, Inc., SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE in the herein described Deed of Trust”

    STENMAN already appointed himself as Successor Trustee on June 1 2010?

    0 The Heather Westfall affidavit states “Affidavit of Compliance” states:
    “That by reason of automatic stay provision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code 22 U.S.C. 362 and the Order of the United States Court modifying the effect of the stay, the successor trustee rescheduled the sale for the 16th day of May, 2011”

    o On what basis would Heather Westfall have knowledge?
    o Compliance did not take place pursuant to IC § 45-1508A(4).
    o Heather Westfall states; “...the successor trustee rescheduled the sale for the 16th day of May, 2011” The Motion Relief of Stay of September 23 2010, does not state a resale date; but states rather, modification of the mortgage loan as the reason for the relief of stay sought in the motion.

    o Furthermore, the stay was lifted unopposed by prier agreement on October 18 2010, which is a span of 214 day gap not impeded by any stay.
    The timeline stretch, conflict of reason stated for relief of stay sought, lack of Revocation of trustee and breaks in successor trustees assignment(s), false statement of compliance including IC §45-1508A(3) and the date of affidavit notarization of May 18 2011 - after the alleged sale MAY 16th date, indicates the “Affidavit of Compliance” of Heather Westfall is a false affidavit.

    RCO/FHLMC MEMORANDUM (not served until AFTER the hearing)

    In lieu of recording in ADA County, “Affidavit of Derrick O'Neill” attests to “Affidavit of Jeff Stenman,” which attests to the “Affidavit of Certified Mail” then declared as prima facie by FHLMC that notification requirements pursuant to IC§ 45-1501 et. seq. were adhered to.

    FHLMC’s Exhibit A, was submitted to the courts in substitution for the previous never recorded documents; if not recorded before the sale, were required to be present for inspection and incorporated into the trustee’s deed of trust at the time of the auction and recorded within 20 days of sale pursuant to IC § 45-1506 et seq. contra to the Affidavit(s).

    A previous “Derrick J. O’ Neill, Ex. A” places it in conflict with the subsequent submitted “Derrick J. O’ Neill Ex. B” and also in conflict with the two unrecorded “Affidavit(s) of Jeff Stenman, Ex. A.” In fact, all required documents necessary for notice were either notarized AFTER the sale date in Washington State and then recorded AFTER the sale date in Idaho or were never recorded. Including, “Affidavit of Compliance” of IC § 45-1506 for the rescinded OCT 15 2010.

    Via affidavit of Derrick O' Neill, the previously missing Proof of Notice of Mailing and Proof of Serving Notice for the MAY 16 2011 sale date turned up (“Ta-Da”) the day before the court hearing on NOV 22 2011.
    The court and I were served a copy of said Memorandum the day AFTER the hearing.

    The documents now being presented after the fact, In Memorandum were not notarized until NOV of 2011 in Washington State and never recorded in Idaho, in the County were the property sits, within 20 days of sale date pursuant to IC § 45-1506A et. seq. or 20 days before sale of OCT 15 2010 or MAY 16 2011, pursuant to IC .§ 45-1506, in violation of IC § 55-808.

    FHLMC’s averments, “A true and correct copy of the Trustee’s Deed was attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit A.”
    According to O’Neill, RCO was in possession of the unopened mailings in Washington State until late of NOV 2011, marked “Unclaimed, Return to Sender, Undeliverable” but failed to record them in the State of Idaho. See IC § 45-1506A (4) and also see IC § 45-1509 and also see IC§ 45-1506 (7). IRCP 4(g)(4). Return. (4)

    Above mentioned affidavits and accompanying unrecorded documents were attached within the “Trustee’s deed of trust” Exhibit A, giving the perception that it was a part of the trustee’s deed of trust at the time of sale - when in fact it could not.

    FHLMC is essentially attempting to validate the trustee’s sale and deed without Idaho Code compliance.

    Affidavits submitted to the courts as to the completion of IC § 45-1506 et seq. are provably false when compared with the County Records.
    The affidavit(s) was not based on personal knowledge, but founded on a presumption of completion from a “third party vender” is in violation of FRCP RULE 56 B (4), See IC § 55-816, IC § 55-908, IC § 45-1505 et seq, IC § 55-908. “affidavits shall be based on personal knowledge one obtained from every day course of business” e.g. Third party is FEI:

    “...Field personnel are empowered to receive and print documents on the fly... and ultimately create and transmit affidavits...FEI's...works daily with a select network of strategic partners...”
    Pg. 2., FEL-HOME www.feillc.com http:// www.rsvp foreclosures.com Foreclosure Expeditors/Initiators, LLC UBI Number 601984617 http://www.scribd.com/doc/1019 06679/Northwest-Trustee-Rco-Acp-Fei-Etc


    On JUNE 1 2010 the Substitute Trustee: Jeff Stenman, of North West Trustee Services, Inc.
    recorded a default on the same day and exact time as he appointed himself in the Appointment of Successor Trustee that he recorded in Ada County Records.

    o Wells Fargo withheld payments which act was used to trigger fees; which by doing so placed the loan into a simulated “default”

    o Wells Fargo then charged fees listed in the ledger which adds up to $3,583.00, when added, is the equivalent to three months payments.

    o The payments were not applied to the principle balance, followed by interest, per DOT, before being applied to “fees” and other “charges”

    o The amount of the credit bid calls into question of material fact of the validity of the default filed.

    o Furthermore, conflicting amounts are stated in RCO/NWT Inc., Wells Fargo, FHLMC affidavits, ledgers, letters, insurance policies, notices, IRS tax forms and statements submitted to the OCC, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and to Ms. Butcher.

    FHLMC’s and the magistrate court’s actions stripped Ms Butcher of the opportunity and right to dispute any exhibits, evidence, or statements of fact before the court ruled.
    The court thereby, violated Constitutional right(s) to due process of law, under the 5th Amendment and substantively violated the principles of essential and fundamental fairness of Constitutional right(s) under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article I, section 13, of the Idaho State Constitution.

    o On NOV 21 2011, FHLMC, filed Motion Memorandum; outside time limit and without Leave of Court as required under ICRP(a) 15, See IC § 55-808, IC § 45-1502 et seq.
    0 Motion Memorandum and accompanying affidavits, were not notarized, or recorded and were not filed within time requirements of IRCP 7(b)(3).
    o On NOV 22 2011 a hearing was held in Magistrate Court.
    o On NOV 23 2011, FHLMC served notice of Motion Memorandum. See IC §55-808, IC § 45-1502 et seq. Fed .R. Evid. 201(c)

    o On NOV 25 2011 the court rendered its ruling granting FHLMC Summary Judgment. The court finding of fact was based on Motion Memorandum affidavits and exhibits which assert completion of notice and recording pursuant to IC § 45-1502 et seq. which were never recorded pursuant IC §55-808, IC § 45 5102 et seq. as properly recorded undisputed fact, while in fact it was not recorded and assertions there in were vehemently disputed.

    o On DEC 5 2011, I filed an Answer in: RE: MEMORANDUM. Post NOV 25th Judgment.

    o Objection filed In Motion: RE: Memorandum; CV OC 2011 13288, at pg. 10, No. 61, to dismiss FHLMC’s NOV 21 2011, Motion Memorandum, FHLMC Exhibit “submitted contemporaneously herewith” & affidavits submitted to the Court Record and affixed to two “Affidavit of Jeff Stenman”(s) be stricken by the Court. (s) pursuant to IC § 45-1502 et. seq. See also FRCP, 56,(c)(2), 60(b), FRCP; 12(b) (4), See 12(b) (6), See 6 (c) (1) (2), See 60(d) (3) See IRCP 4(d), See also 5(a).

    o Objection filed again in Motion: Appellants Appeal Brief CVOC 2011 13288, pg. 20 (9). In Objection previously stated in Motion RE: MEMORANDUM,
    0 FHLMC and the court failed to respond.
    0 The court
    o I appealed to district court, the honorable Judge Stricklen and petitioned the court to grant a TRO, barring FHLMC from removing her from her home until appeal was heard in district court.
    o District court, the honorable Judge Stricklen imposed a $500.00 bond due on the 1st of each month or TRO would be void.
    o A copy of the payment to be provided to RCO
    o I have never missed a payment.
    o 0n JUNE 18th 2012 Judge Bieter signed an order for a “Writ of Eviction” and Ms. Butcher received it on the JUNE 20th 2012. See (I.R.C.P. 77(d)), See also Rule 79(a)

    I took a copy of the TRO and order “Writ of eviction” to the Ada County Sheriff’s Office. The Ada County Sheriff’s Office stated that if they (sheriff) were presented with this Writ of Eviction they would be bound to enforce it.
    The negligence of the magistrate court made the TRO potentially of no affect. This has caused me and her family much duress.

    This case was subject to dismissal for inactivity past six months, pursuant to I.R.C.P. 40(c) and (Report and Recommendation (2009) FEB 9, Idaho)

    Court records Motions filed under CV No.: CV OC 2011 13288 last entry on 06-20-2012 as “closed” Magistrate court neglected to sign the summary judgment order of NOV 25 2011.

    However, summary judgment order was remanded back to magistrate court for signing as the magistrate judge never signed off on his order 7 months previous!!!!

    6.20 CASE DISMISSAL FOR INACTIVITY In all civil cases... in which NO action has taken place, or in which the summons has NOT been issued and served for a period of six months, the case shall be dismissed unless good cause is shown for retaining the case. (I.R.C.P. 40(c)) CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT MANUAL, 6.0 CIVIL CASES, pg. 12 Revised June 2009

    [T]he placing of the clerk‘s filing stamp on the judgment constitutes the entry of the judgment; and the judgment is NOT effective before such entry. I.R.C.P. 58(a). Thus, in order to be effective, a judgment must be file stamped by the clerk of court. Id. The stamp contains administrative information including the date, hour, and minute at which the document is filed, I.R.C.P. 5(d) & (e), and ―the date evidenced by the filing stamp serves as a reference point from which to calculate the 42-day period for appeal. I.A.R. 14(a). CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT MANUAL 6.20 CASE DISMISSAL FOR INACTIVITY pg. 12.

    FHLMC: “Plaintiff is a good faith purchaser of the property ...recitals contained in the deed and in the affidavits required under section 45-1506, subsection (7), Idaho Code, shall be prima facie evidence in any court of the truth of the recitals and the affidavits.”

    FHLMC’s original Complaint to the court quoted a segment of IC § 45-1510; but omitted the last 23 relevant words, making the quote misleading... IC § 45-1510 (7)... “However, the recitals and affidavits are conclusive in favor of a purchaser in good faith for value or any successor in interest thereof.” Id.
    The status of a creditor precludes that of a BFP for Value(Appel) as defined by UCC § 8-302 (1977) (1) and UCC § 8-303.
    Moreover, if in fact FHLMC were the actual creditor, then FHLMC had notice of adverse claim, pursuant, IC § 45-1510, See IC § 28-3-106(4) IC § 45-1502 et seq & IC § 45-1506 (9) See also UCC § 3-206 & § 8-302, See FHLMC v. Appel, 143 Idaho 42,137 P.3d 429(2006).

    Furthermore, no recorded documents pertaining to a sale date existed for “actual” “discoverable” “constructive notice” for Ms. Butcher or the public in County Records.


  4. Gulfresident says

    Peg - I had trouble looking up public records in some states. I found Florida counties easiest. I believe robo signors sign all over the US. Mine was "blacklisted" by the register of Salem Deeds, MA. I found her signature in GA and many in FL. You can really look up any county. I found 30 in Miami Dade County alone all signed the same date. The assignments are usually signed in "batches" and recorded a 4-10 days after signing. They usually have a different notary for every county they file in. Get a map of Florida and go for big counties.
    I was told that if the original note ever appears in court not to ever touch it - the original should have your fingerprints all over it from when you signed it. If it does not, it might be forged. Also, if you get a full size copy of your note, and kept your copy of the original after signing, hold them together against the light and see if your signature matches.
    In my case the Bank's attorney said they own the loan in the first hearing. The second hearing they said they don't own it. One week apart, two different answers. Really - it's like they stole the loan from the investors and now don't want to admit it. Judgment is still out.
    I hope you have a good attorney. Get a court reporter when in court if you have the money!

Comment on this post! (Requires free membership in the Implode-Explode forums!)

Page Rank