Tuesday, September 27, 2011

FORGERY, FRAUD, FEAR, AND THE FED (READ THE COMMENTS)


FORGERY AS A BASIS TO RE-OPEN BKR AND OTHER LITIGATION

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

EVIDENCE IS DIFFERENT FROM INFORMATION
If you have petitioned a court to overturn prior rulings based upon the parties misrepresenting themselves as creditors you probably have met with resistance from the bench. The arguments seem technical and designed to get the borrower out of a legitimate debt even if you’ve said that you only wanted to find the real creditor so you could settle or modify the debt.
But if you come in with proof of forgery and fabrication of documents solely for the purpose of litigation, you have a different slant on things. And if you plead and prove the point convincingly, the Judge really has little choice but to consider your motion. In order to have the proof you need a lot more than evidence of probable robo-signing.
Robo-signing, even if it is self-evident because the name was Linda Green or some other highly publicized name that was signed on documents, is only a general statement. What you need is to plead and show that in your particular case the key documents were the product of forgery and fabrication.
It’s good to have confirmation that the pretenders were using robo-signing, since it points you in the right direction, but don’t expect the court to do anything for you just because you have proved or alleged that as a general practice, the pretender in your case was heavily involved in robo-signing.
And be very careful about introducing documents from a search or retrieval service that accompanies the results with conclusory statements like “the document is void.” Chances are they have neither the knowledge nor the credentials to survive cross examination or even inquiry. Those statements undermine the credibility of the facts being presented. It may look good to you but it won’t look good in court.
AND when you do establish that the key documents were not signed by the person whose signature appears on those documents, you will probably be met with an argument and possibly even proof from the person herself that she may have or in fact did give permission for her signature to be affixed to multiple documents. That is the point where good lawyering is required or you lose your key point.
The fact that the witness is possibly willing to testify that she gave her permission for her signature to be signed by strangers does not mean that she DID  give her permission. Nor does it mean that the notarization of her signature was valid since the usual notarization confirms that the real person appeared in front of the notary and signed the document. And all of this belies the real point of who is Linda Green (or Pamela Campbell, etc.) and what authority did she have in the first place?
In fact, these robo-signing people were picked precisely because they knew nothing and had no authority to sign on behalf of any corporate entity. How do you know that? Corporation law will usually give you the answer along with the minutes of meetings of shareholders and directors. Sometimes even internal memos or the hiring documents will give you the answer. These people were picked because they were out of the loop and they were kept out of the loop. Their sole function was to sign documents as instructed without any discretion or even knowledge as to what the documents contained.
So your goal is to prove the forgery, prove the fact that her consent was not her consent but part of her instructions AFTER the the signature was affixed, prove that the notary was fraudulent, and prove the lack of authority. This gives you the edge.
We have been lucky here at LIVINGLIES in developing this strategy by virtue of the number of robo-signed names that are already in circulation and the strong capable work of some new investigators and analysts. In one case we found the signature of Pamela Campbell appearing on 18 separate instruments for different entities within the same time period just in Maricopa County, Arizona. Our investigator then went on a search fo documents and found one in California signed also by Pamela Campbell where the circumstances of the signature were such that it would mostly likely be her real signature as it was her application to a government agency. It of course didn’t match any of the 18 signatures already discovered and more importantly did not match the signature on the substitution of trustee in that particular case.
Based on the presence of actual evidence that does not require discovery from the pretenders, the litigant is petitioning the bankruptcy court to re-open her case alleging that the relief from stay was fraudulently, illegally and wrongly applied for and thus wrongly granted. She is also applying for sanctions, which under the applicable law appears to require the Judge to levy sanctions, and to make the fines high enough so that it “hurts.”
The same strategy could be applied in state court where the motion to overturn a fraudulent foreclosure sale would have some real teeth. This also provides grounds for filing an adversarial action in BKR court or state court in which the homeowner alleges the forgery and fabrication and then moves for quiet title against those pretenders, including the Trustee that was “substituted” and of course actions for damages for slander of title, theft, RICO etc.
Remember that evidence is different from information. It has a technical meaning determined by reference to statutes, common law, and the discretion of the presiding Judge. Consult with an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located before applying anything you get from this or any other site. And before you allege facts, figure out how you are going to prove them under the rules of evidence and the procedures of the court.

18 Responses

  1. Enraged,
    Hi. Lynn Szymoniak has been a lawyer for over 20 years, and is the founder of her own firm.
    Lynn Szymoniak
    Founder at Szymoniak Firm
    West Palm Beach, Florida Area Law Practice
    I am unqualified to share the depth of her experience; I only know that in the four years since my own foreclosure, I constantly hear the names Lynn Szymoniak and April Charney when a discussion turns to who advocates for consumers when it comes to foreclosure.
    http://www.frauddigest.com/ (as Carie points out, is Lynn’s site)
  2. ENRAGED
    IT IS GOOD TO KNOW WHAT THE FED IS DOING AND YOU SHOULD USE SOME OF YOUR ‘ENRAGE’ IN YOUR BLOG NAME TO CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND TELL THEM YOU WON’T STAND FOR SUCH SPYING ACTIONS AND STOP WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY ON SUCH ENDEAVORS AND START HELPING HOMEOWNERS!!
  3. My iPhone crashes on this site constantly now. I think it’s bugged
    Lynn S is an attorney supposedly investigated fraud of whatever type.
    We need more instruction and fewer prognostications about the banks. Apparently such help is not free. I don’t see much purpose in any of this without an expert in my pocket. I’ve already given up on finding an attorney: Logistically, financially, geographically hopeless.
  4. Needcaselaw,
    I got the same problem. I thought I had screwed up smg in my computer set up but if you have that problem too, might be coming from the Neil’s server.
  5. My emailed copies of this blog and all others for the past two days have come in blank! Is this a problem with the system or have I missed something? Please contact me.
    Thanks
  6. Marie,
    That’s the problem for many of us: we did the footwork, we got all the docs under the assumption that, because it proves fraud, it is admissible but we still fail for lack of procedural knowledge (i.e., wrong pleadings, wrong formulation, failure to introduce the docs in the proper format, failure to compel production, etc…)
    From what I remember, Lynn S. is not an attorney but a former investigator (didn’t she say insurance or something like that? The kind of people who know enough to be dangerous but not enough to be effective?) and i don’t recall reading anywhere that she is represented. I wouldn’t be surprised if she had committed some procedural mistake(s) preventing her from prevailing. I keep going back to her case because I find it very telling that, despite so much evidence and so much exposure, she hasn’t won yet. I really don’t believe that banks could do anything if she were playing her cards right and i can’t see any judge wanting to rule against her just because of what she said. That doesn’t make sense. If anything, I would expect the judge in her case to be very cautious how he threads in her case…
    There has to be more to it. But in any event, whatever evidence we gather should only be the starting point for a legal strategy.And I’m glad to see today Neil emphasize that point. Too much has been written about all kinds of defenses and attacks and not enough has been said here about how to introduce them. People lambast attorneys every chance they get but the fact of the matter is: they know how to navigate the system.
  7. Lynn’s site…some good info.
  8. Enraged
    Apparently we agree that nailing down the evidence is problematic and that’s the reason we generally resort to RAGE on this site. That’s all we have at this point. No strategy except chewing our collective toes.
    As for Lynn S, I wonder if the esteemed Atty has become a “cause” for the banksters.
  9. Enraged
    The Internet is great for Information, not for Evidence as Garfield has explained. I have tons of information but precious little evidence admissible in court
  10. Abby, I have a question…
    Does playing “Peekaboo-scare-the-S*@!-out-of-me” really help you make headways and win your battles? Those links are completely useless and serve only one purpose: instill more fear into already fearful people (95% of our population. Makes me soooo proud!)
    Who said “There’s nothing to fear except fear itself” again?
  11. Etolle
    Ground zero. The DOCx and LPS fraudster signers and notaries were in GA and MN
  12. Abby: They’ve probably been spying on us for a long time. Denninger and Durden’s commenters had this to say: “We don’t care if the Fed is watching us. What we want them to know is we are watching them and there are more of us than there are of them.”
    A suggestion from several people was to call or e-mail your CONgress critter and complain. It probably won’t do any good, but it is always good to unload and relieve stress.
    Did you see Yves’ column today? Thoroughly disgusting, but sadly true…
  13. Marie, you are absolutely right: it is a daunting project but it is feasible to find a ton of information right on internet. I will tell you though that where most people err (pro se or not) is in finding the right info and prematurely drawing the wrong conclusion or going on a crusade without a strategy. As an example, this thing about robo-signing: as soon as I heard about it, I went back to every single document concerning my house. Sure enough and with very few exceptions, those docs were robo-signed by alleged MERS VPs doubling as alleged bank VPs (sometimes for different ones in the same timeframe). But without a) a sample of that person’s true signature, b) some info about that person’s residence (a name appearing in CA and FL at the same time is suspicious) and c) confirmation that that person didn’t have a clue, claiming “robo-signing” serves no purpose except to piss off a judge, discredit yourself and become homeless.
    What actually pierced that part of the fraud is the depositions and court testimonies of those individuals. Finding the people is one thing. Proving the fraud is another. Keep in mind that CBS Lynn what’s-her-name in FL is still fighting with the bank despite everything she’s uncovered. That tells me everything we need to know.
    Neil gives all kinds of good info but it’s completely useless without knowing exactly what we want to accomplish, figuring out whether it is doable and developping a strategy. And not every case can be reopened. Some were lost and that’s it.
  14. indeed Abby. time to prepare the tinfoil hats. Neil, there’s a marketing idea for you – LL branded aluminum foil outwerwear
  15. @ Marie, what’s special about GA and MN?
  16. correction to yesterdays post. Atty Jon Davis is owner of Stanton and Davis of Marshfield ,Mass.Any one in Massachusetts that has had a forclosure thur this office should look at their documents as they are most likely forgerys and fabrications you can send them to Neil at his robo search gmail to start.
  17. Good Information. As usual the advice is only for those well heeled enough and with leisure enough to hire investigators hither and yon, and to otherwise oversee chadi g robosigners or others in the fraud. Unless you live in Georgia or Minnesota this becomes a daunting prospect for the very average “homeowner.”
    Further, I’m again wondering about whether in a judicial state more likely, one would be barred from complaining about forgery having presumably already had an opportunity to raise and litigate the issue
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

DO YOU NEED HELP TO AVOID FORECLOSURE?

If you would like to receive information on how you might avoid the foreclosure of your home, please e-mail me your name, address, and phone number. Someone from our office will be in touch right away to assist you. With Warm Regards, Kelly L. Hansen, HOMEOWNERS HELPING HOMEOWNERS, ctsmyhon@yahoo.com
Be happy, healthy and prosperous, but most of all, be blessed.
Kelly L. Hansen's photo.

Kelly L. Hansen


Jurisdictionary® just click on the link
Make Sure Your Attorney Is Working For You!
Kelly L. Hansen
HOMEOWNERS HELPING HOMEOWNERS FOUNDATION
33605 W. 88th Street
De Soto, KS 66018
913-269-0399 Phone
888-881-2349 Fax
MORTGAGE FRAUD VICTIMS
ARE YOU A VICTIM OF MORTGAGE FRAUD?


PLEASE DONATE TO HELP HOMEOWNERS!