MUST SEE!!! THE WHISTLE BLOWERS, BY LISA MYERS, AN MSNBC VIDEO

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Whistle Blowers

by Lisa Myers

Related articles

• Corporate Whistle Blower Center Urges Mortgage Loan Servicing Or Bank Foreclosure Insiders To Step Up For Potentially Huge Rewards For Wrongdoing (prweb.com)
• Corporate Whistle Blower Center Dramatically Expands Its Mortgage Loan Servicing Fraud Initiative Urging Whistleblowers To Step Up For A Possible Huge Reward (prweb.com)
• News Of The World Whistle-Blower Found Dead (buzzfeed.com)
• No end in sight to foreclosure quagmire (ritholtz.com)
• FAA dispute costing millions more than it would save (msnbc.msn.com)
• Big telecom firms make millions from cramming (redtape.msnbc.msn.com)
• New Whistle-blower Helpline (politics.ie)
• Senate fails to end costly FAA shutdown (msnbc.msn.com)

THE "RS" LIST (OR BETTER, THE "BS" LIST)

Robo and Other Signors: Who is Signing Now?

Posted on August 2, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

 GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

see Lynn Symoniak 20July11SigningNow

WHO’S SIGNING NOW?
Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., Ed., Fraud Digest July 20, 2011

1. Who were the top mortgage document signers in the first half of 2011?

2. Which trusts that closed in 2005, 2006 and 2007 repeatedly filed mortgage assignments signed and notarized in 2011?

3. Who was the most prolific MERS Certifying Officer in the first half of 2011?
Bonus Question: Which law firm used the following phrase instead of an actual date for the assignments:

“At or before the ensealing and delivery of these presents the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged…”

1. TOP MORTGAGE DOCUMENT SIGNERS, JAN. – JUNE, 2011

From American Home Mortgage Servicing (AHMI) in Jacksonville:
Christine Alday
Elizabeth Boulton
Andrew Fuerstenbeger
Michelle Halyard
Tonya Hopkins
Joseph Kaminski
Kasea Matthews Harold Nord, III Yvette Washington

From Aurora Loan Services in Scotts Bluff, Nebraska: Jan Walsh

From BAC Home Loan Servicing in Simi Valley, California:
Malik Basurto,
Nichole Clavadetscher
Youda Crain
Mercedes Judilla
Srbui Muradyan
Swarupa Slee

From Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC in Santa Ana, California:
Tom Croft
Greg Schleppy 

From Chase Home Finance in Franklin County, Ohio:
David Ellis

From CitiMortgage in St. Charles, Missouri:
Kim Krakoviak
Aaron Menne
Scott Scheiner
From GMAC in Upper Dublin Township, Pennsylvania:
Sandy Broughton
Donald Dempsey
Thomas Strain
From HomEq Servicing in North Highlands, California: Noriko Colston

From HSBC Mortgage Corp. in Depew, New York: Michael Peter

From IndyMac Mortgage Services in Austin, Texas:
Suchan Murray
JC San Pedro
David Rodriguez
Mollie Schiffman Mike Stanford

From JP Morgan Chase in Jacksonville, Florida: Nura Nadarevic

From Litton Loan Servicing in Dallas, Texas:
Debra Lyman
Marti Noriega

From Nationwide Title Clearing in Palm Harbor, Florida:
Bryan Bly
Vilma Castro
Kim GoelzMary Sarmiento

From Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC in West Palm Beach, Florida:
Christina Carter
Lesli Goodman
Rene Martinez
From Orion Financial Group in Southlake, Texas: M. Arndt M.E. Wileman

From Saxon Mortgage Service in Fort Worth, Texas:
Regina Alexander
John Cottrell
From Select Portfolio Servicing in Salt Lake City, Utah:
Bill Koch
Jeff Young

From Wells Fargo Home Mortgage in Minneapolis, Minnesota:
Nicholas Hoye
Janet L. Jones
Carissa Keeler
Carla Naughton
Ricky Thompson

2. MORTGAGE-BACKED TRUSTS, CLOSED BEFORE 2008, USING MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS SIGNED IN 2011
Aames Mortgage Investment Trusts
ABFC Trusts Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trusts
American Home Mortgage Assets Trusts
American Home Mortgage Investment Trusts
Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc. Trusts
Argent Securities, Inc. Trusts
Banc of America Alternative Loan Trusts
Banc of America Funding Trusts Bear Stearns Alt-A Trusts
Bear Stearns ARM Trusts
Bear Stearns Asset-Backed Securities Trusts
BNC Mortgage Loan Trusts
Carrington Home Equity Loan Trusts
Carrington Mortgage Loan Trusts
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trusts
3
CSFB Trusts
CSMC Trusts
CWABS TrustsCWALT Trusts
CWMBS Trusts
Deutsche Bank Alt-A Securities Inc. Mortgage Loan Trusts
First Franklin Mortgage Loan TrustsFirst NLC Trusts
Fremont Home Loan Trusts
GSAA Home Equity Trusts
GSAMP Trusts
GSR Mortgage Loan Trusts
Harborview Mortgage Loan Trusts
HSI Asset Securitization Corp. Trusts
IndyMac IMSC Mortgage Loan Trusts
IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trusts
Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trusts
MASTR Alternative Loan Trusts
MASTR Asset-Backed Securities Trusts
Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. Trusts
NatIxis Real Estate Capital Trusts
New Century Home Equity Loan Trusts
New Century Mortgage Loan Trusts
Nomura Home Equity Loan Trusts
NovaStar Home Equity Loan Trusts
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trusts
Option One Mortgage Loan Trusts
RALI Trusts RAMP Trusts Residential Asset Securitization Trusts
Saxon Asset Securities Trusts
Securitized Asset-Backed Receivables Trusts
Soundview Home Loan Trusts
Structured Asset Investment Loan Trusts
Structured Asset Mort. Investments II Trusts
Structured Asset Mort. Investments II, Inc.
Bear Stearns Alt-A Trusts
WaMu Trusts
Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp. Trusts

MOST PROLIFIC MERS CERTIFYNG OFFICER:   

NICHOLAS HOYE

Nicholas Hoye from the Minneapolis, Minnesota offices of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage is the winner of the “Busiest Signer of 2011 Award.”

Hoye signed thousands of mortgage assignments in the first six months of 2011. Hoye most often signs to convey mortgages to his employer, Wells Fargo. Hoye has signed as a Certifying Officer for MERS as Nominee for at least 40 mortgage companies. The runner-up is Ricky L. Thompson, also from Wells Fargo.

BONUS QUESTION
WHICH LAW FIRM USED THE MOST CREATIVE PHRASE (IN LIEU OF AN ACTUAL DATE) TO IDENTIFY THE DATE THE ASSIGNMENT WAS MADE?

When did the trust acquire the mortgage? What was the exact date the mortgage changed hands? According to thousands of documents, the date was:

“At or before the ensealing and delivery of these presents the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged…”

Ben-Ezra & Katz, P.A. 2901 Stirling Road, Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 3331
This is one of the LPS affiliated law firms, a/k/a foreclosure mills – that was being investigated rigorously by June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards of the Florida Attorney General’s office – until that moment when Clarkson and Edwards were escorted rigorously out the door.

Signers come and signers go, but the practices of banks and their servicers remain the same.

Related articles

• Corporate Whistle Blower Center Dramatically Expands Its Mortgage Loan Servicing Fraud Initiative Urging Whistleblowers To Step Up For A Possible Huge Reward (prweb.com)
• Corporate Whistle Blower Center Urges Mortgage Loan Servicing Or Bank Foreclosure Insiders To Step Up For Potentially Huge Rewards For Wrongdoing (prweb.com)
• National Mortgage Complaint Center Wants To Hear From US Homeowners If Their Bank Or Loan Servicer Stuck Them With Forced Placed Insurance (prweb.com)
• National Mortgage Complaint Center Blasts All US Banks for Failing to Give Homeowners Consistent Customer Service on Mortgage Loan Modifications (prweb.com)
• Robo Signers List (theforeclosuredetonator.wordpress.com)
• Conventional (thecatwiththegreenhat.com)
• Re-Finance (thecatwiththegreenhat.com)
• Become a Foreclosure Millionaire (axsmithlaw.wordpress.com)
• Special report: Banks continue robo-signing (huffingtonpost.com)
• 'Robo-signing' foreclosures haven't gone away (msnbc.msn.com)

EVERY PRO SE LITIGANT NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT PSA'S (POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENTS.)

Pooling and servicing agreements (PSA)how it works in Judicial foreclosure states

THE ROOT OF FORECLOSURE DEFENSE The Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) is the document that actually creates a residential mortgage backed securitized trust and establishes the obligations and authority of the Master Servicer and the Primary Servicer. The PSA is the heart and root of all securitized based foreclosure action defenses. The PSA establishes that mandatory rules and procedures for the sales and transfers of the mortgages and mortgage notes from the originators to the Trust. It is this unbroken chain of assignments and negotiations that creates what is called “The Alphabet Problem.” In order to understand the “Alphabet Problem,” you must keep in mind that the primary purpose of securitization is to make sure the assets (e.g., mortgage notes) are both FDIC and Bankruptcy “remote” from the originator. As a result, the common structures seek to create at least two “true sales” between the originator and the Trust. One of the defenses used by the famous Foreclosure Defender, April Charney is the following: PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT LOAN SERVICING REQUIREMENTS: Plaintiff failed to provide separate Defendants with legitimate and non predatory access to the debt management and relief that must be made available to borrowers, including this Defendant pursuant to and in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission that controls and applies to the subject mortgage loan. Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the conditions precedent to foreclosure imposed on the plaintiff pursuant to the applicable pooling and servicing agreement is an actionable event that makes the filing of this foreclosure premature based on a failure of a contractual and/or equitable condition precedent to foreclosure which denies Plaintiff’s ability to carry out this foreclosure. You therefore have in the most basic securitized structure the originator, the sponsor, the depositor and the Trust. I refer to these parties as the A (originator), B (sponsor), C (depositor) and D (Trust) alphabet players. The other primary but non-designated player in my alphabet game is the Master Document Custodian for the Trust. The MDC is entrusted with the physical custody of all of the “original” notes and mortgages and the assignment, sales and purchase agreements. The MDC must also execute representations and attestations that all of the transfers really and truly occurred “on time” and in the required “order” and that “true sales” occurred at each link in the chain. Section 2.01 of most PSAs includes the mandatory conveyancing rules for the Trust and the representations and warranties. The basic terms of this Section of the standard PSA is set-forth below: 2.01 Conveyance of Mortgage Loans. (a) The Depositor, concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof, hereby sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the Trustee for the benefit of the Certificateholders, without recourse, all the right, title and interest of the Depositor in and to the Trust Fund, and the Trustee, on behalf of the Trust, hereby accepts the Trust Fund. (b) In connection with the transfer and assignment of each Mortgage Loan, the Depositor has delivered or caused to be delivered to the Trustee for the benefit of the Certificateholders the following documents or instruments with respect to each Mortgage Loan so assigned: (i) the original Mortgage Note (except for no more than up to 0.02% of the mortgage Notes for which there is a lost note affidavit and the copy of the Mortgage Note) bearing all intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the last endorsee, endorsed “Pay to the order of _____________, without recourse” and signed in the name of the last endorsee. To the extent that there is no room on the face of any Mortgage Note for an endorsement, the endorsement may be contained on an allonge, unless state law does not so allow and the Trustee is advised by the Responsible Party that state law does not so allow. If the Mortgage Loan was acquired by the Responsible Party in a merger, the endorsement must be by “[last endorsee], successor by merger to [name of predecessor]“. If the Mortgage Loan was acquired or originated by the last endorsee while doing business under another name, the endorsement must be by “[last endorsee], formerly known as [previous name]“; A review of all of the recent “standing” and “real party in interest” cases decided by the bankruptcy courts and the state courts in judicial foreclosure states all arise out of the inability of the mortgage servicer or the Trust to “prove up” an unbroken chain of “assignments and transfers” of the mortgage notes and the mortgages from the originators to the sponsors to the depositors to the trust and to the master document custodian for the trust. As stated in the referenced PSA, the parties have represented and warranted that there is “a complete chain of endorsements from the originator to the last endorsee” for the note. And, the Master Document Custodian must file verified reports that it in fact holds such documents with all “intervening” documents that confirm true sales at each link in the chain. The complete inability of the mortgage servicers and the Trusts to produce such unbroken chains of proof along with the original documents is the genesis for all of the recent court rulings. One would think that a simple request to the Master Document Custodian would solve these problems. However, a review of the cases reveals a massive volume of transfers and assignments executed long after the “closing date” for the Trust from the “originator” directly to the “trust.” I refer to these documents as “A to D” transfers and assignments. There are some serious problems with the A to D documents. First, at the time these documents are executed the A party has nothing to sell or transfer since the PSA provides such a sale and transfer occurred years ago. Second, the documents completely circumvent the primary objective of securitization by ignoring the “true sales” to the Sponsor (the B party) and the Depositor (the C party). In a true securitization, you would never have any direct transfers (A to D) from the originator to the trust. Third, these A to D transfers are totally inconsistent with the representations and warranties made in the PSA to the Securities and Exchange Commission and to the holders of the bonds (the “Certificateholders”) issued by the Trust. Fourth, in many cases the A to D documents are executed by parties who are not employed by the originator but who claim to have “signing authority” or some type of “agency authority” from the originator. Finally, in many of these A to D document cases the originator is legally defunct at the time the document is in fact signed or the document is signed with a current date but then states that it has an “effective date” that was one or two years earlier. Hence, we have what I call the Alphabet Problem.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTRCLAIMS RELATED TO POOLING & SERVICING AGREEMENTS 

1. Plaintiff failed to comply with the foreclosure prevention loan servicing requirement imposed on Plaintiff pursuant to the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(5) which requires all private lenders servicing non-federally insured home loans, including the Plaintiff, to advise borrowers, including this separate Defendant, of any home ownership counseling Plaintiff offers together with information about counseling offered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

2. Plaintiff cannot legally pursue foreclosure unless and until Plaintiff demonstrates compliance with 12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(5). 

3. Plaintiff failed to provide separate Defendants with legitimate and non predatory access to the debt management and relief that must be made available to borrowers, including this Defendant pursuant to and in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission that controls and applies to the subject mortgage loan. 

4. Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the conditions precedent to foreclosure imposed on the plaintiff pursuant to the applicable pooling and servicing agreement is an actionable event that makes the filing of this foreclosure premature based on a failure of a contractual and/or equitable condition precedent to foreclosure which denies Plaintiff’s ability to carry out this foreclosure. 

5. The special default loan servicing requirements contained in the subject pooling and servicing agreement are incorporated into the terms of the mortgage contract between the parties as if written therein word for word and the defendants are entitled to rely upon the servicing terms set out in that agreement. 

6. Defendants are third party beneficiaries of the Plaintiff’s pooling and servicing agreement and entitled to enforce the special default servicing obligations of the plaintiff specified therein. 

7. Plaintiff cannot legally pursue foreclosure unless and until Plaintiff demonstrates compliance with the foreclosure prevention servicing imposed by the subject pooling and servicing agreement under which the plaintiff owns the subject mortgage loan. 

8. The section of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) is a public document on file and online at http://www.secinfo.com and the entire pooling and servicing agreement is incorporated herein. 

9. The Plaintiff failed, refused or neglected to comply, prior to the commencement of this action, with the servicing obligations specifically imposed on the plaintiff by the PSA in many particulars, including, but not limited to: 

a. Plaintiff failed to service and administer the subject mortgage loan in compliance with all applicable federal state and local laws. 

b. Plaintiff failed to service and administer the subject loan in accordance with the customary an usual standards of practice of mortgage lenders and servicers. 

c. Plaintiff failed to extend to defendants the opportunity and failed to permit a modification, waiver, forbearance or amendment of the terms of the subject loan or to in any way exercise the requisite judgment as is reasonably required pursuant to the PSA. 

10. The Plaintiff has no right to pursue this foreclosure because the Plaintiff has failed to provide servicing of this residential mortgage loan in accordance with the controlling servicing requirements prior to filing this foreclosure action. 

11. Defendants have a right to receive foreclosure prevention loan servicing from the Plaintiff before the commencement or initiation of this foreclosure action. 

12. Defendants are in doubt regarding their rights and status as borrowers under the National Housing Act and also under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Defendants are now subject to this foreclosure action by reason of the above described illegal acts and omissions of the Plaintiff. 

13. Defendants are being denied and deprived by Plaintiff of their right to access the required troubled mortgage loan servicing imposed on the plaintiff and applicable to the subject mortgage loan by the National Housing Act and also under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

14. Defendants are being illegally subjected by the Plaintiff to this foreclosure action, being forced to defend the same and they are being charged illegal predatory court costs and related fees, and attorney fees. Defendants are having their credit slandered and negatively affected, all of which constitutes irreparable harm to Defendants for the purpose of injunctive relief. 

15. As a proximate result of the Plaintiff’s unlawful actions set forth herein, Defendants continue to suffer the irreparable harm described above for which monetary compensation is inadequate. 

16. Defendants have a right to access the foreclosure prevention servicing prescribed by the National Housing Act and under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission which right is being denied to them by the Plaintiff. 

17. These acts were wrongful and predatory acts by the plaintiff, through its predecessor in interest, and were intentional and deceptive. 

18. There is a substantial likelihood that Defendants will prevail on the merits of the case.

• Share this:

Tags: Foreclosure, litigation, mortgage meltdown, Mortgage modification,Predatory Lending, stop foreclosure, wrongful foreclosure

• COMMENTS3 Comments
• CATEGORIESForeclosure, robo-sign
• AUTHORtimothymccandless

← Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices

Recording false documents ? and getting the house, the insurence, the tarp, the fdic guarentee, and whatever else the American taxpayer will give the pretender lender →

Related articles

• Pooling and servicing agreements PSA how it works in Judicial foreclosure states like Florida (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• What's an Allonge anyway ??? thanks Jake (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• At Bank of America, more incomplete mortgage docs raise more questions (finance.fortune.cnn.com)
• Buying Discounted Mortgage Notes (themortgagepot.com)
• In Michigan Case, Securities Trip Up Foreclosure (blogs.wsj.com)
• Forensic Study Exposes Massive Foreclosure Fraud (beavercountyblue.org)
• Florida Foreclosures: When is it Too Late to File a Foreclosure Action? (brighthub.com)
• Husband and Wife Convicted in Foreclosure Rescue/Mortgage Fraud Scheme -cnbnews.net (gloucestercitynews.net)
• Mortgage Securitization & Clouded Chain of Ownership (tiffanylarthur.wordpress.com)
• Abigail Field Finds Smoking Gun on BofA Securitization Fraud (news.firedoglake.com)

FINALLY! ILLINOIS REGULATORY AGENCY FIRST TO FINE A MORTGAGE COMPANY FOR FAULTY DOCUMENTS

Illinois regulatory agency fined PHH Mortgage $290,000

Posted on June 26, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

 GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

From Housingwire.com

Illinois state agency fines PHH Mortgage in robo-signing probe

by KERRY CURRY

• Illinois woman files class-action against Fisher and Shapiro over affidavit issues
• Texas AG calls for statewide foreclosure suspension
• Illinois judge stays 1,700 Fisher and Shapiro foreclosure cases
• Two state AGs subpoena LPS, National Title in robo-signing probe
• Illinois Adopts Nationwide Licensing System for 2011

Thursday, June 23rd, 2011, 2:12 pm

An Illinois regulatory agency fined PHH Mortgage $290,000 in the first fine levied in a probe of 20 state-licensed mortgage companies.

Mount Laurel, N.J.-based PHH was punished for allegedly signing foreclosure affidavits the company knew would later be altered by attorneys and for signing affidavits using someone else’s name, according to the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.

The violations were found during the agency’s special investigation launched last year, as the national robo-signing scandal arose in which employees at foreclosure law firms were signing and attesting to information in court foreclosure documents that they had not reviewed.

“At a time when homeowners are facing the possible loss of their most precious asset, homeowners have a right to expect their loan servicing company to file accurate and honest paperwork,” said Brent Adams, Illinois secretary of financial and professional regulation. “Time and again, the department has sought to emphasize to loan servicing companies that home foreclosure is no time to cut corners.”

PHH told HousingWire that it disputes the charge.

“PHH Mortgage is recognized as one of the nation’s leading mortgage servicers, and we take our responsibilities to borrowers seriously,” PHH said, in a written statement provided to HousingWire after it called seeking comment.  “We dispute the findings of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, and we reject any assertion that the signatures of the affiants who signed on our behalf were not the signatures of those specific individuals. PHH Mortgage intends to request a hearing in this matter and pursue all available remedies.”

PHH has 10 days to request a hearing on the order, or 30 days to pay the fine.

In at least 19 files, PHH failed to sign affidavits after they had been altered by attorneys and the company’s “knowledge of and complicity with this process is evidenced by the fact that the original affidavits were incomplete and contained notations such as ‘will add’ when they were tendered to the law firm of Fisher and Shapiro,” the department said in a written statement.

The law firm, acting on behalf of PHH, then attested to the completeness of the altered affidavits although they had not been reviewed or re-executed by PHH. The company’s conduct “at the very least, rises to the level of negligence or incompetence,” the state order said.

The agency also said 16 of the 19 affidavits were identified as having all been signed and attested to by the same PHH employee. The department noted at least five distinctly different signatures attributed to one employee, leading the agency to conclude at least four different people used one employee’s name to sign the affidavits.

In December, the department issued a nine-point plan establishing best practices for handling foreclosure-related documents. Among the best practices: Affiants should have the level of knowledge necessary to submit an affidavit in a judicial proceeding and shall confirm that the numbers are accurate. Notarized documents must be done in the presence of the notary after an oath has been administered, and when using “form affidavits” nothing should be left blank, and signatures should be dated.

“PHH has violated both the Residential Mortgage License Act of 1987 and these best practices,” the department said.

The act provides for a fine up to $25,000 for each violation. The state fined PHH $10,000 for each of the 19 files with faulty paperwork and $25,000 for four instances, in which an employee used a name other than his or her own.

In March, Bannockburn, Ill.-based foreclosure law firm Fisher and Shapiro admitted in Cook County Circuit Court that hundreds of its documents may be faulty, noting foreclosure affidavits had been altered without the affiant’s knowledge. In those cases, the content of the original affidavits were changed, and the original signature page was removed and then reattached to the altered affidavits.

After the admission, a Cook County judge temporarily halted 1,700 foreclosure cases. The law firm said it promptly notified the court after its discovery of the flaw.

The Illinois probe is separate from a national probe also under way that has resulted in several consent orders and an investigation into servicers by the nation’s 50 attorneys general.

Write to Kerry Curry.

Related articles

• Foreclosures vs. Delinquencies: It’s All About the Courts (blogs.wsj.com)
• Register of Deeds O'Brien Rejects Fraudulent Foreclosure Documents (firedoglake.com)
• Fed to fine banks for mortgage 'misconduct' (finance.fortune.cnn.com)
• Robo Signed Documents Refused by Register of Deeds (axsmithlaw.wordpress.com)
• States Expand Foreclosure Probes (online.wsj.com)
• California attorney general subpoenas foreclosure firm LPS (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• States expand probe of foreclosure processes (georgegmiller.wordpress.com)
• California, Illinois Expand Foreclosure Probes (online.wsj.com)