Thursday, April 29, 2010

FORECLOSURE FRAUD POSTS THE FABRICATED NOTES ACTUALLY SUBMITTED BY JPMORGAN CHASE AND THE FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP

Foreclosure Fraud of the Week – Two “Original” Wet Ink Notes Submitted in the Same Case by the Florida Default Law Group and JPMorgan Chase

Published April 27, 2010 Corruption , Fannie Mae , Foreclosure Fraud , MERS ,Mortgage Fraud , bankruptcy , cdo , cds , foreclosure , freddie mac , mortgage electronic registration system , securities fraud 12 Comments
Tags: , , , , , ,, , , , , ,, , , , ,, , , , 
Here is a new little game I am going to play. Each week I will be taking ten random foreclosure cases out of the Palm Beach County court house and picking out the one that has the most fraudulent document in the file.
Be it a Pleading, a BOGUS Assignment, a Fabricated Note, a Forgery, or anAssistant Attorney General that works for both the AG Office and a Foreclosure Mill at the same time…

Two “Original” Fabricated Notes?

In my last Foreclosure Fraud of the Week we talked about Poor Photo Shop skills.
This week we will expand on that topic.
Hold onto your hats. This one could possibly be a game changer.
Below are TWO “Original” Wet Ink Notes submitted in the same OPEN case by the notorious Florida Default Law Group.
One submitted by Ms. Ashleigh Politano Esq and the other by Tamara M. Walters Esq.
I am very grateful for this find since it corroborates some theories I have had.
I personally believe, that in most cases, the “Original” notes are purely high quality COPIES. The reason I say this is because almost EVERY “Original” note I examine, the blue “wet ink” signature is always the same odd colored blue. You know, the blue that comes off a printer or copy machine. I have yet to find that same elusive blue colored pen in any stationary store.
I think that the Foreclosure Mills and the Default Processing firms have electronic copies of the notes and just print them out however they need them, or they just replace the last page with a fabricated one that is endorsed to the plaintiff.
Not only that, the last page of the note, in many cases, is a different quality paper then the first few pages.
Now I know these are some conspiracy theorist type allegations, so bear with me and see for yourselves below.
Most judges do not want to hear those theories, so lets take it a step further to possibly opening their eyes.
Remember that these are both “Original” Notes filed in the same case, both with “wet ink” signatures, by the Florida Default Law Group, so they should be identical, right?
I took the liberty on taking screen shots of the “Notes” where I thought there might be frauds perpetrated on the court.
Examine the full Certified Copies below to compare…
I labeled them;
NOTE ONE (Submitted by Ashleigh Politano Esq)
and
NOTE TWO (Submitted by Tamara M. Walters Esq)
I highly doubt that the TRUE note holder had both of these as originals on hand.
Worm your way out of this one FDLG…
There are more to come…
Enjoy!

4closureFraud

1-561-880-LIES
Florida Foreclosure Defense
Law Offices of Carol C. Asbury
www.FightTheBanksNow.com

UPDATE 04/29/10

UPDATE 04/29/10

Click on Images to Enlarge

Notices of Filing Original “Notes”

1st Page of Notes
Payments

1st Page of Notes
VOID

Last Page of Notes
Documentary Tax

Last Page of Notes
Borrowers Signature

Last Page of Notes
Endorsement to Plaintiff by Plaintiff

Last Page of Notes
Original Endorsement to VOID

NOTE ONE
(Submitted by Ashleigh Politano)
Defendant has retained counsel
NOTE TWO
(Submitted by Tamara M. Walters)

Note Two See 4closurefraud.org for Details 
Defendant has retained counsel

For more Fraudulent Activity see the Links Below

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

12 Responses to “Foreclosure Fraud of the Week – Two “Original” Wet Ink Notes Submitted in the Same Case by the Florida Default Law Group and JPMorgan Chase”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address





  1. MSFraud.orgApril 28, 2010 at 12:53 PM
    To support the fact that papers are being created, here is a link to the transcript of the Texas Supreme Court’s MEETING OF THE TASK FORCE ON JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE RULES on November 7, 2007.
    (See document page# 28)
    The following is from a brief filed in the Texas Supreme Court that addresses the transcript with page references:
    The transcript baldly asserts, as is the case here, that the mandated paperwork required to lawfully execute a foreclosure simply does not exist in 90% of the cases, stating:
    [“So finding a document that says, “I am the owner and holder, and I thereby grant to the servicer the right to foreclose in my name” is an impossibility in 90 percent of the cases.”] (transcript page 27, line 16)
    – Foreclosure mill attorney Michael Barrett.
    Note: Mr. Barrett is the same attorney who came after Relator in 1997 with false allegations that Relator was in default and Bank of America was the true owner and holder of Relator’s note. Relator recently discovered that Bank of America was never the owner or holder and therefore could not have sold Relator’s promissory note to EMC as both falsely maintained in their pleadings to all courts, including Respondent appellate court in 2001, and this court in 2002.
    The remedy for when, as Mr. Barrett confirmed “There really isn’t such a document” (Page 27, line 8), was revealed by Judge Bruce Priddy (See State of Texas v. Judge Priddy D-1-GV-08-002311) when he added:
    “They just create one for the most part sometimes, and
    the servicer signs it themselves saying that it’s (sic) been
    transferred to whatever entity they name as applicant”.
    (page 28, line 10)
    First American added:
    “Well, the other problem — Judge, this is Tim Redding. The other problem that I see — and, Tommy, you and I talk about it regularly – that we have a bunch of servicers that are corporations or trusts attempting to foreclose on behalf of other trusts using a power of attorney, and I don’t think that’s really proper. I mean, we all kind of turn a blind eye to it, but I think that’s an issue that’s out there that somebody could use to potentially attack a foreclosure.”
    (page 33, line 5)
    This Texas Supreme Court transcript suggests why many of the participants engaged in mortgage fraud seek refuge in Texas. The transcript also brings credence to Relator’s belief that neither Bank of America nor EMC could have held him hostage to years of litigation unless the court(s) were willing participants in the Ponzi scheme that allowed EMC to continue its proven “illegal” practices, that include, but are in no way limited to, the outright theft of Relator’s home, equity, personal belongings and tendered payments on a debt he now learns didn’t even exist.
    Reply





  2. The693April 27, 2010 at 8:11 PM
    Are blank mortgage and note forms ever downloaded from a computer and printed out on an office printer(water soluble ink) to be signed by the borrower? It seems to me all the ones I’ve seen were actually printed on a printing press(oil and water process). A drop of water on a COPY will dissolve or run the ink. A printing press copy will require alcohol or something similar to run the ink.
    Reply





  3. ObamaApril 27, 2010 at 7:23 PM
    Do any of these federal agencies worth what the taxpayers are funding? Are there any new agencies that would do their job and serve the interest of the people. Get rid of McCallum he’s into this knee deep..Fight for your country and get rid of the garbage starting with the criminal judges and politicians that are like cancer to this society…
    Reply










  5. ForeclosureHamletApril 27, 2010 at 6:25 PM
    I did notify the FBI about this. I was told that if there was any issue with the mortgage being delinquent, then this was a CIVIL matter. Agent Degnan in the FBI’s West Palm Beach, Florida office assured me that the judge in the foreclosure case would review the files and would help sort it all out. He admonished me for being so insistent that this was a criminal matter for investigation by reminding me that the only thing that would matter to the prosecutor would be if the mortgage was current or not.
    “Ma’am, you are not listening to me! This is CIVIL! Ma’am, did you not hear yourself? The mortgage is not being paid.”
    “Sir, do you ALWAYS ask about the personal finances of all crime victims before you are willing to even look at the evidence when a complaint is called in? Do you not understand that there is counterfeit promissory notes being fabricated and used as evidence of proof of a debt that may not exist at all, let alone to the entity that is doing counterfeiting the evidence?”
    “Again, Ma’am, you said that there is a problem in that the mortgage isn’t being paid.”
    And with that………..my last vestige of faith and belief in my country was blown to smithereens.
    As my good friend tells me all the time, “It’s up to us and we are going to get the job done.”
    L
    ForeclosureHamlet.org
    Reply





    • Gordon BrooksApril 27, 2010 at 8:20 PM
      Perhaps it’s time to try the local authorities. That’s going to be my next step in my case, where the same mortgage was assigned twice. There is a statute in New Hampshire that makes it a felony to tamper with recordable instruments.
      Reply





    • Incognito123April 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM
      Well L, you did the right thing, I think I would file a complaint against the agent, as there in fact may be a civil issue, BUT, the filing of two ‘original’ notes IS criminal, plain and simple.
      Reply





  6. stopGOVTwasteApril 27, 2010 at 4:09 PM
    ASHLEIGH POLITANO… what say you?
    TAMARA WALTERS… what say you?
    MR ECHIEVERRA… what say you?
    AG MCCOLLUM… what say you?
    WTF is the FBI DOING? HOW ABOUT FDLE???
    HELEN KELLER COULD SEE THERE IS FRAUD RAMPANT THROUGHOUT OUR COURT SYSTEM… ARE THESE PEOPLE COMPLICIT OR WHAT?
    Reply





  7. dormanmomApril 27, 2010 at 3:43 PM
    Please tell me this woman did not lose her home, PLEASE!
    Reply

  1. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum Launches Investigations into Florida Default Law Group and Docx, LLC a/k/a Lender Processing Services « Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the KnowledgeTrackback on April 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM
  2. When is an “Original” Note Not THE “Original” Note? | Matt Weidner BlogTrackback on April 27, 2010 at 5:25 PM
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)