You are on page 1of 103

ROBO-LAWYERS

& ROBO-
WITNESS
COMMIT FRAUD
ON A FLORIDA
COURT

1/22/17 Fraud, Fabricated Evidence & Perjury

McGlinchy Stafford Robo-Lawyers Kathleen Angione & Daniel Pasky Go


Over The Top To Intentionally Deceive A Good, Honorable & Inquisitive
Judge In A Volusia County, Florida Court With the Known Introduction
of Fabricated Evidence & the Subornation of Perjury by known Robo-
Witness, Lawrence Nardi of Select Portfolio Servicing f/k/a Fairbanks
Capital in Volusia County, Florida Case No. 2010-30059 CICI
Consolidated With Case No. 2013-31253 CICI.
COPYRIGHT 2017 NYE LAVALLE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED foreclosurefraudexpert@gmail.com
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

Table of Contents
Historical Perspective .............................................................................................................................3
Securitization Fail or Securitization Fraud? ............................................................................................8
Allonge & Endorsement Fabrication .............................................................................................................................................. 8
Mortgage Bankings Dirty Secret of Clean Files .................................................................................................................. 10
Are Uniform Notes Actually Negotiable ............................................................................................. 13
Examining A Uniform Promissory Note ...................................................................................................................................... 16
Two Note Fraud In Volusia County, Florida Case............................................................................... 17
Synopsis of Volusia Co. Case Claims & Averments ................................................................................................................. 18
Chronological Factual Timeline & Supporting Evidence ......................................................................................................... 19
Pre-Securitization Agreements to Sell & Transfer Note (December, 2005 November, 2006) ................................. 19
Securitization Closing On November 28, 2006 ................................................................................................................... 21
Assignment of Note/Mortgage Provisions & Problem Solving .......................................................................................... 23
Plaintiffs Contractual Provisions & Direction for Assignment of Borrower Mortgage ................................................... 25
Plaintiffs Contractual Provisions & Direction for Creation of Trust, Adherence to Provisions of PSA & Governance
Under New York Law ................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Exhibit E - Initial Certification of Borrower & other Mortgagors Loansa ........................................................................ 27
Exhibit F - Document Certification and Exception Report .................................................................................................... 28
Document Custody Systems of Record & Note Tracking ..................................................................... 29
Chronological Factual Timeline Continued ............................................................................................................................ 33
Servicing Transfer of the Borrower Loan ................................................................................................................................ 33
April 2, 2007 - - New Century Bankruptcy Proceedings..................................................................................................... 34
August 1, 2007 - - Alleged Borrower Default ...................................................................................................................... 34
August 30, 2007 - - Trustees Warn Servicers About False Pleadings .............................................................................. 34
November 30, 2007 - - Assignment of Borrower Note/Mortgage Fabricated ............................................................. 34
January 2008 - - Foreclosing Plaintiffs First Foreclosure Action ...................................................................................... 35
February 2008 - - Stern System Entries ................................................................................................................................. 36
February 28, 2008 - - Subject AOM Notarized & Recorded 3-Months After Execution .............................................. 36
February 28, 2008 - - Foreclosing Plaintiffs Affidavit Shows They Have Borrower Note ........................................... 37
April, 2008 - - Borrower Files Bankruptcy ............................................................................................................................ 38
July, 2008 - - Trustee Warns Servicers To Stop Fraudulent Foreclosure Practices ......................................................... 38
2009 Fraudulent Foreclosures Come to Light .................................................................................................................... 39
January, 2010 - - Second Foreclosure Action Filed ............................................................................................................. 41
May - July, 2010 - - Discovery & Motion For Summary Judgment & Filing Of False Affidavit .................................. 44
August, 2010 - - Trustee Warns Servicers Again to Stop Unlawful Foreclosure Practices ............................................ 45
April, 2011 - - OCC Consent Agreement with BANA Over Fraudulent Foreclosures ..................................................... 46
2012- - SPS Begins Sub-Servicing Borrower Loan .............................................................................................................. 47
January, 2014 Investor Report Shows Note 1 Loan Number in Trust ............................................................................... 51
March 11, 2014 SPS Custody Record Reflect SPS MSR Purchase .................................................................................... 51
May 9, 2014 SPS Custody Record Reflect SPS MSR Purchase .......................................................................................... 51
October 23, 2014 - - SPS Requests for Collateral & Allonge Audit ............................................................................ 53
October 24, 2014 - - SPS Requests Collateral File from Deutsche Bank ......................................................................... 53
November 13, 2014 - - SPS Requests Status of Request for Collateral File from Deutsche Bank ............................... 53

Page 1
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
November 13, 2014 - - SPS Requests Borrower Collateral File from Deutsche Bank .................................................... 53
November 20, 2014 - - SPS Requests Status of Request for Collateral File from Deutsche Bank ............................... 54
December 30, 2014 - - SPS Requests LNA (Lost Note Affidavit) ..................................................................................... 54
December 31, 2014 - - SPS Requests LNA (Lost Note Affidavit) ..................................................................................... 54
January 5, 2015 - - Corp. Rep Subpoena Duces Tecum to Plaintiff ................................................................................. 54
February 15, 2015 - - Plaintiffs Corp. Rep Deposition ..................................................................................................... 58
March 13, 2015 - - SPS Requests Original Note & Collateral File From Deutsche Bank .............................................. 61
March 18, 2015 - - Plaintiffs Lost Note Affidavit Completed & Ready for Signature................................................. 61
March 19, 2015 - - Lawson Collateral File Shipped to SPS & Tracked ........................................................................... 61
March 23, 2015 - - SPS Koch Notes Receipt of File from Deutsche Bank ...................................................................... 62
March 23, 2015 - - Plaintiffs Amended Witness & Exhibit List Filed .............................................................................. 62
March 24, 2015 - - Plaintiff Dismisses Lost Note Count II ................................................................................................. 62
March 25, 2015 - - Plaintiff Files Motion for Judicial Notice ........................................................................................... 62
March 26, 2015 - - Multiple Trial & Discovery Motions & Notices Filed......................................................................... 62
April 1, 2015 - - Plaintiffs Lost Note Affidavit Created by Richmond Monroe for SPS is Intentionally Shredded and
Not Preserved ............................................................................................................................................................................. 63
May 26, 2015 - - SPS Prints MAS1/INV1 Investor Screen from Black Knight MSP System ....................................... 63
May 28, 2015 - - Defendants Deposition of SPS Nardi as Plaintiffs Designated Trial Witness .............................. 66
May 28 June 1, 2015 - - Pre-Trial Before ........................................................................................................................ 66
June 1, 2016 - - Trial & Further Fraud Upon the Court Designed to Intentionally Mislead the Judge ........................ 69
False Nardi Testimony About Note & Collateral File Tracking ............................................................................................. 70
Fraudulent Scheme to Introduce BANA Business Records as SPS Records To Overcome Hearsay Objection by
Scripted & False Nardi Testimony About Boarding Process.................................................................................................. 79
Nardi Testified Days Earlier That Plaintiffs Trial Exhibit 6 Was a BANA Business Record, Not SPS that was Not Part
of the Boarding Process ................................................................................................................................................................ 87
Nardi Prior Deposition Testimony About BOA Business Record ............................................................................................ 89
Nardi Cross-Examination Admits Falsely Admitted SPS Business Record Printed Weeks Before Trial ......................... 92
Nardi False Testimony About SPS MAS1/INV1 MSP Screen Reflecting Bank of New York as Holder of Borrowers
Note Immediately Prior To Trial, Not Plaintiff ......................................................................................................................... 93
Nardi Testified About His Understanding of Holder Status Under Court Questioning .................................................... 94
Nardi Falsely Testified About SPS Record That Showed Bank of New York as Holder To Mislead Court ................. 96
Nardi Testified in Deposition He Didnt Know What HDR Meant ........................................................................................ 98
A Good Judge Led Astray By Fraud, Fabricated Evidence, False Arguments & False Testimony .............................. 100
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 102

Page 2
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness


Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
In the June 29, 2016 issue of New Republic magazine, David Dayen, author of Chain of Title, excerpted
Chapter 4 of his award-winning book in an article titled The Foreclosure Sleuth and subtitled how a sports
agent uncovered the greatest financial fraud in American history. Dayen recounted my decades-old
investigation and research into the predatory lending, securitization, servicing and foreclosure practices I
identified between 1989 and 1999.

Dayen had read two of my reports, released in 2000 and 2001. One report was titled Predatory Grizzly
Bear Attacks Innocent, Elderly, Poor, Minorities, Disabled & Disadvantaged and subtitled the Story of Bear
Stearns Direct Involvement In Support Of Predatory Lending In America (PredBear Report). In the PredBear
report, I wrote that the report documents what is now known to be one of the largest predatory lending,
servicing and financial scandals in America. In my 21st Century Loan Sharks report I wrote well-known banks
and mortgage companies in Florida are lying and providing perjured testimony, false affidavits and frivolous
pleadings in cases involving mortgage foreclosure to courts in Florida.

My report described how predatory lending was not limited to subprime, small banks or mortgage
companies, but that some of the largest banks and Wall Street investment firms including Bear Stearns,
Lehman Brothers, CitiGroup, and Washington Mutual were all guilty of predatory lending practices.

I highlighted how the mortgage industry created a number of special servicers such as EMC Mortgage,
Fairbanks Capital, Litton Loan and Ocwen that were mere toxic waste dumps for companies looking to dump
predatory loans and even loans that were knowingly made by fraudulent and deceptive means. Critical in my
writing then and critical to this report, were questions I asked of lawyers defending clients from what I called
wrongful foreclosure that questioned if the bank or mortgage servicer they were suing or foreclosing on
their clients home owned the note theyre foreclosing or collecting on? This was the foundation of my
Produce The Note strategy that took root in the nineties and rapidly spread across American courtrooms over
the next three decades.

On page 21, I described four [4] primary stages where predatory mortgage lending could occur that
included:1

1. Predatory Mortgage Securitization


2. Predatory Mortgage Origination
3. Predatory Mortgage Servicing
4. Predatory Mortgage Foreclosure

I was one of the first individuals to in the nation to place the focus of these predatory abuses at the foot of
Wall Street and what I called Predatory Mortgage Securitization. Bear in mind (no pun), few people and
especially lawyers knew at this point in time, about the mass securitization of mortgages and especially its
complexities. In writing about Predatory Mortgage Securitization, I reported for the first time, various aspects

1 Lavalle, Nye. 21st Century Loan Sharks. Rep. Boca Raton, FL: Americans Against Mortgage Abuse, 2000. Print.

Page 3
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
of the process that are now widely known and recognized by my colleagues as the securitization fail
scenario and what I now call securitization fraud! In the report, I wrote the following about Predatory
Mortgage Securitization:2
Predatory Mortgage Securitization is a major phase of Predatory Mortgage Lending. In most cases, its the first phase
and step of the predatory mortgage lending process. Think of it like the drug traffickers and producers of the Colombian
drug cartel. They produce, manufacture and distribute the drug and offer protection and enforcement.

If the drugs werent manufactured, distributed and protections in place to guarantee their distribution to the local and
street dealers for sale to drug addicts, we wouldnt have a drug problem in America. Large-scale local operations would
be too easily detectable to local authorities.

Think of certain Wall Street investment banks in the same vein as the Colombian Drug Cartel. Local mortgage companies
or brokers would be broke [pardon the pun] if not for the supply of ready cash available to these brokers and to
unscrupulous home contractors. Without the purchase of notes, deeds and other financial instruments in whats termed
subprime and B & C credit markets by the Wall Street firms, the brokers would have no supply of money.

The Wall Street firms sell various securitizations of mortgage backed securities and derivative products to institutional
investors such as mutual funds, banks, pension funds and corporations. Many leaders and executives of the purchasers of
this subprime paper dont even know the effects of what their purchase is doing to millions of Americans.

Their CFOs and brokers charged with that responsibility only examine the return on investment of such security products
and not the risks, effects and social consequences of such investments. While some may be concerned about the various
social consequences, the firms should more closely monitor what predatory financiers are selling. The risks may be far
larger than stated, analyzed or contemplated.

I wrote about how my investigation and analysis found twenty-three (23) various predatory mortgage
securitization practices that I outlined in numerical order. Below are the most pertinent predatory mortgage
securitization practices with their corresponding numbers that are pertinent to this report with certain practices
related to this case, accentuated and highlighted:3
1. Securitizations that are termed and classified as whole loan and true sales without recourse that are really
financing mechanisms with undocumented side deals and agreements for recourse which may not be able to be
classified as investments in real estate and may have tax and reporting consequences for purchasers;

3. Failing to record in country records the true and real ownership, assignment and endorsements of promissory
notes, deeds and other mortgage documents which were part of sale, assignment or transfer;

8. Knowingly accepting loans and not disclosing to investors problems with loan documentation; missing, altered or
fraudulent documentation in loan file; chain of titles and ownership; threatened legal actions; current regulatory
actions or complaints made about loans assigned;

9. Reporting problems or improper custody, maintenance and control of promissory notes, deeds and other loan
documents;

13. Failing to disclose the details of side deals, recourse and indemnification agreements between servicers, sellers
and buyers;

18. Offering for sale and securitization interests in notes, deeds or other mortgage instruments that the servicer or
securitizer does not have a real interest in;

19. Offering for sale and securitization interests in notes, deeds or other mortgage instruments that the servicer or
securitizer does not have in their custody or control;

2 Id.
3 Id.

Page 4
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
20. Offering for sale and securitization interests in notes, deeds or other mortgage instruments that the servicer or
securitizer has offered for sale to someone else.

On page 27 I detailed what I called Predatory Mortgage Foreclosure abuses that occurred on the last stop
in the predatory mortgage lending train. I wrote:
It is at this stage, that the most dangerous of predators kill their prey. In many states, non-judicial foreclosures are
permitted. All a predator has to do is make a demand of money from you and threaten to take your home if you dont
pay up. It doesnt matter if the predator demands more than you owe, even as much as $20,000 or a $1 million more!
Pay up or else!

If you dont pay exactly what they demand, the predator will tear their victims apart by a series of legal actions that in
reality are illegal. However, most predatory mortgage lending victims can not only not afford to pay whats demanded,
but cant afford to pay the lawyers to fight the foreclosure.

Predatory lenders hire predatory law firms and lawyers to do their dirty work for them by filing a barrage of legal
maneuvers. Many times, the victim cant afford to fight back. In such cases, the lawyers use a variety of tactics to
foreclose as quickly and inexpensively as possible since delays in the foreclosure process eat up the predators profits.
Cutting corners or following the law and legal requirements dont count if nobodys looking or they can get away with it.

Some of the predatory mortgage foreclosure practices I uncovered that are pertinent to this report include:
1. Altering, redacting and whiting out documents, loan histories and evidence;

7. Destroying and concealing evidence, records, documents and complaints;

12. Filing of fraudulent and false affidavits by predatory lenders claiming that they own the note when in fact they
are only the servicer;

13. Filing of fraudulent and false affidavits claiming that they lost the note when in fact they never had control of the
document;

16. Filing of fraudulent and false affidavits claiming control and custody of documents that are not in their control and
custody;
17. Filing of fraudulent and false affidavits that claim to support knowledge of facts not known by the affiant.

18. Filing of frivolous motions for summary judgment;

21. Providing false and perjured testimony in depositions and court hearings;

22. Providing misleading and deceiving documents, records and loan histories as evidence;

23. Refusing to produce documents ordered to be produced.

25. Supporting motions for summary judgment with fraudulent and false affidavits;

26. Using corporate dummies as corporate reps that are trained to avoid questioning and obstruct justice;

In a 2008 report I authored titled Sue First, Ask Questions Later, I detailed the wide-scale practice of robo-
signing in the mortgage servicing industry that I first discovered in the 90s. I did this to dumb the complex
frauds down and get lawyers to once and for all listen and learn about the extent of the frauds and abuses
taking placed across courtrooms in Florida and across America. This report was again provided to the banks,
lenders, servicers, and their foreclosure firm lawyers.

On page 1 of the report I stated that one of the many predatory servicing practices developed was the use
of known false, fraudulent, and forged affidavits, assignments, and satisfactions of mortgages. On page 5 of
my report, I stated that I reviewed over 10,000 assignments of mortgages, powers of attorneys, affidavits,
and satisfaction of liens in public records across the nation that resulted in the following findings:

Page 5
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
That servicers, default servicing outsourcers and their lawyers are forging documents with squiggle marks that are not
the marks or signatures of the actual officer that is notarized to be the signatory;
Squiggle marks with initials only are designed so that anyone can sign an officers or vice presidents signature, instead
of the signatory;
Dozens of variations of a squiggle mark that are consistently different than several or a dozen other squiggle marks of
the same signatory, notary, and/or witness to the document;
Squiggle marks and full signatures that are diametrically opposed to the known signature of the signatory;
The same officer or vice president of a bank or lender being an officer and/or vice president for dozens of other
banks and lenders;
The same officer or vice president of a bank or lender signing and being located in various cities across the United
States;
The named officer or vice president of a bank or lender being a notary public or witness on other identical
assignments, affidavits, and satisfactions;
Pre-stamped assignments and notary signatures on assignments, affidavits and proof of claims;
Second page notarizations that are attached to documents that do not conform in type and style to the first page of the
document;
Automated signatures on computer of both the notary and the signatory; and
Backdating of dates on assignments and signatures of officers dating years after a company has been out of business or
gone bankrupt.

A Washington Post article about the robo-signing foreclosure crisis on October 7, 2010, concluded with my
warning to the industry when the Post wrote: several years ago (2003), on a message board still active on
the MERS Web site, one participant (ME) accused the company of participating in fraud and concealing the
transfer of loans from public scrutiny. The company's president and chief executive, R.K. Arnold, responded
by insisting that MERS actually increased the transparency of the mortgage system and reduced the cost of
homeownership by making the industry more efficient. We're not perfect, Arnold wrote, but there's nothing
sinister about who we are and what we do.

For a decade, servicers in Florida filed fraudulent foreclosure pleadings supported by fabricated evidence
and perjurious testimony that MERS both owned and held original promissory notes as they were named at
the foreclosing Plaintiff in judicial foreclosure actions across Florida and other states. Their lawyers and
witnesses lied in courts. Before MERS, it was the servicers who claimed they both owned and held promissory
notes in foreclosure courts, when in reality, it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who controlled the vast
majority of mortgages.

In my 2010 report titled Report On Fraudulent & Forged Assignments Of Mortgages & Deeds In U.S.
Foreclosures I wrote the following:
One key area of pervasive predatory servicing and foreclosure practices is the spoliation and fabrication of evidence that
relates to demonstrating the true ownership, chain of title, and holders in due course of a borrowers loan from
origination to payoff, foreclosure, or bankruptcy. Unfortunately, it has become a widespread industry practice to
fabricate the information, dates, authorities, signatures and even notarizations contained on mortgage/deed assignments,
mortgage/deed releases and satisfactions, lost note affidavits, summary judgment affidavits, and other property records
and evidence necessary to prove up a lawful debt to the rightful and lawful owner and holder of that debt.

There is increasing prima facie evidence that the promissory notes allegedly sold and transferred to the securitized trusts,
were never in fact, lawfully or equitably transferred to the trusts or SPV and that the originators held onto control and
possession of the allegedly securitized notes and multi-pledged them and/or hypothecated them in other structured
financing transactions. In summary, the note never left the starting line in the securitization race, let alone crossed the
finish line. I have witnessed records destroyed, altered and completely fabricated in order to conceal the true identity of
the real note owners and holders in due course or to conceal the fact that the lien positions were not properly perfected or
that there were transgression, frauds, and abuses found in the mortgage file thus rendering the sale and transfer of such

Page 6
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
notes and loans more difficult and having such paper downgraded in value to B, C, or D paper or subprime as some
call it.

Documentation issues such as missing assignments, lost or missing notes, unattached allonges to notes, incomplete
endorsement chains on the notes, and void endorsement and even double and multiple pledges of the same
note/collateral are far to common-place. False, forged, fraudulent, and fabricated assignments of mortgages and deeds
as well as satisfactions of mortgages/deeds and their release of lien documents are a predatory mortgage servicing
practice I identified many years ago and have briefed as well as authored reports on as described herein.

In fact, after my first reports on the issue in 1999/2000, the fraudulent assignment practice was so prevalent, that it
warranted its own special report that I prepared in 2008 titled Sue First & Ask Questions Later. This report is the
foundation and ground zero for advocates and the governments current civil and criminal investigation of fraudulent and
fabricated mortgage/deed assignments being conducted by the U.S. Attorneys Office, FBI, and Florida State Attorney
Generals office.

Each of the above predatory practices have been identified by other state and federal government regulators including
the U.S. Attorneys office and Florida Attorney Generals office as shown herein. In fact, interviews with many of the
offenders and recent depositions, testimony, and discovery shows that my conclusions were directly on target.

I provided guidance to lawyers, regulators, and others to closely examine each assignment of mortgage/deed as well as
satisfactions and to download them from public county recorders and clerks offices and compare the signatures of the
various executive and employees executing documents. Others have followed my formula and created how to guides on
the Internet as well as reports illustrating the process of fabricating and forging assignments of notes and deeds years
after the fact.

One longtime colleague, Max Gardner, is a prominent bankruptcy lawyer in North Carolina who I have known since
2000 who trains hundreds of other lawyers in the areas of predatory mortgage servicing abuse, securitization, and
bankruptcy. Max has developed a document titled Max Gardners 200 Signs That You Have A False Document
(Mortgage Affidavits & Assignments & Endorsements) in which many of the red flags (signs) I first identified and
documented over a decade ago are listed.

At this point in my report, you may be questioning why I am rehashing all of this prior history and what does
this have to with today? Its often said that history repeats itself. I want to stop history from repeating itself
and another financial collapse and foreclosure crisis I see coming. If we dont get together to find common
ground, Im fearful that the next collapse, that could be from days and months to a year or two out, may be
far worse than what we suffered through in the Great Recession whose lingering effects remain.

We need to drain the swamp of servicing fraud and abuse that has permeated and infected our courtrooms
and the administration of fair and impartial justice. The Bartram decision and the ability to argue that no one
is harmed if the judge tells unscrupulous or lazy servicers and foreclosure counsel: 1) case dismissed; 2) pay
the legal fees and expenses of the borrower; 3) decelerate the loan; 4) accept the borrowers monthly
payment; or 5) work it out between the two of you in a new modification or settlement agreement and if you
cant both agree; 6) come back with your papers, pleadings, and evidence in order and start the whole
process again. There are no free houses today, for the borrower or whatever party youre representing.

The programmed institutionalized mindset of the judiciary that there are No Free Houses needs to include
there are no free or cheap houses for servicers or hedge funds lurking in the background looking to unlawfully
seize a borrowers home, especially a homestead property. We must get back the Courts back on track to
administering fair and impartial justice.

Page 7
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

SECURITIZATION FAIL OR SECURITIZATION FRAUD?


In the thousands of pages of reports I have authored over the last three-decades, I have written extensively
about the failure of mortgage sellers to lawfully and properly convey, transfer, assign and deliver the
original promissory notes of borrowers to their intended securitized trusts. While all of these various
fraudulent schemes are too complex to detail herein, the evidence in foreclosure and bankruptcy matters
involving Bank of America and Countrywide as servicers or originators, reflects that they and others held onto
the originals for the undisclosed benefit of others while only conveying images and copies to RMBS Trusts.

As shown in their own experts report in the $8.5 billion settlement agreement with the Bank of New York
Mellon Bank of America, N.A. has a strong incentive to fabricate foreclosure evidence and testimony in order
to keep from paying out to certificate holders of RMBS trusts a 100 on the dollar for any losses stemming
from their wrongful and/or unlawful behavior in not transferring, conveying or delivering original wet-ink
notes to their designated trustees and document custodians.

Two recent federal actions, involving Bank of America and Countrywide loans, detail the fraudulent
promissory note endorsement and assignment scheme to remediate known unlawful and fraudulent foreclosure
actions are described herein. These are the same practices I detailed to Floridas Supreme Court in my
comments to them over foreclosure abuses and changes to Floridas Rules of Civil Procedure.

The evidence in our possession reflects a complete wanton disregard for the rule and application of law and
subversion of the state and federal court systems by servicers in order to not only conceal their known
fraudulent behavior in our nations financial markets, but their intentional, fraudulent and evasive schemes to
evade property taxes, recording fees, lender liability, HOA fees, code violation fines, and financial losses by
the systemic promulgation of the fabrication of evidence supported by intentionally false, misleading and
perjurious written and live testimony in state and federal courts across the nation.

Allonge & Endorsement Fabrication


I have previously spoken about the trial testimony of a high-ranking Bank of America executive, Linda
DeMartini, in a federal bankruptcy court further propped these carefully planned and executed fraudulent
foreclosure and bankruptcy schemes up to closer scrutiny. Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) is the successor by
merger to BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP. Linda DeMartini, was a supervisor and operational team leader for
the Litigation Management Department for BAC Home Loans Servicing L.P. (BAC Servicing), who testified at
trial before the Honorable Federal District Judge Judith H. Wizmur, Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the District of
New Jersey in the case of Kemp v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., (440 B.R. 624, 628-629 (D. N.J. Bkrtcy
(2010)). In Kemp, Judge Wizmur found an allonge purporting to negotiate the note to the Bank of New York
was not executed until shortly before the original trial date, and was not affixed to the original note until the
second trial date. Id. 631

Judge Wizmur noted that that the new allonge was prepared in anticipation of this litigation, and that it was
signed several weeks before the trial by Sharon Mason. Id. at 628. According to page 15 of Ms. DeMartinis
trial testimony transcript she stated in August of 2009:
Q. Now, you were asked about whether or not the note could be -- was endorsed at the bottom. Is it generally
the practice to endorse the actual note or to use an allonge?

A. Its -- Ive never seen an actual note that has an endorsement on the bottom.

Q. So would you say its normal

A. Its generally more --

Page 8
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Q. -- to have an allonge?

A. Yeah, it would be more normal to have an allonge.

At pages 16 and 17 of the Kemp trial transcript, Ms. DeMartini testified:

Q. So between 2006 and 2009 when you got a phone call from counsel that said weve got a problem,
prepare an allonge, there was no allonge, correct?

A. There wasnt an allonge prior to that, no. This loan, like I said, it was always -- this was a loan that we
originated that has always been within the company that yes, it was sold to -- as Bank of New York as the
trustee and securitized, but there wasnt a need for an allonge prior to this case.

Q. Because there was no litigation pending, correct?

A. Well, because there was no litigation -

At pages 19 through 21, Judge Wizmur personally questioned Ms. DeMartini to clarify her testimony and
found:
Q. So the question is whether you know whether its normal practice for Countrywide to execute an allonge at
the time that that transfer takes place.

A. I dont believe that theyre always executed exactly when the transfer takes place. I believe that it often
times happens that it happens after the fact.

Q. And does it always happen?

A. I can speak that it always happens, no.

Q. So theres no routine that requires internally, to your knowledge, that the allonge be executed in
connection with the transfer of ownership?

A. No, I dont think that there is a norm in that respect because in a normal course of action and for -- and
normal is kind of a hard word anyway -- but

Q. A normal business practice, an ordinary

A. but as a normal business practice with a normal loan, often times there really isnt a need for it unless the
loan is going to continually to be sold, and since this loan was -- yes, it was transferred to Bank of New York
as trustee as it was securitized, but it wasnt that another mortgage company had the loan and then we
bought it from them. Like I mentioned, this was always done by Countrywide and we securitized it and we --
you know, we sold it to them

Q. This was done --

A. --and so--

Q. -- Im not asking whether it was necessary, I am asking whether there was an ordinary business practice to
sign an allonge and the answer is no, there was not?

A. I dont believe so.

Finally, Ms. DeMartini later noted at page 48, In 2-5 that as of 2009, It never used to be to where the
originals were ever requested but lately more and more of the time of day of things around the country, we are
being asked to physically produce the originals more frequently.

Page 9
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
As Ms. DeMartini testified truthfully when she stated original notes from Countrywide loans originated
between 2006 and 2009 were never endorsed. It was the practice in 2009 to create allonges just before
foreclosure trial as a normal practice. Ms. DeMartinis testimony that no notes were endorsed before they
were needed for trial is consistent with the fact that thousands of foreclosures were filed without endorsements
on original notes as I first discovered decades ago and the need to conceal their various transfers, purchases
and even repurchases for the motives stated.

Yet, based on these lawsuits, new court decisions and on my own personal investigation, research, knowledge,
and experience servicers and their foreclosure counsel are still providing and filing false and fraudulent
pleadings, affidavits, and evidence in judicial foreclosure and mortgage actions in the state of Florida despite
consent agreements and multi-billion dollar settlements with state and federal regulators.

What has been most alarming is the concealment of evidence that occurs to conceal differing chains of titles,
owners, and missing documentation. If other evidence showing a different chain is destroyed or if the
endorsement was placed on a blank piece of paper and days, months, or years later attached to a note, then
the servicers and plaintiffs in foreclosure actions may have to answer to regulators and courts for their actions.

As DeMartini testified, it was a common industry practice to create an unattached and an undated
endorsed in blank piece of paper the industry wrongly inferred and labeled was an allonge! The
unattached piece of paper with an executed endorsement upon its face would then be placed in a file with or
without a note, scanned and imaged into an imaging system and then discarded, destroyed, concealed, or
even later attached if necessary, upon default by a borrower when a servicer needed to create evidence of
note ownership or holder status.

Under UCC Article 3, indorsement means a signature on an instrument, not on a blank piece of paper. In
order for the endorsement on an allonge to be valid, the proper document custody process that should have
been followed was to: a) determine if room existed on the last page of the note or its backside to see if any
room existed for the endorsement; b) only if no room existed, a blank piece of paper should be firmly
affixed to the last page of the original wet-ink note, so as to prevent its removal and replacement; c) the
first page on the face of the note should then be stamped Allonge Attached; d) identifying information on
the note such as origination date, borrower name, property address, loan number etc. should be placed upon
the blank piece of paper; and then e) the endorsement stamp and signature should be placed on the affixed
piece of paper to the note (i.e. an allonge).

An unattached to an original note blank piece of paper is not an allonge. An unattached to an original note
blank piece of paper with an endorsement on its face is not an allonge either. If the endorsement is placed
upon the blank piece of paper and then the endorsement and signature are placed on the blank piece of
paper while unattached, all someone has endorsed was the blank piece of paper, not the original note itself.

Mortgage Bankings Dirty Secret of Clean Files


Darrell W. Pierce is a Michigan lawyer for the national law firm of Dykema Gossett. Mr. Pierce served as
member of the Article 9 Study Committee for the Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial
Code, as Chair of the Article 9 Filing Project and as the primary drafter of the International Association of
Commercial Administrators Model Administrative Rules for Article 9 filing offices. He is a frequent lecturer
and writer regarding UCC matters. Mr. Pierce authored an article for the Association of Corporate Counsel

Page 10
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
titled Allonges: Separate Indorsements Not Effective Unless Affixed. In this article, Mr. Pierce exposes the
lenders dirty secret of the motives and use of allonges by the mortgage industry when he writes:4
Secured lenders routinely take pledges of instruments (including negotiable instruments under UCC Article 3 and
other promissory notes) as collateral. Instruments are subject to special priority rules. Security interests perfected
merely by filing a UCC1 financing statement are junior to security interests perfected by possession, without
regard to time of filing or possession.

Security interests perfected by control (possession plus indorsement) are senior to those perfected merely by
filing or possession. Accordingly, secured parties who are relying on instruments as collateral will want to have
control over the instruments.

Instruments may be indorsed to secured parties, but it is a cumbersome process that has to be unwound when
the loan is repaid as expected. It is, therefore, convenient and common practice to have the requisite
indorsements supplied on a separate piece of paper. This keeps the instrument clean so that it can be returned
clean when the secured obligations are paid. The separate piece of paper is kept with the instrument but is not
typically attached to it, though the lender or its custodian has authority to do so, at least upon default.

This practice works well in most cases. Even though the lender is not yet a holder under Article 3, because the
indorsement is not attached, the lender has possession and the related loan documents should cause the lender
to be a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, that is one who can enforce
the instrument as such under UCC 3-301, and compel indorsement under UCC 3-203.

In addition, secured parties in (mere) possession have priority over other secured parties except those who have
control (possession plus indorsement), so the failure to achieve full control does not normally impair priority (no
one else will have possession except in rare cases). UCC 9-330(d). So, even if a separate indorsement is not
initially affixed to an instrument, a secured party in possession normally maintains first priority and has the
power to negotiate the instrument upon default.

There are occasions, however, when having an indorsement is critically important. One would be the relatively
rare case where one competing secured party has possession for itself as well as for the other competing
secured party, so both would be in possession and priority could depend on the effectiveness of an
indorsement. Another would be where the maker of a negotiable instrument has defenses against the named
payee but the secured party, with the indorsement, would be a holder in due course. Yet another would be an
assignment of a note or a casual pledge where the related documents do not clearly provide the lender with the
rights of a holder.

Under UCC Article 3, which applies to negotiable instruments (as defined in Article 3) and which is commonly
applied by courts to non-negotiable instruments, indorsement means a signature on an instrument For the
purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of
the instrument. UCC 3-204(a) (emphasis supplied). Under this rule, a separate assignment document is not
sufficient to create the requisite indorsement, unless it is affixed to the instrument.

Some Michigan assignees found out the hard way how important it is to have ones separate indorsement
affixed. In one case, a separate indorsement was not attached to the note in question and the assignee was
unwilling to produce the underlying assignment of loans agreement. The court held the separate indorsement was not
effective and, because it referenced the unproduced underlying agreement, it did not prove an absolute
assignment was intended. Brown Bark, II, LP v. Bay Are Floor Covering & Design, Inc., Case No. 296660, (Mich. Ct.
App. May 31, 2011). In the other case, the assignee ultimately had two problems after it took a note and placed it in
an envelope with a separate indorsement. Not only was the separate indorsement ineffective because it was not
affixed to the note, it turned out the note was in fact a color copy of the original note, so the assignee did not
even have possession of the note. Without ever having had possession, the assignee did have standing to

4Pierce, Darrell W. "Allonges: Separate Indorsements Not Effective Unless Affixed | Lexology." Lexology. Dykema Gossett PLLC, 20 Aug. 2014. Web. 13
Dec. 2016. <http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=75efc020-16c9-434c-a637-1785a82846be>.

Page 11
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
enforce the note as a lost note under UCC 3-309. Shaya v. Karam, Case No. 308905 (Mich. Ct. App. May 6,
2014).

Pledgees and other assignees of notes need to ensure that original notes are delivered to them, and if indorsements
are separately provided, that transaction documents properly authorize them to attach the separate indorsements
when appropriate.

As shown above, allonges were pre-executed and endorsed on blank pieces of paper and then, only upon
default, attached to original wet-ink promissory notes to provide holder status when in fact, the endorsement
was never made ON the original note. This common industry wide practice is designed to keep a clean file
and not evidence all the transfers or negotiations of the note. Its also an admission that the allonge is only
attached during default when litigation is contemplated and evidence that no endorsement EVER took place
ON the original wet-ink note.

Such an industry wide practice allows lenders to conceal all of the contractual transfers of the original note
and its income streams which occur by contract and electronic data transfers. This conceals repurchases, repo
agreements, double pledges, and other transfers and pledges of the promissory note and its payment stream.
In addition to allonges being pre-executed, they are also being fabricated and forged for lenders who no
longer exist and went bankrupt years earlier.

In a document provided to me before a deposition, U.S. Bank was the original custodian and is named
trustee, I was provided a document that ac excerpted below, an allonge and endorsement were requested
to be created and executed for a lender that was out of business for years.

Some may ask what does this mean? The attorney has already been sent the alleged original note and if an
endorsement is missing, asks for one to be created. Such an endorsement can only be on a separate piece of
blank paper (i.e. fabricated allonge) that is then sent to the attorney after a Wells Fargo employee
executes the endorsement.

Numerous Florida Courts have cited Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So. 2d 886, 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
(quoting Blacks Law Dictionary 76 (6th ed. 1990)) that an allonge is a piece of paper annexed to a
negotiable instrument or promissory note, on which to write endorsements for which there is no room on the
instrument itself. Such must be so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof.

Thus, the fraudulent allonge practices described herein are troublesome for the industry. When there are no
dates on the endorsement; room on the face of the note; no reference of allonge on the front of the note; and
a ta da moment when an endorsement or allonge appear that are different that prior generations of the
note, any lawyer or judge must question the legal validity and propriety of the note and/or allonge
submitted. Evidence submitted. The mere fact that an allonge was scanned and imaged into a servicer or
document custodians imaging or document management system is prima facie evidence that the allonge was
not attached and was scanned as a separate piece of blank paper.

Page 12
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

ARE UNIFORM NOTES ACTUALLY NEGOTIABLE


Another primary motive for these known and systemic frauds on the court was that when balanced, the
cost/benefit analyses showed that it was cheaper and easier to execute the fraudulent foreclosure process
than to admit the actual complexity of a modern foreclosure action. There are also serious issues concerning
uniform promissory notes and if they really are negotiable instruments. The 2001 Amendments to Article 9 of
the UCC codified the common law rule that the mortgage follows the note.

This was not lost on others wherein not only BANA, but JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo engaged in the
same fraudulent practices to establish their standing to foreclose to avoid the heightened proof requirements
under Article 9 of the UCC that could expose their various financial frauds.

In 2001, New York State adopted the Uniform Commission on Laws Recommendations to Amend Article 9 of
the Uniform Commercial Code to include the sale of promissory notes in the law governing secured
transactions and to codify the common law rule that the mortgage follows the note. These 2001 amendments
codified that, upon proof of purchase of the debt evidenced by the executed agreements from the closing of
the securitized trust documenting a complete chain of title for each loan, the mortgages would follow the note
for all the loans in the securitized transaction, without need for further evidence.5

In 2006, in response to allegations of widespread improprieties in numerous communications over several


years made by myself to the Board of Directors, CEO and General Counsel of Fannie Mae, the international
law firm of Baker Hostetler issued a report (the BH Report) to Fannie Mae, that bears my name, to
investigate, research, analyze and address the numerous and very serious allegations I made about
fraudulent foreclosure and predatory servicing and securitization activities and I have historically written about.

On February 4, 2012, the New York Times published this report and a feature on me on the front page of the
New York Times Business Section. In her feature, Pulitzer-Award winning business journalist, Gretchen
Morgenson wrote:6
Robert D. Drain, a federal bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of New York, said in court last month that the
failure of the mortgage industry to deal with pervasive problems involving inaccurate documentation and improper
court filings amounted to the greatest failure of lawyering in the last 50 years. In an interview last week, Judge
Drain said several practices have contributed to the foreclosure mess. One is that Fannie and the rest of the industry
failed to ensure that MERS was operating legally in all states. Another is that the industry failed to perform due
diligence on documentation. MERS no longer participates in foreclosures. But a lot of damage has already been
done, Mr. Lavalle said. Hundreds of thousands of foreclosures in Florida and across America were knowingly
conducted unlawfully, for which there are still severe liabilities and implications to come for many years, he said.

According to O.C.J. Case No. 5595, Fannie held roughly two million mortgage notes in its offices in Herndon, Va., in
2005 a fraction of the 15 million loans it actually owned or guaranteed. Who had the rest? Various third parties.
At that time, Fannie typically destroyed 40 percent of the notes once the mortgages were paid off. It returned the
rest to the respective lenders, only without marking the notes as canceled.

Mr. Lavalle and the internal report raised concerns that Fannie wasnt taking enough care in handling these
documents. The company lacked a centralized system for reporting lost notes, for instance. Nor did custodians or loan
servicers that held notes on its behalf report missing notes to homeowners. The potential for mayhem, the report said,
was serious. Anyone who gains control of a note can, in theory, try to force the borrower to pay it, even if it has
already been paid. In such a case, the borrower would have the expensive and unenviable task of trying to collect
from the custodian that was negligent in losing the note, from the servicer that accepted payments, or from others

5 United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District Of New York White Plains Division In re Helen Racanelli Chapter 13 Case No. 16-22617 (RDD) Adversary
Complaint 16-08254-RDD, Doc 1, Filed 11/29/16 (Racanelli Adversary Complaint)
6 Gretchen Morgenstern, A Mortgage Tornado Warning, Unheeded, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 5, 2012, at BU1, available at

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/business/mortgage-tornadowarningunheeded.html?pagewanted=all

Page 13
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
responsible for the predicament, the report stated. Mr. Lavalle suggested that Fannie return the paid notes to
borrowers after stamping them canceled. Impractical, the 2006 report said.

This leaves open the possibility that someone might try to force homeowners to pay the same mortgage twice. Or that
loans could be improperly pledged as collateral by some other institution, even though the loans have been paid, Mr.
Lavalle said. Indeed, there have been instances in the foreclosure crisis when two different institutions laid claim to the
same mortgage note. In its statement last week, Fannie said it quickly addressed questions of lost note affidavits and
issued guidance to servicers that no judicial foreclosures be conducted in MERSs name. It also said it instructed Florida
foreclosure lawyers to use specific language to assure no confusion over the identity of the owner and the holder
of the note. Knowing what we know now, he (Lavalle) looks more like one of the financial Cassandras of our time
a man whose prescient warnings went unheeded, wrote Morgenson.

However, Ms. Morgensons feature and Judge Drains comments were not the real illuminating light of the
story, it was the report itself. The 2006 BH Report to Fannie Mae concluded at page 35 that foreclosure
attorneys in Florida are routinely filing false pleadings and affidavits regarding the Plaintiffs MERS or servicers
interest in the proceedings and regarding lost, missing or destroyed promissory notes. The practice could be
occurring elsewhere. It is axiomatic that the practice is improper and should be stopped.7 This prominent law firm
reviewed my research, findings and work product and came to the same conclusion that I had years earlier.

However, in addition, the BH Report to Fannie Mae also included a section at page 37 entitled Effects of a
Note Endorsed in Blank which contained the banking industrys official legal position from 2006, that Article
9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), entitled secured transactions, controls the sale of promissory notes
subject to a mortgage. Fannie Mae is an industry leader who sets the national standard for issuing and
foreclosing on mortgage loans, usually documented using Fannie Mae uniform instruments such as the uniform
promissory note used for the Bartram loan. The BH Report discussed an interview with Fannie Maes then
Deputy General Counsel, Daniel C. Smith, who explained:

Fannie Mae's position is that it does not need to appear in the land records in order to have the benefit of the security
provided by the mortgage. UCC 9- 203(g) and its accompanying comment state that the transfer of an obligation
secured by a security interest also transfers the security interest. Thus, the transfer of the promissory note, which is the
obligation, also transfers the mortgage, which is the security interest. Once the note is sold to Fannie Mae, the mortgage
also transfers, despite the fact that the servicer, lender or MERS' name appears in the land records.

Of key importance to the banking industry was that they would be able to increase their profits from the
securitization of mortgage loans by avoiding the costs and expense of recording assignments of mortgages in
the public records and paying documentary stamps to local governments and also avoiding certain states
intangibles taxes that could drastically reduce their profits. The BH Report agrees with the interpretation that
Article 9 of the UCC codified the common law rule that the mortgage follows the note upon proof of
purchase of the debt.8

Before the BH Report was issued, the State of New York, State of Florida, and almost all other states within
the United States of America revised their statutory codifications of the UCC in 2001 to expand Article 9 to
include the sale of promissory notes. The Subject PSA and many PSA for RMBS Trusts are governed under
New York law. The newly revised N.Y. U.C.C. Law 9-109 (McKinney) and the mirroring Florida Statute
679.2031 codified the common law rule that the mortgage follows the note.

7 Mark A. Cymrot & Amika Biggs, Report to Fannie Mae Regarding Shareholder Complaints by Mr. Nye Lavalle (May 19, 2006) (unpublished, internal
report), available at http://4closurefraud.org/2012/02/04/ocjcase-no-5595-confidential-report-to-fannie-mae-regarding-shareholder-complaints-of-
foreclosure-fraud-by-mr-nye-lavalle/; see also Gretchen Morgenstern, A Mortgage Tornado Warning, Unheeded, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 5, 2012, at BU1, available
at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/business/mortgage-tornadowarningunheeded.html?pagewanted=all, Page 6
8 Racanelli Adversary Complaint in United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District Of New York White Plains Division; In re Helen Racanelli; CHAPTER 13;

Case No. 16-22617 (RDD).

Page 14
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
The statutes further provided that, unless the party seeking to enforce the mortgage and mortgage note was
the loan originator, any party seeking to enforce a mortgage and note must present evidence that the
foreclosing party owned the note (i.e. paid value to a party who had the right to enforce and transfer the
mortgage note), and that party is in possession of the original note.

Such an analysis is a question of first impression whether the 2001 Amendments to Article 9 of the UCC
created a Statute of Frauds for mortgage assignments requiring proof of the contractual chain of title. The
security interest only followed the sale of the promissory note if there was evidence of a complete chain of
title and chain of custody for all transfers from the originator to the party seeking to enforce the security
instrument. Also after the 2001 amendments to Article 9, the State of Florida revised Florida Statute 702.01
with express language stating an assignment of a mortgage is now a secured transaction under Article 9,
allowing the banking industry to avoid the cost and expense of recording mortgage assignments in the public
records. Moreover, Official Comment Number 7 to Florida Statute 679.1091 which mirrors N.Y. U.C.C. Law
9-109 (McKinney) expressly provided that any attempt to obtain or perfect a security interest in a mortgage
loan by non-Article 9 law, such as by recording an assignment of mortgage without more, would be wholly
ineffective.9

Despite the clear changes to New York and Florida law confirmed by the BH report, servicers on their own
and/or as agents and servicers of numerous RMBS Trusts wherein DBNTC, US Bank N.A., and Bank of New
York Mellon serve as Trustee, continue to misrepresent to state and federal courts throughout Florida and this
nation that Article 3 of the UCC controls and that the effect of a note endorsed in blank as alleged
foreclosure actions and allegedly evidenced years later, provides them with sufficient evidence of standing
without regard to Article 9 of the UCC.

Servicers and their foreclosure counsel further represent to courts around the nation that every mortgage note
on a residential home are negotiable instruments despite the fact that the promissory notes provide that
additional amounts due under the note are provided for in the mortgage and additional protections the
mortgage associated with the mortgage note. According to the view of my colleagues and I, including some of
the very first attorneys in securitization, this can destroy the negotiability of promissory notes under the UCC.

Virtually every promissory note and mortgage executed in the United States comes from a collection of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac uniform instruments. These uniform instruments are carefully drafted, modified
and put into Americas stream of commerce by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who are under the
conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The provisions and terms contained in promissory
notes, mortgages, and deeds of trust that are developed for each state are carefully constructed to be
construed according to specific state and federal laws.

Courts must determine if these uniform instruments are actually negotiable instruments with the plethora of new
evidence, decisions and expert reports being made available to foreclosure defense counsel across America.
Each uniform note must be examined first to determine if in fact, it qualifies as a negotiable instrument since
specific notes are created for specific loan products. Foreclosing plaintiffs commonly aver that such Notes are
negotiable instruments. Paragraph one of the uniform shows, the parties may have contracted out of the
UCCs definition of Holder. Paragraph one of the uniform promissory note states: The Lender or anyone
who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this Note is called the Note
Holder. Therefore, a party in possession of the original note with a blank endorsement would still need to
prove it took the note by lawful transfer and was entitled to receive payments. Article 3 of the UCC says even
a thief can enforce a blank endorsed note, but that opens the door, it does not close it.

9 Racanelli Adversary Complaint supra

Page 15
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

Examining A Uniform Promissory Note


Lets examine one note as an example. This note is an interest only adjustable rate note that had a five-year
interest only period that was based on a Six Month LIBOR Index as published in The Wall Street Journal with
a 3 YEAR RATE LOCK and 5 YEAR INTEREST ONLY PERIOD that conclusively stated in the heading, THIS NOTE
CONTAINS PROVISIONS THAT WILL CHANGE THE INTEREST RATE AND THE MONTHLY PAYMENT as
published in the Wall Street Journal, a news publication outside of the Note and mortgage documents.10

Moreover, 4(B) of this note provided the defined note holder in paragraph one may choose a different
index based upon comparable information when it stated: If the Index is no longer available, the Note
Holder will choose a new index that is based upon comparable information. The Note Holder will give me
notice of this choice. Thus, a reader of the note, especially a court, must refer to an outside source in order to
determine the value of the instrument.11

Many interests in notes are sold, transferred, repurchased, and assigned during the default, foreclosure, and
bankruptcy processes. Yet, these various transfers and interests are concealed from the Courts, litigants, and
the property records wherein the servicers control and take over the process.

A Note may also be a non-negotiable instrument pursuant to 6 of the uniform promissory note that provides
any loan charge later found to be illegal may, at the defined note holders option, result in a reduction in
principal. Accordingly, the reader must again refer to the outside source in order to determine the value of
the instrument. Thus, if inspection fees, BPOs, or other misc. charges are added to a borrowers account that
are found to be illegal, the lender can refund the unlawfully assessed and collected charges or apply the
amounts to reduce the principal balance of the loan.12

A Note may also be a non-negotiable instrument pursuant to 11 of the promissory note that provides there
are additional protections for the Note Holder in the mortgage if the borrower fails to keep its promises.
Accordingly, the note is governed by and subject to the various provisions of the mortgage that affect the
amounts due under that note.13

Specifically, the mortgage defines the term loan at (F) as the debt evidenced by the Note, plus interest,
any prepayment charges and late charges due under the Note, and all sums due under this Security
Instrument, plus interest as all amounts due under the note and mortgage.14

The mortgage further provides at page 4 under Application of Payments or Proceeds. Except as otherwise
described in this Section 2, all Payments accepted and applied by Lender shall be applied in the following
order of priority: (a) interest due under the Note; (b) principal due under the Note; (c) amounts due under
Section 3 of the mortgage. Such payments shall be applied to each Periodic Payment in the cedes in which it
became due. Any remaining amounts shall be applied first to late charges, second to any other amounts due
under this Security Instrument, and then to reduce the principal balance of the Note.15

A Note may be a non-negotiable instrument pursuant to page 5, 5 of the mortgage that provides the lender
may force place insurance and increase the borrowers mortgage obligation.

A Note may be a non-negotiable instrument pursuant to page 8 9 which provides any amounts the lender
pays to protect the property all become additional debt secured by the mortgage that accrues interest at the
10 Racanelli Adversary Complaint supra
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.

Page 16
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
note rate. Moreover, the mortgage provides the lender may use any insurance proceeds or miscellaneous
proceeds to reduce the amount due under the note. This also renders the note subject to the mortgage and
affects the amount due under the note, all and any of which can destroy the notes negotiability.

Yet, even if the note were a negotiable instrument, the mortgage follows the note doctrine has been
codified by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Essentially, the 2001 amendments to Article 9 of the
Uniform Commercial Code codified the process by which sales of promissory notes were documented through
mortgage loan purchase agreements, pooling and servicing agreements, and the Trustees certifications of the
final mortgage loan schedules. These also documents in the chain of title are provided to the Trustee at closing
of an RMBS trust to unequivocally establish ownership, irrespective of whether the note was a negotiable
instrument or not.

So the question begs, why so many fraudulent pleadings supported by so much fabrication of evidence and
testimony over the years? Why cant the industry simply produce the records we know exist to the benefit of
the courts, borrowers and themselves? After all, foreclosure counsel is always saying, judge, this is a mere
simple foreclosure! As will be seen, there is nothing simple about foreclosure in a modern mortgage
transaction.

TWO NOTE FRAUD IN VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE


A case in Volusia County, Florida may hold the keys for many. Despite warnings by the foreclosing plaintiffs
own trustee16 and federal regulators as well as a consent agreement17 with The Comptroller of the Currency
of the United States of America (Comptroller), through his national bank examiners and other staff of the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Countrywide Home Loans (CHL) and Bank of America,
N.A., followed by Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS) as servicers and/or sub-servicers along with the lawyers
Kathleen Angione and Daniel Pasky claiming to represent the foreclosing plaintiff in the Volusia matter and
countless thousands of other cases before other courts in Florida, historically filed and prosecuted known false,
misleading and/or fraudulent18 foreclosure legal actions.

In the Volusia case and other judicial foreclosure actions across Florida and America, these servicers and their
foreclosure counsel intentionally made false and/or fraudulent averments of lost and missing promissory notes
as well as note ownership and holder status in foreclosure complaints they filed in order to mask and conceal:

1) The true owners and holders of original notes as well as deficiencies and defects in their collateral
documents such as original promissory notes that didnt contain endorsements prior to a company
going bankrupt;
2) That two operative original notes were created, sold, pledged and delivered to different parties
with RMBS trusts receiving only images and 4-color copies of notes and not the original (Original
Note 1 & Original Note 2);
3) Other parties such as mortgage insurers, guarantors, repurchase and advancing parties taking control
of the original notes; and
4) RMBS trusts, like the Volusia County Plaintiff, being intentionally misled and/or defrauded by the
securitizing parties in that borrowers original notes were not conveyed, transferred, assigned,
negotiated and delivered according to their contracted terms in their pooling, servicing and indenture
agreements.

16 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (DBNTC)


17 See Consent Agreement at https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-47b.pdf
18 I am not an attorney and do not provide any legal opinions in my reports or affidavits. Only a Court can ultimately rule on the legal issues concerning this

matter and the evidence and facts presented therein. When I use legal terms such as fraud or fraudulent, in my reports and affidavits, I use such common legal
terms, definitions, and concepts that I have gained an understanding from my years of experience, education, training, and expertise.

Page 17
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
The plaintiffs servicers, Bank of America and SPS, and their lawyers then supported their misleading and/or
fraudulent complaints in this and other actions with fabricated evidence of note ownership and holder status
with fabricated allonges, endorsements, and/or assignments of mortgages/notes (AOM) attached to their
complaints or later provided in discovery as in this matter.

They further misled and/or defrauded borrowers, second lien holders, defendants and Courts with elaborate
schemes wherein they fabricated evidence; destroyed and concealed evidence; fabricated business records;
obfuscated discovery and deposition requests; put forth paid and specially trained witnesses (i.e. Robo-
Witnesses and Corporate Dummies) to provide intentionally false and potentially perjurious live and
written testimony; and created alleged business records not only in anticipation of litigation, but especially
created for the purpose of litigation such as in the Volusia matter.

Synopsis of Volusia Co. Case Claims & Averments


Procedurally, the issues in the Volusia case cases concerned a RMBS Trusts mortgage foreclosure claim and
the priority of a second mortgage lien holder and property owners quiet claim19. The Quiet Title claim
sought to cancel the filed assignment of mortgage/note (Subject AOM) as fraudulent20 and void for the
reasons descried herein. A non-jury trial took place over the course of three separate days June 1, 2015;
February 25, 2016; and February 29, 2016 and sought to foreclose the mortgage securing a note on the
subject property.

For over seven-years, the foreclosing plaintiff traveled upon a knowingly and intentionally false and
fraudulent lost note claim and foreclosure in their complaint and falsely claimed that they held the borrowers
mortgage by virtue of an Assignment, a copy of which was attached to their operative complaint as Exhibit
C and were the holder and owner of a note attached as Exhibit A to their complaint. Foreclosing plaintiffs
Exhibit A to their complaint contained no endorsement and an New Century Mortgage Corporation note
tracking barcode (Operative Note 1 or Original Note 1). This Note, Original Note 1, was markedly
different and/or altered than the foreclosing plaintiffs Trial Exhibit 2 filed with the Volusia Court days
before the first scheduled trial date (Operative Note 2 or Original Note 2).

After seven-years of two false and fraudulent foreclosure complaints in 2008 and 2010; false and fraudulent
affidavits filed with the Court; and numerous pleadings and arguments before the Court claiming the original
note was lost and missing, it found its way to the courthouse just weeks before trial as I had predicted in
testimony would happen.

19 In proceedings to remove a cloud upon title to real estate, the complainant must show with clearness, accuracy, and certainty the validity of his own title,
and the invalidity of the title of the opposing parties. Hill v. Da Costa, 65 Fla. 371, 373, 61 So. 750, 751 (1913)(citing authorities).
20 See, paragraphs 8-9 of Quiet Title Complaint.

Page 18
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

Chronological Factual Timeline & Supporting Evidence


Pre-Securitization Agreements to Sell & Transfer Note (December, 2005 November, 2006)
Factually in this matter, on December 1, 2005, as shown in NC_Borrower_00000278 - 347,21 an Amended
and Restated Servicing Agreement (Servicing Agreement) was executed between Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Capital Inc. as Purchaser and New Century Mortgage Corporation (NCMC) and set forth the
terms and provisions with respect to the Mortgage Loans and the sale and servicing thereof, including the
Borrower loan.

On May 1, 2006, a Sixth Amended and Restated Mortgage Loan Purchase and Warranties Agreement
executed as of May 1, 2006 (Purchase Agreement), between Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. as the
Purchaser and NC Capital Corporation as the Seller was executed.22

In the Sixth Amended and Restated Mortgage Loan Purchase and Warranties Agreement was pertinent
language as to the issues in this matter, especially the original transfer, conveyance and delivery of the
Borrowers Note, whether it was Original Note 1 and/or Original Note 2. The agreement also provides
evidence that would and should be easily retrievable, accessible and available to the foreclosing plaintiff
and any of its agents, trustees, servicers, or document custodians to prove ownership and possession.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (DBTCA), not Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, (DBNTC)
who was the RMBS Trusts trustee and custodian, was to take possession of the Borrower loan documents and
certify their receipt. Specifically, language that identified and defined a Custodial Agreement: The
agreement(s) governing the retention of the originals of each Mortgage Note, Mortgage, Assignment of
Mortgage and other Mortgage Loan with DBTCA reflects that was it DBTCA, not DBNTC that was to first
receive the Borrower original note documents prior to securitization and then to transfer and release them to
DBNTC on behalf of the RMBS Trust.

My knowledge of both companys document custody practices is that significant agreements, contracts,
schedules, data, information, records, reports, faxes and other documentary evidence would exist at both
DBTCA and DBNTC that would provide me a good starting point to determine the existence of Original Note
1 and Original Note 2 and exactly what was or not conveyed to the foreclosing plaintiff and for whose
benefit Original Note 1 and/or Original Note 2 was being held for and which note or notes were exactly
was being individually tracked by DBTCA and DBNTCs document custody system of record as well as if
they received an original or a copy and if any exceptions were noted as well as the date each document,
copy or original, was received.

A Price and Terms Agreement (PPTA) was also executed as of May 1, 2006, between Morgan Stanley
Capital Inc. and NC Capital Corporation that specifically states on Page 1 that Morgan Stanley Mortgage
Capital Inc., as Purchaser, confirms its agreement to purchase and NC Capital Corporation, as Seller,
confirms its agreement to sell, on a mandatory delivery basis, a pool of fixed and adjustable rate, first and
second lien, residential mortgage loans described herein (the Mortgage Loans) on a servicing released
basis, on the terms and conditions set forth below. Ownership of the Mortgage Loans shall be evidenced by
delivery of the Mortgage Loans as whole loans pursuant to this Purchase Price and Terms Agreement, the
Purchase Agreement and the Servicing Agreement.23

21 All Documents and exhibits referenced with a NC_Borrower_00 Bates number were filed with this court in Filing #46051595 E-Filed on 09/05/2016 at
09:24:25 starting in Docket #461.5
22 Docket # 461.5 - NC_Lawon_00000348 - 430
23 NC_Borrower_00000461 - 477

Page 19
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
A NC Capital Corporation Funding Memo24 reflects the Investor as Morgan Stanley for the purchase of
8,795 loans with a trade date of May 24, 2006, a cutoff date of 8/18/2006, and a settlement date of
8/25/2006 for a current balance of $1,716,523,939.28 and a total wire amount of $1,758,854,737.60.
The Funding Memo reflected a trade price of 102.2800 and Final Adjusted Price of 101.9516 and was
prepared by Lynette Nagy, presumed to be Steve Nagys spouse.25 The Funding Memo reflects the following
breakout for wire payments: Morgan Stanley $676,783,950.23; UBS $61,562,310.52; Barclays
$115,187,162.40; Bank of America $215,536,799.91; Bear $89,352,858.47; CDC/IXIS
$37,381,484.83; CSFB $367,540,197.90; Salomon $4,844,566.69; Von Karman $136,790,195.38;
and New Century $53,875,211.27. CSFB is known to me to be a common acronym for Credit Suisse First
Boston, the parent company of Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.,26 (SPS) the current alleged servicer of the
Borrower loan in this matter.

On August 25, 2006, according to the Liquidating Trustee for NCMCs Federal Bankruptcy proceeding, the
Borrower loan, note and mortgage were sold from NC Capital Corporation (NCCC) to Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Capital Inc. according to the provisions contained in Exhibit U to the foreclosing plaintiffs PSA, the
Sixth Amended and Restated Mortgage Loan Purchase and Warranties Agreement dated May 1, 2006.
Despite numerous production requests by me for an executed version of this agreement, the foreclosing
plaintiff sought and obtained protective orders over the production of this publicly available agreement.
However, an executed version of Exhibit U was recently produced to the Defendants icase n the by the
custodian of records for NCMC and NCCCs Liquidating Trustee. The last known version of the Borrower
Original Note contained in NCMC and NCCCs imaging system of record, was the version of Original Note 1,
not Original Note 2.

At end of the third quarter of 2006, New Century reported that it had approximately $8.5 billion in short-
term borrowings under 14 separate master repurchase agreements and an asset-backed commercial paper
facility, all of which were secured by mortgage loans held for sale and other assets of the company with
Countrywide, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB) being four of the
entities funding New Centurys purchase of mortgage loans.

Plaintiff alleges to be a securitized residential mortgage-backed securitized trust (RMBS Trust) created by a
pooling and servicing agreement (Subject PSA or Foreclosing Plaintiffs PSA) that for legal, tax and
accounting purposes contains very specific and strict terms and provisions of how borrowers promissory notes,
mortgages, and loans were to be conveyed, transferred, assigned and delivered to the Plaintiff via its
designated trustee and custodian, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (DBNTC).27 Plaintiffs PSA and its
Free-Writing Prospectus (FWP) also specified a series of specific and detailed steps and a number of
agreements and documents that were alleged to sell, transfer, assign and deliver the Borrower note,
mortgage, and loan to various parties along a specified chain that ultimately was deposited with the Plaintiff
via its designated depositor.

According to Plaintiffs own PSA, FWP and my prior testimony, Plaintiffs contemplated transaction would
involve transferring, assigning, and selling the Borrower note, mortgage and loan in the following sequential
chain: 1. New Century Mortgage Corporation (NCMC) > 2. New Century Capital Corporation (NCCC) >
to 3. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. (MSMC) > 4. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. > 5.
24 NC_Borrower_00000456
25 Nagy Bankruptcy Petition reflects relationship
26 Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS) services mostly subprime single-family residential mortgage loans and the company collects on impaired-credit loans and

non-performing loans for clients such as mortgage companies, banks, and bond insurers. It also performs loss recovery and contingency collections and offers
valuation services through its Residential Real Estate Review affiliate. SPS servicing portfolio is worth some $30 billion. Founded in 1999, SPS operates offices
in Jacksonville, Florida, and Salt Lake City. Credit Suisse bought SPS and its parent, SPS Holding, from mortgage insurer PMI Group in 2005 for more than
$140 million. See http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-profile.select_portfolio_servicing_inc.12e6a1b7055b1caf.html
27 See Sections 2.01 and 2.02 of Plaintiffs PSA

Page 20
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., Trust 2006-NC5,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate, 2006-NC5.

At trial, a graphic, as illustrated below, was presented to the Plaintiffs witness from SPS, Nardi, detailing
each step of the securitization process and wherein the witness was asked if he had any direct or personal
knowledge as to the Borrower original note presented at trial, being in the physical possession of any party in
the diagram as follows:

Exhibit U, attached to Plaintiffs PSA, reflected that on or about May 1, 2006, a Sixth Amended and Restated
Mortgage Loan Purchase and Warranties Agreement was to be executed (Purchase Agreement), between
Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. as the Purchaser and NC Capital Corporation as the Seller was
executed. This Purchase Agreement was to contain its own subject Mortgage Loan Schedule (MLS).
Defendants, at my direction, sought the production of Exhibit U from Defendants in discovery to which Plaintiff
sought and secured a protective order over its production.

Securitization Closing On November 28, 2006


The defined Depositor in Article I of Plaintiffs PSA is Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., and the defined
Closing Date was November 28, 2006. Article II, Section 2.01 of Plaintiffs PSA specifies the specific steps
Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. was to covey, transfer and assign original notes and mortgages, like the
Borrower note and mortgage, to the Plaintiffs trust.

Page 21
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

Article II, Section 2.01(b) of Plaintiffs PSA stated that: 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 Certificateholdcrs (i.e. investors) the
following documents or instruments with respect to each Mortgage Loan; and wherein Article II, Section 2.01(b) (i viii.)
specified each of the original and copied documents that Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., as Depositor, had already
delivered or would cause to be delivered to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company including: i) the borrowers original (i.e.
wet-ink) 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 executed in the name of the last
endorsee by an authorized officer that may execute the endorsement by a facsimile signature; ii) the original of any guaranty
executed in connection with the Mortgage Note; iii) the original Mortgage with evidence of recording thereon or a certified
true copy of such Mortgage submitted for recording; iv) the originals of all assumption, modification, consolidation or extension
agreements; v.) the original Assignment of Mortgage (AOM) for each Mortgage Loan endorsed in blank; vi.) originals of all
intervening assignments of Mortgage (if any) evidencing a complete chain of assignment from the applicable originator to the
last endorsee; vii.) the original or a photocopy of mortgagee title insurance policy or a copy of the related policy binder or
commitment for title issued by the title insurance company; and viii.) the original of any security agreement, chattel mortgage
or equivalent document executed in connection with the Mortgage.

As previously noted, I was intimately involved in an investigation and report for Fannie Maes board of
directors regarding fraudulent lost note counts as well as other document custody, ownership, foreclosure and
pleading issues. I was asked to contribute recommendations to Fannie Mae to incorporate in their servicing
guidelines, some of which were accepted.

In the secondary mortgage market, it is common to endorse notes and provide a chain of endorsements on the
face of an original wet-ink promissory note to the last endorsee that industry practice, such as Fannie Mae
and Freddie Macs guidelines, dictate remain in blank. The Plaintiffs PSA also includes and defines Fannie
Mac Guides: The Fannie Mac Sellers Guide and the Fannie Mac Servicers Guide and all amendments or
additions thereto in Article I. Throughout the Plaintiffs PSA, Fannie Mae and its policies are referenced as to
the policies and procedures that are to be used in accordance with the loans in the Plaintiffs Trust. One such
requirement states The Servicer is an approved seller/servicer for Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac in good
standing and is a mortgagee approved by the Secretary of HUD. No event has occurred, including a change
in insurance coverage, which would make the Servicer unable to comply with Fannie Mac, Freddie Mac or
HUD eligibility requirements.

For example, Fannie Maes Document Custodian Certification Job Aids (Custody Job-Aid) provides guidance
to its custodians of which DBNTC is an authorized custodian for Fannie Mae. The Job Aid provides common
industry wide guidance to document custodians such as DBNTC and DNTCA. The Custody Job-Aid defines an
Endorsement as a method by which the authorized signer transfers ownership of the instrument (i.e. Note) to
another party. Fannie Mae requires all Notes to have a complete and uninterrupted chain of endorsements from
originator to (blank).

Critical common industry document custody practices outlined in the Fannie Custody Job-Aid that are pertinent
to the issues in this case included the following:
The signature on the Endorsement must be an original signature. The only exception to an original signature that
Fannie Mae permits is a facsimile signature on the last Endorsement (to blank) when the endorsing entity provides a
corporate resolution authorizing use of facsimile signatures and identifies the individuals and/or titles that are
authorized to use facsimile signatures. The Document Custodian must obtain a copy of the required resolution
from endorsing entity.

In addition to the requirements listed above for Endorsements, all Intervening Endorsements must: 1) Contain the
company name and the authorized signature(s) of prior Note holder(s); and, 2) Indicate (at least one of) either
the printed name or printed title of the authorized person executing the Intervening Endorsement.

Page 22
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
The Note must be endorsed in a manner that creates an uninterrupted Chain of Endorsements from the originator
of the Note to the final in blank Endorsement. The following tables show examples of Chains of Endorsements.

NC Capital Corporation agreed to deliver to the DBNTC each applicable recorded document upon receipt
from each respective recording office, but in no event later than on or about March 28, 2007. Additionally, at
various times, both NC Capital Corporation and Countrywide Home Loans would send DBNTC additional
original documents such as modification and assumption agreements to be placed into the Custodial Files
held by DBNTC for the benefit of the Plaintiffs certificate holders.

Thus, between the Plaintiffs PSA and the executed Purchase Agreement that was Exhibit U to the Plaintiffs
PSA revealed and identified with detailed specificity an extensive amount of document custody data, records,
books, and other evidence residing in both DBTCA and DBNTCs document custody systems of record.

Assignment of Note/Mortgage Provisions & Problem Solving


For decades, servicers have been recording in county records and using in foreclosure lawsuits, void,
fraudulent, pre-notarized, and robo-signed assignments of mortgages and notes. There have been varying
degrees of answers and explanations for these fraudulent practices, but perhaps the following language from
the subject PSA in this case would provide some answers.

The remainder of Article II, Section 2.01(b) detailed the provisions regarding assignments of the Borrower
mortgage and other borrower mortgages to the plaintiff. Per the plaintiffs PSA, on or prior to November 28,
2006, NC Capital Corp was to deliver to DBNTC an assignment of the Borrower mortgage, in blank and for
each Mortgage Loan being conveyed. NC Capital Corp was to cause the Assignments of Mortgage and
complete recording information to be provided to Countrywide Home Loans no later than December 28,
2006 and the date of receipt by the CHL of the complete recording information for a Mortgage, including the
Borrower mortgage, Countrywide Home Loans was to promptly submit or cause to be submitted for recording,
at the expense of NC Capital Corp and at no expense to the Plaintiff, DBNTC, CHL, or NC Capital Corp, in
the appropriate public office for real property records, each original Assignment of Mortgage, previously
notarized and whose assignee was left blank for the Borrower loan and other Mortgage Loans as provided
for in Section 2.01(b)(v).

Yet, in the next paragraph, the PSA says that in spite of the previously stated written requirements for each
AOM such as the First Borrower AOM, merely for administrative convenience, the facilitation of servicing, and
to reduce their closing costs, the foregoing required Assignments of Mortgage, with assignees in blank, did not
need to be completed and submitted for recording in the local country records if: 1) DBNTC and each Rating
Agency received an Opinion of Counsel, satisfactory in form and substance to DBNTC and each Rating
Agency that opined that the recordation of such Assignments of Mortgage in any specific jurisdiction was not
necessary to protect the Trustees interest in each related Mortgage Note being conveyed and transferred or
2) the Rating Agencies notified NC Capital Corp. in writing that not recording any such Assignments of
Mortgage in blank would not cause the initial ratings on any Offered Certificates to be downgraded or

Page 23
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
withdrawn. The parties further agreed that the servicers such as CHL and later SPS would not be held
responsible or liable for any loss that occurred because an Assignment of Mortgage was not recorded, but
only to the extent they did not have prior knowledge of the act or omission that caused such losses.

Thus, unless NC Capital Corp provided CHL notice that the Rating Agencies had notified them in writing that
not recording the Assignments of Mortgage in blank would cause the initial ratings on the Plaintiffs Offered
Certificates to be downgraded or withdrawn, NC Capital Corp. would be deemed to have given CHL notice
that the condition set forth in clause (ii) above was applicable.

However, if foreclosure proceedings were required, the Assignments of Mortgage created under the
provisions of the PSA I highlighted above required CHL or a subsequent servicer such as SPS to record the
previously created Assignment of Mortgage in blank at the expense of NC Capital Corp as the Responsible
Party with no expense to CHL or subsequent servicers pursuant to the terms of Exhibit U, the defined Purchase
Agreement in Article I of Plaintiffs PSA that was the Sixth Amended and Restated Mortgage Loan Purchase
and Warranties Agreement executed as of May 1, 2006 (Purchase Agreement), between Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Capital Inc. as purchaser and NC Capital Corporation as seller of the Borrower loan.

If a decision is made to record the previously created Assignment of Mortgage in blank, such as Borrowers
First AOM/Blank AOM is to be recorded, then the mortgage shall be assigned to Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company, as trustee under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2006, Morgan
Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-NC5. If the required Assignment of Mortgage in blank, such as the
Borrower First AOM/Blank AOM, was lost or is returned unrecorded because of a defect therein, then NC
Capital Corp was to promptly cause a substitute Assignment of Mortgage to cure such defect and there after
cause each such assignment to be duly recorded.

In the event that such original or copy of any document submitted for recordation to the appropriate public
recording office was not delivered to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company within 90 days following the
Closing Date of November 28, 2006 which would be on or about February 28, 2007, and in the event that
NC Capital Corp did cure such failure within 30 days of discovery or receipt of written notification of such
failure from the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., then the defective Mortgage Loan shall, upon the
request of the Depositor, be repurchased by NC Capital Corp at the specified price and terms contained in
Section 2.03 of the Plaintiffs PSA. This repurchase obligation would not apply in the event that NC Capital
Corp. could not deliver the original or copy of any document submitted for recordation to the appropriate
public recording office within the specified period due to a delay caused by the recording office in the
applicable jurisdiction; provided, that NC Capital Corp. would instead deliver a recording receipt of such
recording office or, if such recording receipt is not available, an officers certificate of an officer for NC
Capital Corp. confirming that such document has been accepted for recording.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 2.01 of Plaintiffs PSA, in specific instances
where a public recording office retains or loses an original Mortgage or assignment after it has been
recorded, any obligation of the NC Capital Corp. under these terms was deemed to have been satisfied upon
delivery by NC Capital Corp. to DBNTC a copy of such Mortgage or assignment, as the case may be,
certified (such certification to be an original thereof) by the public recording office to be a true and complete
copy of the recorded original thereof prior to the Closing Date of November 28, 2006.

In addition, Defendants sought the production of a Bill of Sale alleged to have been executed on November
28, 2006 between Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. (as Seller), and Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I
Inc. (as Purchaser). Once again, Plaintiff sought and obtained a protective order against the production of
the Bill of Sale again raising questions and red flags in my mind over the refusal to produce documentary

Page 24
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
evidence, easily retrievable and known to exist, that would prove their rights in the Borrower loan; ability to
foreclose; ownership, and holder status; and/or the ability to reestablish the note according to the averments
in their complaint.

The Bill of Sale was represented to sell, transfer, assign, set over and otherwise convey to Morgan Stanley
ABS Capital I Inc. without recourse, all of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. rights, title and interest in
and to the Mortgage Loans described on an Mortgage Loan Schedule attached as Exhibit A and was to
deliver possession of the notes evidencing the Mortgage Loans to, or at the direction of Morgan Stanley ABS
Capital I Inc. and take all necessary steps, under all applicable laws, to convey and perfect the conveyance
of the Mortgage Loans, including the Borrower loan as well as all interest and principal with respect thereto
received on or after the Cut-off Date stated in Plaintiffs PSA. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. also
represented that it had not sold, assigned, transferred or granted any existing lien or encumbrance on the
Mortgage Loans (including the Borrower loan) or an interest therein, to any person other than Morgan Stanley
ABS Capital I Inc. Morgan Stanley Mortgage ABS Capital I, Inc. was then to transfer and convey the Borrower
note, mortgage and loan via Article II, Sections 2.01 and 2.02 of the Plaintiffs PSA.

Loans and notes sold and transferred to securitized RMBS Trusts and GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac are routinely accomplished by contracts and agreements, not by assignments of mortgages, commonly
known as Pooling and Servicing Agreements (PSA) and Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements (MLPA).
PSAs and MLPAs contain a number of pertinent conditions, provisions, terms, and exhibits, schedules, and on-
going amendments that are often concealed from Courts, borrowers, and their counsel as now is known in this
case.

Plaintiffs PSA reflects that it is dated as of November 1, 2006 and contains a Cut-Off date of November
1, 2006 as well. The defined Closing Date of November 28, 2006 corresponds with the Bill of Sale dated
the same day. A Notice of Assignment, Sale or Transfer of Servicing Rights for New Century Mortgage Loan
No: 100868747828 was sent to Borrower stating that the servicing of the Borrower mortgage was being
assigned, sold or transferred from New Century Mortgage Corporation to Countrywide Home Loans.

Plaintiffs Contractual Provisions & Direction for Assignment of Borrower Mortgage


The remainder of Article II, Section 2.01(b) detailed the provisions regarding assignments of the Borrower
mortgage and other borrower mortgages to the Plaintiff. Per the Plaintiffs PSA, on or prior to November 28,
2006, NC Capital Corp was to deliver to DBNTC an assignments of the Borrower mortgage, in blank and for
each Mortgage Loan being conveyed. NC Capital Corp was to cause the Assignments of Mortgage and
complete recording information to be provided to Countrywide Home Loans no later than December 28,
2006 and the date of receipt by the CHL of the complete recording information for a Mortgage, including the
Borrower mortgage, Countrywide Home Loans was to promptly submit or cause to be submitted for recording,
at the expense of NC Capital Corp and at no expense to the Plaintiff, DBNTC, CHL, or NC Capital Corp, in
the appropriate public office for real property records, each original Assignment of Mortgage, previously
notarized and whose assignee was left blank for the Borrower loan and other Mortgage Loans as provided
for in Section 2.01(b)(v).

Yet, in the next paragraph, the PSA says that in spite of the previously stated written requirements for each
AOM such as the First Borrower AOM, merely for administrative convenience, the facilitation of servicing, and
to reduce their closing costs, the foregoing required Assignments of Mortgage, with assignees in blank, did not
need to be completed and submitted for recording in the local country records if: 1) DBNTC and each Rating
Agency received an Opinion of Counsel, satisfactory in form and substance to DBNTC and each Rating

28 NC_Borrower_00000002 of Exhibit 1.

Page 25
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Agency that opined that the recordation of such Assignments of Mortgage in any specific jurisdiction was not
necessary to protect the Trustees interest in each related Mortgage Note being conveyed and transferred or
2) the Rating Agencies notified NC Capital Corp. in writing that not recording any such Assignments of
Mortgage in blank would not cause the initial ratings on any Offered Certificates to be downgraded or
withdrawn. The parties further agreed that the servicers such as CHL and later SPS would not be held
responsible or liable for any loss that occurred because an Assignment of Mortgage was not recorded, but
only to the extent they did not have prior knowledge of the act or omission that caused such losses.

Unless NC Capital Corp provided CHL notice that the Rating Agencies had notified them in writing that not
recording the Assignments of Mortgage in blank would cause the initial ratings on the Plaintiffs Offered
Certificates to be downgraded or withdrawn, NC Capital Corp. would be deemed to have given CHL notice
that the condition set forth in clause (ii) above was applicable.

However, if foreclosure proceedings were required, the Assignments of Mortgage created under the
provisions of the PSA I highlighted above required CHL or a subsequent servicer such as SPS to record the
previously created Assignment of Mortgage in blank at the expense of NC Capital Corp as the Responsible
Party with no expense to CHL or subsequent servicers pursuant to the terms of Exhibit U, the defined Purchase
Agreement in Article I of Plaintiffs PSA that was the Sixth Amended and Restated Mortgage Loan Purchase
and Warranties Agreement executed as of May 1, 2006 (Purchase Agreement), between Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Capital Inc. as purchaser and NC Capital Corporation as seller of the Borrower loan.

If a decision is made to record the previously created Assignment of Mortgage in blank, such as Borrowers
First AOM/Blank AOM is to be recorded, then the mortgage shall be assigned to Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company, as trustee under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2006, Morgan
Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-NC5. If the required Assignment of Mortgage in blank, such as the
Borrower First AOM/Blank AOM, was lost or is returned unrecorded because of a defect therein, then NC
Capital Corp was to promptly cause a substitute Assignment of Mortgage to cure such defect and there after
cause each such assignment to be duly recorded.

In the event that such original or copy of any document submitted for recordation to the appropriate public
recording office was not delivered to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company within 90 days following the
Closing Date of November 28, 2006 which would be on or about February 28, 2007, and in the event that
NC Capital Corp did cure such failure within 30 days of discovery or receipt of written notification of such
failure from the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., then the defective Mortgage Loan shall, upon the
request of the Depositor, be repurchased by NC Capital Corp at the specified price and terms contained in
Section 2.03 of the Plaintiffs PSA. This repurchase obligation would not apply in the event that NC Capital
Corp. could not deliver the original or copy of any document submitted for recordation to the appropriate
public recording office within the specified period due to a delay caused by the recording office in the
applicable jurisdiction; provided, that NC Capital Corp. would instead deliver a recording receipt of such
recording office or, if such recording receipt is not available, an officers certificate of an officer for NC
Capital Corp. confirming that such document has been accepted for recording.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 2.01 of Plaintiffs PSA, in specific instances
where a public recording office retains or loses an original Mortgage or assignment after it has been
recorded, any obligation of the NC Capital Corp. under these terms was deemed to have been satisfied upon
delivery by NC Capital Corp. to DBNTC a copy of such Mortgage or assignment, as the case may be,
certified (such certification to be an original thereof) by the public recording office to be a true and complete
copy of the recorded original thereof prior to the Closing Date of November 28, 2006.

Page 26
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Plaintiffs Contractual Provisions & Direction for Creation of Trust, Adherence to Provisions of
PSA & Governance Under New York Law
Section 2.01(c) of Plaintiffs PSA stated that NC Capital Corp, pursuant the provisions of Plaintiffs PSA and
the laws of the State of New York, was establishing an express trust (Plaintiffs Trust) to be commonly known
and referred to as the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-NC5 and that Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company was appointed as Trustee in accordance with the provisions of Plaintiffs PSA and that the
parties to the Plaintiffs PSA acknowledged and agreed that it was the policy and intention of the Plaintiffs
Trust to acquire only Mortgage Loans meeting the specific requirements set forth in Plaintiffs PSA, including
without limitation, the representations and warranties set forth in paragraph (aaa) of Schedule III, the
Representations and Warranties of NC Capital Corp. as to the Mortgage Loans, including the Borrower loan,
if applicable. The Plaintiff Trusts fiscal year was set as the calendar year.

Plaintiffs Contractual Provisions & Direction for Capacity, Power, & Authority of Trustee to Accept
Sale, Transfer, Assignment, Set Over & Conveyance by NC Capital Corp. of all its Right, Title, &
Interest in Borrower Loan to Plaintiff Trust and Reps & Warranties
Section 2.01(d) of foreclosing plaintiffs PSA granted the plaintiffs Trust with the capacity, power and
authority, via its trustee, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, acting on behalf of the plaintiffs Trust, with
the authorization to accept the sale, transfer, assignment, set over and conveyance by NC Capital Corp to the
plaintiffs Trust of all of NC Capital Corporations right, title and interest in and to the Trust Fund created,
including, the Borrower loan and each Mortgage Loan being conveyed as well as the Representations and
Warranties Agreement, pursuant to Section 2.0l(a) of foreclosing plaintiffs PSA.

Plaintiffs Contractual Provisions & Direction to Trustee for Delivery, Acceptance, Receipt,
Acknowledgement, Review, Analysis, Inventory, Certification & Exception Reporting of the Borrower
Note & Collateral File
Article II, Section 2.02 of foreclosing plaintiffs PSA labeled Acceptance by the Trustee of the Mortgage
Loans clearly provided contractual direction and specific time deadlines related to the delivery, receipt and
review of the original note other collateral documents for Borrower and other borrowers as well as their
subsequent inventory and reporting requirements. Specifically, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, not
Countrywide Home Loans, was to act as document custodian for the Plaintiff.

Exhibit E - Initial Certification of Borrower & other Mortgagors Loansa


As a first step in the document custody process, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company was obligated to
initially acknowledge, in a form consistent with Exhibit E of Plaintiffs PSA, that in accordance with Section
2.02 of their PSA, for each Mortgage Loan listed in foreclosing plaintiffs Mortgage Loan Schedule
accompanying the PSA, including the Borrower loan, that Deutsche Bank National Trust Company had
received by the Closing Date: 1) the Borrower original note endorsed Pay to the order of _________,
without recourse; and 2) an executed assignment of the Mortgage that could be included in a blanket
assignment or assignments. The Initial Certification language contained in Exhibit E was rather simple and
merely sought to confirm receipt of the documents and that based on their review and of the original note and
mortgage, the documents appear regular on their face and related to such Mortgage Loan identified in the
foreclosing plaintiffs MLS. In essence, DBNTC was merely matching the receipt of paper loan collateral files,
and their corresponding loan and identification numbers, to the MLS data tape provided that listed each loan
that was intended to be transferred and contained in the Plaintiffs Trust.

However, of critical interest and import to the issues presented in this case, is the representation, or in reality,
the lack of representations DBNTC makes in the initial certification about the character of the original notes

Page 27
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
and mortgages as well as their authenticity, legitimacy, and validity. It was if DBNTC, was fully aware of the
various defects and deficiencies with the Borrower original note and/or mortgage as well as other borrowers
and the false claims of lost notes; forgery of two original notes or the 4-color copying of originals and
pawning them off as originals; double-pledges of the notes; fabricated allonges and endorsements, and
fabricated and void assignments of mortgage that were to come.

In its Initial Certifications, DBNTC is unequivocal that it makes no independent examination of any documents
contained in each Mortgage File beyond the review specifically required in the PSA and makes no
representations as to: the validity, legality, sufficiency, enforceability or genuineness of any of the documents
contained in each Mortgage File, including the Borrower original note. DBNTC also made no representation as
to the collectability, insurability, effectiveness or suitability of any of the Mortgage Loans transferred nor any
representations as to whether: 1) any endorsement is sufficient to transfer all right, title and interest of the party
so endorsing, as Noteholder or assignee thereof, in and to each Mortgage Note; or 2) any assignment is in
recordable form or sufficient to effect the assignment of and transfer to the assignee thereof, under the
Mortgage to which the assignment relates.

It was if DBNTC has a crystal ball, back in November of 2006, of the many legal issues and unlawful conduct
that was to come, or had full and complete knowledge of the schemes and wanted to legally distance
themselves, while still going along with the scheme turning a willful blind eye to such abuses. The DBNTC Initial
Certification was extremely relevant and important for me to determine if DBNTC received either version of
the Borrower original note (Original Note 1 or 2) and the First AOM or another version of a Borrower AOM
prior to or at closing of the Plaintiffs Trust. It was requested from the Plaintiff, DBNTC, and SPS in numerous
discovery and deposition duces tecum requests and each time the foreclosing plaintiff sought and obtained
protective orders over this vital and extremely relevant evidence that should be easily, inexpensively and
immediately retrievable from various sources who had copies, images and electronic versions of Exhibit E
related to the Borrower note, mortgage and loan, but especially DBNTC and their document custody and
tracking system of record.

According to this provision of the foreclosing plaintiffs PSA, DBNTC was required to deliver to Morgan
Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., a facsimile of the Initial Certification prior to the Closing Date of November 28,
2006 that either would or would not have not included the Borrower loan and answered my initial questions
about receipt of one or more versions of the Borrower original note. DBNTC was also required to deliver to
Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., an original of the Initial Certification the next Business Day after the
Closing Date of November 28, 2006. Thus, there should be at least two (2) versions of this vital evidence that
should have been preserved by numerous parties on both the sending and receiving end of each document.

Exhibit F - Document Certification and Exception Report


In addition to the Initial Certification, DBNTC, not Countywide Home Loans, was to deliver to Morgan Stanley
ABS Capital I Inc., on or before approximately February 28, 2007, a Document Certification and Exception
Report in a form identical or similar to the form attached to Plaintiffs PSA as Exhibit F. Exhibit F was more
comprehensive than the prior Initial Certification in Exhibit E, but similar in style and format. The DBNTC
prepared Document Exception Report in Exhibit F would state that: in accordance with Section 2.02 DBNTC,
not Countywide Home Loans, was certifying to each Mortgage Loan listed in the Mortgage Loan Schedule
including, if applicable, the Borrower loan, that they had received: 1) the original Mortgage Note, including
the original Borrower note they were receiving, endorsed in the form provided in Section 2.01 of Plaintiffs
PSA, with all intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the last
endorsee; 2) the original recorded Borrower Mortgage; 3) an executed assignment of the Borrower Mortgage
in the form provided in for earlier in Section 2.01 of Plaintiffs PSA as previously discussed above or if the

Page 28
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
related Mortgage was not returned from the applicable recording office, a certified copy of the assignment;
4) the original or duplicate original recorded assignment or assignments of the Borrower Mortgage showing a
complete chain of assignment from the originator to the last endorsee; and 5) the original or duplicate
original lenders title policy and all riders.

DBNTC was then to certify, that based on their review and examination, the preceding documents appeared
regular on their face and related to the Mortgage Loan contained on the Mortgage Loan Schedule set forth
and defined in Article I of Plaintiffs PSA, and that the information and data set forth on the Borrower and
other borrowers original notes related to: 1) the loan number associated with the Borrower loan and other
borrowers loans; 2) the city, state and zip code of the Borrower and other borrowers properties; 3) with
respect any Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan, the Gross Margin along with data contained in the Data Tape
Information also defined in Article I regarding: 4) Borrower and other Mortgagors names; 5) the original
principal amount of the Law Mortgage Loan and other borrowers loans; and 6) the Mortgage Rate at
origination accurately reflects information set forth in the Borrower and other borrowers Custodial File.

Once more, DBNTC represented and stated that it had made no independent examination of any documents
contained in each Mortgage File beyond the review of the Custodial File specifically required in the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement and no representations as to: (i) the validity, legality, sufficiency, enforceability
or genuineness of any of the documents contained in each Mortgage File of any of the Mortgage Loans
identified on the Mortgage Loan Schedule, or (ii) the collectability, insurability, effectiveness or suitability of
any such Mortgage Loan.

As in the Initial Certification, DBNTC represented and was to state in the Document Certification and Exception
Report that: notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Trustee has made no determination and
makes no representations as to whether (i) any endorsement is sufficient to transfer all right, title and interest
of the party so endorsing, as Noteholder or assignee thereof, in and to that Mortgage Note or (ii) any
assignment is in recordable form or sufficient to effect the assignment of and transfer to the assignee thereof,
under the Mortgage to which the assignment relates.

Section 2.02 of the Plaintiffs PSA also went on to state that: it was to be DBNTC as trustee, not Countrywide
Home Loans, BANA, or SPS as servicer that would retain possession and custody of the Custodial File in
accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions set forth within the Plaintiffs PSA. NC Capital Corp.
was to deliver copies of all trailing documents required to be included in the Custodial File to Countrywide
Home Loans while at the same time the original or certified copies required under Plaintiffs PSA in the
Custodian File were to be delivered to DBNTC, not Countrywide Home Loans, including but not limited to such
documents as the title insurance policy and any other Mortgage Loan Documents upon return from the public
recording office.

DOCUMENT CUSTODY SYSTEMS OF RECORD & NOTE TRACKING


At this point, I will digress for a moment in the Volusia Case Study to focus each of you on what I just wrote
above. As you can see, there is a substantial amount of documents, data, business records and evidence
pertaining to the conveyance, assignment, endorsement, shipment, delivery, receipt, release, sale, transfer,
safekeeping and tracking of a promissory note. This is especially paramount if the note, as they claim is
negotiable, is endorsed in blank and has a value from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

As I have written, for several years now, my colleagues and I have been documenting the failed securitization
issues of banks and lenders not transferring the original documents and promissory notes to their alleged

Page 29
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
intended securitized trusts and owners. The lack of proper transfers and in fact, improper transfers to others
created a series of document defects and deficiencies that included, but are not limited to the following:

Broken endorsement chains (A B, B C, D E);


Lost and missing original notes;
Color laser copy notes submitted as originals;
Two claimed original notes submitted to a court;
A 50% reduced copy of an image introduced and submitted to a Court as an original wet-ink
promissory note;
Original Notes without signatures on endorsements;
Notes with skipping endorsements;
Notes with endorsements on copies and not on originals;
Notes with endorsements on unattached allonges;
Allonges unattached to their original wet-ink notes
Allonges copies and taken from other notes and placed onto a different note
Allonges unattached to original notes with blank endorsements
Notes never endorsed
Allonges never dated
Assignments in blank and pre-notarized and dated for later fill-ins by unknown Assignors and
Assignees;
Allonges in blank and pre-executed and undated for later fill-ins by unknown parties;
Double pledges of the same note and/or loan to different parties;
Robo-signed assignments of mortgages and notes;
Post-dated assignments of mortgages and notes;
Assignments executed with no lawful authority;
Assignors assigning to themselves;
Two different parties claiming the ownership of the same note/loan.

In addition, just a decade earlier, to further conceal the transfers, sales, repurchases and even double and
multiple pledges of a borrowers note under UCC 9, it was common for foreclosing plaintiffs and their
servicers to file knowingly false and fraudulent lost note counts in Florida foreclosure cases before the Courts
started demanding the production of original notes and the Florida Supreme Court instituted new rules of civil
procedures in order to stop the fraudulent rote pleadings of lost promissory notes and demanded verifications
at filing as described in Bertram.

These uniform and common practices lead to uniform and common fabricated evidence and testimony that led
to uniform and common problems and issues for the servicing industry. Thus, one must ask why? Why were so
many fraudulent foreclosure practices?

In the Volusia case, limited and extracted snippets of only two screen Bank of America screen shots from
their AS400 system called a routing history and an instance summary along with one screenshot from SPS
MSP system labeled the MAS1/INV1 screens were produced from the dozens of screens I needed to review.

Each of these documents were specifically created for trial and were printed days before trial and created
more questions in my mind, than answers. In the real world of banking, and especially mortgage banking,
deposits as well as withdrawals in checking, savings and bank accounts in the amounts of a $1000; $10,000;

Page 30
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
or $100,000 transaction would be noted in a system of record such as an accounting system. The same is true
for promissory notes and mortgages. Cash and payment transactions are carefully noted, documented and
tracked. However, when dealing with promissory note, especially those endorsed in blank, a $400,000 or
more valued note (deposit), such as the claimed balance on the Borrower loan, is carefully tracked like a vial
of semen, urine or blood in a DUI, rape, or murder trial. Each shipment, release, request, alteration, and point
of custody is carefully tracked by the document custody and tracking systems of record.

Lawrence Nardi, the foreclosing plaintiffs trial witness in the case, testified in deposition that barcodes that
are only placed on original notes, not copies, as well as the associated data from the scanners who track
each time such note is placed in the vault. It also tells you whose vault and whose safety deposit box within
that vault the note is being kept for. Custodial vaults and systems are created especially for collateral
purposes. Often, the collateral is deposited with a document custodian such as DBNTC, DBTCA and even
BONY for the benefit of those depositing the collateral. In this manner, a supposed neutral party acting in a
trust capacity keeps possession and track of the collateral (i.e. bond or note) and electronically monitors and
tracks ownership of the collateral as well as pledges, sales, and changes on who claimed the collateral via
sophisticated electronic document collateral systems of record.

For example, in the case of warehouse lending, DBNTC or DBTCA would receive the collateral from the
closing agent or originator and would hold the collateral for the benefit of the warehouse lender until its
release when payment was made and inspections of the collateral were conducted to insure there were no
issues, defects or deficiencies with the collateral being presented, such as an original note. In the Volusia case,
we recently learned that SPS parent company, Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB) was the warehouse lender
for the Borrower loan. We also know by the letter to the Borrower Closing Agent that Bankers Trust n/k/a
DBTCA took a security interest in the Borrower note and loan immediately upon closing as agent for an
undisclosed entity, presumed now to be CSFB.

So, as DBNTCs Barbara Campbell has described to me and others in sworn deposition and trial testimony,
DBNTC or DBTCA would often receive the collateral (original note and mortgage) soon after closing and they
would inventory the documents in their system and create various certification and exception reports with
electronic data of their findings and review transmitted to various parties. Upon receipt and wiring of funds
for the purchased note, DBNTC and/or DBTCA would receive a release of the security interest in the note and
mortgage by the warehouse lender and the borrowers note would be moved to a specific file location or
noted in this systems as the property of the purchasing party. This often occurs prior to securitization.

As the note is securitized, various electronic documents are executed and the original note, while still sitting
with DBNTC or DBTCA is simultaneously transferred to the various parties in the chain of title to the securitized
transaction. This is one motive that the notes are always endorsed in blank. The notes and mortgages are
moving via Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements such as the one evidenced in this case by Exhibit U to
Plaintiffs PSA that Plaintiff refused to produce along with a MLS that was recently produced by the
Liquidating Trustee for NCMC and NCCC. The only record they produced as late as July of this summer was
an imaged copy of Original Note 1 with a NCMC barcode and no endorsement. Thus, in preparing for trial, I
wanted to see, review and analyze all document custody and tracking entries related to both Original Note 1
and Original Note 2 and the tracking and custody data and records for DBNTC, DBTCA, NCMC, Morgan
Stanley entities, SPS, Countrywide, Bank of America and ReconTrust as well as each lawyer.

I wanted to see an unbroken chain of custody for not only each original of Original Note 1 and Original Note
2 but each copy, image and scan of Original Note 1 and Original Note 2 to answer the Courts questions it
had previously posed in hearings as to the location and whereabouts of the Borrower note and why it was
claimed missing for so many years. My knowledge of document custody systems and records was that the

Page 31
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Borrower note was never lost and was its whereabouts was always known to the Plaintiffs servicers and
trustees. Thus, the question begs why the concentrated effort to conceal its known existence, its whereabouts
and on whose behalf said note was claimed to benefit?

In my view and opinion, that I provided to counsel, there were two possible outcomes and probabilities based
on the framing of the evidence and pleadings. The Original Note 2 was always in the direct physical and
constructive possession of DBNTC for the benefit of the foreclosing plaintiff and the data would prove that
fact and thus the false pleadings of the servicers and their lawyers would amount to unclean hands as they
were acting as alleged agents for the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff and their agents did not have physical and/or
constructive possession of Original Note 2 when the lawsuit was filed resulting in a ruling in my clients favor
on standing. In these matters, if the known evidence to exist and easily and inexpensively produced, I can put
the puzzle together and advise the Court whereas a client can quickly voluntarily dismiss their claims and save
needless cost, expense, time and aggravation of litigation or they can move for summary judgment.

The evidence, data and records should be that a foreclosing plaintiff should be able to easily, quickly,
efficiently, effectively and reliably foreclose in a summary judgment motion in weeks or a few months. When
they do not produce such readily available records and data or refuse to produce such documents and data
that would prove their case for them, it is a red flag for nefarious conduct and a potential fraudulent
foreclosure action.

The evidence and records now available to me and this Court, reflect a seven-year effort to conceal data
and evidence that the Plaintiff did not receive the conveyance of the Borrower note and mortgage as
contracted for in the Subject PSA and other parties, not the Foreclosing Plaintiff, laid claim then and now to
the Borrower note, mortgage and loan. The existing evidence and records also reflect that there were not
one, but two alleged original notes in Original Note 1 and Original Note 2 that had two different collateral
files and custody records that tracked each for the benefit of differing parties and that the foreclosing
plaintiff only received Original Note 1 and never Original Note 2 and was merely given an imaged copy of
a note. This would be akin to being given a four-color laser copy of a $100 bill instead of the actual original.
Its worthless. The evidence reflects that the two alleged original notes took different paths and chains of
custody and title.

Thus, the production of all images and scans ever made and all electronic evidence in the form of custody
records, including emails and desktop communications is vital since its my view and opinion that the servicers
and lawyers knew of this false and fraudulent scheme based on the evidence and records produced. As late
as 2015, SPS had contracted a vendor, the Richmond Monroe company to create a Lost Note Affidavit to
conceal the fraud that was later intentionally shredded according to SPS own custody records.

To that end, I spent countless hours in advance of each trial date drafting hundred of questions and
interrogation scripts to address an ever changing and moving target. Yet, I was focused on document custody
and tracking system records and data for both Original Note 1 and Original Note 2; images, scans and
originals of Original Note 1 and Original Note 2; bailee letters, trust receipts, air-bill numbers, certification
and exception reports, and other custody records; and the conflicting testimony, records and evidence,
especially those documents reflecting movement of the collateral file and note as well as ownership and
holder status.

The failure to provide document custody tracking data and information from trustees, custodians, servicers,
and lawyers is a RMBS case is a big red flag for not only foreclosure fraud, but note and securitization fraud.
As you can see by the diagram of a document custody tracking system below for a major bank, the custody,

Page 32
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
images, copies and files tied to a borrowers original note are carefully tracked and extensive data is
gathered at each step along the way, starting at the mailroom, to evidence a chain of custody.

We sought witnesses from DBNTC, especially Barbara Campbell, who I have been involved in deposition and
trial testimony with before. It is Barbara Campbells name that appears on the Subject PSA for DBNTC and
her testimony, records, data, and evidence of the Lawson collateral file, in light of her companys written
warnings to SPS and Bank of America about false foreclosure filings, was critical and crucial in my opinion. As
I testified to in prior affidavits, I knew that foreclosing plaintiffs counsel would fight and seek protective
orders over her deposition and trial testimony as well as the very relevant data and business records of the
Plaintiff, not its servicers. In my experience, such actions and concealment of known, identified, existing and
easily retrievable data that would actually prove their case for them, or not!

Chronological Factual Timeline Continued


Servicing Transfer of the Borrower Loan
New Century Mortgage Corporation transferred servicing of the Borrower loan to a new servicer,
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., effective December 2, 2006 that was a sale of Mortgage Servicing Rights, not
the Borrower note, mortgage and loan itself.

Page 33
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
April 2, 2007 - - New Century Bankruptcy Proceedings
On April 2, 2007, New Century Financial Corporation along with several affiliated companies including New
Century Mortgage Corporation and NC Capital Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United
States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware located in Wilmington, Delaware, case number 07-10416 (KJC)
in The United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware. (New Century Bankruptcy).

August 1, 2007 - - Alleged Borrower Default


On August 1, 2007 Borrower is alleged to have defaulted on the mortgage payment of $2,670.42 due and
a subsequent foreclosure action was referred by CHL to the law office of David Stern.

August 30, 2007 - - Trustees Warn Servicers About False Pleadings


On August 30, 2007, DBNTC and DBTCA issued a warning memo to the foreclosing plaintiffs servicers,
posted on the foreclosing plaintiffs own investors website, warning their servicers including Countrywide,
BANA and SPS of false and misleading pleading practices and instructing them in paragraph 4. to at all
times properly identify your representative capacity, as servicer, and DBNTCs or DBTCAs capacity as Trustee of
[insert name of relevant Trust]" in all notices, pleadings, correspondence or other documents relating to the
mortgage loans. REO properties and other Trust assets. Title to properties should never be held, and notices
concerning properties should never be issued, in DBNTCs or DBTCAs name without identification of our trustee
capacity.

November 30, 2007 - - Assignment of Borrower Note/Mortgage Fabricated


On November 30, 2007, in order to effectuate the first foreclosure action against the Defendants in the
Volusia matter, a second assignment of the Borrower note and mortgage (Subject AOM), prepared by
disbarred attorney David Stern, was executed by a known Countrywide Home Loans employee29named
Carrie Hoover, a nationally renowned robo-signer, who claimed to be authorized to act as both 1st Vice
President and Vice President for the bankrupt New Century Mortgage Corporation who filed for Chapter 11
protection, eight (8) months earlier. The Subject AOM purported to assign rights in the Borrower note and
mortgage from the bankrupt New Century Mortgage Corporation directly to the Plaintiff, bypassing the chain
dictated in the Plaintiffs own PSA and FWP that reflected that each transfer, assignment, negotiation and/or
sale should be as follows: Lender A: New Century Mortgage Corporation (NCMC) > Lender/Note Holder
B: New Century Capital Corporation (NCCC) > Lender/Note Holder C: Morgan Stanley Mortgage
Capital, Inc. (MSMC) > Lender/Note Holder D. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. > Lender/Note Holder
E. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., Trust 2006-NC5,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate, 2006-NC5.

As of November 30, 2007, there had already been one prior AOM, (the First AOM/Blank AOM) executed
with a Nagy facsimile stamp on July 5, 2006 as well as an alleged sale via the Sixth Amended and Restated
Mortgage Loan Purchase and Warranties Agreement executed on May 1, 2006 that the NCMC/NCCC
Liquidating Trustee alleges sold and transferred the Borrower note, mortgage and loan from New Century
Capital Corporation to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. on August 25, 2006. The Subject AOM was
executed outside the presence of a notary and was not notarized for another 3-months.

As of November 30, 2007, the execution date of the Subject AOM, neither New Century Mortgage
Corporation or New Century Capital Corporation claimed any beneficial interest in the Borrower note and
mortgage being assigned and did not list either the Borrower note, mortgage, and/or loan as an asset in their
Chapter 11 Federal Bankruptcy Proceedings. According to the evidence recently presented and the

29 LinkedIn profile of Carrie Hoover

Page 34
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
representations of the Liquidating Trustee, neither New Century Mortgage Corporation or New Century
Capital Corporation had any right in the Borrower note, mortgage and/or note to assign on November 30,
2007 nor was Carrie Hoover either a First Vice President or Vice President of either NCMC or NCCC nor a
designated agent or attorney in fact for either company or the trustee of their bankruptcy.

The notary, Patricia Lucas, worked for Countrywide Home Loans and knew that Carrie Hoover also worked
for Countrywide, yet she executed the acknowledgement that did not reference and acknowledge the state of
incorporation for New Century Mortgage Corporation nor that Carrie Hoover was personally known to her or
provided identification proving her identity. Furthermore, there was no acknowledgement that Carrie Hoover
was acting as agent, attorney-in-fact, or under order and authority of the Federal Bankruptcy Court or trustee
representing New Century Mortgage Corporation who was in the midst of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
Proceedings at the time.

Sometime in November of 2007, a decision to foreclose was made by CHL and according to a notation in
Sterns system of record (Stern System) an unidentified file, presumed to be either an electronic or paper
referral file or collateral file, was received by the Law Office of David Stern and entered into their Case
Summary. The incomplete Bank of America Routing History introduced at trial in this case as Defense Exhibit
5 reflects that one or more versions of the Borrower collateral file and Original Note 1 and/or Original Note
2 that was alleged to be received from an unidentified party in their DMS department on December 13,
2007 and sent via paper or electronic means to the Law Office of David Stern on the same day. However,
there is no corresponding imaging system record reflecting whether or not the Bank of America Routing
History is tracking either Original Note 1 or Original Note 2 and no inventory of what was received nor any
bailee letter.

According to Sterns system, on December 27, an unidentified paper wet-ink and/or electronic version of
Original Note 1 and/or Original Note 2, along with one version of an AOM (Subject AOM and/or First
AOM) along with the Borrower mortgage and title policy are received by Sterns office and a title search
ordered on December 31, 2007 and title exam completed on the same day.

January 2008 - - Foreclosing Plaintiffs First Foreclosure Action


I was provided the system notations from David Sterns records custodian wherein I have had to interpret and
decipher certain common industry abbreviations to the best of my ability. I have endeavored, without the
production of the code and legend lists to interpret and decipher the Stern System of Record notations to the
best of my ability. After my analysis of the record and Stern System Note, I provided a table listing a copy of
the Stern System Notes I reviewed and analyzed.

Sterns system notates that on January 7, 2008, a Countrywide foreclosure complaint against the Defendants
was sent for filing by the David Stern law firm and filed with this Court on January 8, 2008 in Civil Action:
2008-30015-CICI. On January 3, 2008, a foreclosure complaint against the Defendants was filed by the
David Stern law firm (First Foreclosure Complaint) and contrary to foreclosing plaintiffs own trustee
(DBNTC) and CSFBs agent (DBTCA) warnings in its August 30, 2007 memo to its own servicers for the
foreclosing plaintiffs trust, including Countrywide, their First Foreclosure Complaint did not provide an
averment that Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP was the servicer acting in that capacity.

Despite having copies and/or images of Original Note 1 and/or Original Note 2 in their physical possession,
CHL as servicer and the foreclosing plaintiff in this and numerous other foreclosure actions, directed their law
firms to carry out intentional misrepresentations in a false and/or fraudulent averments that claimed in Count
II of the First Foreclosure Complaint that: 1) the foreclosing plaintiff was not in possession of original Note and
Mortgage; and a) the foreclosing plaintiff was in possession of the Note and Mortgage and was entitled to

Page 35
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
enforce THEM when the loss of possession occurred; b) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer
by foreclosing plaintiff or lawful seizure; and c) the foreclosing plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain possession
of the Note and Mortgage because THEIR whereabouts cannot be determined. In paragraph 21 of Count II
the foreclosing plaintiff falsely averred that the terms of the Note are shown on the attached ledger of loan
marked as Exhibit B. While in possession of copies, images and/or originals of Borrower Original Note 1
and Original Note 2, Plaintiff, its lawyers and Countrywide Home Loans fabricate and attach to their First
Foreclosure Complaint, Exhibit B printed on Countrywide Home Loans letterhead falsely listing the Borrower
notes principal balance as $394,348.46 when the original terms of the Borrower Note provided a
$394,400.00 original principal balance; a monthly payment amount of $2,670.07 when the original terms of
the Borrower Note provided a $2,670.42 monthly payment. Exhibit B also claimed an August 1, 2007 due
date when the original terms of the Borrower Note provided a first payment date a year earlier of August
1, 2006.

Most recently, in my review and search of other foreclosures throughout Florida involving the foreclosing
plaintiff and Morgan Stanley/Countrywide/BANA securitizations related to New Century originated notes
and mortgages, the identical lost note scheme and use of no copy of a borrowers note and in their stead,
the use of a Countrywide Home Loans Letterhead was found in numerous other foreclosure cases.30

Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, the Stern Law Firm, DBNTC, Plaintiff, their lawyers and witnesses
intentionally mislead the Court in this and other cases by not producing any of the versions of the Borrower
Original Note, whether Original Note 1 or Original Note 2 they falsely claimed was lost, stolen or destroyed
when their own records evidence they had at least an image or copy.

February 2008 - - Stern System Entries


Sterns System Notes for February of 2008 reflect several notes on February 12, 2008 including that service
was completed on January 23, 2008 and a Loan Document System (LDS) reflects an original note in
house. However, it is not known whether such original note is a copy, wet-ink original and/or image if an
original note and whether such Borrower original note was Original Note 1 and/or Original Note 2. Other
notations on February 12, 2008 reflect that no defects and deficiencies have been found; judgment figures
required; and an unknown assignment was emailed. Additional notations reference that an unidentified file
went to Tammy; a Motion for summary judgment was set for April 16 at 9:20 AM; file went to title
department due to gap; and the gap was cleared and file went to Tammy Sweatt. As you can see, there is
significant data entries in the lawyers own tracking system.

February 28, 2008 - - Subject AOM Notarized & Recorded 3-Months After Execution
The Subject AOM was then notarized approximately 3-months later on February 28, 2008 and was created
especially for the purpose of litigation to establish standing for the foreclosing plaintiff who falsely alleged in
their January 3, 2008 foreclosure complaint that the Borrower original note was lost and missing. Foreclosing
plaintiffs own designated corporate representative testified in deposition testimony accepted and entered
into the matter as the testimony of the foreclosing plaintiff, that contrary to the plaintiffs counsel arguments
about the Subject AOM, the Subject AOM had no effect. The foreclosing plaintiff testified about the Subject
AOM as follows: Im saying just because its dated this, it doesnt mean thats when it happened. It could have
happened sooner. You know, it was -- its showing the intent of where the note and mortgage is, is what an
assignment shows you.

30 See Cases from Orange Co and the CHL Letterheads attached as Exhibit 4.

Page 36
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Despite the preceding testimony of the foreclosing plaintiff, foreclosing plaintiffs attorney via SPS witness
introduced the Subject AOM and argued that this was the assignment that gave foreclosing plaintiff standing
in this foreclosure matter despite the fact that the First AOM/Blank AOM was the ONLY AOM referenced and
noted in SPS own collateral file for the Borrower loan with no notation whatsoever of the Subject AOM.

The Subject AOM purported to assign both the Borrower Note and Mortgage directly from New Century
Mortgage Corporation to the Plaintiffs RMBS Trust ignoring and bypassing other claimed, alleged and
contractual sales, assignments, and transfers that included an alleged sale and transfer from NCMC to NCCC;
NCCC to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. via the executed Purchase Agreement; Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Capital, Inc. to the Plaintiffs depositor, Morgan Stanley Mortgage ABS Capital I, Inc., via an
alleged Bill of Sale, dated November 28, 2006; and then a transfer and conveyance via Article II, Sections
2.01 and 2.02 of the Plaintiffs PSA.

The Subject AOM attached as Exhibit C to Plaintiffs complaint, purported to assign both the Borrower Note
and Mortgage one-year and three months after the claimed sale of the loan on August 25, 2006 via the copy
of the executed Purchase Agreement provided to Defendants by NCMCs Liquidating Trustee that was made
part of Plaintiffs own PSA as Exhibit U.

However, as of November 30, 2007, according to the evidence at hand, the Borrower note, mortgage and
loan were already sold from NC Capital Corp. to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. on or about August
25, 2006.

February 28, 2008 - - Foreclosing Plaintiffs Affidavit Shows They Have Borrower Note
On February 28, 2008, an employee of the David Stern Law Firm, Cheryl Samons, as purported attorney in
fact for and on behalf of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. not the Plaintiff or trustee for the Plaintiff, executed
an affidavit (Samons Affidavit) in support of summary judgment wherein she testified in paragraph 4 that
that each and every allegation in the Complaint is true, except that the Plaintiff has recovered the Original Note.
Recently discovered and provided records from the custodian of records for the David Stern law firm I
reviewed, indicate that they had in their possession images and copies of the two different versions of the
Borrower note. As such, on this date, less than two-months after filing their first foreclosure complaint, all
parties, the lawyers, Plaintiff, Countrywide Home Loan and DBNTC were fully aware of at least either
Original Note 1 or Original Note 2s existence and availability.

However, more troubling was that a mere officer manager for the foreclosing law firm was alleging to be
an agent-in-fact for the Plaintiff and not only provided false and misleading testimony, but also did not
attach the records and evidence she was noting in her sworn testimony. In her affidavit in support of
summary judgment to extinguish the Plaintiffs liens, Samons testified that: 1) she was the attorney-in-fact on
behalf of the Plaintiff in the above styled action and has custody of and supervises the mortgage accounts and
records of the Plaintiff including the accounts and records of the note and mortgage herein involved, when in
fact she provided no power of attorney; no record of her supervision or reference to the system she
supervised and when in fact, she was merely an office manager for the foreclosing law firm being directed
by the servicer; 2) she had personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and am authorized to make this
Affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff; 3) she had direct access to or have been provided with the business records
of the Plaintiff concerning the Note and Security Agreement, the Mortgage and other loan documents which are
the subject matter of this lawsuit, such records were made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted
by, a person with knowledge, such records were kept in the course of the regularly conducted business activity of
the plaintiff, and it was the regular practice of the plaintiff to make such records, when she never had access to
the trustees records and data in their system.

Page 37
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
April, 2008 - - Borrower Files Bankruptcy
In April of 2008, each of the two operative notes, Original Note 1 & 2, were contained in the imaging,
document, and enterprise management systems of Countrywide Home Loans (CHL) and in law offices of
David Stern when this Court issued its Order of Stay Due to Bankruptcy on all Pending, Claims and Directing
Clerk to Close File on April 9, 2008 at Docket Entry 26 in the First Foreclosure Action.

Sterns System Notes detail that they received instructions for the bankruptcy proceedings on April 15, 2008
and immediately prepared a Motion for Relief of Stay on April 16, 2008 went to ALD for review. The notes
also indicate that the Motion for Relief in the Borrower Bankruptcy action was filed on April 16, 2008 as well.
A review of the docket in the Borrower Bankruptcy reflects that Plaintiff filed their Motion for Relief of Stay at
Case 3:08-bk-01537-JAF Doc 11 Filed 04/16/08 wherein in paragraph 3 of their motion they stated that:
Copies of the relevant loan documents are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

A review of the exhibits filed with the motion reflect that only imaged copies of an Affidavit of Indebtedness
along with a the Borrower mortgage and riders contained with no copy or image of any Borrower original
note, let alone Original Note 1 or Original Note 2, that Plaintiff claimed they had in their possession. Yet,
entries in Sterns system on April 21, 2008 reads File with Dummy to Samantha that could mean or infer that
a collateral file with dummy original note was sent to Samantha. On April 22, 2008, the file goes to the
cabinet.

July, 2008 - - Trustee Warns Servicers To Stop Fraudulent Foreclosure Practices


On July 28, 2008, once again, DBNTC and DBTCA sent a memo to its servicers, including Countrywide/BANA
that is posted on Plaintiffs own website, warning them to adhere to court rules, laws and procedures and
stated in part: the Trustee respectfully requests that all servicers review the First Servicer Memorandum and
adhere to the practices that it describes, as well as those described in this Memorandum. the increased
numbers of delinquencies and foreclosures and resulting financial losses, have led to a climate in which the
performance of securitization parties is being scrutinized carefully by various constituencies. Against this
background, the Trustee therefore asks that all servicers servicing loans on behalf of the Trusts remain particularly
mindful of the following issues:
a) Foreclosure Procedures: Proof of Ownership of Loans. As stated in the First Servicer Memorandum, servicers must
exercise diligence to assure that they conduct all foreclosures and other actions in compliance with all federal, state,
and local laws, rules, regulations and court procedures. b) some courts are demanding that the party seeking to
foreclose prove ownership and other particulars of loans earlier in the proceedings and with more exacting standards of
proof, than has previously been customary. Other courts are evaluating the propriety of various other servicing,
foreclosure, and workout practices, because loan servicers have contractual obligations to handle workouts and
foreclosures in compliance with law and in accordance with industry standards, they must make sure that all servicing
personnel and professionals handling foreclosures on behalf of the Trusts, including legal counsel retained by
servicers, fully understand and comply with these changing standards and legal requirements. Failure to do so may
result in servicer liability to the Trusts for losses caused by delays or, in some situations, forfeiture of collateral; c) In this
regard, the Trustee is concerned that servicers make clear to their servicing personnel and other professionals,
including legal counsel retained by servicers, that securitization trusts typically become the owners of, and take
title to, mortgage loans at be time the securitization trusts are formed. While the use of powers of attorney to
complete recorded chains of title may be appropriate in some circumstances, servicers must take care not to confuse the
record regarding the time at which securitization trusts actually first obtain legally enforceable rights in the mortgage
loans. Servicers must ensure that loss mitigation personnel and professionals engaged by servicers, including legal counsel
retained by servicers, understand the mechanics of relevant securitization transactions and related custodial practices in
sufficient detail to address such questions in a timely and accurate manner. In particular, servicing professionals must
become sufficiently familiar with the terms of the relevant securitization documents for each Trust for which they act to
explain and, where necessary, prove those terms and the resulting ownership interests to courts and government agencies.

Page 38
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Despite the known false and fraudulent pleadings in the First Foreclosure Action and warnings by foreclosing
plaintiffs own trustee, CHL/BANA and its lawyers refuse and fail to remediate their known false averments
and lost note counts.

In the matter I discuss and two other cases before the Volusia Court, Case Nos. -31558-CICI and 2007-
11526-CICL, alleged agents, servicers and attorneys for the very same foreclosing plaintiff have falsely pled
and then intentionally misled the Volusia Court and each Defendant on for several years, that each borrowers
original note was lost, stolen, and/or destroyed and needed to be reestablished in accordance with Florida law.

This intentional deception and fraud upon the Court and each defendant in each case was carried out by the
Plaintiffs alleged agents, trustees, servicers and vendors who were and are fully aware of the document
defects and deficiencies with each borrowers original note and collateral file and the fact that each
borrowers original note, mortgage and loan were never lawfully or properly assigned, conveyed, endorsed,
transferred, negotiated, and delivered to the corpus of each Plaintiffs RMBS trust in accordance with the
specific terms and provisions contained their PSAs.

As I previously wrote, Article II, Sections 2.01 and 2.02 of Plaintiffs Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA)
received as evidence at trial governs how the Borrower Original Note, whether Original Note 1 and/or
Original Note 2 was to come into the hands, physical possession, control, and custody of the foreclosing
plaintiff via its designated trustee and exclusive document custodian, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
(DBNTC) and most importantly, accepted by the trustee, DBNTC in accordance with the specific terms and
provisions contained in Article II, Section 2.02 of Plaintiffs PSA.

This becomes even more evident when paragraph 6 of a Limited Power of Attorney (LPOA) received into
evidence at trial is reviewed and analyzed. The LPOA from Bank of America, N.A. instructs its sub-servicer,
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS) to engage in spoliation and fabrication of vital evidence (original
promissory notes) by instructing SPS to correct or otherwise remedy any errors or deficiencies contained in any
transfer or reconveyance documents provided or prepared by Trustee or a prior transferor, including, but not
limited to note indorsements.

In foreclosing plaintiffs First Foreclosure Complaint, foreclosing plaintiff, its agents, servicers, and lawyers not
only intentionally mislead the Court about the false and fraudulent claim that the Borrower Original Note was
lost, stolen or destroyed, but they proceeded in the First Foreclosure Complaint and Federal Bankruptcy
throughout the entire process without ever even producing an original, copy, image or scan of ANY version of
the Borrower note he executed at closing, whether Original Note 1 or Original Note 2 or even the note
drawn up for the Borrower Closing.

In Plaintiffs First Foreclosure Complaint, they produced a CHL Letterhead with the wrong terms and balance.
In this and the other named actions before this Court, especially the White case, Plaintiffs agents and the
concealed parties spearheading these foreclosure actions have needlessly wasted Volusia and other Countys
judicial resources, time and taxpayer money.

2009 Fraudulent Foreclosures Come to Light


In 2009, there was not one docket entry or filing in Plaintiffs First Foreclosure Action and foreclosures across
America were slowing to a standstill due to decades of abuse in the foreclosure process that was becoming
more evident as increasing number of American home and property owners fell victim to the 2007 Financial
Crisis and the impending Great Recession.

Page 39
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
As increasing numbers of foreclosures began to hit Florida and American courtrooms, judges began to take
notice of the known document deficiencies and defects the industry had danced around for over two decades
and media reports began to circulate about the foreclosure frauds and abuses I had first identified after the
last crisis to face American homeowners in the late 80s and early 90s, the S&L crisis. A Reuters report31 in July
of 2011 documented many of the robo-signing and fraudulent foreclosure schemes I had identified in the 90s
that I now call Dead Man Signing.

In its simple explanation, Dead Man Signing is the process of document and defect remediation and title
cure and title curative measures that mortgage companies have taken to recreate, fabricate, and even
forge missing conveyance and transfer documents such as missing endorsements and endorsement chains on
original wet-ink promissory notes; missing assignments of notes and mortgages; and other required legal
signatures on documents transferring real estate and property assets long after a company is dead and they
have no employees. Reuters went on to write:
Wells Fargo didnt obtain mortgage assignments -- and hence the right to foreclose -- until well after it had filed
foreclosure cases. Wells Fargo, as a trustee for many RMBS Trusts, moved to foreclose on homeowners who had
mortgages with the defunct Option One Mortgage Corp. In June of 2011, a bankruptcy appellate panel of the
federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a decision to allow Wells Fargo to foreclose on an Option One
mortgage. It said that there was no evidence that the note and mortgage had ever been turned over to Wells Fargo
as trustee. In court files of Florida foreclosure cases by Wells Fargo on Option One mortgages, none of the
promissory notes filed as exhibits in ten cases found by Reuters had any endorsements on them.

A Wells Fargo spokeswoman said it is possible that proper endorsements exist but were omitted from the copies of
the promissory notes filed in court. In other cases reviewed by Reuters, Wells Fargo and GMAC Mortgage, a unit of
Ally Financial, assigned mortgages from defunct lender New Century Mortgage Corp., which went under in 2007.
Reuters reported that securitization lawyers say it is technically impossible for a defunct company to directly assign a
mortgage over to another owner. Ally Financial spokesman James Olecki said GMAC obtained authorization to
assign mortgages that New Century had failed to transfer while it was still in existence. "GMAC Mortgage obtained
a power of attorney for loans serviced from the New Century Mortgage Litigating Trust, the Successor-in-Interest to
New Century Mortgage Corp.," he said.

Documents and statements made to courts that are found to be false can amount to crimes under state and federal
laws. Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and former federal prosecutor, said such acts can be
perjury, and preparing fraudulent documents can be prosecuted under federal mail and wire fraud statutes. The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act makes it a crime punishable by up to 20 years in jail to file false documents in a bankruptcy
case, including foreclosures.

My review of foreclosure files across Florida found the same findings. I found foreclosures where original New
Century originated notes were claimed to be lost in original complaints and then later filed with the clerk of
courts wherein the copies of the images filed with the complaint greatly differed in terms of endorsements,
allonges and/or note tracking barcodes. In the most egregious of cases I witnessed, foreclosure judgments
were sought and obtained when the actual promissory note filed with the Court contained no endorsements
whatsoever, having only the originally named lender on the original note filed and presented to the Court
and that company, like New Century Mortgage Corporation being out-of-business and bankrupt. In other
cases, I witnessed the original notes that contained no endorsements or missing endorsement being returned to
their servicers upon motion of the court after a voluntary dismissal had been obtained and then the same note
being returned and filed in a new foreclosure action with a note exhibit and a suddenly appearing allonge or
endorsements of companies who went out of business and became bankrupt being executed by employees of
dead companies long gone.

31Paltrow, Y Scot J. "Special Report: Banks Still Robo-signing." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 19 July 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-foreclosure-banks-idUSTRE76H5XX20110719>.

Page 40
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
In essence, new and living mortgage companies were signing new checks for old mortgage companies that
were dead and out of business by forging and using the signatures with the names of executives who no
longer working for the dead company They engaged in forgery techniques, often not having and/or
providing the legal authority for their ability to do so or instead of going to a Court of law and equity and
seeking the appropriate resolution.

They perverted and corrupted our state and nations legal system by the wide-scale fabrication of vital and
critical evidence supported by fabricated alleged business records supported further by false and fraudulent
pleadings, affidavits and even live testimony. The mortgage servicing industry took it upon itself to remediate,
via robo-signing and other established policies and procedures, the widely known legal flaws, false
pleadings, frauds, and defective and deficient collateral documents such as original promissory notes without
endorsements from companies that were now dead.

A review of the Stern System entries and Countrywides response to an ever growing problem reveal a not
only flawed process, but additional layers of misleading, false and potentially fraudulent and perjurious
behavior to conceal and mask the extent of previous bad, unethical, and potentially unlawful, illegal and even
criminal behavior.

Sterns system entries reflect that the file was stalled and on hold without Countrywide going back to the
Court and withdrawing its know false and fraudulent pleadings and affidavits. On November 18, 2009,
Sterns System entry reflects a notation that the File on Hold Per Countrywide and file was closed on
November 16, 2009 and docs and file to went to dismissals on December 14, 2009. Of critical import in
Sterns notations was that on December 14, 2009 some unknown or both versions of Original Note 1 and/or
Original Note 2 were found in file and on December 15, 2009, a version of the Borrower original note was
scanned and the documents, presumably the alleged original note was returned to an unknown party and,
most importantly, left Sterns office on December 15, 2009 via UPS TRACKING# lZVF94550291017534.

January, 2010 - - Second Foreclosure Action Filed


Despite the prior warnings and resulting consent agreement, CHL, BANA and SPS directed their lawyers to file
and continue prosecuting two foreclosure actions in this Court. A seven-page template Foreclosure Complaint
was filed in this action on January 7, 2010 wherein foreclosing plaintiff and its alleged agents, servicers and
lawyers including, but not limited to CHL, BANA, SPS, and offices of Daniel Consuegra knowingly and
intentionally made false claims that: 1) The Borrower original note was lost, missing or even destroyed32 when
in fact data, documents, and records contained in their systems contradict that averment and reflect otherwise;
2) foreclosing plaintiff owned and held the admitted missing note when in fact data, documents, and records
contained in their systems contradict that averment and reflect otherwise; 3) foreclosing plaintiff knew of no
other parties except the Defendants who were interested in the reestablishment of the note when in fact data,
documents, and records contained in their systems contradict that averment and reflect otherwise; 4) The
foreclosing plaintiff was in possession of the Note and was entitled to enforce the Note when loss of
possession occurred when in fact data, documents, and records contained in their systems contradict that
averment and reflect otherwise; 5) The loss of possession of the Note was not the result of the transfer of the
Note when in fact data, documents, and records contained in their systems contradict that averment and
reflect otherwise; 6) The foreclosing plaintiff could not reasonably obtain possession of the Note because it
was lost and its whereabouts cannot be determined when in fact data, documents, and records contained in
their systems contradict that averment and reflect otherwise; and 7) The foreclosing plaintiff had the right to
enforce the note by virtue of the Assignment of the Mortgage and Note to the Plaintiff when in fact data,
documents, and records contained in their systems contradict that averment and reflect otherwise.
32 Plaintiffs Complaint

Page 41
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
As previously written, on June 28, 2006 a Promissory Note was executed by Borrower and delivered to
foreclosing plaintiffs Assignor when in fact data, documents, and records contained in their systems
contradict that averment and reflect otherwise. Attached as Exhibit A to foreclosing plaintiff complaint in this
matter was a substantial copy of the Promissory Note that Plaintiff averred was executed by Defendant
Borrower on June 28, 2006 (Original Note 1 or Borrower Original Note 1). Original Note 1 was a copy
of the Borrower Promissory Note that Plaintiff averred was executed by Defendant Borrower on June 28,
2006 and delivered to Plaintiffs Assignor. No evidence of shipment, delivery, receipt, possession or custody
of Original Note 1 to the named Lender on the note; the Assignor on any assignment of mortgage and note;
and/or assigning party as reflected in foreclosing plaintiff Pooling and Servicing Agreement (Plaintiffs PSA
or Subject PSA) were attached to the complaint or produced in discovery in this matter.

Original Note 1 did not reflect any endorsement whatsoever on its face, any other page, or allonge attached
to the note. Original Note 1 reflected a known New Century Mortgage Corporation (NCMC) tracking
barcode on the upper right hand corner of page 1 of Exhibit A attached to Plaintiffs operative complaint in
this matter. Recently discovered and produced evidence reflect that the version of Original Note 1 attached
to Plaintiffs Complaint in this matter was the only version of the Borrower Original Note contained in the
named original lenders (NCMC) imaging and servicing systems of record and was scanned into such systems
on July 5, 2006 and once again produced from that system on or about July 19, 2016, over ten (10) years
later.

The Original of Original Note 1 has never been produced in this litigation for inspection and has been either
intentionally concealed, altered, or destroyed. On May 12, 2015, foreclosing plaintiff filed an alleged
original note with this Court at Docket Nos. 307, 308, 309, and 311.5 (Original Note 2 or Borrower
Original Note 2) that substantially differed from Original Note 1 in that it did not contain the NCMC note
tracking barcode contained on Original Note 1 attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Complaint filed on January
7, 2010 nor as contained in NCMCs imaging system of record on July 19, 2016 as provided to us by the
custodian for that system, counsel for NCMCs Liquidating Trustee in their Chapter 11 Federal Bankruptcy
proceedings. Additionally, Original Note 2 as filed on May 12, 2015 now contained additional alterations
and changed that as of May 12, 2015, Original Note 2 now contained: 1) A Countrywide/ReconTrust original
note tracking barcode on the lower middle portion of page 1 of Original Note 2; 2) a facsimile ink-stamped,
unexecuted and undated endorsement in blank from New Century Mortgage Corporation to ________; and
3) a facsimile ink-stamped, undated, unverified and alleged signature of Steve Nagy stamped over the
facsimile ink-stamped, unexecuted and undated endorsement in blank from New Century Mortgage
Corporation to ________.

From January 3, 2008 and continuing until approximately March of 2015, a period of over seven-years, in
two foreclosure complaints; sworn testimony in affidavits; sworn testimony in depositions; numerous responses
to discovery propounded; and numerous arguments before this Court, foreclosing plaintiff and its alleged
servicers CHL, BANA, and SPS as well as its lawyers from the legal firms and offices of David Stern, Daniel
Consuegra and McGlinchey Stafford intentionally misled the Volusia Court and Defendants into believing the
Borrower Original Note was either missing, lost, misfiled, or destroyed when in fact it was not.

Newly produced evidence and records of the David Stern law firm as shown above reflect that on January 3,
2008, the date the first foreclosure action was filed and Borrower Original Note claimed to have been lost
and missing, the David Stern law firm was in possession of copies and/or images of both Original Note 1 and
Original Note 2 it received directly from CHL.

Yet, despite having copies and images of both Original Note 1 and Original Note 2 it received from CHL, the
Stern law firm with the review, supervision and approval of CHL, intentionally concealed the existence of two

Page 42
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
differing version of the Borrower Original Note in Original Note 1 and Original Note 2; did not attach a
copy of either Original Note 1 or Original Note 2 to the First Foreclosure Complaint; and filed a CHL
letterhead document containing differing terms than either Original Note 1 or Original Note 2 and filed
that as evidence of the Plaintiffs standing.

To conceal the fact that two (2) differing versions of the borrowers original note that current evidence reflects
were created and transferred, assigned, pledged, and delivered to various parties and that the foreclosing
plaintiff never received transfer, assignment and delivery of the Borrower original note as contracted for in its
Pooling and Servicing Agreement (Subject PSA or Foreclosing Plaintiff PSA), CHL, BANA, and its lawyers
engaged in years of extrinsic and intrinsic fraud upon the Court and defendants.

In the operative complaint in the Volusia matter, once again the agents for the foreclosing plaintiff,
foreclosing plaintiff and its lawyers intentionally and knowingly mislead the Court and Defendants and
presented fraudulent and false averments about the Borrower Note and loan when once again, in Count II
they pled the following:
1) In Count II, paragraph 3. The original Note is lost or destroyed and is not in the custody or control of
Plaintiff that directly contradicts the records, testimony and evidence gathered and/or presented;
2) In Count II, paragraph 4. Plaintiff knows of no parties except the Defendants who are interested in the
reestablishment of said documents that directly contradicts the records, testimony and evidence gathered
and/or presented.
3) In Count II, paragraph 5. The Plaintiff, its Assignor, or its servicer, was in possession of the Note and was
entitled to enforce the Note when loss of possession occurred that directly contradicts the records, testimony
and evidence gathered and/or presented.
4) In Count II, paragraph 6. The loss of possession was not the result of the transfer of the Note or a lawful
seizure that directly contradicts the records, testimony and evidence gathered and/or presented.
5) In Count II, paragraph 7. The Plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain possession of the Note because it was lost
and its whereabouts cannot be determined that directly contradicts the records, testimony and evidence
gathered and/or presented.

As shown herein and in their own records and evidence, foreclosing plaintiffs agents, servicers, lawyers and
witnesses had full and complete knowledge of the locations of all images, copies and originals of both
Original Note 1 and Original Note 2 at each step of the foreclosure process, but intentionally misled the
Court and Defendants to conceal their bad acts and failure to convey either version of the Borrower Note,
Original Note 1 and/or Original Note 2 in accordance to the terms and provisions of the Plaintiffs trust.

Despite this knowledge, the evidence reflects that the foreclosing plaintiffs agents, servicers, trustees, lawyers
their employees and witnesses, but especially Bank of America, SPS, DBNTC, and lawyers continued their
efforts to intentionally mislead and defraud the Court and the Defendants when they attached a copy of an
image of Original Note 1, not Original Note 2, to the operative complaint in this matter that did not contain
and endorsement while having knowledge of the whereabouts as well as copies, images and originals of
Original Note 2 in their possession, but knowing that Original Note 2 was pledged and in the control of other
parties they were concealing from the Court and that all that the Plaintiff had in its direct and constructive
possession, were copies and images of Original Note 1 as they filed with the Court in the operative complaint.

The evidence reflects that the imaging systems used by both SPS and Bank of America/Countrywide
contained known copies of both Original Note 1 and Original Note 2 that contained very different
endorsements with Original Note 1 containing a different endorsement chain on a separate allonge,
referenced in SPS Document Control records wherein LPS (i.e. Black Knight) conducted an allonge review.

The foreclosing plaintiffs PSA references DBNTC certifications and exceptions reports and I personally am
aware of the document custody records and data from their document custody and tracking system of record

Page 43
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
that were not produced, but wherein their lawyers and agents have sought and received protective orders
over their production, even while listing such witnesses and evidence in their first filed Witness & Exhibit List.

On April 26, 2010, Defendants forwarded interrogatories to foreclosing plaintiff that went unanswered, as
shown herein, for over four (4) years. Within six month, in June of 2010, foreclosing plaintiff via its alleged
agents and servicers, move for summary judgment and file an affidavit in support of summary judgment. On
May 25, 2010, in an Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment filed with the Court at Docket No. 26 by
foreclosing plaintiff and prepared and executed by Kathy Repka (Repka Affidavit), an employee of
Countrywide Home Loans/Bank of America, Repka testifies via her affidavit that she, the affiant:
1) is responsible for accounting and bookkeeping matters for the Plaintiff and has custody and control over the
financial records and business records involving this loan, including payment applications, escrow
disbursements, collections matters and foreclosure matters. Such books and records are made and kept in the
ordinary course of the Plaintiffs business
2) has personal knowledge of the facts herein set forth, or has based his/her knowledge on business records of
the Plaintiff.
3) The Plaintiff uses a computer system to keep track of all of its loans. The computer keeps track of all incoming
payments and outgoing disbursements. The computer system is highly accurate and handles thousands of loans.
4) has personal knowledge of the use and accuracy of the computer system.
5) is the Representative for the plaintiff herein, and as such makes this affidavit upon her personal knowledge
and competent testimony.

Critical to her affidavit testimony, Ms. Repka as alleged representative of the Plaintiff testifies in paragraph
7 that:
1) Plaintiff is the owner and holder of that certain mortgage and note given by Scot A. Borrower; dated June
28, 2006 and recorded July 12, 2006, in 0. R. Book 5870, Page 4507 of the Public Records of Volusia
County, Florida.
2) Plaintiff holds the note and mortgage by virtue of an assignment.
3) Attached hereto are copies of the note, mortgage and assignment.
4) A copy of the note and certified copies of the mortgage and assignment will be filed with the Court prior to
or at the judgment hearing.
5) The original note was lost and is not in the custody or control of the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff, its assignor,
or its servicer was in possession of the note and was entitled to enforce the note when the loss occurred.
6) A thorough search has been made for the note, but Plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain possession of the note
because its whereabouts cannot be determined. The note has not been endorsed, sold, or given to any other
entity or person. All parties who may have an interest in the note have been included in this proceeding.
In paragraph 15, Ms. Repka provides the following testimony that your undersigned (Repka) has reviewed
the complaint and states that all of the allegations contained therein are true, accurate and correct. Critical to
this case, as of the date of her Affidavit, May 25, 2010, the copy of the Borrower Note presented to the
Defendants and the Court is the Operative Original Note 1, WITH NO ENDORSEMENT and not a copy or
version of Original Note 2 that was presented to the Court and Defendants, in Spring of 2015, despite being
in the possession, control, custody and records of agents and servicers for the Plaintiff who concealed facts
related to chain of title, holder status, ownership status, custody records, physical and constructive possession.

May - July, 2010 - - Discovery & Motion For Summary Judgment & Filing Of False Affidavit
Defendants filed a Notice of Service of Interrogatories on or about May 3, 2010 and foreclosing plaintiff
said it was drafting the responses and would serve them to Defendants. However, instead of producing any

Page 44
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
discovery, they once more ignored the warnings of its own trustee and the servicers push new foreclosure
counsel to move for a summary judgment based on known false and fraudulent averments and now supported
by a new false and fraudulent affidavit in support of summary judgment.

On June 11, 2010, foreclosing plaintiffs counsel and servicer filed the Repka Affidavit with the Court and
sent it via the U.S. mail and wires and once again, affirmed via oath that they did not know the location or
have possession of the Borrower Original Note, whether it was Original Note 1 or Original Note 2 when their
own records and subsequent testimony reflects they knew the exact location and existence of both Original
Note 1 and Original Note 2 and how their endorsement chains conflicted.

On June 24, 2010, foreclosing plaintiffs counsel and servicer only filed a certified copy of the Borrower
mortgage with the Court, but not the original note, even though Bank of America, foreclosing plaintiffs
alleged agent, had complete and full knowledge of the existence and location of both Original Note 1 and
Original Note 2.

On July 12, 2010, Plaintiffs counsel and servicer filed a motion for summary judgment with the complete
knowledge of its servicers, agents, and attorneys that there were not one, but two (2) operative original
Borrower promissory notes (Original Note 1 & Original Note 2) contained in their imaging, business records
and document custody records that conflicted with different owners, chains of title, and holders.

August, 2010 - - Trustee Warns Servicers Again to Stop Unlawful Foreclosure Practices
On or about August 8, 2010, DBNTC and DBTCA issued yet another warning to its servicers, including Bank of
America and SPS that was titled URGENT AND TIME-SENSITIVE MEMORANDUM attached as Exhibit G
referencing Allegations Regarding Certain Servicing Foreclosure Procedures being instituted by Bank of
America and other services wherein, DBNTC and DBTCA warned of the following:

We write to express the Trustee s serious concern regarding allegations of potential defects in foreclosure
practices, procedures and/or documentation used by certain major loan servicers and their agents (collectively, the
Alleged Foreclosure Deficiencies) that have been the subject of recent media reports. This Memorandum
reiterates to all Servicers the importance of their duties and obligations relating to such matters.
1) As the Trustee has advised on more than one occasion, all Servicers and their agents (including any
subservicers, subcontractors and professionals engaged by Servicers and/or by their agents) must conduct all
servicing activities, including foreclosure proceedings, in accordance with the Governing Documents and all
applicable laws. Please review again, in particular, the Trustees memoranda to all Servicers dated August 30,
2007 and July 28, 2008 (the "Prior Memoranda"), copies of which are enclosed.
2) Recent media reports suggest the Alleged Foreclosure Deficiencies may include the execution and filing by
certain Servicers and/or their agents of potentially defective documents, possibly containing alleged untrue
assertions of fact, in connection with certain foreclosure proceedings. The reported scope of such alleged
practices raises the possibility that such documents may have been filed in connection with foreclosure
proceedings relating to mortgage loans owned by the Trusts and may have been executed under color of one
or more powers of attorney granted to Servicers pursuant to the Governing Documents. Any such actions by a
Servicer or its agents would constitute a breach of that Servicers obligations under the Governing Documents
and applicable law.
3) In light of these recent developments, the Trustee demands that each Servicer (including its agents),
immediately: Inform the Trustee of:
a. any Alleged Foreclosure Deficiencies relating to mortgage loans serviced by the Servicer on
behalf of the Trusts; and (ii) any suspensions by the Servicer of foreclosure proceedings relating to
mortgage loans serviced by the Servicer on behalf of the Trusts due to any such Alleged
Foreclosure Deficiencies.
b. Cease and desist from taking any unlawful or improper action with respect to the servicing of Trust
assets, including, but not limited to, making any false or misleading statements in any filing, notice,
document or paper of any kind.

Page 45
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
c. Cease and desist from executing any document on behalf of the Trustee or on behalf of any Trust,
under any power of attorney or otherwise, unless and until the Servicer and its agents have: (a)
verified that all statements in such document are true complete and correct; and (b) determined
that the execution and filing of such document are in full compliance with all applicable laws, rules
and regulations, including all applicable rules of court.
d. Cease and desist from executing any document in a manner that indicates or suggests that the
signatory is an officer or employee of the Trustee.
e. Require each of its agents to comply with the foregoing demands and all legal requirements
applicable to any services that they perform on behalf of the Trusts.
f. Please be advised the Trustee will require each Servicer to indemnify and hold harmless Deutsche
Bank, individually and in its capacity as Trustee, the Trusts and the investors in the Trusts from all
liability, loss, cost and expense of any kind (including attorneys fees and costs) arising directly or
indirectly from any Alleged Foreclosure Deficiencies or from any other alleged acts or omissions of
the Servicer and/or its agents relating to any servicing activities in breach or violation of the
Governing Documents and/or applicable law, including, without limitation, an) liability, loss, cost
or expense arising from any related legal proceedings and government or regulatory
Investigations. The cost of any such indemnification and any remedial actions by a Servicer in
respect of any Alleged Foreclosure Deficiencies or any other servicing activities in breach or
violation of the Governing Documents and /or applicable law must be paid by the Servicer out of
its own funds and should not be charged by any Servicer against any Trust. The Trustee reserves,
and docs not waive, any other rights or remedies that it and /or the Trusts may have under the
Governing Documents regarding these matters.

Warnings by myself and DBTCA and DBNTC as trustees to RMBS trusts such as foreclosing plaintiff, Bank of
America continued their unlawful, unethical and fraudulent ways in the Volusia Court and others until the U.S.
Federal government finally took action. The Comptroller of the Currency of the United States of America
(Comptroller), through its national bank examiners and other staff of the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency ("OCC"), as part of an interagency horizontal review of major residential mortgage servicers,
conducted an examination of the residential real estate mortgage foreclosure processes of Bank of America,
N.A., and identified certain deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices in their residential mortgage
servicing and in the Banks initiation and handling of foreclosure proceedings.

April, 2011 - - OCC Consent Agreement with BANA Over Fraudulent Foreclosures
The OCC informed the Bank of America of its findings resulting from their examination and on April 13, 2011,
Bank of America, N.A. entered into a Consent Agreementwith the Comptroller. In the Consent Agreement,
Bank of America was found by the OCC/Comptroller to have:
1) Filed or caused to be filed in state and federal courts affidavits executed by its employees or employees of
third-party service providers making various assertions, such as ownership of the mortgage note and mortgage,
the amount of the principal and interest due, and the fees and expenses chargeable to the borrower, in
which the affiant represented that the assertions in the affidavit were made based on personal
knowledge or based on a review by the affiant of the relevant books and records, when, in many
cases, they were not based on such personal knowledge or review of the relevant books and records;
2) Filed or caused to be filed in state and federal courts, or in local land records offices, numerous affidavits
or other mortgage-related documents that were not properly notarized, including those not signed or
affirmed in the presence of a notary;
3) Litigated foreclosure proceedings and initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings without always ensuring that
either the promissory note or the mortgage document were properly endorsed or assigned and, if necessary, in
the possession of the appropriate party at the appropriate time;
4) Failed to devote sufficient financial, staffing and managerial resources to ensure proper administration of
its foreclosure processes;
5) Failed to devote to its foreclosure processes adequate oversight, internal controls, policies, and procedures,
compliance risk management, internal audit, third party management, and training; and
6) Failed to sufficiently oversee outside counsel and other third-party providers handling foreclosure-
related services.

Page 46
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
By reason of the conduct set forth directly above, the OCC/Comptroller found that Bank of America engaged
in unsafe or unsound banking practices. As part of its Consent Agreement, Bank of America agreed to a
Compliance Program wherein it agreed to implement and number of corrective processes within 120 days of
the order (approx. August 13, 2011). As part of that Compliance Program, BOA agreed to establish:
1) Processes to ensure that all factual assertions made in pleadings, declarations, affidavits, or other sworn
statements filed by or on behalf of the Bank are accurate, complete, and reliable; and that affidavits and
declarations are based on personal knowledge or a review of the Banks books and records when the affidavit
or declaration so states;
2) Processes to ensure that the Bank has properly documented ownership of the promissory note and mortgage (or
deed of trust) under applicable state law, or is otherwise a proper party to the action (as a result of agency or
other similar status) at all stages of foreclosure and bankruptcy litigation, including appropriate transfer and
delivery of endorsed notes and assigned mortgages or deeds of trust at the formation of a residential
mortgage-backed security, and lawful and verifiable endorsement and successive assignment of the note and
mortgage or deed of trust to reflect all changes of ownership;
3) Processes to ensure that the Bank has the ability to locate and secure all documents, including the original
promissory notes if required, necessary to perform mortgage servicing, foreclosure and Loss Mitigation, or
loan modification functions.

2012- - SPS Begins Sub-Servicing Borrower Loan


There was very little docket activity in this action in 2012 as foreclosing plaintiffs servicers were in a stall and
crawl scenario due to Bank of America and Countrywides need to assess and remediate tens of thousands of
foreclosure actions across America for their unlawful and abusive foreclosure proceedings. On or about
August of 2012, SPS begins subservicing the Borrower loan and SPS MSP records reflect that the Borrower
loan setup, otherwise often commonly referred to as loan boarding took place on August 23, 2012 and
contained a principal loan balance of $394,398.46.
November 15, 2012 - - SPS Records Reflects Location of Borrower Collateral File
On November 15, 2012, an entry is made in SPS Document Control system database that reads per BofA
current location of collateral file is_DEUTSCHE BANK and custodian is_DEUTSCHE BANK indicating, per
testimony of their own witness about collateral files, the exact location of the Borrower original note, whether
it was Original Note 1 and/or Original Note 2.
2013 Foreclosure Activity
Again, there was very little docket activity in the Volusia action in 2013 as foreclosing plaintiffs servicers
were in a stall and crawl scenario due to Bank of America and Countrywides need to assess and remediate
tens of thousands of foreclosure actions across America for their unlawful and abusive foreclosure
proceedings. However, docket activity ramped up at the end of 2013 as shown herein.
On July 11, 2013, foreclosing plaintiffs counsel filed a Unilateral Status Report33with this Court wherein it
stated in part: Plaintiff filed the foreclosure complaint on or about January 1,2010. Said complaint included
a lost note count, count II. At the time of filing the complaint, the original had not been located. Plaintiff did not
say the note was lost, missing or destroyed and was still lost and missing, Plaintiff stated at the time of filing,
the original had not been located when this infers that both counsel and Plaintiffs agents knew the notes
location.
In fact, SPS and Bank of America both knew the exact whereabouts of the note and it was their duty to inform
the Court and Defendants and amend their complaint since their own records, produced at trial, were tracking
the exact locations of the Borrower original notes electronically so they knew their location at any day. All the
subterfuge was intended and willful. On September 6, 2013 the Volusia Court issued an Order to
Consolidate and on November 5, 2013 at 10:04:28 AM ET, the Plaintiffs counsel, Albert A Zakarian/Florida

33 Docket entry 78

Page 47
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Bar # 395218 of the Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L., Electronically Filed an AMENDED PLAINTIFFS
WITNESS LIST AND EXHIBIT LIST.
To illustrate the rote, robotic, and unverified practices and automated processes of the Plaintiff and its
counsel, the Court can examine paragraphs 6. and 8. of their AMENDED PLAINTIFFS WITNESS LIST AND
EXHIBIT LIST that skips paragraph 7., but lists the identical designation in paragraphs 6. and 8. that states
any and all persons named in any and all written documents/records, memorandums, correspondence,
pleading or otherwise appear in the Court file.
Under their Witness List, Plaintiff listed the following: a) 18. A records custodian of the physical Note and
Mortgage prior to the filing of this action. b) 19. A records custodian from Plaintiffs Law Office who will
testify about the Law Offices receipt of the original Note, Mortgage and other original documents from the
Plaintiff or its authorized representative. It is expected that Micah Sieben; Shelley Eggleston or Janee Capaz
will be the witness from the Law Office who may be contacted via the Litigation Department, 813-915-8660,
9204 King Palm Drive, Tampa, Florida 33619.
There again, once more, is evidence in their own counsels words that a records custodian from Plaintiffs Law
Office who will testify about the Law Offices receipt of the original Note and that they knew the original was
located and already in their office or would be in their office. Using this information, I developed specific
discovery and deposition requests for the Defendants to ferret out their fraud and misrepresentations
designed to determine: 1) the exact location of the Borrower Original Note at specific dates in time; 2) what
markings were on the note in terms of writings, barcodes, allonges and endorsements; 3) staple holes in the
note on last page indicating attachment and removal of allonges; 4) DBNTC barcodes on collateral file folder
indicating a file number; 5) parties that DBNTC was holding the file and notes for in constructive possession,
bailee or agency relationships; 6) alterations to the note and collateral files; 7) continual inventories of the
collateral file; 7) pledges, sales, purchases, repurchases, assignments and transactions involving the note ad
collateral file; 8) shipments, receipts, delivery, filing, vaulting, noted requests for release and actual release
of the promissory note and documents in collateral file; 9) data entries in collateral and custody tracking
systems of record showing the movement of the Borrower note and collateral file; 10) DBNTC exception and
certification reports indicating exactly what, where, when and how the Plaintiff received the Borrower note, if
ever, and exceptions noted; and 11) other requests to prove that the original was never in my opinion lost
and that such claims were false to prove that the note was in possession of BOA and other parties and most
likely pledged to the benefit of other parties, not the Plaintiff.
Again, Plaintiffs and their counsel did nothing to make me look wrong when in their own Exhibit List as the first
exhibit listed they intended to introduce at trial was 1. Original Note with all riders and addendums and
allonges. They then listed 29. Any Records Custodian Declaration obtained in this matter, including, but not
limited to a Records Custodian Declaration from Plaintiffs Law Office regarding receipt of the original Note,
Mortgage and other original documents from the Plaintiff or its authorized representative AND 18. A
records custodian of the physical Note and Mortgage prior to the filing of this action AND 19. A records
custodian from Plaintiffs Law Office who will testify about the Law Offices receipt of the original Note,
Mortgage and other original documents from the Plaintiff or its authorized representative. It is expected that
Micah Sieben; Shelley Eggleston or Janee Capaz will be the witness from the Law Office who may be
contacted via the Litigation Department, 813-915-8660, 9204 King Palm Drive, Tampa, Florida 33619.
There is no question that foreclosing plaintiff and its counsel knew on this date, the location and whereabouts
of the Original Note(s), either Original 1 or 2, and were concealing this information as was their common
practice from the Court and Defendants intentionally for the reasons and motives stated herein.
Furthermore, in foreclosing plaintiffs AMENDED PLAINTIFFS WITNESS LIST AND EXHIBIT LIST for trial, they
admitted the note was always in the possession of agents for Plaintiff when they listed the following: In
addition to the documents listed in foreclosing plaintiffs evidence Exhibit List for trial, the following general

Page 48
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
listings and categories of documents and data were listed by the foreclosing plaintiff in their filing that
included:
Original Note with all riders and addendums and allonges
Assignments of Mortgage and certified copies, if applicable
Allonge, if applicable
Servicing Agreements, if applicable
Pooling and Service Agreements, if applicable
Any applicable Trust documents, including, but not limited to excerpts from the Mortgage Loan Schedule
Limited Powers of Attorney for any servicer, if applicable
Bailee Letters, if applicable
Screen Shots showing receipt of the original Note and Mortgage by the undersigneds office (redacted version
only)
All prior servicer loan records including any payment histories and collections notes.
I located and reviewed the public filings with the SEC by the Plaintiff, related directly to their disclosures in their
Exhibit List that identified:
Pooling and Service Agreements, if applicable
Any applicable Trust documents, including, but not limited to excerpts from the Mortgage Loan Schedule

I read the foreclosing plaintiffs own PSA and trust related documents filed with the SEC in order to
specifically identify data, files, records, contracts, agreements, exhibits, schedules, amendments and other
evidence directly referenced, detailed, identified and exampled in the PSA related to the subject loan, note,
mortgage and securitization. This was not any fishing expedition, but a very specific research effort by me to
prove or disprove foreclosing plaintiffs averments in their pleadings using their own identified evidence and
records. Part of my methodology is to read contracts and agreements involving the mortgage transaction and
notate each piece of evidence and data referenced and identified in such agreements and then seek
production of that evidence to either prove or disprove the stated event occurred or did not occur.
A refusal and/or inability to produce the most recent and best version of the foreclosing plaintiffs PSA
referenced and identified is a red flag for foreclosure and securitization fraud and portends a possible
finding that this complex transaction did not occur as agreed and contracted upon.
Very detailed sets of specific and targeted discovery in the forms of requests to produce, admissions and
interrogatories were prepared by me for counsel in order to prove or disprove each of following relevant
issues related throughout our case including, but not limited to:
1. Whether the original Borrower note executed, whether Original Note 1 and/or Original Note 2, was
actually ever lost, stolen or destroyed or was the lost note count part of an elaborate deception and
fraud upon the Court, as now has been shown, in order to hide and conceal:
a. The actual failure of the securitization and that the Borrower Original Note, especially
Original Note 2, was never properly convey, assigned and delivered according to the strict
provisions contained in Plaintiffs own PSA;
b. The actual and real transfers of the Borrower Note;
c. A fractured and broken chain of title to the Borrower Note;
d. The multi or double pledging of notes;
e. The Borrower Original Note, especially Original Note 2 was not in the custody, possession
(both physical and constructive) on the date of the foreclosure complaint was filed or the
date trial began;
f. The Borrower Original Note, especially Original Note 2, was in the custody of either Deutsche
Bank entity, ReconTrust or Bank of America and pledged to others for the benefit of other
entities, not the actual Plaintiff;
g. That two operative notes and loans with different loan numbers were created so as to create
a fraud upon both investors and borrowers;

Page 49
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
h. A warehouse lender status wherein they may have repurchased the note or never released
their security interest on the note due to various actions of NCMC who they provided financing
to;
i. The exact physical location, custody, possession (both physical and constructive), and vault as
well as vault shelf and custodial file number for each collateral file containing the original
Borrower note, whether Original Note 1 and/or Original Note 2 at any given particular point
in time including, but not limited to:
i. The day and week after Borrowers closing;
ii. The date of each alleged transfer, assignment, sale and securitization;
iii. The closing date of the Plaintiffs trust;
iv. 90 days after the closing of Plaintiffs trust;
v. The date of the filing of the First Foreclosure Complaint;
vi. The date of NCMCs bankruptcy filing;
vii. The date of Carrie Hoovers execution of the Subject AOM;
viii. Date of the first foreclosures summary judgment filing;
ix. The date of the first foreclosures voluntary dismissal filing;
x. The date of the filing of the Second Foreclosure Complaint;
xi. Date of the second foreclosures summary judgment filing;
xii. The date of the first day of trial in this matter;
j. The validity of the Subject AOM claimed to have assigned the Borrower original note
executed at closing whether it was Original Note 1 or Original Note 2 by securing
relevant and easily retrievable documents, data and evidence that:
i. Carrie Hoover was an officer, agent, Vice President, 1st Vice President or
attorney in fact for NCMC on the date of execution of the Subject AOM.
ii. NCMC had any financial interest in the Borrower note and/or equitable interest
in the Borrower mortgage on the date of execution of the Subject AOM.
iii. NCMC claimed a financial interest in the Borrower note and/or equitable interest
in the Borrower mortgage from the dating of their bankruptcy filing to the date
of execution of the Subject AOM.
iv. The notary was present
k. The existence of the original note or its documented loss, theft or destruction.
l. The physical location and custody of Exhibit A to the Plaintiffs complaint
m. On November 26, 2013, Ekana Home served upon the Plaintiff its Second Notice for
Production of Documents with a very detailed and specific list of data and documents that
I prepared for counsel as Exhibit A to that notice that is found in Docket Entry No. 98 in
this action.
On the very next day, November 27, 2013, two notations in Bank of Americas document custody tracking
system are noted as shown below with two additional notations on November 29, 2013 tracking undefined
collateral related to the Borrower loan and either Original Note 1 and/or Original Note 2.
On December 6, 2013, Defendants pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380, filed a Motion to Compel answers to the
Interrogatories served upon the foreclosing plaintiff on April 26, 2010. Also, on December 6, 2013 attorneys
Mark New and Daniel Pasky of the law firm of McGlinchey Stafford, entered an alleged appearance34 on
behalf of the foreclosing plaintiff, but did not properly disclose the name of the foreclosing plaintiff, but
instead claimed they were representing DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, in this matter for
all purposes.
Based on evidence and my research, investigation and knowledge of facts, as well as the Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company warning letters issued to Bank of America and SPS warning of such

34 Docket #104

Page 50
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
misrepresentations in legal motions, pleadings and papers, this representation was false and that they were
representing SPS, a non-party to the action and alleged sub-servicer/servicer for the Plaintiff.
Mr. New, who I have had personal communications with and warned him and his client, SPS of fraudulent
conduct in foreclosure matters years ago, as well as his firm, are known to me to conceal and further the
foreclosure frauds and abuses of their client, SPS.
On December 9, 2013, the Volusia Court ordered the foreclosing plaintiff answer the interrogatories served
by Defendant on April 26, 2010 within 10 days. On December 11, 2013, foreclosing plaintiffs served upon
their Answers to a Defendants First Request for Production of Documents that were directly taken and copied
from foreclosing plaintiffs own Exhibit List filed with the Court and only provided the frivolous and
obfuscating responses to the exact list of evidence they presented.

January, 2014 Investor Report Shows Note 1 Loan Number in Trust


A January, 2014 Investor Report for the foreclosing plaintiff referenced the NCMC Loan Number of
1008687478 for the Borrower Loan associated with Original Note 1 even though NCMC was bankrupt and
out of business for over seven years. Furthermore, it did not reference either the Countrywide, Bank of
America or SPS loan number.

March 11, 2014 SPS Custody Record Reflect SPS MSR Purchase
On March 11, 2014, SPS Document Control Data reflects ***MSR Purchase - Do not request from code 63,
not Sub-servicing loan any longer, Custodian code to be updated*** The same SPS business record reflects
no recorded or unrecorded assignment of the Borrower note and/or mortgage.

May 9, 2014 SPS Custody Record Reflect SPS MSR Purchase


On May 9, 2014 at 01:35:11 PM in Filing # 13488682, an electronically filed affidavit (Lavalle Affidavit
#1) was filed with the Volusia Court detailing my knowledge of facts concerning various related parties to
the matter and the Borrower loan and Plaintiffs securitization. Included in Lavalle Affidavit #1 were a
number of exhibits detailing the extensive data and records that should be in foreclosing plaintiffs servicers,
trustees, custodians, lawyers and vendors control and possession and I pertinently pointed out the following
facts to this Court:
In paragraph 13, I testified that: for a variety of reasons, but chief amongst them is to illustrate for this Court that
tens to hundreds of thousands of pages of data exists for the Plaintiff in a variety of systems of records used by the
Plaintiffs securitizers, sellers, servicers, document custodians, trustees, lawyers, and all of their associated vendors.

In paragraph 16, I testified that: I highlight in this declaration on why any Court, let alone this honorable Court should
allow for wide-ranging discovery to either validate, verify, and prove the Plaintiffs averments, allegations, and facts or
disprove them for the benefit of Defendant Ekana Homes defenses and prosecution of its claims.

In paragraph 17, I testified that: how a note can be kicked out prior to a securitization and how due diligence and
knowledge of existing document deficiencies; violations of reps and warranties; failure to meet deal stips; and other factors
can contribute to the kick out of notes and loans prior to closing.

In paragraph 18, I testified that: this is in addition to the ability for a note and loan to be repurchased, substituted, and
deleted after the trusts formation according to the provisions of each trusts pooling and servicing agreements

In paragraph 19, I testified as to my research regarding New Centurys nefarious acts that was discovered of how
loans were pulled from the pool for legal issues, because they had been sold into other pools, or for other reasons.

However, most importantly and pertinent to this report was the obfuscatory behavior I
successfully anticipated that foreclosing plaintiffs servicers, trustees, custodians, vendors and lawyers
would engage in to intentionally mislead this Court, myself and the Defendants. In Lavalle Affidavit #1, I
testified under oath in paragraphs 21 to 34 to the following:

Page 51
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
my 20-year experience with this industry and over a decade with parties to the securitization will show and
reflect that the Plaintiff and its law firm will vehemently and incessantly oppose our detailed, targeted, and
extremely relative discovery an deposition requests with rote objections of various forms of privilege, relevancy,
burdensome, overbroad, and standard templated rote objections with corresponding memos without the production
of the extensive privilege logs and necessary legal hold and preservation instructions.
They will certainly not even address e-discovery, preservation, and production issues when in fact, the massive
amount of files and data related to the borrower and borrowers loan, note, mortgage, account, servicing, custody,
and securitization are all contained in a plethora of systems of record, many owned, programmed, maintained, and
operated by third-party vendors, that can easily, time-efficiently and inexpensively export the data for review in
various e-discovery formats.
Our very detailed deposition requests and corporate rep notices to the various parties and to the admissions, notices
for inspection, interrogatories, and requests for production our clients lawyers are often met with obfuscation and
even on occasion fabricated evidence with spoliation of evidence and data a key and primary concern.
Servicers and even sub-servicers may appear and take responsibility for the prosecution and management of the
case, often claiming to possess the necessary witnesses and discovery to prove the case.
However, a servicers witnesses will most often possess little relevant knowledge; follow programed and sometimes
patented scripts, policies, practices and procedures designed to mislead the Court and Defendants counsel from the
very complex agreements, contract, and data that underlie each modern-day mortgage transaction, let alone a
securitized mortgage transaction that claims a lost note.
The common practice with the servicers, trustees, and lawyers involved in this matter will be to provide only
extremely limited data, information, facts, figures, and calculations from the loan servicers servicing system of
record.
They will adamantly refuse to provide the necessary records, data, and entries in accounting, financial, general
ledger systems of records for the alleged note owner, in this case the Plaintiff, that would reflect whether the
borrowers note is currently or was ever recognized and reflected as an asset of the Plaintiff or has been paid off,
sold, repurchased, substituted, and/or deleted from the trust.
The same will be true for entries and records from Deutsche Banks document custody system of record such as
contained in Exhibit B that will show reports of entries related to the Borrower original wet-ink promissory note and
collateral file under the custody of Deutsche Banks corporate trust department as well as a Deutsche Custodial
agreement.
This is in addition to a refusal to produce all contents ever contained in the collateral/custodial files including the
note itself and various unrecorded assignments in blank and release of file documents.
The servicers will also provide limited and selective data, facts, information, and figures from their servicing
system of record and not the myriad of systems that feed the servicing system of record.
Often, only limited data from prior servicers will be provided and a confusion of convoluted servicing histories will
need to be pieced together just to arrive at what the servicer claims is owed as the servicers principal balance
calculation.
Codes, user manuals and guides will be attempted to be kept away from Defendant Ekana and the borrower, if
requested, to continue the obfuscation and unnecessarily increase not only the cost of litigation, but the cost to the
state and county in prolonging trial or settlement of this case.
The servicer and their lawyers in this matter will provide a very limited, often misleading, and myopic view that the
borrower failed to pay his mortgage, no one else except has standing to challenge their version of facts, and that
the borrower has defaulted and Plaintiff is owed $X dollars and foreclosure of the property.
They will intentionally steer around the lost note issue and refuse to provide the data, documents and executives
necessary to disprove their version of facts.

The evidence recently obtained and produced after discovery and trial was closed conclusively proved
my testimony was accurate in that a Lost Note Affidavit contained in the collateral file was intentionally
destroyed; the original Blank AOM was concealed and not produced; the series of contracts and MLS
alleged to have sold the Borrower note and loan were concealed and not produced; the original NCMC
loan history was intentionally concealed and/or destroyed; an allonge was concealed; and other
contracts and evidence such as DBNTC and DBTCA records, trust receipts, certification and exception
reports and mortgage loan schedules were not produced or made available. In Lavalle Affidavit #1, I
testified under oath in paragraphs 132 and 134 to the following:
o If any allonges or endorsements were to appear with any copy or original at this juncture, six years
after the first claim of the notes loss, a careful examination of accounting books, records, pledges,

Page 52
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
collateral and custodial files, and ink-dating analysis of the endorsements and note would have to be
conducted in my opinion. The parties to this securitization have been known to engage in what are
called remediation and repair actions to cure known document deficiencies and potentially
unenforceable notes.

o It is my experience and my opinion that the AOM was fabricated to create the false impression and
illusion of an actual assignment of the note and mortgage when my decades of personal experience
and knowledge of the practices, protocols, and procedures of the law firms, originators, servicers
and trustees related to this foreclosure would show that it was simply to give them the ability to
foreclose and no transfer of ownership or beneficial interests in the note actually occurred.

October 23, 2014 - - SPS Requests for Collateral & Allonge Audit
On October 23, 2014, SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking reflects a request for an
Allonge in Request ID # 1834357 and a request for Collateral in Request ID # 1834356. Also on
October 23, 2014, SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking reflects the following entry by
Sandra Widdowson Please audit and Imaged file and let Sandi know when Images are available.
Sandra Widdowson is also conducting an Allonge Review according to SPS Document Control Data for
Document Tracking and on October 23, 2014, she make an entry that states LPS allonge review.

October 24, 2014 - - SPS Requests Collateral File from Deutsche Bank
On October 24, 2014, SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking reflects an auto task entry
that states: Requested file from DB meaning Deutsche Bank.

November 13, 2014 - - SPS Requests Status of Request for Collateral File from Deutsche Bank
On November 13, 2014, SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking reflects an auto task entry
that states: Requested status from DB.

November 13, 2014 - - SPS Requests Borrower Collateral File from Deutsche Bank
As shown in the documents produced on the next to last day of trial, on November 13, 2014, three (3)
separate REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS were sent from Greg Ott, SPS Director of Document
Control, to the Collateral Request Unit at Deutsche Bank. In the reference line for each of the Request for
Release of Documents form, as required by and contained in the Subject PSAs Form J, the reference line
does not refer to the Plaintiff whatsoever, but to Transaction No. 1996-D and 1997-1 and specifically
states in each document: In connection with the custody of certain documents in respect of mortgage loans
identified in this documents of the annexed Mortgage Loan Schedule which are held by you as Custodian
pursuant to the above agreement, we request the release of the collateral file, for the reason indicated.
Yet, the above agreement and its Transaction No. (1996-D and 1997-1) referenced is a transaction
presumably dated in 1996 and 1997, a decade or almost a decade prior to the creation of the
Plaintiffs PSA in November of 2006 and the actual execution of the Borrower Loan documents on June
28, 2006.
Furthermore, the attached Mortgage Loan Schedule was not the MLS for the Subject PSA, but an entirely
different MLS with various loans that apparently were not related to the Plaintiff. The attached MLS on
November 13, 2014 reflected for the Borrower Loan a Loan Number of 0013359062; the Prior Loan
Number of 73393699; Status of Foreclosure; MSP Bank of AS6; a Pool Number of BOABA011;
the Borrowers Name of Scott Borrower; and the Investor Loan Number of 2054292.
An email also accompanied the Document Requests from SPS from Betsy Ozmore at
Betsy.ozmore@spservicing.com to santaana.custodyrequests@db.com dated Thursday, November 13,
2014 11:59 AM titled Status Request copying Bill Koch and attaching a document titled

Page 53
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
20141113094447320.pdf; DB.xlsx. Just minutes later on Thursday, November 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM
Sahira Diaz at sahira.diaz@db.com, on behalf of Santa Ana Custody Requests at
santaana.custodyrequests@db.com sends an email reply to Betsy Ozmore that states Betsy, Can you
please provide DB Loan Numbers. Also on the same date of November 13, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Betsy
Ozmore from her email address at Betsy.ozmore@spservicing.com sends a separate request to Deutsche
Bank Trust Company Americas (DBTCA), the former Bankers Trust who took a security interest in the
Borrower note upon closing at their contact at SantaAnaCustodyRequests/db/dbcom@DBAmericas. She
copied SPS Bill Koch at Bill.Koch@spservicing.com and the email provided to us for review did not
contain the attached file as the other emails, while yet reading: Please provide the status of the
attached files. Thank you. It appears the email may have been intentionally redacted to conceal a
separate MLS other than the one provided.

November 20, 2014 - - SPS Requests Status of Request for Collateral File from Deutsche Bank
On November 20, 2014, SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking reflects an auto task entry
that states: Requested status from DB. On this same date, there are a number of emails and
communications between SPS Betsy Ozmore and DBNTC and DBTCA. One such email was sent from
Betsy Ozmore at Betsy.ozmore@spservicing.com on Thursday, November 20, 2014 10:52 AM to
santaana.custodyrequests@db.com and copied Bill Koch that had a heading of Status request and
attached files coded 20141120083753036.pdf; DB.xlsx. The message of this email stated: Please
provide the status of the attached files. Thank you. On the same day, Betsy Ozmore at
Betsy.ozmore@spservicing.com at 7:51 sent a communication to
SantaAnaCustodyRequests/db/dbcom@DBAmericas and copied Bill Koch at
Bill.Koch@spservicing.com and sought a Status request but there was no named attachment while the
message read: Please provide the status of the attached files. Thank you. This message was sent to
DBTCA, not DBNTC as custodian for the Plaintiff. It once again appears the attachment line may have
been intentionally redacted.
A reply was sent from Sahira Diaz at sahira.diaz@db.com on behalf of SantaAna
CustodyRequests at santaana.custodyrequests@db.com on Thursday, November 20, 2014 5:27 PM
to Betsy Ozmore and Bill Koch and referenced Status request and a file attached coded
20141120083753036.pdf; DB.xlsx wherein the message stated: Besty, So I tried my best to find a
match for your 71 loans but with the information provided I was unable to identify. Please let me know if
you need anything else.

December 30, 2014 - - SPS Requests LNA (Lost Note Affidavit)


On December 30, 2014, SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking reflects a request for a
LNA, a common industry abbreviation for Lost Note Affidavit, in Request ID # 1943412 and SPS
Document Control Data for Document Tracking also reflects auto task entries that state: Reviewing for
LNA and Create LNA and bundle together for Bill. Copy allonge process.
SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking also reflects that critical to the creation of a false
Lost Note Affidavit is that SPS assigned this task to its Collateral Rep named Richmond in their
Document Control Data for Document Tracking that based on my personal knowledge and understanding
is an abbreviation for a company named Richmond Monroe which is known to me to fabricate evidence
for the purposes of litigation as reflected in my comments to the Florida Supreme Court.

December 31, 2014 - - SPS Requests LNA (Lost Note Affidavit)


On December 31, 2014, SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking reflects an entry by Sandra
Widdowson that state LNA in process.

January 5, 2015 - - Corp. Rep Subpoena Duces Tecum to Plaintiff

Page 54
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
On January 5, 2015, a Subpoena Duces Tecum was served upon the foreclosing plaintiff detailing
specific topic areas I required to be addressed and specific documents/data I needed to be produced to
develop my final reports and testimony. As an exhibit to that notice, an example of custodial data
contained in DBNTCs document custody and tracking system that I sought production of for the Borrower
loan specifically. This would show the Court and I the movement and possession of the Borrower original
note, whether Original Note 1 and/or Original Note 2. This was the critical data that the Plaintiffs
trustee was to maintain and only specific to the Borrower loan. The information is producible in a few
moments with a few keystrokes and is what DBNTC has produced in other cases I have been involved
with. Below, is a reduced cut and paste of Exhibit C to the Subpoena Duces Tecum served upon the
foreclosing plaintiff taken from DBNTCs system.

Page 55
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

To eliminate many of the Plaintiffs prior objections, I wrote for counsel a specific note that stated:
PLEASE NOTE: All areas of request pertain to issues directly related to the Borrower and the Borrowers note,
loan, mortgage, property, mortgage servicing rights to Borrowers loan, and any pool and/or securitization of
the Borrowers note, loan, and/or mortgage. This includes all services, information, data, actions, activities,
and/or arrangements related in any way to the origination, underwriting, selling, delivery, document custody,
servicing, default servicing, and foreclosure of the Borrowers loan, note, mortgage, and/or property. We do not
seek information on other borrowers. For example, when policies and procedure requests are made or user
guides and manuals are requested, we only seek those used to train employees and vendors who serviced the
borrowers note and loan. Headings are provided as general topic areas in order to assist you in selecting the
most appropriate representative to testify under the notice provided.

A deposition outline prepared for counsel containing Fifty-eight (58) areas of inquiry under Topic Headers
denoting categories of inquiry were provided to foreclosing plaintiff so they could select and provide the
appropriate corporate rep, instead of the typical corporate dummy/robo-witness from a servicer typically
produced by servicers such as SPS. In fact, topic areas exclusive to DBNTC as trustee and document custodian
were provided including PLAINTIFFS DOCUMENT CUSTODIAN (DBNTC) RECORDS, FILES & DATA that only
a person from DBNTC with access to such records could testify to.
January 26, 2015 - - Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment

On January 26, 2015, before even providing a deposition in the Volusia matter, foreclosing plaintiffs
attorneys filed a Motion for Final Summary Judgment supported by knowingly and intentionally false,
misleading, and fraudulent averments and potentially perjurious testimony. In this motion, they falsely averred
that the Borrower Mortgage was assigned to Deutsche Bank prior to the filing of the Complaint in paragraph
5 of their motion.

Page 56
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
In support of Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, they provided another affidavit as Exhibit 2 executed
by Michelle Simon, a document control officer for SPS, the alleged servicer of the subject loan wherein Simon
testifies that: 1) I am a Document Control Officer at Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS"), and am competent
to make this Affidavit based upon my personal knowledge; 2) SPS is the mortgage servicer for the Plaintiff for
the mortgage loan account that is the subject of this litigation (the "Mortgage Loan"). A copy of the Limited
Power of Attorney in favor of SPS is attached hereto as Exhibit A; 3) SPS acquired the servicing rights to the
Mortgage Loan from Bank of America, N.A., successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc ("BANA"); 4) SPS received servicing documents and information related to the
Mortgage Loan from BANA (the "BANA Documents"); 5) The BANA Documents were reviewed by SPS and
incorporated into SPSs record keeping system so that it could service the Mortgage Loan; 6) As part of SPSs
record keeping system, it maintains a computer database of documents, including the acts, transactions, payments,
communications, escrow account activity, disbursements, events, and analyses with respect to the Mortgage Loan
(the "Loan Records"); 7) The Loan Records include the BANA Documents; 8) The Loan Records are maintained
by SPS in the normal course of its business; 9) It is the regular practice of SPS to keep and maintain the Loan
Records; 10) The Loan Records were made at or near the time the events occurred; 11) The Loan Records
were made by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge thereof; 12) I have access to the
Loan Records maintained, with respect to the Mortgage Loan and have personally reviewed the same;
Critical to foreclosing plaintiffs motion and Ms. Simons sworn testimony was her testimony in paragraph 13 of
her affidavit in which she swore under penalties of perjury: I also have access to the Note and Mortgage and
have reviewed the same. The Note indicates that on June 28, 2006, Defendant Scot A. Borrower executed and
delivered an original promissory note in the amount of $ 394,400.00 to New Century Mortgage Corporation
(the "Note"). A copy of the Note is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Exhibit B that was attached was identical to Exhibit A attached to Plaintiffs complaint which is a copy of
Original Note 1, not Original Note 2 that was in possession of a Deutsche Bank entity and being held in
constructive possession for an unidentified entity according to SPS and DB records provided on the next to last
day of trial. Also critical is that Simon and SPS knew of the existence of Original Note 2 that was produced at
trial and that both notes were in BANAs records and imaging system and transferred to SPS.
However, instead of disclosing all known facts and the existence of a different version of the Borrower
original note as in Original Note 2, SPS and Simon intentionally misled the Court and Defendants by
concealing the existence of Original Note 2 and moving for summary judgment with a copy of Original Note
1 and then knowingly and intentionally misleading the Court with false and potentially perjurious testimony in
paragraphs 14 to 16 stating: 14) The original Note has been lost and is not in the custody or control of
Plaintiff; 15) The Note was continuously in possession and control of Plaintiffs assignor(s) and predecessor(s)
from the date of its execution until the loss and has not been paid or otherwise satisfied, assigned or transferred;
and 16) Plaintiffs assignor(s) and predecessor(s) were in possession of the Note and entitled to enforce it when
the loss occurred.
This testimony was made despite the fact that Simon, SPS and Plaintiff knew the exact location of Original
Note 2 that was referenced in SPS own business records and that versions of both Original Note 1 and
Original Note 2 were contained in SPS alleged business records transferred from BANA, but intentionally
concealed from the Court and Defendants. SPS and BANA also knew that the Borrower loan, note and
mortgage were previously sold from NCCC to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital.
The intentional deception didnt stop there. In paragraph 17 Simon testified that: the Loan Records indicate
that on June 11, 2010, BANA filed an Affidavit in Support of Final Summary Judgment. A copy of the Affidavit
in Support is attached hereto as Exhibit C. This was the same false, fraudulent and potentially perjurious
Repka affidavit I previously addressed in this declaration.

Furthermore, in paragraph 18 of her affidavit, Ms. Simon goes on to prove my contention about the absurdity

Page 57
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
of accepting anything a servicer or their witness says or writes as true without proper review and verification
when she testifies that: the Loan Records indicate that on June 28, 2006, Defendant Scot A. Borrower executed
a mortgage in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), solely as nominee for lender New
Century Mortgage Corporation which secured payment of the Note. A copy of the Mortgage is attached hereto as
Exhibit D.
Yet, a mere ten second reading and review of Exhibit D, the Borrower recorded mortgage, would show on its
very first page that the mortgage was in the name of the named lender, New Century Mortgage Corporation
and not MERS and that this was not a MERS mortgage.
In paragraph 20 of her affidavit, Simon testifies: the Loan Records indicated that on November 30, 2007,
prior to the filing of the Complaint, the original lender executed an Assignment of the Mortgage, with the
Promissory Note, to the Plaintiff. A copy of the Assignment of Mortgage is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
However, the operative complaint that is the subject of this lawsuit was filed in 2010, years after the
assignment. The Subject AOM that Simon is referring to was created for the first litigation to support the first
foreclosure complaint filed in January of 2008.
In paragraph 21 of her affidavit, Simon provides a legal conclusion and testifies that: Plaintiff is the holder of
the Note and Mortgage and was the holder of the Note and Mortgage prior to the filing of the Complaint. Such
obvious misrepresentations and omissions so late in the foreclosure action, to support a judgment, are
indicative of a robo-signed affidavit process. Simons affidavit was executed on November 12, 2014, more
than two-months prior to the filing of Plaintiffs summary judgment motion.

February 15, 2015 - - Plaintiffs Corp. Rep Deposition


On February 15, 2015, the previously noted corporate rep deposition of the foreclosing Plaintiff took
place. I prepared deposition questions for said deposition of their designated corporate rep, not a
representative of any servicer or person. My understanding of this deposition was that it would bind the he
foreclosing Plaintiff, a specified RMBS trust, to its testimony given by a person that the foreclosing Plaintiff
and its agents could prep and educate for the deposition.
At the beginning of the deposition, the following testimony and argument took place between the parties as
evidence in the transcript on page 8:
2 MS. MACK: And the basis is what, for your

3 objection?

4 MR. PASKY: Its a personal residence, it

5 has nothing to do -- shes a corporate

6 representative. Shes not appearing as Linda

7 Kuerzi, shes appearing as Linda Kuerzi,

8 corporate representative of Select Portfolio

9 Servicing, Inc.

10 MS. MACK: Okay.

11 MR. PASKY: This isnt her own personal

12 deposition.

13 MS. MACK: Understood.

SPS was not a named party to this action nor named in the deposition notice. I did not prepare a deposition

Page 58
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
script for SPS or any servicer nor even a trustee, but for the foreclosing plaintiffs trust that was the named
plaintiff and based on the record and evidence of the PSA supplied. Here, at the very start of the deposition,
Mr. Pasky was claiming on the record, that Ms. Kuerzi was not participating as an individual person, but as a
designated corporate representative. The only problem however is that Mr. Pasky was trying to change the
designation of the notice by claiming Ms. Kuerzi was appearing as a corporate rep of SPS and not the
Plaintiff, as noticed in the deposition notice. I have seen no stipulation or heard Ms. Mack or Defendants
accept such a change in designation. As such, the testimony I witnessed and the questions I prepared and
assisted on at deposition were for the Plaintiff and to bind the Plaintiff, not SPS.
Kuerzi in capacity as the named and noticed designated corporate representative testified on behalf of the
Plaintiff, in its capacity as a trust:
a) Testified that Plaintiff did not know who had physical possession of the Borrower original note on
the date this foreclosure action was filed;35
b) Testified that Plaintiff did not know if there were any endorsements on the Borrower original note
on the date this foreclosure action was filed;36
c) Testified Original Note 1, not Original Note 2 was the copy of the Borrower original note with a
NCMC tracking barcode and no endorsement contained in Plaintiffs business records;37
d) Testified that it was SPS, not the Plaintiff, that was seeking the payment of principal and interest
from Defendants in this lawsuit;38
e) Testified that Plaintiff didnt know if the First AOM was contained in Plaintiffs business records
even though it was noted in SPS Document Control records;39
f) Testified that Plaintiff didnt know if NCMC was still in business on November 30th, 2007, the
date the Subject AOM was executed and didnt know if Plaintiff had any documents in their file
that would show that New Century Mortgage Corporation had the power on November 30th,
2007, to assign assets to another entity;40
g) Testified Plaintiff didnt know where the original of its own Subject AOM was located despite
SPS own evidence produced at trial indicating the exact whereabouts;
h) Testified Plaintiff didnt know if the Plaintiff had access to either Borrower Original Note 1 or 2
to look at and examine despite their own evidence produced at trial indicating the exact
whereabouts at all times and request for its production prior to Plaintiffs testimony;41
i) Testified Plaintiff didnt know if the Borrower Original Note 1 or 2 was in its trustees possession
contrary to evidence they admitted at trial and concealed for several years;42
j) Testified extensively that Plaintiff had provided Defendants all of the documents they were going
to use at trial;43
k) Testified that Plaintiffs records show no other purchase or transfer of the Borrower loan and
original note and mortgage other than the assignment directly from NCMC to the Plaintiff in
November, 2007;44
l) Testified Plaintiff didnt know what its own Mortgage Loan Schedule (MLS) looked like;45
m) Testified Plaintiff didnt know if its own Mortgage Loan Schedule was static of subject to
change;46
n) Claimed that a note, now known to be sold by NCCC to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc.
(MSMC) on August 25, 2006, was assigned directly from NCMC the loans originator directly to

35 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 107 Line 24 to Page 108 Line 2.
36 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 108 Lines 3 6.
37 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 109 Lines 1 22.
38 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 97 Line 24 to Page 98 Line 4.
39 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 123 Line 24 to Page 124 Line 1.
40 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 124 Line 10 to Page 125 Line 21.
41 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition taken on February 5, 2015 at Page 86, Lines 12 18.
42 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page
43 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 126 Line 1 to Page 128 Line 15.
44 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 132 Line 1 to Page 136 Line 25.
45 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 77 Line 1 to Page 79 Line 24.
46 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 80 Lines 11 14.

Page 59
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
the trust bypassing the sale transaction and transfer from NCCC to MSMC; a transfer from
MSMC to the Plaintiffs Depositor, Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., the alleged depositor
and then to Plaintiffs RMBS trust;47
o) Was unfamiliar with provisions of Plaintiffs own PSA when its the very document that created the
Plaintiffs trust;48
p) Didnt know the location of the Borrower note Plaintiff claims it owned when its alleged servicer
and trustees record reflect the exact location by date;49
q) Didnt know where Plaintiffs own evidence of a sale and transfer from its alleged depositor to
the trust was located;50
r) Testified as to the Subject AOM, but testified there was only one AOM, ignoring the First AOM
noted in SPS own records;51
s) Testified that as of the date of deposition, February 5, 2105, the Borrower Original Note 1 or 2
were still lost despite SPS and DBNTC records indicating otherwise and the exact location of the
note.52
t) Testified that Plaintiff would provide lost note affidavits at trial, that they didnt bring to
deposition or produce, that would prove the loss of note despite the fact its alleged agents knew
its exact location in its record and that same system reflected the Lost Note Affidavit she testified
about was shredded days after her testimony on 4/1/15;53
u) Testified that Plaintiff didnt know if its trustee performed a search for the lost mortgage note,
despite the fact its alleged agents knew in its record reflected a search for the note;54
v) Testified that Plaintiff didnt know its own Acceptance by trustee provisions of its own PSA in
Section 2.02;55
w) Testified that Plaintiff didnt need to do a new or updated search for the lost Borrower note since
they already had a lost note affidavit that they intentionally shredded days after the
deposition;56
x) Testified that Plaintiff could Plaintiff go to Court with a lost note affidavit only after a search and
they know they are 100% sure they dont have the note contrary to what the SPS and DBNTC
indicated;57
y) Testified Plaintiff did not know about any pool or LPMI policies related to the Plaintiff and any
losses;58
z) Testified Plaintiff never reviewed any certification report as per its PSA indicating its trustee
certified the receipt of the Borrower Original Note 1 or 2;59
aa) Testified Plaintiff never reviewed any exception report as per its PSA indicating its trustee
identified any document defects or deficiencies with Borrower Original Note 1 or 2;60
bb) Testified Plaintiff didnt know the last entity that had possession of the original note before its
alleged loss, despite the records of DBNTC and SPS reflecting its exact location;61
cc) Testified Plaintiff didnt know for certain who hired the law firm that filed this foreclosure action
or retained the lawyers nor knew about invoices and fee arrangements for the very lawsuit they
filed as Plaintiff, were prosecuting and now testifying on behalf of;62

47 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 81 Lines 20 23.
48 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 81 Lines 20 23.
49 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 86 Lines 13 23.
50 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 87 Lines 5 7.
51 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 87 Lines 8 11.
52 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 87 Lines 12 14.
53 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 88 Lines 13 14 and 21.
54 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 91 Lines 1 3.
55 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 91 Lines 4 16.
56 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 91 Lines 8 24.
57 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 92 Lines 3 8.
58 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 92 Lines 12 to Page 93 Line 25.
59 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 94 Lines 1 3.
60 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 94 Lines 1 3.
61 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 94 Lines 4 8.
62 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 95 Lines 2 25.

Page 60
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
dd) Testified Plaintiff didnt know for certain if it was going to seek legal fees from Defendants
despite averments to the contrary in its pleadings;63
ee) Testified that SPS, as alleged agent for the Plaintiff, agreed that each of the averments
contained in the foreclosure complaint, including the lost note counts, were true and correct and
that they would not change anything despite knowing the existence and location of both Original
Note 1 and 2 in their systems of record;64
ff) Testified that Plaintiff had provided to Defendants all of the documentation they were going to
use in court for trial in a couple of months including the version of the promissory note they were
relying on, Original Note 1, not Original Note 2;65
gg) Testified that NCMC, not Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. (MSACI) as depositor, was the
entity that assigned the Borrower Note to the Plaintiff contrary to the provisions contained in its
PSA and Exhibit U in its PSA later provided to Defendants by NCMC and NCCCs liquidating
trustee;66
hh) Testified that Plaintiff didnt know if the Subject AOM conformed with the conveyance provisions
contained in Section 2.01 of Plaintiffs PSA;67
ii) Testified earlier that the Subject AOM assigned the Borrower Original Note directly to the Trust
then contrary to the Plaintiffs pleadings, testimony and arguments to the Court testifies Im saying
just because the Subject AOM has an execution date, that doesnt mean thats when it happened.
It could have happened sooner. The Subject AOM only shows the intent of where the note and
mortgage is, not what and when it occurred.68
jj) The Borrower note was lost as of 2/5/15 according to the Plaintiffs review of its records and
books when later books and records produced proved the contrary;69

The Plaintiff failed and refused to produce its own document custody records and data from the
necessary DBNTC records and other document custody records I knew to exist.

March 13, 2015 - - SPS Requests Original Note & Collateral File From Deutsche Bank
On March 13, 2015, SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking reflects an entry by Bill Koch
that states: Requested Collateral File from the Deutsche Bank website with ln# 1008687478.
Contains Orig Note, DB confirmation: Request ID 156953851 has been submitted for processing Request
156953651 Updated. As previously reflected herein the 1008687478 loan number was the original
NCMC loan number reflected in Original Note 1, not Original Note 2.

March 18, 2015 - - Plaintiffs Lost Note Affidavit Completed & Ready for Signature
On March 18, 2015, SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking reflects an entry by Bill Koch
that states: Per Deutsche Bank I have requested to have this file pulled and will update you once the file
has been located.

March 19, 2015 - - Lawson Collateral File Shipped to SPS & Tracked

63 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 96 Line 4 to Page 97 Line 3.
64 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 99 Lines 8 19.
65 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 100 Lines 3 23.
66 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 102 Line 8 to Page 104 Line 5.
67 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 120 Line 7 to Page 123 Line 7.
68 Plaintiffs Designated Corporate Rep (Kuerzi) Deposition take on February 5, 2015 at Page 141 Line 1 to Page 142 Line 9.

Page 61
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
On March 19, 2015, SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking reflects an entry by Bill Koch
that states: Per DB website Current Withdrawal Information Item FILE Sent To: Reason LITIGATION
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. 3815 S WEST TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115 Attention: BILL
KOCH Withdrawn On 3/19/2015 By valdroc Air Bill Number 1Z46453W0268445640 Transmittal
1792927 Transmitted On 3/19/2015 Authorized by BILL KOCH.

March 23, 2015 - - SPS Koch Notes Receipt of File from Deutsche Bank
On March 23, 2015, SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking reflects entries by Bill Koch that
state: Rcvd fm Deutsche Bank. Fwd to Betsy for processing and Rcvd executed Note Cert. Fwd file to
Ana for processing. Need to ship next day to atty at: McGlinchey Stafford c/o Daniel Pasky 10407
Centurion Pkwy. N., Suite 200 Jacksonville, FL 32256.
The SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking document that reflects the above information also
now contained additional and very detailed information about the contents of the collateral file that
included notations that: 1) there was no recorded assignment found in the collateral file nor was the
Subject AOM in the collateral file; 2) the First/Blank AOM that was unrecorded, but executed was found
in the collateral file; 3) Bailee letters were required; 4) there were both an original and copy of either
Original Note 1 and/or Original Note 2 in the file; 5) there was an original mortgage in the file; 6)
there was an original title policy in the file; and 6) there was only a copy, not original, of the unrecorded
First/Blank AOM. It was also noted that FC at LPS, not SPS, the Plaintiff or the Plaintiffs trustee
requested the collateral file and that the collateral was requested on 3/13/15 and completed on
3/23/15.

March 23, 2015 - - Plaintiffs Amended Witness & Exhibit List Filed
On March 23, 2015, the foreclosing plaintiff filed their amended witness and exhibit list at Docket #260
and list an original note with blank endorsement that Simon first testified about at her deposition on
March 9, 2015.

March 24, 2015 - - Plaintiff Dismisses Lost Note Count II


On March 24, 2015, the foreclosing plaintiff files a motion to voluntarily dismiss Count II of their
complaint and admit that an original note will be filed with the Court at Docket # 261. They do not
amend their complaint or withdraw the Subject AOM.

March 25, 2015 - - Plaintiff Files Motion for Judicial Notice


On March 25, 2015, the foreclosing plaintiff filed a motion at Docket # 262 for the Court to take
Judicial Notice of the their public filing of their PSA with the SEC. Such filings along with their Mortgage
Loan Schedules are indicative of what is intended to occur on that specific date, but may not be what
actually occurred. In fact, the Subject PSA was subject to amendment and change. The production of a
document that actually established the foreclosing plaintiffs existence that is obtained from a public
electronic source instead of the best evidence of the agreement, a certified copy of the most recent
executed Subject PSA with all current and updated amendments, schedules and exhibits is a red flag for
securitization and/or foreclosure fraud.

March 26, 2015 - - Multiple Trial & Discovery Motions & Notices Filed
On March 26, 2015, the Defendants filed a Notice at Docket #269 to allow me to inspect and test the
original note that had been previously requested. Foreclosing plaintiff refused to allow such an
inspection. Also on March 26, 2015, Foreclosing plaintiff files at Docket #268 a notice of its responses to
Defendants 6th request for production of documents. At Docket #270 Defendants file their trial and
witness exhibit list.

Page 62
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Most importantly, due to the newly discovered facts surrounding the alleged location of Original Note 2,
I created a very targeted and limited request for production at Docket #271 that simply requested
known data and documents to track each known record related to the custody of Original Note 1 and
Original Note 2 that included: 1) ALL entries in the ReconTrust/BOA routing history related to the Lawson
loan; 2) Complete document custody records and data of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company from
origination of the Lawson Loan to current date; 3) Each and every letter, shipping receipt, request for file
and all communication between any party relating in any way to the original note; 4) All custodial
records from inception of the loan to present date; including bailee letters, release forms as per the PSA;
5) Current electronic database and file containing all loan schedules created for the subject trust from its
inception; 6) All loan level data related to the Lawson loan transmitted to Bloomberg, BlackBox Logic
and Lawtons ABSNet systems by the trust and its agents or vendors; 7) All images related to this loan on
both SPS and BOAs imaging systems and all of the MSP data. 8) All financial and accounting records of
the Plaintiff trust, recognizing the Lawson debt obligation from inception of the trust to current date.

April 1, 2015 - - Plaintiffs Lost Note Affidavit Created by Richmond Monroe for SPS is
Intentionally Shredded and Not Preserved
On April 1, 2015, SPS Document Control Data for Document Tracking reflects an entry by SPS Betsy
Ozmore that states: shredding LNA - original docs were rcvd.

May 26, 2015 - - SPS Prints MAS1/INV1 Investor Screen from Black Knight MSP System
On May 26, 2015, two-days prior to the deposition of SPS designated trial witness, Lawrence Nardi, an
employee of SPS prints up the MAS1/INV1 investor screen from the Black Knight MSP system. The
screenshot, as shown below, contained investor information without a complete chain of historical archive
data in the screen that reflects what the information reflected on the date of foreclosure filing; the date
the trust was created; and any other date in between.
Yet, this piece of evidence produced just days before trial, reflected a new entity, the Bank of New York,
as the holder of the Borrowers note and the investor as the foreclosure entity. Bank of New York is not
the trustee for the foreclosing RMBS trust. This piece of evidence will become more important as you will
learn herein. SPS produced a few critical pieces of evidence they withheld for years.
The MAS1/INV1 screen shown below entered into evidence reflects that Bank of New York is the holder
of at least one of the Original Notes and the foreclosing Plaintiff is the named investor. The MSP HDR has
been shown to mean and has been testified in other cases as meaning Holder which would make sense
since its on an Investor Screen The INV abbreviation commonly refers to Investor which has the
foreclosing Plaintiff listed. This is further evidence of the double or multi-pledge scheme in a securitization
fail or fraud scenario. It also provides evidence that two notes, loans and chains of custody and
ownership were created for the Borrowers loan.
The document under Contract/Pool No. also reflects a code for BOABA, 011 that reflects this loan is in an
entirely different pool. It also has a code for Doc Cust for document custodian that reflects a number of
0000000020. The document custodian, is not referenced and that now provided. Critical to this document
is that it was created on May 5, 2015 at 13:52:12 that shows with military-like precision, exactly when a
document is created to the second. The document is shown below.

Page 63
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

Compounding the situation, is that SPS also produced a bailee letter with no reference to the RMBS
Trust that was the foreclosing plaintiff. Instead, the SPS bailee letter as shown before reflects that the
note being sent to counsel and then filed with the Court, for the first time in seven years to see was
Original Note 2, not Original Note 1. A copy of SPS bailee letter is contained directly below:

Page 64
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Other MAS1/INV1 MSP investor screens, as shown below, also raise suspicions about the double pledge
or sale scam. In a similar transaction, the screen reflects a trust as investor and the holder as Bank of New
York. It also has a Contract/Pool No of BOABA012 and document custodian code of 0000000063.

In yet another MAS1/INV1 screen, the Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is shown as the trustee and
the entire trust description is given including the street address of Deutsche Banks document custody
facility in Santa Ana, CA as shown below:

Page 65
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
May 28, 2015 - - Defendants Deposition of SPS Nardi as Plaintiffs Designated Trial Witness
On May 28, 2015, a deposition was conducted of SPS designated trial witness, Lawrence Nardi, an
employee of SPS.

May 28 June 1, 2015 - - Pre-Trial Before


Trial was to begin on June 1, 2015 in the Volusia Court. Most critical to this case was the identification and
tracking of two different alleged original promissory notes. For seven years, in not one, but two different
foreclosure actions, the first one voluntarily dismissed, the Plaintiff, fraudulently claim the original note was
lost, when in fact their business records reflected not one, but two original notes with differing loan numbers
and custodians being tracked as Original Note 1 and Original Note 2.
We had missing data and evidence and fraud and required the tracking data for both Original Note 1and
Original Note 2 and their related collateral files. We needed the exact location, shipment, receipt,
conveyance, possession and control of each note. I had sought production of the extensive document custody
and tracking data from all known sources that were known to me to have touched the collateral files and/or
notes from servicers and lenders to purchasers, custodians and law firms. A promissory note and its related
collateral file, as I showed you earlier in this report and as testified to by Plaintiffs witness in this matter,
leaves a trail of data, documents, receipts, information and images in each lender, servicer, custodian,
purchaser, and law firms document custody and tracking systems.
Like a blood, urine or semen sample used in other criminal and civil cases before any court, a documented
and unbroken chain of custody should exist for both Original Note 1 and Original Note 2 using the barcode
tracking numbers and labels on each note and on the collateral file folder at Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company.
The chain of custody and title puzzle presented to Defendants and the Volusia Court was an intentional maze
of deception promulgated by the servicers and their attorneys for the named Plaintiff. It is a maze I am
very familiar with. The chain of custody for an original wet-ink paper promissory note typically begins at the
closing table (now e-notes can be executed) with a closing or escrow agent. Despite numerous documents
being executed, the closing agent will commonly receive a series of instructions from the originating lender,
warehouse lender or other party dictating the documents to be executed; on whose behalf the closing agent
may be acting as a bailee for or who claims a security interest in the executed mortgage and note; shipping
and delivery instructions; wire instructions; and conveyance instructions for the mortgage to be recorded. Thus,
the first step in identifying the chain is to start with the closing agent and their records and data for the loan.
Often, the closing agent is provided a stacking order for all of the documents executed at the closing and to
place in a folder in the prescribed stacking order, the closing and disclosure documents, often on the left
side of the folder, and the collateral documents (original note, mortgage, allonges, title policies etc) on the
right side of the folder. The closing agent may be given a bailee letter for the documents or closing
instructions advising the closing agent that a security interest may be held for a specified or undisclosed party.
In this case, the closing took place on June 28, 2006 and immediately prior to the Lawson loan closing date, a
Letter to Closing Agent, introduced at trial as Defendants Exhibit 2 was provided to the Borrowers Title
Company and informed the Closing Agent that in addition, you are hereby notified that Bankers Trust Company
(n/k/a Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas), as agent for certain lenders and a certain lessor (in such
capacity, the Agent) has a security interest in the deed of trust or mortgage note, deed of trust or mortgage,
and all other supporting documents for the above referenced loan.
Newly discovered evidence, provided by the NCMC/NCCC Liquidating Trustee, informed Defendants and
myself that the unknown lender or lessor referenced above was most likely Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB),
the parent company of the foreclosing plaintiffs alleged servicer, SPS, who was the warehouse lender for
the Lawson Loan. CSFB had numerous repurchase agreements with New Century related entities.

Page 66
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
So, we can logically with certainty deduce that the Closing Agent, Southern Title, touched the Borrower
collateral file and Original Note 1 and/or Original Note 2. The next place we pick up any version of the
Original Note is on July 6, 2015 when Original Note 1 is scanned into NCMCs imaging system and remains
there through their bankruptcy in April of 2007 since we received an image of Original Note 1 from the
NCMC Liquidating Trustee in July of 2016. We also now know that Credit Suisse First Boston was the
warehouse lender and may have been the party that took possession of either Original Note 1 and/or
Original Note 2 per unidentified, undisclosed and most importantly, unproduced repurchase and financing
agreements with NCMC, NCCC or other related New Century entities.
We know for a fact that the Subject PSA is dated November 1, 2006 and its defined closing date is
November 28, 2006. Per the disclosures of the Liquidating Trustee, we understand that on August 25, 2006,
the Lawson loan, note and mortgage were sold from NC Capital Corporation to Morgan Stanley Mortgage
Capital Inc. according to the provisions contained in Exhibit U to the Plaintiffs PSA, the Sixth Amended and
Restated Mortgage Loan Purchase and Warranties Agreement dated May 1, 2006. Thus, from those
agreements and the Subject PSA as well as the FWP referenced for the Plaintiff, we can construct a potential
chain of title that at minimum should look like this1. New Century Mortgage Corporation (NCMC) > 2.
New Century Capital Corporation (NCCC) > to 3. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. (MSMC) > 4.
Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. > 5. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Morgan
Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., Trust 2006-NC5, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate, 2006-NC5.
The newly discovered evidence along with the limited evidence provided at trial provides differing and
divergent paths for both Original Note 1 and Original Note 2. We have evidence that there were repurchase
and financing agreements between New Century Mortgage Corporation and related affiliates such as NCCC
and New Century Financial and Credit Suisse First Boston, Countrywide, Bank of America and Mortgage
Stanley, all parties that have claimed some interest and participation at some point in time with the Lawson
loan, note and/or mortgage.
Nardi had testified that a promissory note should be able to be located on any specific day by the tracking
system of DBNTC, the custodian. Yet, the foreclosing plaintiff sought and obtained a protective order over
those very records. Instead, the shell plaintiff, being directed by its servicers and counsel, only produced a
snippet of admittedly Bank of Americas business records, as discussed herein, showing an alleged indorsed
note with the unknown Deutsche Bank entity in December of 2006 in a collateral file. A Bank of America
Instance Detail screen was presented just days before deposition and at trial. The detail is provided below:

None of the DBNTC data or records we sought was provided. The only tracking records produced prior to
trial, were the very limited records of Bank of America that included a recently produced, right before trial,

Page 67
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Instance Detail and Routing History. The Routing Histories provided below only reflect a collateral file being
tracked.

None of the NCMC original stacking orders and collateral checklists were provided that I knew existed:

Page 68
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
As you will see later in this report, there are additional screens and data the foreclosing plaintiffs
attorney and servicers concealed from the Defendants and courts that would have allowed me to
decipher and put the double pledge or sale securitization fraud together. The evidence reflects that you
had a dummy collateral file and an original file and allonges and endorsements could be placed on
whichever document at a later date before foreclosure. However, what you will see, as trial began, is the
lengths and frauds the foreclosing plaintiffs servicers, custodians, trustees, attorneys and witnesses went
to in order to conceal a decade of fraud, and seven years of fraud upon the court!

June 1, 2016 - - Trial & Further Fraud Upon the Court Designed to Intentionally Mislead the
Judge
While I am not an attorney and I make no professional opinion as to the commitment of perjury by the
foreclosing plaintiffs witness and subornation of perjury by their counsel, Kathleen Angione of
McGlinchey Stafford, I do have an understanding of the facts and elements necessary to make such
claims, that I will leave to the Volusia Courts exclusive purview at a later date. However, a careful
analysis of my report, the evidence, testimony and facts related to the Volusia case may lead the Volusia
Court to believe that serious perjury may have been committed as well as the subornation of such perjury
by Ms. Angione.
As part of their historical false and fraudulent foreclosure schemes, the foreclosing plaintiffs servicers,
attorneys and their witnesses often take it upon themselves to introduce the prior servicing records of
prior servicers that are often flawed and full of missing and incomplete data, errors, frauds and/or
misapplications, as their own business records to overcome the hearsay objection. In this case, one of the
most contentious issues was surrounding the last minute production of Original Note 2 that contained an
endorsement and markings contrary to the version of Original Note 1 that was filed as an attachment to
the Plaintiffs complaint in the matter when the records produced and later obtained by me reflect that
the location of Original Note 2 was always known to the foreclosing plaintiffs servicers and attorneys
and further contained in their imaging systems of record.
In this and other cases involving Bank of America and Countrywide, I have personally witnessed two
different versions of borrowers alleged original promissory notes with differing endorsements and chains
of endorsements, possession, custody and title. It is highly problematic and indicative of what is known in
the industry as a double or multi-pledge fraudulent scheme where an insider such as a servicer, custodian,
originator or even law firm with access to original wet-ink promissory notes endorsed in blank or
containing loose, unattached and pre-executed blank pieces of papers containing undated specific and
blank endorsements and labeled allonges are placed in collateral files for the easy transfer of rights
and interests in said original notes for various financings, repurchases, transfers and sales that are
concealed from borrowers and the Courts.
In this scheme, only images or 4 color laser copies of original notes with differing endorsements or
unattached pieces of paper called allonges were transferred to document custodians, sometimes with
accompanying Lost Note Affidavits (LNA) while the original is used by the party in possession of the
original to borrow against or for repurchase and financing agreements. In essence, there are multiple
flows of money, income and revenue from differing sources for each version of a borrowers original note
such as in this case, Original Note 1 and Original Note 2.
Only when foreclosure is imminent or the production of an original note is mandated by a Court does the
party in possession arrange with lawyers to produce the note, often while it is known other parties that
are not a party to the litigation will be benefiting from the proceeds of the litigation. These various
schemes are too complex to detail herein, but the evidence in this matter, as in other foreclosure matter
involving Bank of America and Countrywide as servicers or originators, reflects that they held onto the
originals for their own undisclosed benefit while only conveying images and copies to RMBS Trusts. As
shown in their own experts report and the $8.5 billion settlement agreement with the Bank of New York

Page 69
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Mellon, BANA has an incentive to fabricate foreclosure evidence and notes to make the certificate
holders of RMBS trusts whole since they have agreed to pay out 100 on the dollar in many occasions for
any losses stemming from their wrongful and/or unlawful behavior in not transferring, conveying or
delivering borrowers original wet-ink notes to their designated trustees and document custodians such as
BONY, DBNTC and DBTCA.
In the Volusia action, as described herein, after years of requests for relevant and vital data to prove
their frauds and abuses, the foreclosing plaintiffs attorney finally produced Original Note 2 and
extremely limited and especially selected and created snippets of the extensive document custody,
ownership, holder and pledge data, records, and evidence maintained by SPS, DBNTC, DBTCA, NCMC,
Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Countrywide, ReconTrust, law offices of David Stern and Daniel
Consuegra and others.
Critical to their case, Angione knew that due to recent Florida Appeals Court decisions, she needed to
show that the Plaintiff was in physical and/or constructive possession, as she argued, of Original Note 2
on the date that the foreclosure action was filed since the foreclosing plaintiff claimed the original note
was lost and attached only a copy of Original Note 1 as an exhibit to their complaint that contained no
endorsement whatsoever. Furthermore, she knew she had to not only show that the foreclosing plaintiff
had possession of Original Note 2 on the date the foreclosure action was filed, she had to prove that
Original Note 2 had the Nagy endorsement in blank on that specific date in time.
Additionally, since her client, in actuality was SPS, not the Plaintiff as claimed by co-counsel Daniel Pasky,
was a new servicer, it did not have its own business records evidencing those specific facts she needed to
introduce. Furthermore, SPS and Bank of America were fully aware of the various document defects and
deficiencies as well as frauds committed by NCMC and others as well as their own misdeeds relating to
the failure to properly securitize loans and recent regulatory actions and consent agreements involving
the parties.
They were also aware of the requirements of settlements to sell off servicing rights to many problem
loans to special servicing operations like SPS and NationStar per their $8.5 billion plus settlement
agreement with the Bank of New York Mellon that all of a sudden appeared on SPS own business
records as the holder of the Borrower note just days before trial in the suddenly produced MAS1/INV1
screenshot from their MSP system of record. When we sought confirmation of that fact and business
records, codes and legends from Black Knight to prove that fatal flaw in the foreclosing plaintiff case in
chief, they fought vehemently to prevent the production of such records and data once again raising a
red flag for intentional deception and fraud on the Court as well as a finding by a Court of intrinsic
and/or extrinsic fraud upon the Court.

False Nardi Testimony About Note & Collateral File Tracking

Page 70
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
In order to introduce Original Note 2 into evidence, Angione had to get Nardi to introduced the alleged
original note. The following testimony, examination and voir dire

The Court: Okay. As soon as you're ready to, you can continue.

Angione: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, if I may approach and have these marked for identification.

The Court: Okay. You may. (Plaintiff's Exhibits B and C were marked for I.D.)

Angione: Your Honor, if I may approach the witness.

The Court: You may.

Angione: Okay. I'm going to hand the5 witness what has been marked for identification purposes, Plaintiff's
B and C. (Tendering.)

Angione: Mr. Nardi, do you recognize these documents?

Nardi: I do.

Angione: Okay. How do you recognize them?

Nardi: From the review of the books and records of my employer.

Angione: Okay. Do these documents refer to the Lawson loan, that we're here on today?

Nardi: They do.

Angione: Okay. Did you have -- did SPS have possession of these documents before we came here today?

Nardi: Yes.

Angione: Did you tender them, to us, for submission to the Court in support of this action?

Nardi: We did.

Angione: Okay. Your Honor, at this time we seek to move the original promissory note into evidence as a
self-authenticating document. And we also seek to move in the original mortgage, Your Honor. That
is a recorded -- original recorded instrument, Your Honor.

The Court: All right. The note is B and the mortgage is C?

Angione: That is correct.

Mack: Your Honor, I would like to voir dire on the note.

The Court: All right. You can do that.

Mack: Thank you, sir.

Page 71
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION

Mack: Mr. Nardi, when was the first time that you saw the alleged, original note?

Nardi: This is the first time I've seen the original note. I've seen copies of the original previously.

Mack: Okay. And the original note has been lost, hasn't it?

Nardi: Well, it's here in front of me. So I think it had been previously lost, I guess is the term you want
to use. The note is here in front of me. So I don't think it's currently lost.

Mack: Okay. So could you tell the Court where the note was when this lawsuit was filed?

Nardi: I think -- I believe my understanding of the records is, it was with David Stern's office when the
lawsuit was filed. Well, let me -- it might have been the first lawsuit for foreclosure. My
understanding is that, subsequent to that, it was returned to Deutsche Bank, the trustee for Hausen,
the custodian

Mack: Okay. And the understanding that you are telling the Court about, what's the evidence you're
going to show the Court that would show, in fact, Deutsche Bank, the custodian, did have the
original wet ink note and it was residing in their vault on the day this lawsuit was filed?

Nardi: I'm not sure of your question, I'm sorry.

Mack: Yes. What do you base your belief that it was in Deutsche Bank's vault upon

Nardi: There are records from Bank of America , a prior servicer, to indicate their status, their location at
several points in time during the life of the loan, which indicated to me that it was in the
possession of Deutsche.

Mack: And those records are not in front of you, correct?

Nardi: They're not in front of me at the moment.

Mack: Okay. Well, can you tell the Court why they -- why the Plaintiff has been proceeding on a lost note
count for the last five and a half years?

Nardi: It was our understanding that the note had -- that it was lost at the point in time where the lost
note count or the lost note pleadings were in place. We weren't able to locate it. It had been not
until recently that we were able to locate the note.

Mack: Okay. And were you personally involved in that search for the lost note?

Nardi: No.

Mack: Okay. So someone told you all of these things happened; is that correct?

Nardi: No. I was able to review business records that indicated it. And by virtue of my own review of
those records, I was able to determine that it made sense that, as they were looking for the
note, they were not looking with adequate vigor or with proper information to locate it.

Mack: In fact, they weren't looking for the note, per se, were they? And the business records you
reviewed did not track the note, per se. They tracked a file that may or may not have contained
the note; isn't that correct?

Page 72
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Nardi: The collateral file, which would contain the note, I think is what you're referring to. Yes, it does travel in
its entirety, along with, generally, the mortgage so that they remain together during the course of the
loan's lifetime.

Mack: So, as we sit here today, do you have any evidence that would show that the Plaintiff had
physical possession of, not the collateral file, but the actual physical wet ink note on or before
the date this lawsuit was filed?

Angione: Your Honor, I'm going to object at this point. We're trying to admit it evidence, Your Honor. She's
speaking to the issue of -- I mean, that's the issue in the case and that's standing. I mean, I think at
this point there's a statutory right -- it's a self authenticating document. We have the right to bring it
in. She wants to argue cross-examination as opposed to voir dire, Your Honor.

Mack: Your Honor, it's outside the scope of the pleadings. The note, that's attached to the complaint, is
not endorsed. It has other bar codes on it that this alleged original does not have. The Plaintiff
has proceeded on a lost note count for over five years. And they have to show -- at least it's my
understanding -- where the suddenly-appearing note has been for the last five and a half years,
and that they did, in fact, have the right to enforce the loan documents on the date that they filed
this lawsuit. So that's what I'm getting at, sir. This is basic pleading. We have lots of cases on the
issue. I'd be happy to give those to the Court.

The Court: Well, I agree that that's an issue in the case. The point is, is that she's just moving it into evidence at
this point. Certainly, you can cross-examine -- the issue as to whether or not they had the original in
their possession at the time they filed the lawsuit, is certainly fair game. But I think that goes more
towards the weight of the evidence as it does admissibility.

Mack: But this is a relevance issue. Because this note is not framed by the pleadings. It's irrelevant within
the context of this lawsuit.

The Court: So what you're saying is, is it doesn't match up with the -- with the copy that was attached to the
complaint.

Mack: Yes, sir.

The Court: You're talking about the original complaint or are you talking about

Mack: I'm talking about the 2010 complaint filed in January of 2010 now.

The Court: Wasn't there an amended complaint somewhere along the line, here, this spring?

Mack: No, sir.

Angione: Your Honor --

The Court: No. There was just a withdrawal of the

Angione: We dropped the lost note count, Your Honor. And we are traveling under the authority of
Hughes versus Home Savings Bank, at 675 So.2d 649, and also under Deutsche Bank versus
Taperi, at 89 So.3d 996.0 But, Your Honor, I, once again, would agree that we can discuss all
of these issues as part of cross-examination. We can fully explore them. But at this point, Your
Honor, we're at voir dire of this witness. So at this point, I mean

The Court: Well, she says you're trying to introduce a different note and it's outside the scope of the
pleadings.

Page 73
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Angione: Your Honor, as I indicated, I would be relying on Bank of New -- excuse me -- on Hughes versus
Home Savings of America.

The Court: So you can introduce a different note than what you had attached to the complaint?

Angione: Yes, Your Honor. Actually, Taperi stands for the position -- is that plaintiff cured its clerical error in
failing to file the mortgage that both defendants signed by its filing of -- a notice of filing a copy
of that mortgage and serving on the defendants. And in this case, Your Honor, we did file a copy
of the note with the complaint. We then realized that we hadn't filed the right copy of it. So
under the Taperi case, yes, we do have the right to come in. We did do a notice of filing those
documents. So we have cured that pleading defect and that clerical error. We did plea in
paragraph 5, Your Honor, that we were the owner and holder of the note and the mortgage. Being
a holder would suggest possession. So when we dropped our reestablishment note, which we are
permitted to do, Your Honor, under the new case law on that issue, we are allowed to drop all or
part of our claims. And we did that properly as well, Your Honor.

The Court: All right. When did -- when did you send Ms. Mack a copy of that original, that we're introducing
into evidence?

Angione: We did a notice of filing, Your Honor. If you recall, we pulled this

The Court: Well, I know

Mack: March 23rd.

The Court: -- on 5/27, you actually filed the

Angione: I believe

The Court: -- originals.

Angione: I believe we also filed it on May 12th, Your Honor.

The Court: Okay.

Mack: March 23rd, was the first time that we saw the endorsed note, sir. Then

The Court: Oh, I see one. Okay. May 12th,1 it looks like, the original note and mortgage was filed.

Angione: Yes, Your Honor.

Mack: But the Court -- if the Plaintiff had decided to amend their complaint to cure some of these issues, I
wouldn't be standing here almost jumping up and down. However, there are a great deal

The Court: I'll let you get into the difference between what's on the complaint and what's in this original here,
at this point, if you'd like.

Mack: I would like to. Thank you, sir.

The Court: Go ahead.

Mack: Mr. Nardi, can you tell the Court the reason why the Plaintiff decided it was going to attach a note
that was not endorsed, if it had an endorsed note all along?

Page 74
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Nardi: The -- if counsel was provided a copy of the note that didn't have an endorsement, they would
have -- they would have filed what they had been provided. So my answer would be: They
were given a copy of an unendorsed note. That's the one they filed -- with the Court -- they were
instructed to file.

Mack: And so what do you base your testimony that the Plaintiff has had this note since before the
lawsuit was filed? What piece of evidence or pieces of evidence do you have that you can tell
the Court, for sure, that the note, not the collateral file, but the note itself was actually in the
possession of the Plaintiff and not with Mr. Stern or somebody who was unrelated to the
Plaintiff at the time the lawsuit was filed?

Nardi: Well, I think the misunderstanding here is that there is a separate tracking system just for the note and
there's not. The tracking system tracks the collateral file, which is both of these documents; the note
and the mortgage together. So...

Mack: There's a separate tracking system, sir?

Mack: No. I said there is not a separate tracking system.

Mack: There is not a separate tracking system?

Nardi: Correct. So I think the premise is, these documents travel together. This tracking system tracks the
collateral file, not separate documents within the collateral file itself.

Mack: So you can't tell the Court that the Plaintiff actually had the note. You can speculate that the
note was in the collateral file, right? But you can't say, for sure, that the note was in the
possession of Deutsche Bank. All you can say is that you've seen some records that show that
Deutsche Bank was sent the collateral file at some point; isn't that true?4

Nardi: A Business records show that the collateral file was provided to Deutsch at several occasions
during the lifetime of the loan.

Mack: The collateral file. So what can you tell the Court about the location of the blank endorsed
note?

Nardi: The collateral -- well, again, my understanding is going to be, the collateral file is going to
contain both the mortgage and the note. So my business records are going to tell me that they
were in the possession of Deutsche at the time the lawsuit was filed.

Mack: And, in fact, you can't tell the Court that the note was even endorsed back in 2007 or 2008 or
20092 or 2010, '11, '12, '13, '14, or the first several months of '15, right?

Nardi: Well, again

Mack: Because you don't know when that endorsement was placed, correct?

Nardi: Well, the business records will show dates that the note was noted to be endorsed and in the
possession of certain parties -- I believe Deutsche, again -- at certain points in time. So my
review of the business records would show otherwise, that it was certainly endorsed and in
the possession of a certain party at a certain time.

Mack: And that brings us to the real key here, because the note, as endorsed in blank, can actually be
negotiated by the person holding it, right? And, therefore, if someone's holding it and they're not
supposed to be holding it, they can use it to their own advantage, right?

Page 75
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Nardi: Are you -- so you're asking me if this negotiable instrument is negotiable by the person holding it?

Mack: I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you, isn't it important to know where a blank endorsed
note is at every step of the way?

Nardi: Certainly.

Mack: Okay. It's important because if you're going to sue for foreclosure, you need it attached to your
complaint, right?

Nardi: Preferable.

Mack: You need to be able to proceed with the note as opposed to going and proceeding with a lost
note, right?

Nardi: It would be preferable.

Mack: Okay. So what can we tell the Court about the evidence you have that will show where the note
was on the day the lawsuit was filed?

Nardi: Well, again, I can't differentiate the records that will supply, specifically, note. It will be regarding the
collateral file, which, again, will contain the note, mortgage, potentially, a title policy, and other
documentation. But those are the most important ones. So those documents or those records are going
to be pointing to the fact that it was in the possession of Deutsche at the time.

Mack: The collateral file -- I mean, your testimony, right now, is based on some industry knowledge,
right? Because it should contain these items. The collateral file should contain these items,
right?

Angione: Your Honor, we don't

Mack: You told me that in the deposition we took a few days ago.

Angione: Your Honor, if I may object. We are outside of the scope of voir dire. And the problem with that

The Court: If you had said, asked and answered, I would have sustained

Angione: Well, he has -- that has been asked and answered, multiple times.

The Court: All right. My understanding is, he's looking at the records. The records reflect the tracking of
the collateral file. There's no independent tracking of the note or the mortgage. Now, unless I'm
confused, that's been the answer every time. You've asked it. Are you looking for anything
else?

Mack: Your Honor, I would ask that the Court exclude the note because it's not

The Court: Well, I understand what you're going to ask. But I'm just saying, as far as

Mack -- relevant to the proceedings.

Page 76
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

The Court: -- your questioning, though, it seems to me, you've already established what you want to
establish; that is, the only evidence he's looking at is the tracking for the collateral file. And
you want me to -- or you want me to infer that he's just assuming that the note and the
mortgage are in the collateral file.

Mack: You don't have to infer it, sir. Mr. Nardi told me that he would -- he didn't know for sure, in his
deposition I took on Thursday.

The Court: All right. But do you have any other questions about that, other than -- you know, because -- don't
ask the same questions over and over again. You can get into something new now.

Mack: Yes, sir.

The Court: Phrase it a different way. Phrase your question a different way.

Mack: Yes.

The Court: Ask the first question in that line.

Mack: Mr. Nardi, what evidence do you have that would show that the note was placed in the collateral
file on or before the date this lawsuit was filed?

Nardi: The books and records of my employer and the prior servicer.

Mack: And what books and records? Does it have a title?

Angione: Your Honor, I'm just going to object. We're going outside of voir dire.

The Court: Well, I thought this was the same thing, though. You just -- you went from one thing that I -- you
know, that I was letting you get into, and then you skipped right back to the old question again.
You were asking about -- you were asking about how he knew that, I guess, there was a blank
endorsement on the -- on the note at the time the complaint was filed.

Mack: Yes, sir. I'm getting

The Court: Well, why don't you ask him first whether or not he knows there was a blank endorsement at the
time the complaint was filed. Why don't you ask that first.

Mack: Yes. Well, Mr. Nardi, do you know if there was a blank endorsement on the note at the time that
this complaint was filed?

Nardi: There are the -- there are records in our -- there are records to reflect that there was a blank
endorsement on the note at the time the complaint was filed, yes.

Mack: Okay. And whose records are those?

Nardi: I believe they're from Bank of America, the prior servicer.

Mack: You believe they're from Bank of America, those records, that would show this endorsed note?

Nardi: I don't have them directly in front of me. But, I as recall, they're Bank of America records.

Page 77
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Mack: The next question is: What evidence do you have that the endorsed note was physically in the
possession of the Plaintiff at the time the lawsuit was filed?

Nardi: I've reviewed business records that show the summary of all of the check-ins and check-outs
of the collateral file, which will show that they were in the possession of Deutsche at the time
the complaint was filed.

Mack: But isn't it true that you cannot say, for sure -- you can't tell the Judge, for sure, that the note
endorsed in blank was actually part of the collateral file as it was being tracked, right?

Angione: Your Honor, I'm going to object. She's seeking to impose even -- first, we're going way beyond the
scope of voir dire. Second, the standard in this case is the preponderance of the evidence. And
she's asking the witness what he could show with 100 percent certainty. That's not even the
standard that the Plaintiff has in this case.

The Court: All right. Well, we can certainly excise that part of the question

Mack: Your Honor, with regard to this whole line of questions, because there's no evidence that the
Plaintiff possessed the note, they basically have to proceed as if they were a non-holder and make
up for all those times that they don't have the note.

The Court: Okay. So is that your objection to the note and the mortgage coming into evidence?

Mack: Your Honor, the objection is that, number one, it's irrelevant. It's outside the pleadings as framed by
the Plaintiff's complaint. You cannot amend your complaint by dropping a count or doing a notice
of filing an original document that is completely different than the one that you have attached to
your complaint. It has an authenticity issue. And without extrinsic evidence of that authenticity to
show that there was physical possession, plus the endorsement in blank -- and I haven't even gotten
into the evidence of Mr. Nardi's authority to endorse the note because, of course, his employer
went bankrupt. There are a number of issues, but the largest issue is the fact that it's outside the
scope of the pleadings and it's completely irrelevant. They may have an endorsed note now and
they will be great, going forward.

The Court: All right. What I'll do is, I'll overrule the objection. You can still raise the question as to whether or
not they actually were in possession of it at the time the complaint was filed. I don't think that that
objection necessarily goes to the admissibility of the document at this point. As far as notice goes
and whether it was in the pleadings, there was sufficient notice as to when they got the original and
filing that. So I'll overrule based on that, as well. So I will accept -- it was -- you were just dealing
with the note; is that correct

Angione: No, Your Honor. I also asked to move in the

The Court: The note and the mortgage?

Angione: And the mortgage, right, as a public record.

The Court: All right. We'll go ahead and accept those as evidence, overruling the objection, but you can still
raise the issues later, as Plaintiff's Exhibits 2 and 3, I believe. Is that correct?

The Clerk: Yes, sir. It's 2 and 3.

The Court: Two and 3. Why don't you go ahead and have the Clerk mark them now.

Pasky: Thank you. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 were received in evidence.)

Page 78
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

Fraudulent Scheme to Introduce BANA Business Records as SPS Records


To Overcome Hearsay Objection by Scripted & False Nardi Testimony
About Boarding Process
However, the records Nardi looked at were in a computer. He had no way or records available to match
up which note were the yet to be produced Bank of America, not SPS, of which note were the BANA
business records referring to, Original Note 1 or Original Note 2?
In order to prove their case, Angione via Nardi needed to introduce Plaintiffs Exhibit 6, the Bank of
America Instance Detail show above to show that Plaintiff was alleged to have possession of an
indorsed note prior to the foreclosure filing date, specifically Original Note 2. Angione was very aware
of the requirements necessary to overcome the hearsay objection to business records and possible error
by the Court and she stated so.
Yet, despite this knowledge, Angione went on to with knowledge and intent go on to intentionally mislead
the Volusia Court into believing that Exhibit 6 was an SPS business record that her witness, Nardi, could
testify to and introduce as its own evidence overcoming the business exception rule. Specifically, Angione
argued to the Court the following after the Courts own inquiry over this document and the relevance of
the foundation being laid:
Angione: Okay. So you said specifically that it allows you a direct line of communication with respect to
requesting original document files. Did you have an occasion to use that ability in this case?

Nardi: And, Im sorry, would you repeat the question or

Angione: You testified that you have now a direct -- SPS has a direct line of communication with
Deutsche Bank now in terms of securing collateral files, original documents.

Nardi: Yes.

Angione: Okay. Did you have the occasion to invoke that ability in the Borrower file?

Nardi: I believe so, yes. Reviews of the -- personally, I did not. But other SPS employees are able to
directly request documents from the trustee at any given point.

Angione: Okay. And in the Borrower file, based on your review of the business records, did anyone
from SPS ask Deutsche Bank for the collateral file in the Borrower case?

Mack: Objection. The witness is being asked to testify about records that are not in front of him.
Theyre not in evidence. So thats it.

Nardi: Well

The Court: So youre saying thats a best evidence objection then?

Nardi: Hes talking

The Court: The best evidence being the records; is that what -- is that your objection?

Mack: The records are not in evidence, sir.

The Court: All right. So your objection is, his testimony is not the best evidence of the records. All right.

Mack: Sure.

The Court: Ill sustain the best evidence objection.

Angione: Thank you, Your Honor. If I may...

Nardi: (Tendering.)

Page 79
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
The Court: Dont go running off with the Courts exhibits.

Angione: Im putting them in order, Your Honor. Ive been very diligent, I promise you. Would you be feel
better if I did tender them? I can.

The Court: Well, if theyre already marked by the Clerk, they stay with the Clerk.

Angione: Oh, yes. I didnt know if I would refer back to them, Your Honor. That was all. I can certainly tender
them. Thats certainly fine. Theyre in order.

The Clerk: Thank you.

Angione: I was taking good care, I assure you.

The Clerk: I was watching.

Angione: Okay. So theres been a lot of testimony about Select Portfolio and Bank of America and
subservicing relationships. Did SPS always service this loan, the Borrower loan?

Nardi: No.

Angione: Who serviced this loan before SPS?

Nardi: Just prior to SPS, it was Bank of America. And then, you know, the prior entities that serviced it
would have been Chase Home -- excuse me, not Chase -- Countrywide Home Loans Servicing,
LLP or LP. I forget if its an LLP or LP. And then through the series of name changes and the
merger, eventually, it turned into Bank of America.

Angione: Okay.

Nardi: But just prior to SPS, it was Bank of America.

Angione: Okay. So when a servicer takes over servicing for another servicer, such as it happened here
Select Portfolio took over servicing from Bank of America, as you just testified.

Nardi: Yes.

Angione: What do you call that process?

Nardi: Well, its a service transfer. And then theres processes within the service transfer. As the
incoming servicer, we would go through whats called a boarding process, which basically
integrates the records of the prior servicer into our systems.

Angione: What happens to the business records of Bank of America during this process?

Nardi: Theyre verified for accuracy. Theyre reviewed against what we know to be true of a loan,
going back to original documents, the note, and the mortgage, to determine if what were
receiving from the outgoing servicer is accurate. We do -- the last count is about 650
independent data checks, data points, to make sure that its consistent with what we expect.
The process starts, actually, you know, several months prior to the actual transfer. So we get a
preliminary data file from the outgoing servicer, which will list all of the loans, the basic
concepts of those loans. So what we -- the terms of the notes and mortgages, what we should
expect as far as payments applied, what the condition of the loan is, whether its performing
or otherwise in default or other bankruptcies. Basically, any major data points that we need to
be aware of. And just prior to the loan boarding, so about two weeks out, we receive the
remainder of the data, which would include, you know, all of the escrow advances, you know,
any fees and costs that were already included in the loan, company contact information. So
customer service notes, collections, logs. Basically, the -- kind of the larger data files for each
loan. And then well, again, go through those, apply them to each, individual loan within our
system of record, and then begin the servicing after that.

Angione: Okay. So within SPS, is there one person assigned to do this or is there a department assigned to
do this? Who actually oversees this data and this process that you just described?

Page 80
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Nardi: Well, because SPS only boards loans we dont do any originations. This process is -- has its
own department. It has its own staff. So there is a group of individuals in Salt Lake City who
receive the information. And once they determine the service transfers, which is, again, usually
months in advance of their actual taking place, they begin to work those files, create places for
the data to go, make sure that its consistent, and start to do this quality control process pretty
early on.

Angione: Does part of this process involve determining where the collateral file or original documents
are?

Nardi: Yes.

Angione: Okay. Do they actually secure the physical records from, in this case, Bank of America as part
of that process?

Nardi: It would depend on the condition of the loan at the time. There are occasions where Bank of
America is -- already has the original documents for any given reason. Those originals may be
sent to the secured document facility in Salt Lake. Those occurrences are probably the smaller
percentage. Most of the loans are performing and wouldnt need to have original documents
submitted in. But those that are in -- either in some type of default or possibly some other
litigated status, they may have the -- hold the file so that they would have records so they
could proceed to either foreclosure or whatever the need for the original document is. So they
do receive them but not for every, single loan.

Angione: Okay. And once you receive this information, what do you do -- or what does your boarding
department do? What does -- I guess the policies and procedures of the boarding department,
what are they -- with res

Mack: Your Honor, objection.

Angione: I havent finished the question, Your Honor.

Mack: Yes, I know. Its the policy and procedure part.

The Court: All right. Im just wondering exactly why do we need to know about this particular policy and
procedure.

Angione: Because, Your Honor, under Bank of New York versus Callaway

The Court: No, no, no. I dont want to know what your legal theory is. I want to know the relevance to
this case.

Angione: The relevance to this case, Your Honor, is that the standard for this witness testifying and it not
being reversible error is I have to show that this witness specifically is familiar not only with
the process but the policies and procedures in boarding loans. Because this is a loan where
BANA serviced it, and then SPS took over servicing. So I have to show that the document that
the information from the loan and the documentation from BANA, with respect to the loan,
came into their loan systems. Then I have to show that he specifically has knowledge of those
policies and procedures that the boarding process follows and the boarding team follows. So,
Your Honor, under WAMCO, I have to show -- and Sagamore, and under Callaway, more
specifically, I have to show that he has that knowledge, Your Honor.

The Court: All right. And are these the things that werent given in discovery?

Angione: No, Your Honor.

The Court: Or talked about in discovery?

Angione: Everything
The Court: Because of the protective order?

Angione: No, Your Honor. Weve clarified that issue. That was not an accurate representation made to

Page 81
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
the Court that this entirety was -- that the entirety of all the policies and procedures were
excluded from them. Mr. Pasky made it very clear that what they were asking for was IRS
documents and documents of that nature. Mr. Pasky, if youd like to clarify this point, as you
were counsel of record, at that time, he can do that.

The Court: Well, heres the other thing. Youve already got your note and mortgage into evidence.

Angione: I do.

The Court: Wouldnt you have laid this foundation before you even moved that into evidence? I mean,
she didnt object and raise the issues of policies and procedures that youre getting into now.
The note and mortgage are in evidence. She made other objections, but not those objections.

Angione: Your Honor, the issue here, though, is that for this not to be reversible error, I do at some point -- and,
Your Honor, your point is extremely well taken. At that moment when you did raise

The Court: She doesnt need to object to it?

Angione: Pardon me?

The Court: Wouldnt she have to raise that objection or waive it? And besides that, shes not the borrow --
shes not representing the borrower.

Angione: She is not, Your Honor. But she maintains that that -- one of -- one of her positions in this case is that
thats not material. One of her positions is that she has -- shes claiming that she does have the right
to raise certain defenses. Thats why I asked, at the inception of this lawsuit, Your Honor -- pardon
me -- this trial, I asked, please clarify in terms of the default being established and conditions
precedent being set.

The Court: Heres the thing. If she wants to object to evidence coming in, shes going to be hard pressed to say
that you failed to introduce it when she was the one objecting to it.

Angione: Im sorry, Your Honor, if you could repeat

The Court: So, right now, I dont see that Ms. Mack is making that an issue in the case. If Ms. Mack makes that
an issue in the case, Ill let you get into it. Otherwise, at this point Ill say its not -- its either been
waived or not raised. And so at this point I dont think that its relevant. So Ill sustain the objection
at this point. If Ms. Mack raises the issue, then you can get back into it.

Angione: So, Im sorry, Your Honor, did you

The Court: I sustained the objection. So you can ask your next question.

Angione: If a loan gets boarded into -- excuse me. Okay. So the process you just described, the boarding
of the loans from Bank of America to Select Portfolio, did the Borrower loan go through that
process?

Nardi: Yes.

Angione: Okay. If a loan comes through that process and it does not pass the audit procedure you just
described, does it get boarded?

Nardi: Does not.

Angione: Okay.

Mack: Your Honor

The Court: Shes asking specifically about this particular loan. Im okay with that. But just getting into policies
and procedures, Im not. But she can ask specifically about this loan, this mortgage.

Page 82
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

Angione: Okay. Was all the data and all of the documents provided from Bank of America to Select
Portfolio, as part of the transfer of servicing from Bank of America to SPS pertaining to the
Borrower loan, integrated into Select Portfolio business records?

Nardi: Yes.
Angione: And

Mack: Objection; foundation, competence, hearsay.

The Court: All right. Well, if youre going to have me -- if youre going to object and Im going to sustain
your objections on the policies and procedure, then dont object to foundation then.

Mack: Your Honor, the problem is this. If I had been allowed to discover policies and procedures --
we were in front of the Court twice on motions for protective order. I have the Courts orders
and the transcripts from those hearings. And

The Court: All right. Let me see the order on the -- let me see the protective order.

Pasky: Judge, if I may, you allowed the deposition to go forward to discover the policies and
procedures. I was

The Court: Wasnt this Judge Perkins -- wasnt this Judge Perkins protective order?

Pasky: Oh, no. This was you, three weeks ago, allowing Mr. Nardi to be deposed for eight hours, last
week, discussing policies and procedures of the boarding process. Thats what you wanted Ms.
Mack to do and she did. And thats why were here discussing those. Documentary evidence

The Court: I thought it had more to do with why they figured out that the note

Pasky: That was Michelle

The Court: -- was where it was versus why they thought it was gone.

Pasky: That was Michelle Simon. That was another depo, again, that was

Mack: Your Honor

Angione: We gave two -- Your Honor, you ordered us to give two depositions. You ordered us to give Ms.
Simons deposition on the limited issue of where the notes been and what happened. And then Mr.
Nardi

The Court: Is this eventually going to get around to explaining where the note was and why they couldnt
find it, in the place first?

Angione: Absolutely, Your Honor. Were about to get there. Thats exactly -- thats where were going.
Thats exactly where were going.

The Court: Why dont we just get there instead?

Angione: Well, Your Honor, because I have to lay the foundation; otherwise, it will be reversible error on
appeal. Shes making those objections you thought she was not making.

The Court: All right. Im going to give you just a little bit more leeway if you promise me that were
getting to why they thought the note was lost, and why they thought it was there all along.

Angione: Yes.

The Court: Okay? Since you promise me thats where were going, Ill give you a little bit more room. Go
ahead.

Angione: Thank you, Your Honor. So the objection was overruled? Im not sure.

Page 83
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

The Court: Ill overrule it.

Angione: Thank you, Your Honor.

The Court: Im giving you just a little bit of rope, though. Im not giving you a ton of rope on this. Go ahead.

Angione: Understood, Your Honor. Okay. So, Mr. Nardi, SPS relied -- is it an accurate statement that SPS
relied on those Bank of America business records in servicing this loan?

Nardi: Yes.

Angione: Borrower loan? Okay.

Angione: Your Honor, at this time, if I may, I would like to mark -- this is called an instance detail screen.
Id like to have this marked as Plaintiffs -- well, now, Ive lost my place, Your Honor.

The Court: All right. If you need I.D., its F.

Angione: Yes. Its F. Okay.


The Court: Well mark it, for identification purposes, as F.

Angione: Thank you, Your Honor. (Plaintiffs Exhibit F was marked for I.D.)

The Court: Ms. Mack, do you have this?

Angione: Ill show it to her now, Your Honor.

Mack: Im sorry, my expert was talking to me.

Angione: Mr. Nardi, Im going to show you what weve now marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit F, for
identification purposes. (Tendering.) Mr. Nardi, do you recognize this document?

Nardi: I do.

Angione: And where do you recognize it from?

Nardi: The books and records of my employer. Its a screen shot from the AS400 loan servicing
platform that Bank of America uses.

Angione: Okay. Now, you just testified as to the boarding process, and you testified that certain
documents are brought into SPS from Bank of America. Was this one of the documents that you
-- that SPS took possession of as part of its boarding process?
Nardi: Yes.

Angione: Okay. And you testified that there was an auditing procedure that was applicable to all loans.
Was it applicable to this document?

Nardi: Yes. All documents and all electronic records, yes.


Angione: Okay. And this was integrated into your system?

Nardi: Yes.

Angione: And you rely -- and SPS relies on this business record?

Nardi: We do.

Angione: Okay. Was this document created at or about the time the events were -- that are recorded in
there took place?

Page 84
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Nardi: Yes.

Angione: By a person with knowledge?

Nardi: Yes.

Angione: Is this document kept in the ordinary course and scope of the business?

Nardi: It is.

Angione: And is it the regular practice of the business to keep such records?

Nardi: It is.

Angione: Thank you. Your Honor, at this time I seek to have what has been marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit
F, for identification purposes, into evidence as Plaintiffs 6.

Mack: I have to interpose an objection, because that was rather leading, Your Honor. And

The Court: You needed to object when she was asking the question.

Mack: Yes. No. It was the business records leading.

Angione: Well, thats a business records exception.

The Court: Okay. Whats your objection to this coming into evidence?

Mack: That it was -- well, no. The objection was to the leading. I havent even gotten to that yet.

The Court: Ill overrule the leading. Whats your objection to this coming into evidence?

Mack: Yes. Mr. Nardi is not a records custodian for Bank of America. Hes not an, otherwise, qualified
witness. He has no personal knowledge of the recordkeeping practices of the Bank of America
that created that record.

The Court: All right. Explain to me again the process that you went through to make him, basically, the records
custodian for this record.

Angione: Okay. I had him testify, Your Honor, as to his experience with Bank of America as an employee
of Bank of America. I had him testify to the different departments that exist within Bank of America. I
had him testify that he had knowledge of those departments and how they function and how they
perform their responsibilities. That was the policies and procedures type line of questioning that I
was asking. I then had him testify as to SPSs boarding process. He testified that this document came
into SPSs boarding process, directly from Bank of America. It is a Bank of America screen shot. He
testified that this went through the audit procedure. And as required by the Callaway, WAMCO line of
cases, Your Honor, he -- SPS integrated this record into their business records as part of the boarding
process and relies on it.

The Court: All right. So this is the Bank of America document that got into the SPSs records.

Angione: Yes. And hes competent on both grounds as hes an -- hes a prior employee of Bank of
America, and hes also a current employer of SPS.

The Court: All right. Overruled.

Angione: Thank you, Your Honor.

The Court: It will be accepted as No. 6.

Angione: Thank you, Your Honor. (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 6 was received in evidence.)

The Court: Go ahead.

Page 85
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Angione: Mr. Nardi, Im going to now show you what has been marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit 6. (Tendering.)
Would you please tell me what this document

Nardi: This is, again, a screen shot from the loanservicing platform which Bank of America and its
predecessors used. This one is -- the screen name on this one is called the instance detail.

Angione: Okay. What type of information is contained within that document, sir?

Nardi: This document contains information regarding the endorsed original note, the date on which it was
received. It contains dates and user information on who placed the information in the system.

Angione: Okay. So this specifically this specifically tracks the location of the endorsed note; is that your
testimony?

Nardi: Yes.

Angione: And can you tell me, what does that screen shot tell you about the original endorsed note?

Nardi: That it was received on December 5th, 2006. It was entered by a user I.D. of cfc@doccon, on the
same date. It shows the custodian and location to both be Deutsche Bank. And has, you know,
again, that date of December 5th, 2006, on it.

Angione: And does that predate the complaint that was filed in this case?

Nardi: It does.

Angione: Okay. So Mr. Nardi -- so your testimony is that, according to your business records, that Deutsche
Bank had possession of the original endorsed note in this case at least as far back as

Mack: Your Honor, these are -- I dont know what counsel is doing. Is she summarizing his testimony or is
she leading him someplace?

The Court: Okay. Dont lead. Dont lead.

Angione: That wasnt my

The Court: Rephrase.

Angione: Okay. Mr. Nardi, the complaint that was filed in this case did not have a copy of the note-bearing
endorsement. Why?

Mack: Leading.

The Court: Well, Ill overrule. You may answer the question.

Nardi: The counsel was not provided with a copy of the endorsed note.

Mack: Hearsay.

Pasky: Its a business record, Your Honor. 803.6. So its not hearsay -- well, its hearsay, but theres an
exception to hearsay.

The Court: Okay. So the real question was: Does the records youre looking at reflect that a copy of the
endorsed note went to the attorney who filed the complaint?

Angione: No.

The Court: That should have been your question.

Angione: Well, that was my question, but thats not what the

The Court: That really wasnt your question. You were just asking him, in general, to speculate as to why the
attorney never got, you know, the endorsed note.

Page 86
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Angione: Well, Im asking if he

The Court: What you can do is ask him whats reflected in the record there.

Angione: Ive already done that, Your Honor.

The Court: All right. Well, then theres no further questions to be asked then.

Angione: Thank you, Mr. Nardi.

Nardi Testified Days Earlier That Plaintiffs Trial Exhibit 6 Was a BANA
Business Record, Not SPS that was Not Part of the Boarding Process
Due to recent court decisions involving servicing records and transfers and allowing evidence in as part of a
successor servicers business records to overcome the hearsay foundation objections, Ms. Angione and the
witness knew they had to lay the predicate and foundation for introducing the BOAs data records about the
note as SPS own business records. They set up the whole testimony based on the boarding process and
critical points to verify and validate data etc. It was all a ruse and fraud on the court. The record being
introduced was created specifically for trial weeks before and was dated in 2015 years after the purported
boarding process. This was known to each party to be a BOA business record and not SPS business record
that was not part of the boarding process. Nardi has even testified on voir dire that it was a Bank of America
business record he was reviewing.

Nardi testified that SPS had a direct line of communication with Deutsche Bank in order to secure collateral
files and original documents such as original wet-ink promissory notes. SPS employees are able to directly
request documents from the DBNTC at any given point in time. Bank of America serviced the Lawson loan prior
to SPS. Yet, no DBNTC records were produced and protective orders sought against their production.

Nardi testified Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS) took over servicing from Bank of America that occurred in
2012 when there was a service transfer from Bank of America to SPS. There are processes associated with
the service transfer and SPS as the incoming servicer goes through what's called a boarding process that
basically integrates the records of the prior servicer, Bank of America, into SPS systems. The Bank of America
records from their AS400 servicing system of record were verified for accuracy and reviewed against what
SPS knew to be true of the Lawson loan, going back to original documents, the note, and the mortgage, to
determine if what SPS was receiving from Bank of America was accurate.

At last count, SPS conducts about 650 independent data checks, data points, to make sure that the data
received from Bank of America is consistent with what SPS expected. The boarding process starts several
months prior to the actual transfer date when SPS received a preliminary data file from Bank of America that
listed all of the loans for which servicing is being transferred.

SPS would board the terms of the notes and mortgages, as well as what they would expect as far as
payments being applied, the existing condition of the loan such as whether it's performing or otherwise in
default or in bankruptcy. The loan boarding process at SPS has its own department and its own staff. There is
a group of individuals at SPS office Salt Lake City who receive the boarding information and data from prior
servicers. Once the boarding department begins the service transfer that is usually months in advance of their
actual taking place, they begin to work those files, create places for the data to go, and make sure that the
data is consistent, by executing quality control processes on the date early on.

As part of the boarding process, SPS determines where the collateral file or borrowers original documents
such as the original promissory note is located. Depending on the status and condition of the loan at any time,
there are occasions where Bank of America may have possession of the original documents for any particular

Page 87
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
reason. Those originals may be sent to a secured document facility at SPS office in Salt Lake City. However,
those occurrences are a smaller percentage. Most of the SPS loans are performing and wouldn't need to have
original documents such as original notes submitted. However, those mortgage loans that are in some type of
default or possibly some other litigated status, they may have the -- hold the file so that they would have
records so they could proceed to either foreclosure or whatever the need for the original document is. So they
do receive them but not for every, single loan.

The boarding process described above, was used to board the Borrower loan and other mortgage loans
being transferred from Bank of America to SPS. If a mortgage loan comes through the boarding process and
does not pass the audit procedure as Nardi described, it doesnt get boarded into SPS system.

Nardis testimony about the SPS boarding process was directly tied to the Borrowers loan and the Bank of
America data, information, images and records transferred and boarded from their AS400 system to SPS
MSP system. The Bank of America data and documents related to the Borrower loan were integrated into
Select Portfolio Servicing business records as part of the boarding process and transfer of servicing. SPS
relied on Bank of America business records in servicing the Borrower loan. Nardi further testified that he
recognized Exhibit 6 and his recognition came from the books and records of his employer, SPS and that
Exhibit 6 was a screen shot from the AS400 loan servicing platform used by Bank of America. Nardi was then
asked: Okay. Now, you just testified as to the boarding process, and you testified that certain documents are
brought into SPS from Bank of America. Was this one of the documents (i.e. Plaintiffs Exhibit 6) that you -- that
SPS took possession of as part of its boarding process, to which Nardi testified, yes!

Nardi also testified that the prior auditing procedure using 650 checks was used by SPS on Exhibit 6 and that
Exhibit 6 was integrated into SPS system and that SPS relies on Exhibit 6 as one of its business records. Nardi
then testified, using Angiones lead, that Exhibit 6 was created at or about the time the events were -- that
are recorded in the document took place; by a person with knowledge; and was a document kept in the
ordinary course and scope of SPS business; and that it was the regular practice of SPS to keep such records.
Attorney Mack raised at my direction a hearsay objection to Exhibit 6 based on the fact it was a Bank of
America, not a SPS record as testified to.

In response to the argument, Angione went on to further mislead the Court when she argued to the Court that I
had him testify, Your Honor, as to his experience with Bank of America as an employee of Bank of America. I
had him testify to the different departments that exist within Bank of America. I had him testify that he had
knowledge of those departments and how they function and how they perform their responsibilities. That was the
policies and procedures type line of questioning that I was asking. I then had him testify as to SPS's boarding
process. He testified that this document came into SPS's boarding process, directly from Bank of America. It is a
Bank of America screen shot. He testified that this went through the audit procedure. And as required by the
Callaway, WAMCO line of cases, Your Honor, he -- SPS integrated this record into their business records as part of
the boarding process and relies on it.

However, just four days earlier, on May 28, 2015, Mr. Nardis last minute deposition was taken since
Plaintiffs counsel decided not to use the Plaintiffs prior corporate representative, Linda Kuerzi, as their trial
witness nor the SPS officer, Michelle Simon, who executed the affidavit in support of summary judgment
months earlier who was deposed as well. Instead, Plaintiffs counsel would use an entirely new witness,
professionally trained robo-witness, Lawrence Nardi.

In Mr. Nardis deposition, Plaintiffs Trial Exhibit 6 was also introduced at Exhibit 11 to the Nardi Deposition.
Ms. Mack, and I had only received the Bank of America Instance Summary the evening before the

Page 88
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
deposition on May 27, 2015. While Daniel Pasky defended Mr. Nardis deposition in person, Ms. Angione
was on the phone, along with myself, during the entirety of the deposition.

Nardi Prior Deposition Testimony About BOA Business Record


The following is Ms. Macks interrogation of Mr. Nardi and his testimony along with objections and comments
of counsel:
Mack: Can you tell me if the routing history screen or the instance screen is going to give you that
information?

Pasky: What exhibits are those that you're referring to?

Mack: I don't think I have shown him the instance screen yet because we haven't gotten to it.

Pasky: So do you want to show him that?

Mack: Yes, I do. (Defendant's Exhibit 11 was marked for identification.)

Pasky: Is this what I sent you yesterday?

Mack: I don't know if it was yesterday, but it shouldn't have changed.

Pasky: All right.

Mack: Yeah, it is what you sent me yesterday, 3/5. Mr. Nardi, does that have a date of 3/5/15 in the top
right corner?

Nardi: It does.

Mack: Yes, it's your trial exhibits. Mr. Nardi, the instance detail, does that tell you the interest rate
changes?

Nardi: No.

Mack: What does it tell you?

Nardi: It gives me information about loan documentation in a given snapshot in time.

Mack: All right. What snapshot in time are we looking at?

Nardi: Well, this one has a date on it of 12/5/06 as a received date.

Mack: And who received the items that are referred to in this screen shot?

Nardi: Well, this is a screen shot out of AS/400, which is Bank of America obviously. It's titled that at
the top too. The document doesn't actually -- it denotes the current location and custodian as
Deutsche Bank in the bottom two lines, basically the bottom two lines. So it seems to indicate
that Deutsche Bank was the receiver.

Mack: Okay. But this is Bank of America's program, right?

Nardi: This is Bank of America's loan servicing platform, yes.

Mack: All right. And the IO that is, that's indicated next to the Instance Type is an endorsed original note,
right?

Nardi: Yes.

Page 89
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Mack: Okay. FCL Qualified, what does that mean?

Nardi: Can you point to it?

Mack: Oh, it's a couple of lines below IO.

Nardi: Okay. I'm sorry. I don't recall what FCL stands for.

Mack: Is it foreclosure?

Nardi: I don't know.

Mack: Okay. And you said this was AS400. Did Countrywide use AS/400 as well?

Nardi: Yes.

Mack: And that doesn't tell you the interest rate, does it?

Nardi: It does not.

Mack: I need to make one copy, so we can go off the record for a couple of minutes. (A recess was taken
from 5:50 p.m. until 5:56 p.m.)

Ms. Mack went on to discuss another exhibit, Exhibit 12 which was the routing history presented in this matter.
However, to illustrate the extent to which counsel went on to assist Nardi in attempting to make the instance
summary a SPS business record that the foreclosing plaintiff could introduce at trial, towards the end of the
deposition, Mr. Pasky examined his own witness, Nardi, in the following manner:
Pasky: Okay. Let's go to the instance screen. So what does the endorsed original note instance type mean
on that inscription to you?

Nardi: Right here?

Pasky: Uh-huh.

Nardi: It means that's the type of document that was received at that time.

Pasky: So

Nardi: Received the original endorsement.

Pasky: Okay. So what date is that endorsed note received?

Nardi: 12/5/2006.

Pasky: Okay. Can someone change that notation in this screen?

Nardi: No.

Pasky: Why?

Nardi: It's fixed data, so it's not adjustable or rewritable. We need to have a consistent record of certain
data points within the servicing platforms and this is one of those.

Pasky: Okay. So this is not something that you could change

Nardi: No.

Pasky: -- after 12/5/06?

Page 90
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Nardi: Correct.

Pasky: Okay. So, and you said that is a Bank of America screen shot?

Nardi: It is out of AS400, which is the Bank of America servicing platform.

Pasky: Is this document transferred to SPS at the time of boarding?

Nardi: It is.

Pasky: Okay. Are all the documents you testified today transferred to SPS at the time it was boarded?

Nardi: All of the, all of the records are transferred over. So any documents that Bank of America
would have had at the time that the transfer took place would be in the complete loan
package.

Pasky: Okay. That's all I've got.

I could not believe what I heard. The attorney for the Defendant, caught this with me and went on to conduct a
redirect examination of Nardi.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Mack: One follow-up question. Based on the instance summary, if the instance summary was
transferred at the time of boarding, why did it take so long for SPS to inform everybody that
the note had an endorsement?

Nardi: I don't think I understand the question.

Mack: Right. The first time we heard about this note potentially being endorsed was at Michelle
Simon's (ph) March 9th deposition. She had reached out to Bank of America. They sent her the
instance summary, and it indicated an endorsed note. How come it took between, I believe
August of '12 was when SPS became the subservicer and March of 2015 for SPS to let
everybody know that they had evidence that the note was endorsed?

Nardi: I don't think I have an answer to the question. I wasn't involved with the pursuit of the document at
that particular point in time. If Bank of America had -- I'm sure that we shared it as soon as Bank of
America was able to share it with us.

Mack: Well, I thought you just testified that the instance summary was part of the boarding process?

Nardi: Well, the records of Bank of America are incorporated in that boarding process, but I don't I
can't say that -- well, this screen is obviously printed at a later date because it's got a date on it of
2015. But the Bank of America records, which would encompass all of the data, are
transmitted to SPS at the time of boarding.

Mack: Okay. So you don't know then, why no one bothered to tell the rest of us?

Nardi: I don't. If I had an answer, I would certainly answer.

Once again, but during deposition, counsel for the foreclosing plaintiff, in this case Mr. Daniel Pasky, leads
Nardis testimony to get him to rotely admit with scripted testimony that a document, only produced the night
before and printed weeks earlier, was a SPS business record when the witness and counsel clearly know it
was never boarded in 2012 and was printed by Bank of America in March of 2015 especially to allege an
endorsed note was in the Plaintiffs possession since they knew they had serious issues.

Page 91
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
SPS had provided loan servicing histories when it started boarding the loan that reflected that on or about
August of 2012, SPS began subservicing the Lawson loan and SPS MSP records reflect that the Lawson loan
setup, otherwise often commonly referred to as loan boarding took place on August 23, 2012, years
before March of 2015.

Nardi Cross-Examination Admits Falsely Admitted SPS Business Record


Printed Weeks Before Trial
On February 25, 2016, the trial that began on June 1, 2015 continued with Ms. Macks cross-examination of
Nardi:
Mack: Mr. Nardi, Exhibit 6 that was entered into evidence last June probably told us what it was, but
could you just tell us briefly again?

Nardi: This is a screenshot from the AS400I series platform, which is Bank of America's mortgage
servicing platform.

Mack: All right. At the time that that -- does that document have a print date?

Nardi: Print date? Bear with me just a moment. There seems to be a time stamp on the top right-hand
corner, including a date and time.

Mack: Okay. What is the date and time?

Nardi: The date is March 15th -- excuse me, March 5th, 2015, 1707 minutes, 10 seconds.

Thus, there are several problems and issues with Mr. Pasky and Ms. Angiones arguments and Nardis
testimony that Plaintiffs Trial Exhibit 6 was an SPS business record that may rise, if this or another Court so
decides, to subornation of perjury and perjury. It is unequivocally clear that Plaintiffs Trial Exhibit 6, the
Instance Summary:

Was a Bank of America business record;


Was created in Bank of Americas AS400 system of record;
Was printed by an unknown and unidentified Bank of America employee;
Had data and information entered by unknown and unidentified Bank of America employees;
Was printed on March 5th, 2015 at precisely 1707 minutes, 10 seconds;
Could not have been copied, scanned, imaged and boarded into SPS system of record in 2012,
August of 2012 or anytime between the boarding date in 2012 and March 5th, 2015 its print
date;
Was never part of the boarding process in 2012 between Bank of America and SPS;
Could not have had any of the 650 audit check points and quality review that Nardi falsely
testified was applied to the Exhibit 6 during the boarding process;

Angione herself, recapped and highlighted the known untruthful and false testimony of Nardi that she
knowingly elicited from Nardi, knowing at all times the nature, origination, and date of the documents
creation and the untruthfulness and falsity of Nardis testimony when she argued to the Court:

I then had him testify as to SPS's boarding process;


He testified that this document came into SPS's boarding process, directly from Bank of America;
It is a Bank of America screen shot;

Page 92
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

He testified that this went through the audit procedure;


And as required by the Callaway, WAMCO line of cases, Your Honor, he -- SPS integrated this record
into their business records as part of the boarding process and relies on it.

Nardi False Testimony About SPS MAS1/INV1 MSP Screen Reflecting Bank
of New York as Holder of Borrowers Note Immediately Prior To Trial, Not
Plaintiff
The most widely used mortgage servicing computer platform licensed by a majority of lenders, servicers,
and banks is a system called Mortgage Servicing Package (MSP) and sometimes referred to as Mortgage
Servicing Platform. MSP is currently owned by Black Knight Financial Services, Inc. (Black Knight) f/k/a
Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS).

According to Black Knight, approximately 50 percent of all U.S. mortgages are serviced using Black Knight
Mortgage Servicing Package (MSP) including eight of the top 10 and 14 of the top 20 mortgage servicers in
the United States. Black Knight also offers proprietary mortgage and real estate data and analytics for the
mortgage and capital markets industries. Major servicers that license the MSP system as their servicing system
of record include: JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Nationstar, Green Tree, HSBC, Select Portfolio Servicing,
Bayview Loan Servicing, Regions Bank, Dovenmuehle, Situs, and Everhome.

Mortgage servicing operations use MSP for entering, processing and storing customer account data. There are
many computer windows, data entry screens, data snapshot screens, and calculation, amortization, formulas,
and algorithms that are at the heart and brains of the MSP system and the system contains over 5000 data
elements contained in the MSP system.70One such screen is the MAS1/INV1 screen as illustrated earlier. In
litigation involving securitized trusts and the Lehman Bros. bankruptcy, JPMorgan Chase provided the
following response to attorneys regarding the meaning of the MSP windows and screenshots such as the
MAS1/INV1 screen:

70"Mortgage Web Services." Mortgage Web Services. 2016 Black Knight Financial Services, Inc., 2016. Web. 30 Jan. 2016.
<https://mws.lendingsvcs.com/sws/contents/glossary.jsp>.

Page 93
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

As seen in above in in prior testimony, the MAS1/INV1 screen provides investor data. The exhibit presented
to the Court had a code for the foreclosing Plaintiffs trust that was some form of investor abbreviation. Yet, in
the same screen, under the investor and next to the HDR abbreviation was Bank of New York. In essence,
without explanation, the document supported evidence of two different and distinct holders and/or investors
for the Borrowers Note. Nardi could not explain Bank of New York on the investor screen. He could not
identify the listed document custodian. When Defendants went to secure manuals and code lists that would
prove and explain the HDR abbreviation from SPS and Black Knight, they sought protective orders over their
production. If HDR meant holder, having Bank of New York as a holder of the alleged note presented to the
Court on the even of trial would destroy their case. If it meant Investor Header, a similar result would occur.

Nardi Testified About His Understanding of Holder Status Under Court


Questioning
Angione and Nardi knew that being a holder conferred standing. At one point at the trial, the Volusia Court
took over the questioning as shown below:
MACK: Do you agree with that allegation, that in January of 2014 the plaintiff held the original note?

NARDI: Paragraph 12 doesn't mention the original note or any documentation at all.

ANGIONE: Your Honor, I'm also going to object to relevance. How is it relevant whether the plaintiff
agrees whether the nonparty, non-witness took a position in this case as to the note?

COURT: Well, she's asking, I guess, whether or not the plaintiff held the note on that date.

ANGIONE: But that's not what she's asking.

COURT: Oh, no, I think that's exactly what the question was. I think -- it's irrelevant to her question
whether or not this is in the affidavit or not. She could have just asked the question directly,
was it held by the plaintiff on such-and-such a day, and, you know, we wouldn't have these
difficulties.

ANGIONE: Right. But she's asking if these are views of Mr. Hixson, who I can't even cross-examine him

COURT: No, no, no. She's not asking what Mr. Hixson said. She's asking basically did the plaintiff hold
a note on that date.

ANGIONE: Your Honor, her question was do you agree with the allegation that Mr. Hixson made in paragraph
number 12.

COURT: Did the plaintiff hold a note on such-and-such a date.

MACK: And that's going to be my question.

Page 94
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
COURT: Does he agree with that? Did the plaintiff hold the note on such-and such a date. Do you agree
with that or disagree with that?

NARDI: Can I read the paragraph, Your Honor? I've been listening but I haven't been reading.

COURT: Well, actually, the paragraph is not going to help you.

NARDI: Okay. I just want to be but she's asking me, basing my answer on what's in here.

COURT: It doesn't matter what's in the affidavit. The question is did the plaintiff hold the note on the date
that's listed there. That's what the question is. Or some date in 2014, right?

ANGIONE: Your Honor, I'm going to object on the basis of foundation. I'm going to object on the basis of.

COURT: Overruled.

ANGIONE: Your Honor, then I'm going to object to form, at least so I can know what the date is.

COURT: Overruled.

WITNESS: The date of the affidavit, Your Honor, or the date -- there's no date in the paragraph she's asking
me to read. It's just

COURT: Ms. Mack, would you please clean this up and give him the date?

MACK: The date of the document it's an affidavit, so it would be notarized.

COURT: Not the date of the affidavit.

MACK: Oh.

COURT: The date that you're asking him whether he agrees that the plaintiff held the note on that date.
What is that date that you're asking?

MACK: January 2nd, 2014.

COURT: All right. There you go.

ANGIONE: I'm going to object that it calls for a legal conclusion under UCC as to the definition of the term
hold, which has independent legal significance.

MACK: Let me ask it this way.

COURT: Well, how many different definitions of hold are there?

ANGIONE: Actually, Your Honor, there is a case that just came out of the Fourth DCA, Thomas Caraccia
versus U.S. Bank, February 4th.

COURT: Mr. Nardi, how do you understand the word hold?

ANGIONE: Okay.

NARDI: My understanding is that person is in possession of

COURT: Okay.

NARDI: -- that document.

COURT: Okay. Now, with that definition, did the plaintiff hold the note on that date in 2014?

WITNESS: Based upon my review of records, yes, we did.

Page 95
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court

Nardi Falsely Testified About SPS Record That Showed Bank of New York
as Holder To Mislead Court
Counsel knew that showing two holders and/or owners at the inception of trial could prove problematic for
their argument of standing. Counsel and the witness also knew from much of the Courts questions, that he
wanted to know where the note had been and why it was claimed lost for so many years. As such, Nardi gave
the following testimony with regard to the evidence:
MACK: I just want to know if SPS has changed any of the data that it acquired from Bank of America,
which Mr. Nardi just told me is the data that is contained on this screenshot.

COURT: So you're talking about all the prior data, nothing new?

MACK: Right.

COURT: All right.

NARDI: I haven't had an opportunity to review the corresponding screens in AS400 from Bank of
America to determine if anything has changed. So the answer would have to be I just don't
know.

MACK: Okay. All right. Can you tell us the definition of INV in the context of MAS1?

NARDI: It's -- it's an abbreviation for investor.

MACK: Okay. And what does HDR mean?

NARDI: Can you point to me where that is?

MACK: It's right below INV on the left side of the page.

NARDI: Oh, that's a -- it's, again, abbreviation for header.

MACK: Header?

NARDI: Yes.

MACK: Okay. Why is Bank of New York a header?

ANGIONE: Objection, Your Honor. That was not his testimony. He's -- counsel is testifying.

COURT: All right. Ask if Bank of New York is a header first.

MACK: Okay. Is Bank of New York related to the HDR that's right next to it?

NARDI: Well, the -- so you're asking me if the fields relate to one another? They are next to one
another, but I'm not sure if they are necessarily related.

MACK: Okay. Well, do you know why Bank of New York is included within this screen shot, which is
an investor screenshot, correct?

ANGIONE: Objection. That calls for his opinion.

COURT: Rephrase.

MACK: In the context of this INVI screen, the contract pool number means what?

NARDI: I don't know.

Page 96
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
MACK: Don't know. If you could take a look at the bottom right corner where it says "DOCCUST," do you
see that?

NARDI: Yes, I do.

MACK: Do you know what that means?

NARDI: That is a document custodian in number, code, if you will.

MACK: Okay. Do you know what document custodian that series of numbers refers to?

NARDI: I don't have a -- I haven't reviewed or nor memorized a list of document custodian and their
corresponding numbers, so I don't.

MACK: Now that list of document custodians and their corresponding numbers, is that something that is a
MSP list or is that an SPS list? Do you understand my question?

NARDI: I think that I do, although I -- the -- if you could rephrase that, it might be helpful.

MACK: Sure. You just referred to a list that you would look up this number that's referenced on this exhibit,
correct?

NARDI: I refer -- well, in the abstract, yes. I have not seen the list. I've never seen any list of document
custodians. I assume that we would have to maintain a list in order to keep track of who these
numbers are assigned to, but I have not personally reviewed them in preparation for this or any
other trial.

MACK: Is it important to know who the document custodian is for a particular loan?

ANGIONE: Object to the form. Again, it's --

COURT: Alright. Where are we going?

MACK: The document custodian identity for a particular loan would tell you where a loan would be at a
certain time, collateral tracking. It's kind of like chain of custody in a criminal case.

COURT: All right. Why aren't you asking about this loan then?

MACK: I am. I am asking about this loan. I'm asking if this number is on the Lawson loan MASINV1 screen.

COURT: All right. You can answer the question.

ANGIONE: Object. He's already answered that question.

COURT: All right. He answered that question?

MACK: He said, "I don't know," and he'd have to look it up on a list, and I wanted to know if the list was a
list that his employer SPS kept, or was it a list that the folks that own MSP kept.

COURT: All right. I'll allow that.

MACK: So that's the question, is it a list that we would keep or a list -- having not seen the list, my answer
would still be I don't know. Could you tell me the corresponding screen name from the Bank of
America AS400 system that was used to get the information off of and put it in this MAS1INV
screen?

ANGIONE: Objection, Your Honor. She's assuming facts not in evidence. There hasn't been any

COURT: What screen are we talking about?

Page 97
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
MACK: The MAS1. He told me earlier that the information on this screen comes from the boarding of the
loan, which in this case was from Bank of America.

ANGIONE: That's not the same answer.

COURT: You understand -- was the premise of her question correct?

NARDI: Yes, Your Honor.

COURT: All right. You can try to answer the question then.

NARDI: I'm more than a year and a half removed from any contact with the AS400 system. I do not recall
the exact screens, and in this case there were more than likely multiple screens related to the
information translating into MSP, but I don't recall exactly what those screens are.

MACK: All right. So what can you tell me about the reliability of the information that's contained on MAS1,
INV1?

ANGIONE: Objection to form, Your Honor. Relevance. I think that's a legal conclusion.

COURT: All right.

MACK: Your Honor, this got entered into evidence based on his testimony about the prior servicer and his
knowledge of their boarding processes and their accounting practices. Now, when I ask the
question, he doesn't know.

Nardi Testified in Deposition He Didnt Know What HDR Meant


Days before trial, when the SPS MAS1/INV1 evidence was presented to Defendants, Nardi was questioned
about the document in his deposition before trial.
Mack: Right. Now, going back to the questions. I'm sure you're thrilled.

(Defendant's Exhibit 12 was marked for identification.)

Pasky: What is this? Oh, okay. 12?

Mack: Let me know when you are finished, Mr. Nardi.

Nardi: I'm ready.

Mack: What is Exhibit 12?

Nardi: This is a screen within the MSP servicing platform commonly referred to as MAS1/INV1. It's the
investor information screen.

Mack: Okay. The date that this was accessed is 5/26/15, right?

Nardi: Right.

Mack: All right. And going down, it has the borrower's name, right?

Nardi: It does.

Mack: Below that is INV1, right?

Nardi: Yes.

Mack: Below that is INV?

Page 98
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Nardi: Correct.

Mack: You told me before AS6 is the Plaintiff?

Nardi: It, exactly, denotes the Plaintiff.

Mack: Okay. CAT, it has 002 below it. What is that?

Nardi: Some type of categorization, and I would need a legend to see exactly what that's trying to
denote.

Mack: All right. INV Loan Number has a series of numbers, 2054292?

Nardi: Yes.

Mack: Are those the numbers that are used to store the file at Deutsche Bank?

Nardi: That's the investor loan number, so it's what they let us know -- that's what they let us know is
their loan number or their tracking number. I don't know if they call it a loan number, but it's
their number that denotes the Lawson loan.

Mack: Now, is that the number you gave Deutsche Bank to retrieve the file, the collateral file?

Nardi: It's one of the numbers that I would make sure that if I was seeking information from them,
that I would give them, because it's likely that they would be turning on that number versus
maybe SPS's number or Bank of America's or any prior servicer's number.

Mack: Okay. Now, do you know for a fact if that is the number that was given to Deutsche Bank, the
custodian, that finally worked?

Nardi: That is my understanding that the investor loan number is the kind of, I guess the key that was
missing to that search.

Mack: Going over to the next field, Sale/Repurchase, and underneath that is Flag and Date, does that
refer to the sale and the repurchase?

Nardi: Well, I think what's below that is a blank lines, like if there was information to be stored under
repurchase/date or sale/flag, that that would be indicated there. So, I mean, the fields are what
they are, but there's no, there's no data to fill in that section.

Mack: All right. Then you have got INV MASAC [sic] 2006-NC5. That's the Plaintiff, right?

Nardi: Yes, that's correct. I believe that's correct, yes.

Mack: What does HDR Bank of New York refer to?

Nardi: I'm not sure. I would have to, I would have to find out. I don't know what -- I'm trying to think
of what HDR stands for. It's been a while since I reviewed this.

Mack: Do you know what Bank of New York's role is with regard to this loan?

Nardi: Off the top of my head, I don't.

Mack: What would you have to look at?

Nardi: They may be listed in the PSA, but I'm not entirely sure if they are or not.

Mack: Okay. Do you want to look?

Nardi: I can certainly do that. I don't know if it's here or not.

Page 99
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
Mack: Let's just put it this way: If you are going to look at the PSA, let me just ask you some
questions.

Nardi: Sure.

Mack: Where would you look to determine if Bank of New York was involved in this deal?

Nardi: Well, in my experience, trustees change or parties change if the parties go out of existence. The
trustee might have to be substituted for another trustee. That happens fairly regularly, and we
get documentation to indicate that. The PSA may not have it -- well, the PSA would be
something I would go look to, to see -- well, the PSA is a document that's, again, it's captured
at a moment in time. So it's only going to show me what was going on at that particular
moment in 2006. The trustee could have changed since then, so what I'm -- what I would look
at for right now is to see if maybe the Bank of New York was somehow involved with the
original trust, but at some time maybe even subbed out as the trustee. I don't know. Again, I'm
just telling you what I might be looking for in the PSA.

Mack: Well, the PSA is a long, long time ago. '06, right?

Nardi: Right.

Mack: Then if we had a substitution of trustees, would it be in the PSA or would it be somewhere
else?

Nardi: It would not be in the PSA because the PSA is a static document.

Mack: Right. Okay. So if you change servicers, right, you would have that information, but it
wouldn't be in the PSA either, right?

Nardi: That's correct.

A Good Judge Led Astray By Fraud, Fabricated Evidence, False Arguments


& False Testimony

Page 100
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
For a little over a year, I witnessed a good judge struggle to balance the issues in this case. A read of his
findings will illustrate his tortured thinking. He wanted to do the right thing.
Okay. All right. I'm just going to state my factual findings on the record. I don't need them in any judgment one way
or the other. But not in any order of importance, let me talk about the -- the bankruptcy of the originator. I find that
there was insufficient evidence that anything untoward happened in regard to their bankruptcy. I don't have any -
- I don't have any evidence to indicate that there would be a problem or that there would be even a violation of
the bankruptcy stay. And also wouldn't even have any evidence as to when Countrywide even would have
known when the originator would have filed for bankruptcy. So I would find that that -- that does not create an
issue in the case.

On the issue about the originator withdrawing from doing business in the state of Florida, the evidence indicates,
mainly through the -- through the assignment, that the assignment to the plaintiff actually was executed in Texas
as opposed to Florida. I'm going to find that that was either not a -- not doing business in Florida or that it
would not have violated -- or invalidated the assignment. So we're clear on where I was from a legal standpoint
on my finding regarding that.

As far as the clean hands and I guess the notice -- or the -- the affidavits of lost note going all the way back to
David Stern's first one in filing of the first complaint, all the way through the last affidavit, and all the way until
the note was found, okay, I'm going to make a factual determination that a reasonably prudent person using
due diligence would have found that note long before -- long before March of 2015; and that there was a
substantial period of time from January 3rd of 2008, the first time we -- we had a complaint that indicated a lost
note count from David Stern's office through finding the note in March of 2015. And, quite frankly, I'm not so
sure that it should have been lost for any period of time in that entire stretch.

But having said that, the court's going to find that that was negligence on the part of the responsible people and
find it on behalf of plaintiff. It did not rise to the level of either recklessness or intentional behavior on behalf of
on behalf of the plaintiff. So I'm not going to find in favor of the defendant on their unclean hands doctrine.

I find that that was negligent on behalf of the plaintiff as opposed to either reckless or -- reckless or intentional
behavior. Now, in regard to the evidence of standing, there was evidence in the record that the note was assigned
from the originator bank to the plaintiff, that there was a blank endorsement, and that came from the screenshot.
And, of course, that was corroborated by the original note, which bears a blank endorsement on the signature
page.

And in the tracking of the collateral file -- which the court finds that this routing history in evidence would reflect
that David Stern's office received the collateral file on December 28th of '07. And from there, the next time we
pick it up would be the end of November, either November 27th or 29th of 2013, where it remained unknown
as to where it was until March of 2015.

But this particular case was filed on January 7th, 2010, and the evidence would reflect that it was in the
possession of the Law Office of David Stern, who represented the plaintiff in a separate foreclosure action at the
same time. So that they represented, as the agent of the plaintiff at the time that this case was filed by
Consuegra's office, the note would have been in the possession of David Stern, still an agent of the plaintiff.

So the court's going to find that either 1) David Stern's office had it or the evidence reflects that only either the 2)
plaintiff, 3) a plaintiff's servicer, or a 4) plaintiff's attorney could have been in possession at the time that this
case was filed. So the court's going to find that there was standing to file because they would have been the holder
of the note at the time that it was filed. In addition, the assignment, and the ultimate seeing in evidence that there
was a blank endorsement, would indicate that the plaintiff was the owner at the time the case was filed. So the court
finds that -- that would be a separate independent basis for standing to bring this particular case.

So based on all those factual findings, the court's going to find in favor of Deutsch Bank as the plaintiff on their
mortgage foreclosure case. It will be in rem. The judgment will be in rem, The judgment will be in rem, and it will only
be principal and interest. Since you weren't even asking for costs of the suit, I just want to see principal and interest.
And it would be for the amount that was testified to, which would not include any of the time for the four months

Page 101
Robo-Lawyers & Robo-Witness Commit Fraud On A Florida Court
that was missing in the records. All right. So that would be as to all defendants on the foreclosure. On the
defendants' case where they're the plaintiff, the quiet title action, the court finds in favor of the defendant, Deutsch
Bank, and would declare that they were the owners of the note and mortgage as of the date of the assignment
that was in evidence in the case.

CONCLUSION
There are pending motions for Fraud on the Volusia Court and appeals pending. The aggrieved parties are
preparing additional federal litigation against the servicers, trustees, securitizers, lawyers, vendors, and
persons who executed the fraudulent AOM. Attorneys Angione & Pasky have been asked to adhere to their
ethical obligations to correct the record. The Board of Directors of the servicers and General Counsels are
being placed on notice of the extensive fraud.

Depending on actions of Angione and Pasky as well as the rulings of the Volusia Co. Court, referrals against
Angione and Pasky to the Florida Bar are contemplated. Such fraud and abuse can no longer be tolerated by
our judicial courts in wasting not only hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for both the alleged
Plaintiff and Defendants, but most importantly, the Volusia County, Florida court that has expended hundreds
of thousands of dollars on this matter that by its own evidence, should have been voluntarily dismissed by
Bank of America years ago for the known falsity.

Page 102